US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

Is it ?

Send me a starlink terminal where I am and I would likely be jailed for a rather long time. Iran are a sovereign nation, and they do have their own laws. You might not agree with those laws, but they are laws.

Is it not like the UK gun control laws ? Handguns are banned in the UK ( apart from NI), and read any US pro gun media to see how they consider that an infringement on UK rights. So, would it be ok for the US NRA to smuggle thousands of handguns into the UK so people can defend themselves against whatever ?

If we go back to the MOU that Trump tore up, it's right there, second item.

"2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs."

I would say smuggling Starlinks in would count as interfering.

Source for MOU :

Read the full text of the 14-point MoU between US and Iran - CGTN

Apologies for not following your line. I see what you mean.

I would say the PRC are pretty ruthless in going for what they want. Although they claim to be "pragmatic", they are far from it. I think it's just a case of what goes on does not make western MSM.

There is an interesting ongoing "cold war" just now over influence in the South Pacific. In one corner is ozz and NZ. In the other the PRC. The PRC want UN votes and seabed minerals. Ozz and NZ do genuinely appear to want democratic nations that do well for themselves.

Then there is the PRC V India, competing for influence in the Indian ocean. That could go hot because of the border dispute between them.

And there is the whole South China Sea thing and the Malacca strait. Oh, and Japan.

It is a battle for a new world order for sure.

I'm sure that you are absolutely right about the Chinese being ruthless. A country that has expanded its economy so much so rapidly must be ruthless to some extent.
I'm not sure I have the faith in the politicians in Aus and NZ that you have but I know that these countries feel threatened by the Chinese. On the other hand, China is their biggest trading partner. They seem to be confused and torn between East and West. Wrt India, my impression is that Modi has recently turned away from China, having spent a lot of time on diplomacy with China. We will have to wait and see how that develops. I think China is wise to be several steps in front in terms of the SOM, etc.
Overall, there is such a battle for power and 'allies' at present. I think we are in for a massive shake up with some terrible consequences over the years/next decade or so. I'm mentioned Neil Howe's fourth turning on here before. The situation certainly fits with this cycle.

Hey. We are managing to have a conversation where we differ on opinions, with neither of us accusing the other of supporting a brutal regime :-)

Yeah, I am a bit of an armchair China watcher, So disagreements are likely. Because in the new world order scenario, I defo would not want it to be modeled as the PRC want it.

Talking of that. It struck me last night as I was reading a post about the people uprising, that we have a real time example of an authoritarian system in the making. Hong Kong. And I think, the odd thing is, if one was to compare what is happening in HK to any other country just now, it would be most like what is happening in the US under Trump.

In my opinion, it is Trump who is the biggest danger to democracy and freedom.

@RedTagAlan ,

‘Send me a starlink terminal where I am and I would likely be jailed for a rather long time. Iran are a sovereign nation, and they do have their own laws. You might not agree with those laws, but they are laws.

Is it not like the UK gun control laws ? Handguns are banned in the UK ( apart from NI), and read any US pro gun media to see how they consider that an infringement on UK rights. So, would it be ok for the US NRA to smuggle thousands of handguns into the UK so people can defend themselves against whatever ?’

I find this argument somewhat amazing, and maybe indicates that you have become inured to a lack of human rights.

Afghanistan is also a sovereign nation and they have banned education for girls above the age of 12. Would you disapprove of other countries smuggling school books (or starlink terminals) to Afghan families so their daughters could get an education?

In international law, there are fundamental human rights, one of which is freedom of expression. This is thought to broadly include access to information. This, in international law, and in most people’s eyes, would make the provision of Starling terminals to Iranians, when their internet is shut down, to be both legal and ethical.

Guns are a completely different matter. There is no international law that gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Unrestricted Internet access is not a fundamental right. Many countries employ the use of content filtering firewalls where certain sites are banned and any attempt to access them could land you in deep trouble. A sovereign country can make its own laws and whether you or I disagree with them is irrelevant. Those Starlink terminals were not smuggled into the country just so people could watch their favourite Netflix series.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

I never claimed unrestricted access was the human right. That is access to basic information, which Iran was denying its citizens. It is considered to be a part of freedom of expression.

Many countries do lots of things which infringe human rights. Iran is one of those countries.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

You and other keep saying that sovereign countries have a right to make their own laws.

I assume you apply the same standard to Israel, with Israel being a sovereign country?!

Or do you actually believe, as I do, that humans have rights regardless of national laws?

Probably because I actually appreciate debate and differences of opinion like you do, if they are expressed politely!
I haven't followed the political situation in HK at all. I must have a look when I get the chance. I have a friend who lives there so will ask her when we speak.
I'm not sure I can say for sure what the best system is but I am pretty clear that the world has and will continue to become more authoritarian. The current AI craze (don't get me started!) is part of it.

I can't agree with this at all.

I'm not a lawyer but I know that freedom of expression is not an international legal right. These things are governed by individual countries. Even in countries which allegedly encourage freedom of expression, there are plenty of examples, particularly recent ones about people being arrested for expressing their opinions online.
Even on here, posters are being censored all the time for expressing views that are not shared by the majority. People in general have become increasingly intolerant and angry online and increasingly unable to debate respectfully,

It is v naive to suggest that the US/Israel smuggling in starlink terminals had anything to do with law or ethics.

Favourite Netflix series. 😂

What has this got to do with Israel?!

@rainingsnoring ,

You either believe in sovereign countries having the ability to make laws and that other nations should respect those laws, or you don’t.

If you believe that Iranian sovereign law should be held sacrosanct, you have to believe the same is true of Israel (or any other country).

Although, I appreciate the idea of not derailing a thread, counter examples are also productive tools of reasoned discussion.

Internet access is not a human right though is it.

And if it was, where do you draw your line at where it is right or wrong in terms of access and that right ? That is, what websites is it ok for governments to block/ restrict ?

Quote " In international law, there are fundamental human rights, one of which is freedom of expression. "

Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human rights.

"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The problem is Article 29(2):

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

"just requirements of morality, public order ". See how that can be applied to internet access. If it was a human right of course.

Source :

https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english

Alas, I have a restricted internet problem. I can't find if Iran has signed and ratified the Declaration on Human rights. Can you check that for the forum ?

Re Afghanistan. Yes, it is terrible what is happening there. Quote " Would you disapprove of other countries smuggling school books (or starlink terminals) to Afghan families so their daughters could get an education?"

Countries yes. Individuals no. Because it should be up to the individual as to take the risk or not. If someone were to smuggle a starlink into any country and give it to someone with a wink, saying "gift from the USA", it is that person receiving that is at risk, not the USA. That would be different than someone in Afghanistan asking someone outside to send them a starlink, or books. Because the risk will be known, and risk assessed.

Re guns. I beg to differ on that. Many Americans would consider that a human right too. The same as you appear to consider unrestricted internet a Human right.

For me, the way for states to deal with this stuff is through the UN, in an open and transparent way. So everyone in the free world and hear what they are saying.

@RedTagAlan, I can't find if Iran has signed and ratified the Declaration on Human rights.

They did in 1948 but it is a declaration, not a treaty so is not ratified. They have also since declared that they will only abide by it if it does not contradict their interpretation of religious law..

Quote " Even on here, posters are being censored all the time for expressing views that are not shared by the majority."

Simply not true. For one, MN is a private company. It can publish or delete as it wants. It is not censorship. It would be censorship if one was to post in praise of a proscribed org, and the government ordered MN to take it down. But in that case it would likely be against T&Cs. Illegal content. If that makes sense. Erm, cos I did sort of contradict myself there. But anyway, MN can do as they like, within the law.

Quote "It is v naive to suggest that the US/Israel smuggling in starlink terminals had anything to do with law or ethics."

The Key word being " smuggling". Because it would be illegal under Iranian law.

The way do deal with it, in my view, is for the UN to put pressure on them. Not for a state to break another states laws.

An interesting example of this is Germany I think. They have very strict laws re Nazi stuff. So then it is up to the publishers to "censor"/ ensure their published material meets local law. No Nazi salutes on Youtube for example.

@RedTagAlan ,

As the internet was fully off for most Iranians, the Starlink gave them basic info, which is normally considered a human right.

It is nuanced, and obviously unlimited internet isn’t a human right, but it could definitely be argued that some basic knowledge of what is going on in your own country is.

And national repressive laws don’t trump that.

‘Re guns. I beg to differ on that. Many Americans would consider that a human right too. The same as you appear to consider unrestricted internet a Human right.’

You Quoted above the universal declaration of human rights. That doesn’t cover guns. The right for citizens to bear arms is an outlier, pretty much restricted to the U.S

Thanks for that. And of course they changed in '79. So I am not sure if it carries on in that case, if they had signed and ratified it.

On treaties, it is interesting in the context of this thread, because both Iran and the US have signed UNCLOS, the treaty about the sea. But neither have ratified it, so are technically not bound by it. Yet the US say they are enforcing it.

Quote " As the internet was fully off for most Iranians, the Starlink gave them basic info, which is normally considered a human right."

How do you know ? It might have been an intranet for all anyone knows. And how are you defining basic info here ? Is it reading about Trump saying he will bomb the shit out of them, or is it "the guns are hidden at XYZ".

And where is internet a human right ? Because if it is, there would be plenty of people in rural areas with their hands up yelling " Human rights".

@RedTagAlan ,

I never claimed the internet per se is a human right. If you have free media, then you have plenty of places to get information, so the internet is not needed.

But some access to basic information can be considered a human right. So, if your only possible access to real information is the internet, it can be considered a human right.

As a counter argument, would you not agree someone’s rights were being infringed if they had no access to real information about what was going on in the world around them due to state censorship?

Actually it is a really grey area. Under Article 19, a complete shut down of the Internet is a violation of international law because it could pose a risk to human life such as hospitals and emergency services. Even restricted access is a grey area as it must be reasonable and demonstrable that it is done either for security or to protect citizens from illegal content like child pornography. Iran could argue it shut down the Internet completely because it was the only way to disrupt the foreign actors communication network for the sake of security but it needs to prove there was no other way. Access to the Internet is not a human right per say but if you have access to it, cutting it off can be a violation of international law. As I said, it is a grey area but smuggling in Starlink terminals in order to facilitate that foreign actors ability to communicate and threaten the security of the country is definitely illegal under both domestic and international law..

Re Isreal.

The way to do it is like this:

Joint statement on Israel's Death Penalty Bill: 29 March 2026 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

You do diplomatic stuff. What you not do is bomb them and ferment uprisings.

And there are sanctions too. West bank settlers are sanctioned for example ,by many governments.

Thanks for that.

Quote " Under Article 19, a complete shut down of the Internet is a violation of international law because it could pose a risk to human life such as hospitals and emergency services. ".

Would that apply to developing nations too. Hospitals can and do function without the internet. And don't emergency services, in the UK anyway, still use radio ?

I don't think using Israel as an example is particularly helpful here so I wondered why you had picked Israel in particular.
I take your general point though.