8 ms·

The turning point regarding the US' stance on democracy and human rights has been, IMO, GW Bush's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. There we we

by Iv 5y ago

The turning point regarding the US' stance on democracy and human rights has been, IMO, GW Bush's withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. There we were, in a world where USSR had collapsed, China not risen yet, with a USA as the uncontested dominant power. It has the unique chance in history to steer the world in one direction or the other. Building international legal standards, multi-lateral cooperation, ensuring that whoever had the most power at one point would be limited by the world community, was something within US reach, and was a realistic hope. As a bonus, the first thing the community would work on would be tackling the climate change, as it was an obvious field where every country of planet earth had a common interest. Instead, because of a few hundred "miscounted" votes in Florida, the US president was a zealous anti-intellectual evangelist, who decided that US interests trumps human rights, that denying climate change was a respectable political stance, and instead of spending a mountain of dollars on research, energy transition, diseases eradication, social net improvements, he spent it on invading 2 countries despite experts warning that it would not solve any problem.

paulddraper 5y ago
> International Criminal Court Really? Do you really think any international body would hold Saudi Arabia, China to account? He who holds the purse, makes the rules. And they hold a pretty big purse.
- avmich 5y ago
  Eventually, yes, of course. The America will just benefit again being a leader.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  The EU + USA together hold a much bigger purse so...
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    The EU? The father or Ursula von der Leyen did a false flag against some imprisoned RAF members. They bombed a prison and tried to blame it on the inmates and accomplices. The US is a special needs kid regarding human rights if you take a look at Guantanamo. So what should I expect about the integrity of justice here?
    - zmix 5y ago
      > The EU? The father or Ursula von der Leyen did a false flag against some imprisoned RAF members. They bombed a prison and tried to blame it on the inmates and accomplices. Could you tell me, where to find more information about this? Thanks!
      - GregarianChild 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/13518912 https://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/13518912
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        It is about what the other user linked. The responsible minister was Ernst Albrecht (CDU), the father of Ursula von der Leyen. Not saying she should be responsible for what her father did, but it is noteworthy because her career was mostly being his daughter.
    - colinb 5y ago
      So we're holding Ursula von Der Leyen responsible for her father's actions now? Or is it that his immorality is genetically transmissible and she too is definitely a bad person?
      - corty 5y ago
        In her case: Der Apfel faellt nicht weit vom Stamm. She is a chip of the old block. One of the things that got her famous in Germany was her persistent lying and schemeing, including "think of the children", including showing actual child porn to journalists[0], to get her internet censorship and surveillance scheme passed. Definitely her father's footsteps. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/blockade-illegaler-sites-von-der-leyen-laesst-kinderpornografie-aus-dem-netz-filtern-a-601517.html https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/blockade-illegaler-sites...
- Iv 5y ago
  No. The point was to draw a line between the countries who respect humans rights and are willing to be judged and punished when they don't and the countries that did not. Of course China and KSA would never join. And that would give other countries a clear and objective criterion to apply sanctions and international pressure. Instead, judging what sanction a country deserves is an arbitrary exercise of executive power. North Korea, China, KSA, are easy cases, but what do you know of Moldova? Of Hungary? Of Malaysia? Knowing that a country is held to some international standards judged independently would be a huge progress for human rights globally.
mustafa_pasi 5y ago
There is no such thing as countries spreading democracy and I am not aware of any country that has ever went to war to spread democracy. The only time the US attempted to "spread democracy" is when their influence over a foreign country was being challenged by anti-imperialist entities. At this point they invade to make sure the country transitions to a democracy, which when it comes to a poor country with little international clout, democracy amounts to it being very susceptible to foreign interference. And of course the US also invades actual democracies when they elect anti-imperialists that challenge US interests in the region.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  You spread democracy by showing it is better system. A lot of countries that converted to democracy did this because their populations looked up to US and wanted to have better lief. You also put pressure on other countries when they claim are democratic but fail to do this in practice (which is the case of Belarus or Poland where I live). US does this actively and frequently in many forms, by voicing "concerns" or putting embargoes on countries that break their own rules. Obviously, that pressure is much less effective when you do same things you try to pressure other countries to not do.
  - mustafa_pasi 5y ago
    I am not sure it is always a better system in all situations. Democracies are very easily corrupted by foreign influence. This is one of the reasons rich western countries love to "export democracy". One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism. In that situation it is not even clear you can have a functioning democracy, and then the choice is between a puppet of foreign interests or a strongman.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      There exists no system that is best in all situations. Case in point, a system that does not care about rights of their inhabitants is usually much more effective at running large scale projects. For example, China just deciding to shut down everybody in their houses in Wuhan and shoot if you don't comply. And just like that they got their pandemic under control. > One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism No, they rise because they can. And not just in third world countries. Germany was definitely not a third world country when it allowed Hitler to rise and start a global war. What about Putin? We see these guys mostly in third world countries now mainly because without democracy it is difficult to keep up with democracies without some special situation (like Saudi Arabia being gifted with huge oil reserves). In non-democracies normal people have trouble preserving their wealth over long periods of time. You need to be "in favours" of the ruling entity to be wealthy and the wealth vanishes if you fall out of it. Democracies are on the other hand, by definition, people ruling themselves, and this should in theory mean a lot of focus is on personal security and freedom. This should mean it is safer to conduct business over long periods of time, accumulate wealth and generally contribute to GDP.
simonh 5y ago
There's no way a Democrat president would make US personnel subject to an international court either. If there ever were any prosecutions it would cause a political meltdown. Unilateralism and exceptionalism run deep in the US.
- Iv 5y ago
  Bill Clinton signed the treaty that made the US join the ICC. GWB withdrew that signature. People have been used to so many cynicism that they have forgotten that countries doing the good thing is a possibility.
arminiusreturns 5y ago
I see how you can think GW's withdrawal was a turning point, but honestly it was a drop in the bucket. I've spent a long time trying to trace the origins of the current policy, and I mostly lay it at Woodrow Wilsons feet (and his handlers). Handlers being a key word. Do you not think Bush had them? The real power players in DC exist through multiple presidencies. This idea of POTUS being king-like (and therefor X is POTUS fault) is so unrealistic and a very sophmoric analysis of the real power dynamics at that level. ps. What most people mean when they say "democracy" is "IMF conditionalities", et similar.
roenxi 5y ago
> and was a realistic hope It never was. If we want to talk about the powerful being held to account by the international community, realise that at some point that means canvassing the idea of invading China/India/the United States/Europe when they get out of line. That isn't an option. That would potentially reduce big chunks of the world to sand and anything less can't constrain the powerful. WWII alone levelled an entire continent, and that was with primitive weaponry compared to what is available now. Trade sanctions aren't effective at changing behaviour and it isn't obvious if they would do more good or more harm if deployed against a superpower. Note that most superpowers' economic problems were due to internal not external policy.
- Iv 5y ago
  Trade sanction ARE effective and are arguably much more effective than military operations at changing a country's behavior. The main negotiation leverage in talks with Donbass forces or Iran government is the suspension or extension of sanctions. It made Iraq and Libya abandon their WMD programs. Iraq's invasion, on the other hand justified North Korea in not abandoning theirs.

by Iv 5y ago

paulddraper 5y ago

> International Criminal Court Really? Do you really think any international body would hold Saudi Arabia, China to account? He who holds the purse, makes the rules. And they hold a pretty big purse.

avmich 5y ago
Eventually, yes, of course. The America will just benefit again being a leader.
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
The EU + USA together hold a much bigger purse so...
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The EU? The father or Ursula von der Leyen did a false flag against some imprisoned RAF members. They bombed a prison and tried to blame it on the inmates and accomplices. The US is a special needs kid regarding human rights if you take a look at Guantanamo. So what should I expect about the integrity of justice here?
  - zmix 5y ago
    > The EU? The father or Ursula von der Leyen did a false flag against some imprisoned RAF members. They bombed a prison and tried to blame it on the inmates and accomplices. Could you tell me, where to find more information about this? Thanks!
    - GregarianChild 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/13518912 https://magazin.spiegel.de/EpubDelivery/spiegel/pdf/13518912
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      It is about what the other user linked. The responsible minister was Ernst Albrecht (CDU), the father of Ursula von der Leyen. Not saying she should be responsible for what her father did, but it is noteworthy because her career was mostly being his daughter.
  - colinb 5y ago
    So we're holding Ursula von Der Leyen responsible for her father's actions now? Or is it that his immorality is genetically transmissible and she too is definitely a bad person?
    - corty 5y ago
      In her case: Der Apfel faellt nicht weit vom Stamm. She is a chip of the old block. One of the things that got her famous in Germany was her persistent lying and schemeing, including "think of the children", including showing actual child porn to journalists[0], to get her internet censorship and surveillance scheme passed. Definitely her father's footsteps. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/blockade-illegaler-sites-von-der-leyen-laesst-kinderpornografie-aus-dem-netz-filtern-a-601517.html https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/blockade-illegaler-sites...
Iv 5y ago
No. The point was to draw a line between the countries who respect humans rights and are willing to be judged and punished when they don't and the countries that did not. Of course China and KSA would never join. And that would give other countries a clear and objective criterion to apply sanctions and international pressure. Instead, judging what sanction a country deserves is an arbitrary exercise of executive power. North Korea, China, KSA, are easy cases, but what do you know of Moldova? Of Hungary? Of Malaysia? Knowing that a country is held to some international standards judged independently would be a huge progress for human rights globally.

mustafa_pasi 5y ago

There is no such thing as countries spreading democracy and I am not aware of any country that has ever went to war to spread democracy. The only time the US attempted to "spread democracy" is when their influence over a foreign country was being challenged by anti-imperialist entities. At this point they invade to make sure the country transitions to a democracy, which when it comes to a poor country with little international clout, democracy amounts to it being very susceptible to foreign interference. And of course the US also invades actual democracies when they elect anti-imperialists that challenge US interests in the region.

lmilcin 5y ago
You spread democracy by showing it is better system. A lot of countries that converted to democracy did this because their populations looked up to US and wanted to have better lief. You also put pressure on other countries when they claim are democratic but fail to do this in practice (which is the case of Belarus or Poland where I live). US does this actively and frequently in many forms, by voicing "concerns" or putting embargoes on countries that break their own rules. Obviously, that pressure is much less effective when you do same things you try to pressure other countries to not do.
- mustafa_pasi 5y ago
  I am not sure it is always a better system in all situations. Democracies are very easily corrupted by foreign influence. This is one of the reasons rich western countries love to "export democracy". One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism. In that situation it is not even clear you can have a functioning democracy, and then the choice is between a puppet of foreign interests or a strongman.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    There exists no system that is best in all situations. Case in point, a system that does not care about rights of their inhabitants is usually much more effective at running large scale projects. For example, China just deciding to shut down everybody in their houses in Wuhan and shoot if you don't comply. And just like that they got their pandemic under control. > One of the reasons strongmen rise to power in third world countries is as a reaction to imperialism No, they rise because they can. And not just in third world countries. Germany was definitely not a third world country when it allowed Hitler to rise and start a global war. What about Putin? We see these guys mostly in third world countries now mainly because without democracy it is difficult to keep up with democracies without some special situation (like Saudi Arabia being gifted with huge oil reserves). In non-democracies normal people have trouble preserving their wealth over long periods of time. You need to be "in favours" of the ruling entity to be wealthy and the wealth vanishes if you fall out of it. Democracies are on the other hand, by definition, people ruling themselves, and this should in theory mean a lot of focus is on personal security and freedom. This should mean it is safer to conduct business over long periods of time, accumulate wealth and generally contribute to GDP.

simonh 5y ago

There's no way a Democrat president would make US personnel subject to an international court either. If there ever were any prosecutions it would cause a political meltdown. Unilateralism and exceptionalism run deep in the US.

Iv 5y ago
Bill Clinton signed the treaty that made the US join the ICC. GWB withdrew that signature. People have been used to so many cynicism that they have forgotten that countries doing the good thing is a possibility.

arminiusreturns 5y ago

I see how you can think GW's withdrawal was a turning point, but honestly it was a drop in the bucket. I've spent a long time trying to trace the origins of the current policy, and I mostly lay it at Woodrow Wilsons feet (and his handlers). Handlers being a key word. Do you not think Bush had them? The real power players in DC exist through multiple presidencies. This idea of POTUS being king-like (and therefor X is POTUS fault) is so unrealistic and a very sophmoric analysis of the real power dynamics at that level. ps. What most people mean when they say "democracy" is "IMF conditionalities", et similar.

roenxi 5y ago

> and was a realistic hope It never was. If we want to talk about the powerful being held to account by the international community, realise that at some point that means canvassing the idea of invading China/India/the United States/Europe when they get out of line. That isn't an option. That would potentially reduce big chunks of the world to sand and anything less can't constrain the powerful. WWII alone levelled an entire continent, and that was with primitive weaponry compared to what is available now. Trade sanctions aren't effective at changing behaviour and it isn't obvious if they would do more good or more harm if deployed against a superpower. Note that most superpowers' economic problems were due to internal not external policy.

Iv 5y ago
Trade sanction ARE effective and are arguably much more effective than military operations at changing a country's behavior. The main negotiation leverage in talks with Donbass forces or Iran government is the suspension or extension of sanctions. It made Iraq and Libya abandon their WMD programs. Iraq's invasion, on the other hand justified North Korea in not abandoning theirs.