Your what? You mean the last Western power that still executes people (and until recently executed children), the one with a long history of meddling in Latin America and Asia and Africa to prop up and/or take down despots when it appeared to suit the convenience of the moment - “reputation of honesty, integrity, honor and justice with allies and antagonists alike” until Bush invaded Iraq until 2003?
Let’s say I’m not entirely convinced on that point. The problem with Guantanamo isn’t that it made the U.S. look bad in front of France, which sunk a Greenpeace boat not that long ago, or with most of Western Europe, where anti-immigrant sentiment appears to be on the rise with a way that would make Lou Dobbs blush. [Although with his o mandrill-like coloration, I am not sure you can tell when he blushes.] The problem is that it’s disgusting and wrong. Taking a virginal view of the U.S. does not enhance the wrongness of what was done.
I thought the rest of the world was going to love Obama and make a clean break with the past? My basic point is, countries overlook a lot of transgressions (unless they are the object of the transgression) and don’t stand on principle a whole lot unless there is a reason to do so. The U.S. has continued to be an ally to many of these countries and North Korea hasn’t. Considering what else is going on with North Korea, I don’t see a lot of allies telling the U.S. to get stuffed here. Granted that the situation doesn’t affect a lot of other countries either.
Perhaps I should have said, “our reputation for aspiring to honesty, integrity, etc.”
You are correct that we have failed to live up to that reputation in the past. We’ll probably fail again in the future too. But there’s a reason why some of our bitterest foes are now our tightest allies (and it’s not just our firepower or they’d all be knocking on China’s door). Our ties with Germany and Japan (and yes, France, Britain, and Spain) go beyond the fact that we’re powerful. America tries to be a force for justice in the world. Our failures outnumber our successes but most countries aren’t even trying.
You seem to be saying that America has, for the last several years, been engaged in a policy that is ‘disgusting and wrong’ - but you don’t seem to think that this ‘disgusting and wrong’ policy will (or should) affect the willingness of other countries to aid us. I think you are mistaken in that but we’ll have to disagree.
<shrug> I never claimed that. I’m the one who said that we’re still dealing with the fallout from policy decisions made within the last few years.
I suppose it depends on what exactly the US is asking the other countries to do here. It also depends on the magnitude of the transgressions we’re expecting them to overlook. It seems to me that the current situation in NK might make this precisely the wrong moment to rattle the cage.
My point, and I won’t keeping harping on it since this is my third post, is that some of the countries we’d be relying on to help us extricate our citizens from their hardship have spent the last few years trying to extricate their own citizens from our jail. I can’t imagine they’d be much enthused by the prospect.
It’s much easier to aspire to something than to actually do it.
Rather than rehashing every U.S. policy decision or failure of ideals over the last [pick a number] years, my point is that I think the particulars of this situation - whatever is specifically involved in trying to get these reporters out of North Korea - won’t have anything to do with Guantanamo. It probably comes down the U.S., China, and maybe Japan. If the government had to rely on Saudi Arabia for help, it might be a problem. Then again, I don’t think the Saudi government wants anybody being held in Guantanamo back, so maybe not.
Bad actions done by a nation, like those done by a person, fade with time and it it ridiculous to blame a country for deeds done long ago if that country has repudiated them and stopped doing them. Germany has been forgiven for the Third Reich because they have repudiated its actions, cooperated in punishing the evil-doers and stopped doing those things. If they were still doing and advocating those things the situation would be different.
It is silly to bring up things long time past. Yes, the USA interned the Japanese and it was wrong but that was long time ago, it is now accepted it was wrong and it has not been done and could not happen again (we hope although I am not as sure now as I was ten years ago).
What is relevant is that America is NOW imprisoning people without affording them their basic rights to fairness and so it cannot NOW complain about others doing the same.
That is silly. Countries deal with countries not with a certain person. Many countries in the world were hoping for a reversal of certain American policies, not that Obama would become president regardless of what he did. In the measure that he changes certain policies he will be “loved” and in the measure that he maintains certain policies he will not.
The day the USA (Obama or not Obama) disowns and condemns torture, indefinite detention, etc. and punishes those who did it, that day the USA will be in a position to condemn it when others do it. (Or when decades have gone by without doing it and it has been condemned and outlawed.) In the meanwhile it does not matter who is president if it is still being done and accepted and endorsed.
In this particular case America can say what it wants about how wrong it is to not give people a fair trial and North Korea can laugh and point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency. Then America can ask China (who seems to be pretty much the only country with some leverage here) to tell North Korea how wrong it is to incarcerate people without all judicial guarantees. And China will go into a fit of laughter which will last until the following Chinese new year because they do not believe that shit and for America to claim it does when it is obviously just self-serving bullshit is just too comical.
And American diplomats who would try selling the argument around the world would be hearing a lot of polite responses to the effect that “it would be good and helpful if you practiced what you preach; in the meanwhile please don’t ask me to buy your BS”.
The OP of this thread was expressing outrage and shock that a country would imprison people with something less than a full open and fair trial.
Now, when it is pointed out that America cannot be talking about fairness or morality when it comes to cases like this, some people want to argue that fairness and morality are irrelevant. Well, Ok, but that would be another thread. The foundation of this thread is precisely the unfairness and immorality of imprisoning people without a fair trial.
I mentioned some things that were considerably more recent than the internment of the Japanese: the U.S. still executes people, and executed underage minors until a few years ago. And I mentioned this to point out that there may not be much of a “reputation of honesty, integrity, honor and justice,” not because I think all sins last forever.
It can, but won’t, because it doesn’t care. This is not a moral issue, it’s much closer to exortion.
Well, that’s not particularly likely, because if China went into a fit of laughter, somebody would probably point out ITS awful human rights record, and pretty soon nobody would be laughing because the Chinese don’t think it’s funny when somebody points out that they kill prisoners left and right, lock up people for having the wrong political or religious views, are trying to wipe out Tibetan culture, blah blah blah. Or its censorship policies. China doesn’t think that stuff is very funny. Go figure.
Well, yes, many Americans like to believe theirs is the land of freedom which the rest of the world would like to be like. The truth is closer to being that most developed countries, while admiring the foundational principles of the USA, see America and Americans as somewhat barbaric in their practices and especially in their easy use of violence.
But the point is that it is the USA who preaches about Human Rights , not China. China is perfectly consistent because it does not go around preaching about Human Rights, something which it considers an onternal matter for each country. So The USA cannot point out China’s inconsistency but China can point out the hypocrisy of the USA who only pays lip service to Human Rights when it suits them but yet, in practice, follows what China says and does.
So, yes, China can get a good laugh at the inconsistency.
Anyone who thinks the solution is as simple as bombing and invading North Korea is totally deluded and does not have the least notion of reality. Not even Bush and Cheney were at that level of idiocy.
While conceding the injustice of Guantanamo in principle, I can see that the people who put those detainees there believed they had a good reason for doing so. In the same way I don’t agree with Southeast Asia’s draconian punishments for drug violators, or with drug prohibition laws generally, but, again, can understand the motivation. With North Korea it is different, at least IMO. I don’t see how they conceived that the journalists were such a threat as to deserve such punishment. Usually, these sorts of cases seem to come down to the question of espionage, as if the U.S. is so desperate to know what’s going on in North Korea. (Cue vague European accent from a 1930’s movie: Oh, they think we want to know! We want to know all about them…)
When Don Pacifico, a British citizen of Portuguese descent, was attacked and his home vandalized while living in Greece. Lord Palmerston, the British PM, sent the gunboats in and blockaded the port of Athens until complete reparations were made to Pacifico.
Palmerston justified this to Parliament by stating the old adage, Civis Romanus sum. Unfortunately (or not) the world doesn’t work like that any more, even for the most powerful country on Earth.
