I think you need to re-think your OP. There is not a single democratic nation or world organization in existence. The US is a republic; all laws and decisions are made by a select few who “represent” the people. This is not a democracy.
The UN is an organization of diplomats representing their own governments whether the government consists of elected officials or monarchs or despots. Not a single UN representative has been elected by the people of his or her nation.
Still, there is hope. Because of technological advancements true democracy is becoming more and more an obtainable goal. You won’t see the US taking the first step though. My guess is the first truly democratic nation will be a small yet economically and technically advanced nation. (Switzerland comes to mind). That in it self won’t make the dominos fall. For a nation like the US, true democracy will be considered only after the international political climate becomes more stable, and the US citizens start demanding their right to govern themselves, which frankly, is doubtful to happen in the near future.
we (america) love democracy, but only when it suits our needs/ego. Don’t fuck with the big great democracy or we’ll bomb your undemocratic asses all the way to hell.
it’s kinda like “Thou shalt not kill”… with the implied “except people of other religions” disclaimer.
On a less realistic, more serious note - whining about the outcome of the democratic process is vital to democracy. What would democracy be without sore losers? It wouldn’t work. No debate would be stimulated… it would be analogous to censorship.
This was not a BBQ Pit rant. I have US friends, relations, co-workers. I am comfortable with US Americans and my politics would fit comfortably in USA. I come in peace! I wanted a debate about how USA citizens view the world, which includes their reaction to the UN.
Of course the UN is not democratic in the sense of individuals voting! :rolleyes: I assumed people knew how it works. The UN General Assembly represents the world’s countries in a “Democracy of Nations” where even small nations can make their voices heard. They speak and vote, just like Rhode Island in the US Senate
Many US Americans think the world hails them as leaders on human rights, democracy etc., and they are shocked when voted off the Human Rights Commission. In reality, most of the world does not view the USA as a benevolent source of good. Many see the US Government as a bully, which supports human rights, democracy, etc. only if they do not conflict with US interests. We make nice to USA, so it won’t hurt us.
Many comments in this thread reflect that bullying theme - small countries have no right to equality. When the USA was voted off the Human Rights Commission, it went straight to bullying mode. Outside the USA, we all nodded, and said, “They know nothing about human rights, if that is their reaction.”
As I have said, it is not irrational to believe in Rule of the Strongest which has shaped the world we know today. However, Rule of the Strongest can not co-exist with Human Rights. It is hypocritical to claim otherwise. The USA must pick one - it can’t have both.
Really? Then why lead off with fatuous, baiting statements like “Unfortunately, the USA does not support democracy, when democracy means the USA loses”?
If non-Americans sometimes find the attitude of American citizens toward the UN exasperating, it’s perfectly understandable: to many Americans, the UN seems to be a sinkhole of money that serves little purpose other than as a forum to bash the United State, while attempting to usurp the country’s sovereign powers. That characterization is certainly sweeping and unfair, but no more so than the assertions in your OP.
You first said that “the USA has voted to pay EVEN LESS of its huge unpaid debt to the UN, unless the vote is changed!” I bothered to go back over recent press reports, and found that this is what in fact happened:
The House of Representatives last week voted to release $582 million in back dues. Assuming Senate approval of the measure, and that the bill is signed by the President (Bush has already gone on record as saying the money should be released), this amount WILL BE PAID.
A group of House conservatives, however, including long-time UN opponent Henry Hyde, has indeed pushed through a measure to withhold $244 million in additional back dues, in protest over the removal of the US from the UNHRC. The thing is, this measure has not yet reached the Senate, which must also approve it; Bush, who must sign it if it passes, has indicated he is against the measure.
Most recently you said:
Again, a misstatement of the facts. The House of Representatives is part of the internal legislative structure of the USA, and Members of the House of Representatives are not beholden to any particular person or group, including the UN, as to what measures members may or may not introduce in session.
Please show me an example of a country which routinely carries out political acts against its own interests.
Finally, I find particularly interesting this statement from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concerning the removal of the US from the UNHCR: “The decision was an outrageous decision. To me it undermines the whole credibility of this commission.”
All this is simply by way of pointing out that while many posters here (mostly American) may sympathise with your general viewpoint, they will tend to insist that your assertions be fair and factual. Otherwise, carry on.
Excuse me? You posted this, getting nearly every single one of your facts wrong, while using inflammatory language to convey your impressions. Any discussion that has occurred on this thread has happened in spite of your contributions.
We really do not care how many friends you have in America. We do care that you post erroneous calumny and then whine that you wanted a discussion.
Try getting your facts straight, first, then we can discuss your issues.
Balor, look back over your posts. With people like you out there, is there any wonder that most americans are isolationistic? Face facts. You hate and despise America, don’t give us this “some of my best friends are American” racist lie. Americans generally don’t support the UN because they believe it is controlled by undemocratic countries with intrests hostile to America and hostile to democracy.
People like you simply prove that their suspicions are well founded.
“Democracy of Nations” is your characterization of the UN. Again, the UN is not a form of world government, nor does it pretend to be. It’s a forum whose purposes are, " to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights, and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations." From the UN’s web page.
The UN is generally a good thing, IMHO. So is the Financial Accounting Standards Board. But I don’t think of either as an embodiment of representative democracy, although both have voting procedures.
The above and other comments are arguments “ad hominem” (against the man). Instead of attacking an argument, you attack the man making it. It has a Latin tag because this false mode of argument dates back to Ancient Rome and earlier.
If everyone who questions or criticises you is your enemy, then you define almost everyone as an enemy. That’s sad, and paranoid. If your mother is like mine, she is probably your worst enemy.
I do not hate and despise the USA. That is ridiculous. Only sick people hate countries - you can’t know a whole country well enough to despise everyone in them. The people in the USA produce a lot of very good things and thoughts, but some that are not so good. So do people in my country, and in everyone else’s. They are just people with their own stories to tell.
I accept that I made earlier points too strongly, but my core point remains unargued. I question the commitment of many people in the USA to Human Rights outside America*. There is a clear schism between “Might is Right” and “Human Rights”.
*(I apologise for the earlier mispelling of Amerika which touched a nerve. I was reading the Illuminati Trilogy at the time and was immersed in the 1968 Democratic Convention battle.)
I did not say the UN is a World Government, although its founders hoped it would be. The governments of great countries did not allow this, because they thought (mistakenly) that it was against their interests. And so, we lived through a half century of proxy wars and fear, and threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD indeed.
Apart from the Security Council, the UN is generally democratic in its operations, which is how it should be. In voting, countries try to achieve what is beneficial to them, just as we do when we vote in elections or referenda. This may be uncomfortable for big countries who get just one vote, but sometimes New York must listen to Rhode Island.
If you lose a vote, you accept it, and move on. Next time there is a vote, you campaign again and try to win.
The concept of “world democracy” which you seem to be promoting, is, in my oppinion, completely ridiculous. In the USA, we have enough issues with equal representation to last until the next ice age. Balancing federal power with that of local government and that of the individual is the unsettled dispute at the core of our nation. If the UN was a democratic body (which it is not, as many posters have already explained quite clearly), I shudder at the thought of how completely ineffectual it would be. In America, many of us believe our leaders are not connected to us and our problems (I think it would be hard to be, governing almost 300 million people); imagine how unconnected Washington would be to problems in Belfast, or Moscow to farmers in Bolivia. The bureaucracy involved in world government itself would be so immense as to render it completely ineffectual.
And it makes more sense that China, India, the US, and Japan, which represent a combined population of close to 2.5 billion people can be outvoted by Kiribati, Antigua, Malta, Belize and Lesotho? That’s democracy? The word comes from the Greek for rule of the people.
First, a cite for the assertion that anyone intended the UN to be a World Government, please.
Second, how would a World Government been in the interests of both the US and the USSR? Incidentally, very few countries have ever been willing to voluntarily surrender their sovereignty to a larger organization. Generally, I don’t think more than about 1% of the population of the US would have willingly allowed some unknown worldwide organization to take precedence over our Constitution. To have forced world government on the US would have been rather undemocratic, no?
The reason you are getting such a hard time from people in this thread is because you are basing your conclusions on erroneous statements.
Curiously enough, the USA’s ouster from the HRC is the result of America’s excessive interest in human rights outside of America. You see, we have an office in our Department of State whose duty it is to compile a report on religious freedom abroad. In one year, this report was strongly critical of Germany and France for their efforts to curtail the activities of certain religious minorities, especially Scientology, certain fundamentalist Christian groups, and Wiccans (in France). Apparently, this peeved off the Germans and the French. The report also listed violations of religious freedom by many other countries. The United States has long compiled reports of what it sees to be human rights violations in various countries. An example would be this report, which details American findings of human rights practices and violations in the Republic of Ireland (principal violations: prison overcrowding and substandard facilities; instances of abuse by police and prison officials; the continuation of special arrest and detention authority and the nonjury court; violence and discrimination against women; the abuse of children; the occasional censorship of films, books, and periodicals; and discrimination against asylum seekers and Travellers). The United States periodically compiles such reports for virtually every nation on the planet.
Many of the countries accused by the United States of human rights violations react poorly, complaining that the United States had no business complaining about or interfering in the “internal policies” of their countries. It is quite common for nations reported by the United States as having violated human rights to retaliate that the United States cannot claim to support human rights because it still has the death penalty, or for some other reason related to some recent event. (The Germans, for example, are presently very extremely irritated at the United States for having executed a German national.)
It seems quite likely to me that it was the collected disgruntlement with this aggressive investigation into human rights violations by the American Departments of State and Justice, combined with a general American attitude that nondemocratic world organizations (such as the WTO and the UN) should not have the authority to override American law, that have led to the United States being ejected from the HRC. If this is actually the case, the United States is wholly justified in expressing its disgruntlement in any way that seems appropriate.
**
Evidence for this claim? My recollection of world history is that the UN was intended from day one to be a diplomatic forum, not a world government.
**
How can this be? I don’t get to vote on UN resolutions. I don’t even get to vote for the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. How many UN member nations have popular election of their ambassador? I should not be surprised if the number is zero.
How can the UN be democratic when most member nations are not democratic? One nation, one vote? Pathetic. And Balor? The reason I attacked you personally instead of your ideas is because you are obviously devoid of ideas. The purpose of this thread was to insult and degrade America. You know it, I know it, this entire message board knows it. So why don’t you go back to your disease infested, economically depressed, jobless, socialistic European paradise and maybe get hit by a government owned train?
I have to agree with you here Balor, Americans can definetely be thin skinned. Many choose to ignore or deny a lot of our human rights violations.
How many innocent Panamanians died when the US went after Noriega? What about the US backed military coups in Guatemala and Chile that installed repressive regimes? The list is a mile long.
It’s unfortunate that many Americans seem to take it as a personal insult when a foriegner expresses a different view of our country.
CBEscapee, you are probably right that many people in the U.S. are a bit thin-skinned regarding outside criticism–just as many people in every country have the same issues.
Please note, however, that Balor launched this discussion based on several errors of fact, not least of which that his primary premise (democracy and the U.N.) was in error and that he has misunderstood the event that triggered his post! The U.S. has not taken its marbles and gone home. One motion is being considered in the lower house of Congress, the upper house of Congress is unlikely to support it even if is passed by the House of Representatives (which is unlikely), and the president (who must sign it or veto it) has already spoken out against the measure.
Re-reading the thread, you will also note that several posters have acknowledged that the U.S. does not have a great human rights record. Even those of us who have posted in condemnation of the invasion of Panama and the overthrow of Allende are still allowed to call “Time!” in a discussion that begins in error.
Poor Balor was somewhat confused, IMHO. And he compared the US to a spoiled child. But I hardly consider such comments to be “insulting and degrading”. But hey, I always thought a thick skin was a virtue.
Fighting Ignorance:
Disease-infested: I guess you’re referring to , what?, hoof and mouth disease? If I’m correct, Ireland (where Balor hails from) is free of that.
Economically-depressed. Ireland’s GDP grew at 11% last year. That’s an inflation-adjusted number. The US is experiencing an economic slowdown, at the very least.
Jobless: The Irish unemployment rate is 3.6%, less than the US rate of 4.3%
Socialistic European paradise: Yup, they have universal health care, the US doesn’t. (I advocate universal health care for the US for patriotic reasons. ).
Government-owned train: Most trains in the US are government owned as well.
Lemur: IMHO, your post was pit-worthy, although I certainly agree with the sentiments behind your first sentence.
Balor: I think you need to reshape your argument. But stick around anyway.
That was a wonderful piece of insulting by Lemur866. It was powerful and fluent in its language, and like all the best insults, absolutely untrue.
Flowbark’s facts are right. The Irish economy is a huge export success, based in areas like IT and pharmaceuticals. If you have Intel inside your PC or Viagra in your belly, there is a good chance that it was made in Ireland. Many of the servers carrying this thread to readers use software developed in Ireland.
This makes my point well. Many US citizens are ill-informed about the world. Because of this, they do not understand external perception of the USA, and think that all criticism is based on unreasoning hatred. It is a form of racism. See comments above on perceptions of Human Rights etc.
I recommend it to Lemur866. By the way, is it true that Lemurs are the least intelligent of all the mammal group which contains the monkeys and primates?
As opposed to criticisms, such as yours, which appear to be based on a fundamental ignorance.
If you have actually read any of the responses to this thread, I fail to see how you can accuse the majority of the respondents of being “ill-informed”. One poster, ONE, in this increasingly pointless discussion, rises to your bait and you declare victory?
Good Lord, man, your every argument in this thread has been comprensively dismantled, in tedious detail. Don’t you know when to quit?
I wanted a debate about how USA citizens view the world, which includes their reaction to the UN.
).