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.