My theory is the UN is so much a Western institution because the West is the reason it exists. The former participants of WWII (Western Nations, with the possible exclusion of the Former Soviet Union) created it as a more modern and active version of the ill fated League of Nations. Even though virtually all countries are members, the West foots the bill for the UN. This make since because, aside from the Pacific Rim and Middle Eastern success stories like Saudi Arabia, pretty much everyone outside the Western World is a pisspoor place.
With that said, I am not the strongest supporter of the UN. It’s “peacekeeping missions” are about as effective as having the Republican National Convention in Fallujah, Iraq. Recently, a number of reports of corruption and scandal were involed with the UN (Stealing from UNICEF, for shame). The main reason the US was so active in the UN as opposed to the LoN was to create good international relations, which we had realised needed some help. Fat lot of good that’s doing today, what with everyone hating us and all. Pretty much the only reason why we stay with the UN, as well as let them have a prime piece of New York real estate, is because it makes the Liberals here feel better (We’re helping those poor starving children in New Guinea), and we think it’ll eventually help patch things up. We could just give the food to the poor starving nations ourselves (Not that they wouldn’t just be taken by the dictators that would probably rule a country in so much trouble). And as for the second part, as said above, fat lot of good.
Oh, and I forgot to add this to the top, but RANT ALERT! RUN FOR COVER, HIT THE DECK, KISS ANY LOVED ONES YOU STILL HAVE LEFT RANT ALERT
Its reason is to protect people’s basic rights as was as a global society view them. My whole point/question was that we as a global society DON"T all view them.
And you’re not going to participate in this debate? Well gee whiz I’m sure sad, there seems to be a lot of people not participating in this debate. Not sure why you felt the need to call it stupid and proclaim your lack of involvement.
Couldn’t it be said by some, validlly I think, that we are forcing our beliefs onto the Iraqi people? How the hell do we know they want democracy? Not every country needs to act just like ours do.
I think we often attempt to force our beliefs onto others. In Afghanistan, women are considered full citizens with equal rights. Yet they weren’t just a few years ago. And I don’t think anybody asked the afghanis whether they wanted this or not. It was just forced upon them by the western world. Is this wrong? Like I said before my heart says no, my brain says yes. I thin it would be better for countries to decide for themselves what they want, when they want it. Rather then have all these rich people coming in and saying No, your doing it wrong, this is the way to do it.
I think if I was in one of those poor countries with a complete lack of regard for human rights I still wouldn’t be happy if some other country came in and said you were all wrong before, ignorant poor people, this is how you do it! And I might pick up and gun and show my displeasure.
I didn’t check the whole thread to see if anyone else commented on this but most countries have elections. Even most countries in the middle east, which are considered extremely autocratic, have elections. They are just controlled elections or elections where the autocrat/religious leader/military leader still has the final say. China has elections, Saudi Arabia is instituting elections.
yeah i know Iraq’s elections weren’t fair. But places like Kuwait, Lebanon or Jordan do have free elections, they are just not able to overrule the decrees of the ruler.
The point was that of the 190+ countries on earth i would assume 160+ practice either free elections in a full democracy or semi-free elections in a partial democracy. cdnguy seemed to imply that elections were stricly a western lifestyle, but cultures all over the earth practice them.
Well, i don’t know if i agree that not allowing women to vote makes elections not free. Not a fully participating election maybe, but in the US felons and people under 18 can’t vote, by some standards that is just as bad.
Electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 62.5 percent of the world’s population.
This excludes the half democracies like Kuwait, Jordan, Iran, etc. So a figure of 160 is not that unrealistic. If anything (if you include countries striving for partial democracy) it is probably low.
It’s straightforward discrimination by gender. That’s not free or fair.
Not allowing children to vote is obviously completely different. As for criminals - there’s been some challenges to it in the UK under human rights legislation, but not successful (so far) (and that only relates to people currently in prison). But yes, the US barring of felons voting is questionable.
I don’t agree, stereotypically countries reserve voting for those who are competent to vote and who deserve to vote. Another countries view on women may be the same as our view on children, so condemning that as unfair would not make their elections false anymore than ours would be false.
What i’m saying is that the view on women in one culture may be the same as the view on children or criminals in our culture, that they are too unstable and immature to be trusted with something as important as voting. I don’t agree with this mindset, but I don’t think you can say our limits on civil liberties and voting to children and criminals are ok but other culture’s limitations on women’s rights are unfair. Other cultures may view our limitations on voting for people under 18 and people in prison as unfair as people here view Kuwaits limitation on women voting. It doesn’t make our democracy false so i don’t see why it would make Kuwaits democracy false.
I wasn’t aware that the number of countries who held elections, whether or not they are free elections, was that high. I knew thatthe former Soviet Union held elections, where you could vote for 1 party, but I wasn’t aware the number was as high as 160. I’m not sure if that makes me change my mind though. I could see a number of these countries having elections solely so they can say they are having elections. Which, I would imagine, would soothe the hearts and minds of western governments. “Oh sure we can allow imports/exports to that country, they do have elections you know!”
Wesley Clark ,is, I think, saying similar things that I am saying. That 1 countries/cultures definition is not necessarily anothers. So why do we say 1 is right and the other wrong? To me that is the crux of the situation.
This will come across as rather flippant, but its been bothering me for this whole discussion.
Culture can say whatever it damn well feels like saying. Basic human rights exist independent of any culture. Murder is absolutely wrong. The only way to prove this not to be true would be find a woman about to be slaughtered and see if she has happily accepted her fate…
Now, murder is an extreme case. It applies to sexuality and sexual rights as well, simply because no human has the right to control another human’s existence.
This is the final answer.
Now, that may not always be practical in a communial environment, but it lies at the basis for all rights decisions. In other words, the system which grants the most freedom is in fact, objectively, the best system, since this represents the least interference into individuals’ lives.