Mark Humphrys (politics)


The World - World bodies

  The UN

Tyrants clubs

Other international bodies

Ideas for reformed world bodies

The EU


The unfree world

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.

Watching what actually goes on at the U.N. "Human Rights" Council is the best cure for anyone who believes in the UN.

The United Nations

Tyrants clubs

That is, tyrants clubs apart from the UN.

Anybody who is interested in the following organisations' opinions on any matter needs their head examined.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

The Arab League

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

The African Union

The Non-Aligned Movement

Other international bodies

Is this the strangest web page on the Internet?
The list of Interpol past presidents includes Reinhard Heydrich!

Ideas for reformed world bodies

The Community of Democracies

The Genocide Prevention Corps (GPC)

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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".
  5. 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).

  6. 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."

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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?

The EU

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.

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.

"Captain Euro", the sinister EU propaganda for children, shows how continentals don't really "get" democracy the way the Anglosphere does.

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.


After decades of frustration, and polls showing large numbers of Britons wanting out of the EU, the UK finally got its chance to vote in 2016.

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.



When will Ireland get a vote to end this abusive marriage?


Europe and America


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.

Politics      Religion      Since 1995.      New 250 G VPS server.

Banned in Iran: This site is banned in Iran.

Blocked on Twitter by the regressive left and Islamists: I love debate. I love ideas. But the Western left and their friends the Islamic right do not return the favour. Their response to opposing ideas, whether expressed politely or robustly, is often to block. See Who blocks me on Twitter.

I like debate. But I do have rules. See Who I block on Twitter.

Twitter is broken, 2016 to 2022: I am on Twitter at markhumphrys. Twitter was a great place for debate before 2016. You could meet everyone in the world, and argue about ideas. Starting in 2016, Twitter became increasingly broken. It became full of reporting and bans and censorship. In 2019, Twitter even started shadowbanning me for no reason that was ever explained, or could be appealed. By 2022, everyone was looking for a better place to debate.

Twitter is saved, 2022: In 2022 Elon Musk bought Twitter and started to end the censorship. It looks great so far. Twitter seems to be saved.