 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sign up to receive PND e-newsletters. |
|
| |
|
| Re: Ethical: receiving assistance from, & lending credibility to brutal regime?
Posted by Wise Guy   on 2/4/2009, 10:06 am, in reply to "Re: Ethical: receiving assistance from, & lending credibility to brutal regime?"
Thanks Carl. I don't understand how the press was one of the worst offenders of human rights. Maybe head-in-sand, but not offender?
Gandhi did engage and treat with respect his "adversaries." But he spoke beautifully about the fundamental obligation to speak out against injustice and suffering, how it was an essential part of being human. In essence, silence is complicity.
I think the point comes round to me of granting legitimacy by this pro-people health care organization to a brutal regime. It does seem a sanction of approval. If the high profile CEO of this nonprofit is publicized in photo literally embracing the Chinese ambassador, how can that not lend credibility to the Chinese state?
When would it be obviously immoral? Under South Africa's Botha? Chile's Pinochet? Or Pol Pot? I simply can't imagine this nonprofit accepting support of the tiny Cuban Mission to the US, (since they don't have an embassy), so why is China, oppressing 1,000 times more people, some in worse ways, acceptable?
Or maybe it's another question: are not every one of us required to speak out against brutal repression when we know of it and have (easy) opportunity? Does the ethic of this supersede any setting or qualifiers?
I'm not saying don't accept support, or don't engage. But one is required then to voice concerns appropriately?
Or does one just smile, mingle, eat moo shi and ignore hundreds of thousands of languishing political prisoners?
Maybe there will be another day, but for someone else to serve the clients in Asia. Of course, by then, some of them will have been tortured or murdered, or torn from their livelihood, community, friends and families by the police state. Oh well?
|
| |
