United Democratic Nations

[Hittanryan]

What I'm trying to say is that a hardline pro-Western values alliance will instantly alienate many non-democratic states (governments and people) for various reasons. Some may see it as a neo-colonialist body, a front for the start of a new era of Western imperialism. I wouldn't see it that way, but Europe wasn't particularly nice to its colonies all the time, and some people have long memories. Others might see it as a slap in the face, I imagine the Chinese Communist Party, for example, would be highly insulted. Personally, I think that would be great, because I'm no fan of the CCP, its human rights record, and state capitalist style. Economic fallout though could be...problematic.

P.S. Sorry about the edit on my last post being so big, I ended up on the phone and I couldn't think clearly so I hit submit.

[The House of Petain]

It's a nice idea, it's just not a practical one. If you exclude nations that aren't democratic, it won't be a very effective organization or will turn into a NATO like body where one or two nations dominate the rest.

Not effective? That would depend on your objective. Mine is to simply represent a democratic process. If it only had three members and met at the local Dennys each month, I would still prefer it over an undemocratic institution (the UN). Principles count.

gary

Principles count when balanced with reality. You shouldn't be so cynical where you have no values, but neither should you be so idealistic that you ignore the nature of the world. Again, I always favored the UN, not because it advocated for democracy, but because it provided all nations of the world a forum. The reason why it is failing is because it is trying to be more than that, when it should not.

Not to mention we still have to interact with Russia and China, the former for their nuclear stockpile, the latter for their economy and population. Both because they are allies with nations that represent a threat to democracies. Because dialogue makes them work with democratic nations to apply pressure to nations that represent a threat to all countries.

But again, we return back to what the objective should be.

[Gdstark]

What I'm trying to say is that a hardline pro-Western values alliance will instantly alienate many non-democratic states (governments and people) for various reasons. Some may see it as a neo-colonialist body, a front for the start of a new era of Western imperialism. I wouldn't see it that way, but Europe wasn't particularly nice to its colonies all the time, and some people have long memories. Others might see it as a slap in the face, I imagine the Chinese Communist Party, for example, would be highly insulted. Personally, I think that would be great, because I'm no fan of the CCP, its human rights record, and state capitalist style. Economic fallout though could be...problematic.

P.S. Sorry about the edit on my last post being so big, I ended up on the phone and I couldn't think clearly so I hit submit.

The UDN is an organization with democracy at it's very foundation...United DEMOCRATIC Nations. I don't see it as "hardline pro-Western alliance" at all. Because it's not. If the US becomes sufficiently undemocratic, it would be voted out of the UDN. The difference is that I believe the people of the world are much more savvy on what real democracy is than many give them credit. Given the price paid by many in the middle east these days to actually achieve it, I suspect many actually have a CLEARER definition of democracy than many westerners. Please don't rule out a new approach because of possible false perceptions. And if you, personally, really think it IS a "hardline pro-Western alliance" process, please...propose changes to the concept that would prevent that. Obama often talks about others being on the "wrong side of history". My concern is that my own country is often on the wrong side of history.

Insult the Chinese dictatorship? I think I can live with that.

gary

[Gdstark]

Not effective? That would depend on your objective. Mine is to simply represent a democratic process. If it only had three members and met at the local Dennys each month, I would still prefer it over an undemocratic institution (the UN). Principles count.

gary

Principles count when balanced with reality. You shouldn't be so cynical where you have no values, but neither should you be so idealistic that you ignore the nature of the world. Again, I always favored the UN, not because it advocated for democracy, but because it provided all nations of the world a forum. The reason why it is failing is because it is trying to be more than that, when it should not.

Not to mention we still have to interact with Russia and China, the former for their nuclear stockpile, the latter for their economy and population. Both because they are allies with nations that represent a threat to democracies. Because dialogue makes them work with democratic nations to apply pressure to nations that represent a threat to all countries.

But again, we return back to what the objective should be.

If you were sitting in the UN and the man behind the "CHINA' nameplate made a statement, do you feel that this is the opinion of the dictatorship? Or of the Chinese people? If the latter, tell how you quantified your answer.

[Greater Cabinda]

No. But we should replace NATO with a more global alliance of free nations.

[Hittanryan]

What Cabinda said.

And Gdstark, by "hardline," I meant uncompromising, which is what you seem to want. Furthermore, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I wouldn't think of it as a "hardline pro-Western alliance," but others would, and they might put aside their differences to oppose it. I even said I'm not a fan of the CCP. Still, you haven't addressed my main point.

[Autash]

One of my concerns about this idea: how does this organization measure democracy? How it is decided which countries are democratic enough to be admitted, or which are no longer democratic enough to stay? Would Russia qualify solely on the basis that its government is elected, or would it be denied over rampant corruption, or would it be admitted anyway by means of their political clout? What is the standard, who sets it, and who holds the member states to it?

[Gdstark]

What Cabinda said.

And Gdstark, by "hardline," I meant uncompromising, which is what you seem to want. Furthermore, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I wouldn't think of it as a "hardline pro-Western alliance," but others would, and they might put aside their differences to oppose it. I even said I'm not a fan of the CCP. Still, you haven't addressed my main point.

OK, if that's the definition of hardline then yes, the UDN would certainly oppose any compromise of democracy. Mankind needs to speak for itself. Regarding the "they" who "might put aside their differences to oppose us", I don't get it. What would be an example?

[Autash]

What Cabinda said.

And Gdstark, by "hardline," I meant uncompromising, which is what you seem to want. Furthermore, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I wouldn't think of it as a "hardline pro-Western alliance," but others would, and they might put aside their differences to oppose it. I even said I'm not a fan of the CCP. Still, you haven't addressed my main point.

OK, if that's the definition of hardline then yes, the UDN would certainly oppose any compromise of democracy. Mankind needs to speak for itself. Regarding the "they" who "might put aside their differences to oppose us", I don't get it. What would be an example?

The Warsaw Pact comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_pact

[Hittanryan]

Didn't want to come out and say it, but yeah, the Warsaw Pact of the Cold War. OPEC was also used as a means to use oil as a weapon against the West, in the hopes of killing Western support for Israel. In Europe it actually worked to a degree. Virtually any alliance that has formed in the past has been to counteract an upset of the balance of power, including the formation of another opposing alliance.

[Hippostania]

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....

What the hell are you talking about? USA is a democracy.

[Kingsley Bedford]

Just leave it as it is. It has been like this for years. Why change it? Not every country in the real UN is democratic. Besides if you don't like theh results of what happens in the UN, then just resign from it.

[Vortiaganica]

Just leave it as it is. It has been like this for years. Why change it? Not every country in the real UN is democratic. Besides if you don't like theh results of what happens in the UN, then just resign from it.

He MEANS the real UN....not the WA.

[Angleter]

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.

Oh, but trade is very much governmental. World leaders frequently visit other nations and leaders precisely to increase trade ties and bring down trade barriers. In no world would creating a democratic foreign policy bloc, let alone one that isn't useless, and thus pissing off all the world's authoritarian regimes (which tend to be emerging markets), end up causing anything but a decrease in UDN-dictatorship trade.

You claim that you don't want relations to deteriorate, but you also claim that you can live with insulting China's government. So which is it? Relations will suffer unless the UDN is completely toothless (and its very formation wouldn't go unnoticed).

[Sawia]

Im sure those non-democratic countries would be very happy about UDN, if UDN would set an arms embargon Iran for an example those who would not be members of UDN should not give a **** about it and they could buy all the weapons they want from China and Russia.

[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''?

I would support this initiative.

[Distruzio]

Im sure those non-democratic countries would be very happy about UDN, if UDN would set an arms embargon Iran for an example those who would not be members of UDN should not give a **** about it and they could buy all the weapons they want from China and Russia.

Small note, those members who supply Iran still do not give a shit about embargoes. Member nations or otherwise.

[Distruzio]

I always saw the UN not as a 'world government' but as a world forum. So I think the reason why it is so ineffective is because it's trying to be more than that. You can't impose democracy on nations, nor can you exclude those that aren't democratic -that's not the world unfortunately.

Silly idealists.

[Voerdeland]

No. If anything, I would kick out the US, the UK and France. After all, it's not the Chinese who say that the entire world should adopt their system of government.

[Chinese Regions]

They are welcome to do that. Perhaps they could vote on the issues....oops...that won't work. I think you give dictators too much credit.

gary

You do realize that non-democratic countries actively participate in the United Nations right? A Union of Un-Democratic states would function perfectly well and have the financial support of some of the largest economies like China and Saudi Arabia.

It would be a disaster. East vs West.

A second Cold War? Western states get oil from the undemocratic middle eastern nations and get their stuff made in China. If they were to be kicked out they would might stop trading, in the end the whole world falls both East and West.

[Distruzio]

I've given this idea a LOT of thought. I even grabbed the URL (it was available) and create a prototype via the website. Check it out...

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

I'm open to feedback...

gary

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.

[Distruzio]

When you say "they", are you referring to the people in the totalitarian nation? Or the dictators? In my opinion we need to stop lumping these together.

And for the record, world peace will require the elimination of totalitarian governments. Not the approach being applied to Iraq, but rather the approach we see in places like Egypt and Libya...change centered from within.

gary

But you said revolution was bad for world interests?

[Sawia]

When you say "they", are you referring to the people in the totalitarian nation? Or the dictators? In my opinion we need to stop lumping these together.

And for the record, world peace will require the elimination of totalitarian governments. Not the approach being applied to Iraq, but rather the approach we see in places like Egypt and Libya...change centered from within.

gary

As long as the regime/dictator has the support of his army that isnt going to happen.

[Fatae]

The United Nation should simply be a forum for member states to communicate and work together, the organization itself should have no power at all.

Just disband the UN completely and leave each other alone.

Basically this, there's no reason to further ourselves even more form our political overlords, or to further concentrate power into the hands of the few.

[Gdstark]

One of my concerns about this idea: how does this organization measure democracy? How it is decided which countries are democratic enough to be admitted, or which are no longer democratic enough to stay? Would Russia qualify solely on the basis that its government is elected, or would it be denied over rampant corruption, or would it be admitted anyway by means of their political clout? What is the standard, who sets it, and who holds the member states to it?

Measuring democracy is like measuring laws...it takes wise men representative of the people. Here's one particulary nice attempt at defining democracy from an NGO...

http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/CD_part ... iteria.pdf

If you don't measure democracy is to say that democracy is not important to us. I happen to believe it's very important to us. Democracy is the only viable plan for increasing world peace. When leadership changes in a dictatorship, you often have bloody revolutions...clear to anyone who watches the news. In a democracy leadership changes through the electoral process, a much less violence-prone process.

So how does the UDN decide if a member is sufficiently democratic? Simple...they vote on it. Democracy is both the goal and the process. Is Russia democratic enough? Not for me to say.