Today on Blogcritics
Home » Reinventing the United Nations

Reinventing the United Nations

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The United Nations is in an ongoing state of crisis. It is a crisis caused by corruption and incompetence, but at a deeper level it is a crisis of legitimacy. The UN lacks the basic ethical foundation to function with legitimate authority as a world peacekeeping body. They have turned a blind eye to genocide, engaged in wholesale fraud and deception, deployed troops to rape and murder, condemned the innocent and given comfort to oppressors. They bring chaos, death and corruption instead of the peace they promised. The continued rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, his fraudulent reelection and the willingness of the UN and other nations to negotiate with him is just the most recent reminder of the utter failure of their philosophy of indiscriminate inclusiveness.

The UN is a democratic organization. You know, democracy. That stuff the USA so energetically and enthusiastically exports to the rest of the world. How on earth could you possibly object to a working democratic organization? The problem is that while it may technically be a democracy because it votes on things, it lacks other essential elements of representative government which are necessary for fair and equitable representation.

First, in the general assembly every nation has an equal vote regardless of population or any other consideration, including whether that government is itself legitimately elected. There are no qualifications for membership except controlling land and having some sort of government. The harsh truth is that some UN members aren't fit to govern their own countries, much less participate in governing the world. Democracy is a useful tool, but it can't be the sole basis for government, because it is vulnerable to abuse by demagogues and interest groups and factions with very undemocratic agendas. For representative government to work, it needs to have checks and balances, protections for the rights of citizens and rules which restrict the abuse of power. This was a problem we had in the US over 200 years ago in the Confederation Congress and we were able to figure out a solution which is embodied in our Constitution.

Second, the Security Council itself is unfair and undemocratic. It arbitrarily empowers certain nations over others, in many cases with little or no justification or contrary to any kind of good sense. What's more, some of the worst dictatorships and most abusive governments in the world are represented on the Security Council, which is absolutely unacceptable. Some of these countries shouldn't even be let into the UN, much less be put in a position of power, but with the ten temporary members voted on by the whole body of the UN, the council strongly represents powerful factions for whom democracy and human rights are low priorities.

Third, the UN has constantly run into problems with conflicts of sovereignty. It's not really a world government and exists at the sufferance of the member nations and their willingness to participate. It's meddlesome and the limits on its authority are unclear. Its role in the world needs to be strictly defined, with a clear division between the scope of its power and the sovereignty of the various nations of the world in running their own affairs.

The United Nations as it currently exists is essentially an international debating society which cannot be taken seriously because of its corrupt bureaucracy and willingness to tolerate rogue nations as members and even let them form voting blocks and wield considerable power. The result has been that some of the more reasonable and most powerful nations have stopped taking the UN seriously, ignore its dictates routinely and even justifiably withhold financial support, as the United States has been doing for a number of years. Nations use the UN when they can to advance their interests and ignore the UN whenever it disagrees with them.

As an institution it has lost its legitimacy because the only people it serves are those who wish to abuse what little power it has. Of course, no one sensible would give the UN as it exists now any more power than it has, specifically because its structure makes it suitable for nothing but abuse and corruption. My first inclination would be to abandon the UN and give up on the concept entirely. The idea was a failure with the League of Nations and is a failure now, and would probably fail in the future. Yet many still argue for the need to bring nations together, so let me suggest some ideas based on practical commonality of interest rather than abstract and impractical ideals.

Any new institution which replaces the UN needs to be able to win the loyalty of major nations and command the respect of the more troublesome nations of the world. To do that it needs to recognize which nations are important, both in population and economic power, and to acknowledge the reality that some nations actually are more important than others. It needs to accept the principles on which good government are based, including representative government and basic human rights, including the right of free trade, and it needs to discourage tyranny and oppression in any of its forms, from socialism to communism to religious extremism. It also needs to move away from the institutional structures which have encouraged and supported a self-perpetuating and corrupt bureaucracy which has been indifferent to any needs but those of its own pencil-pushing elite.

The world could certainly benefit from a functional international organization, but without substantial changes the United Nations doesn't fit that bill. If you want a working UN it needs to be restructured to represent the members more fairly and to protect the best interests of humanity and the member nations. This can be done in the following ways:

• No nation which doesn't have a verifiable, popularly elected government, with a working legal system and a recognition of human rights, including the right to free trade, should be allowed a vote at the UN. Nations with ongoing histories of human rights abuses should not be allowed to be voting members. A committee made up nations picked in advance and written into the charter should determine what nations pass this criteria for membership and the criteria should be objective and written into the charter. The committee should consist solely of nations with long standing traditions of representative government and a commitment to human rights. Nations which don't qualify on these standards can be provisional, non-voting members.

• There should be a two-house system of government, with one house representing the populations of the member states, with 1 representative for each 10 million population in that nation, and one representative for each nation with less than that total population. There should be an upper house with representation based on GDP, with 1 representative for each $1 trillion in GDP, and no representation for nations with a GDP under $500 billion per year. Both houses should have to agree on all legislation, with the upper house proposing and framing all legislation involving spending or appropriations. Representatives to the upper house would be appointed by each national government. Representatives to the lower house would be directly popularly elected. Alternatively, if you don't like a 2 house system, you could make representation based on a combination of population and GDP.

• The UN legislature should have the ability to determine its own taxation rate, and all members should be required to participate. Provisional members should pay a low flat fee. All others should pay proportional to GDP. How that money is raised is up to the individual nations involved. The tax should be constitutionally capped at no more than .5% of GDP per year. That would be about $72 billion for the US.

• The UN should operate an international court system, focused primarily on trade and territorial disputes between member nations. The court system should be constitutionally limited to jurisdiction only over disputes between member nations and issues which are strictly international in nature. It should be prohibited from interfering in the internal legal systems of member nations.

• There should be a prohibition against any form of standing army. The UN should have a basic military command structure, but should draw forces only from member nations.

• There should be a clearly written bill of rights applying to individuals, protecting them from each other, as well as from the UN, and from the abuses of their own governments. It should protect all the basic rights in the US Bill of Rights, as well as including specific provisions protecting property rights and the right to free trade.

• All UN offices, elective, appointive and hired, should have strict term limits. No elective office should be held for more than 4 years, no appointive office for more than 8 years and no hired position should be retained for more than 12 years. There should also be a procedure for frequent and public performance review of administrative departments. This will prevent the growth of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and the corruption which goes with it.

• There should be a clear recognition of national sovereignty, and a federal-style division of powers between the UN and the individual member states which guarantees that the UN will not interfere in matters of domestic policy, except in cases where individuals appeal for redress of government abuse of their civil rights.

To institute these reforms, the old UN would need to be set aside and an entirely new charter would be required. Initially, that charter would probably not be popular with the oppressive and abusive nations which currently infest the UN, or with its hierarchy of bureaucratic drones. There would likely be an attempt to reject any new charter or to keep the UN operating while trying to challenge the legitimacy of any new global institution.

To prevent this problem, major nations who are essential to any world spanning organization but who are not well served by the current UN would need to sign on to the new organization and drop out of the UN. To be entirely honest, the new structure and the idea behind this new UN is to serve the interests of capitalist nations with elected, representative governments. A group of the most prominent capitalist republics would form the nucleus of the new organization, starting with several major nations from the European Union (England, Ireland, France, Poland, Germany, Italy and others), plus the United States, Canada, Australia, India and Japan. Other reasonable nations could certainly also be included among the initial group if they met basic standards of government and human rights, but the group should be kept small, and assembled based on commonality of interest. It would probably be desirable to involve no more than a dozen nations among the founders.

With these nations involved other nations would likely want to join, and those least likely to join are probably also the ones which would not qualify for membership on human rights and open government issues. As more nations were attracted to the new UN, the old body would become less and less relevant as the most important nations dropped out and others worked to qualify for membership in the new UN. The end result would be that the old UN would either be dissolved or become a marginalized tool of the most corrupt and abusive nations, which is the natural direction in which it is already heading.

The new UN would probably want to pick a different name to set it apart from the old institution. Something clearly different from older organizations like the UN or League of Nations would be good. I favor a name like the Federation of Free States. It would also need a clear and simple constitution, embodying the principles outlined here with additional necessary details filled in to create a federal government of divided powers where most power remains with the member states under the oversight of the federal government. All of the specific details of the constitution and structure of the organization should be worked out by the small group of initial member nations before inviting other nations to apply to join.

The creation of a new organization based on the principles outlined here would address the main problems with the UN. It would make the bureaucracy answerable to the constituent members. It would eliminate the problem of a membership crowded with questionable nations while still allowing those nations to be involved as provisional members. It would reduce the power of voting blocs of small nations. It would replace the arbitrary assignment of veto power to a few nations with a system where they would be represented on a more proportional basis instead. It would protect national sovereignty and also assure that the world congress was truly representative. Most importantly, it would be a positive model and a positive influence for free and open government for the rest of the world to follow.

The United Nations as it now exists is a divided and ineffectual body which has fundamentally failed its mandate to promote peace and human rights and has been become a source of divisiveness, an enabler of oppression and generally a waste of time and money for most member states. It is powerless because no one will invest power in such a disreputable body. It has become an embarrassment and should be dissolved and perhaps replaced. If it is replaced, the results will be as unsatisfactory as it has been or the League of Nations was, unless common sense ideas like those outlined here are followed to make it a more legitimate and representative body for which reasonable nations will have respect and with which they will be willing to share power.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Pablo

    Well for ONCE Davey and I agree, albeit for completely different reasons.

  • Clavos

    You must be thrilled, Dave…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, I’m flabergasted. Pablo must not have read the whole thing. I can see how he’d be happy if he only read the list of faults in the UN and never made it to the part where I endorse a more powerful and exclusive UN dominated by the imperialistic nations of the anglosphere which he so reviles.

    Dave

  • troll

    …how does a gated community promote world peace – ?

    sounds like a prescription for conflict

    but no worries – no government would qualify for inclusion as no government supports free trade over varying levels of protectionism

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    One of my pet-peeves is people who comment on articles without reading them first. Dave, I don’t agree with everything, but it is thought provoking, and later I may do some “googling”.

    Jet

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Troll, is the current formulation of the UN doing anything to solve conflicts now?

    As for the free trade issue, I wasn’t thinking in terms of setting the bar incredibly high. I was thinking mostly in terms of excluding countries which have command and control economies and place extreme restrictions on private business. I’d set the bar just a bit higher than the current situation in China so that they’d be motivated to improve their human rights and their economic structure just a bit to qualify.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Dave,

    I think Churchill and FDR had some petty decent ideas about what a United Nations should be and how it could prevent future world wars for maybe twenty years. I also think that if they were to be resurrected today, they would be shocked, amazed and disgusted, and that they would favor putting it out of our misery. The UN has in recent(?) years become a farce, and the only remaining source of surprise connected with it is that it consistently manages to do what I would have considered impossible, to become even more farcical. It thereby provides a bit of comic relief for those of us with twisted senses of humor; and that is the only good thing I can think of to say about it.

    Perhaps I am missing something, but there appear to be a few significant inconsistencies in your suggestions. You say,

    The UN should operate an international court system, focused primarily on trade and territorial disputes between member nations. The court system should be constitutionally limited to jurisdiction only over disputes between member nations and issues which are strictly international in nature (emphasis added).

    However, you also say,

    There should be a clearly written bill of rights applying to individuals, protecting them from each other, as well as from the UN, and from the abuses of their own governments. It should protect all the basic rights in the US Bill of Rights, as well as including specific provisions protecting property rights and the right to free trade. (emphasis in original)

    If the UN court is to have the jurisdictional limitations you suggest, how are the individual freedoms embodied in the suggested bill of right to be enforced and protected? And if the UN court is not to have those jurisdictional limitations, what happens to national sovereignty? You seem to contract the jurisdictional limits by suggesting,

    There should be a clear recognition of national sovereignty, and a federal-style division of powers between the UN and the individual member states which guarantees that the UN will not interfere in matters of domestic policy, except in cases where individuals appeal for redress of government abuse of their civil rights. (emphasis added)

    It strikes me that this would open a Pandora’s Box of problems. Would a resident of the U.S., distressed by refusal, for example, of State or Federal welfare payments, have to go first to a State or Federal court and pursue appropriate appeals, or would the UN court have concurrent or even primary jurisdiction? What about countries where rights and courts are sick jokes? There are more than a few of them. Same rule there?

    It seems to me that we can’t retain national sovereignty on the one hand and yield it to a legitimate world organization on the other; we have seen what happens to legitimacy over the decades.

    I certainly don’t have any solutions to the underlying problems, but pose these questions merely in the interest of discussion. Perhaps, however, it might be useful to re-read Churchill’s and FDR’s thoughts on how a post WWII United Nations should be structured. In the ensuing sixty or so years, those thoughts seem to have vanished from view.

    Meaningful reform? Wonderful but impossible; it’s sort of like trying to cure a cancer patient whose cancer has metastasized to every bone and organ in his body. Get out? A good idea, but highly unlikely; the current political climate simply would not allow the notion to be considered seriously. Solid mutual defense treaties with other reliable nations of our own choice? Maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

    Dan

  • bliffle

    I thought we were doing pretty good with the old UN. We can use it for whatever international operations we need it for, and it never imposes any restrictions on us. Why change it? Aside, that is, from some notions of the boilerplate language built into the preamble. But only (misguided) idealists would consider that worthwhile.

  • Ruvy

    Dave,

    The main problem with your proposal lies in this paragraph:

    No nation which doesn’t have a verifiable, popularly elected government, with a working legal system and a recognition of human rights, including the right to free trade, should be allowed a vote at the UN. Nations with ongoing histories of human rights abuses should not be allowed to be voting members. A committee made up nations picked in advance and written into the charter should determine what nations pass this criteria for membership and the criteria should be objective and written into the charter. The committee should consist solely of nations with long standing traditions of representative government and a commitment to human rights.

    Such nations are far and few between and at present barely include your obvious model, the United States.

    You would be left with Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps Iceland and Switzerland as your only voting members. Everybody else fails your standards by a country mile, including (especially) Israel.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, I think you’re being a bit more strict in your interpretation of my guideline than I intended. I think that at least half of the European nations would make the first cut. As I suggest later in the article, an initial membership would probably include the US, Britain, Ireland, France, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Chile, Canada, Australia, India and Japan.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Damn, Dan. You went all lawyery on my little set of suggestions.

    You’re right, there’s a contradiction there between the sovereignty issue and the individual liberty issue. I would like to see both protected, but can you imagine if the UN as currently constituted tried to actually enforce its idea of human rights without regard to national sovereignty? It would be a disaster.

    Sovereignty would have to come first. Then only if the new UN proved itself to be reliable would it be possible to phase in some sort of larger judicial functions which might include human rights enforcement and even a right of appeal for some types of cases from national courts.

    As I note in the article, reform is inadequate for the UN as it stands now. We would need to tear it down and start over again from scratch, replacing it with something more rational. I think the way to do that would be to start the new institution as a separate body, perhaps without even mentioning the intent to replace the UN and let it develop naturally, supplanting the UN graducally as it proved itself to be more capable and less corrupt.

    Dave

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Dave,

    Sorry about the shyster stuff, but it seemed necessary. The issues are not simple, and it is quite difficult to mix two or more apparently inconsistent concepts and come up with something workable.

    I can’t see the UN as presently constituted doing anything more than collectively ignoring traffic tickets and discovering the best and most expensive restaurants in NYC and elsewhere, while allowing its people to pocket bribes along the way.

    I agree that national sovereignty is key, and would feel uncomfortable (there is probably a stronger word, but I shall avoid using it) if (for example) President Mugabe of Zimbabwe or one of his folks had anything to say about anything, particularly where the sovereignty of any other country is involved.

    It’s a mess. I like the idea of getting rid of it and starting all over, although as you suggest, not necessarily in that order. Again, I commend to you some of the telegrams back and forth between Churchill and FDR on what a United Nations should be.

    Dan

  • Ruvy

    I think you’re being a bit more strict in your interpretation of my guideline than I intended

    No, Dave. If you start with compromised goods, you wind up with garbage ten years down the line – or sooner.

    You would include India in your list of countries in this new world organization?! The whole sub-continent stinks from the blood of communal violence, and the government there makes Israel’s look squeaky clean and honest!

    If you want to include the U.S. in this organization, you first have to go to war to bring down the price of oil so as to give your economy a quick fix and stabilize it some.

    You want to include Britain on this list? The country where Christian kids get detention for not kneeling down to Allah to pray? The Magna Charta gets smaller with each passing year….

    You would include European countries like France, Italy, Denmark? The countries where it is politically incorrect to talk about women being gang-raped by Moslem gangs?

    What you have done is take a high standard and declare that nations who do not meet this standard do, and proceed further. That’s the kind of dishonesty that led to the present travesty of an international organization. You should have been a lawyer, Dave – you slipped in that shit and make it smell like Mr. Clean….

    Of course, you may not have even realized how you were slipping in that ahit….

  • Pablo

    Davey said:
    “No nation which doesn’t have a verifiable, popularly elected government, with a working legal system and a recognition of human rights”

    You mean like here in the good ole usa davey boy? Aside from the fact that our electoral system stinks to high heaven, and the voting machines have obviously been co-opted by fascists, last time I checked the head of our government, even if tallied honestly is not popularly elected, he/she is elected through the electoral college, which is hardly poplularly elected. Oh yeah and I almost forgot the “human rights” clause. Like the right not to have your fucking phone tapped, or the right not to have your piss tested to get a job. Or the right not to be named an enemy combatant by the executive. I think that would exclude the good ole usa, land of the free and home of the brave bucko. Oh yeah and the right not to be tortured, too, just ask Jose Padilla about that one. Land of the free, my ass.

    Just my two sense worth cia boy.

  • Clavos

    Paulie,

    If you’re talking about private (as opposed to government) employment, you’re off base on this one:

    “…the right not to have your piss tested to get a job.”

    I, as an employer, have the right to set criteria and screen prospective employees for suitability for the job.

    I have the right not to hire drug users to fly my airplanes, operate my bulldozers, drive my trucks, keep my books, handle money, etc.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Actually, the UN may be completely unnecessary, with freedom loving folks like these willing to go to far off places in look into human rights abuses.

    A 25-member delegation from South Africa arrived in Israel on Sunday with the self-proclaimed goal of examining Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinians.

    One might have thought that a much shorter trip to Zimbabwe could have been more carbon-efficient and interesting, but it’s comforting to learn that they are taking all the trouble to go to Israel instead.

    Dan

  • Ruvy

    “A 25-member delegation from South Africa arrived in Israel on Sunday with the self-proclaimed goal of examining Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinians.”

    One might have thought that a much shorter trip to Zimbabwe could have been more carbon-efficient and interesting, but it’s comforting to learn that they are taking all the trouble to go to Israel instead.

    So Dan,

    Have you figured out why in Israel we call the scum “useless nothings”?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #14:

    It appears that Pablo went back, actually read the whole thing, and decided that he didn’t agree with Dave’s proposal after all…

    My reaction to the piece as a whole is that if you had certain arbitrarily-chosen nations dropping out of the UN and starting their own organization – based inevitably on their own assessment of themselves as beacons of freedom and justice – you would put a multitude of noses out of joint, and probably end up with China, Russia and a few others starting up their own rival body on the grounds – also determined by themselves – that they are the paragons of virtue in this world.

    Presto! A new Cold War. Congrats, Dave.

  • bliffle

    IMO we’re better off with the UN the way it is.

    If the UN were controlled by a more representative sample of world political theories and various power centers we might be worse off. I doubt that we can control the formation of a UN these days the way we could 60 years ago.

    We seem to be devoted to diminishing our influence in the world and ceding more of it to Europe, the Middle East and China (as well as other Asian centers). Bush seems in a particular hurry to give it all away and he may have committed so many longterm follies that several future administrations may find their options co-opted.

    The bottom line is that the USA will be so much weaker in the future that when the neo-UN sends blue-helmeted troops into New Orleans to quell housing riots the US government won’t have moral, financial or military means to stop them. We’ll be longing for the veto power we had in the old UN.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Ruvy,

    Have you figured out why in Israel we call the scum “useless nothings”? Why no, I didn’t even realize that you thought of them that way. How could you possibly have such views? Sounds twisted to me.

    Actually, they aren’t totally useless. Nothings, perhaps, but far from useless. Just think of the comfort and happiness they bring to the oppressed peoples of the world, and to those who oppress them. Without oppressors, there wouldn’t be any oppressed people, and then what could be done about them?

    Why, even Nancy Pelosi is not completely useless, and has done quite a lot to further the noble cause of human rights, in far-away places like Colombia.

    Useful idiots are lots of fun.

    Dan

  • Christian

    I was very impressed with the quality of the discussion on this blog. So I thought it would be the perfect platform to get feedback on an idea that has been bothering me for awhile now.

    The other day, while daydreaming, I stumbled upon the concept of “Vampire State or Nation”. A state or nation who has/has had its fangs sunk in the jugular of another, usually “less developed”, state or nation and is/were sucking the life out of its economy thus contributing to a myriads of issues for its population. Issues ranging from repressive governance to extreme poverty.

    Since I am not politically savvy or even knowledgeable, I would love to see this topic disserted, published and debated. It is, in my opinion, one of the root cause of the ongoing failure in unifying the world into one nation.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, if we used your standards then the only countries let in would be Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, and while I’d be fine with them running the world as a triumvirate, that would hardly be a representative organization.

    Maybe there ought to be three levels of membership, with a relatively reasonable standard to be a voting member and then a higher standard for nations which would be allowed to head committees and fill leadership positions. So you could put India and France and Denmark and Italy and maybe even Israel if they cleaned up some of their human rights issues in that second tier with full representation but no leadership slots.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You mean like here in the good ole usa davey boy? Aside from the fact that our electoral system stinks to high heaven, and the voting machines have obviously been co-opted by fascists,

    Obvious only to paranoid nuts

    last time I checked the head of our government, even if tallied honestly is not popularly elected, he/she is elected through the electoral college, which is hardly poplularly elected.

    I thought you were a constitutionalist Pablo. Like Ron Paul you’d be happy to throw out the parts of the Constitution which don’t fit with your populist delusions.

    Oh yeah and I almost forgot the “human rights” clause. Like the right not to have your fucking phone tapped, or the right not to have your piss tested to get a job.

    Sorry, these two are NOT basic human rights. There’s no right to conversational privacy and certainly no right to keep a job while violating standards set by the employer. The more you write the more clear it becomes that you’re nothing like a libertarian. You’re just another leftist crank who wants to make up rights out of thin air.

    Or the right not to be named an enemy combatant by the executive. I think that would exclude the good ole usa, land of the free and home of the brave bucko. Oh yeah and the right not to be tortured, too, just ask Jose Padilla about that one. Land of the free, my ass.

    Padilla is the only US citizen ever declared an enemy combatant and that was because of the unique conditions of his case which suggest that he revoked his own citizenship, which is debatable but different from any other possible case, so your argument that the executive can do this at will is bogus. As for Padilla’s ‘torture’, it was a fabricated ploy by his defense attorneys which the court didn’t take seriously at all.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Padilla spent all his time in the states anyway…he wasn’t even part of the Gitmo BS, he was held in Charleston, SC!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I like your ideas Dave, but what are the chances of it ever happening?

  • Clavos, aka Mr. Rogers

    “Bush seems in a particular hurry to give it all away and he may have committed so many longterm follies that several future administrations may find their options co-opted.”

    That’s because he’s a Bonesman, a Bilderberger, a member of the CFR, and a lackey of the Rothschilds.

    Oh, and he cavorts at Bohemian Grove.

    At least, I think that’s how it goes.

    Pablo?

  • Ruvy

    So you could put India and France and Denmark and Italy and maybe even Israel….

    From what little I read in Desicritics, this imperfect kleptocracy is far ahead of India in protecting human rights. What would stop this country from being part of any such organization is that it is a war zone – the ‘human rights’ of the Arabs are far more highly respected that those of any woman in India. Ask them there how many times they’ve been groped. Look up “eve teasing” for further enlightenment or “A Parting Wish for India” on Desicritics by a writer whose screen name is Smallsquirrel.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, we do have to make some cultural allowances, and Indian women are still way better off than Arab women are as a whole. We might even want to take into consideration the degree of human rights violation. Killing people, imprisoning them without trial and treating a whole ethnicity as if they’re in prison is a lot worse than what’s done to women in India.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    So, do you want to make “cultural allowances” for the habit of Hindus of killing hundreds of Moslems at a shot and of Moslems of doing the same to Hindus, and of treating millions of people as if they are trash (untouchable) from generation to generation?

    If those are the kinds of “cultural allowances” you would make – and then accuse us of treating Arabs as though they are a prison population, shove your plan – and your proposed organization – up your butt. We don’t need more anti-Jewish discrimination coming from anybody.

  • Pablo

    Davey boy:

    I said:
    “You mean like here in the good ole usa davey boy? Aside from the fact that our electoral system stinks to high heaven, and the voting machines have obviously been co-opted by fascists,”

    Davey shill replies with this:
    “Obvious only to paranoid nuts”

    A typical reply from this shill. No mention of the documentary that was aired on HBO made by Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, or the other numerous accounts of the computerized paperless (unauditable) voting machines in use, many of whom are run by former CIA agents. No mention of how Florida in 2000 was thrown by not only the Supreme Court, but by Choicepoint in conjunction with CFR Katherine Harris to disenfranchise over 40,000 voters mostly of african american descent. Sure Davey.
    —————
    Me:
    “Oh yeah and I almost forgot the “human rights” clause. Like the right not to have your fucking phone tapped, or the right not to have your piss tested to get a job.”

    Davey:
    Sorry, these two are NOT basic human rights. There’s no right to conversational privacy and certainly no right to keep a job while violating standards set by the employer. The more you write the more clear it becomes that you’re nothing like a libertarian. You’re just another leftist crank who wants to make up rights out of thin air.

    ME:
    So I guess Davey would have no problem with this new Global Government admissions policies, if your every move was watched, or you had to submit your blood randomly to prove that it was pure enough for the state. I guess the right to privacy is a bit too much for Davey’s “libertarian” (cough)view s. As to standards set by the employer davey, would that include her/his race, political ideology, or right to privacy? The fact is an employer is not entitled to trample on a possible employees rights as a human being, particularly without probable cause. You are about as libertarian as Orin Hatch bucko.

    ———————

    I said:
    ” last time I checked the head of our government, even if tallied honestly is not popularly elected, he/she is elected through the electoral college, which is hardly poplularly elected.”

    I thought you were a constitutionalist Pablo. Like Ron Paul you’d be happy to throw out the parts of the Constitution which don’t fit with your populist delusions.”

    ME:
    Uhhh Davey are you so thick-headed that you cannot see the argument that I made? I was not endorsing whether or not a popularly (direct democracy) elected government is good, I was responding to YOUR assertion about membership in said global government bubba, that under YOUR criteria the USA would not be allowed. I know thats a bit much for you to grasp, but any one even of a high school education could grasp it.
    ——————

    ME:

    Or the right not to be named an enemy combatant by the executive. I think that would exclude the good ole usa, land of the free and home of the brave bucko. Oh yeah and the right not to be tortured, too, just ask Jose Padilla about that one. Land of the free, my ass.

    Davey:
    “Padilla is the only US citizen ever declared an enemy combatant and that was because of the unique conditions of his case which suggest that he revoked his own citizenship, which is debatable but different from any other possible case, so your argument that the executive can do this at will is bogus. As for Padilla’s ‘torture’, it was a fabricated ploy by his defense attorneys which the court didn’t take seriously at all.”

    I guess you never heard of Yaser Hamdi, uhh Dave there was only a Supreme Court case about him. Duhhh. The FACT is that the US Constitution already delineates what constitutes Treason, and how to proceed in a CRIMINAL case against such a suspect. The fact that the executive now codified under US code, can declare ANYONE ANYWHERE an enemy combatant is lost on your faux libertarianism, and should cause alarm to ANY freedom lovers. Not surprising however coming from you Davey boy.

    Oh and one other thing Davey boy, regarding my daughter and your snide comments to me. I intitially revealed on this forum about her tragic death and lying in a fallow field for 12 long years for a reason. I was not looking for sympathy, but only to confirm in my own mind what I thought about you and Clavy as human beings, which both of you confirmed in spades. I have learned over the years to trust my intuitions about other human beings, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and purposely revealed my loss, to see how you would respond to it, or if you would. Of course you didn’t offer any sympathy or condolence, because quite frankly you couldnt give a fuck. Thank you for proving my intuition about you and your sidekick. How is the wifey doing Clavy?

    just my two sense worth fellas. Have a nice life.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    So, do you want to make “cultural allowances” for the habit of Hindus of killing hundreds of Moslems at a shot and of Moslems of doing the same to Hindus, and of treating millions of people as if they are trash (untouchable) from generation to generation?

    I think I’d be inclined to give Hindus some sort of allowance on the issue of untouchables if they were instituting reforms, which they claim they are. As for the sectarian violence, it is not government sponsored, and as you yourself will admit, in Israel it is the government and not the people who engage in human rights abuses. That’s a key distinction.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    A typical reply from this shill. No mention of the documentary that was aired on HBO made by Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, or the other numerous accounts of the computerized paperless (unauditable) voting machines in use, many of whom are run by former CIA agents. No mention of how Florida in 2000 was thrown by not only the Supreme Court, but by Choicepoint in conjunction with CFR Katherine Harris to disenfranchise over 40,000 voters mostly of african american descent. Sure Davey.

    Why should I mention any of that. It’s a matter of record, as are the hundreds of thousands of bogus registrations, stuffed ballots and various fraud from the other side. BTW, I had a chance to meet and chat with Bev Harris a few months ago and even she admits that there’s no evidence that the potential for tampering with electronic machines has ever been exploited.
    So I guess Davey would have no problem with this new Global Government admissions policies, if your every move was watched, or you had to submit your blood randomly to prove that it was pure enough for the state.

    Nice straw man. I never said anything like this. I was defending the right of PRIVATE businesses to test employees. You do believe that private business owners have rights, don’t you?

    I guess the right to privacy is a bit too much for Davey’s “libertarian” (cough)view s. As to standards set by the employer davey, would that include her/his race, political ideology, or right to privacy? The fact is an employer is not entitled to trample on a possible employees rights as a human being, particularly without probable cause. You are about as libertarian as Orin Hatch bucko.

    My god, you ARE a Marxist. Does your anticapitalism know no limits? Business owners ought to have the right to hire who they want and employees have the right to seek employment elsewhere.
    under YOUR criteria the USA would not be allowed.

    The US has a representative government. It just doesn’t have direct democracy for all offices. You still have a representative who is specifically yours and who you vote for. Picking a president with the electoral college is no more unrepresentative than having a Prime Minister picked by a vote of Parliament as most countries do.

    I guess you never heard of Yaser Hamdi, uhh Dave there was only a Supreme Court case about him.

    Right. Hamdi was released and is now free (more or less). He was ultimately not classed as an enemy combatant and not tried on that basis.

    The FACT is that the US Constitution already delineates what constitutes Treason, and how to proceed in a CRIMINAL case against such a suspect. The fact that the executive now codified under US code, can declare ANYONE ANYWHERE an enemy combatant

    Clearly he cannot do so. The Hamdi case demonstrates that.

    I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, and purposely revealed my loss, to see how you would respond to it, or if you would.

    Wow, how debased and manipulative. You really are a reprehensible human being.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    In Israel, there are several governments engaging in human rights abuses. First of all, there is the United States government, which trains terrorist sharpshooters – who them use their training to kill Jews. There is the EU, which funds the PA – which commits terrorist acts against Jews here, and which encourages the commission of terrorist acts against Jews. In addition, the EU funds “Israeli” organizations which work against the settlement of the country by Jews. There is the Hamas regime in Gaza, which commits and encourages the commission of terrorist acts against Jews.

    Finally, we find the Israeli “government”, the bought out tools of the EU and the State Department, committing state terrorism against Jews, and trying to pretend to provide safety to the residents of North Tel Aviv by “fighting” the various other abusers of state sponsored abusers of human rights here.

    All in all, though, the death toll from all these activities is nothing against the communal violence in India that goes on nearly all the time, the discrimination against Hindu untouchables, and the mistreatment of women in India.

  • Franco

    UN on Terrorism

    More then six (6) years after 9/11 the UN has established – No Definition – No Names – No Comprehensive Treaty – Martyrdom Glorified.

    UN member states – democratic?

    Number of UN member states that are full-fledged democracies or “fully free” according to Freedom House: 89

    Number of UN member states: 192

    Percentage of UN member states which are full-fledged democracies: 46%

    Human Rights Actions by the UN

    Top Five Countries Subject to UN Condemnation for Human Rights Violations 2007

    1. Israel
    2. Sudan
    3. Myanmar
    4. Democratic Republic of the Congo
    5. United States

    Syria ranks 21st with Zimbabwe at 22nd.

    Eye on UN Updated Everyday!

  • Franco

    The “UN”, aka the ‘Chinese oil exploration authority’

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Freedom House seems to have a very broad definition of “fully free” as the bottom of their fully free list includes Indonesia and Mexico. I’d also take issue with their inclusion of South Africa.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    Reinventing the UN is just the kind of nitwit idea that one expects from Bush/Cheney and their equally weak-minded acolytes: powered entirely by personal pique and totally lacking any thought-out strategic considerations.

    And, like all the other nitwit Bush/Cheney notions (that they try to pass off as ‘ideas’) it is doomed to failure. Just look at their records.

  • Pablo

    Dave,

    There is NOTHING I like more than to be disliked by someone such as yourself. I revel in it, and you can rest assured that the feeling is MORE than mutual.

    Thanks again for showing me what kind of a human being that you are.

  • Franco

    True enough Dave, but then that lends more to the point.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, I don’t recall Bush/Cheney ever coming up with a suggestion to replace the UN. They seem perfectly happy to let it putter along doing no good for anyone and using it to their advantage whenever they can get away with it, just like everyone else.

    A UN which has lost its legitimacy ends up serving the interests of anyone who wants to play the bully or abuse their power.

    Dave