From
FreeSpeech, here's my first pass on HReg.
My latest comments:
---
Obviously I'm not clear enough:
China is not gonna be attacked. The point is not a police force, required to protect human rights -- it's an international posse/ vigilante group, who agree among themselves to use force to protect human rights, sometimes.
Inside of NATO (already existing), NOT the Security Council. Consider France and this proposed HReg on Irag: does France agree that Iraq is violating human rights, yes or no? If yes, that agreement means it is morally justified for a coalition of the willing to go in there and enforce the rights.
Does France agree to join the enforcement coalition? No. OK, they don't join, they don't go in, they can even criticize the action -- but not so much if they agree that human rights are violated.
Nobody in the NATO HReg, not even the US, has veto powers over other forces -- but are not bound to support others with forces.
Unlike China, France is a (fairly) free, functioning democracy, with nukes, and already inside NATO; they really matter in this tiny step towards "International Law".
A main question is whether the world is ready to use war against despots to protect civilians -- clearly, sort of yes. Is it ready to formalize the process of using war among democracies, in competition to the dictators of the UN? I argue here it should.
If the NATO HReg has a long list of dictators/ unfree countries, including untouchable China, well, that's reality. But if they choose to go into Liberia, but not (yet) Zimbabwe, that's because there was a willing coalition. Then it's fair to ask the critics (Ian?) -- are you really suggesting that force be used in that other case? (China?)
What I want is more US international cooperation, but mostly with free democracies.
---
You're right, of course, to warn of possible abuses. But I, personally, don't see such a problem in limiting the actions to be against those countries that have signed the UN HR Dec'l. If a country has signed, its application is open for verification. Of course North Korea and Iran are big issues, but Cuba & Libya also come to mind.
Vigilantes do not have a duty to enforce the law, a police force would. (Vigilantes DO have a duty to minimize innocent casualties if they take action.) There is no world police force, but the people living w/o a free press would be better off if there WAS some kind of police force. [Free press seems among the simplest, clearest, most objective tests a foreign country can give -- can they start a newspaper and write negative stories about the current gov't, yes or no. Similarly, it's hard for any people to be responsible w/o info.]
I believe there is now a window of opportunity to export democratic imperialism, so as to increase the number of democracies in the world, one-by-one, as well as to reduce the small country HR abuses. Yes, imposing functioning democracy by force. As in Iraq -- Liberation.
In Eastern Europe, many good folk wonder why the US didn't even try to save them from the USSR. But most understand it wasn't really feasible. Today, before China fully grows into HyperPower status, it IS feasible to enforce HR obligations on the worst abusers of humans.
It's costly, it's dangerous, there will be problems (and American volunteer soldiers dieing). But NOT leading in this way seems MORE costly, more dangerous, and will lead to worse problems.
Note that having US Marines off the coast of Liberia seems to have been beneficial. The Believability of the threat of force, especially overwhelming force, is important. This is the power Police have in any functioning society--overwhelming force.
When the NATO HR Enforcement Group talks -- dictators will listen. And more will do more to support human rights than if it was just more UN empty words ... or the stupid ICC.
The US may not need this, but it would be one of the biggest helps to world, and would more likely than not be a good and noble thing -- more likely to be good when folk of good reason raise reasonable objections to any force abuses.
