Recommendation 3. The United Nations needs to decide when and how it can intervene in the internal affairs of a "nation." The United Nations' inability to act over past years has sanctioned the deaths of millions. Consider Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, and now in 2016: Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and eastern Ukraine, etc. The United Nations needs to come to grips with the fact that United Nations actions "which were possible in 1946 at the creation of the UN" are woefully inadequate and much too late for events of the modern electronic and high speed world. The Cold War has ended; greater United Nations activity without vetoes should be possible with minds more wise. What shall be done about civil wars and "ethnic cleansings"? How many need to be killed, imprisoned, or tortured, before the United Nations shall act: 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000? What was the 2006 year-end death toll in the Sudan? Syria's is now over 400,000 and the DRC 6 million! What shall be the limit before a nation is dismissed from the United Nations until its leadership is replaced, perhaps by the United Nations, and the oppressed people are empowered? Clearly, under the world conditions being proposed by this workable moral strategy which would lead to modern-day democratic nations, such repression and civil wars would be highly unlikely.
Lastly, the United Nations needs to specify the penalty for any nation that employs a nuclear weapon in offense or defense. It is absolutely clear that such use would be a crime against humanity. There will be people to be found guilty. From ignorance, nuclear nations are susceptible to committing nuclear atrocities. I can envision the world's non-nuclear nations not letting anyone get away with it next time.
Summary
Greater security for all nations can be obtained by worldwide reduction of the weapons of all nations rather than increasing and improving arsenals everywhere, as we are doing, as has been done for past centuries. You see the results. The next world nuclear war will likely kill more people than all the wars preceding it.
This proposal is probably the only approach, for decades or centuries to come, by which people of the "Less developed" world, in peace, can become their own masters, can create the sensible path to their own destinies as so many other nations have. Who will hold them back?
How Do Enemies Become Friends? I have come to the firm belief that in contrast to past policies, if a nation wishes to be at peace, the most effective use of any nation's "defense" budget, consists of not resorting to murderous war, but by some safe and equitable means, engaging in the proactive conversion of existent or potential enemies into friends, all working for a peaceful world with justice and fairness for all. Historical evidence proves it can be done. Too difficult? But what do we have now?
Justification: A Moral World View-- Does the developed world and its people have any responsibility for the conditions of poverty, starvation, slavery, disease, displaced refugees, rights deprivation, war and killing, and illiteracy, etc., as they now exist in the former colonial and the "Less Developed" world, in Africa , in Asia and the Middle East , in Latin America ? The answer depends in part on whether you and your nation have taken selfish advantage of people of the "Less Developed" world. Over past centuries has the developed world exploited the people of the "Undeveloped World"? If so, does the developed world have any unfulfilled moral obligations to the former colonial world?
World Peace is Possible Now. Indeed, in 2001, the World Bank and the United Nations stated the reasonableness of our workable moral strategy: "Afghanistan needs about $9 billion during the next five years to rebuild after 20 years of war, the United Nations and World Bank have calculated." That is only $1.8 billion per year for five years, only 0.45% of a U.S. Annual $400++ billion military budget. And via our workable moral strategy half of this cost would have been contributed by all other developed nations. Why was the $9 billion not used first for the people of Afghanistan instead of destruction? By April, 2004, donors had already pledged $8.2 billion. Some Afghan regional lords were asking for about $25 billion.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
