World bodies
It is often assumed that we should support
various international bodies
and international law.
This is like saying one should support the government
just because it exists.
In reality,
these bodies need to earn our support.
They need to prove
to us that they should be respected.
Many international bodies
seem utterly unable to understand this point.
I am opposed to the UN,
because it has
unfree countries
as members.
This is not a happy, imaginary world where
all nations are respectable,
and the UN can deal with the rare outbreaks of lawlessness.
Rather,
this is - as it always has been - a world where
criminals run entire countries,
where many nation states are headed by unelected dictators, tyrants,
racists,
hate-filled religious fanatics,
communist fanatics
and all-out genocidal killers.
Many "ambassadors"
represent thugs with Swiss bank accounts,
not the people of their country.
By giving these unelected thugs a vote,
the UN loses all credibility.
No intelligent person should
support the UN,
or respect what it says,
or abide by what it says.
The UN should be shut down,
or at the very least all non-democracies should be expelled.
The idea that the UN has moral authority I find sick.
-
The United Nations
(also here)
- Capitalism magazine
- The UN
- If there is to be a global policeman,
then surely we should prefer it to grow out of NATO,
which at least roughly
represents the democracies
and the countries with the best records on human rights and civil liberties
- rather than the UN,
which represents every thug, junta and oppressive regime there is.
And gives Russia and China a veto.
- The UN is a useful, amoral,
realpolitik meeting place
for ambassadors,
a handy place
where free countries can
send messages
to thugs and dictators.
- But the UN is not, and never will be,
legitimate.
Its decisions have no authority
and should not be respected.
It can never be a world government protecting people
against criminals, because all the criminals have seats on the board.
As Ayn Rand says, the UN is
"a crime-fighting committee
whose board of directors includes
the leading gangsters of the community".
-
Only if all non-democratic countries
(including Russia and China) are expelled
could the UN start to
have any moral authority.
-
Immanuel Kant and the Iraq war
(copies here
and here)
by Roger Scruton,
on Kant's idea of international law.
"Kant is clear that a League of Nations can establish
a genuine rule of law only if its
members are also republics.
...
States in which this command is not obeyed by the rulers
.. are states that violate the moral law.
.. Such states are
intrinsically illegitimate,
which means that their disappearance is good in itself, and the aim and
desire of all rational beings."
- A mischievous place
by Ernest W. Lefever - on the fantasy, black comedy
and moral bankruptcy of the United Nations,
the successor to the League of
Nations.
- "Neither body played a
discernible role in defeating the most grievous
enemies of freedom and human rights in the 20th
century."
- The UN's hatred of Israel
- Enforced population control
supported by the UN.
The UN Secretary-General
- Kofi Annan,
probably the worst UN Secretary-General ever.
He presided over:
- The Rwandan genocide, 1994.
Kofi Annan might have averted the genocide, had he acted early.
But he chose inaction.
The UN stood by watching as black Africans were slaughtered.
- The Bosnian genocide, 1992-5.
Again, the UN stands by watching as people it is meant to protect are slaughtered.
-
The UN / Iraq Oil-for-Food Scandal
1996-2003.
- The Sudan genocide, ongoing,
showed that
Kofi Annan learned nothing from Rwanda.
Another genocide of black Africans rages,
and again, Kofi Annan does nothing.
-
The Case Against Kofi Annan,
The Sunday Times, Oct 1, 2006.
-
Kofi Annan's Legacy of Failure, Nile Gardiner, December 11, 2006
- "Annan's departure from office has not come soon enough. His 10 years in power have been a monumental failure, and he leaves behind an institution whose standing could barely be lower and a legacy that is a testament to mismanagement, corruption, and anti-Americanism.
...
The U.N.'s new Human Rights Council, touted by Annan as a breakthrough for the U.N., is an unmitigated farce
...
In a March 2006 poll conducted by Gallup in the United States,
64 percent of respondents said the United Nations was "doing a poor job",
the most negative rating for the U.N. in its history."
- During the
"Muhammed cartoons" riots of 2006,
as Christian children were burnt alive
by Islamic religious fascists angry about cartoons,
Kofi Annan took the side of the fascists.
He said:
"You don’t joke about other people’s religion,
and you must respect what is holy for other people."
Arsehole.
-
The new UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon
is unlikely to be much better.
Without fundamental reform of the UN, its record of failure will continue.
-
Ban Ki-Moon lays a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat, Mar 2007.
-
Ban Ki-Moon attacks the movie Fitna, Mar 2008.
"I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders' offensively anti-Islamic film.
There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.
The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it."
Appeal for calm?
You mean this film might lead to
violence?
From who?
Is he suggesting Muslims might respond to criticism with
violence?
- Nelson Mandela
- Nelson Mandela
asserts that democratic countries
must obey the UN,
Oct 2002.
No democratic country should act without consulting
a bunch of thugs, murderers, Islamic clerics, anti-semites, racists,
communist tyrants and genocidal dictators.
- He says:
"No country, however powerful it may be, is entitled to act outside the UN.
When UN secretaries-general were white we never had the question of any country ignoring the United Nations,
but now that we have got black secretaries-general like Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan
certain countries that believe in white supremacy are ignoring the UN for racist reasons."
-
Anti-war wimps, step aside
by Mark Steyn, on Mandela.
-
America is "a threat to world peace",
says Mandela,
Sept 2002.
-
Mandela's speech after the liberation of Iraq, June 2003
- "the actions that have been taken against Iraq are completely inexcusable".
Like all UN enthusiasts, he never offers any defence of
the UN, any reason why we should support it, given its corrupt nature.
He simply asserts that we should.
-
Mandela picks Iraq over U.S.,
R.W. Johnson, National Post, October 11, 2002
- on ANC links to
Libya, Saudi Arabia, Suharto's Indonesia and Saddam's Iraq.
"Mandela's case is more complex. He shares the general Third World nervousness
at the new doctrine of "regime change"
- for if the United States is to start deposing Third World dictators on general principle,
many of Mandela's friends and donors would be at risk"
-
Mandela's self-appointed panel of "global elders" who we are all meant to "respect", July 2007.
- Project for the New American Century
- America, not the UN, should lead the world.
I agree, and I am not American.
-
U.N. Should Change - or U.S. Should Quit
by David Frum and Richard Perle.
- "The United Nations is the tooth fairy of American politics:
Few adults believe in it, but it's generally regarded as a
harmless story to amuse the children. Since 9/11,
however, the U.N. has ceased to be harmless"
The UN "Human Rights" Council
- The UN "Human Rights" Council
- The list of
member states
of the
UN "Human Rights" Council is a disgusting joke,
as was its predecessor, the
UN Commission on "Human Rights".
-
Put simply, it includes countries that do not believe in human rights.
As at 2007,
it includes the "Not Free" countries of:
Angola, Cameroon, Egypt, China, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Russia and Cuba.
No sane person should take seriously anything this Council says.
- Its predecessor, the UN Commission on "Human Rights":
-
"Rights abuser" Cuba put on U.N. action panel, Jan. 26, 2005
- Cuba and Zimbabwe appointed to an elite "action panel"
that will influence the work of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
-
Sudan is getting away with murder
by Mark Steyn.
The worst genocide of 2004
was being carried out by the
Arab Islamist fascist regime of
Sudan
against black Africans.
The UN's response?
In 2004,
Sudan - that is, the perpetrator of the genocide
- was elected to the
UN Human Rights Commission.
This sums up the
UN Human Rights Commission in a nutshell.
"The Sudanese representative, by the way, immediately professed himself
concerned by human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
- Freedom House
ranked the members of the
UN "Human Rights" Commission:
-
The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies, 2004:
- 5 of the 15 most repressive governments in the world
- China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi
Arabia, and Sudan
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
- 8 other countries ranked as "Not Free"
- Bhutan, Egypt, Mauritania,
Pakistan, Qatar, Swaziland, Togo, and Zimbabwe
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
-
The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies, 2005:
- 6 of the 18 most repressive governments in the world
- China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
- 9 other countries ranked as "Not Free"
- Bhutan, Egypt, Guinea, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Swaziland, and Togo
- are members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
-
The new, "reformed",
UN "Human Rights" Council is just the same.
The US and Israel were right to vote against its existence.
-
June 2006:
"The new UN Human Rights Council voted Friday to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel
a permanent feature of every council session."
- The members now include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba.
Anyone who takes what this council says about human rights seriously
needs their head examined.
-
ADL to U.N.: Dismiss Official with Overt Bias Against Israel
-
In its first 5 months of existence,
the U.N. "Human Rights" Council
held no less than 3 emergency sessions on Israel,
and failed to pass one resolution on any country other than Israel.
-
Israeli ambassador to UN: UNHRC is a failure, Nov. 27, 2006.
"Since its inception, the council has passed no resolution
condemning the more than 200,000 deaths in Darfur"
-
UNHRC slams Israel for the 7th time, Dec. 8, 2006
- "The UN Human Rights Council passed a seventh resolution criticizing Israel
on Friday,
...
The rights body, which has only condemned the Israeli government
in its seven-month existence .."
-
Why single out Israel?, Irwin Cotler, June 21, 2007:
- The UN "Human Rights" Council has resolved to single out one member state - Israel - for permanent indictment on the council agenda.
It has institutionalized the condemnation of Israel as a standing item on the council agenda and institutionalized the mandate of the special investigator on "Israeli violations of the principles and bases of international law" in the Palestinian territories - its only indefinite, open-ended and one-sided investigative mandate.
- There have been 9 resolutions condemning one member state only (Israel) but none of any of the other 191 countries
(including Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran or North Korea).
-
UN Human Rights Chief takes Front row seat to hear Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Anne Bayefsky, September 08, 2007.
Louise Arbour attends a "human rights" meeting of the
Non-Aligned Movement
in enemy state Iran.
- The UN's hatred of Israel
- John Dugard,
the Special Rapporteur on Israel
for the "UN Human Rights Council".
-
The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers
- Anne Bayefsky
on John Dugard.
-
John Dugard, Oct 2007,
compares democracy-hating, human rights-hating,
anti-semitic, Jew-killing Palestinian Islamofascists
to the French resistance against Fascism:
" 'Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance.' These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently. He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa. 'Now,' he said, 'they are in government and treated as heroes.' "
-
Stunning speech by UN Watch
to the UN "Human Rights" Council, 23 March 2007.
A rare occasion when truth is spoken to power in the halls of the amoral UN.
-
In just 4 minutes he sums up everything that is wrong with the UN
and international "law".
"the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about
the rights of Palestinian women;
the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied;
and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.
But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?
...
in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.
They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights."
- Disgusting reply by
the UN "Human Rights" Council president
Luis Alfonso De Alba
of Mexico.
-
UN Watch compilation
of the kind of speech
at the UN "Human Rights" Council
that Luis Alfonso De Alba finds acceptable
(i.e. lies and abuse of human rights from dictator's lackeys).
-
Human Rights Under Assault
- Watching what actually goes on at the
U.N. "Human Rights" Council
is the best cure for anyone who believes in the UN.
- The UN "Human Rights" Council
has passed a number of Islamic tyrant-supported resolutions
condemning
"defamation of religions"
(and
here).
It should be illegal to criticise religions, apparently.
Why should anyone care what the UN "Human Rights" Council says,
when it demonstrates that it does not even believe in human rights?
The UN's other committees are just as useless, decadent and corrupt:
- UN Disarmament Commission
- At the height of the crisis over Iran's nuclear weapons program
and its open threats to carry out genocide against the Jews of Israel:
Iran elected to UN disarmament commission,
Apr 2006.
The Iranian representative immediately said
that Israel's nuclear stockpile is among
"the major sources of concern with regard to global peace and security".
Also here.
-
Iran and Syria elected to U.N. Disarmament Commission, Anne Bayefsky, April 11, 2007.
Unbelievably, in Apr 2007
the U.N. re-elected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. "Disarmament" Commission.
And the U.N. "Disarmament" Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur.
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- Egyptian
Mohamed ElBaradei,
Director General of the IAEA.
-
Syria elected co-chairman of International Atomic Energy Agency, Sept 2007.
"both Iraq and Iran have held similar positions within the IAEA in the past".
- Mohamed ElBaradei
is full of moral equivalence between dictatorships (like Egypt, Syria and Iran)
and democracies (like Israel):
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security."
- UN Commission on Sustainable Development
-
UN Hits Bottom, Digs, 12 May 2007
- "Famine, corruption, runaway inflation, property confiscation, political repression
- none of these are sufficient to disqualify Zimbabwe from being elected chair of the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development."
The International Court of Justice
-
The International Court of Justice
- The representatives of the world's unelected thugs, genocidal killers
and hate-filled religious clerics,
claiming to pass judgements that we should respect.
-
Again, only if all non-democracies were expelled
from representation could this court start to have any legitimacy.
- The UN's hatred of Israel
- The
International Court of Justice's ruling against
the Israeli security fence
-
Hague deserves world's contempt for anti-Israeli bigotry
by Alan Dershowitz
- "The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court's decision regarding the security fence.
...
the Supreme Court is a creation of the Knesset and is therefore representative of all of the people"
- "Contrast this with the questionable status of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. No Israeli judge may serve on that court as a permanent member, while sworn enemies of Israel serve among its judges, several of whom represent countries that do not abide by the rule of law.
...
Israel owes the International Court absolutely no deference. It is under neither a moral nor a legal obligation to give any weight to its predetermined decision."
-
Travesty at The Hague
- Charles Krauthammer
points out that the judgement was read out
by a judge from the tyranny of
China.
That really sums up the International Court of Justice.
-
Had Enough?
by Anne Bayefsky
The International Criminal Court
-
The International Criminal Court
(see here)
will almost certainly be just another useless, corrupt,
anti-Israeli, anti-American,
UN-like body.
Which is a shame, since
the world needs mechanisms to prosecute dictators.
- Like the UN and the International Court of Justice,
the International Criminal Court
cannot assume we should support it.
It has to earn legitimacy.
It has to prove that I should support it.
If its first cases are against America or Israel,
I will dismiss it as just another hopelessly flawed
and corrupt body like the UN.
-
The UN-sponsored
"Alliance of Civilisations"
is meant to look at defusing the clash between the West and Islamism.
-
It is of course just another typical, hopelessly compromised, UN group
that no one should listen to.
-
Their 2006 report
shows that the group
includes:
- Enemy leader, former President Mohammed Khatami
of
Iran
(Not Free),
who has the blood of Jews and allied soldiers on his hands,
not to mention the blood of Iranian homosexuals, atheists and pro-democracy dissidents.
- A former Minister of
Tunisia
(Not Free).
- The wife of the unelected dictator of
Qatar
(Not Free).
- The Foreign Minister of Suharto's Indonesia,
who brutalised East Timor.
-
Joining this collection of dictators
and workers for dictators
are various "useful idiots" and left-wing moonbats like:
- The whitewasher of Islamic history
Karen Armstrong.
- Desmond Tutu.
- John Esposito.
I couldn't find one name on the list whose opinions I respect.
- According to this collection
of enemies, appeasers and useful idiots,
the chief cause of
the Islamist jihad against
Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, animists, moderate Muslims
and others all over the world
is, apparently, not the inherent violent and intolerant nature of Islamism itself.
No, you've guessed it.
The chief cause of all this Islamist killing is .. the Jews of Israel.
Apparently if they went away, Islamists would stop killing infidels. Or something.
- The Iranian dissident
Amil Imani
describes Khatami's "Dialogue of Civilizations"
as a "diatribe against civilization".
T-shirt at
thoseshirts.com.
From IMAO ("In My Arrogant Opinion") blog.
Other international bodies
The UN's creepy, selective morality spills over into other international bodies:
- International Olympic Committee
(IOC)
- The IOC banned apartheid South Africa from the Olympics from 1964 to 1992
because blacks did not have the right to vote,
and had
other human rights restricted.
- The IOC banned Rhodesia from the Olympics from 1968 to 1980
because blacks did not have the right to vote,
and had
other human rights restricted.
- And yet the IOC did not ban China
or the Soviet Union (*),
where no one had the right to vote,
there were no human rights,
and (in China) millions of people were killed by democide.
Nor did it ban the dozens of other dictatorships
- like Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq, Cambodia and Vietnam
- where no one had the right to vote
and (in some of them) millions were killed by democide.
- (*) The Soviet Union was banned before WW2,
but not after
1952.
- In fact, incredibly, the
1980 Olympics
were actually held
in the Soviet Union!
- The
1984 Winter Olympics
were held in the communist dictatorship of Yugoslavia.
- It makes their ban on South Africa and Rhodesia look creepy
rather than some principled stand.
- Nor has their morality improved.
The 2008 Olympics
will be held in China,
a country where, even today, no one has the right to vote
and freedom of religion does not exist.
- The
2014 Winter Olympics
will be held in the unfree state of Russia.
-
Campaign for a UN Democracy Caucus
- The
Community of Democracies
shows something of what a reformed UN
might look like.
A UN that actually had moral authority.
- Though it still included in its
1st conference
Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait,
Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar,
Russia, Tunisia and Yemen.
So, even though it is better than the UN,
I still would not respect this body's decisions on any matter.
-
Human Rights Watch complain about this
- At the
2nd conference
some of the unfree countries are reduced to "Observers".
Participants still include
Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Jordan,
Morocco, Nigeria
and Russia.
Better, but still not good enough.
- A reformed UN that I could support
would simply demand that countries
have a Freedom House
rating of "Free" to get voting rights.
-
You Wish to Fight Terrorism? Join the
Alliance of Western and Democratic States (AWADS)
by Raphael Israeli,
proposes a UN of free, democratic countries.
"This system may sidetrack the
chaotic situation in the UN today, where politics and
shifting majorities, composed of dictatorships for the
most part, determine the moral and other standards of
behaviour in the world body."
-
United Democracies
by Tony Allwright
-
Claudia Rosett's dream UN resolution, Aug 2006.
"The Security Council,
...
Calls for the free nations of the world to bring together a robust, international force
with the express aim of removing, as swiftly as possible,
and by whatever means necessary, the terrorist-sponsoring regimes in Tehran and Damascus,
...
Suggesting that this Coalition be prepared, after dealing with the Middle East,
to proceed to North Korea,
...
Adds that the course of action outlined above, along with easing the threat to Western Europe,
the U.S. and even such unhelpful governments as those now in Moscow and Beijing,
would then allow a better focus on such terror-breeding regimes as Saudi Arabia,
and greatly clear the way for healthy development, better lives, and freedom from thuggery,
fear and war in places ranging from Sudan to the rest of Africa and parts of Latin America,
all now suffering from the spread of the fascist ideologies mentioned above"
The idea of some kind of "United Nations",
that would act to stop genocides
such as
Rwanda
and
Ethiopia
where the great powers have no strategic interest,
is still attractive to both
(liberal internationalist) left and (neo-con) right.
The problem is the left's insistence that all the tyrants of the world
have to be included in such a body.
Here's the kind of interventionist trans-national body I could support:
The Genocide Prevention Corps (GPC).
Its aim would be to stop genocides in places
where great powers have no strategic interest
and where the genocide can be stopped with no great loss of life.
I propose the following:
- The GPC would be made up of the leading democracies only.
The US, Canada, the EU, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Only the countries that are actually opposed to genocide.
- China and Russia would not be allowed to join.
And neither would the "non-aligned" third world countries.
They would only distort its votes, as they distort UN votes.
- No country will have a veto. All they can do is pull out of a mission, not veto it
(e.g. France might pull out of the
Rwanda operation
because of its Hutu interests,
but it would not be able to veto).
Missions will be decided by majority vote among these democracies.
- The GPC would: (a) not intervene when great powers were already involved,
and: (b) not intervene when stopping genocide could require a massive war
and massive loss of life.
It would not intervene in places like Israel or Iraq,
but also not in places like Iran, Taiwan or North Korea.
This may be sad, but one has to start somewhere.
Call it the "Easily-stoppable Genocide Prevention Corps" if you like,
the ancestor of a hoped-for future "All Genocide Prevention Corps",
which would actually require a "Tyranny Prevention Corps".
- It can't solve all injustices. It can't depose all tyrants.
It can't take on strong governments.
It will just start with stopping easily-stoppable, large-scale genocide by weak governments,
such as
Rwanda
and
Sudan.
Again, this may be sad, but one has to start somewhere.
This project is do-able.
Whereas the "Tyranny Prevention Corps" is not do-able (yet).
- The GPC won't nation-build. It will go in, kill the government, stop the genocide,
and leave.
Others (EU, UN) can peace-keep afterwards.
The GPC will be designed for killing and nothing else.
Its missions must be as small, short and do-able as possible.
Why? To keep member countries supporting such an altruistic project.
Look how America bailed out on altruism in Somalia
when it suffered a few dead.
The GPC would have to work extra hard to keep people on board.
So, no nation-building, no peace-keeping.
It would not have the broad agenda of general-purpose armies like the
EU Rapid Reaction Force.
Just the narrow agenda of genocide stopping. It's a start.
-
"Serial Regime Change"
- Tony Allwright's idea for how to depose tyrannies
without the bloody, costly, endless and unpopular
nation building afterwards
(as in Iraq and Afghanistan):
Go in, kill the government, leave.
If new government is the same: Go in, kill them, leave.
Repeat until they learn.
Not perfect. But it's a start.
"This is a rough and dirty scheme, intrinsically flawed - and no doubt "illegal".
And it will certainly not usher in the holy grail of democracy, at least not in the short term.
But, at minimum political, human and financial cost,
it will introduce the concept of accountability, international oversight
and limits to bad behaviour - a vast improvement on the present.
...
Change the regime - and keep changing it - until the leaders themselves stop the genocide,
as they surely will for the sake of their own survival. Call it serial regime-change."
- The GPC would be strong enough to take on and destroy a small government,
such as that of
Rwanda
or
Sudan.
It will have serious air power and fire power.
It will have stealth planes, smart bombs and its own
dedicated aircraft carrier.
- Unlike the
ad-hoc UN peacekeeping coalitions
that have to be organised for each crisis,
it
will be ready-to-go at all times,
already heavily-armed, with its own dedicated equipment.
Members will practice simulated genocide situations.
Having it all prepared and ready-to-go reduces the political cost of western leaders
agreeing to use it.
Having a majority vote reduces the political cost too.
- There could be quite a motivation for young European men to join up.
Many people wanting to be soldiers in the West
grow up with ideas of being a hero,
fighting tyrants, and killing nazis with the good guys.
But if you are born in Ireland or Belgium, say,
you will probably get to do nothing other than some
UN peacekeeping.
Worthy, but hardly the
Liberation of Paris.
Joining the Genocide Prevention Corps would give young Western men
a chance to be involved
in some of the great missions of the age,
actually liberating countries,
and killing nazis like the
Interahamwe
and the
Janjaweed.
I could even imagine many young Western men having more interest in joining this
than joining their regular armies.
Yes it would be nice if we could address all war, all genocide, all tyranny
and all oppression. But the UN will obviously never do that.
And neither will the great powers.
So why not start by addressing the worst things that can be solved,
and take it from there.
Setting up the Genocide Prevention Corps
would be a do-able, practical step towards a future "Tyranny Prevention Corps".
We have to start somewhere.
Could the
(liberal internationalist) left and (neo-con) right
unite to support it?
Why not?
Anybody who is interested in these organisations' opinions
on any matter needs their head examined:
The Arab League
The African Union
- The tyrants club, the
Organization of African Unity (now the African Union)
- another UN in miniature.
- The genocidal monster
Mengistu
of Ethiopia
was head of the OAU.
- The genocidal monster
Idi Amin
of Uganda
was chairman of the OAU.
- The murderous thug
Mugabe
of Zimbabwe
is current vice-chairman of the AU Southern African
Bureau.
-
Africa rewards Bashir despite Darfur
- The 2005 summit of the African Union
will, unbelievably,
be held in the Islamofascist genocide-state of
Sudan.
The fact that Sudan
is the biggest killer, torturer and enslaver of Africans
on earth does not seem to bother the African Union.
- The African author of the above editorial says:
"It is striking that much of the pressure on the Sudanese government
has been coming from the United States and Britain."
Why is it striking?
The United States and Britain have long demonstrated that they care more
about the suffering of Arabs and Africans
than Arabs and Africans do.
- The tyrants club, the
Non-Aligned Movement
- 12th summit, 1998
- 13th summit, 2003
- historical list of heads
- The anti-west Non-Aligned Movement
has been headed by a variety of thugs,
unelected dictators, mass murderers,
racists
and anti-semites,
including:
- The democidal dictator
Tito.
- The unelected dictator
Nasser of Egypt,
who tried in 1967 to bring about a second Holocaust
to kill all the Jews of Israel.
- The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Castro.
- The democidal dictator
Mugabe.
- The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Suharto.
- The anti-semite
Mahathir Mohamad
(and here).
-
Target-rich environment
- At the summit of the
Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba, 2006,
are the tyrants and thugs of
Iran, North Korea,
Zimbabwe, Belarus, Algeria, Cuba and Venezuela.
Architects of human misery.
-
Shame on the leaders of India and South Africa
for attending this vile carnival of tyrants.
In contrast to all of the above organisations,
every single member
of the EU has a
Freedom House
rating of "Free".
In domestic policy, these are some of the best countries on the planet.
Their foreign policy is not so good, though,
since it is often driven by destructive ideas
(resentment of America,
and hopes of regaining lost European power)
rather than by positive ideas
such as bringing freedom to the rest of the world.
I have mixed (but generally pro-) feelings about the EU.
I am very supportive of free trade and movement.
- The EU
- I am from Ireland, but
I would never identify myself as a "European".
I am a member of the West.
That is my identity.
It is highly artificial to ask me to identify primarily
with continental Europe.
- The EU is good as far as it goes.
The EU should be about
free trade and free movement of people.
I don't want to see a federal Europe, or a European foreign policy.
The next step for me rather
is to expand the free trade/movement zone to
all of the West.
Have America join,
as a counterbalance to continental Europe.
-
New threats for old,
Margaret Thatcher, 1996,
calls for a
"Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area"
to cement the West under American leadership.
- The
Common Agricultural Policy
is corrupt, immoral, and helps keep
the Third World poor.
- kickAAS
- Help the Third World
by abolishing all US and EU agricultural subsidies.
This would also lead to lower food prices
and lower taxes.
- Many people in the EU are under the delusion
that it is the EU that has stopped European
countries going to war against each other again,
after the bloodbaths of WW1 and WW2.
This is not true.
It is simply that every country is a democracy.
Democracies do not go to war against each other.
The EU is not, and never was, needed.
The behaviour of France and Germany
during the Iraq crisis of 2003 has
achieved the impossible.
They have turned me off the EU.
I have always been pro-EU.
It has been brilliant for Ireland
not just economically but also socially.
But I never had any idea it was meant to be an
anti-American movement.
This changes everything.
If the EU is anti-American,
then I want the EU destroyed.
Cartoon from Cox and Forkum
(see here).
See Cartoon Use Policy.
- The Iraq war of 2003
- Old Europe's support for
the fascists of
Iraq against the heroes of Britain and America
-
France bristles in a U.S. world
by David Frum.
France and Germany are the centre of the attempted
European "alternative" to American leadership of the free world.
Let's hope this "alternative" never gets off the ground.
-
The Europe and the America we want
by Ralf Dahrendorf and the liberal Timothy Garton Ash
-
"Europe needs renewal. But this cannot be accomplished by attempting the
self-determination of Europe as the un-America, even the anti-America. Every attempt at
defining Europe as against America will not unite Europe but divide it. This is what the Iraq
crisis has shown."
- Take Timothy Garton Ash
with a pinch of salt though.
See
Bruce Bawer
and
Pascal Bruckner
(and more)
on Timothy Garton Ash.
- Old Europe (the bullies and tyrant-lovers
France, Germany and Russia)
v. New Europe (basically, everyone else - who, oddly enough, have reasons
not to totally trust Paris, Berlin and Moscow)
-
Crocodile Tears
by Ralph Peters
- Lest we forget, Germany and Russia
are the two greatest killers by far in Europe
in the 20th century.
Between them
they slaughtered
83 million
innocent men, women and children.
They have both changed massively, of course.
But it is not irrelevant.
It is disturbing to see these two countries
trying to re-emerge as powers.
- New Europe -
The Operation Iraqi Freedom Coalition
by Condoleezza Rice,
on America's real allies
- "Months ago, the prime minister of Estonia
told President Bush that he did not need an explanation
of the need to confront Iraq. Because the great democracies
failed to act in the 1930s,
his people lived in slavery for 50 years."
-
Boston or Berlin?,
as we say in Ireland.
How can anybody in their right mind choose Berlin?
- France, Russia and Germany were not "anti-war".
Let's call a spade a spade.
They were allies of Saddam.
- The real "Coalition of the Bribed":
France, Russia, China and the UN
The UN Security Council is dead
France and Germany are not allies any more
- Are France and Germany becoming enemies of the West?
-
Vive le Checkbook:
How France bankrolls America's enemies
by Michael Gonzalez
- "'Follow the money' is an old adage, and it means that economic interest
will eventually explain much human behavior. That France
opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed
millions to French banks is proof of this."
- France is also the no.1 lender to Iran, Cuba and Sudan.
Germany is the no.1 lender to North Korea, Syria and Libya.
-
How France Blocked U.S. In Ankara
by Michael Ledeen
- France and Germany
went out of their way to sabotage the American military effort
in a time of war.
The war lasted longer,
and more American troops died because of them.
The Americans should not, must not,
forgive them.
America must destroy the EU by setting up a free trade area of the West.
-
U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War
- French, German, Belgian, Greek,
Chinese and Russian companies, among others,
are excluded from competing for the lucrative reconstruction contracts.
Good.
And I hope the US is freezing France and Germany out of
military technology sharing and
intelligence sharing too.
If you want to be an ally,
you've got to act like an ally.
Treachery should have a cost.
- The list of
Coalition partners
does not include Ireland.
Nor does
this list.
-
A Farewell to Allies
by Charles Krauthammer
- "These countries are not allies.
It is sheer laziness now that counts France and Germany as old allies, sheer naivete
that counts Russia as a new one."
-
Is Europe doomed?
- Is Europe going to get worse?
- Under the appalling
Chirac,
France has burnt all its goodwill:
-
Let Europe be Europe
by Victor Davis Hanson
- "A quarter
of Americans now see France as an enemy
- not an ally or even a neutral - and the number is growing."
- "I won't even speak of a sense of gratitude
[for France's liberation by America in WW2]
because that is an emotion almost as archaic to the contemporary
European mind as patriotism. Nearly 30 percent of all Frenchmen
polled last year wished Saddam to defeat the United States in Iraq."
-
Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France
by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky.
- Introduction
- "Before the terrorist attacks of 2001, 77 percent of Americans held a favorable opinion
of France and a mere 17 percent held an unfavorable one. In March 2003,
on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, these feelings were reversed.
Only 34 percent of Americans saw France in a positive light,
while fully 64 percent viewed it negatively."
- On the build-up to the Iraq War:
"France's entire foreign policy seemed driven by belligerence toward the United States."
Europe and America
- Europe should support America
-
The American Enterprise symposium on Europe and America
- Jonah Goldberg sums up my scepticism of European superiority -
"Europe is the historic birthplace of Western civilization,
and therefore the world shall always owe it gratitude and respect.
But Europe is not the future."
- And John O'Sullivan expresses my view that America should get closer
to Europe instead of abandoning it -
"It is therefore clearly in America's national interest
to shape a new Atlantic framework in which the E.U. would gradually
lose its dominance within Europe."
-
Europe and the Establishment,
John O'Sullivan,
says America should adopt a policy
of trying to prevent closer European union,
saying it is inevitable that
"the more united Europe becomes, the more anti-American
it will be".
I agree, but America has to help us pro-Americans in Europe.
O'Sullivan has some ideas, including
"a transatlantic
free trade area".
- Centre for the New Europe
- The Atlantic Bridge
- Atlantic Partnership
- The Anglosphere,
by James C. Bennett
- start a free trade and movement zone between Britain and Ireland
and America.
- britainandamerica.com
(or via here)
The video
"A World Without America"
by 18 Doughty Street, Feb 2007.
NATO, like the EU, is basically a collection of democracies.
NATO's domestic record is slightly worse than that of the EU.
Every member of NATO
has a
Freedom House
rating of "Free",
except Turkey, which is "Partly Free".
But
NATO's foreign policy is more sensible than that of the EU.
The EU's foreign policy can be driven by
destructive ideas
about rivalling America
and regaining lost European glory.
But NATO - with the US and Canada as members
- is not interested in these destructive ideas.
I am very supportive of NATO.
It has the potential to grow into the kind of
organisation of the world's democracies
that the UN can never be.
NATO roughly
represents the free countries of the world.
NATO has a noble history of opposing tyranny
and defending freedom.
NATO has moral authority.
The UN does not.
Some countries
(notably France and Germany)
have betrayed NATO recently,
and betrayed the US that protected them for so many years.
But other countries in Europe
demonstrate that
the West still exists,
and NATO is the organisation that best approximates the idea
of the West - the free countries of the world.
And France and Germany now have new governments.
NATO should be expanded into
a new organisation
of the
world's fighting democracies,
including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and perhaps
some others.
And perhaps expel Turkey.
Return to The World.