My Problems with the International Community, the UN, and the "Human Rights" Judgment

[GhostWriter16]

My basic problem with it is this, countries with no concern in human rights are voting on this stuff.

First of all, let's get something straight. Tyrannical regimes are criminals of high scale. Hu Jianto, Kim Jong II, the Taliban (Even before we kicked them out), whoever Iran's president is, exc. are ALL criminals. If you don't believe it, let me explain.

What is taxation? It is the transfer of money from you to the government. By VERY DEFINITION it is theft unless you are getting something in return. Also, you have to have a say in this. For now, I will simply say, at least for now, getting to pick your leaders through election is a form of consent. Its clunky, but its the system we have, and its the system the free world uses, so I'm willing to accept it for now.

Not to mention the fact, that according to international law, you have the right to free speech and free religion, therefore, leaders who deny this are criminals according to international law.

And these regimes are voting on when there are violations in Human Rights! No wonder North Korea is still running Juche after all these years! China will veto everything we do to stop them!

Here are my suggestions:

1. Kick the Criminal Regimes out of the international community, unless they improve their freedom situation. Rank every regime through a non-biased third party such as freedom house. Rankings would be simple, with three rankings "Free, partly free, and nonfree." So, we are not going to quibble majorly over whether the US, Great Britain, or Sweden is freest, they are all free countries.

2. Further rank all of the free countries into three further categories. The best ranking, 1, would be totally free, 2 would be almost totally free, and 3 would be mostly free.

3. ALL countries with a ranking of one would get five votes, all level twos would get three, all level threes would get one. Partly free countries would get to observe but not vote. There would be no veto, and size would be unrelated. If a tiny country in the Middle of nowhere has total freedom, they get five votes. The United States would get five votes, England would get five votes, exc.

4. All Unfree nations would not even be allowed to view the UN at all, in fact they would be seen as war criminals, and hopefully prosecuting by the Court, which is run by the free countries.

5. Create an international court, which is run by the Free nations. At any time, by two thirds vote, these free countries can legally prosecute a leader. If it succeeds, that leader would be totally cut off from the international community, and it would be a violation of international law to trade with them (Not all of the criminals would be tried like this, only the especially bad, genocidal leaders.)

6. Create a "Genocidal Prevention Corps" (Scroll up and you'll find it. I made a few adjustments but I mostly agree with what I said. This would be a body of troops owned by all the free nations and, at the start, would simply end easy to stop genocide. When and where they act would be determined by vote of all free nations (As shown above.) They would not be drafted, but there would be financial incentive for joining, and all nations who had a vote in their actions would also pay money to keep them running.

This corps would not be concerned with anything but killing, and only military and government targets. They would kill the government and leave. The UN can keep the peace later, but their job would be simply to end the genocide and leave. Larger Genocides such as the one in North Korea would not likely be able to be dealt with by this group, so they would be deal with by the International Court (Shown above) and if necessary, then after being isolated, be invaded by the free world.

Things the left should like about this plan: The USA doesn't dominate just because its the USA. Freedom rules. Eventually, nations would be forced to turn to democracy or suffer total banishment from the world community. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it could be done, aside from a few exceptional situations, without violence, and in cases when violence is necessary, all the Free World would have a say.

Things the Right should like about this plan: The joke that is the UN is no more, because tyrannical governments have no say in the international community. Action can finally be taken to bring freedom. Pressure would be created to bring freedom.

Thoughts? I am curious what you all think. Poll coming, but please discuss as well.

EDIT: Could a mod add an "Other" option?

 

[civver_764]

What is taxation? It is the transfer of money from you to the government. By VERY DEFINITION it is theft unless you are getting something in return. Also, you have to have a say in this. For now, I will simply say, at least for now, getting to pick your leaders through election is a form of consent. Its clunky, but its the system we have, and its the system the free world uses, so I'm willing to accept it for now.

Theft isn't inherently wrong. The rich steal from the poor by the billions yet I don't see you batting an eye at that.

1. Kick the Criminal Regimes out of the international community,

There goes all of the big five.

3. ALL countries with a ranking of one would get five votes, all level twos would get three, all level threes would get one. Partly free countries would get to observe but not vote. There would be no veto, and size would be unrelated. If a tiny country in the Middle of nowhere has total freedom, they get five votes. The United States would get five votes, England would get five votes, exc.

Who gets to do the ranking?

 

[Arwon]

It's really really easy to design your own personal ideal international governance architecture when you're not constrained by petty little things like consequences, national sovereignty, political will, limited resources and diplomatic realities.

 

[amadeus]

1. ... So, we are not going to quibble majorly over whether the US, Great Britain, or Sweden is freest, they are all free countries.

2. Further rank all of the free countries into three further categories. The best ranking, 1, would be totally free, 2 would be almost totally free, and 3 would be totally free.

PROTIP: when making a list of points, try to avoid contradicting yourself in said list.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Theft isn't inherently wrong. The rich steal from the poor by the billions yet I don't see you batting an eye at that.

This isn't a communism VS capitalism argument, my point was, just arbitrarily saying "I'm the dictator, pay me taxes" is theft, and most of these dictators do things (Restricting free speech and religion) that violates international law.

There goes all of the big five.

I don't totally agree, but I see your point. I'm worried, currently, at nations that are committing genocide, near-genocide, and that deprive people of basic liberties which are considered such by international law. Its not perfect but its a start. I'm much more worried about the systematic and continuous human rights violations in China than the small time and very arguable ones in the USA.

Who gets to do the ranking?

FreedomHouse or a similar third party that isn't biased and is willing to be honest about it. If a country won't let them in, they are automatically considered unfree.

 

[Earthling]

The UN never has and likely never will for a lonnnngg time get significant authority over military forces capable of doing anything on the level suggested. Preventing genocides and similar warfare in broken states would be a noble goal, yes, and international cooperation would be great, but it's not just going to happen like that - in a way first world countries are too petty and also don't want to submit to an authority like the UN (sentiment very common in the US, for instance)

While it is perhaps also reasonable to complain about the "voting powers of tyrannical regimes" in the UN, it also is realistically true that it doesn't matter. There are hardly any examples where it actually matters how North Korea's diplomat or something like that votes on anything. And indeed all UN declarations of rights and so on were mostly created solely from free/western nations anyway. The UN defines rights more broadly than some "free" nations like the United States do, again, and it has very little to do with actual decisions by countries' representatives at large and especially from non-Security Council nations.

The UN certainly has problems and is ineffective, sure, but some major issues (dominant powers of the Security Council, for instance) aren't addressed above and the ideas suggested above just don't seem realistic to ever expect to occur with the UN. Particularly when countries like the US can and will act on their own with foreign intervention regardless of what the UN would say even if did have better structure/organization to do such things.

 

[Arwon]

Complaining about the fact that bad countries get to vote in the UN strikes me as roughly analogous to complaining that stupid arsehole members of parliament get the same vote that nice smart people do.

 

[Lord of Elves]

You know, Dommy, I once made a point that I define conservatism as accepting that there will always be those who are less fortunate than others in one way or another, and learning to live with the way the universe works, and not creating lofty, naive and unachievable goals for governments and societies like, "ending poverty", "ending hunger", and "ending genocide", and I do recall that you agreed with this.

So wot's all this then?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's really really easy to design your own personal ideal international governance architecture when you're not constrained by petty little things like consequences, national sovereignty, political will, limited resources and diplomatic realities.

The thing is, Democracies never fight each other, and I think the free world would be up for it. The unfree world would have a tough time not at least improving their human rights in the face of such pressure. And, a few small time dictators in Africa would just be dealt with by the GSC.

PROTIP: when making a list of points, try to avoid contradicting yourself in said list.

Not really a contradiction.

We could debate all day whether the US or Canada is freer. It will get us nowhere, and only stop the entire thing. According to an international list, when comparing to totilitarian countries like China and North Korea, they are both among the freest. I believe most of Europe would come out similar.

On the other hand, consider a country like India. They are a Democracy, and they are free. However, are they as free as the US? No, they have restrictions against speaking against the Supreme Court, and the local governments sometimes (Illegally) persecute minorities. The law guarantees liberty, and its still a free country, but not nearly as much so as the US or Canada. It wouldn't be up to me, it would be up to whoever does the rankings, but chances are good they'd end up in the second or third tier of "Free."

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

How is that defined what is "Free"? I think itd be hard to be objective.

 

[JollyRoger]

The thing is, Democracies never fight each other,

So the CSA wasn't a democracy?

 

[bombshoo]

My basic problem with it is this, countries with no concern in human rights are voting on this stuff.

First of all, let's get something straight. Tyrannical regimes are criminals of high scale. Hu Jianto, Kim Jong II, the Taliban (Even before we kicked them out), whoever Iran's president is, exc. are ALL criminals. If you don't believe it, let me explain.

No China in the UN? That seems sort of stupid from an economic standpoint considering how much of the world economy they influence. Not being able to consider them in any world economic agreements seems like a mistake.

And even if many dictatorships are bad, a lot of the time these countries also have very bad economic situations and are prone to things like disease and famine. Even if their population is being oppressed giving them a forum to request for food or health aid when it's needed is probably a good idea.

What is taxation? It is the transfer of money from you to the government. By VERY DEFINITION it is theft unless you are getting something in return. Also, you have to have a say in this. For now, I will simply say, at least for now, getting to pick your leaders through election is a form of consent. Its clunky, but its the system we have, and its the system the free world uses, so I'm willing to accept it for now.

Even most very bad countries at least provide a system of defense, so most of those citizens are getting something for their money. Also, just because something is a dictatorship that it doesn't build roads or have an economy. Some of the larger economies are fairly authoritarian.

Not to mention the fact, that according to international law, you have the right to free speech and free religion, therefore, leaders who deny this are criminals according to international law.

About every country breaks these every now and then and it's extremely difficult to define what is a denial of freedom of speech or religion on an international scale.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Kick the Criminal Regimes out of the international community, unless they improve their freedom situation. Rank every regime through a non-biased third party such as freedom house. Rankings would be simple, with three rankings "Free, partly free, and nonfree." So, we are not going to quibble majorly over whether the US, Great Britain, or Sweden is freest, they are all free countries.


2. Further rank all of the free countries into three further categories. The best ranking, 1, would be totally free, 2 would be almost totally free, and 3 would be totally free.

Who does these rankings? What if the rankers start breaking the rules themselves? What are the qualifications to be "free"?

3. ALL countries with a ranking of one would get five votes, all level twos would get three, all level threes would get one. Partly free countries would get to observe but not vote. There would be no veto, and size would be unrelated. If a tiny country in the Middle of nowhere has total freedom, they get five votes. The United States would get five votes, England would get five votes, exc.

So a much larger country where everyone is fairly content but isn't 100% free (I'd give an example, but I don't your definition of a rank 2) gets less votes than Monaco? How does this fix anything?

4. All Unfree nations would not even be allowed to view the UN at all, in fact they would be seen as war criminals, and hopefully prosecuting by the Court, which is run by the free countries.

Again how do they apply for aid or ask for help against foreign aggression? Are we just giving all the dictatorships freedom to fight it out amongst themselves? This seems to create a lot more problems than it solves.

5. Create an international court, which is run by the Free nations. At any time, by two thirds vote, these free countries can legally prosecute a leader. If it succeeds, that leader would be totally cut off from the international community, and it would be a violation of international law to trade with them (Not all of the criminals would be tried like this, only the especially bad, genocidal leaders.)

This would probably create a lot of starvation and poverty. You can't punish the citizens of a country because their leaders are jerks.

6. Create a "Genocidal Prevention Corps" (Scroll up and you'll find it. I made a few adjustments but I mostly agree with what I said. This would be a body of troops owned by all the free nations and, at the start, would simply end easy to stop genocide. When and where they act would be determined by vote of all free nations (As shown above.) They would not be drafted, but there would be financial incentive for joining, and all nations who had a vote in their actions would also pay money to keep them running.

This corps would not be concerned with anything but killing, and only military and government targets. They would kill the government and leave. The UN can keep the peace later, but their job would be simply to end the genocide and leave. Larger Genocides such as the one in North Korea would not likely be able to be dealt with by this group, so they would be deal with by the International Court (Shown above) and if necessary, then after being isolated, be invaded by the free world.

How is this really any different than the UN peacekeeping troops that already exist?

 

[Lord of Elves]

The thing is, Democracies never fight each other

You realize this is mostly because of nuclear deterrent and the post-Cold War landscape, not out of any particular good will, yes?

 

[Arwon]

The thing is, Democracies never fight each other, and I think the free world would be up for it. The unfree world would have a tough time not at least improving their human rights in the face of such pressure. And, a few small time dictators in Africa would just be dealt with by the GSC.

That's not really a response to my observation that you're idly fantasising in a world free of the constraints that exist in reality.

Also, the Spanish-American war, the late 90s war between Pakistan and India, the Boer Wars, the American Civil War, the Phillippine rebellion against the United States, friggin World War 1, the 6 Day War, Turkey's invasion of Cyprus...

 

[Zelig]

What is taxation? It is the transfer of money from you to the government. By VERY DEFINITION it is theft unless you are getting something in return.

This is as far as I read.

I thought it seemed funny, so I looked up the definition of "tax".

tax
[taks]
–noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

So you're saying that by definition, a sum of money demanded by a government for specific facilities or services is theft unless you get specific facilities or services in return for the sum of money demanded?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The UN never has and likely never will for a lonnnngg time get significant authority over military forces capable of doing anything on the level suggested. Preventing genocides and similar warfare in broken states would be a noble goal, yes, and international cooperation would be great, but it's not just going to happen like that - in a way first world countries are too petty and also don't want to submit to an authority like the UN (sentiment very common in the US, for instance)

I agree, but if someone in a position of power (Like the US president or something) suggested it, I think the free world would go for it. It would take some time for the totilitarians to get used to the fact that the free world just called them criminals, and they'd probably ignore it at first. However, they couldn't forever when the whole free world embargoed them. If we were reasonable about our expectations, they'd conform eventually. For instance, telling China "Become free now" won't work, but telling them "Don't kill people unless they actually break the law" or even "Don't send anyone back to North Korea" (Who would probably be embargoed by the whole free world at this point due to the international court) may.

I'm not advocating going to war against China, their criminal, Hu Jianto, is not only too big for the GPC, its also too big for NATO. China would have to be left to its own devices.

Consider on the other hand, Sudan. If the US got involved there, we'd be called "Dirty imperialists." But, if the whole free world (Or the majority of the free world) consented, nobody could really complain.

Now, I'm not the US president and this almost definitely won't happen. But, let's use these postulates:

1. The FREE world would go for it

2. It is suggested.

Now, let's go from there. Do you think it would actually work to solve any problems?

While it is perhaps also reasonable to complain about the "voting powers of tyrannical regimes" in the UN, it also is realistically true that it doesn't matter. There are hardly any examples where it actually matters how North Korea's diplomat or something like that votes on anything. And indeed all UN declarations of rights and so on were mostly created solely from free/western nations anyway. The UN defines rights more broadly than some "free" nations like the United States do, again, and it has very little to do with actual decisions by countries' representatives at large and especially from non-Security Council nations.

True, but China and Russia are Security Council nations, and they are both "Criminal Regimes" according to my OP. Also, they have veto power, thus causing ANY human rights legislation in the UN to be impossible (China will always vote no.)

The UN certainly has problems and is ineffective, sure, but some major issues (dominant powers of the Security Council, for instance) aren't addressed above and the ideas suggested above just don't seem realistic to ever expect to occur with the UN. Particularly when countries like the US can and will act on their own with foreign intervention regardless of what the UN would say even if did have better structure/organization to do such things.

The UN would be rendered useless by this plan, because if it were introduced in the UN, China and Russia would vote no. It would be a new organization. The UN would still exist for Peacekeeping (To clean up after the GPC stop a genocide) but that's it.

Complaining about the fact that bad countries get to vote in the UN strikes me as roughly analogous to complaining that stupid arsehole members of parliament get the same vote that nice smart people do.

There is a difference though. All of parliament (Is supposed to) support freedom, and most if not all do. That's not the same contradiction as China voting on what constitues human rights.

You know, Dommy, I once made a point that I define conservatism as accepting that there will always be those who are less fortunate than others in one way or another, and learning to live with the way the universe works, and not creating lofty, naive and unachievable goals for governments and societies like, "ending poverty", "ending hunger", and "ending genocide", and I do recall that you agreed with this.

So wot's all this then?

I think the first two and probably the third are impossible to do fully, but we should still try to an extent. "Ending hunger" is impossible, but reducing it is possible. Same with genocide. And I believe this system if it worked would reduce genocide.

Some ruthless tyrants will win, but should we tolerate governments who take millions of lives? (Translation: Hitler/Stalin category.) And, I also have seen reports that, based of Saddam's average rate of killing, we saved 300,000 lives. The problem is, it will never be approved of if its one country invading another. If its all the free world agreeing on what and where to strike, something will probably be done. It won't end everywhere, but it can be reduced. That's practical IMO.

 

[cardgame]

It's really really easy to design your own personal ideal international governance architecture when you're not constrained by petty little things like consequences, national sovereignty, political will, limited resources and diplomatic realities.

I have nothing to say beyond this.

Armchair generals are armchair generals, not real generals, for a reason.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How is that defined what is "Free"? I think itd be hard to be objective.

It would be determined, after checking the situation in every country and making an objective judgment by A THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATION. Not a country at all.

So the CSA wasn't a democracy?

I forgot to state STABLE democracy, but in any case, my statement was a general one. Its not ALWAYS true, but its GENERALLY true.

No China in the UN? That seems sort of stupid from an economic standpoint considering how much of the world economy they influence. Not being able to consider them in any world economic agreements seems like a mistake.

It doesn't mean you can't trade with China. The only way that would happen is if they were declared guilty of crimes by two thirds of the free world in a court hearing. That's not likely to happen with China, I have in mind a couple of specific countries that would be comdemned (Specifically the DPRK and Sudan.) Probably a couple of others, but not China. China is a run-of-the-mill tyrannical nation. They have to wait.

And even if many dictatorships are bad, a lot of the time these countries also have very bad economic situations and are prone to things like disease and famine. Even if their population is being oppressed giving them a forum to request for food or health aid when it's needed is probably a good idea.

I would still like to help their people, and would in situations where their country will actually let them have it (Money has been given to the DPRK and Kim Jong kept it all.) In those cases, where starvation is caused by government, the International Court would convict them of genocide, thus cutting them off all trade and possibly ordering a NATO invasion.

Even most very bad countries at least provide a system of defense, so most of those citizens are getting something for their money. Also, just because something is a dictatorship that it doesn't build roads or have an economy. Some of the larger economies are fairly authoritarian.

My point was "Taxation without representation is theft." My point was very general though, to come up with a simple reason they are criminals. Their denial of free speech is another.

About every country breaks these every now and then and it's extremely difficult to define what is a denial of freedom of speech or religion on an international scale.

Well, for these purposes, hate speech isn't going to count. I think they should in my country, but we can't enforce it worldwide since most of the free world won't agree with us.

Arresting any Christian who is caught in a House or Unregistered Church (AKA China) is breaking this law. France isn't, for now.

Who does these rankings? What if the rankers start breaking the rules themselves? What are the qualifications to be "free"?

First question: An independent third party, either freedomhouse or someone similar.

Second Question: They don't have a country so they can't.

Third Question: International law.

So a much larger country where everyone is fairly content but isn't 100% free gets less votes than Monaco? How does this fix anything?

Well, I don't really think of Monaco as a country of significance, so I would probably not give them a vote for this reason. Same with the Vatican. I am fine with them existing, but they are there for a very specific reason, and they don't even really have their own defense forces, and they aren't international players. I'd just leave them out personally, though I don't really care otherwise.

What would it solve? It would allow human rights to be decided by the ones who, you know, have respect for human rights.

Again how do they apply for aid or ask for help against foreign aggression? Are we just giving all the dictatorships freedom to fight it out amongst themselves? This seems to create a lot more problems than it solves.

They aren't (Usually) cut out of the foreign community, just the international organization. They are still (Usually) given diplomatic status unless convicted by the court, at which time their legal options would be to submit to UN arrest. Depending on the situation, the whole world would just embargo them until they improved the situation, or NATO would invade. The free world would vote.

This would probably create a lot of starvation and poverty. You can't punish the citizens of a country because their leaders are jerks.

In these situations, they would have to be basically starving ALREADY (See North Korea) and would probably be the presequite to legally invading them.

We wouldn't use it on run of the mill dictators like China.

How is this really any different than the UN peacekeeping troops that already exist?

Because they rarely actually do it. They try sometimes, but they won't go in and kill a government to stop genocide.

The thing is, Democracies never fight each other

You realize this is mostly because of nuclear deterrent and the post-Cold War landscape, not out of any particular good will, yes?

Also, the Spanish-American war,

I'm fairly certain Spain was not a Democracy at the time.

the late 90s war between Pakistan and India,

Pakistan isn't a real democracy. They aren't even considered free by Freedom house. India is considered free though barely.

the Boer Wars,

Not sure what this war was.

the American Civil War,

The Union would consider this a rebellion and not a war. In any case, A: The Union felt it was their country and B: The CSA was not a stable democracy.

the Phillippine rebellion against the United States,

See above.

friggin World War 1,

That was a war between 2 Dictatorships, not two democracies. At the least, the democracy was limited. I am willing to call this a rare exception though.

the 6 Day War,

I'm pretty sure Egypt wasn't a Democracy.

Turkey's invasion of Cyprus...

I wouldn't consider Turkey a Democracy...

This is as far as I read.

I thought it seemed funny, so I looked up the definition of "tax".

tax
[taks]
–noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

So you're saying that by definition, a sum of money demanded by a government for specific facilities or services is theft unless you get specific facilities or services in return for the sum of money demanded?

My point was, again about "Taxation without representation."

 

[JollyRoger]

So now a democracy has to meet some subjective version of stable to qualify? What's next, scoring them on technical merit and artistic impression?

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm fairly certain Spain was not a Democracy at the time.

Not sure what this war was.

The Union would consider this a rebellion and not a war. In any case, A: The Union felt it was their country and B: The CSA was not a stable democracy.

That was a war between 2 Dictatorships, not two democracies. At the least, the democracy was limited. I am willing to call this a rare exception though.

The Boer War was a war between Great Britain and the various Transvaal Republics (Dutch colonial governments) that rose up against the British imperial government and ultimately resulted in the creation of the South African Union as an essential Dominion of Britain.

Spain was a parliamentary monarchy, which is essentially a representative form of government (I can't think of any modern "pure democracies", in which rule is exercised as by definition directly by the people) seeing as in modern governments (late-19th century onwards) almost all royal establishments were merely figureheads and exercised little actual power for the most part.

What two dictatorships might those be?

How are you defining a "stable democracy"?