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.
Watching what actually goes on at the
U.N. "Human Rights" Council
is the best cure for anyone who believes in the UN.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
(formerly the "Organisation of the Islamic Conference"),
a collection of unelected Islamic strongmen, oppressors, and fanatic sharia enforcers.
Headquarters is in the sharia tyranny of Saudi Arabia.
Any sentence that begins "The OIC calls for .." is not a sentence that any free man
should be interested in.
Pandering To The Islamic Conference, Claudia Rosett, 18 Feb 2010.
"The OIC .. is dedicated in its documents to spreading Islamic law, or sharia.
...
The OIC has been a big backer of a campaign at the UN for "anti-blasphemy" rules that would effectively gag free speech and muffle any real debate about the nature and direction of Islam."
Rashad Hussain
is Obama's "special envoy"
to the OIC.
(Shame on Obama for having an envoy to this group.)
When appointing him, Obama noted that he had memorized the Qur'an,
as if that was something admirable rather than disturbing.
In
June 2010, Rashad Hussain described Obama as America's "Educator-in-Chief" on Islam.
In one creepy phrase he sums up everything that is wrong with the Obama administration
- the view that the average American is stupid,
the view that Obama has some higher intelligence,
the patronising leftie arrogance,
the claim that the Cairo speech
was some great breakthrough rather than a cowardly pc evasion,
the view that Americans need to change,
the view that if we knew more about Islam we would like it more rather than less,
and so on.
All packed into one phrase that would make your skin crawl.
Well done, Rashad Hussain!
The tyrants club, the
African Union
(formerly the Organization of African Unity)
- another UN in miniature.
List of Chairmen of the African Union (and the Organization of African Unity)
includes a fantastic collection of unelected dictators and genocidal thugs, including the following:
The dictator Nasser
of Egypt, who tried in 1967 to bring about a second Holocaust,
was Chairman of the OAU 1964-65.
The genocidal monster
Idi Amin
of Uganda
was Chairman of the OAU 1975-76.
The genocidal monster
Mengistu
of Ethiopia
was Chairman of the OAU
1983-84.
Egyptian dictator
Mubarak
was Chairman of the OAU
1989-90 and 1993-94.
The murderous thug
Mugabe
of Zimbabwe
was Chairman of the OAU
1997-98.
Libyan dictator Gaddafi was
Chairman of the African Union 2009-10.
Mugabe becomes Chairman of the African Union again, Jan 2015.
Anybody who is interested in the African Union's opinions on any matter needs their head examined.
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.
List of heads of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The anti-west Non-Aligned Movement
has been headed by a variety of thugs,
unelected dictators, mass murderers,
racists
and anti-semites,
including the following:
The democidal dictator
Tito
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1961-64.
The unelected dictator
Nasser of Egypt,
who tried in 1967 to bring about a second Holocaust
to kill all the Jews of Israel,
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1964-70.
The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Castro
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1979-83
and 2006-08.
The democidal dictator
Mugabe
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1986-89.
The mass murderer and unelected dictator
Suharto
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
1992-95.
The anti-Jewish fanatic Mahathir Mohamad
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
2003.
Egyptian dictator
Mubarak
was head of the Non-Aligned Movement
2009-11.
Anybody who is interested in the Non-Aligned Movement's opinions on any matter needs their head examined.
Mahathir Mohamad is the founder of various anti-Western "peace" organisations:
Perdana.
As at Nov 2009 their front page attacks Israel (over Gaza) and the UK (over Iraq). That's it.
No complaints at all about the
raging world-wide jihad.
This organisation obviously has nothing to contribute to world peace.
Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
As at Nov 2009 their front page attacks Israel, the UK and the US. That's it. Nothing about the jihad.
Nothing about
sharia in Malaysia either,
for what it's worth.
Get your own house in order first, I would say.
This organisation obviously has nothing to contribute to world peace.
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.
16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in the terrorist state of Iran in Aug 2012.
Apart from the usual genocidal thugs and dictators,
including
Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma, North Korea and Saudi Arabia,
also attending were
Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Serbia, South Africa
and the UN.
The Olympics shares the UN's creepy, selective morality.
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!
As with the Olympics,
apartheid South Africa
was banned from international football for decades,
while far more repressive (and even genocidal) states were not banned.
As with the Olympics,
the ban looks creepy rather than principled.
Interpol
(International Criminal Police Organization)
Interpol got taken over by Nazi Germany
from 1938 to 1945.
Internationally it more or less ceased to function during those years.
Interpol assisted the cause of international terrorism in Feb 2010 when it unwisely got involved in the assassination of Hamas leader
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
Interpol issued
"Red Notices" (wanted notices)
in the hunt for the assassination team.
Disgraceful.
Shame on Interpol.
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.
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."
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?
In contrast to the various tyrants clubs above,
every member
of the EU
has a
Freedom House
rating of "Free".
(Except now for one, Hungary,
which has just dipped across the border to "Partly Free".)
In domestic policy, the EU 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.
The behaviour of France and Germany
during the Iraq crisis of 2003
was a turning point
in turning me off the EU.
I have mixed feelings about the EU.
I generally think European unification
has gone too far and needs to be rolled back.
I am very supportive of free trade and free movement (of skilled people and pro-western people at least).
But the Euro
seems like an error
- driven by political desires
rather than whether it is good for the economy.
The EU now treats the Euro as sacred
and something that must be "saved" no matter what the cost,
rather than treating it
as a mere tool, where if it is good for the economy keep it,
and if it is bad for the economy
don't keep it.
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 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.
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.
This sinister tweet in Jan 2018 by senior EU figure
Guy Verhofstadt
sums up what is wrong with the EU.
The EU is a religion. This tweet explains, as few other things can, why the EU finds it hard to deal rationally with dissent.
If you believe the EU should be a free trade area, good for business, then you will leave/join/leave depending on whether you think it helps the economy.
If you believe the EU is needed to stop another Holocaust, then you will treat dissent as treason and try to suppress it.
This disgusting poster is not an official EU publication.
This poster glorifying the hammer and sickle
was produced by leftist group
Europe4All.
(Europe for all, but not for kulaks
and Ukrainians.)
This poster is not an official EU publication,
but it does
hang in the European Commission. Discovered there by Daniel Hannan MEP in Oct 2012.
Shameful and disgusting.
This from Aug 2021 sums up the EU's foreign policy.
Senior EU official
Enrique Mora
sits alongside Hamas leader
Ismail Haniyeh
and Hezbollah no.2
Naim Qassem
at
the swearing-in ceremony of the President of the Iranian dictatorship,
Ebrahim Raisi.
Shameful.
From here.
Poll, Sept 2010: Britain would vote by 47 percent to 33 percent to leave the EU.
But it could not vote. It had to wait.
UK poll, July 2011.
The UK would vote by 50 to 33 per cent to leave the EU.
But it could not vote. It had to wait.
Britain is a great nation with a proud history - it doesn't need to be in the EU, Nile Gardiner, 9 Nov 2012.
49 percent of the British public say they would vote to leave the EU.
Only 28 percent would vote to stay.
"It is a myth that Britain could not thrive outside of the EU. ... life outside of the EU should be viewed as a huge opportunity that would boost Britain's economy and strengthen, rather than weaken, its position on the world stage
...
For centuries before the European Union even existed, Britain was a great world power, maintaining a balance of power in continental Europe while exerting an unprecedented and extraordinary degree of influence in every corner of the globe. The idea that it could not survive as a major international actor outside the EU is the stuff of fantasy, beloved by the likes of Barroso and Van Rompuy, who are firmly in denial regarding the scale of decay that has set in across the Eurozone.".
UK leaves the EU ("Brexit"), June 2016.
I think this is the right decision.
The EU refused to reform.
The UK will thrive outside it.
The UK votes to leave the EU, June 2016.
Many people went to sleep with "Remain" winning,
and woke up to find "Leave" won.
Hilarious tweet from
here
captures the moment.
Of course, the original thread
was deluged with grinning Nigel Farage
pictures.
Irish poll, May 2011.
23 per cent of Irish want to leave the EU.
20 per cent say Ireland should leave the euro.
Irish parties do not reflect the Euroscepticism that is there.
Libertas were the pioneers in Euro-scepticism in Ireland:
The response of pro-EU Irish people online was pretty unhinged.
It even included a call to violence,
from fanatic
Mark Malone.
But the conference was well attended, and may be the start of something.
There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to leave the EU, or even wanting the entire EU abolished.
These are just political structures that humans made and can unmake.
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".
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 Albania, which is "Partly Free",
and Turkey, which is "Not 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.
The West exists,
and NATO is the organisation that so far best approximates the idea
of the West - the free countries of the world.
NATO should be expanded into
a new organisation
of the
world's fighting democracies,
including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and perhaps
some others.
And perhaps expel Turkey.
My own country, Ireland, remains outside NATO,
and has never taken an active role in defending the West.
Historically, Britain and America have defended it
while it contributes nothing.
Let's hope this shameful history comes to an end soon.
