Comments on: Setting An Example

By: stacy

stacy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:14:04 +0000

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.

By: tehehehe

tehehehe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:18:13 +0000

Here is another “intrusion” into “relihgion”.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/08/minnesota-starts-state-sharia-loan-program/

By: tehehehe

tehehehe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:13:23 +0000

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/

By: tehehehe

tehehehe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:49:51 +0000

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”.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:13:40 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:01:15 +0000

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”.