In a Newsweek article titled "Learning to Live With Radical Islam" pundit "Fareed Zakaria" writes:

"We [The US] don't have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it's time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists."

See:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093

Stripped to its essentials Zakaria's argument is this. If Islamists are no threat to the US then what they do in other countries is no business of the US.

Zakaria writes:

"Pakistan's Swat valley is quiet once again. Often compared to Switzerland for its stunning landscape of mountains and meadows, Swat became a war zone over the past two years as Taliban fighters waged fierce battles against Army troops. No longer, but only because the Pakistani government has agreed to some of the militants' key demands, chiefly that Islamic courts be established in the region. Fears abound that this means women's schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence."

Note that the Taliban insurgents in Pakistan have already forced the closure of many girls' schools in the Swat valley. For an indication of just how bad Taliban / sharia rule could be watch this SBS Dateline program title "The Battle for Pakistan."

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/the_battle_for_pakistan_563568

The imposition of sharia law in the Swat valley may be bad news for the inhabitants, most of whom voted for secular parties. It is especially bad news for those of the female persuasion. But what if anything should countries like Australia do to try and prevent the imposition of sharia on what is, if election results are any guide, an unwilling populace?

Along with Zakaria my answer is this. Provided it poses no threat to Australia we should do nothing. It's none of our business.

What do posters think?

Those who disagree with my stance should be honest enough to explain what form outside intervention should take.

No man is an island

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne

At the very least Australia can make its displeasure known. The United Nations is a forum for such observations. Economic and military sanctions directed at the government of Pakistan and providing refuge for those fleeing the oppression are other possibilities.

There are two quite different issues here. On the one hand is the question what are duties are to people outside our borders and on the other how do we give practical force to those duties.
Whenever we stand idly by in the face of injustice, no matter where it occurs, we are passive participants to that injustice. As members of a global civic society we have a responsibility to address injustice no matter where it occurs. Every nation that is a signatory to the United nations Convention on Human Rights has effectively stated that it recognizes that being part of global civic society means that it is required to adhere to that charter.
Precisely how we enforce that position is another question. We use diplomatic pressure in countries like Burma. Economic sanctions for Zimbabwe, military intervention in Dafur and Iraq. Arguably sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, sometimes it takes a long time. Apartheid in South Africa was broken down over many long years.
With respect to the Taliban it is even more complex - the tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan have always been a law unto themselves - clearly our challenge is to work with the Pakistan government to ensure that Sharia law does not violate human rights (It needs to be noted that the problem with much of Sharia law is the local interpretation of what constitutes Sharia law - it is by no means neccesarily inconsistent with human rights to impose Sharia law)
To sum just because a practical solution may be hard does not mean that it is none of our business - it is our business becase we, like Pakistan have signed up to Human Rights Convention.

Neighbouring countries have to cope with fleeing refugees and in the past we in Australia also had to house and care for refugees fleeing Taliban shari'ah. Australia has and is not immune from what violations of international standards of human rights happens in other countries. What were the boat people?

We have a responsibility in international laws condemning abuse of our fellow humans.

How about those circumstances where our lifestyle is subsidised by the existence of child labour, sweatshops and other forms of exploitation, plus our ongoing financial support of repressive regimes?

On the other hand, I'm sure that some will argue that the victims in those countries should be grateful for any sort of financial support.

I guess it always comes back to "what's best for us", before "what's best for them". Human rights abuses always look so much more palatable when viewed on a huge Plasma TV screen.

Well said Baygon.

To stand by and say nothing as people are harmed is as good as giving consent to the perpetrator.

I note that Steven has used Islamic Sharia Law as an example. Islam is not alone abusing human rights, he could've used the plight of Tibetans or the lack of support for women and children in Mexico.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/15873/

We are all human beings, therefore, the right to be treated with dignity, respect and equality is our business.

Dear Steven,

I really can't understand the purpose of
this thread. Why would you even raise this
question?

We belong to an international community and have
signed agreements to comply with international laws
that deal with human rights abuses. Why would we regard
overseas human right abuses as none of our business?
That was the ethos of the former Soviet Union - "What
happens in our domain is none of your business."

As Amnesty International writes:

"In placing the state above the individual the
Government is tacitly encouraging other countries
like Burma and China to act by any standards they choose...
Other Governments in the region may thank them for it,
but the individuals they attackm torture and kill, will not."

David f, Philo.

Refugees are a separate issue. Taking in people who succeed in escaping a war or an oppressive regime is not the same thing as intervening in the affairs of another country. Let's say we're all in agreement on refugees.

David f you express Donne's fine sentiments.

Baygon, Foxy you explain the theory behind the UN and the UN Charter admirably.

Now let's look at the REALITY.

The reality is that we are fakes.

China, while better than it was under Mao, is an extremely oppressive regime and not just in Tibet. Are we going to do anything MEANINGFUL to express our displeasure?

We are not. We continue to trade with China because too many Australian jobs depend on it and because we like getting the cheap consumer goods made there. We have done more to protest Japanese whaling than China's destruction of the Tibetan people and their culture.

Some Senators stormed out when George Bush addressed the Parliament. Who stormed out when Hu Jin-tao addressed the parliament the following day?

What are we going to do about the destruction of West Papuan society by the Javanese Empire (aka Indonesia)?

Nothing.

Did we protest Saddam's abuse of Iraqis – especially non-Sunni Iraqis? We did not. What went on at Abu Ghraib before the Americans arrived was infinitely worse than anything the Americans did. That does not excuse America using torture but where were our "human rights activists" when Saddam was torturing people?

Where were our "human rights activists" when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan?

Someone mention Apartheid? Australia's actions there smelled more of trying to eliminate a mineral exporting competitor than concern for human rights.

Heres what fires up our "human rights activists."

--When the perpetrators are those they love to hate.

OR

--When a celebrity takes up the cause

When do we as a nation actually act?

We act only when it does not harm our interests to do so.

In other words Australia acts like any other country. We pursue our interests and pretend to be virtuous so that we can feel good. Let's ditch the pretence

stevenlmeyer,
I agree that there is hypocracy. For example Australia is proud of the aid we give to East Timor however, had we not used bullying tactics over the East timor gap treaty. East Timor would have had far more in royalties from those oil fields then we will ever give in foreign aid.
I also agree that we like to divide the world into the white hats and black hats - and so ignore white hat abuses and feel good about condemming what the black hats do.
We conveniently overlook that many of our cheap consumer goods are manufactured using child labour; the list is endless.
However, to argue as you seem to do, that because of this we can jettison human rights is false. To me it argues all the more powerfully the need to champion human rights.
It is true that we have but little influence over our governments but that does not mean that we should not assert what little influence we have.
What people like you and I can do amounts to very little but even by engaging in this debate and simply saying that we do not want any part of this we are making our own small contribution to ending human rights abuse.
When the Germans invaded my home town the jews were made to wear yellow stars. One of our neighbours who was not a jew sewed one on his jacket. He was a typical Aryan person - one that the germans would have been proud to have as part of their reich. But he kept his star out of solidarity. It made no difference to the Jews but it should come as no surprise that his example meant that my hometown managed to save a few more Jews from the death camps.

Baygon

Terrific response to StevenM.

No single person can save the world, I know that. However, that is not going to stop me from caring for what little bit of it I can.

Hence speaking out on these forums - often I feel abused and bullied, but then I read posts like Baygon's, Foxy's, Wobbles or Davidf and I know that I am on track.

StevenM perhaps you could present us with the reasons why Australia should ignore the rest of the world.

BTW I do acting in my spare time - in the unlikely event that I achieve fame, should I cease from humanist causes?

The US has a greater percentage of its population in prison than any other developed country. Much of that is due to the draconian punishment for drug-related offenses. This is inconsistent with the fact that the drug, alcohol, is legal. The US has learned from the corruption ridden and alcoholic dazed Prohibition era, but many have not related it to its current drug laws. Perhaps this is due to the fact that alcohol is the drug of choice for middle-class whites. Since we live in Australia I consider the size of the prison population and its disproportionate representation of minorities in the US an overseas human rights abuse.

I hope President Obama will do something about it.

Perhaps those of you who are keen to intervene in the affairs of other countries would oblige me by providing the following:

--A list of the overseas human rights abuses we as a nation should be focussing on

--An explanation of why we should be focussing on your list as opposed to the human rights abuses that go on elsewhere

--The nature of the interventions we should make

--Why you think the interventions you propose would be effective

--How you intend to explain to Australians who may lose their livelihoods as a result of your proposed interventions why we should sacrifice their jobs.

Just to be clear, I am talking about UNINVITED – I should have made that clear in my original post - interventions in the affairs of foreign countries that do not threaten us and where we have no vital interests.

David f

I am not sure what the relevance is to this thread but I agree with you on the question of the prohibitions against illegal drugs. This is a case where the cure is manifestly worse than the disease.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

The relevance to this thread of my post is to ask what Australia does if the human rights abuser is the US.

the legitimate reason to take in refugees is because of displacement due to war or opression. This costs nations receiving refugees so it is better to have them safely restored to their native homes in a secure lifestyle, otherwise we are allowing or worse supporting poverty.

StevenM

Quid pro quo

You have yet to provide even one reason why Australia should shun the rest of the world.

Okay, joke's over guys. What's going on here?

I quit this site a while back, sick to death of the predictable from the predictable. Today I swing by and everyone's being civilised and actually discussing stuff.

On topic, it's unrealistic to isolate what's happening in Pakistan from our involvement in it, and the consequences for us. We supported the Iraq thing, which took resources from the Afghanistan thing, which has allowed the Taliban to regain strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pakistan was no human rights picnic before, but now it's much worse.

As a result there will be large numbers of displaced people. Eventually India will consider responding if nobody else does.

What should we do? Not war. That's failed in Afghanistan. Sanctions punish the population more than the bad guys. The Pakistani government is weak. Some kind of support there could help, maybe more if it came from India. Or the ICC.

Fractelle,

OK quid pro quo.

I do not believe and have not said Australia should "shun" the rest of the world.

I have said we should not engage in uninvited interventions in countries where there is no threat to us. That is a far more limited statement than the one you attribute to me.

Note that so far nobody here has provided me with the list I requested.

NB: I am NOT saying we should IGNORE human rights abuses in other countries. There are things we can do which do not require intervention. Let me give just one example.

Some of the worst human rights violators are oil exporting nations. The ability of the thugs that rule those nations to hang onto power and make mischief across the globe depends on their access to huge oil revenues.

For example we see trouble in Pakistan; but the madrassahs that indoctrinate the Taliban types are often financed with Saudi money.

Now what would be more effective in combating the malign influence of Saudi backed Islamists?

--Military intervention in Pakistan?

--Or getting serious about reducing crude oil consumption and developing alternative transport energy system? We do have the technology to do this. If the price of oil sinks below $20 / barrel the ability of Saudi Arabia and Iran to make mischief is greatly reduced.

David f

What do we do if America is the human rights violator?

We start with a sense of proportion. No country is perfect. There are human rights violations in every country on Earth including Australia. We start by asking whether, taking America's record as a whole, we should do anything.

Now in the case you describe – the criminalizing of certain narcotics – I happen to agree with you. The side effects of the so called "war on drugs" are so horrendous that we should be taking the lead in de-criminalising drugs. That would cut off the financial balls of the illegal drug trade which, incidentally, is also a source of finance for terrorism.

Thanks StevenM

In the case of the oil producing nations, one way to deal with bullies is take away their power. Why western nations have failed to even start reducing dependency on oil, staggers me - we had the technology years ago. Goes to show how influential the oil conglomerates really are. So who is really to blame to maintaining the status quo of the Middle East? - I posit both: Western greed and refusal to change and the Middle Eastern countries themselves - they have no reason to change until we do something about our dependency on fossil fuels. Added to the entire mess is the worst of the Abrahamic religions. BTW I do not claim that there is an easy solution.

As for capital punishment, invasion won't change anything (the image of Australia invading the USA is hilarious). However, to remain silent is hypocritical. We should always make clear that Australia remains anti-death penalty AND back up our words with actions like repatriation of Australians on death row in other countries for interment here.

And leading by example; applying our values to our least advantaged people right here at home.

Fractelle:

"....... AND back up our words with actions like repatriation of Australians on death row in other countries for interment here."

What, bury them ALIVE?

Any doubts I had as to attributing membership of the Cysterhood of the Coup de Grace to you have gone straight out the window!

stevenmeyer:

"China, while better than it was under Mao, is an extremely oppressive regime and not just in Tibet. Are we going to do anything MEANINGFUL to express our displeasure? We are not. We continue to trade with China because too many Australian jobs depend on it and because we like getting the cheap consumer goods made there. We have done more to protest Japanese whaling than China's destruction of the Tibetan people and their culture."

I agree with the general thrust of this argument which is about national hypocrisy and economic self-interest.

However, the 'we' in the claim might need to be qualified somewhat. Amnesty International, for example, has a team of voluntary 'Human Rights Defenders' who write, agitate and otherwise support the outing of human rights abuse wherever it occurs including Australia and China.

AI's latest brochure specifically cites China which flouts UN embargoes on selling arms to warring nations. Many of these Chinese weapons end up in the hands of child soldiers. The other examples listed in the brochure include torture in Algeria, official hangings in Iran, and military brutality against civilians in the Sudan.

The current issue of 'New Internationalist' (March 2009) also has a feature article on the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama's flight from Chinese-occupied Tibet.

So not all of 'us' just wring our hands and do nothing. If only governments did more!

Spot on Spikey. The problem with this discussion is that there seems to be an implicit assumption that because our governments tend to be selective in their willingness to tackle human rights abuse it follows that the general population shares that view.
The reality is that most of the electorate is either indifferent or unaware of what is happening in the world at large and so governments are given a virtual carte blanche with respect to issues like human rights.
Organizations like Amnesty International do a great deal to expose what is really happening but I know from my teaching that little gets through.
We run a mature age tertiary re-entry programnme and every year I find that the bulk of our students are blissfully ignorant of a great deal of human rights abuse.
The item that sparked this thread would be among those events in the outside world that will have passed most people by; it is not as if it has dominated the news.
Another example of the difference between government action and public opinion was reported by Paul Krugman. A newspoll asked whether or not the USA Govt spent too much on foreign aid. The answer came in with about 80% agreeing. That same poll asked how many cents in the dollar the US should spend. Again about 80% opted for about 10 cents. The American govt spends less that 1 cent in the dollar.
So lets not confuse the government with what the people want or would want if they knew the facts.

Steven,
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop…Israel/Palestinian conflict. I suspect you’re making a case for that.

In truth we as individuals can’t do much beyond what has already been said particularly given our species tendencies toward….self interest dictating myopic focus. Issues like the perverted capitalistic system we live under is merely a manifestation of that. So too are our views on religion, culture and patriotism.

All this neither alters nor negates the correctness of human rights as an absolute virtue.
The issue then becomes a personal one i.e. we all are faced with laws most of us choose to ignore or break them often to suit our convenience, laziness, or for personal gain. If apprehended or our fault is pointed out the responses given is indicative of the individual’s commitment to doing the correct thing. Rarely do we accept our guilt gracefully.

• Quite the contrary we first deny,
• Offer ‘excuses’ to either avoid the penalty or assuage our guilt with “everybody does it…they’re speeding more than me”
• then it’s a silly law
• Finally we abuse the individual with “mind your own business (you busybody)” when in truth societal rules are everybody’s business/ responsibility.

This is particularly true when it come to breaches of human rights by nations. Only they have a PR , spokesperson to try and avoid responsibility by :

• First they deny it happened
• Then excuse/justify ‘we had to, they made us, they are more evil than us.
• Plead for perspective.
• then point out the transgressions of the accuser…or you don’t have the authority the UN hasn’t done anything (implying it must be ok) finally become abusive tell others to mind our own business….
In reality wrong is wrong. As I said we are all human and institutions will all err the point is what you/country does about rectifying the breach in practical terms determines their morality or depth of commitment to ethical behaviour.
At least this is my humble reasoning and basis for my comments anyway.

Forrest, my dear boy

""....... AND back up our words with actions like repatriation of Australians on death row in other countries for interment here."

What, bury them ALIVE?"

What a difference a single "N" makes, here I am totally against the death penalty and one typo and I could've inflicted one of the worst ways to die on an Aussie crim.

Oooops.

Good thing I'm not writing policy anymore...

Cheers

Dear Steven,

This is an interesting thread and you
argue your case well. I've been reading
the various posts and have now decided
to again attempt to tell you why I feel
that overseas human right abuses should
be of concern to us all. I'm not advocating
military involvement but I do feel strongly
that as a country we have to speak up - otherwise
we demean ourselves as a civilised society.

I'm sure that buried beneath the surface of
our love for our country and its people is
also a vision of a world built on freedom
and equality for all of mankind.

One may not be able to rid the world of atrocities
but we certainly can speak up against them. We
certainly shouldn't condone such behaviour, which
our silence and turning a blind eye would do.

We lose any moral authority in judging other countries when we murder our unborn in huge quantities. Sadly we are a laughing stock to Islamic world when we kill the most vulnerable. It really prevents Australia from being able to judge the barbaric practices, beliefs and actions of Islam.

It seems that many people see this issue very clearly but it is one in which I cannot, ever, come to a conclusion. Every semester I pose this problem to different classes and also, to date, no concensus has ever been reached there either.

I do believe that we should always stand up for truth and honesty and rights.

But whose truth?

And of course we should support honesty and transparency - but what if WE are seen as the dishonest ones?

And why should we call for punitive measures like sanctions and embargos for other regimes when our own systems trample the rights of our own citizens - the poor, Aboriginals, pensioners - and we do not adopt the same fervour?

How would we feel if the hotly disputed cause, say, of the Aboriginals were taken overseas and picked up by media, activists, the United Nations? Read these threads. Many posit vehemently the view that aboriginals are not worth the time, or money already spent in their cause.

But a rabid media picking up on photos of a depressive, beaten, woman and child juxtaposed with a photo of a group of white Australians fine dining in a Sydney restaurant could arguably turn a tide of world-wide condemnation our way. Embargos and sanctions aimed at us from those upholding their duty to protest human rights might muddy the waters of the certaintly of the answer to the question this thread poses

Whose truth is THE truth?

I was convinced I knew the truth about the Tibet/China question until I came here and talked with, observed and learned from Tibetan and Chinese citizens. It’s a different truth to that of the activists, politicians and media.

I lived through the sanctions period in South Africa which resulted in a legacy of such violence, poverty, and horror that it is doubtful even Dante could have envisaged it. That truth is also a different truth.

The truth I thought I was familiar with in PNG is also a different truth to that printed in papers, magazines and advanced by others.

Whose "right" is Rights?

Runner,

If "killing the unborn" in our country is wrong, is killing people in other countries somehow morally better?

Romany,

How about these as a set of truths:

In the modern world, the human side, in all its diversity, is always stepped on and pushed aside for the sake of expediency.

When one group in society is travelling well, they are doing so off the back of other groups.

One group's solution is another's millstone - the reason this imbalance continues is because each group is trapped in its own world and can't see the other's situation.

Each group has its negative experiences as an opportunity/prompt to learn from its mistakes, throw off its limitations and grow.

Romany part of the problem with a global civic society is the question of boundaries - where does a state's legitimate sovereignity finish and global interests start? The Bangkok Declaration basically stated that the states in South east Asia would determine what constituted human rights. Others have argued that the way describe human rights is a form of western Imperialism. Yet others have argued that there is simply no way that we can ever get global agreement with respect to what is meant by human rights.
Sight and sight has a number of articles that deal with this theme you can find it here http://www.signandsight.com/features/1835.html

Romany and others
I would like to know what is logically wrong with my post's assertions that human rights are rights and independent of the accuser's morality and particularly in this situation. Consensus is irrelevant here.

BTW “Israel's former UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, has urged Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to "keep away" from the upcoming UN World Conference Against Racism to be held in Geneva in April. Gillerman warns that the conference — commonly known as Durban II — will be used as a stage to condemn Israeli policies and equate Zionism with racism” www. newmatilda.com.au

wobbles you ask

'Runner,

If "killing the unborn" in our country is wrong, is killing people in other countries somehow morally better?

If in self defense or to prevent further innocents being killed yes. If it is for greed, lust or inconvenience (like most abortions) no.

Examinator
There is nothing wrong with your post asserting that human rights is an absolute virtue. It is in fact the position most people hold. the problem arises in that people cannot agree on what the content of human rights is. For example Waldron (see references below) highlights a range of different interpretations similarly the Amnesty International Lectures could not get any agreement. Sugden attempts to put an economic analysis on it and Pogge uses Human Rights as a basis for arguing against world poverty.
Singer's current book puts foward the argument that just as we would stop and wade into a puddle to save a drowning child so we have the same responsibility to help prevent needless suffering no matter where it occurs.
Yet people will argue that distant strangers have a weaker right to our assistance then people nearby. Thus human rights abuse becomes an issue only if there is some other reason for us to want to act.
If you have a look at the bangkok declaration Bangkok Declaration. [cited; Available from: http://law.hku.hk/lawgovtsociety/Bangkok%20Declaration.htm.
you will see how easily a so called absolute can be reduced to a relative value.
What should be of some comfort from this thread is that no -one seems to take seriously the notion that we do nothing but rather that there appear to be practical difficulties that get in the way.
The simplest way to resolve the practical difficulties is to make regular donations to Amnesty international

Waldron, J., Theories of Rights. 1984, Oxford: OUP. Shute, S. and S. Hurley, On Human Rights; The Oxford Amnesty lectures 1993, New York
Sugden, R., The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare 2nd ed. 2004 New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Pogge, T., Human Rights and Human Responsibilities. Global Justice Transnational Politics, ed. P.D. Greiff and C. Cronin. 2002, London: MIT Press.

Baygon,
Thank you indeed. My bed side table just collapsed from the idea of me expanding my to read list.
Although I have read bits of Singers book (they told me to either buy it or but it back :-( )and I don't accept the commonly held position of distant people i.e. we have no direct emotional connection with people have lesser rights as being valid if for no other reason it's a cop out.
Off the top of my head I don't see that consensus is valid way of determining individuals’ absolutes.
The issue is to me is simple down to one point “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Period".
Don’t get me wrong I’m not a religious person but this rule is older than any current religion and make sense. Anything else is a subset.
Human rights are those pertaining to individuals and are as individualistic as people.
Niceties are consensus driven… no abuse or ad hominem attacks on fellow OLOers. Not killing people is a different order of magnitude all together.

But again thank you for the effort and the list… more reading I think

examinator wrote:

The issue is to me is simple down to one point “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Period".

Dear examinator,

I would do unto you what you would want done unto you. However, what you would want done unto you would not necessarily be what I want done unto me. Unless all individuals concerned have the same wants and tastes the Golden Rule is not a good one. One should be wary in deciding what is good for someone else by merely consulting one's own wants and needs.

Dear david f,

Now who's being vulpine?

You know darn well what examinator meant.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated.(Fairly).

runner,

You claim that most abortions are for 'greed, lust or inconvenience'.

You will produce the evidence for this empirical claim, won't you?

By the way, have you ever had an abortion or do you personally know anyone who has had one?

Let's stop all this hyprocrisy,guys.

No one really gives a damn about the millions who have died and enslaved in the Congo,Rwanda,Darfur,Sudan, Somalia and nearly every other African country; no one gives a damn about the millions who have died in South American drugs related murders and judicial killings; no one has really given a damn about the fate of the Tamils in Sri Lanka; no one has given a damn about tyhe people in Burma so why should we suddenly got all that self-righteous about the fate of women and children in Islamic countries where they form a part of their legitimate culture sanctioned by their religion?

socratease

Dear Foxy,

I can't read examinator's mind so I don't know what was meant - only what was said. The Golden Rule is based on what one decides is good for others without consulting the others. As such it may be used to justify wrongs. George Fox, the Quaker, in the seventeenth century told the slaveholders of Barbadoes:

"And consider seriously this, and do you for and to them as you would willingly have them or any other do unto you were you in the like slavish condition, and bring them to know the Lord Christ." p. 62 of "The Arrogance of Faith" by Wood. Presumably what a slave wants most is not to be a slave, but Fox put his own desires on them and recommended missionising them rather than freeing them.

Dear Socratease,

When you write, "No one really gives a damn about..." you are making a generalisation about a lot of others. Religion can sometimes be used for good. William Wilberforce found in his religion the inspiration for opposing the slave trade. Eventually it was ended in Great Britain, and his efforts had a great deal to do with it. Many white people participated in the civil rights movement to see that black Americans had the same rights as white Americans. Some people do really give a damn about .... and actually put themselves on the line.

BAYGON

You suggest sanctions against Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe economy is such a wreck that sanctions are meaningless. There's nothing for the populace to buy anyway. Not even food.

BAYGON

You write:

"clearly our challenge is to work with the Pakistan government to ensure that Sharia law does not violate human rights"

Had the Pakistani government not effectively lost control of Swat there would be no question of imposing shariah on what appears to be, judging by election results, an unwilling populace. Therefore working with the Pakistani government is besides the point.

We could I suppose try to work with the Pakistani Taliban however:

--Would they be interested in what kafirs have to say about shariah?

--How would the Pakistani Government react were we to try and work with what is effectively a rebel army within the borders of Pakistan.

BAYGON

You suggest "diplomatic pressure" against Burma.

It is hard to find any country that has been subjected to more diplomatic pressure than Burma these past DECADES. It has changed nothing.

Cont'd

Again a reminder. I am talking about what actions the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, not individuals, should take when it comes to human right abuses in other countries where Australia has no vital interests at stake.

FRACTELLE writes:

"..he [Steven] could've used the plight of Tibetans…"

I specifically mentioned China. It is not only Tibetans who are oppressed by the Chinese Communist regime.

Let's look at China more closely. Bad as it is, it is a better place than it was under Mao. Faced with a country that is moving, albeit slowly and haltingly, in the right direction maybe the best option is to do nothing. Maybe we can hope that China will follow the same trajectory as South Korea.

Basket case dictatorship – better economic management -> liberalisation -> democracy.

Except for BAYGON nobody here seems to have much appetite for any sort of military intervention. However often that is the only thing that appears to work. What else could have been done in the case of Kosovo?

Kosovo is in many ways interesting. A sovereign country was PARTITIONED ALONG ETHNIC LINES. Using that precedent why not partition Sudan three ways:

--An Arab Muslim North

--A Black Christian / Animist South

--A Black Muslim Darfur

It would require force but it may be the only thing that would work. On the other hand, splitting states along ethnic lines establishes a precedent that could ignite civil conflict across the world.

I ask all those who favour interventions here to consider the truth of an old maxim.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

It is often not clear whether some action will do more harm than good. Unless we are pretty damn sure that what we are proposing will do good we should do nothing.

FIRST DO NO HARM.

It is my experience that most interventions have had the consequence of prolonging and worsening suffering and misery

"It is my experience that most interventions have had the consequence of prolonging and worsening suffering and misery"

Steven,

Assuming that we tend not to hear about the interventions that have worked out well, I think this can be re-phrased as "an intervention acts to accelerate the propensities of the people caught up in it".

In other words, if the dominant propensity of a dominated group is to fight back, they will fight back. If it is to curl up in a ball and slowly die, they will do that. And if it is to grasp the nettle and make the best of the situation, they will do that.

As a potential interventionist, the moral of the story is to pick your interventions carefully.

Davidf and others
The golden rule is a measuring stick not a batten with which to beat someone into submission.
In the discussion thus far I was trying to determine a base standard (absolute ideal) and therefore not open to negotiation i.e. standard Kilo is in a vault some where and is for all intents and purposes absolute. I reject the notion that national/cultural/religious consensus should be used as basic Human rights as all of the above are and have their own artificial agendas. The primary purpose of any organization is it survival and therefore at times there will be conflict with the human rights of the individual in some degree.

Notwithstanding in reality the golden ideal is for human reasons unachievable. What one does with the standard is often determined by other practical and external uncontrollable (by the individual) factors. If you/culture/nation/religion chose to use 900 grams as your standard that is your (c/n/r) choice but in the final analysis it is not a kilo (i.e. absolutely right).

For the purposes of discussion let’s assume the absolute human right is TO LIVE. (Without life all other rights are moot.) We all notwithstanding illness etc we all want to live.

Now, we come to the organizational level of flawed human judgement e.g. which side is ‘correct’ Christianity or Islam, Israel or Palestine.
Under the undeniable absolute standard, none of the above.

Therefore the arguments are essentially about supremacy of ones opinion i.e. some lives in a right to life concept are more important than others….sorry this has as much validity as a stoush over tapestry V quilting only *far* more deadly.

It’s a logical nonsense to say that if Hitler criticised Stalin for genocide that the criticism wasn’t valid because he too was a butcher. In essence if the criticism is about breaching the right to life it is justified regardless of its source.

We spend far too much effort creating false basis to justify the unjustifiable.
Therefore criticism of internation behaviour is Valid.

I think this is a great article written by Zakaria and bought to our attention by STEVENLMEYER.
One quote from the article says much about the harm we do when we interfere -: Many local despots would prefer to enlist the American armed forces to defeat their enemies. In return those rulers have done little to advance genuine reform, state building or political openness.
I would like to add that the cruel religious Islamic fanatics that rule some countries also like to blame the misery that they cause to their people on the West, so diverting the people’s attention away from themselves and delaying the inevitable reform that will take place driven by the people themselves, if only the West would butt out and let it happen.
The more cruel and inhuman these priests are the more likely the people will turn against them and things will change for the better.
By racing in when the human abuses happen, ironically the West becomes the enemy instead of the priests and these things don’t change at the societal cutural level where they need to change.
HENCE- bearing out the truth of your quote, Stevenlmeyer
The road to hell IS paved with good intentions

CONTINUED..... If we could have watched all the humans abuses,the great battles and conflicts of history on Television for thousands and thousands of years as they were happening and sent our armies to intervene we would have totally changed the history of nations and the world. This is a mind boggling concept and yet this is what we seek to do today.

Sorry not to have responded before now.

Examinator,

You were puzzled, I think, about my phrase "to date, no consensus has been reached".

Which shows I didn't express myself clearly.

I didn't mean one's viewpoint was directed by consensus. I meant that this question is one that both interests but completely flummoxes me...and that, from the diverse views expressed by others, it seems I am not the only one to be able to make a definitive statement upon it.

Baygon,
I am particularly indebted to you for the link to sightandsign and have subsequently signed up for weekly newsletters.

And even after reading each person's response here I am still no nearer to a personal answer to the question posed by this thread.

Let's take another look at Afghanistan where a huge intervention is under way.

USA Today has a story titled:

"OBAMA OPENS DOOR TO MORE MODERATE TALIBAN"

See:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-07-taliban_N.htm

What is a more "moderate" Taliban?

I'm guessing it's a Taliban that promises it will not allow territory under its control to be used as a base for attacking the United States. What they do to Afghans, especially Afghan women, in their territory does not enter into the equation.

This is a bit like telling "moderate Nazis" we'll leave you alone provided you do not attack us. What you do to Jews, Gypsies and others you consider undesirable within your territory is your business.

This is harsh realpolitiek but what options does Obama have?

If I were an American I might reason along the following lines:

--Our troops are putting themselves in harm's way in Afghanistan. Some are dying there. More are getting maimed both physically and psychologically.

--We're getting nothing but international brickbats for our activities there.

--Most of our NATO "allies" show little inclination to help out in any meaningful way.

--Most of the Muslim world, one quarter of humanity, has made it plain they want us out of there

-- It's costing tens of billions of dollars we can better use at home.

--If the price of an exit is that Afghan women once again come under Taliban rule so be it.

Realistically what would the interventionists here have Obama do?

I know what I would have him do. First I'd high tail it out of there. Then I'd give every American junkie however many drugs he or she needs for personal use at no charge. The cost would be trifling and it would cut off the Taliban's financial balls. It would also solve another problem closer to home.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7886372.stm

I am minded by this discussion of the passage from Matthew 7 verse 3; Judging Islam by our own standards, but failing at home to obey even the most basic human rights. Those Human Rights are set out in plain English in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Every day the people who hold down the worst jobs in Australia, fail to apply those basic rights, despite the efforts of a futile and impotent Parliament to make them law.

The Covenant is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion.( Article 18) Judges and Magistrates make us worship them as representatives of the State rather than of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, as the representative of Almighty God, and have been making asses of themselves, by refusing juries, simply because a dumb Parliament says they can.

The Covenant is supposed to abolish discrimination, ( Article 1 Verse 1) but the Judges and Magistrates discriminate every day. They give a crim a choice, jury or no jury, and give a civil litigant no choice at all. Its my way of the highway.

The Covenant abolishes slavery. ( Article 8) but the Australian Governments have an army of slaves, who obey their masters without any free will at all. When the Victorian Government and Queensland introduced a computer as a Judge, in their Perins court, they only did what was honest. It was cheaper to have a computer, than a proper court.

The automatons who sit on great salaries on Australian benches are no better than Islamic automatons, sitting bound hand and foot by Sharia law. Neither Australian automatons not Islamic ones apply the principles of the Covenant.

Article 25 says all citizens shall have the right and opportunity without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2, and without unreasonable restrictions: to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives. The automatons on the Bench, apply s 78 Judiciary Act 1903, and say you can have any representative you like, so long as it is a lawyer. Bah humbug, clean up our own backyard first

The situation in Pakistan continues to develop. Here is an article in the German magazine, Spiegel, on what the imposition of sharia law in parts of Pakistan means:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,609575,00.html

Quotes:

"After the sun has set … small groups of men furtively enter the house of Khalil Mullah. The visitors are Taliban spies, and they have come to report to Khalil … about who has broken the laws of Allah … They will report who has been seen dancing exuberantly, had his beard shaved, committed adultery or expressed sympathy for the government in Islamabad -- in short, who is a traitor.

"Khalil Mullah begins his daily radio show … at about 8 p.m. The residents of the .. plateau listen to Khalil's religious broadcast to hear the names he reads at the end. …he announces the names of those required to appear before the Taliban's Sharia count -- and of those who have already been sentenced.

"The bodies … can be found the next morning on the market square …The corpses are hanging by their legs, their heads cut off and placed onto the soles of their feet…A note under each body reads: "The same penalty will await those who dare to remove or bury these spies and traitors."

Here we have a gang of thugs imposing their will on an unwilling populace. We know the populace is unwilling because by an overwhelming margin they voted the religious parties out of office.

--What, if anything, other than accept some refugees would "human rights activists" have the Australian Government do.

--Why have "human rights activists" never "adopted" the plight of the unfortunate Swat residents anyway?

I have my own theory about why activists have never demonstrated much interest in the plight of the Swat residents but I am interested to see what other posters have to say.

Stevenlmeyer would like to know what advice human rights activists would give to the Australian govt about the violation of human rights in tyhe Swat Valley.
I begin to wonder at the value in engaging in debate with someone who is clearly not reading what the consistent tenor of the responses to his original post have been.
Human rights activists have consistely maintained the position we must do what we can to support individuals whose human rights are violated irrespective of where these people may live.
The constant return to Islamic fundamentalism suggests a different agenda on Stevenlmeyer's part. Are the violation of human rights in the Swat Valley any more or less important than the denial of human rights here in Australia - just look at what is happening in our own backyard to indigenous Australians or what is happening in the USA (have a read of Inequality Matters 2008) Have a look at what is happening in Japan, Burma, China and Romania to ethnic minorities. Indeed one is hard pressed to find anywhere where human rights are uniformly respected. Are the Tamil Tigers or the Aceh and West Iran separatists rebels or people attempting to seize their human rights?
One of the reasons it is difficult to make headway on human rights is that governments (our own included) prefer to turn a blind eye to the violation of human rights if our own economic interests are threatened by taking a moral position. One of the reasons the Taliban is so strong is that it suited the West to support them when Russia invaded Afghanistan, they were prepared to turn a blind eye to their fundamentalism. It is not the Taliban that has changed it is Western policy especially now that the Taliban is expanding its influence throughout the 'stans.
Yet for all that Stevenlmeyer wants to hold human rights activists to account...

BAYGON writes:

"Human rights activists have consistely maintained the position we must do what we can to support individuals whose human rights are violated irrespective of where these people may live."

Fair enough. In this SPECIFIC case, the Swat Valley, with which SPECIFIC people do you expect the Australian Government to work. How, SPECIFICALLY, do you expect them to work with aforementioned people?

If you do not feel comfortable discussing this SPECIFIC case feel free to discuss any other SPECIFIC case of OVERSEAS human right violations. All I ask is that you move beyond feel-good generalities and get SPECIFIC.

To the extent that violations of Aboriginal human rights occur within Australia – ie not overseas – they are clearly the business of the Australian Government among other bodies. This is a bit of a red herring on your part BAYGON.

To all Human Rights Activists here:

The Guardian newspaper's Jason Burke has an interesting view. In an article titled "Our skewed world view won't let us see the real Pakistan" he writes:

"The west can no longer afford to impose its values and notions of democracy on countries that neither want nor need them."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jasonburke

Note that while the article is mainly about Pakistan Mr. Burke does not confine his conclusions to Pakistan. He seems to feel that in general Western governments should refrain from trying to impose what he calls western "notions of democracy" on any other country.

Is democracy a "western" notion? Are there "non-Western" notions of democracy? In what way do they differ from "western" notions? How can you protect human rights in the absence of democracy?

How would you respond to Mr. Burke's point of view?

Previously Mr Burke had written:

"When gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in broad daylight, they struck in the heart of the most cosmopolitan city in Pakistan. Now the residents of Lahore fear that the religious violence that blights other regions has taken root on their own doorstep."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/08/pakistan-lahore-terrorism

Those "activists" who, like BAYGON, are not comfortable addressing human rights issues that arise from Islamic fundamentalism may want to consider Sri Lanka. The government there is involved in a decades long civil war with the Tamil Tigers. Contrary to popular belief it was the Tamil Tigers, not Muslims, who initiated the practice of suicide bombing in the post-war era.

For the latest news see:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aIIXjjSmqFVk&refer=india

Is the Sri Lankan Government guilty of human rights violations? If yes then what are they?

Are the Tamil Tigers guilty of human rights violations? If yes, what are they?

SPECIFICALLY how, if at all, would activists like to see the Australian Government intervening in Sri Lanka?

Should the Tamils be allowed to secede from the rest of Sri Lanka?