Hacker News Reader

Comment by dandare | Hacker News Reader

One of the most negative longterm consequence of the G. W. Bush era is the erosion of high moral ground in human rights.

The US, and consequently the western democracies, lost the ability to genuinely criticize the bad guys for doing bad things like torture or kidnapping. Of course, the situation in China is not comparable to US, but we lost the argument.

View on HN

I apologise if this sounds a wee bit snippy but I think you need to read some history books to find out what the US and western friends were getting up to prior to Bush Jr's time in office. Here's a couple of suggestions:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-C...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/04...

Have a look for books on the US's covert (and slightly less covert) activities in Central and South America.

See my reply to mac01021.

You think the US was behaving morally through the 70s, 80s, and 90s?

Of course not, there are several examples of democratically elected governments overthrown and replaced with brutal dictators, Tuskegee, MKUltra, COINTELPRO, Iran Contra, Dark Alliance. But most of these fuckups were illegal - or at least not officially sanctioned. That changed with 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Until then the US never publicly sanctioned torture and kidnapping of individuals.

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

    > most of these fuckups were illegal
    > - or at least not officially
    > sanctioned.

To people outside the US that are the subject of these campaigns this amounts to nothing more than obscure inside baseball.

Unless something like war crime trials are held, or reparations are paid to the relevant countries it doesn't matter in the least for the end result, or for future such operations whether or not these operations were legal or sanctioned. Nobody involved of any significance ever got charged or convicted, and the US certainly didn't help reinstate the governments that had been overthrown.

The only thing that happened post-9/11 was that the official narrative started more closely resembling the realities on the ground.

That is a good point.

As native to one of the countries affected by Manifest destiny, I can assure USA's foreign policy never has had the moral high ground, but it just liked to say it did.

US cultural echo chamber :/

He's just giving you your daily dose of Republican bashing. Remember who the bad guys are.

> One of the most negative longterm consequence of the G. W. Bush era is the erosion of high moral ground in human rights.

One of the most negative longterm consequences is also the fact that HN seems unable to discuss Chinese human rights violations, and instead must derail all such threads into discussions about the US. Almost none of the comments here actually discuss topic of the OP.

> The US, and consequently the western democracies, lost the ability to genuinely criticize the bad guys for doing bad things like torture or kidnapping. Of course, the situation in China is not comparable to US, but we lost the argument.

This is absolutely not true. The US and Western democracies very much have the ability to criticize human rights abuses just with the caveats that 1) one doesn't have to be guiltless to criticize or call out bad behavior, 2) the US is not a unitary political entity [1], and 3) a hypocrite is not wrong, she's merely guilty as well.

[1] let alone the union of US and Western democracies

>The US, and consequently the western democracies

How is that? To me it seems Europe very much has the moral high ground.

Up until Sarkozy received several millions $ of illegal financing for the French presidential election from the hands of Gaddafi, and a little later decided to get rid of his former "friend", with his accomplices David Cameron and Barack Obama, and proceeded to destroy the country, assassinate Gaddafi and fuel Islamic chaos, wars, and migrations in the whole of Western and Central Africa.

A hell of a moral high ground if you ask me...

This topic is taken care of by the Justice System at the moment, so this actually counters your point.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkoz...

Mediapart is the Independant media that broke the story back in 2012, and has been attacked by Sarkozy.

https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/france/300412/sarkozy-at...

Historically, former members of the government in France haven't ever been jailed. Chirac, Pasqua and others simply received a slap on the wrist, and Sarkozy will probably end the same. I hope, though, that this time Guéant won't get through because the evidence is so overwhelming, but we'll see. All in all, this delineates a clear picture of an extremely corrupt government, but alas still very well protected by state officials and the following governments in the name of "raison d'État".

Mediapart is one of the very few media who isn't owned by plutocrats, most of them happening to be, by no coincidence, Sarkozy's friends (Bolloré invited Sarkozy on his yacht after his election; Dassault is a senator from Sarkozy's party; Drahi is a staunch supporter of Sarkozy; Bouygues is father-in-law of one of Sarkozy's sons; etc). Sarkozy never actually sued Mediapart, because the dossier is absolutely rock-solid. He constantly complains about "undeserved attacks" and "smearing" in his friends' complacent media, but he never actually sued the website.

You have no idea how totally corrupt the French state is nowadays. It's truly terrible. Macron plans are even worse and will make France a true authoritarian state (exactly along the lines of Putin's Russia), by depriving MPs of the minority of almost all of their (very few) legislative rights and powers, opening the possibility of a third mandate for the president, etc.

Europe is not France only.

And France is not Sarkozy only : There has been Hollande since, and now Macron. (Just like you, I hope there will be very serious sanctions against Sarkozy)

Also, Macron is not perfect, but saying "Macron = Poutine" is excessive.

(On the mandates thing : France used to have maximum two 7-years mandates = 14 years max. Even if it gets to three 5-years mandates, that is 15 years max. Nothing revolutionary. If voters want change, they have twice the opportunity to vote for a change. In France, votes are properly counted, nothing like Russia.)

In what sense? I'm not American, by the way.

UK took part in the Iraq war. France took part in the Libya campaign. These are the only two European countries with any sort of military. The rest just let the rest of the world act as their defence force.

Europe of course has the unfortunate distinction of being the starting point of both world wars.

Large parts of it didn't just support communist dictatorships but actually were communist dictatorships throughout the 20th century.

Now you have the modern era. Spain is doing bulk arrests of political dissidents who organised a referendum on Catalonian independence. The leader of the so-called "rebellion" is currently under arrest in Germany pending extradition back to Spain on charges of corruption (i.e. due to the spending required to organise the referendum). The EU has collectively refused to comment on the China-esque behaviour being engaged in right inside its own territory.

Oh, and the EU just passed one of its first extra-territorial laws, the GDPR, which claims jurisdiction over every country and company in the world.

And let's not get onto the behaviour towards to the UK ... threatening to ground flights, revoke driving licenses, revoke domain names, trade sanctions designed to force companies to leave the country and so on. Telling the UK to surrender its own territory, and pay nearly a hundred billion euros in return for nothing. Far more aggressive behaviour between supposed allies than can be seen anywhere else in the world right now.

So - what moral high ground?

Allow me to recommended getting yourself properly informed about the Catalonian issue. The issue is certainly not about a referendum being organized, but rather recurrently ignoring both the law and judicial resolutions for years incl. the refusal to allow parents to choose the language in which their kids are taught in school, or fining stores for writing its name in Spanish. Add in the open white supremacist theme and you've got Catalonian nationalism.

But hey, up until a few years ago, countries like France and U.K. were hosts of the bask terrorists and could have sworn for their lives those gentlemen were also freedom fighters. I'm old enough to remember how IRA had a positive image in some parts of the US too.

Whether you like the Catalonian politicians or not is irrelevant to my point. There are really only three questions that matter:

1) Are they violent?

2) Are they supported by the local population?

3) Are they willing to work with the national government?

The answer is clearly yes to all three. That means Spain needs to deal with them politically, by winning votes, not by calling them rebels and traitors and tossing them all in jail as if it were the 1600's.

Go look at the UK for an example of how to do it. Scottish nationalists had their own problematic attributes from the perspective of many English, but the resolution was peaceful, democratic and accepted by both sides.

Spain has utterly failed at this, and the rest of the EU has simply nodded their heads, let them get on with it and indeed is helping them by arresting the Catalonian leaders in preparation for extradition.

In an article on China grabbing political dissidents to bring them back to China for incarceration this is highly relevant to any claim that Europe has a moral high ground.

EU is the largest contributor of foreign aid by far.

EU is the only significant entity taking global warming seriously and acting on it.

EU takes in far more refugees than USA, China, Japan or Australia... combined.

So - that moral high ground.

We didn't lose the argument. We didn't even forfeit. What GWB et al did was much, much worse.

We said human rights didn't matter.

Now that might makes right is our nation's policy, it appears that l/3rd of the voters are just fine with that.

> The US, and consequently the western democracies, lost the ability to genuinely criticize the bad guys for doing bad things like torture or kidnapping.

Would such criticism have had an effect otherwise?

Yes, it's very useful for motivating and mobilising people and nations to our cause. A banner to rally under. Now we have nothing besides plain old nationalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com