10 ms·

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 agree

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)
      - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        In the US it also takes other shapes. Incarceration rates at 1% of the population, including something which could be argued is corporate slavery, with a heavy bias for a particular portion of the population. If you aren't part of that demographic it may not seem so bad. But the numbers are absolutely awful.
      - EliRivers 11y ago
        Can we include the illegal invasion of countries and the subsequent clusterfuck of death and destruction as a human rights violation?
      - DominikR 11y ago
        Proportionate? The US has killed 4 million Vietnamese and poisoned large parts of the country with chemical weapons. I doubt that their "regime" has ever done something comparable. How many millions did any Vietnamese government in past or present kill in the middle east. How many terrorist organizations are currently run out of Hanoi in comparison to those run out of Washington? Does the Vietnamese president sign kill lists and run torture camps across the globe?
  - mcv 11y ago
    I think the close relationship with Saudi Arabia is really more about oil than anything else. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest financier of Muslim terrorism in the world, and yet is conspicuously missing from the US list of countries that fund terrorism (yet Cuba was on it until recently). Of course Saudi Arabia is also the world's largest producer of oil, and that's the primary reason why the US (and most of the oil consuming world, really) wants to be their friend. It is of course also why they have so much money to fund terrorism.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- 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.

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)
    - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
      In the US it also takes other shapes. Incarceration rates at 1% of the population, including something which could be argued is corporate slavery, with a heavy bias for a particular portion of the population. If you aren't part of that demographic it may not seem so bad. But the numbers are absolutely awful.
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      Can we include the illegal invasion of countries and the subsequent clusterfuck of death and destruction as a human rights violation?
    - DominikR 11y ago
      Proportionate? The US has killed 4 million Vietnamese and poisoned large parts of the country with chemical weapons. I doubt that their "regime" has ever done something comparable. How many millions did any Vietnamese government in past or present kill in the middle east. How many terrorist organizations are currently run out of Hanoi in comparison to those run out of Washington? Does the Vietnamese president sign kill lists and run torture camps across the globe?
- mcv 11y ago
  I think the close relationship with Saudi Arabia is really more about oil than anything else. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest financier of Muslim terrorism in the world, and yet is conspicuously missing from the US list of countries that fund terrorism (yet Cuba was on it until recently). Of course Saudi Arabia is also the world's largest producer of oil, and that's the primary reason why the US (and most of the oil consuming world, really) wants to be their friend. It is of course also why they have so much money to fund terrorism.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
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.