One argument against the Board of Peace (which in a vacuum seems like not a horrible idea) is the presence of what some might call "authoritarian regimes". So, let's look at what countries have gotten on board so far.
I'd start by asking which of those countries are really "authoritarian". Then I'd ask for objective proof that an "authoritarian" government is automatically antithetical to the concept of peace between warring factions. If "authoritarian" governments are not objectively antithetical to peace, then why should their presence be a problem?
The next level seems to be whether of not this objection to "authoritarian" countries being involved in international bodies is a universal principle? I'll go at it by asking a question?
Should authoritarian governments be involved in international bodies, committees, organizations, or groups?
If the answer is no, then why is the information below not getting the same response?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/uproar-after-iran-named-vice-chair-un-body-promoting-democracy-womens-rights
Does elevating Iran to a leadership role on " a commission devoted to democracy, women’s rights and non-violence" as well as LGB rights, align with objecting to "authoritarian" governments on the BoP?
What of Gaza and Hamas. With the aid of the French they have written a constitution, which seems to actually enshrine the kind of oppressive and "authoritarian" government which some object to participating in the BoP.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-886547
I'll say this. Of the list above, it's fairly easy to guess which governments are more "authoritarian" than others, and that correlates strongly with ex communist and Muslim countries leaning toward "authoritarian". Yet, it seems critical for the involvement of Muslim/Arab countries in working on peace in Gaza. What principle would suggest eliminating the countries that will be most likely to get Hamas to the peace table because they are "authoritarian", and how does any of this matter of Gaza continues as an "authoritarian" state?
4 comments:
"Authoritarian" in the context of the BoP is just TDS dressed up as legitimate, honest concern. There's no way those who oppose this would have done so had either Biden or Obama promoted it.
“Authoritarian” is just the most recent excuse to bitch. The reality is that there are real “authoritarian” countries out there and the ASPL has plenty of excuses to ignore their actions.
The problem is that Trump reclaiming and exercising the legitimate authority he has looks “authoritarian” compared to the last few who abdicated the authority the office has.
The only thing that could indicate that Trump is “authoritarian” is if he refuses to leave office at the end of his term.
There is also this unproven assumption, that being “authoritarian“ is automatically and always a bad thing. I think an argument could be made that both FDR and Churchill were more “authoritarian“ during World War II than they would have been during peace time. Like everything, it’s a continuum, and people like Dan just assume that it has to be at one extreme or the other.
Well, Dan's a known liar, so...
There is that. It's strange that someone who claims to be so committed to human rights can be so quiet on actual "authoritarian" governments being placed in positions of authority in international bodies.
Post a Comment