United Democratic Nations

[EnragedMaldivians]

Even North Korea.

That's certainly the most comic example.

Hey, would any of you who are worried about defining democracy be willing to go out on a limb and say "North Korea is not a democracy"? The reality is that you probably do value democracy. All you need to do now is live it. That's the whole point of the United Democratic Nations idea. If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

Hegemonic stability.

Also, may I reccomend the book,"from voting to violence" by Jack Snyder of Columbia University, in which he challenges the view of democratic peace theorists that increasing democratization will inevitably make the world more peaceful.

To quote a review of the Book by G.John Ikenberry, by:

Marshaling an impressive body of empirical evidence, both historical and contemporary, Snyder tests his hypotheses by first looking at turning points in British, French, and German history. The following survey of the transition in the postcommunist and developing worlds also shows similar connections, concluding that recent nationalist and ethnic violence stems not from resurgent ancient hatreds but from elites struggling to maintain authority. A timely reminder that democracy can produce violence as well as peace.

While the book concedes that stable, liberal democracies are unlikely to go to war, there are historically salient precedents which demonstrate that emerging, unstable democracies can actually be detrimental to peace; especially when that instability is infused with revolutionary ideological sentiments or nationalism (see for instance late 18th century France), further exarcebated when those passions are channelled towards an external enemy or/and for the purposes of domestic consolidation (the French revolutionary wars apply here as well).

Anyways, as to your proposed "United Democratic Nations"; the way I see it (All the while appreciating the benefits of the spread of liberal democracy in the long term as a secular trend) external pressure on autocratic regimes to democratize by proxy of an international organization, is to isolate and antagonize those regimes, that the democracies need to partner and work with, if they care about their economic and security interests. China being an obvious example.

Let's examine a hypothetical case in which the UNDC has been established and the foreign policy of liberal democratic states operate by ideologically prioritizing the spread of democracy while ostracizing and putting pressure on "illegitimate" autocratic regimes to change to a "legitimate" representative one. Consider the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, in which the former relies on the latter to act as a swing producer of oil, in order to maintain a low price, in return for which the Americans provide the Sauds with military protection against other gulf states.

What would happen if the U.S policy shifted to no longer maintaining this deal, in consideration of the fact that S.A is an absoloute monarchy and follows suit by cutting off its oil imports and declaring that they will no longer maintain their bases until Saudi Arabia democratize and meet the criteria to join this nascent organization of yours?

I mean other than consolidate the locking of the Saudi-Iranian relationship into an escalating security dilemma (hey, I thought you said you were worried about Nuclear proliferation), since the Saudis no longer have guranteed American military protection, and sending the price of oil skyrocketing which would hurt the U.S economy, their consumer demand, corrolarily the economies of those countries which rely on exporting their goods to the U.S, what would it accomplish exactly?

(And if you think that actual democratization in S.A would neatly avoid such a situation, you would be ignoring the Salaafist grip over their domestic institutions and social paradigms (come to think of it any democracy here would be extremely transient anyway), which are hostile to the Shi'ite and hostile to American interests and would thus be unlikely to maintain the oil for security deal that is currently the status quo, with the consequence that they would be left to their own devices to face Iran. Anyway, the question I want to ask you is, what's the point in being ideologically commited to democracy in all instances, if the effects are pragmatically deleterious?)

Oh, I'm not too worried about overall world peace at the moment, given the trend that overall world conflict has been on the decline for a while. But I would kindly like to ask the United States to stop pushing for regime change in Syria, which I think would be a disaster for the regional peace of the Middle East (not to mention the religious minorities in Syria.)

[Distruzio]

Gary, a few questions about your video...

How does revolution in favor of liberty work against world peace? Why should I favor a cause that invalidates individual liberty? You emphasize that democratists favor individual liberty but you decry the quest for individual liberty as an affront to world interests.

How is legitimacy of gov't established by an electoral process, which suggests local self-determinism, but NOT by dictatorship? Obviously, by the very fact that the citizens are not rising against their dictatorship, the population offers tacit support to the dictator. If you doubt this fact, then you doubt the very foundations upon which all democratic societies are based - the social contract. Not every person in a democratic society was asked if they approved of democracy. They were born into it. Therefore, by the very nature of your argument, each person would have to vote to remain in a democracy, lest he be the victim of dictatorship of the majority. And if you acknowledge that a man be free to vote for his participation in a democracy for every generation, then it follows that a man must vote every single moment, lest his future self be the victim of a dictatorship of the past. Given this exercise in reductio ad absurdum, can we say that democracy is somehow more legitimate than a dictatorship?

I have more thoughts, but I have to go. The lady is looking at me impatiently and I won't disappoint her. Please, address those questions and we'll go from there.

I'm having trouble following your points, but I'll try to reply. You said...

Obviously, by the very fact that the citizens are not rising against their dictatorship, the population offers tacit support to the dictator. If you doubt this fact, then you doubt the very foundations upon which all democratic societies are based - the social contract.

I do doubt this. Not rising against a dictator can also be the result of fear...fear that you will be jailed or just "disappear". So I can't follow your logic beyond that.

Not sure if this addresses your point, but as someone who lives in a [representative] democracy, I see very little evidence of people wishing they lived in a dictatorship. On the global level, immigration is almost always from dictatorships to democracies, not the other way around. But again...maybe I'm just missing your point.


can we say that democracy is somehow more legitimate than a dictatorship?

In a democracy the representation is legitimate. In a dictatorship the people have no representation. That's why dictators buy gold toilet seats and such....they aren't accountable to the people. So yes, democracy is a legitimate form of representation, dictatorship is not.

gary

Okay, let me try this a different way since you don't follow exactly. In your video, you say that insurrection against a dictator is somehow bad, according to some rule of ethics that the world enjoys but the revolutionaries don't. If they did possess this same ethic, they wouldn't have revolted. Do you see how tyrannical this sounds? A revolutionary is exercising his right to liberty in rebelling (I would say even by violent means as every State on earth exists by violence against the individual) against a perceived oppressor. I'm saying that his liberty is subjective to his perspective, not yours. I am saying that you, even assuming the existence of a UDN, are in no position to judge the legitimacy of his claim to liberty - which is what you are doing by claiming that revolution (which is not necessarily violent) is antithetical to world desires.

A people that have not risen against their dictator have not risen against their dictator. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. For whatever reason, they haven't. Be it fear or satisfaction, they haven't done so and therefore, be it fear or satisfaction, they give tacit approval to the gov't under which they labor. This tacit approval stems from the very social contract upon which ALL gov'ts are founded. Being founded upon such a premise is precisely the tyranny you insist you oppose. B/c the only way a person can be truly represented is to allow them to be in firm control over their political rights at all times. The social contract assumes that a person born under a democracy gives tacit approval to the democracy (or vice versa a dictatorship) and is therefore subject to its rule. But this is tyranny. It denies individual choice and freedom of political rights. Moreover, even were every person granted the right of self-determination at birth, they would be oppressed in the same manner by the very nature of time. In order to grant them the right to political freedom at all possible times, they must be able to vote for their gov't every second of every day. Since this is impossible, your position is undermined. Any denial of the right to self-determination at any point in time invalidates your claim to speak for "truly" representative gov't.

Since you presume to speak for the world on the issue of "true" representative gov't, then it behooves you to understand that it is not peace that is in the best interest of the world, but individual liberty.

*(A side point for the more perceptive reader, yes I am an anarchist saying that not rebelling against the gov't you view as oppressive is tacit approval... no, that does not include me as I am actively engaged in legal activities to undermine the legitimacy of the gov't I perceive as oppressive.)

[Distruzio]

But you said revolution was bad for world interests?

Allow me to clarify. In a fully democratic world, revolutions would be through the electoral process, not through the use of arms. In dictatorships...well...just open a newspaper. My point is that dictatorships lead to violent revolutions, which works AGAINST the cause of world peace.

And I am saying that world peace is not a cause for the world. The world is not a single existing organic thing. It is a collection of sovereign individuals who sometimes cooperate. Speaking for an amorphous aggregate is the epitome of collectivist idealism. You walk dangerous ideological grounds reminiscent of the French Revolution.

[New Freedomstan]

Allow me to clarify. In a fully democratic world, revolutions would be through the electoral process, not through the use of arms. In dictatorships...well...just open a newspaper. My point is that dictatorships lead to violent revolutions, which works AGAINST the cause of world peace.

And I am saying that world peace is not a cause for the world. The world is not a single existing organic thing. It is a collection of sovereign individuals who sometimes cooperate. Speaking for an amorphous aggregate is the epitome of collectivist idealism. You walk dangerous ideological grounds reminiscent of the French Revolution.

Sometimes cooperate? Humanity constantly cooperates. You cooperate in the workplace, you cooperate in the household, you cooperate when buying things in a store, you cooperate when paying taxis, you cooperate when using public transportation or streets. You spend more time cooperating than doing things by yourself. Individualism is pointless, as one individual can achieve close to nothing.

[Distruzio]

And I am saying that world peace is not a cause for the world. The world is not a single existing organic thing. It is a collection of sovereign individuals who sometimes cooperate. Speaking for an amorphous aggregate is the epitome of collectivist idealism. You walk dangerous ideological grounds reminiscent of the French Revolution.

Sometimes cooperate? Humanity constantly cooperates. You cooperate in the workplace, you cooperate in the household, you cooperate when buying things in a store, you cooperate when paying taxis, you cooperate when using public transportation or streets. You spend more time cooperating than doing things by yourself. Individualism is pointless, as one individual can achieve close to nothing.

Then violence doesn't exist?

[New Freedomstan]

Then violence doesn't exist?

Of course it does. Doesn't mean that our way of life since the forming of hunter-gatherer societies have been one of cooperation. Violence are usually due to desperation, ignorance or greed. All are symptoms of the underlying cause, the capitalist system and ideology, which infects our society economically, politically and socially. Combating capitalism and the whole individualist farce would be a better way for future peace, than fighting against dictatorships.

[Distruzio]

Then violence doesn't exist?

Of course it does. Doesn't mean that our way of life since the forming of hunter-gatherer societies have been one of cooperation. Violence are usually due to desperation, ignorance or greed. All are symptoms of the underlying cause, the capitalist system and ideology, which infects our society economically, politically and socially. Combating capitalism and the whole individualist farce would be a better way for future peace, than fighting against dictatorships.

At times of violence, cooperation is not forthcoming. It's nice that you try to say that capitalism has existed since hunter-gatherer time, but it ain't true, boss. I would say that combating Statism and the whole do-good moral adventurer cult would be a better way to achieve world peace, rather than bickering about who properly understands human nature.

[New Freedomstan]

At times of violence, cooperation is not forthcoming. It's nice that you try to say that capitalism has existed since hunter-gatherer time, but it ain't true, boss. I would say that combating Statism and the whole do-good moral adventurer cult would be a better way to achieve world peace, rather than bickering about who properly understands human nature.

I said that human cooperation has existed since the forming of hunter-gatherer societies, not capitalism. We had a lot of economical and social systems until the advent of capitalism. And what is this statism? Why is the state the only institution that can suppress human freedom? My employer certainly limits my freedom more than the norwegian state does, and we are apparently one of the more statist societies. It's not a "do-good" stance, more of a wanting a better life in the long-term stance.

[Hittanryan]

Off-topic, but...

Assad is Alawite, granted that they are not a mainstream sect of Islam, they are a Shi'ite one.

I agree with your first paragraph though.

Damn, it's been a few years since that course. I knew Assad is Alawite but couldn't remember where that put him in terms of ethnicity/religion. Good catch. Still, Assad's regime is largely a secular one, and isn't most of the Muslim population of Syria Sunni?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Since you believe that the status quo is fine, I suspect that I cannot convince you.

Yes, the status quo is fine. Countries are the way they are because the populace allows them to be.

So other than giving the UN a greater ability to kick butt, you have no other thoughts on how to improve it?

A few. I believe there should be no permanent Security Council, and the individual member nations should be elected to it via majority vote within the General Assembly, it should create and maintain a fighting force, and it should have greater power over individual member nations.

How about the security council? France is 20th in nation populations and holds a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council, including veto authority. India is the 2nd most populous nation, the worlds largest democracy, yet has no such position. How would you explain the fairness of this to an Indian citizen?

"The UN was created shortly after WW2. At the time, India was a colony of Britain. The powers that be saw it fit to give Britain a seat over you." Should the system be changed? Yes. But the UN is by large a good organization.

No, I disagree strongly with you. We can do so much better.

So? That isn't how geopolitics works. You can't make it better without making it much worse. Reform takes time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So you approve of our ambasadors checking their demoratic principles at the door of the UN? There would be no greater dismissal of democracy than to pretend that dictators are legitimate.

You can maintain a position that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, while maintaining a pragmatic approach to foreign relations. What you're suggesting -- isolating and demonizing half the world -- is a recipe for decreased cooperation and increased conflict. The point of establishing the United Nations was to bring together all states, regardless of their forms of government, and foster cooperation with them. Through that cooperation, the world would be able to integrate economies, provide a forum for peaceful discourse, and establish international law with actual authority.

If you remove all the non-democratic states, then you're left with a pro-democracy echo chamber. Liberal democracies already cooperate economically and diplomatically. It's the non-democratic states that are really affected by the United Nations. The process of democratization is certainly slow, but it is also working. Through the United Nations, the world has consistently progressed in the area of human rights. We have the United Nations to thank for the development of the Responsibility to Protect, which is the most significant shift in promoting democracy in centuries.

Do you really think all that could have been done without an inclusive United Nations? Why would the non-democratic states cooperate with this UDN? Why wouldn't they hunker down and become even more authoritarian? Since there's now a big bad group of United Democracies trying to assert their authority over the world, they're going to have huge incentives to do just that.

The United Nations definitely needs to be reformed. Nobody really denies this. The Security Council should be expanded. But the problems with reform aren't because of any organizational issues within the United Nations. The problems with reform lay at the feet of activists. There simply aren't enough social actors out there demanding reform. The Security Council won't expand because (a) there aren't any incentives to do so, but there are plenty of disincentives and (b) since there's not any major push for expansion, individual UNSC states aren't going to voluntarily decrease their share of the power.

The taboo of nuclear weapons developed in response to a global social movement against their use. While the norm of non-use still exists, there is no effective global social movement for total disarmament anymore. Nuclear deterrence theory still makes sense to a lot of people in and out of government, and there's really nobody out there challenging the logic. (You have the debate happening in IR theory circles, but not in the public square.) The fault of stalled disarmament doesn't lay at the feet of the United Nations, but at the feet of everybody who isn't demanding disarmament.

Scrapping the United Nations isn't going to fix any of this. It probably will only make things worse. United Nations reform depends upon social demand for it. Trying to create a social movement for a new IGO is a just really bad idea.

[Hittanryan]

So pick your side. Democratic or authoritarian. If your choice is not to make the distinction, then you did make a choice...you have decided that democracy is not that important to you. And that's pretty much what we have now with the UN. So if you're not concerned about nuclear proliferation, the buildup of the Chinese military, and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

What? You can't view the world in black and white. How do you plan on having this UDN control nuclear proliferation if it cannot even negotiate with states who are most likely to pose a problem in that regard? I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but if you alienate the government and cut ties, won't that hurt your cause? If the government decides the UDN is a threat, won't it clamp down on the flow of information from democratic states? Won't that make it harder for pro-democracy forces within China to organize and garner support from abroad?

We want the same things but disagree on how we get there. Don't go French Revolution on us, that was pretty ugly for a while because of blind idealism.

[F1-Insanity]

US out of the UN, UN out of the US. Move the HQ to Baghdad, Harare or Somalia.

[Distruzio]

At times of violence, cooperation is not forthcoming. It's nice that you try to say that capitalism has existed since hunter-gatherer time, but it ain't true, boss. I would say that combating Statism and the whole do-good moral adventurer cult would be a better way to achieve world peace, rather than bickering about who properly understands human nature.

I said that human cooperation has existed since the forming of hunter-gatherer societies, not capitalism. We had a lot of economical and social systems until the advent of capitalism. And what is this statism? Why is the state the only institution that can suppress human freedom? My employer certainly limits my freedom more than the norwegian state does, and we are apparently one of the more statist societies. It's not a "do-good" stance, more of a wanting a better life in the long-term stance.

You voluntarily contracted with your employer. You did not voluntarily submit to the State, did you? Where did you sign your name ensuring your loyalty to Norway? Wanting a better life is perfectly legitimate. Wanting to force your concept of a better life on others at the expense of everyone else around you is do-good moral adventurism (i.e. spreading democracy for freedoms sake).

[Threlizdun]

A Union of Democratic Nations would not be sucessful, as almost every nation in the world calims to be democratic.

So you don't believe democracy can be measured? Are laws difficult to measure? If so, should we give up on laws?

The Union would never get to be established, because everyone would be arguing saying that they were democratic. All the movement would do is create tension with third world countries.

[Distruzio]

After reading these two article, I began thinking. Would it be possible to reform the UN into ''UDN'', or United Democratic Nations, or alternatively, make all democratic nations leave the UN and join the UDN instead? The member state map of the UDN would probably look like this.
Basically, the point is that UN is extremely inefficient because about half of the its member states are dictatorships. They do not respect Western values such as democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They might be semi-democratic oligarchies like Russia, pseudo-Communist authoritarian dictatorships like China or just literally insane hellholes like North Korea. It is incredibly difficult to make any decisions when half of the world's nation don't give a damn about things that matter to an average Westerner.

So, what do you think? Should undemocratic nations be kicked out of the UN? What is your opinion on this hypothetical ''UDN''?

The parliamentary aristocracies you mean?

And "dictatorship" as in "Absolute rule by one person" is an overused term. True dictators are not members of the state or the leader of it; They ARE the state.

In a dictatorship the dictator is the physical embodiment of the state and everyone submits to his/her authority.

In a dictatorship the dictator is the state.
In a democracy the people are the state.
Everything in between is either aristocracy or oligarchy.

Anarchism is an entirely different story as it lies outside of the statist spectrum.

As always Vol, . Love your perspective.

[Distruzio]

Gdstark, please, don't think that my posts are attacking you. Honestly, I would support the creation of a new UDN. As an anarchist, I support any and all forms of local self-determinism and political initiatives that pit State against State. A UDN would essentially ostracize non-conforming States pressuring the local populations to reevaluate their given forms of government. With the democratic States essentially seceding from the UN, this would set a precedent to non-secessionist populations that disagree with the ostracism that two competing world representative councils foster, that perhaps secession and local self-determinism is preferable to loyalty to the territorial monopolist compelling their allegiance.

[New Freedomstan]

You voluntarily contracted with your employer. You did not voluntarily submit to the State, did you? Where did you sign your name ensuring your loyalty to Norway? Wanting a better life is perfectly legitimate. Wanting to force your concept of a better life on others at the expense of everyone else around you is do-good moral adventurism (i.e. spreading democracy for freedoms sake).

I didn't chose to have an employer. I didn't really chose that particular one either. One must take whatever comes along, you know? Anything but direct slave labour beats unemployment. The only situation where one truly choose one's employer, is if there are more jobs than unemployed/underemployed. My local area has unemployment rate of 6%, and it is significantly higher among youth (10-15% I think). If it wasn't for the labour movement who party created the modern norwegian state, my conditions at work would be significantly worse. I've talked to a canadian mate, and were pretty shocked at the labour-practices there.

You cannot choose to not work. You can choose to emigrate though.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Off-topic, but...

Assad is Alawite, granted that they are not a mainstream sect of Islam, they are a Shi'ite one.

I agree with your first paragraph though.

Damn, it's been a few years since that course. I knew Assad is Alawite but couldn't remember where that put him in terms of ethnicity/religion. Good catch. Still, Assad's regime is largely a secular one, and isn't most of the Muslim population of Syria Sunni?

Yep, but the ruling Ba'ath regime, which is indeed ideologically secular* and nationalist, has been dominated by (but does not wholly consist of) Alawites, ever since Hafez Al-Assad took control of the party in the 60's and from what I read this factors into some of the Sunni discontentment against the ruling elite. Though this is not near as potent as Sunni-Islamist discontenment against the secularism of the regime, combined with the likely gratuitous metting out of violence towards them by the state whenever they get restive, particularly in hama.

You should also know, referencing your previous post here, that Syrian support for Hezbo'llah is well documented, so accusations that they do are in fact quite fair. They're pretty much the proxy for Iranian funding of the group and the organization would probably collapse if it weren't for Assad and thus, this would probably be the chief benefit with reference to American foreign policy interests in the Middle East, of regime change in Syria, and why Hillary has finally managed to convince Obama to make public statements to that end.

Though to be frank, rather unwisely in my opinion, given that there are potential sectarian antagonisms likely to manifest in conflict, as they vye to fill a post Assad power Vacum, not to mention what I consider the dubious motivations of some of the protestors.

Nonetheless, Syria is a complicated country, and foreign nations pushing for their democratization should at least make sure that such policy goals have been concluded to be satisfactory after a reasoned analysis of all the pros and cons involved, not merely because "democracy is good, and we like democracy."

I humbly offer my own post here, as what I consider, a decent breakdown of the Syrian situation; sourcing and all, if you're interested.

*They're constitution requires the president to be a Muslim, but this was probably just a concession made to domestic Islamists than reflective of the worldview of the Assads. [i]Not to take anything away from the fact that they are assholes with blood on their hands.

[Distruzio]

You voluntarily contracted with your employer. You did not voluntarily submit to the State, did you? Where did you sign your name ensuring your loyalty to Norway? Wanting a better life is perfectly legitimate. Wanting to force your concept of a better life on others at the expense of everyone else around you is do-good moral adventurism (i.e. spreading democracy for freedoms sake).

I didn't chose to have an employer. I didn't really chose that particular one either. One must take whatever comes along, you know? Anything but direct slave labour beats unemployment. The only situation where one truly choose one's employer, is if there are more jobs than unemployed/underemployed. My local area has unemployment rate of 6%, and it is significantly higher among youth (10-15% I think). If it wasn't for the labour movement who party created the modern norwegian state, my conditions at work would be significantly worse. I've talked to a canadian mate, and were pretty shocked at the labour-practices there.

You cannot choose to not work. You can choose to emigrate though.

You can choose to not work. You can choose a better employer. You can attempt to charge more for your labor. Your employer, does not pretend to own you. By the very fact that you suggest a labour movement benefits the unemployed (it actually causes them), you acknowledge that you presume to own the job you have.

In other words.

[Voerdeland]

If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it obviously would increase international peace.

[Hippostania]

If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it would obviously increase peace.

So, ignore all basic human rights? Would you like to be tortured to death? North Koreans and Chinese people don't, yet their dictatorial goverment tortures them, jails dissidents and maintains a secret police. And you're defending them?
Seriously, how can you do that? How can you actually defend nations that do not respect democracy and basic human rights AT ALL?

[The Romulan Republic]

After reading these two article, I began thinking. Would it be possible to reform the UN into ''UDN'', or United Democratic Nations, or alternatively, make all democratic nations leave the UN and join the UDN instead? The member state map of the UDN would probably look like this.
Basically, the point is that UN is extremely inefficient because about half of the its member states are dictatorships. They do not respect Western values such as democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They might be semi-democratic oligarchies like Russia, pseudo-Communist authoritarian dictatorships like China or just literally insane hellholes like North Korea. It is incredibly difficult to make any decisions when half of the world's nation don't give a damn about things that matter to an average Westerner.

So, what do you think? Should undemocratic nations be kicked out of the UN? What is your opinion on this hypothetical ''UDN''?

I would say that your map disproves the notion that Democracy is a purely Western value.

I think a coalition of Democratic nations would not be a bad idea, but it should exist alongside the UN, not as an alternative to it.

[Voerdeland]

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it would obviously increase peace.

So, ignore all basic human rights? Would you like to be tortured to death? North Koreans and Chinese people don't, yet their dictatorial goverment tortures them, jails dissidents and maintains a secret police. And you're defending them?
Seriously, how can you do that? How can you actually defend nations that do not respect democracy and basic human rights AT ALL?

I - unlike you - know that human rights are a human invention. Everyone SHOULD have basic human rights, but I don't say that everyone actually HAS them.

[Hippostania]

So, ignore all basic human rights? Would you like to be tortured to death? North Koreans and Chinese people don't, yet their dictatorial goverment tortures them, jails dissidents and maintains a secret police. And you're defending them?
Seriously, how can you do that? How can you actually defend nations that do not respect democracy and basic human rights AT ALL?

I - unlike you - know that human rights are a human invention. Everyone SHOULD have basic human rights, but I don't say that everyone actually HAS them.

Yeah, everyone should have them, but they don't. That is why something has to be done.