MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 3rd 2023 - 05:07 UTC



Brazil and Germany, with UN support hit back at US cyber spying

Friday, December 20th 2013 - 06:54 UTC
Full article 29 comments

UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution aimed at protecting the right to privacy of internet users. The resolution was introduced by Brazil and Germany after allegations that the US had been eavesdropping on foreign leaders, including Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and Germany's Angela Merkel. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Troneas

    heh. similar to the UK, the US does not take the UN seriously, so this will change nothing. The UN and its resolutions is only relevant when it suits their agenda (for over 50 years now the UN urges the UK to discuss the Malvinas sovereignty and this plea goes ignored). they will argue that their spying is conducted in the framework of NATO or some other interest aimed at protecting their democracy that the world is out to destroy. again, no different from the UK which finds excuses in resolutions pertaining to “self-determination” and applies its own distorted interpretation of the idea in contexts that suits them.

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A.J.Rimmer

    remind me Troneas, who failed to turn up for a meeting with Hague and members of the FIG? Yet again your ignorance knows no bounds.

    What UN resolutions are you talking about?

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @1 Did you notice “General Assembly resolutions are non-binding”. Something that intelligent people have been trying to tell people like you for some time. “Note that argieland has 40 UN resolutions with which the UK is not complying”. Yeah, so? WE urge argieland to shut its mouth. Does it? The UN currently has 193 members. And 191 of them might be “against” the UK on the subject of the Falkland Islands. Do WE care? Most of those 191 members don't have 2 braincells to rub together. Even if they get together in 30-country groups. On the bright side, latam does have 2 braincells. I believe Chile has both of them. For the time being. Let's try a new “principle” where states that do not meet acceptable criteria are excluded from the UN. For instance, any state that ignores a UN Security Council resolution should be excluded for a period of 50 years. Any state that reneges on debt repayment agreements (including bonds) should be excluded for a period of 50 years from the date on which debts are repaid. Any state that breaches international law should be excluded for a period of 2 years per offence. Member states excluded for any if the reasons stated to have the equipment of their armed forces removed. “Law enforcement” agencies to be disarmed. Periods of exclusion to be served consecutively. Wouldn't that mean argieland being excluded for at least 100 years? How many times has argieland illegally intruded on the Falklands EEZ, attempted economic warfare, interfered with “innocent passage”? Must be good for another 700-800 years. Nearly forgot. “Excluded states” to be required to submit any proposed international agreements for scrutiny. UNSC with authority to refuse permission for agreements. Isolation. YES!! Let the world know who the pariahs and rogues are!

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    I must admit that I am puzzled, who would WANT to look at the personal mobile records of these two?

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    The spying has been at a level ever since WWII. The end of the Cold War didn't reduce it huge amounts, it just got spread further. The fact the US has been tapping Heads of State is no surprise, they've been doing it for decades.

    It is utterly embarrassing their view on the outside world. Almost like 'They are the parent and we are the kid' in effect.

    Eventually I hope the US 'gets the message' and starts to back off from poking it's bloody nose everywhere...

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Now I may have this totally wrong?
    But when did Brazil become a monastery,
    And its government join and become monks,
    Or nuns,

    Spying is spying,
    Please prove that Brazil and Germany,
    Does not spy, is not spying, and will never spy,
    What category is irrelevant?
    Spying is spying..

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    We construct this thing with participation with Osama Bin Laden, Paquista, Cuba, Russia, and Noth Korea....New Global War?

    Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    The UN charter began its history with The Declaration of St. James's Palace on June 12, 1941which was:

    “The only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security;
    “It is our intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace, to this end.”

    It was signed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa and the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia and General de Gaulle of France,

    The first meeting of the UN general assembly was held on 10 January 1946 at Central Hall in Parliament Square, opposite the Palace of Westminster (Parliament) in London.

    Of course since that time the UN has fallen short of its high ideals and has become a corrupt forum for all kinds of thugist regimes.

    Not really sure why Germany and Brazil are raising this issue at the UN. Still since the UN has become a degenerate talking shop why not. The high ideals of the Atlantic Charter are lost in the General assembly.

    May I remind you that the UN is nether a world Government nor an international court.

    I would be entertaining if next week all Brazils and Germany's espionage activities are splashed across the worlds newspapers. All this false spying outrage is so hypocritical. Unless of course Brazil and Germanys espionage agencies don't actually conduct any spying activities.

    Dec 21st, 2013 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    We are free. Slavery only know through you.

    Dec 21st, 2013 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    I wonder what the ABIN (Agência Brasileira de Inteligência) gets up to. Eavesdropping and spying on people perhaps?

    Not sure what slavery has to do with this issue. There haven’t been slaves in Britain since the Romans were here. The biggest slavers in history were the Portuguese. That’s why there are so many people of Africans descent in Brazil.

    Slavery and the slave trade were declared illegal throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the first state to do so. The royal navy’s West Africa squadron was created solely to hunt down slave traders of all nations and freed over 150,000 slaves. Most freed slaves were resettled in Freetown in Sierra Leone. The biggest culprits by far were Brazilian and Portuguese traders.

    Interestingly Sierra Leone has a place on the UN de-colonisation committee and has consistently supported the Falklands right of self-determination. I guess having a history of being liberated from slavery by the British, they are sympathetic to the British citizens of the Falklands desire to remain free and not end up as a colony of the Argentine Republic.

    Slavery was not abolished in Brazil until as late as 1888, Brazil being the last major country in the world to do so. By this time over 4 million African slaves had been transported across the Atlantic to Brazil. By some estimates this is close to being half the total of the whole Atlantic slave trade, an astonishing figure.

    All this is of course history and has no bearing on the liberties currently enjoyed by all Brazilian citizens.

    Dec 21st, 2013 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    Noting, first of all, that Tronearse has NO answer, shall we consider the number of enemies that the United Kingdom and the United States has. Must be about 190 each. Some reason why WE, both of us, shouldn't spy on our enemies? The whole of latam, as well as a goodly part of South America, ARE enemies of the UK. How many of “them” support argieland in its lies and intention to “ethnically cleanse” the Falkland Islands? Even in today's articles we can see the warmongering of the terrorist, Mujica. Then we can add in all the “other” terrorist states. Takes care of the whole Middle East, excluding Israel, and most of Africa. But even “friends” need to be checked on. To make sure what they say face to face is the same as what they say in private. Notably, Ehud Barak, ex-Prime Minister and current Defence Minister of Israel, has said that he always assumed he was under surveillance. And when it comes down to the bottom line, who would actually trust Brazil or Germany? It would be like someone trusting argieland! But at least there's one thing we can be sure of. There's no way for Snowden to reach Brazil without crossing large expanses of water. Bet there's no way he makes it. Surveillance is a wonderful thing. Purely by chance a surveillance operative picks up a message/conversation relating to a bomb planted at YOUR house. Wouldn't you like to be evacuated BEFORE? And if you're VERY nice to the UK and USA we “might” tell you! Or maybe not.

    Dec 21st, 2013 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87

    Just like the Britard state, as a true vassal state, supports its former American colony no matter what, Britard subjects, like true vassal subjects to a monarchy, will defend their country's sub-imperialist thuggery regardless of laws and facts. All of the “free speech” you say you enjoy in your country - what is it for, if you only use it to *not* dissent from state policies, to stick up for your leaders with nationalistic mindlessness? If the UK became a tyranny overnight (and I'm being kind in assuming it still isn't one), no one would even notice it since, in either case, all we'd see is Britards, on the streets or in the press, worshipping the state and praising whatever policies its leaders go for in the day at the Americans' behest.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Stevie

    That's hilarious!
    Former enslaved people should thank their enslavers for realizing slavery is wrong and stopping the human trade...
    Yes, thank you for not trading with humans anymore, good sports...

    Damn weird logic...

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    13 Stevie

    Idiot. The British Royal Navy liberated slaves from the Brazilian and Portuguese traders. Can't you even read? In any event I rather think the Sierra Leone government and people can speak for themselves.

    12 Forgetit87

    You don't half talk a load of rubbish. I don't think you even believe the stuff you write yourself. Britain a tyranny? Thats pretty disrepectful to all those people living in places like, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, etc who really are suffering under real tyrannys.

    I don't remember many people protesting when the military took over Argentina in 1976. And in 1978? No one gave a shit about the dissappeared,, about the kidnapped, tortured and murdered, just as long as Argentina won the stupid world cup.

    And in 1982? All Argentina cheered when the military invaded the Falklands. No one gave a shit about democracy then. A million Argentines should outside the Casa Rosada cheering the empty boasts of a mudererous drunk like General Galtieri. All their murdered friends and neighbours were simply forgotten about.

    Now that really was mindless nationalism.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Stevie

    If you trade with human beings together with other nations, you have no moral highground. Regardless if you are the first one to stop. Leave that to those that DIDN'T trade with people and just stay quiet on the matter. Or continue your futile attempt to justify your actions, although I can't see whom your trying to convince here. Your lot are convinced already, while us lot know the truth...

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    15 Stevie

    Why should Britain stay quiet. Attacking the slave trade and liberating 150,000 slaves from the Brazilians and Portugese was a noble enterprise. Or would you prefer they were still enslaved?

    Presemably you have no objection to turning the Falklanders into colonial subjects of Argentina.

    Your fellow South American brothers the Brazilians still permitted slavery as late as the 1880's.

    In the 1825 treaty of trade and tariffs between Britain and the United provinces of the River Plate. negotiated by British Consul Woodbine Parish article 14 (insisted upon by Britain) requests Argentine support Britain in stamping out the slave trade. Are you suggesting Argentina should not have agreed to this because Britain once permitted slave trade?

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Stevie

    Look Rupert... Zimbabwe has a more glorious history than you lot regarding slave trade.
    So does North Korea, China and Ethiopia.

    You know why? Because those nations may have done a lot of wrong in history, but they never traded with human beings..

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Christina is a Crunt

    12 Forgetit87 (#) All of the “free speech” you say you enjoy in your country - what is it for, if you only use it to *not* dissent from state policies

    what a dick! so you have to “dissent” to prove you have free speech? Even if the policies are good ones? In your mind yes, hooray for Brazilian free speech (at least the way you see it).

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    17 Stevie

    No, they just murder their own people, like Argentina. What are you suggesting, that it doesn't matter if you slaughter thousands of your own people, just as long as you have no historical record of the slave trade, no matter how long ago? and not even if you went to extraordinary lengths to stamp it out across the world?

    The people of Sierra Leone don't seem to agree with you. I guess they place more value on liberty than you do.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Stevie

    No, old man, it's just awkward a to hear the biggest slave traders talk about the liberties of the slaves. Leave that to those whom never questioned it in the first place...

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    20 Stevie

    The biggest slave trading nation was in fact Portugul. 40% of all africans transported across the seas ended up in Portuguese Brazil. The Spanish and Portuguese also enslaved millions of South American Indians.

    Not sure who you mean bythose who never questioned it. Argentina cannot claim credit for being on this list as the country didn't exist during the trading times.

    Those who liberated 150,000 slaves from your Portuguese and Brazilian friends are perfectly entitled to talk about it.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @1 Troneas
    The UN fully supports the Islanders right to self-determination, as Ban Ki-Moon has said many times.

    Question here is, instead of miss-quoting (by your own admission) 50 year old resolutions, why Argentina does not submit a new resolution to the UN GA, calling on Britain to negotiate?

    Just as Brazil and Germany have done in this case with the US, after all there are no vetoes in the GA.

    If as you say “the world knows its British colonialism”, and “the world/UN supports Argentina’s legitimate claims, the “world” in the form of the GA would adopt the resolution, and show its support, surely.

    But Argentina doesn’t do that, preferring simply to make things up.

    You’re not fooling anybody.

    @17 Stevie
    China had slaves for centuries, if not millennia. Importing slaves from Africa only once they had been castrated.

    Ethiopia has had slavery since the time of the Pharaohs, probably still has a lot of “people trafficking” because of its location.

    If N. Korea didn’t have slavery in its past (most unlikely), it certainly has it now.

    And Zimbabwe, “glorious history”, they now have a life expectancy of something like 33 years.

    @21 rupertbrooks0
    African slaves, whether shipped across the Atlantic by Europeans, or the Sahara by Arabs and others, were bought as slaves from African Kingdoms.

    When the King of the Ashanti was told the British had stopped slaving he replied, if the British now think slavery is bad, then why did they think it was alright before, also if they now think it is bad, then they do not understand my country.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    22 Pugol-H

    Indeed, there were slave markets in Djibouti well into the 1950’s. I would say to the King of Ashanti that there were always a great many people in Britain who strongly opposed slavery; most famously the evangelical Anglican “Clapham Sect”. I grew up in Clapham and I’m well acquainted with the grand Holy Trinity Church on Clapham common where they worshipped. Their most famous members of the “Sect” were of course William Wilberforce, Henry Thornton, Zachary Macaulay, Henry Venn and others. Many of the local streets in Clapham are named after these men. It was the Clapham Sect who founded Freetown in Sierra Leone as a settlement for freed slaves.

    Many of the Sect campaigned for years under the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. They succeeded, with the passage of “An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade” through Parliament on 25 March 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 passed on 1st August 1833 which abolished slavery throughout the British Empire.

    It's still a big deal in Clapham, something which puts Clapham on the map. The fashion designer Vivian Westward who lives in on of the grand Georgian houses on the northside of the common and must be able to see the church from her window spoke of them a few years back.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Forgetit87

    lol, Britards, advancing the status of people of color everywhere.

    Dec 22nd, 2013 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #24 Forgetit87 --I THINK YOU SHOULD
    As to your use of the soubriquet “Britards”, it only exposes your latent jealousy of being excluded - by reason of inferiority - from the top league of nations. You wish desperately for inclusion but can only fall back on adolescent name calling as this is denied to you..
    In your defence, you DO admit that we are advancing the status of people of colour everywhere. In this respect, Argentina has done what, exactly ?
    However, to business ----
    #International Business Times 23 June 2013
    QUOTE :-
    Blackout: How Argentina ‘Eliminated’ Africans From Its History And Conscience

    On a broader scale, the “elimination” of blacks from the country’s history and consciousness reflected the long-cherished desire of successive Argentine governments to imagine the country as an “all-white” extension of Western Europe in Latin America.

    “There is a silence about the participation of Afro-Argentines in the history and building of Argentina, a silence about the enslavement and poverty,” said Paula Brufman, an Argentine law student and researcher, according to Planete Afrique.

    “The denial and disdain for the Afro community shows the racism of an elite that sees Africans as undeveloped and uncivilized.”

    Dec 23rd, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ron_57

    Argentina is right to avoid having blacks. Who needs poverty?
    Countries like the USA and Brazil shows that millons of africans cannot adjust to live in the Americas.
    One hundred millons blacks living in poverty in Brazil is the biggest failure a country can have.
    Even in the USA with all the help provided by the goverment the blacks remain in poverty.

    Dec 27th, 2013 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    White Argentinian supremacy has spoken ! What a miserable excuse for a human being you are.

    Dec 28th, 2013 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ron_57

    Is not a “miserable excuse”. Is the true: why to bring black people to America when they cannot afford to make a decent living.

    Dec 28th, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Your emphasis is on “black people”, not on people with no education or skills. You are inferring that black people cannot attain the same level as “whites” because they are genetically inferior.
    The president of the USA is partially black, their Chief of Staff at the time of the Iraq war was black, many judges and mayors of large cities are black. It is the lack of opportunity and prejudice which holds the “black” people back.
    The UK has a sizable black population. They can be found at all levels in society and are now part of the work force. They perform as well as anyone else.

    I have just watched a program on TV about gun crime in Los Angeles.
    Every person brought into the casualty dept. of the hospital was either Hispanic or Latino. Should I infer from this that ALL immigration from Spanish speaking countries should stop as they are the main culprits in drug trading and gun crime ?

    Dec 29th, 2013 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ron_57

    There is an addiction with drugs and guns in the USA. But, Argentina don't have such problems!

    Dec 29th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!