STWR - Share The World's Resources

Globalization is not just an issue “out there”. It’s something that involves and impacts everyone.

We all have a role to play in bringing about world change – starting at home. People who are properly grounded in their communities and local agendas are much more effective in addressing global issues. We need to learn to lobby and stand up for issues within our own communities

Nobody is unimportant. A collection of leaders agreeing in principle on the issues is not enough to create change. Men and women, boys and girls, young and old alike need to recognize and act on problems facing the world, beginning with the inequalities and injustices we experience or consciously or unconsciously perpetuate.

Ethical globalization is about achieving equality, empowerment and social and economic justice for everyone. International human rights, social and environmental agreements must take precedence over trade agreements and policies. Governments must be accountable. Transnational corporations must contribute to poverty eradication, uphold human dignity and protect the environment. But so must we.

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 members five of which are permanent and ten of which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The five permanent members are the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom. In 2006, the other ten were Tanzania, Argentina, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia.

Nature of the U.N. Security Council

Each council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. The five permanent members have “veto” power. In accordance with the U.N. Charter, all the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Although the set up of the Security Council has been considered to be good in many ways, questions have been raised over the years relative to the five permanent members.

These members have always tended to manipulate the United Nations, in one way or another, to their collective or individual political advantage. This seems to have rendered impotent the entire body of nations in a number of instances. For example, as a capitalistic nation, the United States is primarily concerned with the financial interests of big corporations. On the other hand, China, as a communist nation is primarily concerned with policies geared toward its territorial ambitions of absolute domination.

These five permanent members rarely make decisions that are first and foremost beneficial to all people across every continent without exception. This explains why, for example, the continent of Africa has been so much neglected and even exploited with many people suffering and with several dying in the streets like strayed animals. When it comes to their yearly budget, they do not hesitate to put billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction and the waging of wars and very little on people’s health care and education by comparison.

By the early eighties, the former Soviet Union had put so much money on weapons and military equipment that it had problems paying the meager salaries of teachers. And we know the rest of the story, its economy collapsed and the entire union disintegrated. Russia today stands on its own without the other former 14 Republics. Over the past three years alone, the United States has spent so much money on the unilateral war it waged on Iraq in defiance of the United Nations that today it has incurred the largest debt in history. What is ironic is the fact that the American people are suffering as a result.

Wasted Money on Weapons and Wars

Consequently, millions of Americans are not receiving the health care they deserve and the kind of good education their children need so badly. While President George W. Bush cuts billions of dollars from these two vital needs of the people, he keeps on increasing in tens of billions of dollars the manufacture of more and more weapons of mass destruction and all kinds of deadly military equipment. Ironically, this same president has raised a fuss about the possibility of seeing other nations, like North Korea and Iran, having just one or few nuclear weapons!

As long as the permanent five members of the Security Council feel obligated to observe the rules of the game, then there should be no problem at all with having them. But the danger lies here. In practice, collectively or individually, they can do eventually what they like and they have the arrogance of expecting no one to interfere or to stop them! And to turn insult into injury, the weapons and wars have emerged as a lucrative business enterprise. This explains, for example, why the United States, instead of advocating a program of international disarmament and arms control, it has embarked on the manufacture and sales of more and more weapons.

This explains why the indefinite waging of wars from time to time has become a necessity, regardless of the tens of thousands of innocent people that get killed and maimed and that are totally disfigured for life. For example, in spite of the fact that the United Nations was virtually against the American unilateral invasion of Iraq, the United States went ahead with its lethal plan. And we know the rest of the story. Tens of thousands of innocent people were massacred while the infrastructure of the Iraqi nation was destroyed. People had no more housing facilities where they could dwell or even food to satisfy their hunger. According to UNICEF, the number of children that died of hunger over the past three years, since the American invasion, rose to 20%, twice as many as those who starved under Saddam Hussein.

Here we are supposed to have a United Nations composed of people of the various countries on earth when, in essence, we have a confederation of governments that are constantly under the mercy of one or more of the five members of the Security Council. The structure of the United Nations needs revision. It could have two separate branches of government like in the United States with the Senate and the House of Representatives. Every country, regardless of its population may have one or two senators and then each country would have as many members as needed in proportion to the population.

Replacement of the Security Council

In view of this, we may have the Security Council replaced by a better and more effective government that may be more conscientious and caring for all people across every continent without exception. The United Nations has reached a point in history where its effectiveness is being increasingly questioned. This organization is very complex and it needs to be simplified. Many of those working for the United Nations tend to live in an ivory tower where they literally know hardly anything of what is going on in the world.

The only knowledge they have comes from the news media mostly of the press and television. And to make things worse, most of the news media reporters are merely a bunch of charlatans. They do not tend to be scholars in any way. So, here we have an important international organization that is staffed by persons who distance themselves from the world for all practical purposes. Besides, we have an organization that represents strictly the various interests of the respective governments instead of the people. If the United Nations were to function the way its well written documents state, we would have experienced much less conflicts and millions of innocent people that lost their lives would have been still alive and well today.

There is nothing wrong with the United Nations Charter. The tragedy lies in the fact that the various members of the United Nations tend to disregard various segments of the United Nations Charter especially as they relate to human rights. For example, people have a sacrosanct right to move freely and to live wherever they want. The United States, for example, violates this segment of the U. N. Charter when it prohibits Americans to visit Cuba, North Korea, Iran and other countries. People everywhere have a sacrosanct right for free health care and free education. Every government that does not provide its people with these free facilities is violating human rights. The Security Council hardly ever brings for discussion the safeguard of human rights.

Functions and Powers of the Security Council

1. To maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
2. To investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to friction.
3. To recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement in an appropriate way.
4. To formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments and to develop a program of international disarmament.
5. To determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken.
6. To call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression.
7. To take military action against an aggressor.
8. To recommend the admission of new members.
9. To exercise the trusteeship functions of the U. N. in “strategic areas.”
10. To recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the international Court of Justice.

The question that needs to be answered is this: In terms of its present function and policies, is the U. N. Security Council an asset or a liability to the United Nations itself? In theory, it seems to be an asset in the sense that just one of these five members can veto a decision taken that may eventually lead to more harm than good.

In practice, things seem to be different. A study of the behavior of the five members of the Security Council over the past 60 years demonstrates something different. At one time or another, each one of them proved to be fully arrogant in the sense of acting on its own independently when it came to the pursuit of its own selfish interests. Its present function needs to be reviewed and restructured as to create a new United Nations that is more democratic in nature.

The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language describes courage as “that quality of the mind which enables men to encounter danger and difficulties with firmness or without fear.” It is also referred to as “bravery.” On the other hand, the same dictionary describes arrogance as “the disposition to make exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, or estimation; the pride which exalts one’s own importance; and pride with contempt of others.”

Reliable Criteria for Correct Judgment

Besides, the arrogant is viewed as one who believes to be determined and who assumes to be powerful enough as to achieve what he wants by all means. In fact, nothing would stand in his way even if many were to suffer as a result and lose their lives. In view of this, we can easily analyze every single political leader anywhere in the world in virtue of what he says and does. In the Holy Scriptures we read the famous statement of the Master Teacher of all times saying: Judge a tree by the fruit it gives. This means that if the tree looks like an orange tree but it bears lemons, then we have to call it lemon tree.

The courageous political leader is one who reveals concern for the welfare of all people without exception. He would not do anything knowingly that would make innocent people suffer and die unnecessarily. Such a leader is characterized by several spiritually oriented qualities and is referred by people in general as being humble, modest, determined, trustworthy, reliable and truthful, in addition to other positive and constructive qualities.

People from very walk of life and profession speak well of him and they all feel sure that he has been a blessing to the nation and the rest of the world. A courageous political leader is referred to as a statesman who puts top priority on the vital needs of people everywhere related to health care, environmental protection, education and human rights. Such a beloved leader rejects the eye-for-an-eye and the tooth-for-a-tooth philosophy. With patience and perseverance, when things go wrong he would go in search of the source of existing problems and then he would provide us with effective remedies or solutions.

When Nelson Mandela became the first Black President of the apartheid nation of South Africa, the whole news media reporters were expecting from him some kind of revenge against the previous minority government that put him unjustly in jail for 27 years. As we recall, this minority government, for many decades, made the millions of Blacks in this southern African country suffer so much. Blacks were humiliated by being deprived of a good education, adequate health care, appropriate housing facilities, in addition to other vital needs.

Courageous Leaders in Perspective

In his first speech to the nation as President, Nelson Mandela soon convinced the whole world that he was an excellent and courageous political leader, a statesman in his own right. When asked how he was going to deal with the former members of the minority government for having oppressed the vast majority of Blacks for a long time, he replied saying: “Let bygones be bygones. All the people in this nation are South Africans and we need all to work together hand in hand to make South Africa a great, prosperous and progressive nation.”

Nelson Mandela quickly convinced the world that he was a man of courage because he had the ability to express in his speeches and actions love, compassion and care for all people without exception. Of course, the world has been blessed with many courageous political leaders whose ultimate goal was to do only what was positive and constructive in the best interest of all people without exception. In fact, all people are members of one earthly community.

Former President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias attributed the success of his nation to his putting top priority on the health care, education and housing facilities for all the people of his nation without any exception. He even succeeded to make Costa Rica having the lowest infant mortality of any other nation in both North and South America. He attributed the secret of his nation’s enormous recovery to the fact that he kept the nation virtually demilitarized, with hardly any money at all “wasted on weapons and on the military.”

Oscar Arias was a man of courage that admired immensely former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower who admonished the U.S. Congress during his farewell speech, saying: “Remember that all people of all nations want peace, only their government wants war.” And then he said to the members of the U.S. Congress: “Keep in mind that every dollar you spend on the weapons and the military is a theft from the hungry and the poor.” Likewise, Eisenhower was a courageous political leader because as a former U.S. military general he knew well that in a war everyone is a loser, no one a winner.

Pope John Paul II was not only a religious leader but he was also a political leader. As we know, the Vatican is a politically independent nation, which is viewed as the smallest in the world and where the pope serves as the sovereign of this territory. He was, indeed, a great political leader characterized by courage. In every word he uttered during his the 26 years of pontifical rule he proved to be a statesman, a courageous leader of all people everywhere.

Characteristic of Courage

One cannot be viewed as a courageous leader unless his words and actions are constantly geared toward the universal welfare of all people without exception. Hence, we may understand why people of the caliber of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Mahatma Gandhi of India, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, Bishop Tutu of South Africa, and so many heads of state of several countries, particularly the smaller ones, have been viewed as courageous simply because they were concerned with the universal welfare of all people without exception.

What are the characteristics of courageous leaders in any sphere of society, be it political, religious, you name it? They all want to pursue actions that are geared toward the universal welfare of all people without exception that are not harmful to anyone not even to one single person. Courageous leaders praise good actions and defend them even when observed in the humble and unknown. At the same time, such courageous leaders condemn evil actions even when stemming from people that occupy positions of high authority.

We are all familiar with the Master Teacher of Nazareth. He did not hesitate to condemn the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who were viewed as leaders in those days. He did not hesitate to condemn likewise and the evil intent of King Herod, whom he called “fox,” which in today’s language could be translated as “son of a bitch.” In view of such illustrations relative to courage and courageous leaders, we should now find it relatively easy to recognize arrogance and arrogant leaders that are doing so much harm to the world at large.

Since the heads of state seem to be in a position to wield plenty of power for the better or the worse, we need to concentrate in our analysis on the political leaders of our time. We need to use the brains that God gave us to make a value judgment free of any indoctrination, manipulation and deceit. We need simply to ask ourselves: Are the actions of this or that political leader being positive and constructive, that is, geared toward the universal welfare of all people without exception? Or, do such actions reveal to be negative and destructive that may lead to so much pain and suffering of innocent people in particular?

We are all familiar with such names as Adolph Hitler, Mao Tze Tung, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, and Sese Seko Mobutu, in addition to numerous others. What did these heads of state have in common? They were all arrogant whose actions were constantly characterized by arrogance that made tens of thousands and even millions of people suffer crucial pain, agony and death. Besides, they all had the guts to view their phenomenal arrogance and vicious behavior in terms of “genuine courage” on their part!

Comprehension of Arrogance

According to ascetical writers, courage is viewed to be one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is a divine element that the almighty and loving heavenly Father bestows on His good and faithful children. On the other hand, arrogance is considered to be a satanic device, which the devil uses as a successful instrument to inflict endless pain on millions of people as to promote misery and death. Also, we learn from ascetical writers that the “devil is the father of lies or of half-truths.” Hence, we may easily understand why those political leaders who have proved to be fully arrogant talk constantly of their “courage” to take bold (meaning “arrogant”) steps against the so called enemy.

For arrogant political leaders, the enemy is anyone who performs actions that are not conducive to their evil and vicious intent. What is really sad here lies in the fact that, in a number of instances, such arrogant political leaders manage to deceive many of their listeners from every walk of life and profession. It is the sacrosanct duty of every citizen of every nation to learn in distinguishing between courage and arrogance, between courageous and arrogant political leaders. Educational, civic, humanitarian and religious organizations, in addition to many others, ought to encourage the moral support of courageous political leaders while, at the same time, they should discourage endorsement of arrogant political leaders in anything they try to do.

Endorsement or rejection of political leaders ought never to be based on party affiliation, religious creeds, background education, cultural link and the equivalent. Endorsement or rejection of such political leaders ought to be based merely on “what” they are doing in relation to the welfare of all people everywhere. Let us keep in mind that actions speak louder than words. Hence, we are here faced with the importance of analyzing their actions with such questions: Is what this political leader doing conducive to the welfare of all people without exception? …. Or is it conducive to the welfare of some to the exclusion of others? Are the means being used by such a political leader negative and destructive or are they positive and constructive?

What is the eventual social philosophy of this political leader? Is it based on the belief of the eye for an eye and the tooth for a tooth philosophy? Or is it based on traditional assumption that one may catch more flies with honey? Is it based on the conviction that all problems we encounter at the global level could be best solved through the military and the waging of wars, through the manufacture of more devastating weapons? Or is it based on the conviction that violence breeds more violence and that more violence breeds more violence?

Supporting the Right Political Leader

If we were to support a political leader merely because he professes belief in God or in some sacred book, we may likely regret it. We need to explore further elements. In his behavior, does he act as though people of all nations were not necessarily children of the same God? If that were to be the case, then we may conclude that he is obviously an arrogant and dangerous person. One of the leading concerns today seems to be the Iraqi war. In this regard, the American people should simply ask the following questions about the caliber of their top political leader, the first U.S. president of the 21st century.

In accordance with the Geneva Convention, was the U.S. invasion of Iraq justifiable? Were the reasons given for such an invasion that cost the destruction of the infrastructure of the Iraqi community, the death of tens of thousands of innocent people and the massacre and maiming of many young Americans appropriate? How does this U.S. political leader view the continued manufacture of devastating weapons and the military? Are they viewed as a sine qua non condition to get what he wants by hook or by crook? Does he realize that the only road to peace would be through the development of an international program of disarmament and arms control?

These questions may apply to all political leaders across every continent. Any political leader that proves to be arrogant should be viewed as dangerous and we should pray God for his replacement. Any political leader that proves to be courageous should be viewed as beneficial. As we have seen earlier, the Master Teacher would never support an arrogant political leader. In fact, this explains why the Master Teacher referred to the arrogant political leader of his time, King Herod, by one strong word: fox, which translated in today’s language, would be “son of a bitch.” It is very important for all people on earth to have courageous top political leaders who spend all of their resources on the health care, environmental protection, human rights and education of their people, while promoting an international program of disarmament and arms control. Many problems would be solved and the world would be much safer.

The first phase of the World Social Forum (WSF), which ended Monday in the Malian capital of Bamako, created a focus on "Afrocentric" issues that was missing in previous forums, said coordinator Mamadou Goita.

In 1989, the United Nations put forth the Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a treaty that protects the civil and economic rights of children around the world.

To date, 192 nations have ratified the treaty. Only two have not. A decade later, just seven countries voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent body created to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity.

And in October of this year, members of the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted overwhelmingly to pass a new treaty aimed at protecting cultural diversity worldwide. Only two states voted against it.

The United States is the only nation to oppose all three. And the list of U.N. treaties and conventions that Washington has not signed or has actively opposed goes on and on.

While the vast majority of the world's governments support these treaties, as well as other U.N. diplomatic efforts and conventions, the U.S. government can almost be expected to stand in opposition each time such treaty proceedings arise.

Indeed, the United States, especially in recent years, is increasingly being seen in the world as a lone state, thumbing its diplomatic nose at international pacts on everything from banning the use and production of landmines to curbing global warming.

Like Lilliputians trying to pin down Gulliver, a group of small nations launched an effort this week to pressure the U.N. Security Council to change its ways.