Posted on 09/24/2002 8:45:42 AM PDT by thinktwice
An idea whose time has come ....
From posts 9 and 14 in the thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/755902/posts?
Post 9 ... The term "sovereign nation" should never apply to dictatorships.
Post 14 ... Those who speak of the sovereignty of dictatorships are flunkies of the dictators themselves, buying into the idea that kings or Secretaries General are the sovereigns. The people are the only sovereign. Where the people are powerless, there is no basis for sovereignty.
Modern diplomacy is based on Rodney King's remark, "Can't we all just get along?" Therefore, it makes no distinction between Iceland, which has the world's oldest contnuous democratic government, and the latest tin-pot dictator to shoot his way into the Presidential Palace in some geopolitical Hell-hole.
We cannot just pretend away a murderous, kleptomaniacal dictator like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But we could introduce some truth into our dealings with that thug by reducing the recognition of his government to de facto.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
This might make an interesting topic for legal scholarship...I'll have to look into this some more.
One problem is that when you unseat monarchs and dictators you may get something far worse afterwards. Democracies don't always last. Of the democratic governments Wilson established few remained intact twenty years later. Or look at Haiti, Nicaragua or any of the other countries we've intervened in. Democracy was only a phase for them, a recurring phase, but only a phase between dictatorships.
Really, who are we, or who is the UN to go around overturning governments we don't like? Such work could go on forever and whoever's in charge will always preserve their own favorite dictators and only go after the others.
It once was the case that the best form of government was a beneficient monarchy, where everything depends on the character of the monarch.
Then, along came the United States of American where "We the people" granted certain powers to the federal government while retaining specific rights for individuals and reserving "... powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States ... to the States respectively or to the people." (U.S. Constitution, "Bill of Rights")
In other words, the American people -- through the U.S. Constitution -- made themselves sovereign individuals and freedom reigned in America.
But petty dictators can be found everywhere; even within American bureaucracies; so it is that concept of individual sovereignty -- FREEDOM -- that must be remembered, fought for, and spread worldwide to solve those problems that cause wars.
At the very least, oppressive dictatorships should never have the right to claim "sovereign state" status.
Two World Wars were fought in the past century to overturn governments Americans didn't like; and both involved dictatorial governments and monarchies that oppressed those people and nations around them.
Those nations that seriously threaten or attack others, need to have their regimes changed using force as necessary.
Trade sanctions, even tariffs, are not a good idea; they are basically economic acts of war that hurt most everyone without generally leading to combat.
Those dictators not bothering other nations should be left alone -- subject to the understanding that dictators oppressing their own people cannot avoid bothering other nations.
Additionally, what ramifications would it have on creating alliances with such non-soveriegn nations when we need their support against another non-soveriegn nation that has attacked us (i.e. Pakistan)?
Since monarchies resemble dictatorships, we'll need to remember that beneficent governments are recognized as good governments -- governments we could ally with. The test for "beneficence" would be the degree of individual freedom for people living under that government's system, with the right to own real property being a key test for the highest level of individual freedom.
Our enemies think we are a mortal threat to them by our very existence-and they're right.
Agreed.
Trade sanctions, even tariffs, are not a good idea; they are basically economic acts of war that hurt most everyone without generally leading to combat.
While I generally agree with you I still believe that trade sanctions are useful for those regimes that have not engaged in any aggression (against another country) but are oppressing it's own people.
Those dictators not bothering other nations should be left alone -- subject to the understanding that dictators oppressing their own people cannot avoid bothering other nations.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The definition of oppression could be widely interpreted. Some would say that imprisoning a million non-violent drug users is oppressive. Further, how does oppressing ones own people necessarily lead to 'bothering' other nations? It 'bothers' me that China oppresses it's people. Should we declare war on China?
Since monarchies resemble dictatorships, we'll need to remember that beneficent governments are recognized as good governments -- governments we could ally with. The test for "beneficence" would be the degree of individual freedom for people living under that government's system, with the right to own real property being a key test for the highest level of individual freedom.
I don't understand the leader of Pakistan to be a Monarch but rather a General that took over the country in a military coup. In fact, I think it is generally agreed that he has total control (except possibly in some remote areas) and has failed to provide democratic elections. So while it is a good principle that the right to own property is an indication of a legitimate government to impose an absolutist policy that requires such rights would lead to: 1) The US being at war all the time. 2) Restrict the ability of the US to create alliances with nations who could help us against those other nations that have actively attacked us.
I still believe that trade sanctions are useful for those regimes that have not engaged in any aggression (against another country) but are oppressing it's own people.
The U.S. currently has stringent trade sanctions on Cuba, and "most favored nation" status with communist China; but both are oppressive regimes. In Cuba, the lack of trade has people suffering -- just how much sugar can one eat? Whereas in China, people work to produce goods and they can put more than rice in their bowls.
Some would say that imprisoning a million non-violent drug users is oppressive.
I'd say that imprisoning a million non-violent drug users is characteristic of an oppressive state.
... how does oppressing ones own people necessarily lead to 'bothering' other nations?
Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are good examples; the suffering within those oppressed nations leads to conditions where war can blossom into an appealing alternative.
So while it is a good principle that the right to own property is an indication of a legitimate government to impose an absolutist policy that requires such rights would lead to: 1) The US being at war all the time. 2) Restrict the ability of the US to create alliances with nations who could help us against those other nations that have actively attacked us.
An individual's right to own real property is the keystone to freedom -- people without that right are living in a communist state.
American ideals cannot be forced on other nations; but they are visible to the extent they're known and displayed.
I remember seeing pictures of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan hanging on the wall over the front desk of a small hotel in Caserta, Italy. Those men are fine examples of the American ideal admired in Europe.
Peace is more than just the absence of war.
True peace is justice.
True peace is freedom.
... Ronald Reagan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.