Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Human Rights Framework 2-May-2010 At 10:47:27 AM ET

Message

On 2/05/2010 porkpie wrote:
>Human rights come second to political agenda. There is no real intervention
>in Darfur, there was no international effort to stop genocide in Rwanda,
>there is no invasion of Zimbabwe by the US/Aus/UK to uphold human rights.
> Don't get me started on the Chinese occupation of Tibet. But we cared
>about human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan? - oh no there was a political
>agenda there unlike Rwanda, Sudan or Zimbabwe. On the other hand we turn
>a blind eye to China's invasion of Tibet because they buy our resources.
> Human rights is just another important issue bastardised by politians.

Sigh, since I've already replied in this thread I'll bite... Normally one would define an invasion as one nation occupying another nation. Since you know so much about the history of the region, at what point was Tibet a separate nation all together? When was it established and by what means was it established (War of independence? By mutual agreement with it's previous sovereign state)? Who or what nations recognised, at the time, it as a separate state?

Also, the bloodshed/uprising is not as one sided as you may think. A good starting point about the recent history can be found in the following link
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530
it's biased towards "US non-violent policies" however it does mention the CIA training and arming of local militia. It is also fully referenced if you want to follow up any of the information. A lot of what you think you know about Tibet are nothing but remnants of old Cold War lies and propaganda as well as remnants of (very) old British Colonialist propaganda when they were trying to expand British India's territories (which has lead to territorial disputes in this region to this day).

As for the rest of your thread... I more or less agree that "human rights" is just a convenient tool that can be used to justify actions that normally would not be popular. Political leaders use it when convenient and ignore it when it's not. In short it's vague idea in which NOBODY can provide a concise definition of which is used against stupid people who wish to be morally superior. Wave the words "humans rights" around and I guarantee you that it's possible to gather a large crowd and march into the city without anyone in the crowd knowing what the gathering is for.