The task of creating a new international coalition to prevent and punish
genocide is complex. In order to tailor the size and shape of the coalition, we must first examine the proposed structure
of the world.
Notice first of all that I have left peacekeeping and peacemaking
off the list. The process of negotiating a peace treaty is complex and involves local countries, friend countries, and
often former colonies/colonizers. I haven't delineated those duties clearly on this chart purposefully. The UN
has a role to play there, but often it's organized by other countries. Similarly I haven't given natural disasters like
the tsunami its own category; the US, Australia, New Zealand and national charities did the most substantive work in that
area. The UN was involved on the periphery of that effort, mostly near the cameras. In any case, natural disasters
like the Iranian earthquake or the Asian Tsunami fall under the general 'poverty' section.
I've put the new organization, called "new org." to avoid naming it yet, in green.
It's under democratization and genocide. Let me explain. First of all, the genocide competence is self-explanatory;
the organizations purpose for existing is to punish and prevent genocide.
It's listed under democratization for an important reason; after removing the criminal
governments that commit genocide, something has to follow. Therefore the new organization has to be committed to cleaning
up its messes. Since I don't trust a non-democratic organization like the UN to teach democracy, nor do I trust the
UN to enter potentially volatile regions, the new organization has to acquire this competency.
It's not listed under trade, though it will have a minor role in it. Part of the
process of the new organization's member-states working together would require some basic deal on trade. These countries
are expected to share military technology and share (at least some) intelligence information. It threatens the entire
group if they engage in trade and tariff wars. So there has to be some basic pre-agreement on how to handle trade so
that it doesn't become a dividing issue. We can't afford to be squabbling over money if a crisis comes along that requires
sharing sensitive technology and intel. However the new organization would not be heavily involved in enforcement or
omplementation except in severe cases. So the WTO and other organizations are the main international organizations dealing
with trade.
Organized crime like trafficking in drugs, people or weapons falls under Interpol and bilateral
or other agreements between countries. This arrangement works well enough, and the various reforms needed in that area
are for another time. I included these other areas to specify that the new organization will NOT be interested in directly
fighting terrorism, except when it comes to crimes against humanity. It will only be involved in anti-poverty and humanitarian
efforts in the immediate stages following an engagement of another country. In those cases, it should be able to provide
food and medicine to the people until the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, among other groups, are willing to come in
and assist.
It will primarily be involved in stopping crimes against humanity. Its duties to
democratization necessarily follow from that, and its only involvements in trade or poverty are the minimum commensurate with
completing its primary task effectively and efficiently.
Now that we know where it fits in the structure of NGOs, IGOs and states, we can tailor
the organization to complete its tasks.
