Daffodil Lane

This is the only way we will ever move it backwards:

www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

I'm not sure about this one Gary. Sure seems like by excluding nations that don't share our ideology we risk increasing conflict by increasing the "us verses them" mentality. That's the strength of the UN is that it says your one of us, if you like it or not. Only by sharing ideas can we ever hope to bridge the gap between ideology. The weakness of the UN is that it's only as effective at that task as it's member nations are willing to be. Right now is a bad time for the UN because of all the problems in the United States. If we get some real leadership in this country a lot of those problems will start to fix themselves. The problem is that there is no consistency between the political parties inside this country on the role of the United Nations in the world at large. Which caused this whiplash effect as we bounce around between ideologies.

But who would we be excluding? Take China for instance. The guy behind the "CHINA" nameplate clearly does not represent the Chinese people. That's by design...it's a dictatorship. So excluding the Chinese leadership from influencing foreign affairs is the only fair thing to do. If you allow them to vote, it goes against democracy and is a slap in the face of the Chinese people. We compromise the very principle we cherish most.

Here's another way to see the problem. France is one of the "big five", a permanent member of the Security Council, yet France has a population that ranks only 20th. India has no such position in the United Nations, yet it has a population that ranks #2. What possible logic can you conceive of that would justify this?

Few would argue that the UN is not succeeding on many fronts, nuclear proliferation being one of the most serious. So what do we do? Isn't the UN supposed to be the place to resolve such issues? What would you suggest?

> Right now is a bad time for the UN

We can't afford to have a UN that's in a slump. And we certainly wouldn't want to tie success to the American people suddenly voting intelligently. That hasn't been our strong point of late.

gary

The UN itself is not a bad idea. But excluding people is. There is no way to open up an international dialogue by excluding those from the table.

What makes the Chinese Dictators any worse than our Democratically elected leaders. Let's see they kidnap their citizens off the streets, arrest them without due process, spy on them, restrict access to information, restrict the freedom of the press, torture their citizens, manipulate election results and so on. Interestingly enough you will note all the major concerns about these dictatorships have all been committed by Democratically elected governments in the last 5 years in the name of "freedom". We hold no moral high ground over your average third world dictatorship. So exclusion of dictators because they don't represent the "people" is not the way to go. While I agree there are problems with the current UN system, I don't think that the Chinese are better served by the Democratic world ignoring their existance.

Dianne: We're already excluding the Chinese people. So all that changes is that the dictators aren't dictating global policy.

Jamison: Seriously? You see no difference between China and the US? I completely agree that the US has made MANY errors in judgement, especially the last few years. But the difference is that the US citizens are responsible for all of it. We voted for those in office and we suffer the consequences of our ignorance. This is NOT the case with the Chinese. Not only do they not vote, they also don't protest or read blogs that the Chinese dictatorship doesn't want them to read. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are NOT living in China...

gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

My point was that it wasn't right.

Dianne, my goal is to ultimately INCLUDE the Chinese people. And honestly, I don't know how to accomplish this unless China converts into a democracy. Until then all you can guess what the Chinese people want...right?

gary

Not if you aren't talking to them you can't. If you shut out the government you shut out the people, because that's the way it is there.

Dianne, you keep talking about the governmnet and the people as if they're the same. That's true in a democracy, but NOT in a dictatorship. China is a dictatorship.

Allow me to clarify the communication point. I'm not proposing an isolationist policy. To the contrary. I believe in engagement. The UDN would make whatever deals it can that benefit the Chinese people. For example, create a more open policy on technology transfer as long as the internet is not censored. And clearly cooperating on disease prevention (bird flu, etc) is in the best interest of everyone. But asking China to judge (or worse yet, vote) regarding the human right situation in Darfur would be a pointless exercise. The Chinese dictatorship would NOT be excluded from attending sessions at the UDN, it's just that they would not be a voting member until they become more democratic.

I hope that clarifies the proposal.

gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

Gary, I see quite a few differences between the US and China, but you're basing your entire theory on the notion that there is some inherent moral superiority of Democratic societies when the reality is the exact opposite. Americans were manipulated by the Republican message of hate, fear and greed into voting them into power. And our honor and moral high ground have been thrown away. But in the end who is the more evil man? The one that knows better and does the wrong thing anyway or the one that doesn't know better and does the wrong thing? The answer doesn't matter because evil is being done either way. Just as I believe the American soul can be redeemed with hard work and sacrifice, I also believe that no group of people will tolerate tyrants when their needs aren't being met. Our contact with the Chinese has been like a cancer on their closed society. Each half step they take, they are pulled 3 steps towards a more responsive and effective government that actually represents the people. It's not going to happen in the next few days, but I'm not unconvinced that I won't live to see the Chinese people living free. Democracy is a viral, it does not require institutions to build it or maintain it. It's fundamental in the human spirit. It's inalienable.

It's pretty obvious that we've reached a core value difference here that can't be resolved with proof or evidence provided by either side. As annoyingly disappointing as human kind can be, I fundamentally believe with all my being that in the end that the right answer is inescapable, no matter how powerful the force that stands in the way, the entire universe will conspire to put humanity on the right track again. We may stumble and fall for a few generations but in the end we will end up where we need to be. Time is on our side.

It's obvious we aren't going to agree on this point you're making so we'll just agree to disagree.

Jamison, you said:

"you're basing your entire theory on the notion that there is some inherent moral superiority of Democratic societies when the reality is the exact opposite."

So are you saying that you don't believe that democracy is a better system live under? (We probably won't get many Chinese to chime in on this discussion since their non-democratic government censors the internet. But that's fine...I'll take your answer.)

Second question....are you aware that the terms democracy and Republican are not interchangeable? Please don't interchange the two as I'd prefer not to give democracy a bad name.

garywww.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

I said nothing of the sort. I said the premise of your idea is based on faulty logic. Everything after that is you trying to kill the messenger for the message. You're giving me false choices that my disagreement with what your premise represents. I've fought against diabolical Republicans for years, you will have to do a lot better than this to even make me question what I know to be true.

And I'm aware of many things and one of them is that I live in a Representative Liberal Democracy. Those words have very specific implications and meanings. If that's what you are using the definition of Democracy, then you are violating the true meaning of the word, but see then we would be splitting hairs on definitions and semantics and none of that would change the fact that I don't believe that through isolation you can defeat any enemy. Cuba has been isolated for years and they are still a communist state, yet those that aren't isolated are shifting toward our way of thinking slowly but surely. In the battle of ideas, ours are winning. I see no reason not to take the long view of things.

Jamison, I learned early on that you can really get bogged down in the semantics when discussing democracy. So call it what you like. It's probably best to define the system (democracy, whatever) based on concrete metrics....

- freedom of speech: do people who speak out "disappear"? Does the government censor the internet? Are reporters allowed to publish descenting opinions?

- elections: Does the government allow international observers to review the process? Does the government permit all parties to run for office?

This is after all what really counts. It's about human rights. Those countries that suppress these basic human rights need to be treated differently, certainly not allowed to dictate human rights elsewhere. That's what the UDN proposal is all about.

You mentioned Cuba. I completely agree with you...isolationism is the WRONG approach. We need to engage dictators, no matter how bad. We need to engage them in the same way that hostage negotiations are handled...keep the lines of communications open, permit humanitarian intervention, do not permit the hostiles to increase their bargaining position (halt weapon imports, etc), and ultimately it is sometimes necessary for forceful intervention.

Does this sound like a system you would support?

gary