(Of course, this is the problem with the traditional synechdoche of a country name for the policy of one particular government at one particular point of time...)
They're saying no to a Chinese puppet org (the UN) using clean environment as an attack on them while China does nothing to address their environmental impact.
And they also have the most lax environmental standards. Green energy is nice but allowing business to dump whatever they want into the environment isn't.
I would imagine China will demand a clean environment be a human right and then turn around and say they have no duty to help with it because they have been and always will be a “developing nation”.
More coal generation too. All this means without context is that they're big. Their commitment to green initiatives has been extremely toothless to date
> They're saying no to a Chinese puppet org (the UN)
That's a strong and outright ludicrous statement. The UN's highest body, the Security Council, has 5 permanent security members with veto powers, which includes the UK and US ( alongside China, Russia, France). So China doesn't have any more power over the UN compared to the US.
> using clean environment as an attack on them while China does nothing to address their environmental impact.
China is adressing their environmental impact - most notably in electricity generation where they're replacing coal power plants.
> Washington also referred to legal concerns as well as worries that recognising new rights could dilute traditional civil and political rights, according to sources following the talks.
Totally makes sense to me really. It's just enables genocidal dictatorships to go full "what about" when called out for their crimes. Yes, we just exterminated a small nation, but look how much U.S. companies pollute!
I mean this as an honest question: why does that matter? Diplomatically, why would any other country care about a genocidal dictatorships pronouncements of hypocrisy?
That already happens, and it already doesn’t stop sanctions and other consequences, from my limited understanding of geopolitics.
It matters as much as recognizing anything as a human right formally matters. U.N. is not good at enforcing human rights really, but it's better than nothing, and diluting it further is a step to "nothing" in my opinion.
It's not better than nothing. Entirely corrupting the definition of human rights by routinely putting the worst human rights offenders on the human rights council, is worse than doing nothing. It gives sanction to those human rights offenses by pretending those nations deserve to be on the human rights council, that they have earned equal representation on such a matter.
The UN would be doing the same thing if this context were to become real. Nobody will be inspecting China, Russia or 37 other dictatorships for environmental human rights abuses.
I agree it is a problem, but by "nothing" I mean the state before UN declaration of human rights, i.e. before 1948. I think we can agree that as of 2021 humanity has made some progress since then?
not sure I follow, we can't create new ecological rights because some countries might do better on them than the US, so the only legitimate rights on the planet are the ones that extend the political power of the United States?
Because you know the exact thing you're afraid of has actually been done in the name of civil liberties and political rights, how many small nations have been crushed in the name of freedom and democracy in the last half century?
Environmental concerns are important, human rights are important too, and they are not comparable. You can't compensate for the lack of human and civil rights by polluting less or buying carbon credits. Putting everything in the "human rights" bucket create an impression that you can.
> You can't compensate for the lack of human and civil rights by polluting less or buying carbon credits.
To an extent, you can – obviously not by buying carbon credits, though. Doing things that actually improve (or, reduce less slowly) the living conditions of humans is comparable to poor living conditions of humans.
I think I have to disagree with that. Human and civil rights are not just about living conditions, it's more about such hard to define thing as respect for human dignity which can be preserved in various conditions.
The iron fist is distant, its motivations hazy. If it stops mixing radioactive-contaminated materials in with the entire country's meat supply, does it matter why?
I think you can to be honest. Or at least, the same accusation works the reverse way, you can't compensate for ecological transgressions by appealing to some other liberty. "our firms pour lead into the river, but we have freedom of speech" is less of a sound argument than it seems to people steeped in that culture.
At least with ecological concerns you can make the case that it is the base layer for all organic life on earth, you can live unfree but you can't live without a biosphere, I actually think it would make some sense for universal human rights to reflect that order of priorities. Recognizing our shared biological reality might be an easier sell for a universal rights framework than some liberal political rights not even shared by a majority of people on the planet.
I agree. Even if you keep it within ecology, entities (companies/countries) have been allowed to focus on CO2 emissions while downplaying particulate emissions, water contamination, etc. “Look at my slick PR campaign. We’ve been buying carbon credits! Just don’t test the water downstream from our Chinese factory. “
If you declare too many things to a "human right" it removes wiggle room for good policy making.
Also, the US already has stronger rules against vehicle pollution than the EU (in terms of pollution that directly damage health like NOx and PM). If it's going to become a "human right" then countries who propose it should be leading it in the first place.
Generally the rules are stronger and the (post sale) enforcement is weaker (because turning the screws on the poors over a check engine light isn't as tractable for us as it is for Europe, generally speaking).
The discovery of cheating by European manufacturers regarding emissions happened in America.
But yes, the little guy can drive with a check engine light in my state without worries.
> Generally the rules are stronger and the enforcement is weaker (because turning the screws on the poors over a check engine light isn't as tractable for us as it is for Europe, generally speaking).
To be fair the amount of Diesel cars on the road in the EU with abhorrently poor emission systems is shocking; I was at VW during dieselgate, and worked with Bosch and VW during the buy-back program and VW are by far the only violators in the EU and in the periphery countries for lacking emission standards.
I was behind mid 2010s diesel Opel for ~35km on my way to Slovenia and I have been in enclosed green houses with diesel tractors so I'm pretty sensitive to it, and it was so absurd that such a thing was allowed on the road.
Typical check engine light failures (P14X/0420) are susceptible to modifications to pass if you know what you are doing, visual inspection isn't always as stringent as you'd think even with the STAR test sites in CA, which has the strictest emission laws in the World. When I was in motorsports we had a series of people we could rely on to pass our respective track-built machines on the road, but ultimately you realize that it's not worth the time, resources or risk and that the car (if properly built) no longer belongs on the road anyway.
As an environmentalist who has struggled with addictions to 'car-caine' I've since downsized from a revolving inventory of 5-6 cars, and 3 motorcycles to one of each: what I think is even tougher is to actually make sensible policy and regulation regarding them without it being simply a way induce needless consumption.
Case in point is the absurd World of the 2-3rd Gen Prius used car market and the catalytic converters, which has always had a lot of theft since it was released but have reached an Worldwide [0] extreme this year due to the astronomical rise in PM prices for those metals (inflationary pressure more than demand) so coupled with the supply chain shortages from Toyota and the rise in sudden demand many cars which were in compliance and within emission specs were simply scrapped because when Toyota couldn't deliver there was no other certified manufacturer for the part and something as simple not having a Toyota stamp was an automatic failure.
Even though some owners reported emission testing within spec of counties within WA or OR which have less stringent standards than CA but still worth noting their compliance. Their insurance policies payout wouldn't cover a similar ranged car purchase and the only alternative was to sell it out of state and use that sum (usually half the cost of properly registered Prius in CA) and to buy another used one.
The whole US. I found it hard to believe how little diesel emissions are regulated in the EU, especially after the huge deal made of VW testing scandal.
For all of the rhetoric, I'd have thought the issue was more strenuously regulated.
The UN doesn't really have any teeth. It has always been a cat's paw for its most powerful and wealthy members. It's sort of a zombie institution that failed at the onset of the Korean War, but that has been kept alive in a state of undeath since then for various reasons.
One thing it does is to buttress the fictive sovereignty of all these hundreds of "nations" which are not actually sovereign or independent, but enjoy promoting the notion that they are out of the belief that it makes the citizens more spirited. If the people believe that the 'new boss' is the people, rather than the 'same boss as the old boss,' they're less likely to revolt or otherwise be demoralized. That's the theory, but it's one of those things where the people who are supposed to 'get the joke' no longer get the joke, so it leads to a lot of confusion and muddled thinking on the topic.
The moment that any "nation" asserts sovereignty independent of the 'international community,' the fiction is exposed. There are only a small number of countries actually capable of asserting sovereignty and the US is one of them, China's another.
This is unhelpful whataboutery. China isn't directly relevant. I could just as truthfully point out that the USA is a disgusting bully and that would be unhelpful too.
We wouldn't think it reasonable if someone on trial for embezzlement asked the jury to acquit because there are other people out in the world committing murder.
We only put up with it in news and politics because we have normalized and accepted propaganda.
US does these things, its just not highlighted front page material in American press when it happens, so it goes unnoticed to American populations unlike when adversaries like Russia fly bombers near Alaska.
Also US conducted similar maneuvers as what China did to Taiwan but to Iraq preceeding the Iraq invasion.
Tit for tat or a part of a consistent NATO combat exercises? If this is the new norm for a Chinese excercise, they clearly are overcompensating: a fleet of them versus a trio of bombers.
It does as the sibling commenter pointed out, furthemore it used to fly bombers with nuclear warheads around the clock, nearly bombing itself and its allies numerous times in the process.
No, you should confront and fix child prostitution. Your argument is entirely dismissive of the huge problem with trafficking of children. Why are China and the environment the only things you you care about? /s
> This is unhelpful whataboutery. China isn't directly relevant.
It is. Because it is one of the biggest threats to human rights and to a clean environment. If UN can't tackle China, they are feckless, but of course we all know this. This is a stick to beat the west with while China and Russia and the new axis of evil get to keep running rough-shot over the rest of the world.
>Because it is one of the biggest threats to human rights and to a clean environment.
So China just almost caught up to Europe as far as CO2 emissions per capita goes and is nowhere close to the US whilst putting measures to reverse the trend.
That comparison used to be ridiculous just a few decades ago when they were comparatively massively underdeveloped.
Often this involves the whole blame-shifting where one poses one shouldn't do anything because there's someone doing less/worse. But in this case it's not even true. Not even if they lied about their numbers by
> So China just almost caught up to Europe as far as CO2 emissions per capita goes and is nowhere close to the US whilst putting measures to reverse the trend
I said clean environment. Not sure why you are changing the subject, but lets see:
> Geographically we see that the majority of the most polluting rivers are located in Asia. River Yangtze, the top polluting river, had an input of approximately 333,000 tonnes in 2015 — over 4 percent of annual ocean plastic pollution.
> Often this involves the whole blame-shifting
Okay but then just don't shift the blame from countries that threatens a clean environment to countries that do not.
Sure, how to you explain the WTO and the IMF?
7 billion people in the world are already ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats. But it's ok if it's for profit and not human rights, I guess.
I think both are bad. Have you ever met someone who dislikes the UN but loves the WTO and IMF? I think you're arguing against a strawman with this comment
If I had to guess, it's because China is one of the most notoriously polluted countries that are also on the security council that will oversee this bill. While the United States and UK are pretty much guaranteed to veto, I think a lot of people are interpreting China as the swing vote here.
According to the article, Russia also opposes it in the current form. Doesn’t really matter since it’s non binding and there’s no hope of this being ratified by the US Congress.
Translation: USA and Britian are big on globalization, and they don't want to be held accountable for any collateral damage.
That is, for example, the Beijing smog, well those countries own a fair percentage of that. Off-shoring manufacturing isn't only about cost of labour. It's also about less (environmental) regulation.
The USA is fond of highlighting it's progress on the environment, but it consistently fails to mention the problem wasn't solved, but most often simply off-shore'd. We also love to present as taking the high road on human rights. Something like this would ruin that (false*) narrative.
This article is weirdly devoid of relevant information about the objections. They mention legal concerns from Washington but don’t explain them for some reason.
I’m also very confused about this line about halfway down the article:
> The United States is not currently a Council member but is vying for a seat and can still join debates as an observer.
Are they saying that the US isn’t even a voting member of the council making the decision? It seems like a huge exaggeration to say the US is interfering with the resolution when they’re not even voting yes or no on it.
Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN.
> They mention legal concerns from Washington but don’t explain them for some reason.
Odds are they haven't actually been spelled out because they amount to "it'll cause huge disruptions to business because they'll all suddenly be suable for their decades of environmental damages". The government is maximally vague on these things so it's harder to actually refute.
> Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN.
That's not correct. The general assembly can adopt resolutions and is meant to adopt resolutions by itself. Those resolutions are non-binding however.
The security council needs to agree if the resolution touches on security relevant topics. And the security council is the only UN organ that can issue binding resolutions.
Was going to say this and I'll further add that the GP, when referencing US or UK objections, is referring to the veto power that the permanent members of the security council, often referred to as P5, have on security council resolutions. Any one P5 member can veto to block the adoption of security council resolutions.
My bad, so they don't do anything because the only source of a resolution with any actual teeth China has power over. That's on top of the other stuff like the economic reliance on China for a lot of manufactured goods around the world.
China has also spent a lot of time pouring loans and projects (often extractive) into small poor countries through Belt and Roads giving them a fair amount of power in the general assembly because each country gets a single vote in the GA.
> "At national level, this right has been shown to empower people, particularly those most vulnerable to environmental damage or climate change, to drive change and hold governments to account"
Right, so one of the consequences would be that the US gives a bunch of activists permission to use the legal system to harass anything that they like — not just new projects, but everything that exists in the world. Perhaps we could go all Keystone XL on some Google data center for polluting the world with CO2 and global warming. You don't even need to believe in the cause, you just need to hate Google.
Meanwhile nations like China spewing godawful particulates all over Shanghai will surely WILL FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND ALLOW THE LITTLE GUY TO SPEAK UP AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THEIR STATE RUN INDUSTRY. Mmmhmm.
it's all stupid power games in the end, and this is NOT an effective way to get kids out of the NYCHA apartments slathered with lead paint (to use a local example)
So because China won’t follow the rules, they shouldn’t exist and we should all spew as many particulates in the air as we can? Those activists are the only thing standing up for the interests of the people; the corporations have all the pull in the legislative world.
Nihilism is a good way to justify acting against the common good, which is exactly why we need more drastic positive action against climate change. China will do what it’s gonna do, but we can choose a better path for ourselves.
How does china building nuclear imply that they are not ignoring climate change? They could recognize that nuclear is a better source of power than coal, which most people would, and still not give a damn about the environment and/or climate change.
This is it exactly. Western country have to actually follow the international laws that are put into place. Countries like China just have to claim they follow the laws.
I think we need to take a deep breath and look at our own abuse of the planet. Sadly, even advanced European countries like Italy and Switzerland were found to have participated in toxic dumping in Somalia. https://theecologist.org/2009/mar/01/somalia-used-toxic-dump...
After China stopped accepting plastic waste, we discovered that almost all of the developed nations weren't actually recycling plastic but in reality just dumping it in developing countries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/28/treated-...
The simple truth is that developed countries aren't exactly following the laws we put into place ourselves when it turns out they inconvenience us.
But I see all the time US bullying other countries with sanctions, US could for example stop doing business with China until UN guys are happy with human rights , but at the same time US should allow UN guys to verify human rights condition in US too(including the secret torture places and also the suspicious suicide cases of incommode people).
I am disgusted by human rights demands only from China but not from "US partners" that are doing maybe even worse (like not offering equal rights for women or killing gay people with stones). I would have more respect if you equally condemn everyone or just shut up and fix your local issues .
Is that a joke? Most "western" countries have wiped their asses with international laws. Be it illegal wars, illegal kidnappings and torture (US), illegal deportations and violations of international agreements signed months prior(UK), bombing a neutral ship in a foreign country ( France), etc. etc. The examples are too numerous to list, but here's some academic material just for the US:
Your missing my point. Your comment is exactly why the US doesn't want these type of rules. The US is held accountable by people in the US. China doesn't allow that. So yes, the US breaks (maybe bends? I'm sure you could find lawyers that would say none of these are against international law) but them gets domestic blow back for it. China doesn't.
> Meanwhile nations like China spewing godawful particulates all over Shanghai will surely WILL FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND ALLOW THE LITTLE GUY TO SPEAK UP AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THEIR STATE RUN INDUSTRY. Mmmhmm.
The article makes no mention of China, I'm wondering where this idea is coming from? Can you have a good faith discussion about anything political without going so far out of your way to smear the DPRC? Is it possible to accept responsibility without pointing fingers at others?
The DPRC has only been an industrial power for the past 30-40 years, 70+ years after the western industrial boom - Western nations had already put astronauts/cosmonauts in space. If you feel your country isn't accountable for anything, then argue your point because this finger pointing isn't helping anyone nor is it interesting.
Undoubtedly much of the electorate would agree with you(very much including many in the ruling Party and supporters) but why not be specific? Which particular lousy policies?
As a US tax payer, I'd like to see the expense of supporting that entity move to some other nation state...we get zero value out of having it in CONUS, and it can't move the needle on anything.
Just because you want something doesn't make it a human right.
A healthy environment for people is arguably a human right.
A clean environment is not, and pathetic mental health arguments do not cut it else everyone gets whatever makes them happy.
Biodiversity is also not a human right. Have we lost our minds and not understand English words? I guess the UN has become joke and the US and Britian are correct to ignore it.
It's pretty disgusting behaviour give the billions of people missing real human rights still.
This would be the ultimate blocking right to any large scale environmental engineering and change. But we will need that ability for change, the latest in a billion years or so...
I don't understand the short-term, anti-growth thinking that has taken hold in recent years (we have been there before with forecasts of impending doom, of course).
A "clean" environment is so subjective and temporal, I don't understand how it can be a "human" right... Why does UN keep digging into this hole of irrelevancy and bs?
Who is to provide, say, "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family", which is also a basic human right, as listed by the original (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights[0]?
The fact that there's nobody to provide it, doesn't mean that it's not a basic human right.
I think people take issue with rights that must be provided by some external party because if said external party is not providing said rights, what do they really mean? Part of the argument is that human rights should only include "rules" that say what cannot be done to you, like us-style free speech, where the government cannot put you in prison just for saying something they don't like.
What about rights like the right to freedom from slavery or torture which, on the one hand, are about things not being done to you, but on the other may depend on third parties (for instance a government) from preventing people from doing these things to you?
The declaration on human rights is not really government-centric, so the US-style free speech comparison makes little sense.
> what do they really mean?
They're a yardstick to measure how well we as humanity, and, more specifically particular regions or systems, measure up to what we, as humanity, consider to be the things that every human should (expect to) have. (Sorry for the bombasity.)
For instance, if we lived in a libertarian/anarchist utopia, with no government, it would still make sense to ask whether people's human rights were being met.
All rights subjective and temporal. Just take the question of freedom of speech, and how that evolves in time, how it varies between countries (even between allied countries, such as the US and Canada).
One could argue that the desire for an increased level of comfort of one set of people should not happen at the detriment of the right to clean water, for example, of another set of people. Many countries will have their own standards, or their own double-standards. I think it's a very relevant debate.
There's a difference between a right, which is an expression of an ideal — what a person may not be deprived of by virtue of being human — and how protection for that right is implemented in practice under different governments. That is, the varying extents to which governments respect a given right doesn't mean the right differs by country, only that those governments disagree on how to infringe on it.
We might then agree that "the protection of rights is subjective and temporal". I think the basic argument still holds: such topics should be debated :)
As in this case, the "right" to clean water (or any other exhaustible resource) makes no sense -- at least if described in such blunt terms.
Hypothetically, what happens in a drought, when there is no water for anyone? Have your rights been violated? If so, by whom?
If it's rather described as a right to nondiscrimination in the distribution of clean water (with respect to some set of properties, which could include wealth or ability to pay, but likely couldn't include large-scale geographic location due to distribution logistics), then that actually starts to make sense and can be realistically debated.
You're raising interesting questions. It's a hard topic, but I think it's inevitable that we will have to tackle some of those questions. Sometimes we want to avoid a debate because we don't know the solution, but a good debate helps us find a solution.
Not trying to deflect, just disagreeing with the OP's comment that such debates are BS.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I know this isn't part of the Bill of Rights, but the idea that humans have a right to life isn't very controversial. If there were a situation where the water ran out in an isolated town, and the local government had a big water tower with enough clean drinking water for everyone, we'd absolutely say the people have a "right" to that water.
There are fringe cases, sure, but if people are going to literally die without a thing, and the government has the capacity to provide it, and the government is actually "by the people, of the, people for the people," I think the people have a right to that thing by extension.
Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such.
So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight, to weaken human rights as a whole. But it could just as easily have been about something else, like the "right to development", which has been pushed by authoritarian countries for years.
Sounds like this is why we can't have nice things!
I'm pretty clueless when it comes to diplomacy. What is the drive for authoritarians? How do you negotiate with them, or otherwise limit their influence? (and is that desirable?).
Legitimizing their own models of governance, both internationally and domestically, would be their main driver in multilateral settings. In some cases, such as the ITU, it could also be about getting technical norms approved that mirror their state goals (https://www.justsecurity.org/75741/chinas-dystopian-new-ip-p...)
Where are there any reports that discuss concerns such as these? E.g. why is it hard to find the argument for why environmental rights could be at odds with civil rights?
I'm always curious how diplomats and politicians regard the "rights" in the U.N. declaration of human rights. They don't conform to a defensible set of natural rights (even if it's agreed that such things exist), so are they considered a goal or a declaration of how the UN thinks people should live? Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Or that they represent quite a specific ideological viewpoint in many cases. Or that some rights seem to conflict with other rights? In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to.
> Does it matter that few UN members conform to them?
Does anything the UN does matter? I don't mean that in a flippant/sarcastic way. The "teeth" of the UN is ostensibly the UN Security Council, which runs on vetoes by interests that are practically never aligned. It seems to provide cover for US policy, and when it can't serve that purpose the US does what it wants anyway either with NATO or by itself.
> In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to.
The stated point of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to prevent the need for constant Declarations of Independence through violent revolution.
Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications.
The history is that western democracies generally emphasized civil rights while poorer countries social rights. This “evened the playing field” to play off rights against each other. For example one can claim that it’s been necessary to to limit certain civil rights to improve the situation of social rights. (Take away the farms and give them to the workers).
> (Take away the farms and give them to the workers).
Why not just adopt the damn land value tax or just do plain old ground leases? Come on. Why does everything have to be solved with some stupid repossession thing where people get free shit that they don't want to take care of?
> Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature
How about a right to live in a community free of external interference—a stronger version of the right to self-determination? You could argue that it would prevent acts of external aggression, but it could also be used to prevent aid when a nation's people are being oppressed.
It wouldn't be so much about the rights themselves being authoritarian, but that opening up the framework for renegotiation would weaken existing norms. You could, for instance, almost be certain that some countries would like to put more limits to freedom of expression.
I do not understand this framing. Not joking, it's just... how exactly does proposing a right to not live drenched in poison present a slippery slope like the one you're proposing?
Procedurally, I mean. Presumably the same mechanisms used to vote for/against this could be used to prevent terrible people from pushing for terrible things?
Hey I'm not a diplomat but I believe the problem with this specific problem is that in the the case of 'right to clean environment' how to you protect your rights? Do you sue your neighbor for litter or the company down the street for emissions? How do you prove that emissions are out of control? Also how do developing nations who may not have the legal strength who are just as affected by pollution from developed nations exercise their rights?
Now the question of a slippery slope could be that with a right to clean environment developed nations could stifle growth and innovation in developing nations citing clean environment worries (maybe Nigeria and oil). This could go way deeper than oil however as any country trying to harvest any sort of natural resource can face scrutiny and potential action. In an extreme example developed nations could then say 'we will mine these resources because we can do it less intensively' robbing nations of potential nation building revenue. How would you combat this? Maybe a 'right to develop' and boom rights dilution and authoritative in nature. Perhaps am extreme example but extreme isn't too far with people involved.
This being the UN, I don't think there's going to be many legal intricacies because it's mostly a debate forum with little to no strings attached. Even ICC rulings serve more of a ceremonial/PR role than an actual court ruling: The world has judged you and very publicly found you guilty of stuff, but it's really up to the Security Council countries' own governing bodies to do something about that.
As things stand, what this decision does is make it look like the UK has a vested interest in polluting the world, which makes exactly 0 sense to me from a foreign policy POV: this is not something countries want to look like they stand for.
Hence my asking, I just can't make the decision or the arguments behind it make sense?
It's all wankery anyway. A member of the UN only care about "human rights" (or anything else the UN votes on) until it conflicts with the member's self-interest.
The UN is a diplomatic discussion forum and place to organize joint projects. It's an anarchy, not a not a government.
Maybe also working for the US or the UK? If everyone in the UN is in agreement what is the problem? If In the future you don’t agree with other human rights then don’t approve them but don’t claim that you’d love to vote for this resolution but that would somehow force you to also vote for another one down the line, that is not how it works.
We could vote against another proposal, but opening up the framework of human rights for renegotiation would be a substantial thing to do, and would set a precedent. Not working for the US or the UK.
It doesn't mean that they can never be established, it just means that in the current international political climate, there is very little interest from democratic states to open it up, since the consequences could be so vast. If the world was nicer and everyone were friends it would be easy.
I believe the part about authoritarians trying to trojan horse bills that erode our rights disguised as unobjectionable bills. We see it all the time with bills that restrict our right to privacy disguised as anti-child porn legislation. People who come out in favor of the 4th amendment are painted as vile criminals.
That said, I don't see how it works in this instance. Care to elaborate?
My thought was that the "right" to a "clean environment" is, itself, a gift to authoritarians who will immediately use it to enact more taxes and restrict movement.
Democracies criticize authoritarian country for torture which violates human rights.
Authoritarian country criticizes democracies for environmental “crimes” which violates human rights. Says they have no right to criticize since they also violate human rights.
Massive whatsboutism that detracts from the important issues.
Do you have an example of this? I mean, there's a pretty good case to be made that the US and the companies it supports and enables are guilty of some serious environmental crimes that majorly contribute to climate change and negatively impact people's health. Climate change is an existential issue. How do we decide that other countries are engaging in whataboutism by bringing things like that up as opposed to us engaging in whataboutism to distract from our refusal to take meaningful action on environmental issues that directly impact people across the globe?
You complain to the authorities about your (poor) neighbor because he beats his children in the front yard.
He complains to the authorities that you fly on a jet a few times a year, contributing to climate change. He never flies, you see (because he can't afford it).
He promises to stop beating his children once you stop flying.
The authorities are forced to admit that this is a fair proposal, as both beating children and flying on jets are violations of human rights. No deal is struck, you continue flying on jets, he continues beating his children, knowing that what little leverage the neighborhood had over him has been lost.
It'd be a better analogy to say he complains about you flooding his yard or setting trees in the park on fire. The way you worded it diminished the US' contribution, which is almost 4x the global avg per capita.
That aside, whoever speaks second appears to be the one accused of engaging in whataboutism. Just make the neighbor complain first, and then you're the one doing a whataboutism.
Both of those aside, the authorities aren't forced to conflate two separate issues and begrudgingly support the status quo. Both can and should have consequences.
> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such.
It occurs to me that this same argument can be used against anything that ought to be enshrined at the UN as a human right. An obvious example being loving who you want without regard to sex or gender.
Take the right you just proposed. Why is it limited to a “who”? Why is it linked to sex or gender? Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Does love need to be reciprocated?
What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
"Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at.
> Why is it linked to sex or gender?
Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times.
Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own.
> Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right?
Age differences would have made for a better example here. But my answer would be that this question is that it frankly doesn't matter for my example. I.e., one does not need to answer the question of "how many people should we allow someone to marry" to answer the question of "should people be allowed to marry someone with the same genitals as themselves". Indeed, our global reality reflects that.
> What’s the fundamental human right?
What I previously stated: "loving who you want without regard to sex or gender". Notice that it does not say "without regard to singular vs plural love" or "without regard to reciprocation" or anything else.
> Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
That's... how it works.
We (or at least Western society) don't enshrine rights into laws and constitutions until we realize something we ought to be allowed to do freely is being unduly infringed upon. That's a process that doesn't stop.
We should be worried when we stop "discovering" new rights, not the other way around. Humanity has yet to produce a generation that "has it all figured out" with respect to fundamental rights, and there is no reason to assume we ever will.
You’ve missed the point of my post: the right you proposed has arbitrary limits which don’t seem to be justifiable under any logical framework and defending the position is untenable. Why are these limits here? If an authoritarian regime prefers to say take away or add a limit (“well the real human right is a right to love and I want to love as many people as I can with or without their consent”) then how do we morally justify denying their interpretation of a poorly developed human right while trying to advance our own interpretation?
We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.
There are horizontal issues to every resolution, and every resolution is written in a context. If you open up for environmental crimes, then some country will want to open up for "illegal speech" directed towards the state.
> Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such.
In the US, TSCA grandfathered-in thousands of chemicals without any evidence of safety for purely economic reasons. Also, new substances aren't required to be tested for safety beforehand, so it's a "closing the barn door after the cow escaped" situation.
UN can't even provide the very first human right, the freedom of expression. Neither can prevent acts of illegal war. Hence, this is just cheap populism exploiting current hype on "green" agenda.
151 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] thread(Of course, this is the problem with the traditional synechdoche of a country name for the policy of one particular government at one particular point of time...)
They probably have more coal plants than anyone else in the world too.
Citing raw numbers is pointless when China is involved since everything is so numerous there.
At least it proves that this statement is untrue.
That's a strong and outright ludicrous statement. The UN's highest body, the Security Council, has 5 permanent security members with veto powers, which includes the UK and US ( alongside China, Russia, France). So China doesn't have any more power over the UN compared to the US.
> using clean environment as an attack on them while China does nothing to address their environmental impact.
China is adressing their environmental impact - most notably in electricity generation where they're replacing coal power plants.
The whole point of this article is that two not China counties are flexing that veto authority and won't hesitate to use it to stop this measure.
Totally makes sense to me really. It's just enables genocidal dictatorships to go full "what about" when called out for their crimes. Yes, we just exterminated a small nation, but look how much U.S. companies pollute!
That already happens, and it already doesn’t stop sanctions and other consequences, from my limited understanding of geopolitics.
The UN would be doing the same thing if this context were to become real. Nobody will be inspecting China, Russia or 37 other dictatorships for environmental human rights abuses.
Because you know the exact thing you're afraid of has actually been done in the name of civil liberties and political rights, how many small nations have been crushed in the name of freedom and democracy in the last half century?
To an extent, you can – obviously not by buying carbon credits, though. Doing things that actually improve (or, reduce less slowly) the living conditions of humans is comparable to poor living conditions of humans.
At least with ecological concerns you can make the case that it is the base layer for all organic life on earth, you can live unfree but you can't live without a biosphere, I actually think it would make some sense for universal human rights to reflect that order of priorities. Recognizing our shared biological reality might be an easier sell for a universal rights framework than some liberal political rights not even shared by a majority of people on the planet.
Also, the US already has stronger rules against vehicle pollution than the EU (in terms of pollution that directly damage health like NOx and PM). If it's going to become a "human right" then countries who propose it should be leading it in the first place.
The whole US or only same states?
To be fair the amount of Diesel cars on the road in the EU with abhorrently poor emission systems is shocking; I was at VW during dieselgate, and worked with Bosch and VW during the buy-back program and VW are by far the only violators in the EU and in the periphery countries for lacking emission standards.
I was behind mid 2010s diesel Opel for ~35km on my way to Slovenia and I have been in enclosed green houses with diesel tractors so I'm pretty sensitive to it, and it was so absurd that such a thing was allowed on the road.
Typical check engine light failures (P14X/0420) are susceptible to modifications to pass if you know what you are doing, visual inspection isn't always as stringent as you'd think even with the STAR test sites in CA, which has the strictest emission laws in the World. When I was in motorsports we had a series of people we could rely on to pass our respective track-built machines on the road, but ultimately you realize that it's not worth the time, resources or risk and that the car (if properly built) no longer belongs on the road anyway.
As an environmentalist who has struggled with addictions to 'car-caine' I've since downsized from a revolving inventory of 5-6 cars, and 3 motorcycles to one of each: what I think is even tougher is to actually make sensible policy and regulation regarding them without it being simply a way induce needless consumption.
Case in point is the absurd World of the 2-3rd Gen Prius used car market and the catalytic converters, which has always had a lot of theft since it was released but have reached an Worldwide [0] extreme this year due to the astronomical rise in PM prices for those metals (inflationary pressure more than demand) so coupled with the supply chain shortages from Toyota and the rise in sudden demand many cars which were in compliance and within emission specs were simply scrapped because when Toyota couldn't deliver there was no other certified manufacturer for the part and something as simple not having a Toyota stamp was an automatic failure.
Even though some owners reported emission testing within spec of counties within WA or OR which have less stringent standards than CA but still worth noting their compliance. Their insurance policies payout wouldn't cover a similar ranged car purchase and the only alternative was to sell it out of state and use that sum (usually half the cost of properly registered Prius in CA) and to buy another used one.
0: https://www.hotcars.com/heres-why-prius-catalytic-converter-...
For all of the rhetoric, I'd have thought the issue was more strenuously regulated.
One thing it does is to buttress the fictive sovereignty of all these hundreds of "nations" which are not actually sovereign or independent, but enjoy promoting the notion that they are out of the belief that it makes the citizens more spirited. If the people believe that the 'new boss' is the people, rather than the 'same boss as the old boss,' they're less likely to revolt or otherwise be demoralized. That's the theory, but it's one of those things where the people who are supposed to 'get the joke' no longer get the joke, so it leads to a lot of confusion and muddled thinking on the topic.
The moment that any "nation" asserts sovereignty independent of the 'international community,' the fiction is exposed. There are only a small number of countries actually capable of asserting sovereignty and the US is one of them, China's another.
The UN is a joke. Something should be done.
That is the way the UN was originally set up. The UN has no instruments of its own to enforce anything.
We wouldn't think it reasonable if someone on trial for embezzlement asked the jury to acquit because there are other people out in the world committing murder.
We only put up with it in news and politics because we have normalized and accepted propaganda.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/russia-mig-31-...
US does these things, its just not highlighted front page material in American press when it happens, so it goes unnoticed to American populations unlike when adversaries like Russia fly bombers near Alaska.
Also US conducted similar maneuvers as what China did to Taiwan but to Iraq preceeding the Iraq invasion.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MoNDefense/status/144397595657879...
This was a routine Chinese air patrol that got propagandized by the US.
It is. Because it is one of the biggest threats to human rights and to a clean environment. If UN can't tackle China, they are feckless, but of course we all know this. This is a stick to beat the west with while China and Russia and the new axis of evil get to keep running rough-shot over the rest of the world.
So China just almost caught up to Europe as far as CO2 emissions per capita goes and is nowhere close to the US whilst putting measures to reverse the trend. That comparison used to be ridiculous just a few decades ago when they were comparatively massively underdeveloped.
Often this involves the whole blame-shifting where one poses one shouldn't do anything because there's someone doing less/worse. But in this case it's not even true. Not even if they lied about their numbers by
I said clean environment. Not sure why you are changing the subject, but lets see:
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#top-20-river-so...
> Geographically we see that the majority of the most polluting rivers are located in Asia. River Yangtze, the top polluting river, had an input of approximately 333,000 tonnes in 2015 — over 4 percent of annual ocean plastic pollution.
> Often this involves the whole blame-shifting
Okay but then just don't shift the blame from countries that threatens a clean environment to countries that do not.
7 billion people in the world and they should all be ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats???
I hope that day never comes.
For WTO, no army is going to invade because you didn’t remove tariffs.
It's just as relevant as your comment.
I had to ctrl+shift+F the webpage to see if I missed something on the Reuters article relating to China.
What does Chinese policy on human rights have anything to do with the above mentioned article?
That is, for example, the Beijing smog, well those countries own a fair percentage of that. Off-shoring manufacturing isn't only about cost of labour. It's also about less (environmental) regulation.
The USA is fond of highlighting it's progress on the environment, but it consistently fails to mention the problem wasn't solved, but most often simply off-shore'd. We also love to present as taking the high road on human rights. Something like this would ruin that (false*) narrative.
* The USA's incarceration rate comes to mind.
I’m also very confused about this line about halfway down the article:
> The United States is not currently a Council member but is vying for a seat and can still join debates as an observer.
Are they saying that the US isn’t even a voting member of the council making the decision? It seems like a huge exaggeration to say the US is interfering with the resolution when they’re not even voting yes or no on it.
> They mention legal concerns from Washington but don’t explain them for some reason.
Odds are they haven't actually been spelled out because they amount to "it'll cause huge disruptions to business because they'll all suddenly be suable for their decades of environmental damages". The government is maximally vague on these things so it's harder to actually refute.
That's not correct. The general assembly can adopt resolutions and is meant to adopt resolutions by itself. Those resolutions are non-binding however.
The security council needs to agree if the resolution touches on security relevant topics. And the security council is the only UN organ that can issue binding resolutions.
China has also spent a lot of time pouring loans and projects (often extractive) into small poor countries through Belt and Roads giving them a fair amount of power in the general assembly because each country gets a single vote in the GA.
Right, so one of the consequences would be that the US gives a bunch of activists permission to use the legal system to harass anything that they like — not just new projects, but everything that exists in the world. Perhaps we could go all Keystone XL on some Google data center for polluting the world with CO2 and global warming. You don't even need to believe in the cause, you just need to hate Google.
Meanwhile nations like China spewing godawful particulates all over Shanghai will surely WILL FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND ALLOW THE LITTLE GUY TO SPEAK UP AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THEIR STATE RUN INDUSTRY. Mmmhmm.
it's all stupid power games in the end, and this is NOT an effective way to get kids out of the NYCHA apartments slathered with lead paint (to use a local example)
Nihilism is a good way to justify acting against the common good, which is exactly why we need more drastic positive action against climate change. China will do what it’s gonna do, but we can choose a better path for ourselves.
After China stopped accepting plastic waste, we discovered that almost all of the developed nations weren't actually recycling plastic but in reality just dumping it in developing countries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/28/treated-...
The simple truth is that developed countries aren't exactly following the laws we put into place ourselves when it turns out they inconvenience us.
I am disgusted by human rights demands only from China but not from "US partners" that are doing maybe even worse (like not offering equal rights for women or killing gay people with stones). I would have more respect if you equally condemn everyone or just shut up and fix your local issues .
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766228
The article makes no mention of China, I'm wondering where this idea is coming from? Can you have a good faith discussion about anything political without going so far out of your way to smear the DPRC? Is it possible to accept responsibility without pointing fingers at others?
The DPRC has only been an industrial power for the past 30-40 years, 70+ years after the western industrial boom - Western nations had already put astronauts/cosmonauts in space. If you feel your country isn't accountable for anything, then argue your point because this finger pointing isn't helping anyone nor is it interesting.
Not compared to the U.N.
Just look at who sits on Human Rights council.
As a US tax payer, I'd like to see the expense of supporting that entity move to some other nation state...we get zero value out of having it in CONUS, and it can't move the needle on anything.
A healthy environment for people is arguably a human right.
A clean environment is not, and pathetic mental health arguments do not cut it else everyone gets whatever makes them happy.
Biodiversity is also not a human right. Have we lost our minds and not understand English words? I guess the UN has become joke and the US and Britian are correct to ignore it.
It's pretty disgusting behaviour give the billions of people missing real human rights still.
I don't understand the short-term, anti-growth thinking that has taken hold in recent years (we have been there before with forecasts of impending doom, of course).
Do the various statements, proposals, and policies make more sense?
The fact that there's nobody to provide it, doesn't mean that it's not a basic human right.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
The UDHR is an aspirational document that has no legal force in and of itself.
The declaration on human rights is not really government-centric, so the US-style free speech comparison makes little sense.
> what do they really mean?
They're a yardstick to measure how well we as humanity, and, more specifically particular regions or systems, measure up to what we, as humanity, consider to be the things that every human should (expect to) have. (Sorry for the bombasity.)
For instance, if we lived in a libertarian/anarchist utopia, with no government, it would still make sense to ask whether people's human rights were being met.
Look at the debate around making Internet access a right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
Same debate around free healthcare et al, which last time I checked somebody had to provide.
One could argue that the desire for an increased level of comfort of one set of people should not happen at the detriment of the right to clean water, for example, of another set of people. Many countries will have their own standards, or their own double-standards. I think it's a very relevant debate.
Hypothetically, what happens in a drought, when there is no water for anyone? Have your rights been violated? If so, by whom?
If it's rather described as a right to nondiscrimination in the distribution of clean water (with respect to some set of properties, which could include wealth or ability to pay, but likely couldn't include large-scale geographic location due to distribution logistics), then that actually starts to make sense and can be realistically debated.
Not trying to deflect, just disagreeing with the OP's comment that such debates are BS.
If the government had a reasonable way of preventing that and didn't, I'd say yes. Otherwise, no.
> If so, by whom?
By whoever was in charge of maintaining your water supply (government again), or nobody if this wasn't doable.
A government violates your rights when it fails to take action to protect them.
I know this isn't part of the Bill of Rights, but the idea that humans have a right to life isn't very controversial. If there were a situation where the water ran out in an isolated town, and the local government had a big water tower with enough clean drinking water for everyone, we'd absolutely say the people have a "right" to that water.
There are fringe cases, sure, but if people are going to literally die without a thing, and the government has the capacity to provide it, and the government is actually "by the people, of the, people for the people," I think the people have a right to that thing by extension.
So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight, to weaken human rights as a whole. But it could just as easily have been about something else, like the "right to development", which has been pushed by authoritarian countries for years.
I'm pretty clueless when it comes to diplomacy. What is the drive for authoritarians? How do you negotiate with them, or otherwise limit their influence? (and is that desirable?).
Does anything the UN does matter? I don't mean that in a flippant/sarcastic way. The "teeth" of the UN is ostensibly the UN Security Council, which runs on vetoes by interests that are practically never aligned. It seems to provide cover for US policy, and when it can't serve that purpose the US does what it wants anyway either with NATO or by itself.
The stated point of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to prevent the need for constant Declarations of Independence through violent revolution.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...
The history is that western democracies generally emphasized civil rights while poorer countries social rights. This “evened the playing field” to play off rights against each other. For example one can claim that it’s been necessary to to limit certain civil rights to improve the situation of social rights. (Take away the farms and give them to the workers).
Why not just adopt the damn land value tax or just do plain old ground leases? Come on. Why does everything have to be solved with some stupid repossession thing where people get free shit that they don't want to take care of?
How about a right to live in a community free of external interference—a stronger version of the right to self-determination? You could argue that it would prevent acts of external aggression, but it could also be used to prevent aid when a nation's people are being oppressed.
Procedurally, I mean. Presumably the same mechanisms used to vote for/against this could be used to prevent terrible people from pushing for terrible things?
Now the question of a slippery slope could be that with a right to clean environment developed nations could stifle growth and innovation in developing nations citing clean environment worries (maybe Nigeria and oil). This could go way deeper than oil however as any country trying to harvest any sort of natural resource can face scrutiny and potential action. In an extreme example developed nations could then say 'we will mine these resources because we can do it less intensively' robbing nations of potential nation building revenue. How would you combat this? Maybe a 'right to develop' and boom rights dilution and authoritative in nature. Perhaps am extreme example but extreme isn't too far with people involved.
As things stand, what this decision does is make it look like the UK has a vested interest in polluting the world, which makes exactly 0 sense to me from a foreign policy POV: this is not something countries want to look like they stand for.
Hence my asking, I just can't make the decision or the arguments behind it make sense?
The UN is a diplomatic discussion forum and place to organize joint projects. It's an anarchy, not a not a government.
Does this mean no new human right can ever be established? And by extension, that the set of human rights currently in the UDHR are "complete"?
(I don't have a strong opinion yet, just found this framing curious...)
I believe the part about authoritarians trying to trojan horse bills that erode our rights disguised as unobjectionable bills. We see it all the time with bills that restrict our right to privacy disguised as anti-child porn legislation. People who come out in favor of the 4th amendment are painted as vile criminals.
That said, I don't see how it works in this instance. Care to elaborate?
Authoritarian country criticizes democracies for environmental “crimes” which violates human rights. Says they have no right to criticize since they also violate human rights.
Massive whatsboutism that detracts from the important issues.
He complains to the authorities that you fly on a jet a few times a year, contributing to climate change. He never flies, you see (because he can't afford it).
He promises to stop beating his children once you stop flying.
The authorities are forced to admit that this is a fair proposal, as both beating children and flying on jets are violations of human rights. No deal is struck, you continue flying on jets, he continues beating his children, knowing that what little leverage the neighborhood had over him has been lost.
That aside, whoever speaks second appears to be the one accused of engaging in whataboutism. Just make the neighbor complain first, and then you're the one doing a whataboutism.
Both of those aside, the authorities aren't forced to conflate two separate issues and begrudgingly support the status quo. Both can and should have consequences.
It occurs to me that this same argument can be used against anything that ought to be enshrined at the UN as a human right. An obvious example being loving who you want without regard to sex or gender.
What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
"Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at.
> Why is it linked to sex or gender?
Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times.
Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own.
> Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right?
Age differences would have made for a better example here. But my answer would be that this question is that it frankly doesn't matter for my example. I.e., one does not need to answer the question of "how many people should we allow someone to marry" to answer the question of "should people be allowed to marry someone with the same genitals as themselves". Indeed, our global reality reflects that.
> What’s the fundamental human right?
What I previously stated: "loving who you want without regard to sex or gender". Notice that it does not say "without regard to singular vs plural love" or "without regard to reciprocation" or anything else.
> Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
That's... how it works.
We (or at least Western society) don't enshrine rights into laws and constitutions until we realize something we ought to be allowed to do freely is being unduly infringed upon. That's a process that doesn't stop.
We should be worried when we stop "discovering" new rights, not the other way around. Humanity has yet to produce a generation that "has it all figured out" with respect to fundamental rights, and there is no reason to assume we ever will.
We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.
Is this a joke? If there is no issue with the resolution itself, then we for sure should accept it.
You mean sorta like... the past 50 years or so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_o...
The UN has no right to give privileges or take away rights.
Globalist scum.