I came across this article in the NY Times the other day about how moving towards more of an international consensus on climate change seemed to be pipe-dream just five years ago, particularly with respect to getting some of the world’s biggest polluters on board (ie. China). However, since President Obama has come out strong in support of US involvement in international treaties such as Kyoto and signaling to the world that if the US takes more of a leading role in reducing environmental harm, we expect other countries (like China) to do so as well. And the interesting thing is, some previously resistant nations seem more willing to cooperate with international efforts to effectively deal with climate change.
And that made me wonder- if just five or six years ago conventional wisdom said that countries like China, India etc. would never sign on to major international environmental efforts unless the US showed a real commitment to those efforts, why can’t the US take that stance with respect to international human rights as well?
We have a new President and thus far, the international reaction to Obama seems quite positive as he seems to be sending the message he is willing to work cooperatively along-side other nations to achieve common goals, even if that means opening a dialogue with countries more hostile to US interests. Doesn’t this provide the US with an opportunity for a new dialogue about human rights with countries like China, Sudan, etc.?
Or is that totally unrealistic?
Stumble It!
6 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:01 am
Undoubtedly Pres. Obama can get many countries to “sign on” to a coalition of nationts that support “human rights”. The real problem is actually doing something that has a positive effect. And if it does work with human rights, it have have a negative effect in some ofhter aspect of the international arean. It is complex.
Many nations are on the “Human Rights Watch” list. NONE of those nations want to support the US in targeting one of their fellow “listees”. That merely ends up moving them closer to the top of the list. Sudan won’t join in condemning China, and vice versa. Congo, Ivory Coast, Burkina, etc won’t join the coaltion either!
Second problem is actually “douing” something. Do we “boycott” such nations (we did that with Cuba, with mixed results and now we are talking about abandoning the effort)? Do we “embargo” such nations (would we really not buy goods from China?)?
Who fails to “meet” human rights minimum standards? Is Venezuela an abuser, or is it Columbia? Should Mexico be on the list? How about Nicaragua? How about South Africa (they discriminate based upn HIV/AIDS)?
So the problem is three-fold: Standards; effective action; and organizing a large coalition. Keep in mind that Germany and France were vilating the trade sanctions against Iraq, and that was much less of a question than would be China, or Nigeria, or many others. And try as we might, we haven’t get anyone interested in action in the Sudan yet, and that includes the Sec-Gen of the UN.
We may make progress in the environment, but progress on Human rights is much less possible.
Oh. Please note. China and India did NOT opt out of Kyoto because the US “was not serious” about reform. The US did not agree to the treaty provisions because there was no privisions to limit China or India in the Kyotot accords. These were the two largest nations on earth, 40% of the world’s population, and there were no environmental provisions that affected them! They AGREED to Kyoto because it exempted them. In fact, it basically exempted ALL nations except the 19 Western “developed nations”.
2 Stacy // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:13 am
Good point about Kyoto, but if we can get China to sign on that would be pretty significant, no? And your point about countries being afraid they themselves could be prosecuted or come under fire for human rights abuses is well-taken
3 tehehehe // Mar 9, 2009 at 10:49 am
It would be good to get China and India to “sign on” to some international agreement to protect the environment. Without it, it will be difficult for the US to agree to meaningulf committments (at least I hope we would not agree to limits if China and India were left out). Same with Russia and Indonesia.
Everyone will “agree” that “human rights” is an “international concern”. And everyone will “pledge” to “protect” human rights. Very few will define “human rights”, and even fewer will join a coalition to enforce any sanctions.
But, thanks for your agreement. I agree with you that it would be “good” to make “progress” in either area (environment or human rights). I am simply not too optomistic that “real” progress will be accomplished except in Western nations, and that will be on a voluntary basis. International agreements in these areas tend to be violated routinely, and there are few “teeth” in them. They are more a political or diplomatic tool than they are a pragmatic “solution”.
4 tehehehe // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:13 am
This is “off topic”. But Connecticut appears to be heading towards “regulating religion”:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/connecticut-moving-to-regulate-the-catholic-church/
5 tehehehe // Mar 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
Here is another “intrusion” into “relihgion”.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/08/minnesota-starts-state-sharia-loan-program/
6 stacy // Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm
As you know, I don’t like any of the intermingling of religion because it is a slippery slope and even if well-intentioned, it starts to look like the govt favors the particular religion.
Leave a Comment