• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Redefining Global and National Humanitarian Foreign Policy

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I invite you all to enter into the discussion of what foreign policy should be in the aftermath of colonialism and Cold War, so at some point today, I will return to this page and post what I believe is a non-partisan, peace-seeking, non-imposing approach to foreign policy. This is not an attempt to explain Iraq, and I am not going down that road with this discussion although Iraq will, because of its presence in world consciousness enter in. My goal is to elevate the debate to find a humanitarian foreign policy alternative to endless violent response. It will be idealistic, and you are free to rip it apart, but I ask as you critique and perhaps even destroy this idea, put something better in its place. We are all victims of colonialism and Cold War, rigid ideologies that served us well, but with grave implications for the present and future. For if colonialism, as applied from roughly 1500-1975, polluted indigenous cultures around the world seeding corruption, destruction and despair; then the Cold War, roughly 1947-1990, marked the era of the subjugation of personhood and community to wanton socio-political-economic goals. A new era beckons, calls us to respond. But how?

What happens now? The imperialist, colonialist wars are over. The struggle between capitalism and communism is at the very least pausing. What should the guiding principle of our foreign policy be? Terrorism threatens us and I think in the midst of the action we engage in now, part of our response must be to ask: “Why?” Several factors could be held up as causative, but among the most compelling are the very colonialism and Cold War strategies that have destabilized the world for no less than 500 years. The reality goes far beyond those 500 years, but for the moment I focus on that time-span. Please understand there will be gaps and over-simplifications in this discussion as time and space limit what I will say. I recognize and acknowledge it is incomplete and you are welcome to add to or critique what I say and what I leave out.

The case could be made that emergent nation states, mercantilism, industrialization and colonialism are natural, coincident partners in the continuing development of Western culture, though I see them more as an economic progression rather than hybridization. With the creation of the nation state came a settling economic base. New territory was becoming a premium resource, and so colonialism was born. Brave sailors, and later families, left home for untold riches in the Orient, and then took a wrong turn. Eventually, a prosperous merchant class rose on the city streets. As resources for investment grew industry began to take root. With industrialization came the need for two things: cheap resources and ready markets for goods. And so a re-invention of colonialism was born. Colonies became an economic panacea; they were a dumping ground for undesirable people, a ready base of resource materials, a market to sell things to.

I mentioned this economic progression, preferring that language to hybridization now let me explain where the latter fits in. As all of these events were taking place the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped and formed minds, pollinating the nation states, the merchants, the industrialists and even the colonists with new ideas. A scientific approach flowered in human activity and it effected change in nations, economies and so forth. But a dark fungus, a terrible addiction was growing at the base of this economic progression that tainted the Enlightened thought. Nations became economically dependent upon the cheap resources and labor of the colonies. Nations became economically dependant on the colonial market as an outlet for their goods.

With that realization came a re-invention of the intellectual perspective on colonies, a re-invention never far from the surface in the first place. Colonies must remain economically and materially bound to the “homeland.” Never mind that homeland for the colonist was under foot, not in Europe. They might be subjects to a European power, but they were still of a distinct tribe, where mother and father for generations are buried and hopefully children and grandchildren for generations will live. The limitations of colonialism were beginning to show.

A chill fear grew in the hearts of those that ruled over colonies, too few soldiers, too many colonists. If Europeans were to be in control, they must find allies within the colony to rule with brute force. Divide and Conqueor! Play one tribe against another. Never let one tribe gain complete supremacy. Trade on old, tribal hatreds. Now the United States was a kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to colonialism, and we had our failings, but we did seem to learn from European mistakes. There was usually some mitigation of the worst behaviors and attitudes, based in idealism and the strong missionary efforts. Paternalistic as missions were, they also developed relationships with the indigenous people and worked to meet physical and spiritual needs together.
In every single part of this progression the indigenous culture was revealed as somehow inferior. The indigenous identity was lobbied against as economically and socially inferior. “I mean, they don’t even have a shower and they wear feathers.” Said in an air that suggests showers and pants are necessary for full expression of life. Indigenous peoples began to resent being presented as inferior. Eventually, in the 20th century, two world wars tore into the myth of Western cultural superiority, and ended their enthusiasm for colonies. Too expensive you know and so colonies were gaining freedom. But that only began the struggle for what had Western nations taught their colonies: brutal repression, torture, dictatorial rule, military power keeps stability, denigration of smaller tribes, payback visited on tribal enemies, lack of administrative education that might have made transition possible.

The litany of crimes perpetrated against former colonies is huge. And the aftereffects? Well, former colonies showed they were good studies, embarking on genocide, mass murder, military repression, torture, disappearing opponents, tribal paybacks and others that are escaping me just now. This is the legacy of Western colonial rule. We in the West are to some large extent, responsible for the instability and violence perpetrated on innocents abroad. I am not suggesting personal responsibility is not applicable. We are not culpable instead of those who do evil, nor is our guilt on the same level as those who butcher their own people, but we have taught the lessons and now they are visited on a world struggling with terror. And if it only ended there, but later, I will post another article to hopefully kick this discussion off right. Next stop Cold War, or another form of colonialism, politicized and economic, but suppressing cultural.

If colonialism tore at cultures, the Cold War subjugated people for political and economic reasons. Humanity was dehumanized by the nuclear arsenals. The result was people were not people anymore, they were communist or capitalist (we always put it in terms of communist or democratic, but these are incommensurate categories), totalitarian or democratic. The first two are economic systems while the latter are political systems. To be sure there were other options, but the significance is less in the options but how the interaction between superpowers further damaged the colonies, hereafter refered to as the "Third World." The implication is there even in the name. Somehow, the third world is kind of the “also ran’s.”

The significance is that we only intervened when there was a perceived national interest. If not, too bad so sad. Millions have died from the way world powers stripped their resources and left them to waste away. That might seem bad, but worse were those areas where the powers saw national interest. Political, Military, Economic and Military support went to brutal leaders who held the people in line through force. It wasn't about ideology as much as location.

How many died is unknown, but the people learned lessons in power. Hussein and Milosevic are two of them we know too well. Spheres of influence were so important that we tolerated leaders who should never been in power simply because they gave us room for a base. Places seemingly forgotten were suddenly flying American and Soviet flags. Torture of persons was acceptable for the sake of the cause. People were expendable for the sake of the cause. Terrorism arose from this lesson of personhood expendable for the cause. Now this is a very brief summary.

Let me begin by asking for your help in this endeavor. It is never easy to open one's self for review, and this format tends to lend itself to harsh criticism, especially between people of differing views. I am not asking for you blanket acceptance of this platform, I am asking that if you rip something apart, then put something better in its place. Feel free to critique, but move the discussion forward with an idea with a purpose toward peace. I am seeking a better world, and want this discussion to be predicated on that assumption. To help in the tearing down and putting better in its place, I will try to provide reference numbers at the beginning of topical changes. I am sure this condensation leaves some things out, so do feel free to ask anything or challenge some transitions.

To be continued in the next post
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A PROPOSAL FOR FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH

1. The present configuration of the United Nations is still a reaction to the Cold War. A new paradigm is needed. Structures need to be re-examined and re-designed. The Security Council is one example, but the peace-keeping mandate, the genocide treaty, UNICEF, various relief agencies all need to reflect a global community, not three worlds hopelessly divided.
One area of proof of its antiquated structure is the Israel/Palestine question. Clearly, this situation is too volatile for the present expressin of peace-keeping, nevertheless the terrorism on both sides needs to end. Further, the dilema of two nations having historical, social, cultural and religious ties to what is essentially the same plot of ground defies present legal conceptualization of nationhood. Similar trouble is essentially borne out in the question of China/Taiwan/Hong Kong.

The international community lacks the jurisprudence to acknowledge simultaneous claims to the same land. This must come from a re-definition of nation as well as of the UN. The ties to the land are brilliantly put forth in Elias Chacour's "Blood Brothers" and "We Belong to the Land." He also is the founder of the Mar Elias School for Palestinian-Israeli Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze. It is the first Palestinian school of its kind and it became a University under the direct support of James Baker and Shimon Perez. The notion that one can or should be dispossessed now is patently ludicrous. However, tribal claims to the land must cease too. What is my suggestion (sure to be unpopular in some sections of academia)?

2. I suggest that we should actively lobby for a new UN mandate that better reflects the needs of the world community. I also suggest that the UN and world community declare Jerusalem an open city and the new UN headquarters. In this declaration, priority needs to be given for the formation of two national governments to function in Jerusalem: one Israeli, the other Palestinian. Only by working out a jurisprudence that empowers both people to have a nation that occupies the same space can there be healthy resolution and coersed reconciliation. If sovereignty is closely observed by the UN both sides stand to lose too much to risk continuing the struggles. It will also generate the needed economic systems to empower both nations. I did say it would be unpopular but give it a moment to settle in.

3. Next, somehow the US and the UN as a whole need to set standards in black and white that define genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. (True such documents already exist, but they are ineffectual in restraining the rapacity of brutal national leaders) There has got to be a clearer, less debatable and quicker evaluation of what these things are. There must also be clear delineation of the consequences are for those who engage in genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

I am sure the instinct will be to say we should stay out of them all. It is an isolationist foreign policy that has consistently failed the historical, empirical test. Isolationism encouraged Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Milosovic, Panic, Hussein and others in their efforts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. I hope you recognized that I was blaming the lessons of brutal leadership on colonialism and its younger brother Cold War. The colonial powers brutally repressed colonists. The Western powers’ administration of colonies taught leaders to be brutal, played upon tribal tensions, taught that might equals right, taught that power meant better culture, and exploited land and people. That is the lesson we handed down to the new leaders of fledgling nations. The legacy of colonialism and Cold War is found in brutal dictators, military juntas, coups, exploitation of the masses, cultural malaise, terrorist governments and militant opposition.

Because the Western powers taught the lessons of brutality and mass murder out of economic and political expediency, they must now raise a new issue. The world community is morally, ethically responsible for removing leaders who brutalize their populations, first in the powers who caused the instability, but also as the world. The world community must stand together, even if arms must be raised. The world community must cry with one voice against these dictatorial monsters whose power is expressed in terrorizing and neglecting their culture, nation and/or tribe. Until the world stands together and in resolve against depersonalizing leaders genocide and murder will happen regardless of the party in the White House. Those brutal, evil leaders must know, absolutely know, that if they mistreat their people, they will lose power and live in a cage for the rest of their lives. They simply must not be allowed to have control of other peoples' lives. It should also be pointed out that in these cases at present, when the world community represented in the UN lacks political or ethical will to help the powerless end mass slaughter, it is still the absolute duty of all nations to take action. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder must end and where the UN fails to act, it does not relieve the world community of its moral obligation to end these atrocities.
4. To that end, the UN needs a "Quick Reaction Force" of trained professional troops and equipment to deal with these situations in order to prevent the onset, or react immediately to events that equate with mass murder. Now the reason such need to be in place is well documented in events surrounding the Kurds in 88-89, the Rwandans in 94 and Sudan 1994-2005. National and even international political and ethical will cannot be counted on to do the right thing. There must be a clear threshold that is easy to monitor and document, and some proverbial "lead in the pencil" to back up the promise that we will remove leaders that abuse their people.

For the nations that have a process in place removal of leaders and peaceful transfer of power is becoming tradition. In our country, elections take place as they have for 200+ years. But many nations only experience transition through violence, through coup. That violence often spills over into the administration. The threat of immanent removal for malpractice might instruct would-be leaders that they better not take their aggression out on innocent people.

5. The US must adopt a foreign policy that works on consistency. The Presidential preferences for certain national priorities as they perceive them provide more of a roulette game approach from the perspective of petty dictators. We too need a threshold of intervention that is clear, detailed and concise. There are too many political games played and the cost is paid in too many lives.

6. The foreign policy approach we take must cease the effort to create socio-political-economic-cultures in our image, instead we must work to empower nations to built their own cultural expression of socio-political-economic structures. These structures must be an extension and expression of their communal (tribal) sense of being. We must embrace a unity in diversity understanding of international relationships, recognizing that other nations need not embrace our ideology for us to share peace.

7. As we fight the War on Terror, we must also analyze what has caused this world wide struggle. This war is not only about the US but we have been struck deeply by it. The damage has been terrible, emotionally, psychologically and materially. The instability caused by colonialism and Cold War has now visited us. May I suggest this is our most complex task.
We must find the root causes of terrorism, and recognize the role Western domination of the world plays in it. The cycle of hopelessness, seeing resources leave to make others powerful, seeing violence and oppression, must end. It has changed some people until violence is simply all they know. We must find new ways of valuation that empower them for their own culturally-determined goals. And the patronizing approach must end.
We must also come to a deeper understanding of what Marc Ellis called the "Unholy Alliance" in his book of that name. Like political extremes, religious extremes are mechanisms of instability. They are invariably uncompromising in their vision of the world, hurtful and aggressive in doling out violence, intellectual, verbal, and/or physical. Some part of this war on terror is a battle of ultra orthodox theologies, but there is also the battle of political ideologies, ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative, and economic ideologies, communist and capitalist. These forces become so entangled that people and personhood is destroyed.

We neglect personhood, or at the very least bury it under a bunch of descriptive but depersonalizing terms. The labels negate the person. And that prevents us from sitting down at a table of fellowship. The approach to foreign policy I advocate also includes putting away the labels of nullification and interposition and beginning to see each other as persons with rich variety of perspective. Well, I hope this is enough to chew on for awhile. It is not a complete statement but some rest beckons. Have fun all, and may we set down the labels to offer a hand of community. Shalom Chevarim and A salaam alakum and peace be with you all.
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
do you have cliff notes on this dissertation? :mrgreen:

I beleive you take care of your own
my family takes care of each other
my friends and i take care of each other
and this country has enough of its own problems to worry about
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DeeJayH said:
do you have cliff notes on this dissertation? :mrgreen:

I beleive you take care of your own
my family takes care of each other
my friends and i take care of each other
and this country has enough of its own problems to worry about
Sorry no cliff notes, my friend, but it is the musings from my first thesis proposal, so it wasn't important enough for ole' Cliff to give attention to. Wait till I put more of it up ;) My actual point is that these brutal dictators are the world community's problem and we need to come up with more definative thresholds triggering action. As I do say in the thesis, though, isolationism only causes more suffering and more powerful foes when we are forced to act. It would be best if the UN had its own volunteer QRF with its own equipment to react to genocidal rulers immediately upon crossing a solid threshold, but for that to be an actuality, there must first be UN reform. Hence my next post.
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do think the UN needs overhaul, and the UN moving over the next 20 years to the Jerusalem/Tel Aviv coridor would create stability, economically, in the impoverished, over-populated region. Your first reaction is to laugh no doubt, but all of what I advocate is a long-term process toward solution rather than a short term solution. Because it is a long term solution, there is time and opportunity to effect change in the hearts of diplomats, Israel and Palestine. You are right none of the involved parties are ready now, but putting the proposal out there will allow it to build momentum. It may be that some diplomats and politicians see it as the best possibility. I think Israelis and Palestinians are ready, and desparately need, a mechanism that lets them step back from the precipice they are presently on while still saving face. Israel and Palestine could have a huge economic carrot fall right in their lap.

But you are right if you say it will take more than money to help them live in peace. Ultimately, what I have learned about peacemaking is that an idea gains momentum or fails to do so. Ideas that one side likes are usually one sided in advantage, while ideas that both sides quickly embrace are generally to shallow to provide lasting peace. However if the idea never sees the light of day, then it has no chance to be discarded, improved or accepted.
In terms of the QRF, I don't know exactly how it would take shape. It would need to somehow be tied to GDP, but I suspect it would more need to be a commitment from nations for a certain timeframe.

Maybe enlisting volunteers for a tour of duty. Otherwise the training would be uneven by drawing from countries. It's too hodge-podge otherwise. If the UN is transformed to a post-Cold War paradigm, and only if, then they could have the control. Otherwise, I think we have to let that organization die on the vine and begin again and we would have to keep power instead.

Let me offer another suggestion to consider for a new location for the UN. It occurs to me that a central location does not fully serve the world need. I would suggest Jerusalem as the site for the Security Council and General Assembly. But other than those two, disperse agencies among the third world countries. The reasoning is that these agencies could generate jobs and income without consuming natural resources of the region. It may be the best industry of some countries would be administering some agency for the UN. This could also generate funds to re-invest in the environment. In some places it could foster eco-tourism, education, conservation, thus generating new jobs and cultural identity.

Further, in at least one site on every habitable continent, there must be an agency whose focus is recovering the lost narratives of cultures. It might be something to more accurately describe as weaving the multi-cultural tapestry of humanity, but one must understand the threads of that tapestry will be composed in words, drawings, paintings, images, and song. This will sound foolish to some, but there is growing understanding of the importance of cultural narrative and origin. We are beginning to understand the terrible cost of destroying cultural markers during the colonial period, something my own Christian faith was mis-used to justify.

Part of the new UN mandate must be to recover what has been lost... submerged...destroyed. But there is also exciting potential. It's something with incredible implications for the world, but the nations have not recognized it as yet. The colonial period collapsed under the weight of war and materialism and we have stepped away from the precipice of the Cold War. A new world paradigm beckons...dare I say calls to us, don't you hear it? Shalom/Salaam, a time of seeking the highest good of "other." We may well have new allies as old fall away, because this new paradigm convicts the old ways, the last vestiges of colonialism and Cold War must be swept away.

In this task the US is in a place of trial. Who will we, as the last superpower, be? Some are all too willing to say we are not the world's police, but be honest, "world's police" is part of what it means to be superpower. Kerry and Bush sound similar in terms of foreign policy because they cannot see the emerging paradigm. They are still searching using the old categories of Cold War because that is where their life of service has been spent.

However, many of our Cold War allies are even less willing to see the emerging paradigm because so much of their cultural history and heritage are bound up in the sins of colonialism. Is it so surprising that French, German and Russian leaders stay out of the struggle for a free Iraq, and in fact for the whole freedom of the world? On five continents they oppressed these people, there are legitimate axes to grind; atrocities have been committed; and indigenous people have gathered to fight them before. So now the time comes when they could take action to end tyranny, genocide and mass murder, but the Western democracies shy away. They stand and pontificate about what former colonies should do for freedom, but when the time comes to end oppression, they will not enter into the struggle.

This is where I believe change will come from, and how we can move past the Age of Terror. I think the US is caught between two very real, unenviable positions. On one side, we are the inheritors of Western thought and action; its sunset is at hand. On the other, a broad, new horizon; the sun is rising on the third world. Where will the US steer between these two courses? Let me say, we could be the bridge between the two, but it will be a lonely road at times. We must acknowledge our short-comings in history, while also defending our nation from violence by those who would take advantage of that acknowledgment. How do we begin the healing as that is being done?

to be continued
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The first step is by proposing a bold, new direction for the world. As I have said, colonialism and Cold War are gone, the time has come to acknowledge their faults and move into a new era. The time has come to open history up to the losers too. But while that is going on, the US must bring to light the atrocities of colonial powers and criminals of the Cold War. Now at first, this draws heat for sounding accomodationist, but let me continue.

We must look to the past while moving toward the future. We must draw lessons from what has happened sociologically, culturally, intellectually and more, so that we can make a new future. The remembering of the past must become the fuel to propel our future efforts. The first corrective move toward the future is to base foreign policy in the cause of liberating humanity from the past. That doesn't mean forgetting the past, it means tearing down those institutions that perpetuate the past and building new institutions on their ashes so we never forget where it is that we came from.

Thus the thresholds I was refering to, which you could rightly point to as an area of concern, must reflect substantive change in our foreign policy. The thresholds of intervention principally focus on crises in foreign lands. Crises include: natural disaster, famine, epidemic, pandemic, genocide, mass murder, abuse of persons, human experimentation, torture, starvation, economic collapse and other circumstances that leaders may use or take advantage of to hurt the persons under their regime. As you can see from the broad nature of my description of crises, the thresholds of intervention would cover military, economic, political and humanitarian.

What I am proposing is a foreign policy that offers thresholds to keep us consistent in how we approach situations. I note your disappointment with the Kerry representative, let me say at this point and as long as politics determine foreign policy, you will be disappointed in both parties during the election cycle. I remember my own disappointment to hear a Bush representative in 2000 agree with Clinton's approach to Rwanda, something you have heard me decry before. I would suggest, the inconsistent foreign policy approaches contribute to power abuse in foreign countries, THOUGH HAVING SAID THAT I STRESS OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS NOT A CAUSITIVE AGENT OF THAT ABUSE.

What I mean is that for a world still operating under the old system of abuse, either in the pattern learned from colonialism, World War and Cold War, our inconsistent foreign policy gives the impression that the US will operate under the same old system. That is precisely why I say we must open history up to the review of the "losers." The US needs to demonstrate a different operant system of action and only through this comparison with history, and a history that is under the critical review of those who were victimized under the old systems of Western Global Domination, along with a clearly differentiated, consistent foreign policy can we hope to demonstrate the paradigm shift the globe is experiencing.

Now, for us to have a consistent foreign policy serves both major parties in our system because the lines drawn in the proverbial sand could remove the politicizing of events to the degree of paralization we experience now. We need a clearer understanding of the US policy on genocide for instance. We need to know at what point we must intervene militarily. And the world's dictators need to know that if they oppress their people and the UN fails to act, the US will intervene and brutality will end.

A consistent foreign policy is a deterent in much the same way the MAD policies of the 60s-80s were supposed to be. There are leaders who must begin to realize they will not profit from the exploitation of human beings any more. Some people say one candidate or the other promises that, and I'm glad, but the political atmosphere will not allow it at present. Meanwhile, Sudan, East Timor, Tibet, Chechnya, Chad, Palestine, Israel and others experience human rights abuses. I mean Iraq is a good and necessary start but who in this country is prepared to address the mass graves in Ayachuco, Peru? I am suggesting if the Peruvian leaders knew the Cold War paradigm was over and the US would intervene over 30,000-69,000 dead bodies or earlier to prevent such a disaster, they might have chosen a different path (sorry about the play on "Shining Path").
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Chevalier said:
Sorry no cliff notes, my friend, but it is the musings from my first thesis proposal, so it wasn't important enough for ole' Cliff to give attention to. Wait till I put more of it up ;) My actual point is that these brutal dictators are the world community's problem and we need to come up with more definative thresholds triggering action. As I do say in the thesis, though, isolationism only causes more suffering and more powerful foes when we are forced to act. It would be best if the UN had its own volunteer QRF with its own equipment to react to genocidal rulers immediately upon crossing a solid threshold, but for that to be an actuality, there must first be UN reform. Hence my next post.
Since the majority of nations that comprise the UN are non-democratic States....how are we going to get the UN to act against dictators?
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is not so much dictators as brutality that is the problem, but you do raise a valid concern. The problem is not as much in the form of government as in the way government treats people. My contention is this: when a leader engages in and/or tolerates torture, rapine, intentional environmental destruction with the intent of driving an indigenous population out of a region (such as the situation with the Marsh Arabs in Iraq), ethnic cleansing, genocide, any of which can happen under any form of government then the world community must act to remove that government and leader from power. It is easier for these activities to grow in a dictatorial system because of a lack of checks and balances, but fascism/dictatorship are not the only systems in which this activity takes place, ex. Serbia. My principle issue is human rights concerns; form of government is secondary to, though not usually removed from, that consideration. Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate observation.
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
yeah, isn't Syria on the Human rights commision or whatever
if that doesnt speak volumes to the ineptitude of the UN i dont know what is
The current UN is a disgrace and a paper tiger
If it is not majorly overhauled it will fall by the wayside as it should, along with its One World Order
Strong People need to be appointed to it, in order to make the reforms or it will just keep chugging along, talking loud and proud, but acting miserably
 

Chevalier

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with all that. Syria and Chad both places where human rights abuses are well documented should not be serving on the HRC unless it's serving TIME (in jail, that is).
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Chevalier said:
It is not so much dictators as brutality that is the problem, but you do raise a valid concern. The problem is not as much in the form of government as in the way government treats people. My contention is this: when a leader engages in and/or tolerates torture, rapine, intentional environmental destruction with the intent of driving an indigenous population out of a region (such as the situation with the Marsh Arabs in Iraq), ethnic cleansing, genocide, any of which can happen under any form of government then the world community must act to remove that government and leader from power. It is easier for these activities to grow in a dictatorial system because of a lack of checks and balances, but fascism/dictatorship are not the only systems in which this activity takes place, ex. Serbia. My principle issue is human rights concerns; form of government is secondary to, though not usually removed from, that consideration. Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate observation.
Having non-democratic regimes participate in the safeguarding of human rights is equivalent to having a fox guard the hen house. That is the reason the UN is so ineffective.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
but democracy isn't the only form of government acceptable. If the government treats its people fairly, does it matter if its a dictatorship, or some other form of government.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Darfur is the Global Humanitarian crisis of the moment. The Europeans and the U N are in the lead in it and are making a mess of it. They are demonstrating to the world what a stupid idea it is to depend on the UN & EU if the US isnt involved.
Darfur is in Europes sphere of influence and they are doing one lousy job.
America should stay out of Darfur whle showing the world how useless the Europeans and the UN are at saving people in trouble.
These are the people that wanted to tell the USA how to handle Saddam Heuseinn. These are the people senator Kerry wanted us to put our safety in their hands.
 
Top Bottom