It is time to consider a "world police force." It is too obvious that the development of
peace and prosperity are now global forces. We can not allow countries the so-called right
to be repressive regimes, or absurd states. It's time to truly recognize the rights of man.
So, perhaps it is time to consider splitting the United Nations into two groups: One would
be the developed and developing states with a penchant for democracy and economic
and political freedom, and the other block would the failed states, by whatever measure.
Then it would be easier to get things done on an international scale. It would move the
leaders of the failed states to either vacate their positions or become enlightened.
It is absurd that Syria and Libya should have an equal voice as Malaysia and Thailand. The
first two states are repressive and obsessed with the glorification of the leader, the second
two are working, with varying and shifting degrees of success, to pull their countries into
the modern world.
It would be fairly simple thing to create a checklist to see which countries belong to which
group. And while in the short term the statist Europeans, Japanese and some others
would be included in the Developed group, ultimately, they too would have to change.
But as in triage at a disaster scene, it is morally better to take care of those worst off. Even
if the failed states rose only to the level of Greece the world would be so much better off.
So what would a list of failed states look like:
Of the First Order: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea,
Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Rwanda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,
Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Haiti, Guatamala, Paraguay, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Cameroon,
Belarus, and perhaps one or two others.
These countries are abominations. There is not one redeeming feature about the
governments or the cultures that support them. They are repressive, impoverished,
violent, lawless, dangerous (to those within and without) crackpot regimes whose
misguided, even, yes, evil, leaders have a total disregard for the people whom they claim
to lead. They are hemoragghing people and wealth. The leaders are beyond corrupt. The
leaders have not one regard for the rights of man.
These leaders should have no right to speak at the United Nations and to lecture the world
about how wonderful they are and what they are doing for their people and how they are
keeping the United States at bay. They should have no ambassadors to the United
Nations. They should have no seats there. They have no claim to any moral right to
govern.
The developed world has but one course of action: to isolate, and then disrupt and
destroy these despotic regimes. Then enter into these countries and rescue the
unfortunate people who live there from further abuse. Even if that means military invasion
and occupation for a number of years.
Of the Second Order of failed states are nearly every other country in Africa except South
Africa. All the Arab monarchies, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; Bolivia,
Columbia, Ecuador, Uraguay, Venezuela, Argentina, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El
Salvador; Philipines, Indonesia and Nepal, and all the new republics from the old Soviet
Union. All of these are basket cases that have seemingly seen the light. They are
apparently trying hard to move out of their squalor, but still are blighted by crackpot
leaders, corruption, insurrections, one party states, repression, political imprisonment and
killings, and a general disregard for individual rights. They have all improved over the past
10 years, but have a long way to go.
They need a sustained and targeted assesment of their problems and a series of solutions
on how to solve them. Most of all they need a total revamping of their legal systems and
removal of nearly all the current polticial structure, with new constitutions and a heavy
dose of education in their own languages about the rights of individuals and the rule of law.
Of the Third Order are:
Brazil, the Caribbean Island states, South Africa, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia,
Ukraine, the Baltic States, Slovakia, Croatia, Macedonia, Cypress, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Thailand, Costa Rica, Belize, many of the Pacific Island states, Greece, Turkey, Egypt,
Kenya and Tanzania, South Korea, and a few others.
All of these are on the cusp of reasonableness. They still have problems accepting diverse
ethnic groups. Their legal systems need revamping. They need more work in bringing
peace and harmony within their borders.
Countries in the lead group are the United States, Canada, Australia, England, New
Zealand, Japan, France and Germany, and the samller western European parliamentary
democracies.
Further, there could be two groups of democratic countries. One group would be those
countries willing to engage in only humanitarian works. The other would be those ready,
willing and able to engage in military action when necessary.
The first group of countries might be a list like this: Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark,
Germany, Mexico, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Canada and South Africa. These countries
would work primarily in economic development, education, health care, training of all
types. They would operate a sort of worldwide Peace Corp. They would step into
humanitarian crises. Even better, they would adopt the struggling countries. Imagine if
South Korea and Japan, and Taiwan, with China possibly too, were to step into the
Philipines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and over a 10 year period work with these
countries in developing peace and prosperity.
With a targeted program of development of infrastructure, education, health care and the
legal system this coordinated effort would raise these poorer countries up, and provide the
peace and prosperity which feed off of each other. Besides visiting technocrats, there
should be a mentoring program for politicians and social leaders, bringing those of the
poorer countries to the richer countries to actually work, to get hands on experience. Sort
of a like a semester at a university. Individual legislators from the poorer countries should
sit in on the legislatures of the richer countries to learn how the system can work.
Think about what would happen if European pacifist countries would step into cooperation
with African and Central Asian, even Muslim states, and do the same sort of work.
The second group would be The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and
some of the lesser Eastern European States. These countries would intercede in places like
Iraq. And eventually other countries. War itself would the last resort, but there should be a
set program to ostracize, sanction, contain, threaten and then intervene with violent
regions of the world. Since most of the violence is caused by despotic rulers and absurd
regimes either those leaders must go so that the United Nations can come in and set up
new institutions or the military must step in and enforce the necessary changes.
There's also no reason that countries can belong to either group.
peace and prosperity are now global forces. We can not allow countries the so-called right
to be repressive regimes, or absurd states. It's time to truly recognize the rights of man.
So, perhaps it is time to consider splitting the United Nations into two groups: One would
be the developed and developing states with a penchant for democracy and economic
and political freedom, and the other block would the failed states, by whatever measure.
Then it would be easier to get things done on an international scale. It would move the
leaders of the failed states to either vacate their positions or become enlightened.
It is absurd that Syria and Libya should have an equal voice as Malaysia and Thailand. The
first two states are repressive and obsessed with the glorification of the leader, the second
two are working, with varying and shifting degrees of success, to pull their countries into
the modern world.
It would be fairly simple thing to create a checklist to see which countries belong to which
group. And while in the short term the statist Europeans, Japanese and some others
would be included in the Developed group, ultimately, they too would have to change.
But as in triage at a disaster scene, it is morally better to take care of those worst off. Even
if the failed states rose only to the level of Greece the world would be so much better off.
So what would a list of failed states look like:
Of the First Order: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea,
Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Congo (Zaire), Rwanda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,
Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Haiti, Guatamala, Paraguay, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Cameroon,
Belarus, and perhaps one or two others.
These countries are abominations. There is not one redeeming feature about the
governments or the cultures that support them. They are repressive, impoverished,
violent, lawless, dangerous (to those within and without) crackpot regimes whose
misguided, even, yes, evil, leaders have a total disregard for the people whom they claim
to lead. They are hemoragghing people and wealth. The leaders are beyond corrupt. The
leaders have not one regard for the rights of man.
These leaders should have no right to speak at the United Nations and to lecture the world
about how wonderful they are and what they are doing for their people and how they are
keeping the United States at bay. They should have no ambassadors to the United
Nations. They should have no seats there. They have no claim to any moral right to
govern.
The developed world has but one course of action: to isolate, and then disrupt and
destroy these despotic regimes. Then enter into these countries and rescue the
unfortunate people who live there from further abuse. Even if that means military invasion
and occupation for a number of years.
Of the Second Order of failed states are nearly every other country in Africa except South
Africa. All the Arab monarchies, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; Bolivia,
Columbia, Ecuador, Uraguay, Venezuela, Argentina, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El
Salvador; Philipines, Indonesia and Nepal, and all the new republics from the old Soviet
Union. All of these are basket cases that have seemingly seen the light. They are
apparently trying hard to move out of their squalor, but still are blighted by crackpot
leaders, corruption, insurrections, one party states, repression, political imprisonment and
killings, and a general disregard for individual rights. They have all improved over the past
10 years, but have a long way to go.
They need a sustained and targeted assesment of their problems and a series of solutions
on how to solve them. Most of all they need a total revamping of their legal systems and
removal of nearly all the current polticial structure, with new constitutions and a heavy
dose of education in their own languages about the rights of individuals and the rule of law.
Of the Third Order are:
Brazil, the Caribbean Island states, South Africa, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia,
Ukraine, the Baltic States, Slovakia, Croatia, Macedonia, Cypress, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Thailand, Costa Rica, Belize, many of the Pacific Island states, Greece, Turkey, Egypt,
Kenya and Tanzania, South Korea, and a few others.
All of these are on the cusp of reasonableness. They still have problems accepting diverse
ethnic groups. Their legal systems need revamping. They need more work in bringing
peace and harmony within their borders.
Countries in the lead group are the United States, Canada, Australia, England, New
Zealand, Japan, France and Germany, and the samller western European parliamentary
democracies.
Further, there could be two groups of democratic countries. One group would be those
countries willing to engage in only humanitarian works. The other would be those ready,
willing and able to engage in military action when necessary.
The first group of countries might be a list like this: Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark,
Germany, Mexico, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Canada and South Africa. These countries
would work primarily in economic development, education, health care, training of all
types. They would operate a sort of worldwide Peace Corp. They would step into
humanitarian crises. Even better, they would adopt the struggling countries. Imagine if
South Korea and Japan, and Taiwan, with China possibly too, were to step into the
Philipines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and over a 10 year period work with these
countries in developing peace and prosperity.
With a targeted program of development of infrastructure, education, health care and the
legal system this coordinated effort would raise these poorer countries up, and provide the
peace and prosperity which feed off of each other. Besides visiting technocrats, there
should be a mentoring program for politicians and social leaders, bringing those of the
poorer countries to the richer countries to actually work, to get hands on experience. Sort
of a like a semester at a university. Individual legislators from the poorer countries should
sit in on the legislatures of the richer countries to learn how the system can work.
Think about what would happen if European pacifist countries would step into cooperation
with African and Central Asian, even Muslim states, and do the same sort of work.
The second group would be The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and
some of the lesser Eastern European States. These countries would intercede in places like
Iraq. And eventually other countries. War itself would the last resort, but there should be a
set program to ostracize, sanction, contain, threaten and then intervene with violent
regions of the world. Since most of the violence is caused by despotic rulers and absurd
regimes either those leaders must go so that the United Nations can come in and set up
new institutions or the military must step in and enforce the necessary changes.
There's also no reason that countries can belong to either group.
| Splitting the United Nations |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Poltics Re-explained |
