5 ms·

All of these experts are involved with the UN Human Rights Council, a thoroughly discredited organization that consists mostly of undemocratic regimes with dism

All of these experts are involved with the UN Human Rights Council, a thoroughly discredited organization that consists mostly of undemocratic regimes with dismal human rights records, including Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, Vietnam, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. There is only a single item that is permanently on the agenda and must be discussed at every meeting of the council: supposed Israeli human rights abuses. I'm not surprised to see more anti-Western and anti-capitalist propaganda coming from these people.

joshuapants 11y ago
I agree with you about the amusingly named Human Rights Council, but that doesn't mean these trade agreements should be negotiated in secret or that these agreements are necessarily good.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  What cracks me up the most is that OP just glosses over the fact that the US props up these human rights abusers as long as they play our game, and if they dont we send in the economic hitmen and then the jackals, and what follows is death and destruction beyond even the normal abusers. Also the fact that since the UN is basically a US creature, we control and veto any meaningful action anyway. So yeah OP, you tell us how bad They all are, and in the mean time the MICC will happily be sending them arms and surveillance trchnology to enable those abuses!
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Most of the countries that I listed are not US allies. A minority of them receive US military and other aid because it's deemed a necessary evil. The classic example is Saudi Arabia. We don't like what they do internally and we don't like that they push their puritanical form of Islam around the world, but they're an essential ally in a very unfriendly region; and the collapse of their monarchy would create a very dangerous power vacuum. Pakistan is another example where the US has had to bite the bullet and deal with a very flawed ally, because the alternative is deemed to be worse. As for the UN being unable to do much without US approval, it's simply not relevant to this discussion. This has nothing to do with the Security Council, which is where the US can exercise its veto.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Looking at the wiki page for Vietnam, they seem on par with the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Vietnam - Minorities pushed off their land so the majority can settle on it? Hello American Indians. - Holds 160 political prisoners? Hello Guantanamo Bay. (not to mention the US imprisons 5x as many people by proportion of population, some operating as labour camps) - A bloke arrested and charged with subversion? Hello Snowden, who barely escaped. Vietnam doesn't have freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech (rates very low on the press freedom index, for example), but apart from that, the US seems to be quite happy to engage in the same kinds of human rights abuses. Even right down to corruption in police: witness the state of civil forfeiture laws in the US, which isn't recent either - Jello Biafra was singing in the 80s about having his property seized and legally sold before he was tried in court. Or the police abuse of blacks. I mean hell, one of the greatest violations of human rights in the 20th century was the US war in Vietnam. Atrocities left, right, and centre. I just think it's a bit much to be painting Vietnam as having an atrocious human rights record, all the while implying that the US is some sort of gold standard.
      - mljet 11y ago
        You make valid criticisms about the human rights record of the US, but what is missing is a sense of proportion. Is it really your view that the US human right record is on par with Vietnam, particularly if you need to qualify it by excluding "freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech" from your comparison?
        vacri 11y ago
        Eh, I didn't really exclude it - I noted it. I was trying to show that abuses of human rights aren't limited solely to political affiliation and assembly. And yes, arguments of proportion cut both ways - look at the incarceration rates in the US, a huge proportion of which is for a victimless crime (possessing drugs). Vietnam also doesn't go pounding its military around the world - there are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to a war started to shore up domestic support in the US, for example. Human rights extend to all humans, not just citizens of the state in question. Edit: I guess my fundamental point is that the implication was that the HRC would do better if the US was a member, based on members' track records. But the US's track record isn't particularly good either (particularly in regard to non-US citizens)
  - tsotha 11y ago
    This is just paranoid nonsense.
    - supergirl 11y ago
      Which part in particular? Seems pretty accurate to me.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        Maybe I should start by asking which doesn't seem like paranoid nonsense to you?
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Well, you're the one who made the declaration. Seems like the onus is on you, right? To make it easier, maybe you can point to just one of the statements in that comment that hasn't historically happened.
        tsotha 11y ago
        There isn't a single sentence in that paragraph that isn't blatantly false or at least grossly exaggerated.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Ok. Let's pick the first. You're saying that the U.S. has never supported a government or dictator who had a history of human rights abuses?
        tsotha 11y ago
        Never? No, not never. Do we prop them all up like he implies?
        11y ago
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  It's standard practice for negotiations between governments to happen in secret. If they didn't, negotiators would be looking over their shoulders constantly and the natural back and forth of negotiation would be impossible. The final draft will be released well before governments decide whether to sign and ratify.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    How does that work with the WTO?
    - brownbat 11y ago
      Hard to find specific evidence on this question, but I believe most of the details of the ministerials are public, and its main goals are public (because we're technically mid-Doha round, but we know all the basic arguments and points). However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private. The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't). The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)
  - badsock 11y ago
    I'm curious - based on previous agreements like this, how much time (in weeks or months) would you expect there to be between the terms of TPP being made public in full and the signing of the member governments?
    - snowwrestler 11y ago
      See this Reddit post for the time spans on previous agreements: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_announces_100k_bounty_for_the_tpp_text/crtebjy http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_... As you can see, there is a huge range.
- tsotha 11y ago
  There's nothing wrong with negotiating in secret. I'm not convinced it could be done any other way. At some point, though, it needs to be ratified in some democratic manner, without secret clauses or gentleman's agreements.
  - gtf21 11y ago
    but it's not just negotiated in secret. There have been voted in the EU on documents that are classified. In the US, for example, a member of Congress could go to prison for revealing the contents to a constituent, even over things like ISDS provisions which could be massively damaging to democratic integrity.
supergirl 11y ago
1. "supposed"? you kidding? 2. if you would care about protecting human rights then you wouldn't care who is in this council. you would only care if their claim has merit or not.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  1. Whatever you think about Israel, they're certainly not the most serious human rights abuser in the world. It makes no sense for Israel to be the only permanent item on the agenda. 2. When the EFF is parroting the claims of "UN experts", the credibility of said experts is relevant.
  - supergirl 11y ago
    So, again, you dismiss the claims just because they're not the experts they say they are.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      No, I disagree with the substance of their argument for a bunch of reasons, but that's not what my comment was about. I'm not writing a formal rebuttal; I'm only pointing out that their credibility, which the EFF is directly appealing to, is hollow.
    - mcv 11y ago
      If you use their expert status to give their claim authority, it actually does matter whether their expert status is justified, even if what they say is correct. In other words, if you say: "listen to what they say, because they are experts", questioning their expert status is entirely justified. It's different if you were to say: "listen to what they say, because it makes sense". In this case, I think what they say is correct, but if it's true that Israel is the only item on their agenda, their credibility as experts is still suspect. And I do agree that Israel has a terrible human rights record, but they are indeed hardly the worst offender. (Was Qatar member of this? They have enslave migrant workers, working them to death for the 2022 world championship!)
  - 11y ago
detcader 11y ago
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara See also: cameraoncampus.org, hasbarafellowships.org
x5n1 11y ago
> undemocratic regimes with dismal human rights recordsundemocratic regimes with dismal human rights records Usually the democratic regimes make such claims visit all sorts of human rights abuses on citizens of other countries in the name of human rights and freedom. So there's that.

joshuapants 11y ago

I agree with you about the amusingly named Human Rights Council, but that doesn't mean these trade agreements should be negotiated in secret or that these agreements are necessarily good.

arca_vorago 11y ago
What cracks me up the most is that OP just glosses over the fact that the US props up these human rights abusers as long as they play our game, and if they dont we send in the economic hitmen and then the jackals, and what follows is death and destruction beyond even the normal abusers. Also the fact that since the UN is basically a US creature, we control and veto any meaningful action anyway. So yeah OP, you tell us how bad They all are, and in the mean time the MICC will happily be sending them arms and surveillance trchnology to enable those abuses!
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Most of the countries that I listed are not US allies. A minority of them receive US military and other aid because it's deemed a necessary evil. The classic example is Saudi Arabia. We don't like what they do internally and we don't like that they push their puritanical form of Islam around the world, but they're an essential ally in a very unfriendly region; and the collapse of their monarchy would create a very dangerous power vacuum. Pakistan is another example where the US has had to bite the bullet and deal with a very flawed ally, because the alternative is deemed to be worse. As for the UN being unable to do much without US approval, it's simply not relevant to this discussion. This has nothing to do with the Security Council, which is where the US can exercise its veto.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Looking at the wiki page for Vietnam, they seem on par with the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Vietnam - Minorities pushed off their land so the majority can settle on it? Hello American Indians. - Holds 160 political prisoners? Hello Guantanamo Bay. (not to mention the US imprisons 5x as many people by proportion of population, some operating as labour camps) - A bloke arrested and charged with subversion? Hello Snowden, who barely escaped. Vietnam doesn't have freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech (rates very low on the press freedom index, for example), but apart from that, the US seems to be quite happy to engage in the same kinds of human rights abuses. Even right down to corruption in police: witness the state of civil forfeiture laws in the US, which isn't recent either - Jello Biafra was singing in the 80s about having his property seized and legally sold before he was tried in court. Or the police abuse of blacks. I mean hell, one of the greatest violations of human rights in the 20th century was the US war in Vietnam. Atrocities left, right, and centre. I just think it's a bit much to be painting Vietnam as having an atrocious human rights record, all the while implying that the US is some sort of gold standard.
    - mljet 11y ago
      You make valid criticisms about the human rights record of the US, but what is missing is a sense of proportion. Is it really your view that the US human right record is on par with Vietnam, particularly if you need to qualify it by excluding "freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech" from your comparison?
      - vacri 11y ago
        Eh, I didn't really exclude it - I noted it. I was trying to show that abuses of human rights aren't limited solely to political affiliation and assembly. And yes, arguments of proportion cut both ways - look at the incarceration rates in the US, a huge proportion of which is for a victimless crime (possessing drugs). Vietnam also doesn't go pounding its military around the world - there are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to a war started to shore up domestic support in the US, for example. Human rights extend to all humans, not just citizens of the state in question. Edit: I guess my fundamental point is that the implication was that the HRC would do better if the US was a member, based on members' track records. But the US's track record isn't particularly good either (particularly in regard to non-US citizens)
- tsotha 11y ago
  This is just paranoid nonsense.
  - supergirl 11y ago
    Which part in particular? Seems pretty accurate to me.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Maybe I should start by asking which doesn't seem like paranoid nonsense to you?
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Well, you're the one who made the declaration. Seems like the onus is on you, right? To make it easier, maybe you can point to just one of the statements in that comment that hasn't historically happened.
        tsotha 11y ago
        There isn't a single sentence in that paragraph that isn't blatantly false or at least grossly exaggerated.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Ok. Let's pick the first. You're saying that the U.S. has never supported a government or dictator who had a history of human rights abuses?
        tsotha 11y ago
        Never? No, not never. Do we prop them all up like he implies?
        11y ago
marcoperaza 11y ago
It's standard practice for negotiations between governments to happen in secret. If they didn't, negotiators would be looking over their shoulders constantly and the natural back and forth of negotiation would be impossible. The final draft will be released well before governments decide whether to sign and ratify.
- walterbell 11y ago
  How does that work with the WTO?
  - brownbat 11y ago
    Hard to find specific evidence on this question, but I believe most of the details of the ministerials are public, and its main goals are public (because we're technically mid-Doha round, but we know all the basic arguments and points). However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private. The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't). The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)
- badsock 11y ago
  I'm curious - based on previous agreements like this, how much time (in weeks or months) would you expect there to be between the terms of TPP being made public in full and the signing of the member governments?
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    See this Reddit post for the time spans on previous agreements: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_announces_100k_bounty_for_the_tpp_text/crtebjy http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_... As you can see, there is a huge range.
tsotha 11y ago
There's nothing wrong with negotiating in secret. I'm not convinced it could be done any other way. At some point, though, it needs to be ratified in some democratic manner, without secret clauses or gentleman's agreements.
- gtf21 11y ago
  but it's not just negotiated in secret. There have been voted in the EU on documents that are classified. In the US, for example, a member of Congress could go to prison for revealing the contents to a constituent, even over things like ISDS provisions which could be massively damaging to democratic integrity.

supergirl 11y ago

1. "supposed"? you kidding? 2. if you would care about protecting human rights then you wouldn't care who is in this council. you would only care if their claim has merit or not.

marcoperaza 11y ago
1. Whatever you think about Israel, they're certainly not the most serious human rights abuser in the world. It makes no sense for Israel to be the only permanent item on the agenda. 2. When the EFF is parroting the claims of "UN experts", the credibility of said experts is relevant.
- supergirl 11y ago
  So, again, you dismiss the claims just because they're not the experts they say they are.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    No, I disagree with the substance of their argument for a bunch of reasons, but that's not what my comment was about. I'm not writing a formal rebuttal; I'm only pointing out that their credibility, which the EFF is directly appealing to, is hollow.
  - mcv 11y ago
    If you use their expert status to give their claim authority, it actually does matter whether their expert status is justified, even if what they say is correct. In other words, if you say: "listen to what they say, because they are experts", questioning their expert status is entirely justified. It's different if you were to say: "listen to what they say, because it makes sense". In this case, I think what they say is correct, but if it's true that Israel is the only item on their agenda, their credibility as experts is still suspect. And I do agree that Israel has a terrible human rights record, but they are indeed hardly the worst offender. (Was Qatar member of this? They have enslave migrant workers, working them to death for the 2022 world championship!)
- 11y ago

detcader 11y ago

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara See also: cameraoncampus.org, hasbarafellowships.org

x5n1 11y ago

> undemocratic regimes with dismal human rights recordsundemocratic regimes with dismal human rights records Usually the democratic regimes make such claims visit all sorts of human rights abuses on citizens of other countries in the name of human rights and freedom. So there's that.