General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJohn Kerry: Up to Saudi Arabia to decide if women should be allowed to drive
US Secretary of State John Kerry said it was up to Saudi Arabia to decide when the time was right to allow women to drive.
"It's no secret that in the United States of America, we embrace equality for everybody regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification," Kerry said at a press conference in Riyadh.
"But it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decision about its own social structure and other choices, and timing," he added.
Last week, the United States said it supports the "universal rights" of women to drive in Saudi Arabia, after an October weekend protest there saw several women defy the law by taking the steering wheel.
"We support the full inclusion of women in Saudi society. People throughout the world share the same universal rights to assemble and express themselves peacefully," said State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki.
<snip>
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-must-decide/874378.html
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)Response to gopiscrap (Reply #1)
Dash87 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)but what I was getting at was that the rednecks will pop a brain cell, because they feel they need to all up in every nations internal stuff.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I mean, what is the alternative? Invade them, topple their government and grant women the right to drive?
Julie
Matariki
(18,775 posts)and not treating women's human rights lik e some sort of 'cultural' thing.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)Absolutely agree!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)allow women to drive, or make women first class citizens? Do we then bomb Saudi Arabia to save face?
Iggo
(47,565 posts)Ain't gonna happen, but it's be the right thing to do.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Iggo
(47,565 posts)What do you want?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Along with every other country that abuses Women and minorities. John Kerry, of all people, should not be supporting this, or any other type of discrimination against Women. There should be a call for him to change his posture on this, or resign. I won't hold my breath.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You think we should have sanctions on EVERY country that has discrimination against women and minorities? How would that even work?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)At the very least, they should not get anything from us until they treat their people equally. I don't know how it would work, but it would be a start. Kerry should really be ashamed for not standing up a bit more strongly for Women in this case.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It would have been better to say nothing at all but that's an awful lot of countries that you're talking about. I've also found that sanctions often wind up hurting the ones we're trying to help - the leaders always get fed and medicine they need. Believe me, if I could figure out a way to get it done, I think it would be a great idea.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That would be interesting
get the red out
(13,468 posts)How that Saudi Arabian ass tastes?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)His record even went back further than that - he was responsible for setting up the first rape counseling team in a DA's office in MA and he was responsible for hiring a large number of women prosecutors at a point where there were few.
He is NOT supporting SA's policy - he was simply trying to not make it an issue - at a point where he was sent to SA to soothe their anger over Iran, Syria and other issues.
Do you honestly think that a US SoS calling them out - standing with the Prince - would help the women get the rights they want. Note that HRC did NOT take such positions in joint conferences with the Prince - and this is a key issue for her.
His job is to be a diplomat.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A lot of countries are critical of the fact that we have death penalty. And there's also the fact that we haven't ratified a number of human rights treaties..
The US has signed but not ratified the following treaties:
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (signed but not ratified)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (signed but not ratified)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (signed but not ratified)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (signed but not ratified)
We really aren't the best source of criticism.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)We could have had it ratified last year, but the teahadists, led by ol' Frothy Mixture himself, started foaming at the mouth about losing sovereignty and black helicopters and banning homeschooling and stuff, so we didn't. Not even after Bob Dole asked them nicely.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I think it has more to do with fear of getting caught in our failures to walk the talk.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)We have issues here that need to be dealt with.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...Secretary Kerry, I am ashamed of you.
Women's issues are always subsumed by the PTB under terms like "social structure", therefore sweeping abuses under the rug.
All I would have expected were a few pointed words to the effect that not allowing women to drive is a human rights violation and we expect our allies to do better.
But of course when you get right down to it, oil money trumps decency every time.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)We await your links..
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Were they really said?
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)Great points here AND you made me laugh.
TeamPooka
(24,254 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)His first words indicated his position POLITELY - he is a diplomat.
I seriously think saying what you wrote would be seen as insulting the Prince who was standing there. Given that he was sent to "soothe" SA's anger over US policies - that we will not change - such as trying to deal with Iran via diplomacy. - that would seem to be a way to completely fail. Not to mention, it would gain nothing.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)our demands?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I said nothing about demands. I said, Kerry ought to have said where we stand on the issue, forcefully; he should have said something like "and we hope our allies will do the right thing like every other civilized nation and recognize the rights of their female citizens and allow them to drive"; and he should not have dismissed it as just an internal cultural issue. Women's issues are always framed as cultural issues, it is one of the ways the patriarchal structures maintain control over women, within and among different countries -- and it is very harmful to the human rights of one half of the human race.
The fact that the Saudis are deemed our allies is in itself disgusting when you get right down to it. Theirs is a brutal and backwards regime that has been directly responsible for financing terrorism and the training of terrorists, including what happened to us on 9/11/2001, yet we remain allies with them, because, you know: oil, money, realpolitik.
frylock
(34,825 posts)whether they're funding men to drive planes into skyscrapers, or preventing women from driving cars.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Why is it always 'up to a culture' when it comes to women's rights? If this was an ethnic group that wasn't allowed to drive, or travel without being accompanied by a member of the prevailing ethnic group, or flogged for being raped, the whole world would be outraged.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)If that were the case Robert Mugabe would have been gone a long time ago.
tblue
(16,350 posts)They have no say. So Kerry's is not a valid point AT ALL. He's just placating the entrenched patriarchal misogynists who, by the way, sit on tons of oil wealth that we value oh so much.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)851-977
(33 posts)Kerry wouldn't say that, because Russia is not our ally.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Thanks.
'hawks 8 - 1!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Couldn't tell if they were agreeing with it or protesting but nice imitation of reggae.
"you feet are your only carriage," lol, that was a line in the original IIRR.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)There are other videos on You Tube where the guy who did this is interviewed.
TBF
(32,092 posts)has been working tirelessly on this issue for decades:
"As first lady, Clinton declared in the 1995 speech that "women's rights are human rights." She said Wednesday during the Clinton Global Initiative meetings that despite progress, women are a "long way from the goal of full and equal participation.""
Much more here --> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/clinton-to-evaluate-women_n_3989306.html
Whisp
(24,096 posts)unbearable.
History Rewritin'.
TBF
(32,092 posts)No I did not. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)when they were most needed and she had inflluence?
When she speaks on this subject she makes it all a mockery because of this.
Sorry this makes you uncomfortable, but it's the truth. If amnesia makes you feel better, that's up to you.
TBF
(32,092 posts)that does not make her words a mockery.
Your hatred is telling though.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)The overall literacy rate in Iraq had been 78% in 1977 and 87% for adult women by 1985, but declined rapidly since then.[citation needed] Between 1990 and 1998, over one fifth of Iraqi children stopped enrolling in school, consequently increasing the number of non-literates and losing all the gains made in the previous decade. The 1990s also saw a dramatic increase in child labor, from a virtually non-existent level in the 1980s.[citation needed] The per capita income in Iraq dropped from $3510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996, heavily influenced by the rapid devaluation of the Iraqi dinar.[27]
Iraq had been one of the few countries in the Middle East that invested in womens education. But this situation changed from the late eighties on with increasing militarisation and a declining economic situation. Consequently the economic hardships and war casualties in the last decades have increased the number of women-headed households and working women.[27]
==
steam coming out of my ears that people just don't want to believe this because Hillary is all for the rights of humans. DISSAPPOINTED!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)to repair/rebuild the water purification plants that our sorties destroyed. The US and UK vetoed the request. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraq children died of dysentery.
Unnecessary cruelty in my opinion.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I was a Clinton supporter during that early time of his Presidency. It took me a while to understand what was really happening and it took a lot of people showing me the truth and finally I got it. Bush Senior's wasn't the only devil's work in Iraq. And then Junior comes in with his spurs and finishes them off. It was all a big plan.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)if it's a Clinton that did that. I know it would be well received if I called bush and his people out on that.
and then make speeches about human rights.
One may think they are through with the past, but the past may not be through with them.
I happen to remember some of the past and it saddens me that so many don't because it's the ends justify the means thing all over again. Different rules if it happens to be someone you like - change is not going to happen if this is allowed, no way. all the same shit, rinse and repeat if you don't even have a memory.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Watch it. It's one of the greatest speeches she has ever given.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Most Favored Nation?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I can't help marveling at the juxtaposition of Obama's 2002 anti Iraq war speech dubbed "just a speech" by the Clintonsphere, yet when Hillary gives a speech it is dubbed "working tirelessly." Funny how that works.
HRC: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know that Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
added back in:
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and voted against an equal pay bill.'' Is a pop up note on that vid.
Now whatta guy to support. It would take a caring feminist like Hillary to root for this guy and denigrate Obama.
jeeze.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)TBF
(32,092 posts)I was a co-precinct captain working on the Obama campaign in 2008. I supported him because I thought he could win. Capitalism is not going to give us candidates that vary widely on economic issues in my experience, but sometimes they vary widely on social issues. If Hillary is the candidate in 2016 I will support her. So don't even try to turn this into Obama vs. Clinton.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)is deemed "working tirelessly" and a speech by Obama is deemed "just a speech."
It's the difference between opportunism (any speech by HRC who is on record taking both sides of many issues, i.e., pro-DOMA/anti-DOMA) and taking a bold position (O's 2002 anti Iraq War speech).
TBF
(32,092 posts)you did.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Hillary is "working tirelessly" is nonsense. More accurately, it's horseshit. She is a phony and an opportunist. You can expect pushback if you continue to peddle that mythical creature.
TBF
(32,092 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)How'd that work out in 2008?
TBF
(32,092 posts)I explained in my very first post to you that I worked on Obama's campaign in 2008. I thought he had a better chance to win than she did. I was wrong in Texas though - Hillary won our primary. Her support was from labor and they did not forget how she has supported them through the years.
She did a great job at State and yes I think she'll get the nomination if she runs. She's got some great folks to tap as potential VPs - but she is the one who has the name recognition, experience and charisma for 2016.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)You have made a caricature of a woman who has accomplished more in a lifetime than most people would in 10 lifetimes. Opportunist my ASS!!!!!!
She is more than qualified to hold the office of president, if she chooses to run in 2016. And if she does, it will please no end to see the angst around here.
Of all the unmitigated BULLSHIT that one has to read..................
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The grotesque exaggerations will be corrected.
For instance, as I wrote below
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)if you are putting a line on time of what is acceptable to talk about and what is not.
how does that work again?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Did Chelsea volunteer: Hey, Mom, I can help you with that. What's the story again?
or not:
Chelsea dear, I have something to ask of you. It will be good training for your political future. It's called Bullshitting to the Idiots.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)I don't know if it's ignorance on your part or just not willing to give credit where credit is due. If you think that the extent of Hillary's involvement with women and girls' rights was her speech in Beijng in 1995, then try doing some research and become informed.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)expect people to correct the BS.
For example, you've written many times that she is a ferocious children's advocate. The truth is she worked for ONE YEAR right out of college in children's advocacy, her ONLY nonprofit job. Doesn't sound nearly so awesome when the truth comes to light, does it?
Expect illumination on the snowjob you and the Clintonsphere are mounting.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)Again, do some research before writing nonsense. Better yet, go to the Children's Defense Fund site and see what Marian Wright Edelman thinks of Hillary.
Here, let me help you:
CDF is pleased to recognize Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a tireless voice for children. Shes brilliant. She cares deeply about children. She perseveres. Shes an incredibly hard worker, and she stays with it. Shes done extraordinarily well in everything shes ever done. and Im just so proud of her, said Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Childrens Defense Fund.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2013/hillary-clinton-tribute-video.html
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)you were saying?
Beacool
(30,251 posts)in Washington, as SOS and now at the Clinton Foundation.
Your refusal to give the woman credit for anything is tiresome. You are now boring me.
Ciao..........
Beacool
(30,251 posts)When Hillary delivered her historic speech on women's rights in Beijing, some members of her husband's administration didn't want her to deliver it. That speech is still significant.
Here's a State Dept. video that they made using portions of her LGBT speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-music_n_1174623.html
Here's the full speech.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The fact is that even Hillary never brought up women's rights when speaking to the Prince in SA.
Even this article notes the difference in when HRC spoke - http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/05/kerry-takes-softer-line-than-hillary-on-saudi-women-drivers/
Beacool
(30,251 posts)before making her public statement. Women and girls' rights are something very important to Hillary.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Note also that it had no effect. (Not to mention, she was in agreement with the Saudis on other issues - especially on Syria. )
blm
(113,091 posts)She was a pretty passive Sec of State for the most part, though she did touch on some women's rights issues - on women driving she was publicly prodded to speak out. She was definitely not pro-active in terms of heavy lifting diplomacy in the hot spot regions like Kerry is, and which the corpmedia ignores.
2011: Clinton Opts for 'Quiet Diplomacy' on Saudi Women Driving Standoff
Spokesperson: "I think she is making a judgment on how best to support universal human rights for women. There are times when it makes sense to do so publicly and there are times for quiet diplomacy."
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)flying around gladhanding, stupid shit like the Russian reset button (and she got the translation wrong on that), and pushing the TPP. More serious and capable people handled Afghanistan, Iraq, and the ME in general. SOS Kerry was trusted with that authority and hit the ground running.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2013, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The Saudi's have a long list of human rights violations, we'll add their treatment of women to the long list of murderous behavior.
reddread
(6,896 posts)that would justify some MOABs at the very least.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Some Muslims believe hijab covering for women should be compulsory as part of sharia, i.e. Muslim law. Wearing of the hijab was enforced by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and is enforced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan required women to cover not only their head but their face as well, because "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab
bluedeathray
(511 posts)Go into a jet's lavatory in traditional garb and emerge with blue jeans and western tops.
The alcohol starts pouring too. For the men at least.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Food, alcohol laws, age of adulthood.
It most definitely does NOT work for a system of second class citizenry.
But I'm not surprised. Unless we're looking for a justification for war, we've routinely showed that we couldn't give two shits about human rights in that part of the world.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)This country doesn't give a damn about anything but keeping that oil flowing.
bluedeathray
(511 posts)And hold hands with the BFEE!
Beacool
(30,251 posts)By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
6/21/11
Responding to pressure from a coalition of human rights activists, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today endorsed the right of women in Saudi Arabia to drive.
"We have made clear our views that women everywhere, including women in the kingdom, have the right to make decisions about their lives and their futures," Clinton said. "They have the right to contribute to society and provide for their children and their families. ... Mobility, such as provided by the freedom to drive, provides access to economic opportunity, including jobs."
Her comments marked a departure for the Obama administration, which has not singled out Saudi Arabia for much criticism even as officials have condemned repression in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/hillary-clinton-supports-saudi-womens-right-to-drive/1
Prior to that public support, she had been talking privately with the Saudis regarding this issue. She reiterated her position last month in London.
Hillary Clinton Backs Saudi Women Defying Driving Ban
LONDON -- LONDON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton has supported Saudi women who this week defied their kingdom's ban on female driving.
The former U.S. secretary of state told an event in London: "I'm all for it. It is an issue that is symbolic." She added that the ban is "hard to even rationalize" in today's world.
Clinton was speaking at London's Chatham House international affairs think tank on Friday. The organization awarded her its annual Chatham House Prize to recognize her contribution to international diplomacy and her work in furthering gender equality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/hillary-clinton-saudi-women-driving-ban_n_4086382.html
I'm sorry to hear that we reverted to our previous position of noncommittal and mild rebuke.
TBF
(32,092 posts)but anti-Clinton folks showed up immediately to cast negativity. Still trying to figure out how that happens on a board that supposedly supports all democrats.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)They will never give the Clintons credit for anything. The hell with them!!!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)how was she going to change the Law in Another Country? Invasion? Pretty speeches, how?
I don't exactly like how Kerry did his phrasing either, but the reality is, reality.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)She was Secretary of State then and traveling extensively. Did she go to Saudi Arabia and try to lobby for change? Would she have said with the Prince standing there that he needed to change the policy? We know only that it didn't happen.
Notice that Kerry did NOT change the US policy - he stated our position. Part of diplomacy is focusing on what you are trying to achieve. Kerry is working on three things that Obama listed as his top FP goals - Israel/Palestine, a diplomatic solution to Iran and to Syria. SA is a player in the region and can affect all three.
This is not to say that women's rights are not important, but that it is not clear that speaking out in front of the Prince would help the women get rights - it in fact would be more likely to hurt. (In fact, the best he could do is raise the issue privately in a non confrontational way - which I assume would have been what HRC would have done in his shoes.)
Kerry's goal was to soothe the relationship with SA that is troubled because of substantive US actions that they do not like. Things like working to have a diplomatic solution to Iran.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)No need to reflexively come to Kerry's defense. It was not an attack on him. The London event was last month, but the first article was from when she was the sitting SOS.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)That makes a huge difference. I doubt she would have NOT been diplomatic if she were standing with the leader of the country. (Not to mention, it is just stating realty that SA will decide the issue - and they ignored Clinton's public (and from your post, private) recommendation to change the policy.)
The entire thread is a an attack on Kerry, who was doing his job as a diplomat trying to rescue a very angry relationship. Saudi Arabia is angry that the US opted to use diplomacy to get rid of chemical weapons rather than bombing.
blm
(113,091 posts)Clinton Opts for 'Quiet Diplomacy' on Saudi Women Driving Standoff
Spokesperson: "I think she is making a judgment on how best to support universal human rights for women. There are times when it makes sense to do so publicly and there are times for quiet diplomacy."
What did she say DIRECTLY to the Saudis? Her speeches around the world have been pretty consistent towards women's rights. It's what she says TO the Saudis as Sec of State that matters.
I don't fault her gingerly approach on this. It's tricky territory when you're in the middle of a hotbed of Islamist fundamentalism and the WH is working to get cooperation that includes targeting Islamic extremists and terrorists.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)She talked privately to the Saudis about this issue in 2011 when she was SOS. She then made a public statement about it. The comments in London were last month. She was at the Chatham House to receive an award.
Hillary has no problem speaking her mind. She was in Pakistan when she told them to their face that certain people in the country knew where Bin Laden was hiding.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)while standing with the Prince.
As to Pakistan, she managed to completely anger them throughout her trip - even though the trip was set up for her to deliver big dollars for several projects designed to improve the lives of the people. (Note that it was Kerry who was sent to Pakistan after Raymond Davis, a CIA asset, killed 2 Pakistani and they wanted the US out and him tried - a few months before OBL was killed and again after OBL was killed -- why not SoS Hillary? )
Some times speaking out is not the best way to be diplomatic.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)She may have angered some factions, but she gained respect from the populace. She sat down with the media, also with regular people at a townhall, and every question was allowed. People respect straight talk. One of Conde Nast Travel magazine's editor when on one of their trips. He retold how the traveling press described the reactions she received as she traveled. One of the things they pointed out was that she was very popular, not just with people, but with most of the rulers that she encountered and they included Pakistan (with the added notation that "Pakistan hates Americans" . Her style was to be personable, but also to talk straight.
I know that you are a big Kerry supporter, but this is not a competition. Hillary has her style and Kerry has his.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)As I said, who did President Obama send when he NEEDED Pakistan's approval?
As to why, here is a NYT magazine article. As a NY area resident, you know that the NYT was never big on Kerry and adored Hillary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/magazine/john-kerry-our-man-in-kabul.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Here is the quote I refer to:
More important, Kerry had earned goodwill as one of the backers of the legislation authorizing $7.5 billion in civilian assistance to Pakistan over five years and also as an emissary during the floods in the summer of 2010. And Pakistanis appreciate Kerrys humility. Haqqani told me that Kerry is one of the very few senior American officials who doesnt approach Pakistan like a viceroy.
blm
(113,091 posts)behind closed doors....privately.
I give her the out, here. And I stated my reasons why she deserved the out on this. The claim that she had set a different policy publicly for the US on this than Kerry is what I am highlighting.
Beacool
(30,251 posts)My only point is that the US, through its then SOS, had already spoken publicly about supporting the women's cause in Saudi Arabia. When she made a public statement supporting the women's driving protest in 2011, it was mentioned that she had at first had talks in private with the Saudis.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)It was sometime in 2011.
blm
(113,091 posts).
karynnj
(59,504 posts)He SAID what the US position is --- he is there because they are very angry on things the US will also not change their position on - including the goal of dealing with Iran diplomatically and NOT bombing Syria.
This was a hot potato issue he handled well. Do you think the US SoS defending women's right to drive more explicitly would have made them more likely to say that they were ok with it? What leverage do you think the US has with SA?
Although it is despicable that women have no rights there, Kerry saying so more explicitly than he did would simply anger them and likely make them less likely to change.
cali
(114,904 posts)the last couple of years and that's contained in the article posted.
do you actually believe that being a diplomat means invariably going along with repression and human rights abuses if they come from a supposed ally? (and just where did the 9/11 bombers come from?)
How deeply disturbing that people think like that.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)He qualified his statement with the phrase "In the United States we support...."
If JK told you the sky was emerald green you'd nod your head.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The fact is that NO American diplomat has argued for women's rights standing next to the Prince. That includes Hillary Clinton.
Do you seriously think that a foreign diplomat calling out the leader of the country over a position while standing next to him would have been helpful to the women? It would seem more likely to backfire - both against the US/SA relations and against the women. Give me ONE example where a country changed after such a thing happened.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)should be given full rights in the first words out of his mouth. But the far Left wants Kerry to demand. What happens when Saudi leaders, feeling pressured publicly dig in their heels? Do we engage in acts of war then?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)and could set back the slim chance the women have of change.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Sorry, but fuck that. Appeasing human rights violators is weak sauce.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)He said: 'But it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decision about its own social structure and other choices, and timing.' That's the bit that's the problem...
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Social change in any country occurs when its people's opinions changed - and it is a gradual thing. The change will have to come through changes within their own culture.
It is ironic that many of the same people who speak of the evils of colonization do not understand that a Western diplomat lecturing on superior moral values in a country with a colonial past will probably cause a backlash that hurts what he/she wants to help.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)People who want the US to take a more aggressive stance toward SA on this issue?
Marxist-Leninists?
What?
It seems that the term "far left" is out of place here.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That's kind of their fucking job, you know?
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)them to do things our way. Another war, perhaps? More drones?
get the red out
(13,468 posts)It would just be nice if Kerry wasn't French kissing that Saudi misogynist ass with such intensity.
It's not news that the Saudi government is a piece of shit on human rights; some people just expect a bit more out of John Kerry.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The reason might well be the reason he made the trip was to soothe a relationship going very sour. I doubt he wanted to make it worse.
So far, Kerry has been pretty successful in getting various groups to speak together and find common ground. This is what a diplomat does.
At another point in his life he was an activist. As an activist, you do speak truth to power. As a diplomat, sometimes you need to pick your issues.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)How silly of me. Women's rights can never be an issue, I need to go find my fucking way to the damned kitchen now.
I hope the good Secretary enjoyed the taste of royal ass.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's about forcefully and respectfully saying we believe in full equal rights for women everywhere.
And that has been the SD's official line for the past couple of years re women in SA. It's right in the article.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)That people want some kind of WAR when anyone anywhere mentions wanting our government to give a little pro-women's rights verbiage to extremist nations like Saudi Arabia. It's obviously meant to be "thought stopping" and end all conversation on the matter.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)We never had to invade South Africa for apartheid to collapse.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)does. If we sanction and boycott the country, it stops shipping oil to the USA or reduce production. Would you then support tar sand use to make up the oil difference? Decisions have consequences, that is something that I don't think the far Left seem to fucking get.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)is all about our dependence on Saudi oil.
So, no, not going to happen, but ideally...
tblue
(16,350 posts)So, I call BULLSHIT.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts).
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Also one of the most successful.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He would have played Sun City.
blm
(113,091 posts).
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Apartheid didn't go away until South Africa made the change themselves.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)THAT's what influenced the 'them' it was supposedly up to. "Up to them" presupposes they just up and changed their minds one day. It didn't happen that way.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Since abortion is illegal there.
All we can do is strongly suggest how a country behaves.
We can no more tell Saudi Arabia how they should be treating their women any more than some other country can tell us to abolish the death penalty.
Either countries are sovereign or they're not.
Kerry stated that it is our position that women in Saudi Arabia should have equal rights. That is all that is in his power to do or say.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You know, like Cuba and South Africa and Iraq and Iran and N Korea and FSM knows who else.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Would you?
JI7
(89,264 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I see little difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Well, other than the fact that Iran is at least nominally democratic and Saudi Arabia is monarchist.
Oh, and the fact that the US has already overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran before.
JI7
(89,264 posts)it looks like the Obama administration is working towards some kind of relationship with them unlike before.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Although South Africa did indeed have a nuclear program.
http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/issues/08-1/4-adams.htm
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I fail to see why sanctions are called for in one case and not in the other.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)They were punishments and they were because the US and other powers wanted to get them to not become a nuclear nation. Read some of the hearings etc - the alternative that the neo-cons pushed was war. Sanctions only work if they are international. There is no way that the rest of the world would consider sanctions over this. ( In fact, with a different country, a possible response could be a consumer boycott. Boycotting SA consumer goods and travel is not possible as they are almost non existent.)
Here, Obama and probably the entire national security team want SA to not oppose us in the Middle East. Look at what Obama cited as his goals as the UN.
1) Find a diplomatic path with Iran - to end the almost a decade of being near a war.
2) Israel/Palestine
3) Find a diplomatic path for Syria
Note that 1 and 3 differ 180 degrees with the neo-cons and note that IF Obama succeeds, there is the possibility of really stopping the neo con agenda.
Each one of these goals is a tough challenge - but each is worth working as hard and as well as they can for succeeding. Do you think that adding to the difficulty of doing this to make a rhetorical statement in SA would be a good idea? (Not to mention, a rhetorical statement by ANY US SoS would if anything have hurt the women's movement in SA.)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Except of course when it is..
As I pointed out in another post, South Africa had nuclear weapons but that's not the reason sanctions were levied on South Africa.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Most of which we need their good will to get. Applying sanctions to address what they rightly would consider an internal law would destroy any hope on everything else - and it would NOT work. Sanctions never work when applied unilaterally - and the rest of the world would not follow.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...but thanks for playing...What a fucking sellout this guy is...
jsr
(7,712 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)One doesn't have to agree with the decision. As Kerry did, we should clearly state our views and values, but in the end, we have no standing in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)their resources.
You think Kerry gives a shit about SA's sovereign autonomy? Let's be real here. When a diplomat like Kerry travels to Saudi Arabia, he's there to kiss their feet.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)invested in world companies there that propped profitable apartheid that existed to oppress the vast majority of its population.
If we tried other means -- not just double talk -- that cut into the economic well being of resource-rich countries, like Saudi Arabia, on behalf of HALF their populations, that would indicate a fairer international stand. I've heard of trade increases based on "benchmark" social changes within other societies. So, if they were to want more international trade profit, they can make structural changes that give half their populations more equal mobility and opportunities that come from that.
Profit and market control are the foundation arguments -- seldom voiced, publicly -- for keeping down whole populations that can provide "free" or "cheap" goods and services -- like half these sovereign countries' populations.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I am both saddened and relieved that Kerry never got to be President. Saddened, because he would have been better than Bush, but relieved, because as a Democrat he causes enough damage saying shit like this that the party is better off without him.
*shakes my head in disgust*
Response to cali (Original post)
Dash87 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)what Kerry is doing related to women's issues? I mean, are people seriously trying to make the OP comment a controversy?
http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/index.htm
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 23, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry announced Monday the provision of $10 million in funding for a new U.S. initiative, Safe from the Start, to prevent and respond to gender-based violence in humanitarian emergencies worldwide. Secretary Kerry emphasized that in the face of conflict and disaster, we should strive to protect women and girls from sexual assault and other violence.
Safe from the Starts initial commitment of $10 million will allow the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and other humanitarian agencies and organizations to hire specialized staff, launch new programs, and develop innovative methods to protect women and girls at the onset of emergencies around the world. The United States will also coordinate with other donors and stakeholders to develop a framework for action and accountability to ensure efforts to address gender-based violence are routinely prioritized as a life-saving intervention along with other vital humanitarian assistance.
This initiative builds on the framework established by the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally. It will be led by the State Departments Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
As part of the unveiling of the initiative, PRM Assistant Secretary Anne Richard and USAID Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Nancy Lindborg will host a roundtable briefing on Tuesday the 24th with non-governmental and international organization representatives to urge others to make specific commitments as part of the Safe from the Start framework.
For media inquiries, please contact State/PRM Public Affairs Advisor Dan Langenkamp at langenkampdb@state.gov, 202-453-9939.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/214552.htm
ancianita
(36,133 posts)asserting our values regarding half the population of other countries, and that how they treat that population does influence how we will relate with their male-dominated economies? Why should women's freedoms be labeled controversial if their freedoms result in greater economic growth all countries? Isn't hiding this issue just propping the inequitable basis of male-dominated economies? Shouldn't our SoS be better than that?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...Kerry made an innocuous comment that doesn't run counter to U.S. policy or his efforts on women's issues.
The fact that some are trying to make it controversial is beyond silly. It's like somehow this negates everything he has done or is doing in terms of advancing women's rights.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)It's a controversy just because it's not from "some." Call it a false controversy if you don't want to address it. But it won't go away. Women aren't loud mouthed whiners. But that doesn't mean that they're not paying attention to how their interests play out in American diplomacy.
" Spare me." Heh heh. Yeah, sure. We shouldn't take his neglecting the interests of half of any sovereign nation's citizens as anything but "innocuous."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)"We disapprove but we're not going to sanction them" has been the US line on Saudi Arabia since, well, it became Saudi Arabia, really.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)War and drones are what we to FOR Saudi Arabia not against Saudi Arabia. Maybe at the very least we could stop selling them weapons and fighter planes?
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)Kerry's SoS, and the press conference was in Riyadh
Kerry's job as SoS has a large diplomatic component. When the SoS visits a country, he doesn't bring his whole wishlist with him: he brings a list with a few items on which he hopes to make some progress, some easier, some harder, and he studies those items to be able to discuss them with intelligence and sensitivity to the nuances
No diplomat of sound mind creates needless and pointless incidents. The SoS lecturing the Saudis on women and driving, while in Riyadh, would have produced an entirely needless and pointless incident: it would have had no impact whatsoever on Saudi policy, except possibly to give the hardliners in Saudi Arabia a nationalist excuse to insist all the more on their current position
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)We have to prostitute out our highest political leaders to get their sweet, sweet oil.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Did you read any of the articles on the purpose of Kerry's trip? I suspect not - as it likely didn't interest you as it was just foreign policy. The goal was to soothe some of the anger various ME countries that were our allies. This is needed to have any chance to accomplish any of Obama's stated goals:
- To deal with Iran diplomatically - when SA and Israel would prefer a more military option.
- Israel Palestine
- To resolve Syria's civil war diplomatically -- when SA prefers we fight.
Kerry having any success in Egypt, SA, or Israel was very remote - but not going would likely guarantee things get worse.
Speaking out - stating what we know he and every American think on this more than he did - would destroy any chance he has to make the ME better. All for something that would not help the SA women - but would gain him praise on the left!
karynnj
(59,504 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Hillary had guts. Kerry? Not so much.
it's up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decision
By "it's up to Saudi Arabia" he meant "it's up to Saudi Arabian men".
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Something the United States abandoned long ago if we were ever even truly in possession of one.
We are the chief exporters of death throughout the world. We don't give a shit about anyone but ourselves.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Kerry and Obama are disagreeing with SA on Syria, where Hillary and Petraeus were supporting their goals. SA's anger on Syria is one reason Kerry is there.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)London: Hillary Rodham Clinton has supported Saudi women who last week defied their kingdoms ban on female driving.
The former US secretary of state told an event in London: Im all for it. It is an issue that is symbolic. She added that the ban is hard to even rationalise in todays world.
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/hillary-clinton-backs-saudi-women-defying-driving-ban-1.1242231
karynnj
(59,504 posts)ancianita
(36,133 posts)it's called "issue grubbing." I disagree.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Not really news.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)It IS news to half the population of this country that this SoS doesn't care to prioritize the development of other -- namely HUMAN -- resources as part of international diplomatic relations. He breezily passes over the work that Hillary was, in part -- and wearily, I could tell -- trying to do on behalf of those populations.
The bar is pretty damned low these days for what's considered "diplomatic." Women in this country are not impressed with him for damned good reasons, and oversimplifying this flawed diplomat's "diplomacy" doesn't help.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ancianita
(36,133 posts)Should I echo, "No, he's not ready. No, the time's not right. No, there are no ways and means to scale up the pressure. No, he's doing just fine, overall?" My opinion rests on a desire to see a Democrat in this position push for more liberal behavior from so-called allies. More. That's what the hell I'm talking about.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)this is expected of someone hyping Hillary:
"He breezily passes over the work that Hillary was, in part -- and wearily, I could tell -- trying to do on behalf of those populations."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023981992#post174
LOL!
ancianita
(36,133 posts)sovereignty trump a diplomatic goal of pressuring on behalf of Saudi women. I'd hardly call my interpretation of her SoS work hyping.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)10. Saudi Arabia
9. Mali
8. Morocco
7. Iran
6. Ivory Coast
5. Mauritania
4. Syria
3. Chad
2. Pakistan
1. Yemen
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/30/the-most-unfair-countries-for-women/
What do all but one of these countries have in common?
http://widgets.weforum.org/gender-gap-heat-map/
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Seriously, I wonder how much the patterns of the treatment of women in the region predate Islam. Did Islam codify existing practices or did it create them?
Mosby
(16,350 posts)I imagine a lot of the behavior predates Islam but why do so many Muslim leaders encourage and perpetuate sexism and gender inequalities today?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Is one of them not predominantly Muslim? That seems to be the commonality.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)Muslim 38.6%, Christian 32.8%, indigenous 11.9%, none 16.7%
The other nine have a Muslim majority.