|
| help-for-you News | . PRT07-202Article.html |  202 |
||
| Note the UTC time and source of information. Pictures may be added | ||||
| . |
News for Tue. 07 May to Wed. 08
May 2002 Editorial t The UN and doing it right, the right rights, the children's summit, action not talk, democracy, hate, and terrorism all tied together. Click here for first VOA editorial Click here for second VOA editorial Click here for third VOA editorial Is it possible for the UN to do anything right? Let's define "right" from a pragmatic viewpoint. "Right" can refer to something physical as in to make right like a straight line between 2 points in contrast to an irregular or uncertain line or path. It could mean to balance that which is off balance as in an uneven load within a ship or on the back of a camel.. It could also mean having the correct answer as opposed to the wrong answer but this would be relevant to what has already been established as the right or wrong answer, otherwise no one has a solid claim that one answer is better than another. Right could also means to set into place both a practical and effective solution or state as in the right thing to do as contrasted to the wrong thing to do. To be right is to do the thing that works out best for those most affected. But this is a form of utilitarianism and not everyone adheres to that approach. We could go on and on and we would discover the problem in obtaining a universal agreement regarding the word "right" as in I am right and you are "wrong" just as there is no universal agreement regarding the word "truth". So the word "right" can be defined, but to apply the word involves a perceptive position. But "right" can also be a kind of status or privilege as in human "rights". And this dispute over "words" is ultimately a dispute over ideas and ideologies. It is the role of the UN to bridge ideologies that have arisen out of diverse cultures and languages and convince those at violent odds with one another and whose sense of "right" dramatically differs, to reach some kind of amicable coexistence with each other. The UN is therefore a kind of democratic forum where nations give voice to their position in the world and supposedly attempt to work together on global and international issues. It may also be the role of the UN to enforce as well as arbitrate what is "right". And this is where all the controversy and inability towards effective action comes from. All the UN members cannot agree on what is the "right" status let alone the "right" position and the "right" or appropriate action to take if any. In an attempt to become more effective the UN has tried to implement legal institutions and has involved itself in the creation of groups associated with war crimes, inhumanity, public health, aid, the rights of individuals and so on. But to implement such measures as common world wide processes of this sort requires the cooperation and influence of all the nations affected. It inevitably violates the sovereignty of nations accused of trespassing these "rules" or "standards" set by the UN or associated agencies through debate, discussion, and so called democratic voting and agreement. But there are very serious weaknesses in the way the UN implements so called democratic resolution of international issues. To start with. Unless we can all respect each other's "right" to exist there is no hope for the present world order under the UN. We do not have to accept the views of others but we have to allow each other the "right" to exist no matter how divergent the views - no matter how "wrong" the other's "right" position seems. However, the problem of such agreement is not so "straight forward". Words come easy, actions are much harder. Behind all the words and oratory are the secret agendas of nations and blocks of nations. They hide their agendas through diplomatic talk and various forms of influence as well as a complicated lobby with those deemed friendly to their view. They also seek through this kind of interaction a so called democratic victory regarding their "right" position. In a way it is a power struggle using the UN organization to accomplish the secret agendas. Participating nations do not expose their agendas because to do so would be to expose their motivations. They most often talk around their agendas so the real issues are never directly addressed. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in a world where there are cultures and nationalities that adopt ideologies, codes of conduct, and ethics that imbed not only a contempt for the existence of anything alien or different but also notions of hatred and revenge which accompany that contempt. The basis of that contempt forms the secret agenda of certain nations. Their focus on world events, their lobby at the UN, the manner of exerting their influence on other world bodies and states, and many other diplomatic, business, financial and other efforts are aimed only at satisfying their secret agendas. They seek a UN consensus as a means of ultimately enforcing their secret agendas. They are using the UN not really trying to build it into an effective world organization that can address global issues. These statements are not a condemnation of the UN but rather a condemnation of some of the participating member nations. So here then is the dilemma. With some ideologies there is no room for coexistence. These ideologies do not give the same right of existence to others as they extend to themselves. Therefore, for those that hold to these kind of ideologies there is no acceptable compromise. There is only one "right" and they are it. They participate in the UN and help to mould the UN but in ways that only serve their own narrow interests. This type of action contaminates the integrity of decisions and the integrity of the formation of various world processes such a courts, providing aid, humanity issues, and so on. And against all of this UN participation each participating nation has to balance it's own progress in these issues such as finances, military deployment, government structures, humanity issues, natural disasters, and much more, as a growing national entity, against the so called global impact. If this problem of reconciliation between ideologies is wide spread then the concept of a UN is but another farce of the human mind. But there does appear to be more cultures, religions, and nations of people that are more than willing to let the rest of the world be what it is, coexist with them, even if such coexistence seems to be at times a very distasteful experience. It should be obvious to most anyone with even a sparse amount of human intelligence to recognize that "hate" is enemy number one in terms of such coexistence. There can be 100 people in a room and if there is only 1 who "hates", who despises, who works through means of doubt, controversy, embarrassment, and any other form of mentality to destroy the group consensus it will not take long for the good will or mutual coexistence of those in the room to deteriorate. The reason is very simple. Man has not outgrown to any great degree his predatory selfish instincts. The room is the world. The people in the room are the nations in the world. The skillful manipulator can leverage these instincts and down goes the consensus, the room becomes a horde of arguing, suspicious and hostile people. It is just too easy a thing to do. And that is what happens between nations. It happens between cultures. It happens between religions. It happens between individual people, groups of people, and even in competitive situations such as sports. And the UN wants to give children - "little children" - a voice in all of this? Therefore, trying to establish an international system of "right" and "wrong" is nothing short of a near to impossible challenge. To accomplish this would be a miracle. Being such a challenge it is more likely to degenerate into something else. This often becomes evident as various countries lobby and form blocks committed to a specific "right" and attempt to use a democratically designed forum as a forum on manipulation of one "right" over the "wrong" of those that find themselves in a minority. Democracy has it's good points but it's weakness is evident in terms of the manipulation that goes on as a means of forcing through a majority "right" of the many in disregard to the "right" of the few. Democracy is intended to give everyone a voice, not to force a singular voice on everyone. But this is what happens when there is not a system of human rights used as a basis for democratic expression of will. One could also say, this is what happens when the system of human rights fails to be realistic or comprehensive. Here we get the "wrong" "rights" and democratic expression is doomed to utter failure. We see this in the frequent so called "democratic" elections carried on in many countries to establish government leaders where cheating, intimidation, and other methods that disregard commonly accepted human "rights", were deployed under the mask or appearance of democracy. One excellent example is Zimbabwe. Here democracy was being used and manipulated to accomplish secret agendas. It was so incompetently manipulated that the entire world has no doubt that democracy was abused. Perhaps the United nations should wake up. If the very principles of the United nations are being violated by participating members then it is obvious there is no agreement on the foundational principles. How then can the UN represent global interests? For example, how can the UN hope to correct the "wrongs", world wide, done to children by engaging them in a forum. The UN misses the point. Child slavery does not need a forum. No forum is required to abolish child slavery. Talk is cheap. Action is required. Get out and abolish child slavery then have a forum. We don't need to hear from children on such obvious issues. Nor do we need to talk. We need to do something, now, right now! The time for talk is over. Using children for sexual purposes, either prostituting them or raping them or molesting them, or other perversities with children, these things are "wrong". I say they are "wrong". Who dares say they are "right"? We don't need to talk about it. We don't need to bring children together into a forum to talk about it. We need to get rid of it, now, right away! Talk is cheap, action is required by adults not children. Training and arming children as soldiers is "wrong". We don't need to talk about it, we need to do something, now, right away! Talk is cheap, action is required. Who dares to do such things? Who dares to deem such things as "right"? If talk or words corresponded directly to actions and behavior then talk would be good. But in the world today such a correlation does not exist. Words and talk are more often the means of manipulation, deceit, and evasion. We need action on behalf of the children of the world and we don't need children standing up in a forum telling us we need to do something. It is good children have a "voice". But we have to get out there and get the job done. Action not words! Children do not vote in the affairs of running a nation. It would be general chaos if little children could vote in national elections. It is not "right" that they do so. They do not vote because they are simply not capable of rendering their influence in a studied and knowledgeable manner. This is common sense or should be. If a dog could vote we would all be eating dog food. Children are by no means dogs and the analogy is a poor one, but neither are they as knowledgeable as they should be to participate in democratic expression of their will towards the common will. However, it is "right" that they learn. And there is a big difference between "little children" and teenagers who are close to being an adult. We should not confuse this distinction. Our primary concern should be with "little children" and then our concerns with the "bigger" - closer to an adult - children would be more easily looked after. And indeed, the atrocities mentioned above are occurring to "little children" that no way resemble an adult as they depend upon the adult population. But children have much bigger problems other than lacking sufficient knowledge and experience to be found worthy of engaging in the democratic process or an international forum. Children operate under the auspices of the adult population. Who is kidding who. That's how it is and to be otherwise would be utter stupidity. Some are being cared for in a "right" way and some are being cared for in a "wrong" way. The "wrong" way is based on "hate". It is "hate" that can destroy and divide humanity. Most everyone understands this. Those that do not understand do not deserve to be members of a United Nations because their ideologies are contrary to coexistence. This is the one inalienable right. The right to coexist. It is the basic premise of any form of harmony between individuals or nations even children and adults. Any ideology which teaches children to "hate" and then to express that "hate" in the form of terrorism is the enemy of the very concept of a United Nations. Such nations, cultures, groups, and individuals should not be members of the United Nations, they should be barred from democratic involvement and pressure should be applied to dissuade them from such notions. Hate leads to terrorism and terrorism is not difficult to understand. Put yourself in the shoes of the person being "terrorized". If you then feel "terrorized" with your life in jeopardy then you have been subjected to some form of terror. How hard is this to understand? The UN cannot resolve a clear definition of terrorism because they are not pragmatic or action oriented they are talk oriented. In these day talk especially in the UN had degraded into the mechanism of persuasion, manipulation, and often deceit. So putting talk and definition aside consider this. When it comes to children being taught to "hate" those who call themselves "Jews", and when these children want to follow the role models of their society towards becoming a martyr and a living bomb, then we have the most hideous of all "wrongs". Children have a "right" to be properly cared for and respected and to be taught how to be contributing members of society. Turning children into a bomb, a martyr, or a hate monger is "wrong". Who dares to say it is "right"? Who dares to condone this? Who dares to turn a blind eye to the matter? Before we teach children democracy perhaps we should clean up the mess we have made of children world wide. That does not start with more talk. It starts with action. We simply go out and stop the "wrongs" if we are pragmatic and action oriented. Otherwise we endlessly engage in "talk" which has no corresponding "walk". When children are chanting that they will die for Mr. Arafat then there is a terrible "wrong" in progress that needs to be made "right". But what is the UN doing? The UN is orchestrating a convention of children and empowering them or at least giving them the sense that they are empowered so that they have a voice. This is okay for teenagers but little children need to be cared for and prepared to participate in society. Yes little children also need a voice - they must be respected but as children not adults. Are the Palestinian children that want to die for Mr. Arafat being cared for or trained to participate in society? I think not. Will they be allowed in this forum to express their hatred for the "Jew" and their ideology to become martyrs and die for Mr. Arafat the renowned "terrorist" and their role model? Why is the UN playing games with certain children when little girls and boys in Palestine are asking mummy and daddy if they can wear a bomb and kill a few dozen "Jews". What is most important on the UN agenda, talk, talk, talk, or walk, walk, walk - action please. Certainly it is important to give children an education regarding democracy and instill in children a sense of value and influence. But first children have to be brought up to both appreciate and understand the attitudes and concepts that make democratic involvement successful. First things first. Get rid of hate and terror, ensure that children are given a "right" up bringing but don't put the cart before the horse. Democracy can only function successfully on education. The western world has known that little secret for a hundred years. But the UN appears not to know or understand that little secret. It is the little secret that guards the little mind of the little children. Those involved in democratic behavior need to be up to date with all the issues, interactive in discussions, tolerant of others, and knowledgeable. Otherwise, they will be manipulated based on their ignorance, intolerance, and general lack of knowledge and influence. Children practicing democracy and participating in any kind of forum should understand their challenge to become worthy participants in the common will. But the UN should be less preoccupied with engaging children in this manner and take action to help the suffering little children of the world. Agreements and resolutions affecting Israel and the Palestinians. Click here for the previous editorial Map of modern Israel |
|||
 Click for map |
World events are historic steps in the purpose and plan of God. The outcome of history is up to man - restricted only by sovereign limits imposed by God. The future events are consequences resulting from mankind exercising the gift of intelligence and free will in response to situations developing from past events. This human response is either synchronized to His Will or in rebellion to His Will. Behavior is either the manifestation of love or it's opposite - hate. As Christians we should be involved through loving (caring attitude and behavior for others) actions empowered by prayer, understanding, and submission to His Will. | |||