gdstark

Not true....there are many ways to influence dictatorships. Fortunately they tend to be weak, held together by few, even single individuals, and are fairly easy to topple. In the case of North Korea I would make sure that the internet is not censored, that the thugs in charge are not allowed to travel, and when it can be proven, put arrest warrants on the heads of any who have committed crimes. It would be easy to topple North Korea if the free nations were dedicated to the task.

China is clearly not a democracy. And while it's easy to topple small dictatorships like North Korea, China is a more complicated issue. Fortunately China has embraced capitalism, which of course clearly contradicts the failed system of communism. What's left is a simple dictatorship, period. And the best way of toppling China's dictatorship is through open trade, open communication, and open diplomacy as long as we NEVER recognize their dictators as legitimate representatives of the Chinese people. This means we coordinate where it benefits all (fighting plagues, responding to natural disasters, etc) or benefits their ultimate fall (don't help them censor the internet). Ultimately the best way to influence the Chinese people is through setting a good example of how democracy benefits the people.

Cuba will change when Castro dies. I'm very optimistic about Iran. There's a lot of internal interest in democracy. Probably the less outside meddling, the better. Some of the others fit into the North Korea category, covered above.

This is possible, even true in some ways. But how do you see this possibility as any more or less with the UDN? Are you saying that if democracies did a better job of cooperating, the problem would be worse?

So help me understand. Suppose the democratic nations were willing to meet to discuss what actions if any should occur when Fidel Castro dies. Would they still do this at the UN? Or would you strip the UN from the ability to even discuss such matters?

Second question for you: China is currently a member of the UN. Do you believe it's proper for China to vote on human rights issues? Or have a seat on the security council? Or be included in meetings to discuss Cuba? How can you allow an individual to set behind the CHINA nameplate when he does not represent the Chinese people? Doesn't allowing the Chinese dictatorship equal influence to that of legitimate nations work against the spread of democracy?

gary

gunnut

So how are you gonna make sure the internet isn't censored in NK? And you want to arrest high ranking officials of another nation while they travel? How are you gonna make the free nations cooperate on an issue like this?

Saddam was clearly a dictator and frequent violator of human rights. We couldn't even get France, our long time ally, to back us up on the war to arrest him and make sure internet wasn't censored in Iraq.

This is what we should do with all dictatorships. Continue trade with them. Sanctions are worthless. Look at Cuba. 50 years of sanction and Castro is still there. Only the people suffered (Michael Moore and the Hollywood doesn't think so though).

Let's hope you're right.

Democracies don't have similar aims. France is a democracy. It was not our friend in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Germany is a democracy. It sided with France, Russia, and China, against us and UK. Their aim was pretty much the same, to prevent the US from becoming the absolute dominating power in the world.

Democracy takes a back seat on the world stage. Nations fight for influence and prestige, both among other nations and to their own people. Standing up against the US earns brownie points among nations hostile to US, and their own nationalistic population.

In my view, UN is a place where nations talk to each other in an open forum. Nations can bring their disputes to the public and ask for a ruling of public opinion. UN should not have the power to punish anyone or to interfere in internal matters. So when Castro kicks the bucket, nations can talk in the UN and do whatever they want, but ultimately, Cuba decides what happens next. Not us. Not France. Not Russia. Not the UN.

China can vote on the human rights issue as a priviledge of being a permanent member of the SC. This was decided when the UN was formed. The founding nations and the biggest participants in WW2 (winners of course) each got a seat. The China that sits on the SC right now is not the same China that founded the UN. Did you know that?

What would you suggest, if your UDN is formed, to include China? What if China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, Indonesia, and a host of other "not so democratic" nations decided they don't give a damn about the UDN, and formed their own bloc? The US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, and other western style democracies can jump and whine all they want, but they have no influence over that other organization. What then? This situation will essentialy be what I had proposed in the first place. Regional powers and like minded nations will form their own bloc, talk their own trades, set their own policies with their neighbors, and all go to the UN to chat. UN does nothing substantial as far as action goes. Just provides a place for everyone to vent.

UN should retain the WHO and disaster relief (not reconstruction).

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gdstark

Require any company which resides in a UDN nation to NOT censor the internet. If Google doesn't like it, let them move their offices to North Korea. Fortunately it's technically much easier to keep the internet free than it is to censor it. The UDN can also broadcast a free internet in the same way as Radio Free America broadcasts radio.

The same way it already works with former Yugoslaviian thugs. Clearly thugs can hide out for a very long time, but just the act of making them wanted men is in itself a punnishment. International courts are a legitimate function of the UN / UDN.

One consistant theme in your replies is that such-and-such didn't work under the UN. I have two answers. First, the UN lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many people and nations. That doesn't help. Secondly, just because we fail at a task is not a reason to try. Following the correct course in life is our responsibility regardless of the outcome.

The key is finding common ground. You mentioned France....it was always irritating to me that, of all the speeches by Bush, he never seemed to focus on the financial ties between France and Iraq. It seemed like a real missed opportunity. As for China and Russia, I wouldn't expect them to side with use since they oppose democratic reform. Kick them out.

Yep. That's why we need to change the system.

Should we interfere with the internal affairs of Darfur? Or just allow people to be slaughtered? Should we have stopped Hitler when his internal affairs involved slaughtering the Jews?

This is an outrageous position, justifying the legitimizing of a dictatorship based on historical grounds. Are you saying you agree with this justification?

I've already made it abundantly clear. China should NOT be a member of the UDN. Their "representatives" can watch the proceedings, but only in the back of the room in wobbly metal folding chairs.

You're repeating yourself. This opportunity already exists for them and is NOT a valid argument against forming the UDN.

So I would still like to hear if you approve of China sitting adjacent to legitimate democracies in your vision of the UN. Are you ok with this?

gary

entropy

I have read Machiavelli's "on the use of auxillaries and mercenaries", I am well aware of the dangers. I do not suggest the use of PMC as a regular force, but for example to hire them to destroy rebel groups. UN peacekeepers are driven by good will, and hampered by rules, when PMC soldiers are driven by money and will accomplish the goal.

__________________
If memory serves...

gdstark

gunnut: So that's it? One difficult question and you give up the discussion? And I thought we were making progress. I'll repeat the question in case you missed it:

So I would still like to hear if you approve of China sitting adjacent to legitimate democracies in your vision of the UN. Are you ok with this?

gary

beka

I wanted to comment on this post. The UN was created to avoid World War III hopefuly. You cannot compare it to the League of Nations because the League had no teeth, and the USA refused to join it.

The UN isn't suppose to be a military alliance, it is suppose to be an organization that represents all of the nations on earth. The hope is that with dialouge we can hopefully prevent another World war.

If you want to create a democratic UN, this organization will have no legitimacy to China, Russia, or any nation not included. Eastern Countries, who for the most part would not be included, what consider probably another tool of Western imperialism. It could easily lead to a situation that existed before World War I, where you had military alliances being built up between different groups until all it took was a small fuse and a war broke out.

gdstark

I'm not comparing it to the League of Nations.

Yes, but with the serious lack of success (Darfur, nuclear proliferation, and many many other tradegies) we can do better. Perhaps it's time for an organization that represents all the PEOPLE of earth, rather than nations. Expecting dictatorships to address issues of human rights is sheer folly.

What? Exactly the opposite is true. If you recognize a dictatorship as a legitimate government, you perpetuate the dictatorship. We need to do exactly the opposite...work AGAINST dictatorships, which by definition works FOR the people under those very same dictatorships. And that should be our goal - support of the oppressed, not support of dictators.

It's important NOT to apply significance in what dictatorships believe or don't believe. They are dictatorships which by definition ONLY represent a handful of powerful people with guns.

Unfortunately that's exactly what we have now. Nuclear proliferation is rampant. The only difference is that technology is allowing EVERYONE to own a nuclear weapon. In the past only superpowers had nuclear bombs. Today MANY nations can acquire them. If this keeps up, which seems likely under the UN, individuals will be buying their nuclear bombs on ebay. Possibly an exaguration, but I'm sure you understand the point. The danger has NEVER been greater. A change in how we manage world governance is urgently needed. If not the United Democratic Nations, what? I'm open to your solution to this problem.

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org