FT: Council of Europe Russia sanctions could be lifted

[Shalcker]

Wouldn't it be a better investment of your time to, instead of lobbying for removal of sanctions so the council can support russians, press your government to not mistreat human rights in the first place?

I'm not "lobbying for removal of sanctions", i'm just posting articles about people who do.
We also have fair bit of differences on which "human rights" are "natural" and which ones are "cultural" (like gay marriage).

And if i would want to do that, withdrawing from EUHCR to primacy of local laws would be necessary step in that direction. Then local activists would have no outside authority upon which they can rely to get favourable judgements, and would had to actually change local opinions and laws toward their "progressive" views instead. And then society can move toward betterment as natural evolution rather then through outside diktat - which doesn't work.

Or ... don't you get paid for that?

I get paid to keep one small MMO going, not to post on forums.

- - - Updated - - -

Economically Russia was probably a drain on the Council of Europe, accounting for 1/3rd of all cases while only paying ~10-15% of the total budget. So I don't really think that's the issue here.

That has more to do with Russians abusing it for favourable judgements.

I'm unsure about the sanctions and punishments though. On the one hand it may have the effect of driving away Russia (rather than what many hoped - that Russia would make amends) but at the same time you have to somehow reconcile having a member that is not only abusing human rights but now also have the recent Ukraine/Crimea-issue fresh in our memories (which some view as a sign that Russia doesn't want to cooperate).

Ukraine has plenty of human rights abuses as well at the moment... as does Turkey...

- - - Updated - - -

We aren't.
Russia just wants to dodge the rules.

Which rules?

Who cares about what amount of money they aren't paying anyway?

They dutifully paid it for several years.

I see no reason to bend the rules just so Putin can look good on his own news.

Which rules are bent here? :/
You could probably argue removing voting rights was bending the rules in the first place.

[Noradin]

I'm not "lobbying for removal of sanctions", i'm just posting articles about people who do.
We also have fair bit of differences on which "human rights" are "natural" and which ones are "cultural" (like gay marriage).

And if i would want to do that, withdrawing from EUHCR to primacy of local laws would be necessary step in that direction. Then local activists would have no outside authority upon which they can rely to get favourable judgements, and would had to actually change local opinions and laws toward their "progressive" views instead. And then society can move toward betterment as natural evolution rather then through outside diktat - which doesn't work.

So you are in favour of leaving?

[Shalcker]

So you are in favour of leaving?

There are no losing option in this situation for Russia, just different scenarios of "winning".

Removal of sanctions will confirm Kremlin opinion that they just need to hold out a little longer and various EU sanctions will be eventually removed - some sooner, some later.

Refusal to remove sanctions and withdrawing from Council of Europe will mean more fuel for "re-alignment-to-Asia" plans and sovereignty lovers.

[Noradin]

There is no losing option in this situation for Russia, just different scenarios of "winning".

Removal of sanctions will confirm Kremlin opinion that they just need to hold out a little longer and various EU sanctions will be eventually removed - some sooner, some later.

Refusal to remove sanctions and withdrawing from Council of Europe will mean more fuel for "re-aligntment-to-Asia" plans and sovereignty lovers.

There is also only one "winning" outcome for the rest of Europe: To not bow to blackmail, otherwise we could just disband the Council right away.
So go ahead lobby for leaving, its "win-win" isn't it?

[Shalcker]

There is also only one "winning" outcome for the rest of Europe: To not bow to blackmail, otherwise we could just disband the Council right away.

If you are fine with your "human rights" being confined to existing Europe alone, and kiss their expansion goodbye.

Natural expansion ended; you got to provide incentives for others to buy into your culture, or it will get rejected as it has no inherent value - nothing that would justify breaking existing social cohesion.

[Cerilis]

"If you don't do as I tell you, I'm gonna hack off my own foot and call it a win! You don't want that, wouldn't you!?" -Thread summarized

[Noradin]

If you are fine with your "human rights" being confined to existing Europe alone, and kiss their expansion goodbye.

Natural expansion ended; you got to provide incentives for others to buy into your culture, or it will get rejected as it has no inherent value - nothing that would justify breaking existing social cohesion.

I'm not interested in "expansion" and unwilling annexation of territories.

Human rights do have an inherent value for societies that adhere to them, going back on them for the sake of Russia's government looking good serves no purpose for anyone. Rewarding Russia for threatening to punish its own citizens as blackmail for international favours to their ruling class would be setting a bad example and do much more harm than good.

- - - Updated - - -

"If you don't do as I tell you, I'm gonna hack off my own foot and call it a win! You don't want that, wouldn't you!?" -Thread summarized

Essentially.

[Shalcker]

I'm not interested in "expansion" and unwilling annexation of territories.

Well, drop Ukraine then.

Human rights do have an inherent value for societies that adhere to them, going back on them for the sake of Russia's government looking good serves no purpose for anyone.

You're advocating going back on them to spite Russian government. I don't see how it is any better.

Rewarding Russia for threatening to punish its own citizens as blackmail for international favours to their ruling class would be setting a bad example and do much more harm than good.

There is no "threatening" here. There is no "punishing citizens".

Either you give voice to Russia and then you get to hear grievances of Russians in EUCHR and have Russia follow your decisions, or you lose even that minuscule leverage while not gaining anything in your "human rights".

- - - Updated - - -

"If you don't do as I tell you, I'm gonna hack off my own foot and call it a win! You don't want that, wouldn't you!?" -Thread summarized

More like "Hey, we defend human rights! And Russians even pay us for it! Wouldn't it be terrible for human rights if they would leave, and take their funding with them? Others might like an idea and leave too... and then everyone will think we're irrelevant... And all we need to do is to let them get back their vote!"

Russia can function perfectly well without EUCHR. There is no "hacking your own foot" - it is your insitutition, not Russian.

[Shalcker]

Russian people have been net beneficiaries as Russia pay proportionately less when compared to how many cases were Russian.

Nope, that's not how it works.

EU is beneficiary here by aligning laws of Russia and EU on human rights closer together. That's the entire point.

Russia leaving the council will free more money to deal with smaller fraction of cases. The council will be net beneficiary when Russia leaves.

Hmm... where did you get this from anyway? I went to check actual numbers, and in fact it looks like Russia subsidising everything - just 9.8% of pending cases at start of 2017 (where Ukraine has freaking 22.8%), 12.5% at end of October (Hungary and Romania take a lead here).

Those figures seem to be lower then Russian share of funding.

[Slant]

Nope, that's not how it works.

EU is beneficiary here by aligning laws of Russia and EU on human rights closer together. That's the entire point.

Hmm... where did you get this from anyway? I went to check actual numbers, and in fact it looks like Russia subsidising everything - just 9.8% of pending cases at start of 2017 (where Ukraine has freaking 22.8%), 12.5% at end of October (Hungary and Romania take a lead here).

Those figures seem to be lower then Russian share of funding.

Yes, when you say "aligning laws of Russia and EU on human rights", you really mean dragging Russia up to the barest minimum, right? Cos the EU ain't aligning jack shit with Russia.

[Deleted]

How is EU the beneficiary when helping Russian citizens?

See the council of Europe is just a sneaky way for the EU to project power into Russia.
Or so i think his argument goes.

[Shalcker]

See the council of Europe is just a sneaky way for the EU to project power into Russia.
Or so i think his argument goes.

Soft power, sure.

Not even sneaky; it is right in their mission statement:

• To protect human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law;
• To promote awareness and encourage the development of Europe’s cultural identity and diversity;
• To seek solutions to problems facing European society, such as: discrimination against minorities, xenophobia, intolerance, environmental protecting, human cloning, terrorism, human trafficking, organised crime and corruption, cybercrime, violence against children;
• To help consolidate democratic stability in Europe by backing political, legislative and constitutional reform.

[Shalcker]

If you think Russia is better off without those things, leave the council.

If you think Europe is better off without it, disband it.

[Shalcker]

Europe will be better off without Russia.

That is opinion that you're free to hold.

I don't care either way. Both "with Europe" and "without Europe" are fine with me.

[Orbitus]

That is opinion that you're free to hold.

I don't care either way. Both "with Europe" and "without Europe" are fine with me.

It really isn't an opinion. Russia is basically terrible for the world. Dictatorships are like that. Killing your enemies and arresting gays. Yeah. We can live without Russia.

[Slant]

Soft power, sure.

Not even sneaky; it is right in their mission statement:

• To protect human rights, pluralist democracy and the rule of law;
• To promote awareness and encourage the development of Europe’s cultural identity and diversity;
• To seek solutions to problems facing European society, such as: discrimination against minorities, xenophobia, intolerance, environmental protecting, human cloning, terrorism, human trafficking, organised crime and corruption, cybercrime, violence against children;
• To help consolidate democratic stability in Europe by backing political, legislative and constitutional reform.

I don't see "project power into Russia" in that list, to be honest. Perhaps you could teach me to read properly.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think Europe is better off without it, disband it.

It's Europe's institution. Why would we disband our own institution just because Russia is throwing a tantrum? Do you actually think Russia is that important? lol

[Shalcker]

I don't see "project power into Russia" in that list, to be honest. Perhaps you could teach me to read properly.

Please, do read what Soft Power actually is.

Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies. Recently, the term has also been used in changing and influencing social and public opinion through relatively less transparent channels and lobbying through powerful political and non-political organizations. In 2012, Nye explained that with soft power, "the best propaganda is not propaganda", further explaining that during the Information Age, "credibility is the scarcest resource."[1]

[Mayhem]

If you think Europe is better off without it, disband it.

That makes absolutely no sense as an answer to his quote.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, do read what Soft Power actually is.

Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies. Recently, the term has also been used in changing and influencing social and public opinion through relatively less transparent channels and lobbying through powerful political and non-political organizations. In 2012, Nye explained that with soft power, "the best propaganda is not propaganda", further explaining that during the Information Age, "credibility is the scarcest resource."[1]

So by appeal and attraction they are projecting power into russia?

Those sneaky westerners.

[Shalcker]

"Ohh noooooooooooo... Western propaganda might make Russian citizens want Putin and co. to be made responsible for their thievery "

See Americans up at arms because Russian propaganda might have made American Citizens want Trump instead of Hillary.

- - - Updated - - -

So by appeal and attraction they are projecting power into russia?

Yes, that's the entire concept of soft power.
Just like media claims that Russians are projecting power "by appeal and attraction" into Western right-wingers who push policies Russians supposedly want, like Trump or Brexit.

On other hand, if you cannot project soft power and yet still want to make changes you want you would have to turn back to "hard" power...

[Mayhem]

Yes, that's the entire concept of soft power.

That's just not very projecting.

Just like media claims that Russians are projecting power "by appeal and attraction" into Western right-wingers who push policies Russians supposedly want, like Trump or Brexit.

No media i know of claims that Russia is projecting power by appeal and attraction but by investement and misinformation.

On other hand, if you cannot project soft power and yet still want to make changes you want you would have to turn back to "hard" power...

The whole concept of soft power is it's lack of projection of power.