It’s too bad that cool people don’t want us around them anymore. Maybe if we stop acting like we know better than them how to run our own lives and did everything they told us to do, they’d let us rejoin their clique. We wouldn’t want a repeat of 1918 and 1941, when they waited until the party was almost over to invite us. How I miss the days of the Clinton administration, when we had a president that gave proper attention to what other people think of us.
there’s an opinion piece on the International Herald Tribune that is worth a read:
http://www.iht.com/articles/19046.html
Getting kicked off the Human Rights Commission was in all likelihood more a slap on the wrists for the USA’s unilateral policies than a punishment for any concrete human rights abuse. When you think about it, such a vote represents what other countries think. It appears the other countries don’t think very highly of the US at the moment.
As far as I have read, it is fairly well established that the (human) rights of American voters were trampled in the election for the US presidency. Coming from one of the largest democracies in the world that is definitely not good and could be reason enough to disqualify the US from a Human Rights body (especially when it puts an ignoramus like Bush in power, saddling the rest of the world with unnecessary silliness).
And there’s matters such as the past insane policies against Serbia as well. Few in Europe liked that episode, and it’s very possible this recent vote may reflect anti-US attitudes in general.
In my opinion, it’s time for the Bush administration to start thinking very seriously about the several highly controversial issues (foreign and domestic) they act unilaterally upon. Unfortunately most of the world looks upon this country as a joke now, and it will take effort to repair the damage–assuming Bush is capable of entertaining that thought.
Abe
Abe, that article is a very stupid pamphlet.
Expelling the US was purely political so, in a sense, I agree with you that foreign policy is essential. America does a fair job of trying to pursue its interests while keeping other countries happy. Could it do a better job? Sure. Are there areas where it could improve a lot? Sure. But a lot of the animosity is by the mere fact of being big and powerful, not beacause it did anything wrong. I think, on the whole, American foreign policy is not so bad. Other countries, especially the more developed ones, do not complain about it as much as some Americans.
>> As far as I have read, it is fairly well established that the (human) rights of American voters were trampled in the election for the US presidency.
Gimme a break, will you? It may have made for good jokes but that is totally unsupported by any reputable source that I know of. Or did Amnesty International write a report on that?
>> And there’s matters such as the past insane policies against Serbia as well. Few in Europe liked that episode, and it’s very possible this recent vote may reflect anti-US attitudes in general.
I am not sure what you are talking about because the policy in Yugoslavia is very closely coordinated with European countries and they all have troops there. Maybe they are on the other side, fighting the Americans? Come on.
>> Unfortunately most of the world looks upon this country as a joke now, and it will take effort to repair the damage
I do not know where you get your information or even what that means exactly or what damage you are referring to.
I think the “sees America as a joke” part means little or nothing. What does that imply?
Probably when the world saw America as a joke the most was when the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So what? Did that diminish its power or its standing in any way? no. The issues were the same: trade, military etc, and they continued to be resolved. Maybe Clinton himself was damaged in the sense that he had to stay in Washington and deal with the issue rather than travel abroad. But America as a country lost nothing.
The fact that some Americans or some foreigners can say "America is a big joke"means nothing. Their leaders and officials still deal with each other and know very well America is America, no more and no less.
Yes, sometimes it should consult more with other countries (when it does, then many Americans complain about “others telling us what to do”) and certain things could be improved. But what can’t?
America gets a lot of respect out there. believe me. And the incident we are discussing is pure politics by which I do not mean it should be dismissed at all. But it should be considered in that context.
Of course. Shame on us for obeying the law! How dare we?!? How can we POSSIBLY show so much nerve?!? :rolleyes:
There’s a difference between “They see us as a joke” and “They’re making jokes about us”. The former implies that we are seen as weak - believe me, nobody believes that - while the latter is simply a means of releasing “Anti-Big Guy” tension.
Sailor, while I find the tone of that article I posted a little extreme, I don’t really see anything in it that could be called a falsehood or a misinterpretation of facts. There appears to be a high level of drama, sure. But I don’t think that anything in this article except its tone is “very stupid”.
One thing I have to comment on is that US nationals can be excellent critics of their nation–you do not see that everywhere around the world. At the same time, I think it is a huge mistake to think that the rest of the world bears animosity to the US because it is “big and powerful”. That response merely indicates denial of the facts, and is a common tactic of diversion employed by children in arguments (the “you’re just jealous” technique). Especially in the light of what seems to be the trademark unilateral decision-making policy of the US.
I have come across this information on almost every medium I read or watch habitually. As I live on the other side of the planet and am not an American, I may be mistaken. But I distinctly recall this piece of news causing quite a discussion in international media, and more detailed reports such as 60 minutes and iWatch are focusing on this problem now that we presumably have the facts. I did a quick search and found this article, which mentions a number of the major problems:
So apparently the claim comes not from Amnesty International, but from a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report. Apparently the Justice Dept. was looking into this. More info appreciated if anyone knows about this, as I did not have time to go through the 13,569 results I got in the search engine!
NATO policy in Yugoslavia was dictated by the US and to a much lesser extent the UK. US contributions included directing all operations, participation by the Armed Forces, wholesale political pressure, economic measures, and an impressive propaganda war (almost as bogus as Bush Senior’s “we saved Jerusalem from those approaching SCUDs” propaganda).
Other European countries, including IIRC Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and France, objected strongly to the bombing campaign but were unable to form ranks against the US and UK. So opposed were many member states to the campaign that even the NATO Web site (a major propaganda tool) mentions the “strains” between members during the bombing of Yugoslavia.
The military action in Yugoslavia was led by US and UK forces. I doubt that other European countries would have agreed to bomb in quite the way Yugoslavia was bombed.
Despite knowledge of depleted uranium’s deadly long term effects on life and despite warnings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. attacked Yugoslavia with depleted uranium weapons. This spread waste matter into the atmosphere, soil, ground water, food chain, and solid objects. It is therefore argued that U.S. military action placed the Yugoslav population at risk of death, genetic damage, cancers, tumors, leukemia, and other injuries for generations. Big Human Rights no-no.
Not only that, but several civilian targets were bombed with such weapons, not just the handful of military targets. That’s ridiculous. And inept, since in effect they tried to make a crumbling house safe by razing it.
They also managed to bomb the ethnic Albanians they were supposed to be protecting–there was another joke for the world (certainly for the Europeans): protecting the innocent ethnic Albanians from the evil Serbs! Militant Albanians were as guilty as the militant Serbs if not more; either the US did not realize exactly what they were getting into, or human rights were grossly violated when the US subscribed to the Albanian lobby within its borders (well-known to be a strong lobby).
I need to explain this because, admittedly, my original statement is not very clear. I read in a number of languages and move in widely international circles, and it is my distinct impression that the overwhelming majority of the world does not take the US very seriously. Its military and economic clout are well-respected, of that there is no doubt. But its unilateralism is considered a disgrace, its policies are considered insults to everything from environmental concerns to international law, and its leader is taken to be an egregious moron. I am not arguing that Bush is a moron, or we’ll be here all year. I am arguing that he is perceived as a moron by the International community.
Apart from a seat on the Human Rights Commission. I know you wrote this to apply to Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal, but that seems like peanuts compared to Bush. Clinton’s was a personal scandal, paid for by Republican money, so you could argue that the problem was due to internal squabbling factions. Bush’s entire presidency is seen as a scandal abroad. What happens next? The American seat on the UN security Council is voted off?
America and American leaders are given face by quite a few countries for obvious reasons to be found in Machiavelli’s The Prince, but I see very little outside its borders to suggest that the US is actually respected. In my opinion that’s a shame, because by improving the amateur level of diplomacy rampant in the USA and dropping the unilateral approach, the US could contribute crucially to global stability in all possible aspects. We all have to live on the planet after all, so why anger the rest of the world by pretending it doesn’t count?
Hi Abe…I’m an American and have never been abroad. And even just recently become more interested in politics and the inner workings of our governmental system. I know it’s a little late, and maybe I come to the realization that it’s finally time for me to take notice just a little late, I’m 42.
I was much more sensitive to these kinds of issues back in the 70s when I was a teenager and the Vietnam War was still going on. Like so many other Americans I eventually became complacent, or rather tied up in my own life to the extent that I became apathetic. I had almost forgotten that an entire generation of young Americans were determined at the time to turn this country’s foreign and domestic policies into something that the whole world would see as an example. Looks like an awful lot of us got sidetracked.
You do have to understand too that a lot of us just don’t know, and the rest do not care. Without the internet and a smattering of news from National Public Radio, people would rarely hear all the news we need to know. Most Americans don’t know how often and how much we deal in arms. Most Americans don’t ever think about how much spying we do or how we go about it until something goes wrong. We rarely think about the costs of our policies and the effects they have on other nations. And even though most Americans will tell you that they don’t trust our elected officals, we are usually lazy enough to sit back and let them do what we hope will be best. It’s true we are very over privledged and for the most part indifferent to the sorrows of the rest of the world. Hell, lately the social and political trend has been a move even farther toward indifference and out right hostility for much of our own people. Seems the trend toward “personal responsibility” only really applies to someone else. It has definately usurped the noble goals of that bygone decade when “social responsibilty” was vogue. Don’t be too hard on us, we might not actually be hypocrites, perhaps we’re just spoiled and fickle.
As to the OP I had also seen the multitude of “reasons” for our expulsion, and one of them could very well be money. I believe the article I read (Friday) stated that we owed the UN 1.7 billion dollars. But I do believe we’ve owed them quite a bit for a pretty long time.
Needs2know
I’m heavily involved in the international diplomatic community and I just have one thing to say:
Most Americans wouldn’t BELIEVE the ridicule and frustration expressed towards them as soon as they leave the room. They are quickly becoming more and more unpopular, even among their closest allies.
This is something you need to adress as a nation, for it’s vital to have International support and the situation has been transformed in the past few years. IMHO it’s time to back off as an international judge and joury and let international morality rule, not North American values.
— G. Raven
First, kids, let’s get some fucking perspective.
The US presence on the Commission is not the end all of human rights work, nor the be all. A teribly provincial position. Nor is the presence of human rights abusers on the Commission something new. During the good old days Comintern states sat on the commission. Work still got done.
The Commission is a standard setting and advisory body to UNHCR, which does yoeman work. That work – never terribly well-funded, rarely recognized, december, is what it has achieved. As usual argument from ignorance is rarely a strong position.
Now, could things be better. Undoubtedly. But in the game of international bodies, nothing is perfect. Further in order to get cooperation it is usually best to have inclusion. Usually, nothing is 100% but often one can reduce the natural human defensive reaction by including them in the process. That works for countries as well.
Of course the process is not perfect. That’s why we have the Human Rights NGOs to help put on pressure.
Further you would be surprised what some human rights abusing countries reps will agree to behind closed doors. Sometimes the folks sent are human rights campaigners in their own country – set away as a half-reward/half-exile.
No, Manhattan, Helms, the drooling little toadish moron was, is and will be wrong.
Sudan’s presence, well, that’s how a system of elections works. Since, as I noted, having countries on the Commission whose rights records are troubled to say the least is nothing new, since inclusion often helps limit damage and gain at least a modicum of compliance whereas freezing out rarely does, this is not the end of the world.
Rather the results of this election demonstrate one thing clearly:
Bad diplomacy has results beyond the narrow field where they are carried out. Pissing off your closest allies (read Europe and France, which are useful in gettingfolks to go along with the US under cover of agreeing with the Europeans and not bid bad America) unnecessarily can and will have unintended negative consequences. Something that retard Helms can not grasp.
You may consult, by the way the memberships at this site:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
I hope we can all take a somewhat more historical and informed perspective. Sure this news is not great. Nothing to rejoice over. Neither does it merit the slams against the Commission (and by extension since few seem to know its role, UNHCR)
ALso, perhaps the most interesting question is whether the knee-jerk (and usually ignorant) reactions will rule or whether folks will stop and ask, “well what got our allies so pissed at us that they didn’t help insure our position?” And the follow up “How can we heal our relations with our allies such that we don’t lose further ground?”
That is, just to signpost for those prone to misread, not a recommendation to abandon US interests, but simply to deal with them in a more intelligent manner. While I do not agree with Abe’s characterization of the issues here 100%, his comment “why anger the rest of the world by pretending it doesn’t exist” is a good one. I might restate, why unnecessarily anger the rest of the world, and above all your own friends, with unnecessary and clumsy policies.
You see it all the time. A friend of mine claims that everyone who criticizes the US is merely jealous, and that we are the end all and be all of the world. It’s very frightening, sometimes, to see the US Uber Alles mentality of some people. That we’re the best, and everyone else should just grovel at our feet. It makes me embarassed sometimes to admit I’m an American.
Fair enough, C’bury, I’m not knowledgable about the UN’s workings. So, I invite you to educate me.
What has the UN Human Rights Commission accomplished? Can you describe what they have done and also describe how their actions have made the world a better place. In your opinion, have any of their actions been counter-productive?
Thanks.
Among some things that the Commission is responsible for are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its subsequent dependant and/or related Conventions and Treaties in re Suppression of Slave Trade, etc.
I submit that the body of work, about which one can inform oneself independantly, while not perfect and certainly could be better (in an ideal world) is an overall positive contribution. I noted what I consider a lot of misplaced and empty, bordering on uninformed, criticism. I don’t know where the claims about anti-Semetic comes from as criticism of the Israeli state(*) not being synonymous in my mind with anti-Semetism. If you have substantive, note substantive, evidence of the same, we can consider it.
A real criticism in re recent work may be found in the late 1980s (as I recall) attempts at expansion of human rights to include some broad and I think ultimately unhelpfully unwieldly “economic human rights”. That of course would require its own thread simply to address the philosophical position behind it, let alone the actuality. Counter-productive this? Perhaps, although I believe much of that effort is a dead letter.
Let me add that those here who think the UN is marginal or unuseful could use some direct exposure to international negotiations. The UN is not a super-national government and judging it by those standards, by both its detractors and its supporters is neither fair nor even useful.
What is the UN? It’s a site of consultations. It’s a useful international talking shop which definately does help to contributing to peaceful (and sometimes not-so-peaceful) multilateral solutions for a wide variety of mundane and not so mundane issues.
Multilateral solutions are largely more efficient than a crazy and unstable patchwork of bilateral and pact based solutions, and as such very existence of such a body is a positive, all the more so if it is more effective, as december rightly notes. Further, effective can not come solely by the defition of what the United States wants. Not because it’s amoral or whatnot but because that will mean the end of the body.
So, all in all, these foolish knee-jerk reactions about ceasing dues payments and pulling out of the UN are ignorant and without basis. I am deeply disappointed.
(*: working democracy or not, human rights violations are human rights violations.)
Be as disappointed as you want to Collounsbury. But I maintain that any body which would establish a commission on human rights and include Sudan is unworthy of support.
Look, I’m no rah-rah American guy, and I’m no isolationist. I don’t have a particular beef if a bunch of countries want to demonstrate their pique by voting us off the HRC. (Though I wish Dubya would get Negroponte in front of the damn Senate already so crap like this doesn’t happen again. His confirmation hearing would take all of an hour, if Bush would just get off the stick and submit it.)
I’m also not particularly concerned if the HRC has some members with less-than-perfect records (like us) or even crappy records (like China) for the political reasons you mentioned.
But fucking Sudan? The UN ought to be putting together a force to go in and liberate the southern Christians and Animists from the slavers in the north, not putting the country on the Human Rights Commission. I rank the Sudan as low as Indonesia or Rwanda. It’s inexcusable and nearly unforgivable to lend that regime any legitimacy whatsoever.
C’bury – Thanks for your info. I wonder if you could go one more step and explain how and where the UDHR and other agreements you mentioned have actually improved human rights.
You are correct that I interpret this committee’s perennial opposition to Israel as anti-Semitism. I agree that human rights violations exist everywhere. Still, human rights in Israel are far, far more secure than in the countries who oppose them. so the anti-Israel bias of the HRC is obvious and striking.
It is logically possible that they may be biased against Israel for some reason other than anti-Semitism. Can you suggest another alternative?
Manhattan, take a look at the rules. The Commission has been around for more than 50 years. Didn’t happen just yesterday man, 50 years old.
Stalinist Russia (aka The Soviet Union) was a founding member. And has always been a member (including successor states etc.), as until this year the United States.
Sudan is a member of the United Nations. As such it stands for ‘election’ like anyone else. It stinks. Something might be done about it, but Africa doesn’t count worth shit for American policy and guess where certain key Coca Cola ingrediants come from…
They played their game well, just like past bad boys who have gotten on.
Fine, agreed.
Good, I understand.
Then expel Sudan from the UN. That’s the first step. Until their voting rights and privileges are removed they have normal rights.
No, they should not.
First, the war is not just between southern Xtians and animists in the South. The war is between a dictatorial government with Islamist trappings and just about everyone else, including non-Arab Muslims in the North (e.g. DarFur) and East. Slaving is mostly done not by government forces but by armed militias of the Baggara tribes, wildcatters as it were. Disgusting yes, but a social problem that runs much deeper than just Northerners versus Southerners, or even Muslims versus Xtians et al.
Our State people are rapping with the Bashir government as we speak. Ain’t just the UN. Bashir kicked out At-Turabi (or rather has him and his extreme Islamist party leaders under house arrest). Since we know that at-Turabi is the guy with the queer links to folks we don’t like (think of a certain most wanted fellow in Afghanistan) and Bashir wants nice $$$ for his oil projects, we’re rapping. Nice little games going on. Don’t be so quick to tar the Commission.
Hey, I’m as capable of playing realpolitik as the next guy. All the UN nations combined, including the US, would not have had the firepower to go undo Stalin’s human rights abuses. At least without wreaking as much or more havoc as without intervention. And because of the country’s political clout, there was also a near-zero chance of getting them off the commission. When you ain’t got a choice, you ain’t got a choice.
I disagree. I believe that if one has a UN, all sovereign nations should be in (hear that, Arab countries? How about you, China?) I believe that Sudan ought to have its sovereignty taken away, but until that happens, it ought to be a member state.
However: The fact that they are a member of the UN doesn’t mean that any country worthy of calling itself humanitarian would put them on the Human Rights Commission. Let them stick to the water commission or the Beat Up the US Because They Have the Death Penalty commission or something.
Yes, they should. 
I left the Muslims out as the official “bad guys” for exactly the reasons you state – whilst the slavers often carry Muslim trappings, most Muslims, even those from places like Iran and Libya, oppose slavery. And of course, not all the slavers even carry the labels. But the facts are there is a slavery campaign going on that is tantamount to genocide, and the government is by turns complicit in or indifferent to what is going on.
Again, I’m all for some realpolitik. But we aren’t hosting the guy at a State dinner. Again, my solution is to occupy the country, sell some oil rights off to the highest bidders and use the cash to reconstruct the country – it really ought to be among the most well-off in Africa. Self-government can come later, after the current powers are deposed.
But I realize that there is a vanishingly small chance of that happening. In the meantime, they ought to at least be made an international pariah on the human rights front.
We can disagree on this, but for you to accuse me of having a “foolish knee-jerk reaction” born of “ignorance” because the UN awarded a prestigious seat on the Human Right Commission to perhaps the worst human rights violator in the world today is preposterous.
Late breaking news: They voted us off the International Narcotics Control Board today, too. Good. We’re a buncha hypocrites on that front, and deserve whatever fate we get. But damn I wish we had a UN Ambassador. Maybe I’ll volunteer to fill in until Negroponte is in there. The US Ambassabor to the UN has a nice suite in the Waldorf Towers.
Well, I grant that willingly. However, I don’t see that trashing the UN as opposed to those of our friends who may have gone too far in putting a stick in our eye.
However, I do not believe Sudan should have its sovereignty taken away. No one is going to go for that and the results wouldn’t be pretty to start with.
Two words, Somali 1993.
[quote]
Our State people are rapping with the Bashir
Colonialism part II. The last round helped create this bloody mess. A future round is unlikely to be any better.
I grant that willingly to.
The members awarded the seat, not the UN as an institution. That was the game.
Okay, I withdraw the wording which was obnoxious. I went too far. I nonetheless stand by my opinion that one should not trash the entire Commission over this, nor the UN in general.
Plus lots of diplomatic dinners.
Because, as you point out, that is how the game is played. If we have to play it, other countries do, too. They have to understand that there are repercussions to stupid actions.
I agree with both points, but I think the evil here is sufficient to justify the risk. These are serious bad guys.
Four words back: 250,000 too few troops.
Nah. Under colonialism, the goal was to spirit assets out of the countries without benefiting the locals. I’d do it such that all the proceeds (and then some) went to redevelopment. But it’s probably not worth discussing too far in-depth, as I agree with you that it is a pipe dream on my part, as was my prior wish that Clinton (or somebody!) and done something about the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi.
Assuredly. But they did it in the UN context, and any retaliation ought to be in that context. (Unlike those other nations, which seem to have voted us off for mostly non-UN stuff.)
I appreciate it, and I understand and respect your opinion.
And candidly, I’ll admit that now would be a piss-poor time to withdraw from the UN, since pretty much all observers would interpret it as a temper-tantrum over us getting voted off, as opposed to outrage at Sudan getting voted on the HRC. That’s the cost of prior US idiocies on the foreign policy front. But man, it gets my dander up that they voted those bastards on the commission.
Ugh. I forgot about that. Chicken with this, chicken with that, chicken with the other. I already do too much of that crap. Maybe I’ll try for a post a little lower down, so I can eat foreign food instead of some hotel’s bad interpretation of it.
here’s a link to the story Manhattan mentioned, on the US being voted off the International Narcotics Control Board:
Note Miss Piggy Albright’s customarily foolish response.
Needs2know said, in response to my post:
I have come across references to these conditions you mention, and it is an interesting point. Could it possibly be that the US is so mass media-rich that some people tend to become insensitive to information conveyed via mass media?
One thing I have noticed in my travels to the US is that finding solid international news on television is rather difficult. Perhaps this reflects a far deeper interest in domestic affairs and very little interest in foreign affairs? What has caused this schism, if anything? Perhaps the US’s unilateralism in foreign (and domestic!) affairs has its origins in the communication policies of its agencies, leaders, and media?
Abe
True, true.
However, our response should be to start playing smart, again. Not to engage in a tit-for-tat round of stupidity.
Ergo, trashing the UN as opposed to criticizing a specific action and thinking about how to turn around our diplomatic position is not smart.
On Sudan
I am well aware the Bashir government and Turabi’s clique are serious bad guys. I know people here who have had direct run ins with them.
However, that still does not make invasion a good option. As noted below.
Nope, too few brains, too little understanding, too much racist and cowboy behaviour. The Aussies managed, through a better concieved program in their area assigned in Somali, a successful intervention. Wasn’t numbers, they had fewer. No, they bothered to get to know the terrain, socio-culturally speaking.
They got the clan heads on their side, robbing the young buckos of their social base of support. Working with clan heads and understanding a warlord didn’t necessarily speak for all of his clan --in fact might be intimidating the sheikhs, the old dudes who traditionally held power in Somali society got them a lot farther than some bucko Rangers playing Rambo.
Let me add, however, that while racism among the grunts --even black grunts-- played a role (and not just among Americans) the worst errors as suggested by the above were by the American command which failed to see their role outside of tactical terms.
I see what you’re saying.
If you and I got to run this, yes. But we both know that the chips would fall differently. Until Somali I was pro-intervention by US forces. Afterwards, I’m dismally pessimistic in re Africa. Too many cultural baggages still.
However, a more realistic alternative is to realistically fund the resistance. Frankly this is ten times more sensibible than funding a non-existent Iraqi resistance. Firstly, the anti-Khartoum groups have on the ground legitimacy, although problems too since warlordism is a problem, although that partially derives from overall poverty and lack of resources.
Secondly, neighboring nations already discretely support the same resistance groups. A well-managed program could be quite successful in forcing Khartoum into agreeing to a federal solution and withdrawal of government troops. But they need U.S. aid in real levels to get there. As well as assistance to help fight corruption and the like in their own ranks. It would be nice of course if we were to do such a thing – and it would be very doable-- to do so in a framework that doesn’t end up as a religious war (i.e. recalls that the south-eastern and western non-Arab Muslims hate Khartoum too) and that further we send low-key folks.
I.e. don’t send, as I have seen, big crew cut white guys as agents, they’re so painfully obvious its absurd. Might as well have CIA tatooed on their foreheads. (Oh yeah, also it would be nice to send folks who know something about their cover. If I can get a sense that the joe I’m having a beer with doesn’t really know very much about water infrastructure then I am sure a local engineer will too.)
Further
I ain’t happy about it myself. It’s a murderous regime.
Just get all chummy with the Indians! I’m sure you can get your chutney that way.
Abe you have probably hit the nail on the head…however if I were more inclined to believing conspriacy theories then I’d say that they are pressured to “disinform” or not inform us at all. Which is what some people think. You’ve heard of the saying “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” or them in this instance.
Needs2know