United Democratic Nations

[Angleter]

Who cares about totalitarian goverments? They don't even represent their people. We can leave them in their own mess and let them cry how ''Western imperialists'' opress them.

Are you sure this isn't going to up/isn't already a "us westerners vs. them" thing?

I think that's actually his intention. Why on Earth we'd all want to send our relations with China and Russia and such down the shitter is beyond me.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think it is likely to coexist in my opinion because the UN still remains important regardless of ideology. Lead by example...absolutely. Democracies were there for a reason: simply so that we can find the people we can trust.

When you say that the UN is still important, can you give an example?

gary

Education and heritage, particularly with the Memory of the World project.

[Gdstark]

When you say that the UN is still important, can you give an example?

gary

It´s like a parliament for the whole world. And there are "parties" for diffrent worldviews.. even if they can´t really decide much it´s a place to hear other opinions and find new friends
..like when Russia, France and Germany argued against the invasion of iraq. It´s not all about democracy.. sometimes "good" and "bad" guys stand together against the opinion of other "good" guys. Dictatorships have the right to be heard too!

I disagree...dictators do NOT have a right to pretend to represent citizens. If you fundamentally believe in democracy, you cannot then pretend that dictators are somehow legitimate spokesmen.

gary

[Sremski okrug]

It´s like a parliament for the whole world. And there are "parties" for diffrent worldviews.. even if they can´t really decide much it´s a place to hear other opinions and find new friends
..like when Russia, France and Germany argued against the invasion of iraq. It´s not all about democracy.. sometimes "good" and "bad" guys stand together against the opinion of other "good" guys. Dictatorships have the right to be heard too!

I disagree...dictators do NOT have a right to pretend to represent citizens. If you fundamentally believe in democracy, you cannot then pretend that dictators are somehow legitimate spokesmen.

gary

You cannot simply ignore these dictators and leave them isolated. You need to negotiate with them. If you think starting another Cold War would be good for the world then your an idiot.

[Gdstark]

Like I said, dictators are free to form whatever organizations they like. That's already true today. The UDN idea is not about splitting the world East to West...it's about splitting the world between Democracy and Dictatorship. And helping move the world from the latter to the former.

gary

and splitting it down these lines would create un-needed conflict.

Just because you say it's so? It's like this...the UN is based on the premise that "might makes right". The UDN is based on the premise that legitimacy is derived ONLY from the electoral process. It's a decision we need to make as a people. Stick with what we're doing and assume that somehow nuclear proliferation will reverse and that wars will end on their own. Or try something new.

gary

[Gdstark]

Are you sure this isn't going to up/isn't already a "us westerners vs. them" thing?

I think that's actually his intention. Why on Earth we'd all want to send our relations with China and Russia and such down the shitter is beyond me.

Do you think you're doing the Chinese people a favor by pretending that their dictatorship is legitimate? I would say you are not. What we have now with China is a relationship of convenience, not one of principle.

gary

[Kleomentia]

Democracy is not needed for a stable society, you can have a benevolent dictatorship like Yugoslavia.

You have a point. Only there would have to be great and powerful leaders to keep together a nation like that(like Tito). Unfortunately they are hard to find.

[Salvarity]

i think your talking about a
United Western States. because thats all that is a map off. Western Countries

[Gdstark]

I disagree...dictators do NOT have a right to pretend to represent citizens. If you fundamentally believe in democracy, you cannot then pretend that dictators are somehow legitimate spokesmen.

gary

You cannot simply ignore these dictators and leave them isolated. You need to negotiate with them. If you think starting another Cold War would be good for the world then your an idiot.

I have no interest in starting any wars, cold or otherwise...just the opposite. And I'm not proposing that we ignore dictators. To the contrary I'm proposing that we confront dictatorships everywhere, not by declaring war, but by setting a positive democratic example. It comes down to this...pretending that dictators are legitimate is not a neutral activity, we are instead condoning dictatorship. We are selling our democratic principles short. More than ever we need to start setting a good democratic example...for the people of Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere. Business as usual has actually worked AGAINST world peace. Nuclear proliferation is increasing, not decreasing. Unlike the UN, I'm proposing that the UDN not maintain a standing army. The UDN is about leading by example, not force.

gary

[Gdstark]

Democracy is not needed for a stable society, you can have a benevolent dictatorship like Yugoslavia.

You have a point. Only there would have to be great and powerful leaders to keep together a nation like that(like Tito). Unfortunately they are hard to find.

The benevolent dictatorship is a myth. Ultimately absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gary

[Kleomentia]

You have a point. Only there would have to be great and powerful leaders to keep together a nation like that(like Tito). Unfortunately they are hard to find.

The benevolent dictatorship is a myth. Ultimately absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gary

So very true...

[Hittanryan]

OK idea in theory, terrible in practice. You can't ignore authoritarian and totalitarian states, much less officially exclude them from an international body on the basis of their form of government. You'll piss them off and create a new opposing power bloc, one which will probably strengthen the very forces you sought to weaken and eliminate.

Let's take an example from recent history: because George W. Bush doesn't know anything about the Middle East, he lumped every predominantly Muslim terrorist organization, regardless of goal or ideology, together under the same label of Islamic terrorism. This meant he treated Hezbollah, a Shi'a group in Lebanon and Syria concerned mostly with Israel, the same as Al-Qaeda, an international Wahhabi network that targets the US and Western Europe. When Dubya saw that Hezbollah happened to be operating in parts of Syria, ruled by the largely secular, ostensibly Sunni, Assad regime, he said "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS," and cut all ties with Syria.

What happened? Syria was isolated, alienated, and in desperation, turned to Iran for an ally. That's right, the mostly Sunni nation of Syria allied itself with the Shi'a theocracy of Iran. As part of that alliance, Syria allowed Iran to funnel resources to the Shi'a group of Hezbollah. By 2006, Hezbollah was strong enough to fight the Israeli military to a standstill. So, by isolating your enemies or perceived enemies, you may force them to team up and ultimately strengthen them, no matter how bitter rivals they are now. War makes strange bedfellows after all.

[Sremski okrug]

You have a point. Only there would have to be great and powerful leaders to keep together a nation like that(like Tito). Unfortunately they are hard to find.

The benevolent dictatorship is a myth. Ultimately absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gary

Tito loved his people and his people loved him. That is a fact.

[Gdstark]

i think your talking about a
United Western States. because thats all that is a map off. Western Countries

Please don't use the United States as your model of democracy. Democracy does not insure wise governance...only the potential for it. The United States surely proves that point.

gary

[Gdstark]

The benevolent dictatorship is a myth. Ultimately absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gary

Tito loved his people and his people loved him. That is a fact.

That's nice. Personally I prefer a leader that I can vote out of office when the need arises.

[Angleter]

I think that's actually his intention. Why on Earth we'd all want to send our relations with China and Russia and such down the shitter is beyond me.

Do you think you're doing the Chinese people a favor by pretending that their dictatorship is legitimate? I would say you are not. What we have now with China is a relationship of convenience, not one of principle.

gary

Convenience is good for me and my people- and that ought to be the first concern of any sane nation's foreign policy. Convenience is good for the millions of Chinese workers who'll get laid off when relations with the West to which they export goes south. Convenience is good for the burgeoning educated and relatively wealthy Chinese middle class who, if anyone, will end up overthrowing the dictatorship. Deciding to operate our foreign policy on 'principle'- ie. shaking our fists at the dictatorships and refusing to do any more deals with them out of righteous indignation, letting relations with them deteriorate- isn't good for our economy, won't encourage them to treat our people well if they get into predicaments there (and those are the primary concerns), isn't good for their economy (and thus their people's well-being, and eventual ability to overthrow their government), and won't encourage them to make small steps to allowing freedom for the sake of deals with us.

And you needn't sign every post 'Gary'.

[Gdstark]

OK idea in theory, terrible in practice. You can't ignore authoritarian and totalitarian states, much less officially exclude them from an international body on the basis of their form of government. You'll piss them off and create a new opposing power bloc, one which will probably strengthen the very forces you sought to weaken and eliminate.

Let's take an example from recent history: because George W. Bush doesn't know anything about the Middle East, he lumped every predominantly Muslim terrorist organization, regardless of goal or ideology, together under the same label of Islamic terrorism. This meant he treated Hezbollah, a Shi'a group in Lebanon and Syria concerned mostly with Israel, the same as Al-Qaeda, an international Wahhabi network that targets the US and Western Europe. When Dubya saw that Hezbollah happened to be operating in parts of Syria, ruled by the largely secular, ostensibly Sunni, Assad regime, he said "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS," and cut all ties with Syria.

What happened? Syria was isolated, alienated, and in desperation, turned to Iran for an ally. That's right, the mostly Sunni nation of Syria allied itself with the Shi'a theocracy of Iran. As part of that alliance, Syria allowed Iran to funnel resources to the Shi'a group of Hezbollah. By 2006, Hezbollah was strong enough to fight the Israeli military to a standstill. So, by isolating your enemies or perceived enemies, you may force them to team up and ultimately strengthen them, no matter how bitter rivals they are now. War makes strange bedfellows after all.

You have a choice...you can ignore the dictator or ignore the citizens. You prefer to ignore the citizens. I prefer to ignore the dictator. If that angers the dictator, I'm willing to live with the consequences. I'd rather do what right rather than what's convenient.

[Gdstark]

Do you think you're doing the Chinese people a favor by pretending that their dictatorship is legitimate? I would say you are not. What we have now with China is a relationship of convenience, not one of principle.

gary

Convenience is good for me and my people- and that ought to be the first concern of any sane nation's foreign policy. Convenience is good for the millions of Chinese workers who'll get laid off when relations with the West to which they export goes south. Convenience is good for the burgeoning educated and relatively wealthy Chinese middle class who, if anyone, will end up overthrowing the dictatorship. Deciding to operate our foreign policy on 'principle'- ie. shaking our fists at the dictatorships and refusing to do any more deals with them out of righteous indignation, letting relations with them deteriorate- isn't good for our economy, won't encourage them to treat our people well if they get into predicaments there (and those are the primary concerns), isn't good for their economy (and thus their people's well-being, and eventual ability to overthrow their government), and won't encourage them to make small steps to allowing freedom for the sake of deals with us.

And you needn't sign every post 'Gary'.

Your assumption that trade with China would somehow stop because we take a stand in favor of democracy is unfounded. Trade is a capitalist process, not a governmental process. I do not recommend letting relationships deteriorate...to the contrary I prefer a policy of engagement rather than isolationism. Engagement is not contradictory to the adherence of democratic principles.

[The Andromeda Islands]

The UN really needs reform, personally I support changing the GA into an assembly with elected representatives, and either changing the nations with permanent security council membership or completely nerfing their Veto power.

I would give certain countries more general Assembly votes based on population. Every country gets one vote for every 100,000,000 people it has. Also, every country would get one vote based on it being a country.
I would also nullify Security Council vetoes and have Security Council members based on population. Perhaps the 12 or 15 most populous countries.

[Gdstark]

The UN really needs reform, personally I support changing the GA into an assembly with elected representatives, and either changing the nations with permanent security council membership or completely nerfing their Veto power.

I would give certain countries more general Assembly votes based on population. Every country gets one vote for every 100,000,000 people it has. Also, every country would get one vote based on it being a country.
I would also nullify Security Council vetoes and have Security Council members based on population. Perhaps the 12 or 15 most populous countries.

I tend to think your ideas would be moving in the right direction, but is there a danger of rewarding nations for overpopulation?

[Volnotova]

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.

[Virabia]

Whys the US in that list. We all know it's a not a REAL democracy...

Anyways as a side note, I see it kinda being pointless. What will a UDN fail to accomplish that the UN already fails to accomplish....

[Hittanryan]

You have a choice...you can ignore the dictator or ignore the citizens. You prefer to ignore the citizens. I prefer to ignore the dictator. If that angers the dictator, I'm willing to live with the consequences. I'd rather do what right rather than what's convenient.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "You can ignore the dictator or ignore the citizens." Can you please clarify?

Angering the dictator, however, may have very real impacts on human lives. To take my Syrian example from earlier, Hezbollah provoked Israel into bombing Lebanese cities, causing collateral damage in the process. Just because you're doing what's "right" doesn't mean it will be free of negative repercussions. The crux of my argument is that forming a body of this nature would be provocative. If you form a democratic-only bloc, you might end up with a dictator-only bloc opposing it, then you end up with both of those sides competing for influence in unaligned countries.

I would rather do the most amount of good for the highest number of people, rather than adhering to some ideal regardless of unforeseen consequences.

[Gdstark]

You have a choice...you can ignore the dictator or ignore the citizens. You prefer to ignore the citizens. I prefer to ignore the dictator. If that angers the dictator, I'm willing to live with the consequences. I'd rather do what right rather than what's convenient.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "You can ignore the dictator or ignore the citizens." Angering the dictator, however, may have very real impacts on the citizens. I would rather do the most amount of good for the highest number of people, rather than adhering to some ideal regardless of unforeseen consequences.

If you pretend that a dictator represents the citizens of a nation, you are ignoring those citizens. For example if you're a citizen in Libya trying to rid your country of a dictator, the last thing you want is for leaders of other nations to pretend that the dictator still represents you. That's what I mean by ignoring the citizens in favor of the dictator.

gary

[Gdstark]

Whys the US in that list. We all know it's a not a REAL democracy...

Anyways as a side note, I see it kinda being pointless. What will a UDN fail to accomplish that the UN already fails to accomplish....

The hope is that a UDN would fail to achieve irrelevance, unlike the UN.