Some provocative lines:
Lots of people have found easy to shout that Kadhafi presence in Paris was a shame as human rights are not respected in his country.
But would spitting on 10 billion EUR of contracts really improve the human rights cause?
Wouldn't resuming commercial relation with Lybia have reverse effect, because to ensure further relations with Europe, Lybia will have pressure to improve its 'respectability' and improve his inhabitants living conditions?
Global Forums > General > Kadhafi in Paris
Only members can see names and photos
Kadhafi in Paris
Dec 14, 2007 @ 08:43
The text you are quoting:
Some provocative lines:
Lots of people have found easy to shout that Kadhafi presence in Paris was a shame as human rights are not respected in his country.
But would spitting on 10 billion EUR of contracts really improve the human rights cause?
Wouldn't resuming commercial relation with Lybia have reverse effect, because to ensure further relations with Europe, Lybia will have pressure to improve its 'respectability' and improve his inhabitants living conditions?
GuillaumeTelDec 14, 2007 @ 08:43
Lots of people have found easy to shout that Kadhafi presence in Paris was a shame as human rights are not respected in his country.
But would spitting on 10 billion EUR of contracts really improve the human rights cause?
Wouldn't resuming commercial relation with Lybia have reverse effect, because to ensure further relations with Europe, Lybia will have pressure to improve its 'respectability' and improve his inhabitants living conditions?
GuillaumeTelDec 14, 2007 @ 08:43
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Kadhafi in Paris
Post 1
Dec 14, 2007 @ 11:43
u're somewhat right in that judgment Guillaume. why should France/EU care if Lybia was there in Lisbon these few days ago so much pissing off Sarko with a rigid stance on behalf of all Africa to stand strong during entire Africa-EU summit? Some EU politicians & bureaucrats now understand that if Africa - as one of largest raw materials supplier - is gone to China (and China has spent so much on investments in Africa recently), then Europe will have nothing under its nose - especially if to the East, Russia continues to make Europe realize a true dialogue - except for open sea, increasing immigration, & maybe some natural gas from Norway (and that one is being depleted now). if Lyvia is being supported (don't forget that there is a heavy rumor flying around Lybia's support to some Sudanese/@-Darfur tribes) by Algeria and few others, hm... then the whole EU-Mediterranean dialogue is a "kaput" policy.
so maybe u ' re right!
so maybe u ' re right!
The text you are quoting:
u're somewhat right in that judgment Guillaume. why should France/EU care if Lybia was there in Lisbon these few days ago so much pissing off Sarko with a rigid stance on behalf of all Africa to stand strong during entire Africa-EU summit? Some EU politicians & bureaucrats now understand that if Africa - as one of largest raw materials supplier - is gone to China (and China has spent so much on investments in Africa recently), then Europe will have nothing under its nose - especially if to the East, Russia continues to make Europe realize a true dialogue - except for open sea, increasing immigration, & maybe some natural gas from Norway (and that one is being depleted now). if Lyvia is being supported (don't forget that there is a heavy rumor flying around Lybia's support to some Sudanese/@-Darfur tribes) by Algeria and few others, hm... then the whole EU-Mediterranean dialogue is a "kaput" policy.
so maybe u ' re right!
Good_One, Dec 14, 2007 @ 11:43
so maybe u ' re right!
Good_One, Dec 14, 2007 @ 11:43
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Kadhafi in Paris
Post 2
Dec 14, 2007 @ 18:29
I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but just state what I think is a real fact: when contracts of billions of dollars are at stake, even for western governments, then human rights issues take a back seat.
And to be provocative: these governments are probably doing what the majority of their voters wants them to do.
And to be provocative: these governments are probably doing what the majority of their voters wants them to do.
The text you are quoting:
I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but just state what I think is a real fact: when contracts of billions of dollars are at stake, even for western governments, then human rights issues take a back seat.
And to be provocative: these governments are probably doing what the majority of their voters wants them to do.
Nir Ofek, Dec 14, 2007 @ 18:29
And to be provocative: these governments are probably doing what the majority of their voters wants them to do.
Nir Ofek, Dec 14, 2007 @ 18:29
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Kadhafi in Paris
Post 3
Dec 15, 2007 @ 00:40
...the creators of the Humans Rights Chart do not fear any regime when it comes to big money. But can they really be blamed? I mean, which governement really takes seriously human rights in account in those cases?
The text you are quoting:
...the creators of the Humans Rights Chart do not fear any regime when it comes to big money. But can they really be blamed? I mean, which governement really takes seriously human rights in account in those cases?
Hobbes, Dec 15, 2007 @ 00:40
Hobbes, Dec 15, 2007 @ 00:40
Your Reply:
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Kadhafi in Paris
Post 4
Dec 15, 2007 @ 04:44
have no idea what is being done on their "behalf" by their government.
A. The logic that trade and economic development eventually paves the way for democracy has been proven wrong numerous times. This rationale was used by many to support the apartheid regime in South Africa for decades. The racist regime was not brought to it knees until intensive and extensive international pressure was brought to bear on political, economic, and cultural fronts. Support of and trade with repressive regimes is one of the direct causes of international terrorism. (Please note I said a cause not THE cause.)
B. In fact, most people do not want their government to sell arms or to trade with human rights abusers. However, most people are busy trying to put food on the table for their families, deal with their health care or childcare situation and try to keep their kids out of trouble. Most people don't even read about other countries. Most people feel powerless to stop their government from doing anything. Many people are so alienated from their particular political system that they do not even bother to vote.
C. And most people certainly would not want to support repressive regimes especially if they were aware of the "blowback"/reaction that results from these criminally stupid foreign policies --- sometimes termed "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And the US would not have gone to war in Iraq if most people's kids had been subject to a general draft. Many people who serve in the US armed forces join either out of economic necessity or a tradition of service in the armed forces within their families.
D. The second "scramble for Africa" (the first was in the late 1880s) is fueling wars, famine, and disease. And refugee crises on the continent are increasingly affecting European nations, particularly those that border the Mediterranean. Nearly every conflict on the African continent is the result of conflict over control of some commodity. And most of the combattants are buying arms from Western arms dealers with the tacit support (if not collusion) of their governments. And let's not pretend that arms dealers and human rights advocates have the same access to and influence upon government officials and policies.
E. So if one has the attitude that supporting these regimes means billions of dollars for a national economy, one also has to remember that one of the costs will be increased refugee populations in Western countries and another, perhaps terrorist attacks. This development, in turn, leads to increased political instability in the so-called West. A balance sheet has two sides. Short-sighted and short-term profiteering-based politics more often than not results in long-term, intractable political dilemmas.
A. The logic that trade and economic development eventually paves the way for democracy has been proven wrong numerous times. This rationale was used by many to support the apartheid regime in South Africa for decades. The racist regime was not brought to it knees until intensive and extensive international pressure was brought to bear on political, economic, and cultural fronts. Support of and trade with repressive regimes is one of the direct causes of international terrorism. (Please note I said a cause not THE cause.)
B. In fact, most people do not want their government to sell arms or to trade with human rights abusers. However, most people are busy trying to put food on the table for their families, deal with their health care or childcare situation and try to keep their kids out of trouble. Most people don't even read about other countries. Most people feel powerless to stop their government from doing anything. Many people are so alienated from their particular political system that they do not even bother to vote.
C. And most people certainly would not want to support repressive regimes especially if they were aware of the "blowback"/reaction that results from these criminally stupid foreign policies --- sometimes termed "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And the US would not have gone to war in Iraq if most people's kids had been subject to a general draft. Many people who serve in the US armed forces join either out of economic necessity or a tradition of service in the armed forces within their families.
D. The second "scramble for Africa" (the first was in the late 1880s) is fueling wars, famine, and disease. And refugee crises on the continent are increasingly affecting European nations, particularly those that border the Mediterranean. Nearly every conflict on the African continent is the result of conflict over control of some commodity. And most of the combattants are buying arms from Western arms dealers with the tacit support (if not collusion) of their governments. And let's not pretend that arms dealers and human rights advocates have the same access to and influence upon government officials and policies.
E. So if one has the attitude that supporting these regimes means billions of dollars for a national economy, one also has to remember that one of the costs will be increased refugee populations in Western countries and another, perhaps terrorist attacks. This development, in turn, leads to increased political instability in the so-called West. A balance sheet has two sides. Short-sighted and short-term profiteering-based politics more often than not results in long-term, intractable political dilemmas.
The text you are quoting:
have no idea what is being done on their "behalf" by their government.
A. The logic that trade and economic development eventually paves the way for democracy has been proven wrong numerous times. This rationale was used by many to support the apartheid regime in South Africa for decades. The racist regime was not brought to it knees until intensive and extensive international pressure was brought to bear on political, economic, and cultural fronts. Support of and trade with repressive regimes is one of the direct causes of international terrorism. (Please note I said a cause not THE cause.)
B. In fact, most people do not want their government to sell arms or to trade with human rights abusers. However, most people are busy trying to put food on the table for their families, deal with their health care or childcare situation and try to keep their kids out of trouble. Most people don't even read about other countries. Most people feel powerless to stop their government from doing anything. Many people are so alienated from their particular political system that they do not even bother to vote.
C. And most people certainly would not want to support repressive regimes especially if they were aware of the "blowback"/reaction that results from these criminally stupid foreign policies --- sometimes termed "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And the US would not have gone to war in Iraq if most people's kids had been subject to a general draft. Many people who serve in the US armed forces join either out of economic necessity or a tradition of service in the armed forces within their families.
D. The second "scramble for Africa" (the first was in the late 1880s) is fueling wars, famine, and disease. And refugee crises on the continent are increasingly affecting European nations, particularly those that border the Mediterranean. Nearly every conflict on the African continent is the result of conflict over control of some commodity. And most of the combattants are buying arms from Western arms dealers with the tacit support (if not collusion) of their governments. And let's not pretend that arms dealers and human rights advocates have the same access to and influence upon government officials and policies.
E. So if one has the attitude that supporting these regimes means billions of dollars for a national economy, one also has to remember that one of the costs will be increased refugee populations in Western countries and another, perhaps terrorist attacks. This development, in turn, leads to increased political instability in the so-called West. A balance sheet has two sides. Short-sighted and short-term profiteering-based politics more often than not results in long-term, intractable political dilemmas.
Translator, Dec 15, 2007 @ 04:44
A. The logic that trade and economic development eventually paves the way for democracy has been proven wrong numerous times. This rationale was used by many to support the apartheid regime in South Africa for decades. The racist regime was not brought to it knees until intensive and extensive international pressure was brought to bear on political, economic, and cultural fronts. Support of and trade with repressive regimes is one of the direct causes of international terrorism. (Please note I said a cause not THE cause.)
B. In fact, most people do not want their government to sell arms or to trade with human rights abusers. However, most people are busy trying to put food on the table for their families, deal with their health care or childcare situation and try to keep their kids out of trouble. Most people don't even read about other countries. Most people feel powerless to stop their government from doing anything. Many people are so alienated from their particular political system that they do not even bother to vote.
C. And most people certainly would not want to support repressive regimes especially if they were aware of the "blowback"/reaction that results from these criminally stupid foreign policies --- sometimes termed "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And the US would not have gone to war in Iraq if most people's kids had been subject to a general draft. Many people who serve in the US armed forces join either out of economic necessity or a tradition of service in the armed forces within their families.
D. The second "scramble for Africa" (the first was in the late 1880s) is fueling wars, famine, and disease. And refugee crises on the continent are increasingly affecting European nations, particularly those that border the Mediterranean. Nearly every conflict on the African continent is the result of conflict over control of some commodity. And most of the combattants are buying arms from Western arms dealers with the tacit support (if not collusion) of their governments. And let's not pretend that arms dealers and human rights advocates have the same access to and influence upon government officials and policies.
E. So if one has the attitude that supporting these regimes means billions of dollars for a national economy, one also has to remember that one of the costs will be increased refugee populations in Western countries and another, perhaps terrorist attacks. This development, in turn, leads to increased political instability in the so-called West. A balance sheet has two sides. Short-sighted and short-term profiteering-based politics more often than not results in long-term, intractable political dilemmas.
Translator, Dec 15, 2007 @ 04:44
Your Reply:
