Representative Li raises excellent points about the ideologically liberal origin of the current international human rights regime and about how the good-faith efforts of some nations to end human suffering may contradict several human rights as currently practiced internationally. I am however weary of adopting a strongly anti-liberal language. While my own party is deeply critical of both left- and right-wing liberalism, I understand that many governments ideologically affiliated to some form of liberalism may in fact be willing to join this Organization due to its noble goals. The manner in which various governments undertake the task of ending suffering and promoting peace may differ significantly, but a core commitment to these goals, irrespective of the practical or ideological means through which they are pursued, ought to be a membership criterion. I personally would prefer more lax membership criteria, and I would much rather trust an unarmed dictator than a nuclear-armed democracy as I see the latter as a far greater threat to human life, even though my own nation technically qualifies as such. I do understand however that, at the end of the day, neither is truly dedicated to the end of human suffering and the cause of peace.
In order to address both the concerns of my colleague and of the Kalistani government, I propose the addition of the following article to the Treaty:
Recognizing that threats to peace and human flourishing may arise not only at the international level but also domestically, prospective members must demonstrate, to the extent of their capabilities, their commitment to ending human suffering on their territory, by taking reasonable and meaningful steps to abolish genocide, extrajudicial killing, slavery and all forms of bondage, torture, unjust discrimination, and arbitrary deprivation of property within their borders.
I believe that by setting the end of human suffering as a consequentialist goal of state policies this article would be sufficiently broad to allow governments to determine their own path towards that goal while ensuring that those governments that have no such interest will have no place in our Movement. Whether the definition of slavery includes "wage slavery", as it does under most forms of Socialism and several strands of Republican thought, or exclusively refers to chattel slavery or human trafficking, will be up to the governments themselves to determine. Whether affirmative action is an "unjust" form of discrimination or not will not be determined by the Movement but will be left at the latitude of prospective members. And whether an economic system rooted in private property or in communal ownership, or indeed based on cooperative principles as
practiced in Selucia, avoids the
arbitrary deprivation of property is something to be decided by the member states themselves. This article also recognizes that different states have different means at their disposal, hence the provision that the policies adopted need to be both reasonable and meaningful, to the extent of the capabilities and resources available to prospective members.
I hope my colleague and the nations represented at this conference agree to the wording of the proposed amendment, and if not I am eagerly awaiting their proposed alternatives.