Hacker News Reader

Comment by sho | Hacker News Reader

I kind of agree with you, but I think you muddy your argument by getting into the weeds somewhat. For me this whole thing is pretty simple - where do you draw your line?

I mean, off the top of my head here's a rough list, in my extremely rough estimation, of human rights offenders from bad to good:

  badness country
  100%    DPRK
  90%     Saudi Arabia
  80%     Dubai
  70%     Russia
  60%     China
  50%     USA
  40%     India
  30%     Japan
  20%     Australia
  10%     Norway
  0%      Antarctica

So where do you draw your line?

Stating "My line is 65% bad or less" is a reasonable argument.

View on HN

And how do we make countries high up on that list go down?

Economic isolationism surely isn't the answer - seeing as North Korea is #1 on that list. Notice that the countries lowest on your list of badness have the closest ties to Western countries (with the exception of Antarctica). Saudi Arabia becoming more closely tied economically to Western countries is an opportunity to lessen its "badness" on your scale. Recent developments, like allowing women to drive and encouraging more women to work are still ridiculously backwards by the standards of the Western world, but represent steps in the right direction

There is a reason that countries like South Africa would be substantially less high on that list than they used to be 25 years ago, and increasing economic -and political- isolation is definitely one of the reasons it changed.

We see in political science that the definition of nations is somewhat circular - for a country to meaningfully exist, its recognition of a significant number of other countries is almost an essential feature. This is the reason that projects like Sealand fail, and also why revolutions attract so much international meddling.

If we extend our timelines then all of the European nations would go to the top.

Late 19th century unbridled mercantilism killed millions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts

So do you think that if the US did more business with Saudi’s Arabia this would improve their human rights record?

You make good points. Encouraging closer two-way ties might indeed do what you say. It certainly might make your "death to america!" chants a little less enthusiastic if half your country's pension fund was invested there. "Destroy the Great Satan! Except, uh, San Francisco!"

Another factor of course is "How much is this country actively trying to undermine/is a potential enemy of my own?" which probably for most countries we'd think of as "western" puts Russia, and to a lesser extent China, at the top of the list.

Your assumption is that economic cooperation makes "evil" countries become more like the "good" countries they cooperate with. I don't think that holds true. Just take China and Russia, who have very strong economic ties with almost all of the world. Human rights in Russia certainly are not getting any better, and I doubt they are in China. In fact, taking recent relevations into account, those ties might just as much be corrupting the "good" countries, and not (just) working the way you assume they are.

While these countries are definitely more oppressive and have less human rights than much of the Western world, do you really think that they've haven't gotten better in that regard with greater connections to the West? I don't think many would agree that these countries had better human rights and living conditions a couple decades ago.

As others have pointed out international pressure was instrumental in dismantling Apartheid in South Africa. That is one clear example.

As said, with Putin, I think things have only gotten worse. And China seems to be settling on a benevolent dictator, too, these days. So at least recently, I don't think things are getting any better in those two countries.

It isn’t about ties but about history, culture, traditions and wealth.

Take my home country Norway, since we are on the list ;-) It is one of the richest countries in the world as well as most equal which tends to lower corruption. Poverty and inequality raise it.

But of course history and culture matters too. Norwegians have had a reputation for honesty for hundreds of years. In some ways it is self perpetuating. There was a story about a Norwegian sailor who had cheated a prostitute in a foreign city. This angered the other Norwegian sailors who made him go back to her next time the landed to apologize and pay her compensation. To them this guy was risking the reputation of all Norwegian sailors. Something they benefitted well from.

When you got a reputation you become invested in it.

Now if Norway would stop turning beautiful whales into whale burgers..

And stop polluting to produce salmon so bad they exclusively go to export.

australia, with its migrant crisis is somehow better than japan?

It's a very approximate list! But since you mention it.. the migrant issue is an outlier I think. It's shameful, but an outlier (I'm Australian btw). Generally we mostly do a decent job. Manus Island makes my blood boil, but we've spent billions trying to stop the solomon islanders killing each other too (RAMSI). The aboriginal health crisis is actually worse IMO, not that it's in the news.

I put Japan there because of its more or less systematic discrimination against people of korean ancestry, lack of support for the economically disadvantaged (eg. freeters, NEET), generally outdated attitudes to women and of course their 99% conviction rate criminal justice system. But honestly, you could make a case either way. Japan's not a bad country in aggregate.

I had to think of something!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com