No More Tyrants, Part II
Dean
Whether you think we should be members of the U.N. or not, so long as the US is a member of that body--so long as other free democratic nations are members of this body--we are completely entitled to take whatever position we please whenever a question of adding new members or granting special recognition to existing members comes up.
So long as the Security Council exists, and so long as we are members of that Security Council, we must oppose at every turn efforts to grant special privileges and recognition to thugs and tyrants. Period, end of story. If you disagree it's to your deep shame.
That is not idealism. It is, obviously, a moral position--indeed, it is the only moral position. But it is also a practical, pragmatic matter of national and international security. Furthermore, such a position cannot possibly be idealistic. For something to be idealistic it would have to be unachievable. This is hardly unachievable.
The US and all free nations should oppose admission of non-democratic, non-free nations to the Security Council. Period. End of story. If we are outvoted so be it--it will only add further evidence that the UN is a corrupt, amoral body that empowers and grants legitimacy to thugs, theocrats, and tyrants.
And by the way, can we please dispense with the utterly stupid phrase "you cannot impose democracy?" Not only does it take an extraordinary ignorance of the history of the 20th century to believe something so dumb, but it's also just plain bad phrasing:
Democracy is a fundamental human right. You do not "impose" fundamental human rights, you recognize and grant them.
Furthermore, can we dispense with the obviously stupid notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy? There are currently at least five muslim democracies in the world that I know of: Afghanistan, Albania, Indonesia, Iraq, and Turkey. 100 million muslims take part in India's thriving democracy, one of the oldest democracies on the planet.
"No more tyrants on the Security Council!"
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Why only the Security Council? Why not only admit Democracies, period, to the UN at all? The nerve of these tinpot dictatorships that want a vote in the UN, but won't grant the vote to their people.
Who gave these dictatorships legitimacy anyway: watery tarts, distributing scimitars?
Or however that Month Python line goes.
It's simply time that the free nations who are part of that organization start making it clear where they stand on issues of fundamental human rights--and history now shows us, clearly and irrefutably, that no other human rights can be guaranteed without democracy first.
Therefore, I would reduce this to my original suggestion, which is to scrap the present UNO and revert to the tried and true system of each country making its own foreign policy, trade, ambassadorial and consular and other relationships individually with each other country.
And if we cannot do that, then remove the entire UNO gang from the building in New York City constructed for them by the Rockefeller family or whichever other quasi-liberal foundation built it for them in the late 1940s. Let them set up shop in Geneva, as the old League of Nations had done.
Here, all they accomplish is collecting parking tickets from the New York police, which, presumably either they never pay or American taxpayers pay for them.
New York has always been a vibrant and interesting city, and it will remain that way without the UNO to add to the traffic congestion.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Regarding Turkey: That's a common misunderstanding. The Turkish constitution has a rather unique feature, in that the military is required to be rigidly secular and politically independent, and the Constitution empowers the military leaders to, under certain specific circumstances, dissolve parliament and call new elections, with a military tribunal temporarily ruling in the interim. The last time that happened for more than a very short time period was about 25 years ago, where during a period of severe instability they ruled for about two years during a drafting of a new Constitution--and then promptly restored power to the elected government under the new Constitution. Whatever its flaws, it's worked for the Turks for generations.
Another nation I should have mentioned, by the way, would be Bosnia, although it's plurality-muslim not majority-muslim--at about 40%, they're the largest group in the country and they dominate much of the government. But it's been stable and democratic for some time thanks to President Clinton's invasion and subsequent actions taken by military allies to stabilize the nation and "impose" democracy. There's still an international contingent there helping assure stability, but the last I checked there hasn't been a combat casualty there in almost a decade.
Then of course there was the "imposition" by the Western powers in Serbia, a muslim-dominated country, wherein after we removed the butcher Slobodon Milosevic we helped them restore--democracy. One that's been stable for some time now, though there's still a military presence there helping them maintain stability too.
So apparently, along with Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Bosnia, and Serbia, we now have Afghanistan and Iraq among those that have had outside military powers "impose" fundamental human rights on them. Apparently this business of "imposing" democracy is no easy thing, but hardly impossible, even in nations dominated by muslims.
Who'da thunk?
As for defining what is a democracy: I find the judgement of Freedom House's freedom rankings to be more than sufficient.
There's a direct relationship here: the more democratic a nation is, the more free it is, the more prosperous it is, and the more secure and the less of a threat it is.
Serbia is predominantly Greek-Orthodox, with Muslims in majority in Kosovo only. Wether that is still part of Serbia or not or wether it should be is an other discussion entirely.
As Muslim democracies go don't forget Senegal and Mali.
Albania doesn't count because the US had nothing to do with its democracy, and Afghanistan doesn't count because the US is responsible for its democracy?