Which countries should be excluded from the international community?

[SDET]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

 

[Xelor]

Which countries should be excluded from the international community?

None. The "international community" is, by definition, the group of sovereign countries.

 

[Tom Horn]

France. Due to their incessant whining.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The USA for electing a second rate game show host as leader.

 

[Bullseye]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

What "international community"?

 

[Tom Horn]

And I believe the original question was thus. “ if you could blow up just one city in the world, would it be Paris or Rome”?

 

[Nap]

The USA for electing a second rate game show host as leader.

For once I agree with you, I guess technically this is twice as I agree with both the nomination of the US and your assessment of Trump. I do find it rather ironic you agree with Trump that the US needs to pull back from the "international community" and put America first.

 

[SDET]

What "international community"?

I guess the UN. Or it could simple be a collection of nations having diplomatic relations. As an associated question: How did international pressure result in Cuba halting summary executions?

 

[Bullseye]

I guess the UN. Or it could simple be a collection of nations having diplomatic relations. As an associated question: How did international pressure result in Cuba halting summary executions?

I'm sure you think it was "community spirit". :lamo

 

[Hawkeye10]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

This is a lot like disowning family.....yes you can refuse to talk to them or else treat them like crap....but they are still family.

 

[Anarchon]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

The US with its imperialism, police state, extraordinary debt, use of NBC weapons, and imprisonment of its own people?

You can find flaws in any government. The real question is why you'd want yet another level of it at an international level? Are you a globalist?

 

[Conaeolos]

None. IMHO all nations should do business with one another...these polical sanctions / restrictions / cold war stunts are silly nonsense. So you don't like another countrys policies - don't do them - focus on doing the best for your own nation. Stay out of other countries affairs as much as is reasonable.

 

[Anarchon]

None. IMHO all nations should do business with one another...these polical sanctions / restrictions / cold war stunts are silly nonsense. So you don't like another countrys policies - don't do them - focus on doing the best for your own nation. Stay out of other countries affairs as much as is reasonable.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

 

[Aristaeus]

None. IMHO all nations should do business with one another...these polical sanctions / restrictions / cold war stunts are silly nonsense. So you don't like another countrys policies - don't do them - focus on doing the best for your own nation. Stay out of other countries affairs as much as is reasonable.

If we all took that view, Hitler would have killed a lot more than 6 million in the concentration camps (yes, I went Godwin on your ass; deal with it).

 

[Conaeolos]

If we all took that view, Hitler would have killed a lot more than 6 million in the concentration camps (yes, I went Godwin on your ass; deal with it).

Hitler 's alliance wasn't stopped by poltical exclution: political sanctions / restrictions / cold war stunts. We did though have lots of these stunts and silly non-sense well 100s of million people were killed by dictators post WWII.

Would it have be different if we were more as I suggest? Maybe. One can never really know. Heck maybe I am really wrong and the Soviets would be a super power, but I highly doubt it.

You'll have to do better to have a point. Not to mention US joined WWII by an act of war by Axis last I checked.

I think the best example of change via political exclusion would be South Africa and although i am no fan of apartheid. South Africa is no strait forward success story - the country may very well be doing worse.

 

[Mycroft]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

The US. By our own volition.

Let's face facts, folks. The "international community" hasn't done a whole lot of good for the world, at large. Oh sure, there are isolated instances of good but, for the most part, people are getting killed and are suffering all over the world. Even in some so-called 1st world nations. And, since the US has been the world's piggy bank since the end of WWII (our own decision), we are getting used and abused by the power-mongering globalists of the world. We need to end this for the benefit of our own citizens. (I guess this point of view makes me a "nationalist", eh?)

There's a saying..."It's a big club and you ain't in it". (Thanks George https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE . but you were thinking way too small) That "big club" is the international community.

**** the international community.

 

[Evilroddy]

None. The most problematic countries or governments are the ones it is most necessary to engage with. Cut them off and you perpetuate their abuses. Keep them in the international community but also continue to hold their feet to the fire diplomatically, economically and by other more creative situation-specific sanctions in order to propel change. Engagement, not isolation is the best way to effect change and to avoid the use of military force which too often has unintended consequences which blow-back and derail the necessary correction by the offending state.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[SDET]

If we all took that view, Hitler would have killed a lot more than 6 million in the concentration camps (yes, I went Godwin on your ass; deal with it).

I wouldn't call your post a Godwin cheap shot. It's a historically significant answer relevant to the OP.

 

[Westphalian]

None. The most problematic countries or governments are the ones it is most necessary to engage with. Cut them off and you perpetuate their abuses. Keep them in the international community but also continue to hold their feet to the fire diplomatically, economically and by other more creative situation-specific sanctions in order to propel change. Engagement, not isolation is the best way to effect change and to avoid the use of military force which too often has unintended consequences which blow-back and derail the necessary correction by the offending state.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Please tell me who, in your world, determines the 'necessary correction'.


In addition, perhaps you could explain what should happen if the people of an 'offending state' choose and support leaders who pursue policies which require 'correction' by the un-defined corrective authority. Is this where the US (and you know, I'm hazarding a wild guess that the US is the un-named arbiter of righteous behavior in your analysis ) gets its oxymoronic 'bombs for democracy' policies from?

 

[Evilroddy]

1) Please tell me who, in your world, determines the 'necessary correction'.


2) In addition, perhaps you could explain what should happen if the people of an 'offending state' choose and support leaders who pursue policies which require 'correction' by the un-defined corrective authority. 3) Is this where the US (and you know, I'm hazarding a wild guess that the US is the un-named arbiter of righteous behavior in your analysis ) gets its oxymoronic 'bombs for democracy' policies from?

Numbers added to quotation by me for easier reference.

Westphalian:

1) The citizens, political leadership, legal and academic authorities, interest groups/organisations and the governments of the states of the international community will determine what necessary corrections are required to be made both unilaterally and multilaterally. The ethics which will determine the need for those corrections and the types of corrections demanded will not be homogenous but heterogenous and may change as morality and ethics change over time.

2) The people/citizens of the offending state are ultimately responsible for the actions of their state even if it is a highly non-democratic state which attempts to force their compliance and silences their criticism. They may not be culpable but they are responsible for the actions of a non-democratic state and are therefore not immune to international or unilateral sanction. Thus they will suffer under whatever corrective coercion other states settle upon both unilaterally and multilaterally through the international system. There is no corrective authority, there are only states and non-state actors trying to advance their particular flavour of international ethics until a wider global consensus develops among states and organisations and a more homogeneous and codified ethic emerges over time.

3) The United States of America will act unilaterally as its leadership determines, but on multilateral actions the international community must push back against America's penchant for militarism and curb the frequency of armed interventions under a multilateral banner. That is the responsibility of those cooperating states and if they fail to restrain militarism they may find themselves on the receiving end of some necessary correction too. As to unilateral American military action, that should be critically examined and if found to be improper by other states and organisations then it should be sanctioned too. US militarism is usually no more righteous than Russian or French militarism and the days of Bombs for Democracy or Tanks for Mother Russia must be ended as soon as possible. America can become a pariah state just as easily as the UK, France, India, Russia or China can.

The new emphasis must switch from military compulsion to non-violent but forceful persuasion. This can be done by states persuading the international community of the righteousness of their country's policies. On-loading political support and allies for cooperative non-violent pressure through diplomacy and compromise must replace off-loading high-explosives on targetted states in the vast majority international disputes.

War does not work anymore for the most part. It only settles who will be in charge of cleaning up the mess caused by the war and who will have to deal with the consequences of the killing, maiming and hatred generated by the war. Russia learned this in Afghanistan (twice) and will eventually learn it in Ukraine. The US military is the best funded military in the world, but since World War II it has failed to win many wars (even against much weaker opponents) and has been even worse at winning the peace if it did triumph militarily.

War and militarism do not work for the most part to solve international crises and disputes. All they do is drive arms sales through the spreading of international suspicion, paranoia and uncertainty. These are wasted resources which are needed elsewhere. It's time to put some new tools in the tool-box and to reserve war and militarism for the very rare cases where the harm being done and the inability to persuade or sanction the malefactor make the use of military force the only option. That applies to both Russia and America as well as China, India, Europe, Brazil or any other state on the globe.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[marke]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

None should be excluded but all should be strongly made to recognize civilized laws among neighbors and in dealing with their own citizen subjects.

 

[Logician Man]

None should be excluded but all should be strongly made to recognize civilized laws among neighbors and in dealing with their own citizen subjects.

Define how /// all should be strongly made to recognize civilized laws //// would be implemented.= and who would do this implementing.

 

[marke]

Define how /// all should be strongly made to recognize civilized laws //// would be implemented.= and who would do this implementing.

Define how rogue nations could be banned from the world community. How does a civilized nation force a rogue regime to treat its citizens right, bomb the pants off their leaders? Was the US right to stop the North Korean invasion of South Korea more than 60 years ago by engaging in war? I think so.

 

[Westphalian]

This whole thread is a nonsense.

The greatest rogue state in the world is the US, but it can't be 'excluded from the international community' because of its size, power, influence etc. (I know, Americans think they define and own the 'international community', but humor me because universalism doesn't work).

Neither can Russia or China for the same reason, or regional powers like Iran, or even sub-regional powers. Maybe some Caribbean island that nobody has heard of could be, but you chaps didn't have any success with isolating Cuba, so you should get some realism glasses.

 

[Rich2018]

North Korea with its death camps? Putin's Russia? Maduro's Venezuela? Cuba? Duterte's Phillipines? What countries and why?

None

The UN must include all countries - the demand that they first declare themselves "democratic" is wrong a frankly stupid.

Excluding Franco's Spain because he wouldn't add the trappings of a democracy was wrong.


As Stephen Hawking once said, mankind's biggest failures have come when people stopped talking.


Edit: What's so bad about Cuba ?