Hey Americans - isn't democracy a Human Right too

Great Debates
1

The right to democracy is a basic human right. It means that you are allowed to present your case with the other candidates. However, democracy also means a duty. It means you accept the verdict of the majority, even when you disagree with it for profound reasons.

Recently, the USA was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission, in a democratic vote. The other countries decided that they did not want to elect the USA onto the Commission, this year. It was a democratic vote and USA lost.

Unfortunately, the USA does not support democracy, when democracy means the USA loses. So, like a spoilt child, the USA has voted to pay EVEN LESS of its huge unpaid debt to the UN, unless the vote is changed!

Now, do you understand why the USA was voted off the Human Rights Commission? Do you understand why people outside Amerika laugh themselves sick when Americans talk of their Human Rights record?

2

I am well aware that people do (and probably should) sneer at the U.S. for proclaiming a need for Human Rights while undermining it on occasions when the U.S. government feels a political desire to ignore it.

The issue of the U.N. payments is not as clean as you’d like to make it. The U.S. carried the U.N. almost single-handedly for many years. When enough anti-U.S. countries had been admitted that they began passing motions that were simply aimed at tweaking the U.S., the U.S. decided to let them pay more of the support. I did not happen to agree with the decision, but it seems like a logical choice. Why should anyone pay for the bricks that are going to be thrown at them?

Given that none of the replacements on the Human Rights commission have any better records in the matter of Human Rights than the U.S., yet the vote was purportedly based on U.S. “failures” in that arena, the U.S. has the right to decide that it will fight the politics that went on in selecting the Commission members with its own brand of political weaponry.

A vote is one aspect of a demcratic arrangement, but I see no evidence of “democracy” in the U.N. decision–just politicking and vote-garnering.

3

I would also point out that the U.S. still foots the bill for the U.N.'s most expensive (i.e. military) actions. Regarding the issue at hand, I concur with tomndebb.

4

With respect, you are making my point very strongly.

So long as the world agrees with the USA, and does what it wants, USA will fulfil its moral obligations. If other countries dare to attack the US view, democracy goes out the window, and we are talking Rule of the Strongest.

Rule of the Strongest is not an irrational point of view. It was the standard way of running things for a long time - from the first Stone Age leaders to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

However, if you continue to choose that viewpoint, the rest of us will question US commitment to Human Rights, and vote you off the Human Rights Commission.

5

If you consider the UN a democratic institution then please explain the Security Council and it’s permanent members.

6

Also explain why each member country has one vote, regardless of population. The UN is a diplomatic organisation, not a representative assembly.

7

Speaking in the broadest possible terms, this is true. Please explain how this differs in any meaningful way from the actions of any other nation (with the obvious caveat that no other nation has the power and influence – and hence the ability to utilize your “Rule of the Strongest” – that the U.S. does).

8

This was not a democratic vote. If it was, I would have had the opportunity to participate in it.

The United Nations is not a democratic body.

9

I agree fully with you.

The USA with the Soviet Republics forced that undemocratic structure onto the UN when it was founded, and later abused it to emasculate the UN’s potential for good. The Security Council should be abolished, and replaced by a democratically elected World Council.

The USA will not agree to this because the Rule of the Strongest would no longer apply. Instead, they protest about the UN, to pretend that it has power. It’s a great vote-gatherer among people who know nothing about the world outside US borders.

When the UN acts democratically, the USA is always the first to protest, and refuses to recognise the decisions. The Human Rights Commission is only the latest example of this.

About one country, one vote -

is that not how the US Senate works? Equal representation for all states, regardless of size? If you do not agree, then you are getting back to Rule of the Strongest. California should have more Senators than Rhode Island?

10

Yes, there are two senators from each state.

But we have a bicameral legislature: Calfornia has quite a few more Congressmen in the House of Representatives than Rhode Island does.

Since, as others have pointed out, the UN is most certainly not a representative body, it has no need to adopt such niceties that would be essential to a real democracy.

11

Got to sign off, but will return to this tomorrow.

12

It is the smallest countries who have a real vested interest in retaining the present structure of the UN, for more or less the same reasons that Rhode Island has in retaining the present structure of the US Congress.

13

More blather. The UN IS INCAPABLE OF ACTING DEMOCRATICALLY. Democracy means that the people vote, not their governments. Does the sum of the population of the nations voting against the United States remaining on the Human Rights Commission exceed the sum of the population of those nations voting for its retention? Do you even know if this is the case or not? Until you can prove that a majority of the people of the world oppose the presence of the United States on the HRC, you should stop babbling about democracy.

**

The structure of the Congress of the United States is the result of political compromise during the drafting of the Constitution. Unsurprisingly, the larger states (led by Virginia) wanted the delegations of each state to be determined by population, while the smaller states (led by New Jersey) wanted them to be a fixed number for each state. Delegates from a mid-sized state, Connecticut, offered what is now known as the Great Compromise, and the impasse was resolved.

Please don’t go throwing spears at our Constitutional system until you fully understand it. Our system works (more or less) for us; there is no particular reason that it should be mirrored by others.

14

There are two legislative bodies at the national level. Membership in the House of Representatives is roughly proportional to population of each state, as a percentage of the whole.

While I would generally agree that the USA should pay its portion of UN dues if it wants to fully participate in the organization, the OP proceeds from a false premise: that the United Nations is a representative democracy. It is not; UN representation is not proportional to the populations of member countries, and UN representatives are not elected by the citizens of member countries.

I have the impression that the author of the OP is more interested in bashing the US than in debating the issue of UN dues.

15

Balor, NOBODY would agree to this. There is not a sovereign nation on earth that would be willing to give real power to the United Nations. The UN is a diplomatic body and nothing more; that won’t change no matter how you design the structure of its various components.

Countries that want to abide by the general majority consensus will abide by it, and countries that don’t won’t. What is certain, though, is that there is no country that will willingly subordinate its sovereignty to the UN. You can set up the voting any way you want but it won’t make any difference except that you might reduce UN membership.

As has been explained already, the UN does not act “democratically.” It’s not a representative government, and its members aren’t elected by anyone.

The U.S. might be dorks with respect to their treatment of the UN, but it’s certain that the voting on the Human Rights comission is not itself a human rights issue. Nobody has a “Right” to have the UNHRC run a certain way.

16

Ah, the inevitable and irrational comparison to Nazism, with a little Stalin thrown in for good measure. If you want to be taken seriously, Balor, dump the nutty Nazi allusions.

17

And in many cases, the UN representatives are chosen by governments that aren’t elected democratically either.

If this was true, why did the USSR boycott the UN for several years, even not showing up to veto the Korean War? Doesn’t sound like abusing the system to me.

18

Sure, the right to democracy is inherent in the right of the people to have a goverment of their own choosing. But even if “democracy” (whatever brand of democracy you mean here) is a basic human right, how does that apply to the UN? Are individuals members of the UN now? As Kelly said, if it’s a “democracy” how come I didn’t get a vote? Or you?

But I guess I’d much rather hear your definition of democracy, Balor.

19

Rocket88:

Which is exactly my reading of this thread. This was a BBQ Pit rant that was placed in the wrong Forum.

From the absolute misuse of the concept of “democracy” to the cutesy mispelling of the name America in a discussion-trashing invocation of Godwin’s law, the goal was obviously to raise hackles and to pretend righteous indignation on a point on which the OP has very little understanding.

As it happens, I very nearly agree with some of the points that Balor has been too incoherent to express. Specifically, I see the “We’ll take our marbles and go home.” attitude of people like Jesse Helms to be counterproductive to establishing a World Agency that will strive for actual peace. On the other hand, it would be foolish for a nation with 290,000,000 people to simply roll over and re-write all its internal laws to agree with the whims of a few dozen nations whose combined populations are fewer than ours.

I believe in the concept of the United Nations, but it is an experiment that has never really been tried throughout history. I think that the slow, fumbling collisions between practicality and idealism are simply the natural results of attempting something that has existed less than 1% of the historical record of humanity. Too much idealism will shatter it before it has a chance to mature into an effective agency. Too little idealism will leave us with the same old “might makes right” that the world has always known.

As the U.N. struggles with peace between nations, it has recognized (with amazing celerity, considering the nature of politics) that peace will not be attained without justice and that injustices within a nation will spill over into feuds between nations.

Unfortunately, this has led a body created to referee international disputes to begin examining intranational actions. We are a long way from resolving those issues. It is quite “noble” of The West to deplore slavery within some African nations. Is it also “noble” for nations who have outlawed capital punishment (and corporal punishment of children) to impose their standards on other nations? Is the greater “right” held by an unborn child? Or a woman facing a difficult pregnancy? Does a nation that had forbidden divorce through the first 51 years of the history of the U.N. have a right to dictate what rules are permitted in other countries?

The fact is that the world has a multitude of cultures, philosophies, and moral codes. Reconciling the freedoms and the responsibilities of all these different groups/nations (some of whom are already changing their own value systems as we throw brickbats around a message board) is a matter of slowly banging heads until some “universal” truth gets sorted out.

I believe in the concept of a World Agency where people/nations can grapple with these ideas on a table or a rostrum without sending young people out to kill each other. We have several thousand years of tradition to overcome, and it will not happen in a century or less. I think the U.N., with all its obvious flaws, is a good start.

I do not believe that running around screaming “Hypocrites!” at any specific nation (thereby encouraging the Jesse Helms’ of that nation to call for withdrawal from the U.N.) to be a productive excercise.

20

Nor does the UN claim to be a democratic organization:
http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html

Think of it as a trade group, except its members happen to run countries.