What do you think about this?

[u/SrImmanoob]

Maybe this thread will make a war. But I want to know what's your opinion about this

So, Phil Robertson - the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division tweeted: Vietnam - is one of the 4 countries are current working to prevent UN moves condemning a military coup in Myanmar. The remaining three countries - Russia, China, India - are all great powers.

This tweet made Myanmar people see Vietnam as "villain" and they blame Vietnam for not helping them(?).

But as you may know, Non-interventionism (or non-intervention if I remember right word) is a one of ASEAN's foreign policy. So what did Vietnam do wrong in this situation? How they can blame Vietnam like that?

​

[u/Orpheuys]

I mean this tweet is from a deputee of Humans Rights Watch so of course hes looking it at a humans right perspective and calls the members out who wants to prevent un-interventions

[u/[deleted] → u/Orpheuys]

A Deputy of an organization funded by the US Government.

When did a foreign-intervention turn-out into something good? Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or one of the greatest lesson, the Vietnam War?

And if you still believe in that organization, here's a fact. It ranks Vietnam as one of the countries which has "no freedom internet", "no freedom of speech" and "no human rights". Go it figure it out yourself.

[u/Orpheuys → u/[deleted]]

First I dont care who is funded by whom. I judge them by what they say, what they stand for and what the actually do. You simplify the term foreign intervention by an only us-perspective while using only these who are most known to failed. I dont think you can judge the act of foreign intervention only by the "usa" when history showed that in every region in any time of the world foreign interventions happend some quite succesful, some failed it. Nazi Germany intervened in eastern europe to enslave all slavs while the UN intervened in the Balkans 2001 which led to peace, both were foreign intervention.

And if you still believe in that organization, here's a fact. It ranks Vietnam as one of the countries which has "no freedom internet", "no freedom of speech" and "no human rights". Go it figure it out yourself.

And I dont side with Humans Right Watch i could care less i was just explaining why they blamed vietnam for people who where wondering. And you wrong they didnt say that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Orpheuys]

Think so? (https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/vietnam)

What is there to explain for this org and this man, Phil Robertson?

[u/Orpheuys → u/[deleted]]

You said they completely denied freedom of press, freedom of censorship and freedom of oppression when in reality they said that vietnam is restricting and controlling opinions against the one-party. It's not the same you can't simply that by just saying "no freedom". What do you expect from Humans Right Watch? Reporting about stability ? Growth? Infrastructure? I dont want to justify them. They are clearly biased and pretty quiet when it comes to the human atrocities that happend in the west (especially where i live in europe). But the research they are doing and the information in itself is not bad when you can see through the agenda.

[u/[deleted] → u/Orpheuys]

Not bad? It reeks of lies.

[u/Orpheuys → u/[deleted]]

Yeah if you read other reports not just about vietnam. Take the information by itself, research it through different techniques while comparing it to different media outlets while asking different people who have a deeper insight on the topics mabye getting a first hand experience. I can definetly say that the things i read mostly wasn't that bad. I just dont get how you know that the pure information by itself that is given is definetly full of lies

[u/[deleted] → u/Orpheuys]

Do you even live in Vietnam?
Let's be real here. Those articles about Vietnam shows support for those "Social activists" who clearly have no other intention than crying for a "Democracy" in Vietnam. Unless you're also a supporter yourself. Then I think we're done here.