I don’t want to argue about Amnesty International until this discussion about diplomacy is ironed out.
So, this discussion is about the effectiveness of diplomacy. My assertion is that it is not effective, and I asked you to give one or two examples of diplomacy’s shining successes. You mentioned Russia and China, and in support of Russia you provided some non-specific quote from Wiki.
I provided detailed summaries, also from Wiki that the changes in Russia did not occur from diplomacy but rather from the forces of history–in Russia’s case, the showing that the Soviet Army, previously a tool of humanitarian repression, was no longer such a force, and thus the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred. The Central Committee decided without diplomacy to allow its satellites to declare independence.
The fact that both Russia and China are more capitalist does not constitute proof of anything regarding the effectiveness of diplomacy, but it does show that capitalism fosters improvement in human rights. We didn’t discuss China, but I would suggest contract talks with Walmart are more effective than any discussion with the US about policy. I would think Walmart would have a better chance of freeing Tibet than any discussions with the US State Department.
Diplomats are like all politicians, they show up for the photo op, and write snipets in Wiki to pretend that they’ve been effective.
Therefore, if diplomacy is by and large a political scam, ineffective, then it is most definitely not a tool that should be used concerning human rights violations in the world, and your belief that it is the only tool is a sham, and your concern for others is also a sham.
That’s where we are. You seem to be losing focus.
