A Leauki's Writings
Published on January 26, 2009 By Leauki In International

Every now and then one finds stories such as these:


I do not want to go into detail because some crimes are really beyond discussion. But the updates to the article are intriguing:

Since it's the UN, not so much. The UN has been bulletproof to these charges before, and I don't see it changing anytime soon, despite the fact that change is sorely needed at the UN.

And finally, there is a conclusion:

He also notes that it's well past time to replace the UN with a League of Democracies that has the ability to kick members out. I heartily concur. Totalitarian regimes hold sway in the UN and thwart freedom and democracy; they thwart sovereign member states from protecting themselves from terrorism, and condone such terrorism on a regular basis by elevating terrorist groups to the level of member states.


And this, I think, is an interesting proposal. It's not new. But it is becoming more relevant.

We have now several democratic countries not recognised by the UN, and several dictatorships that are. And the UN are worthless. They cannot prevent war and they cannot stop genocide. In fact they are too busy even to act against genocide. This has to change.

A new organisation would have no power over dictatorships (since none would be members), but at least it would not ignore genocide and instead admit that it cannot act because it has no power over non-members. Membership would be limited to democracies, be they republics or monarchies or other.

The structure should allow for candidates to be allowed in (must be democracies and membership supported by 1/3 of existing members) and for members to be kicked out (2/3 vote required).

The new organisation will also make logistical and financial support of poorer members a rule. This means that no non-member states will receive any humanitarian aid from member states, unless they are in the process of reforming their government systems in order to apply for membership within five years.

Membership will be based solely on the principle of democracy and equality. If a given country is democratic and guarantees equal rights for its citizens and harbours no serious ill will towards an existing member, it can become a member if 1/3 of existing members support its membership application. (Standards will be defined by the the three super members, see below.)

The rest of this plan assumes that the USA and the EU countries as well as democratic Commonwealth countries would form the core of the new organisation.


Further points:

1. The USA, Great Britain, and India will be "super members". This is the equivalent of the UN Security Council without the power. Democratic standards will be determined by agreement of at least two of those three.

2. The operational base of the new organisation will be in Delhi, Mumbai, or some other city in India as selected by India and accepted by at least one of the other two super members.

3. The working language of the new organisation will be English and only English.

4. Members include the US, Great Britain, most of the EU, Kosovo, Canada, Australia, New-Zealand, Israel, Iraq (if it wants to), Turkey, some of the -stans (if they qualify), India, Taiwan (but only as Taiwain, not as China, since Taiwan doesn't control the whole of China), Afghanistan (if it wants to and qualifies), Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Botswana, South-Korea, Japan, Somaliland (not recognised by the UN), and the Scandinavian countries; also those countries of South America that wish to join and qualify.

5. Non-members include Russia (they can join if they want to and manage to qualify), Tibet (because the Dalai Lama does not control the country; Tibet can join immediately if it ever becomes independent and democratic), Biafra (same as Tibet).

Neither Russia and France might want to join a club in which they are not the alpha dogs. Tough luck. France will join anyway because it wants to play with Germany and the UK and oppose the US among democracies.

6. The president of the new organisation (who only represents and doesn't have any authority) will be elected by the members from among their ambassadors to the new organisation. The first president will be from India.

7. No country can be a member if men and women do not have equal rights under their law, if homosexuality is illegal and punishable by prison time or death, if child labour is legal, and/or if slavery is. (Countries that rely on child labour will be subject to the new organisation aid plan which obligates richer members to help poorer members in an organised fashion.)

8. The new organisation will also legitimise wars against non-members if necessary to avoid genocide or future attacks, just like the UN does for its members. The difference is that any country committing genocide or planning an attack on another cannot be a member. This will turn around the "international law" argument. Under new organisation international law stopping a genocide be LEGAL whereas arguing that genocide is a country's internal matter will be ILLEGAL. And that's it. I think votes about where the new organisation should intervene will work quite differently without the genocidal dictators who usually support other genocidal dictators in votes unless bought.


I think this will work a lot better than the UN. It also helps keeping help for poorer countries focused on those that are democratic and not violently opposed to the ideals of the richer countries.


on Jan 26, 2009


on Jan 27, 2009

I've been saying the UN is worthless now for years. But I doubt replacing it with another would be anymore successful after a period of time.

on Jan 27, 2009

I've been saying the UN is worthless now for years. But I doubt replacing it with another would be anymore successful after a period of time.

This would be different. This new organisation wouldn't have any powers over members or non-members. It would just be a facade to allow countries to be their own souvereigns.

The UN is as worthless as the League of Nations for mainly two reasons. One is that they both tried to represent every nation on earth, despite the ovvious flaw that that means acknowledging genocidal dictators as legitimate representatives of "their" peoples. The other is that the UN sees itself as being above its members.

The new organisation will not try to represent every nation on earth but only those that are actually themselves represented by an elected government of some sort and only those that acknowledge human rights (even for non-Arabs and even for Africans).

This organisation will also not replace the UN but exist next to it, and the two will then compete; and we'll likely see that the new organisation is more useful (simply by channeling aid into democratic countries rather than the world's favourite dictatorships). And whenever the UN asks for funds for its projects, UN member countries that actually pay (and they are almost only democracies who could be members of the new organisation), will reply that they will happily spend more money on new organisation aid projects. It will still be cheaper as the new organisation will not employ a huge bureaucratic mechanism; instead everything will be done via bilateral treaties between democratic countries.

The idea of nations cooperating world-wide is good, but the United Nations have never even come close to the ideal. Instead we have a mechanism for fascist dictatorships to dictate policy to democratic countries.

"United Nations" is also a misnomer. "Nations" are not represented as such, except via whatever government claims to have a right to rule them. Do the Kurds have a representation in the "United Nations"? What about the Assyrians or the Roma? It's "United Governments".

The new organisation will not hide the fact that it is a union of governments. It's a League of Democracies. Whether a given democracy is a nation state or some other construct doesn't matter to the new organisation, only its ideology with regard to democracy, human rights, and equality before the law matters.