LEGAL
Despite a limited number of instances of somewhat successful functioning, the problem with international tribunals has in the past appeared to be, and today continues to be, an inconsistency of recognition, and consequently of support. It is apparent that this is a natural effect of the fundamental property of international institutions to date: their having been created, composed, and subscribed to--not by a worldwide authority--but by a group of individual nation-states, in variously constituted combinations. Furthermore, such tribunals lack the power or apparatus to enforce their determinations; and must, instead, seek the cooperation of the affected parties.
Consider, if you would, as evidence of the first of these propositions, the lengthy saga concerning the United States' relations with said Court. Following World War I, and the beginning of the League of Nations, that organization's Covenant called for, among other things, the formation of an international court. Thus, in June of 1920, the Permanent Court of International Justice began operating at The Hague. It wasn't until January, 1926, that the U.S. Senate held a vote concerning the nation's joining this Court. Numerous objections were raised, reflecting reservations concerning America's membership, and consequent submission to its jurisdiction. Time moved on; and by 1927, the U.S. had still not joined. In December of that year, 395 world leaders wrote President Calvin Coolidge urging him to encourage our nation to become a member. Two years later, in December, 1929, a U.S. envoy in Geneva signed a document called the "Root Formula." The details of this are of little importance today; but its net effect was the fact that the U.S. had finally come around around to accepting membership in the World Court.
On the other hand, despite the encouragement implicit in this, numerous examples continue to appear in the Court's history--examples whose details are again no longer of importance--but which demonstrate the Court's lack of enforcement capability.
Another accomplishment of 1929 was the signing on behalf of forty eight nations of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. This was a worthy and noble step to be taken; and yet it is but one of many ironies concerning nation-states and the hostilities that arise among them. I cannot help but comment that it is shameful and sad to realize that we still live in a world wherein people from "place A" are one day declared, and thereby required to be, "enemies" of the people who reside within "place B;" and that they are therefore subject to being attacked, injured, or killed by people from "place B"--unless they are "captured" or otherwise surrender to the forces of "place B," thereby becoming their "prisoners," until the hostilities between "place A" and "place B" have been settled (for the time being). It is somewhat commendable that such an agreement was reached--in principle, although (note, for example, the notorious exceptions represented by Abu Ghraib) apparently not always in practice--concerning some elements of humane treatment which the "prisoners" from "place A" would be afforded by their captors from "place B."
In 1945, the United Nations-sponsored International Court of Justice replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice. It exists to this day; and it commands about the same degree of support and power as its predecessor.
The U.N. General Assembly commenced efforts to create a permanent international criminal court during the late 1980s. This was finally accomplished when, in 1998, representatives from 160 countries met in Rome, and agreed to the establishment of such a tribunal. It too would be located at The Hague. Its jurisdiction would be over individuals--not governments or nations--in regard to alleged crimes against humanity and gewnocide. It became an official tribunal in 2002, after ratification of the proposal for creating it was forthcoming from the required sixty nations; and it began operation in 2003. Noteworthy is the fact that the United States was not among the sixty. The reasoning behind said non-ratification, as subsequently expressed by President Bush, lay in the fact that the United States did not want its military and political decision-makers to be subject to appraisal by, and possibly prosecution on behalf of, other nations and their leaders. This is logical and sensible; and comprises another means of expressing the concept written a few paragraphs earlier, regarding the inherent weakness of international tribunals as they have been constituted to date: i.e., that they have been instituted by, composed of, and subscribed to, by a group of various insividual nation-states--rather than a single and solitary world authority.
* * * * *
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
PPAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
LEGAL
One of the ideals of World Unity is a standard, reasonable, efficient, and workable set of laws to guide and direct our world. Laws should be just; but they should also be kindly--that is to say, human nature and human shortcomings should always be considered when codes are drafted. Moreover, laws should be helpful, not restrictive or punitive (except where necessary as a deterrent to present or future crime or other such problems). However, the most important goal to be sought under the legal system that shoulld guide our world is uniformity--of principle and application. That is to say, said legal system should apply to all, and assist everyone to enjoy a peaceful and fruitful life.
Uniformity as an ideal has long been in the minds of legislators. For example, in the Chinese Empire, as long ago as the third century B.C., statutes were passed standardizing currencies, weights, measures, and even the distance between cart wheels. The benefit of such standardization can be readily appreciatedeven for a country constituting but a fraction of the world; and even for a period in history when much of society operated on a somewhat less advanced level than today. How much additional benefit could be had by the entire contemporary world, comprising so many entities and activities that would profit from uniformity of standards and procedures. Of course this uniformity would need to be accomplished over an appropriate period of time, so as, among other things, to avoid waste of existing facilities and arrangements.
Another ideal of, and benefit arising from, World Unity is a uniform worldwide system of tribunals to mediate, arbitrate, and adjudicate the world's affairs, and particularly such conflicts and disputes as should arise in regard to them, in a uniformly just, logical, and sensible fashion.
In fact, a worldwide court has existed for over a hundred years; but its functions and efficacy have long been in need of a good deal of expansion and improvement . Founded in 1899, the World Court (then called the Permanent Court of Arbitration) was established at The Hague, Netherlands. Its jurisdiction was basically limited to disputes between nations; and it was resorted to rather infrequently. As an example, in 1902, President Castro of Venezuela sought the Court's assistance, and consequently agreed to abide by the tribunal's determination concerning a monetary dispute it then had with Britain and Germany, a dispute which had led to the blockade of Venezuela's ports by ships from these nations. And, in 1909, the Court was looked to by Norway and Sweden for the resolution of a boundary dispute between these two countries.
One of the ideals of World Unity is a standard, reasonable, efficient, and workable set of laws to guide and direct our world. Laws should be just; but they should also be kindly--that is to say, human nature and human shortcomings should always be considered when codes are drafted. Moreover, laws should be helpful, not restrictive or punitive (except where necessary as a deterrent to present or future crime or other such problems). However, the most important goal to be sought under the legal system that shoulld guide our world is uniformity--of principle and application. That is to say, said legal system should apply to all, and assist everyone to enjoy a peaceful and fruitful life.
Uniformity as an ideal has long been in the minds of legislators. For example, in the Chinese Empire, as long ago as the third century B.C., statutes were passed standardizing currencies, weights, measures, and even the distance between cart wheels. The benefit of such standardization can be readily appreciatedeven for a country constituting but a fraction of the world; and even for a period in history when much of society operated on a somewhat less advanced level than today. How much additional benefit could be had by the entire contemporary world, comprising so many entities and activities that would profit from uniformity of standards and procedures. Of course this uniformity would need to be accomplished over an appropriate period of time, so as, among other things, to avoid waste of existing facilities and arrangements.
Another ideal of, and benefit arising from, World Unity is a uniform worldwide system of tribunals to mediate, arbitrate, and adjudicate the world's affairs, and particularly such conflicts and disputes as should arise in regard to them, in a uniformly just, logical, and sensible fashion.
In fact, a worldwide court has existed for over a hundred years; but its functions and efficacy have long been in need of a good deal of expansion and improvement . Founded in 1899, the World Court (then called the Permanent Court of Arbitration) was established at The Hague, Netherlands. Its jurisdiction was basically limited to disputes between nations; and it was resorted to rather infrequently. As an example, in 1902, President Castro of Venezuela sought the Court's assistance, and consequently agreed to abide by the tribunal's determination concerning a monetary dispute it then had with Britain and Germany, a dispute which had led to the blockade of Venezuela's ports by ships from these nations. And, in 1909, the Court was looked to by Norway and Sweden for the resolution of a boundary dispute between these two countries.
PAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
ECOLOGICAL
As I have attempted to show prior hereto, there have been numerous occasions when representatives from a number of nations have met together for constructive purposes. These conferences, and subsequent joint efforts which have sprung from many of these meetings, demonstrate the fact that joint--and, ideally, universal--efforts can accomplish definite good. A substantial number of additional joint determinations and resultant joint actions have concerned our atmosphere and related ecological concerns.
As far back as 1966, President Lyndon Johnson called for a meeting of representatives from approximately one hundred nations for the purpose of discussing, and hopefully finding solutions for, the then-current worldwide crisis caused by water shortages.
Six years later, in 1972, another hundred nation meeting was held under the auspices of the United Nations. It met in Stockholm, and bore a theme entitled "Only One Earth." This expression of concern by so many countries located in so many regions of the world for preservation and improvement of the human environment served to greatly increase international awareness regarding environmental issues.
This and other U.N.-sponsored conferences are open to all nations. They deal with subjects that affect all the world's peoples, such as food, population, and ecology; and constitute an area of positive and worthwhile accomplishment on the part of the organization. A major example is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by several U.N. agencies, which coordinates the work of hundreds of scientists studying global changes of various sorts.
In 1979, a treaty entitled the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution was executed, under U.N. sponsorship, by representatives from thirty three European and North American countries. It comprised a commitment on the part of the signatory nations to promote domestic legislation that would encourage industries within their respective jurisdictions to resort to more appropriate technology in an overall effort to reduce air pollution.
The condition of the earth's atmosphere became a particularly critical concern when it was randomly discovered that one or more openings were beginning to form in the ozone layer that surrounds our planet, having a potential for serious ecological consequences. An abundance of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions (attributable in part to the use of aerosol cans and refrigerators) was identified as the cause. Of course, atmospheric threats such as this respect no political boundarylines; and so agreements to reduce and phase out these dangerous substances ought to be, and to an extent were, willingly entered by the international community.
As a follow-up, it should be noted that in 1984, health ministers from ten nations met in Canada and agreed to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by thirty percent during the following ten years. In addition, numerous other countries were prevailed upon to commit to a similar reduction. All who thus agreed were dubbed members of the "Thirty Percent Club." And in 1987, at a conference attended by three hundred scientists from forty eight nations, a decree known as the "Montreal Protocol," subsequently endorsed by 146 of the world's nations, called for a twenty percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions, to be achieved by the year 2005. Further, in 1989, the European Community vowed a separate and further ban on chlorofluorocarbons.
In 1992, an instrument known as the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at an "Earth Summit" held at Rio de Janeiro, attended by leaders of 106 nations. By its terms, industrial nations were required to formulate policies which would lead to a reduction in harmful emissions by the end of the twentieth century. At the same conference, 160 nations signed a Convention on Biological Diversity, agreeing to safeguard and protect the various animal and plant species within their respective regions.
A meeting was held in Paris in 1994 to deal with another problem that knows no boundaries: land degradation (i.e., the turning of useful lands into desert as a result of overgrazing, overcropping, poor irrigation practices, and deforestation). In October of that year, a convention was signed by delegates from eighty seven countries, agreeing to institute efforts to curb such harmful practices.
During the same year (1994), an International Conference on Population and Development was held in Cairo. At this meeting, more than 160 countries approved a World Population Plan of Action, having as a parameter a limitation of the human population to a sum below 9.8 billion by 2050 (a figure expected to be vastly exceeded by said year, if things go on without change).
The list of these international accomplishments goes on and on. By 1974 there were 173 international treaties in existence that dealt with environmental subjects.
In 1997, a further international convention known as the Kyoto Protocol was instituted. It set 2012 as a target datefor thirty nine industrial nations to further significantyly reduce their production of greenhouse gas emissions. Then, in 2001 (notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had in the meantime opted out of it), 178 additional nations agreed to put this vital Protocol into effect.
In some respects, subsequent news and progress reports indicate that a number, and perhaps many, of these goals have not been achieved--and that perhaps some conditions have in fact worsened. But such compacts on the part of so many nations regarding subjects pertaining to the environment demonstrates the encouraging likelihood that worldwide agreejment and cooperation is both worthwhile as well as possible. This seems particularly obvious in instances where a common danger or enemy is before us. Hopefully we can be made to realize that by agreeing to international unity regarding every subject and activity that requires it, every potential danger within our society and our world might be most effectively dealt with.
* * * * *
As I have attempted to show prior hereto, there have been numerous occasions when representatives from a number of nations have met together for constructive purposes. These conferences, and subsequent joint efforts which have sprung from many of these meetings, demonstrate the fact that joint--and, ideally, universal--efforts can accomplish definite good. A substantial number of additional joint determinations and resultant joint actions have concerned our atmosphere and related ecological concerns.
As far back as 1966, President Lyndon Johnson called for a meeting of representatives from approximately one hundred nations for the purpose of discussing, and hopefully finding solutions for, the then-current worldwide crisis caused by water shortages.
Six years later, in 1972, another hundred nation meeting was held under the auspices of the United Nations. It met in Stockholm, and bore a theme entitled "Only One Earth." This expression of concern by so many countries located in so many regions of the world for preservation and improvement of the human environment served to greatly increase international awareness regarding environmental issues.
This and other U.N.-sponsored conferences are open to all nations. They deal with subjects that affect all the world's peoples, such as food, population, and ecology; and constitute an area of positive and worthwhile accomplishment on the part of the organization. A major example is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by several U.N. agencies, which coordinates the work of hundreds of scientists studying global changes of various sorts.
In 1979, a treaty entitled the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution was executed, under U.N. sponsorship, by representatives from thirty three European and North American countries. It comprised a commitment on the part of the signatory nations to promote domestic legislation that would encourage industries within their respective jurisdictions to resort to more appropriate technology in an overall effort to reduce air pollution.
The condition of the earth's atmosphere became a particularly critical concern when it was randomly discovered that one or more openings were beginning to form in the ozone layer that surrounds our planet, having a potential for serious ecological consequences. An abundance of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions (attributable in part to the use of aerosol cans and refrigerators) was identified as the cause. Of course, atmospheric threats such as this respect no political boundarylines; and so agreements to reduce and phase out these dangerous substances ought to be, and to an extent were, willingly entered by the international community.
As a follow-up, it should be noted that in 1984, health ministers from ten nations met in Canada and agreed to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by thirty percent during the following ten years. In addition, numerous other countries were prevailed upon to commit to a similar reduction. All who thus agreed were dubbed members of the "Thirty Percent Club." And in 1987, at a conference attended by three hundred scientists from forty eight nations, a decree known as the "Montreal Protocol," subsequently endorsed by 146 of the world's nations, called for a twenty percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions, to be achieved by the year 2005. Further, in 1989, the European Community vowed a separate and further ban on chlorofluorocarbons.
In 1992, an instrument known as the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at an "Earth Summit" held at Rio de Janeiro, attended by leaders of 106 nations. By its terms, industrial nations were required to formulate policies which would lead to a reduction in harmful emissions by the end of the twentieth century. At the same conference, 160 nations signed a Convention on Biological Diversity, agreeing to safeguard and protect the various animal and plant species within their respective regions.
A meeting was held in Paris in 1994 to deal with another problem that knows no boundaries: land degradation (i.e., the turning of useful lands into desert as a result of overgrazing, overcropping, poor irrigation practices, and deforestation). In October of that year, a convention was signed by delegates from eighty seven countries, agreeing to institute efforts to curb such harmful practices.
During the same year (1994), an International Conference on Population and Development was held in Cairo. At this meeting, more than 160 countries approved a World Population Plan of Action, having as a parameter a limitation of the human population to a sum below 9.8 billion by 2050 (a figure expected to be vastly exceeded by said year, if things go on without change).
The list of these international accomplishments goes on and on. By 1974 there were 173 international treaties in existence that dealt with environmental subjects.
In 1997, a further international convention known as the Kyoto Protocol was instituted. It set 2012 as a target datefor thirty nine industrial nations to further significantyly reduce their production of greenhouse gas emissions. Then, in 2001 (notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had in the meantime opted out of it), 178 additional nations agreed to put this vital Protocol into effect.
In some respects, subsequent news and progress reports indicate that a number, and perhaps many, of these goals have not been achieved--and that perhaps some conditions have in fact worsened. But such compacts on the part of so many nations regarding subjects pertaining to the environment demonstrates the encouraging likelihood that worldwide agreejment and cooperation is both worthwhile as well as possible. This seems particularly obvious in instances where a common danger or enemy is before us. Hopefully we can be made to realize that by agreeing to international unity regarding every subject and activity that requires it, every potential danger within our society and our world might be most effectively dealt with.
* * * * *
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
PAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
POLITICAL
In October, 1961, Russia's Premier Kruschev was host to the twenty second Communist Party Congress. Chou En-lai of China was among the group of officials and dignitaries from numerous countries. In November of the same year, U.S. President Kennedy proclaimed support for an American "Alliance for Progress," during a South American tour.
In 1975, at Helsinki, thirty three heads of government attended the opening of one of the largest summits in European history. It resulted in a document, signed by all thirty three, plus the United States and Russia, which came to be known as the Helsinki Agreement. Pursuant to its terms, the use of force was soundly rejected as improper and unacceptable.
By the 1980s, a new manace had gained prominence in our world: tewrrorism. Although usually emanating from factional origins, terrorism is a phenomenon that is international in character and scope, and frequently observes no national borders. In 1985, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz called for united international action to curb these "despicable acts." Here too, worldwide levels of cure need to be resorted to in order to combat such a universal malady. I consider factionalism to be the actual basis of terrorism, and terrorism to be the primary evil that afflicts our world today. I'll go into my thoughts on factionalism in greater detail in the near future. But suffice it for ne to now say that m purpose is to convince those who honor me by reading this that an overiding unity in society's organization and institutions would defuse and neutralize many of the factors that are at the basis of the factionalist problems that persist today. For unity is the opposite of factionalism; and the antidote for it as well. Since the 1980s, over and again, law-abiding people have been forced to deal with fear and foreboding in regard to threats that could be resorted to by terrorists as well as "rogue" nations: nuclear detonations, germ proliferations, and chemical attacks.
Regarding one of these dangers, a group representing 140 nations met in Paris in 1989 to discuss the menace of chemical weapons. Since then, we have witnessed an almost unceasing preoccupation with all three of the aforementioned subjects. And we have experienced as well several instances wherein groups have actually successfully used, or attempted to use, germs or spores (such as anthrax), and chemicals (such as the tragedy in the Japanese subway) to wreak havoc upon innocent people. It is evident that only through united measures and joint cooperation will those who seek to do harm to others for the sake of their own fanatical factionalist beliefs be able to be dealt with and defeated for all time.
* * * * *
In October, 1961, Russia's Premier Kruschev was host to the twenty second Communist Party Congress. Chou En-lai of China was among the group of officials and dignitaries from numerous countries. In November of the same year, U.S. President Kennedy proclaimed support for an American "Alliance for Progress," during a South American tour.
In 1975, at Helsinki, thirty three heads of government attended the opening of one of the largest summits in European history. It resulted in a document, signed by all thirty three, plus the United States and Russia, which came to be known as the Helsinki Agreement. Pursuant to its terms, the use of force was soundly rejected as improper and unacceptable.
By the 1980s, a new manace had gained prominence in our world: tewrrorism. Although usually emanating from factional origins, terrorism is a phenomenon that is international in character and scope, and frequently observes no national borders. In 1985, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz called for united international action to curb these "despicable acts." Here too, worldwide levels of cure need to be resorted to in order to combat such a universal malady. I consider factionalism to be the actual basis of terrorism, and terrorism to be the primary evil that afflicts our world today. I'll go into my thoughts on factionalism in greater detail in the near future. But suffice it for ne to now say that m purpose is to convince those who honor me by reading this that an overiding unity in society's organization and institutions would defuse and neutralize many of the factors that are at the basis of the factionalist problems that persist today. For unity is the opposite of factionalism; and the antidote for it as well. Since the 1980s, over and again, law-abiding people have been forced to deal with fear and foreboding in regard to threats that could be resorted to by terrorists as well as "rogue" nations: nuclear detonations, germ proliferations, and chemical attacks.
Regarding one of these dangers, a group representing 140 nations met in Paris in 1989 to discuss the menace of chemical weapons. Since then, we have witnessed an almost unceasing preoccupation with all three of the aforementioned subjects. And we have experienced as well several instances wherein groups have actually successfully used, or attempted to use, germs or spores (such as anthrax), and chemicals (such as the tragedy in the Japanese subway) to wreak havoc upon innocent people. It is evident that only through united measures and joint cooperation will those who seek to do harm to others for the sake of their own fanatical factionalist beliefs be able to be dealt with and defeated for all time.
* * * * *
PAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
POLITICAL
In the period between World Wars I and II, attempts at international agreement to promote peace and harmony were undertaken, sone under League of Nations auspices, and others independently. For example, in November of 1921, the United States invited eight nations to send representatives to Washington, DC, to discuss reduction of naval armaments. At this meeting, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes asked the participating countries to destroy their battleships. This was obviously not complied with; and the arms buildup in Europe went on.
In September, 1924, at Geneva, a draft agreement entitled a "protocol to end all wars" was presented to the League of Nations. In October of that year, a second protocol calling for compulsory arbitration of disputes was executed by forty seven nations.
Four years later, sixty nations signed a pact authored by Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristede Briand, declaring war illegal, and again agreeing to settle disputes peacefully. Among its shortcomings was the fact that there existed no mechanism for enforcing this pledge; and it permitted "defensive" wars--being an easy justification or rationalization for commencing or carrying on a conflict. In January, 1930, another international arms parley opened in London. The following April, the London Naval Treaty, which would operate to prevent or limit a naval arms race, was signed by the five major naval powers of the day: Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States.
In February, 1932, sixty nations met in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss arms rediuctions. In September of the same year, a World Peace Conference convened in Vienna, attended by eighty delegates from fourteen countries. And in 1933, meetings attended by sixty six nations convened in London, seeking ways to promote international harmony. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the opening of this meeting with a plea for its accomploishment via arms limitation. Then came the Second World War--which was followed by the birth of the United Nations. (In a short time, I'll be speaking about the losses and sorrows wrought by the tragedy that was World War II; as well as the U.N.'s accomplishments and failures thereafter.)
Following the War, nineteen Western nations met in Brazil, in 1947, to sign the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, pledging security for the hemisphere. On April 30th of the next year, delegates from twenty one countries signed a charter to form the Organization of American States. It provided for common defense for all members, and peaceful settlement of any problems that should arise within or concerning the hemisphere. In 1955, this organization successful;ly intervened in a rebellion in Costa Rica, easing tensions and preventing outright war.
In April, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or "NATO," was founded. It consisted of an alliance of twelve nations, and constituted a form of defense against the then-perceived hostility of the Soviet bloc. By its terms, all members promised that an attack against any one of them would be considered and dealt with as an attack upon them all. As a response, the Soviet Union organized the Warsaw Pact, a military alliance with six eastern European nations, containing similar principles and agreements.
Eight nations met in Bangkok in 1955 for their first councilar meeting of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or "SEATO." Two months later, in April, 1955, representatives of twenty nine African and Asian nations gathered in Bandung, Indonesia, to discuss ways to promote cultural and economic cooperation, and to oppose colonialism.
During the 1960s, representatives from a number of African nations met in efforts to combine their various peoples, having diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, into unified political and economic states. This movement, termed "Pan-Africanism," was championed by many leaders as the only way to put an end to Africa's continued economic and cultural subordination to the nations of Europe. An example was a meeting held in 1961 by a group of African heads of state in Casablanca, to announce a plan for common defense. These desires culminated in the founding, by thirty African nations, of the Organization for African Unity in 1963. It took its examples from the United Nations; and tried to shape its policies and procedures using the U.N. as a model. However, the O.A.U. has unfortunately exshibited a poor record in condemning and/or curbing subsequent human rights abuses within the African continent. These failures have been followed by a resultant decline in its influence and authority.
1961 saw a number of conferences, acknowledgments, and announcements of alliance among groups of nations. Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia invited twenty five non-aligned nations to a conference in September of that year, to discuss said nations' common circumstances and problems. A similar subsequent meeting of non-aligned nations was held in Lima, Peru in August, 1975. This time, three additional countries joined the proceeding: North Korea, Panama, and Vietnam.
During the same month (September, 1961), Egyptian leader Gamel Nasser proclaimed a similar dream of creating an organization that would represent all of the Arab world. In 1965, at another meeting at Casablanca, twelve Arab nations signed a solidarity pact. Subsequently, the Muslim world formed the Islamic Conference, which was said in 1980 to represent thirty six countries and 900 million people. Ironically, Egypt was afterward expelledfrom membership by reason of its allegedly over-friendly relations with Israel. Subsequently, in 1984, the membership, which had now grown to forty nations, voted to readmit Egypt once more.
In the period between World Wars I and II, attempts at international agreement to promote peace and harmony were undertaken, sone under League of Nations auspices, and others independently. For example, in November of 1921, the United States invited eight nations to send representatives to Washington, DC, to discuss reduction of naval armaments. At this meeting, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes asked the participating countries to destroy their battleships. This was obviously not complied with; and the arms buildup in Europe went on.
In September, 1924, at Geneva, a draft agreement entitled a "protocol to end all wars" was presented to the League of Nations. In October of that year, a second protocol calling for compulsory arbitration of disputes was executed by forty seven nations.
Four years later, sixty nations signed a pact authored by Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristede Briand, declaring war illegal, and again agreeing to settle disputes peacefully. Among its shortcomings was the fact that there existed no mechanism for enforcing this pledge; and it permitted "defensive" wars--being an easy justification or rationalization for commencing or carrying on a conflict. In January, 1930, another international arms parley opened in London. The following April, the London Naval Treaty, which would operate to prevent or limit a naval arms race, was signed by the five major naval powers of the day: Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States.
In February, 1932, sixty nations met in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss arms rediuctions. In September of the same year, a World Peace Conference convened in Vienna, attended by eighty delegates from fourteen countries. And in 1933, meetings attended by sixty six nations convened in London, seeking ways to promote international harmony. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the opening of this meeting with a plea for its accomploishment via arms limitation. Then came the Second World War--which was followed by the birth of the United Nations. (In a short time, I'll be speaking about the losses and sorrows wrought by the tragedy that was World War II; as well as the U.N.'s accomplishments and failures thereafter.)
Following the War, nineteen Western nations met in Brazil, in 1947, to sign the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, pledging security for the hemisphere. On April 30th of the next year, delegates from twenty one countries signed a charter to form the Organization of American States. It provided for common defense for all members, and peaceful settlement of any problems that should arise within or concerning the hemisphere. In 1955, this organization successful;ly intervened in a rebellion in Costa Rica, easing tensions and preventing outright war.
In April, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or "NATO," was founded. It consisted of an alliance of twelve nations, and constituted a form of defense against the then-perceived hostility of the Soviet bloc. By its terms, all members promised that an attack against any one of them would be considered and dealt with as an attack upon them all. As a response, the Soviet Union organized the Warsaw Pact, a military alliance with six eastern European nations, containing similar principles and agreements.
Eight nations met in Bangkok in 1955 for their first councilar meeting of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or "SEATO." Two months later, in April, 1955, representatives of twenty nine African and Asian nations gathered in Bandung, Indonesia, to discuss ways to promote cultural and economic cooperation, and to oppose colonialism.
During the 1960s, representatives from a number of African nations met in efforts to combine their various peoples, having diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, into unified political and economic states. This movement, termed "Pan-Africanism," was championed by many leaders as the only way to put an end to Africa's continued economic and cultural subordination to the nations of Europe. An example was a meeting held in 1961 by a group of African heads of state in Casablanca, to announce a plan for common defense. These desires culminated in the founding, by thirty African nations, of the Organization for African Unity in 1963. It took its examples from the United Nations; and tried to shape its policies and procedures using the U.N. as a model. However, the O.A.U. has unfortunately exshibited a poor record in condemning and/or curbing subsequent human rights abuses within the African continent. These failures have been followed by a resultant decline in its influence and authority.
1961 saw a number of conferences, acknowledgments, and announcements of alliance among groups of nations. Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia invited twenty five non-aligned nations to a conference in September of that year, to discuss said nations' common circumstances and problems. A similar subsequent meeting of non-aligned nations was held in Lima, Peru in August, 1975. This time, three additional countries joined the proceeding: North Korea, Panama, and Vietnam.
During the same month (September, 1961), Egyptian leader Gamel Nasser proclaimed a similar dream of creating an organization that would represent all of the Arab world. In 1965, at another meeting at Casablanca, twelve Arab nations signed a solidarity pact. Subsequently, the Muslim world formed the Islamic Conference, which was said in 1980 to represent thirty six countries and 900 million people. Ironically, Egypt was afterward expelledfrom membership by reason of its allegedly over-friendly relations with Israel. Subsequently, in 1984, the membership, which had now grown to forty nations, voted to readmit Egypt once more.
Monday, June 25, 2012
PAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
POLITICAL
As i have attempted to demonstrate previosly, it appears that ideas regarding, and tendencies toward, joining together and creating unity have long existed within the mind of man. As far back in time as 7000 BC, we see a large group of people choosing to reside together, and to build a great walled city for this purpose, which they called Jericho. This testimony to our need and desire to exist in union with one another has been repeated afterward countless times.
As has also been described previously, people having desire to lead and to conquer have, in so doing, repeatedly created large domains, or empires, comprised of ever-larger numbers of people under their respective rules. During the twenty-fourth centurs BC, Sargon I subjugated Sumer, and founded an empire which extended from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. This form of assemblage of a large uniform political entity has been exhibited again numerous times over the centuries, and has continued into our present era.
A prime example of this concept of "empire"would be the Roman domain, which came into being around 31 BC, and existed until late in the fifth century AD. It has been said that the Empire was composed of a politically united population composed of just about everyone in the Western world during those years. They were members of a single political entity, and, as such, enjoyed a uniform civilization, as well as centuries of internal peace.
Comprising a later example of unifying a group of people, Norman kings imposed a centralized and efficient form of mastery upon their subjects in eleventh century England. Possessing a good deal of power and authority, they were able to produce a substantial amount of civil tranquility, domestic order, and personal security within their realm. In the late fifteenth century, the Habsburg rulers applied similar centralized ruling principles within the Holy Roman Empire.
In western Europe, this development into nations progressed to comprise a "supra-societal system." As per the aforesaid, concerning the Norman kings, England appears to have been the initial factor in this process. In becoming a nation, England had itself progressed from a rather backward society torn by internal conflict into what would be eventually described as the greatest economic and political power in Europe. Now, other societies sought relationship with England. Comprising a growing group, these societies needed to themselves consolidate into nations, which they eventually did. During that period, the populace of each of these early "states" (or groups of sovereign peoples) were wsaid to possess unique and distinguishing political, territorial, and/or ethnic qualities. Today, however, further progress within our world has operated to blur and erase these singular unique characteristic variations. It is as if the next step in this dvelopmental process, into but one super-society, has begun to naturally occur, and is continuing to evolve.
These early forms of consolidation and organization did demonstrate their value. Europe has been described as having been racked by chronic and marauding violence, and in danger of falling into a state of overall chaos, had not the emergence of these assertions of power and the resultant births of the various nation-states rescued the situation with its consequent imposition of order and authority upon their respective peoples, where there previously had been little or none.
Then, in a further development which took place during the seventeenth century, the entity which was the state began to be regarded as having a separate existence of its own--separate from that of the persons of their respective monarchs. In fact, this development further silently decreed that even he was required and expected to be attendant and assistant to this very entity that was the state. For example, in the last years of the reign of Louis XIV, France was defined as the state of France; i.e., the native population of France--who constituted the essence and very being of the nation. Some have attributed the development of this particular concept in France to Cardinal Richelieu, who functioned in that nation during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In any event, this idea assisted in ther undoing of the institution that absolute monarchy had become. It launched the nation-state into its subsequent role as an independant form of political existence--still respectful of, but no longer dependent upon, a royal ruler.
As states sprung up and developed, they needed to interact and deal with one another. This next step along the path of man's political activity precipitated the formation of international relationships, which made for further progress and association within society. Many of these interactions took the form of meetings and conferences specifically for the purpose of fostering peace and security among the participating nations, their regions, or the world in general.
For example, in 1902, a Pan-American Conference was held in Mexico City. It concluded with an agreement among all countries taking part to peacefully settle disputes which should arise among them. In 1907, a Conference of Central American States convened in Washington DC, to develop arbitration procedures for international conflict. In March, 1908, an international conference on arms reduction opened in London. And in April, 1913, an International Women's Peace Conference took place at The Hague
Unfortunately, the aforementioned emergence of nations, and its attendant nationalism, has exerted negative impacts as well. For as nations commenced competition with each other, redundancy and conflict naturally followed. Despite numerous conferences seeking methods for preserving peace, warfare between nations, and groups of nations, were a regular occurrence. The culmination of this terrible process was the first great war--the "war to end all wars"--World War I. (I will later voice some commentary concerning the massive costs and losses sustained by mankind as a result of this colossal episode of violence, and others of like nature.)
But even from the greatest tragedies blessings can sometimes flow. Following World War I, this blessing could have been the worldwide organization anticipated by American President Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson envisioned an association of governments that would have been a vehicle for worldwide democracy. Unfortunately, the League of Nations ended in failure, a failure that was soon followed by the beginning of a Second World War, even more horrendous than its predecessor.
As i have attempted to demonstrate previosly, it appears that ideas regarding, and tendencies toward, joining together and creating unity have long existed within the mind of man. As far back in time as 7000 BC, we see a large group of people choosing to reside together, and to build a great walled city for this purpose, which they called Jericho. This testimony to our need and desire to exist in union with one another has been repeated afterward countless times.
As has also been described previously, people having desire to lead and to conquer have, in so doing, repeatedly created large domains, or empires, comprised of ever-larger numbers of people under their respective rules. During the twenty-fourth centurs BC, Sargon I subjugated Sumer, and founded an empire which extended from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. This form of assemblage of a large uniform political entity has been exhibited again numerous times over the centuries, and has continued into our present era.
A prime example of this concept of "empire"would be the Roman domain, which came into being around 31 BC, and existed until late in the fifth century AD. It has been said that the Empire was composed of a politically united population composed of just about everyone in the Western world during those years. They were members of a single political entity, and, as such, enjoyed a uniform civilization, as well as centuries of internal peace.
Comprising a later example of unifying a group of people, Norman kings imposed a centralized and efficient form of mastery upon their subjects in eleventh century England. Possessing a good deal of power and authority, they were able to produce a substantial amount of civil tranquility, domestic order, and personal security within their realm. In the late fifteenth century, the Habsburg rulers applied similar centralized ruling principles within the Holy Roman Empire.
In western Europe, this development into nations progressed to comprise a "supra-societal system." As per the aforesaid, concerning the Norman kings, England appears to have been the initial factor in this process. In becoming a nation, England had itself progressed from a rather backward society torn by internal conflict into what would be eventually described as the greatest economic and political power in Europe. Now, other societies sought relationship with England. Comprising a growing group, these societies needed to themselves consolidate into nations, which they eventually did. During that period, the populace of each of these early "states" (or groups of sovereign peoples) were wsaid to possess unique and distinguishing political, territorial, and/or ethnic qualities. Today, however, further progress within our world has operated to blur and erase these singular unique characteristic variations. It is as if the next step in this dvelopmental process, into but one super-society, has begun to naturally occur, and is continuing to evolve.
These early forms of consolidation and organization did demonstrate their value. Europe has been described as having been racked by chronic and marauding violence, and in danger of falling into a state of overall chaos, had not the emergence of these assertions of power and the resultant births of the various nation-states rescued the situation with its consequent imposition of order and authority upon their respective peoples, where there previously had been little or none.
Then, in a further development which took place during the seventeenth century, the entity which was the state began to be regarded as having a separate existence of its own--separate from that of the persons of their respective monarchs. In fact, this development further silently decreed that even he was required and expected to be attendant and assistant to this very entity that was the state. For example, in the last years of the reign of Louis XIV, France was defined as the state of France; i.e., the native population of France--who constituted the essence and very being of the nation. Some have attributed the development of this particular concept in France to Cardinal Richelieu, who functioned in that nation during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In any event, this idea assisted in ther undoing of the institution that absolute monarchy had become. It launched the nation-state into its subsequent role as an independant form of political existence--still respectful of, but no longer dependent upon, a royal ruler.
As states sprung up and developed, they needed to interact and deal with one another. This next step along the path of man's political activity precipitated the formation of international relationships, which made for further progress and association within society. Many of these interactions took the form of meetings and conferences specifically for the purpose of fostering peace and security among the participating nations, their regions, or the world in general.
For example, in 1902, a Pan-American Conference was held in Mexico City. It concluded with an agreement among all countries taking part to peacefully settle disputes which should arise among them. In 1907, a Conference of Central American States convened in Washington DC, to develop arbitration procedures for international conflict. In March, 1908, an international conference on arms reduction opened in London. And in April, 1913, an International Women's Peace Conference took place at The Hague
Unfortunately, the aforementioned emergence of nations, and its attendant nationalism, has exerted negative impacts as well. For as nations commenced competition with each other, redundancy and conflict naturally followed. Despite numerous conferences seeking methods for preserving peace, warfare between nations, and groups of nations, were a regular occurrence. The culmination of this terrible process was the first great war--the "war to end all wars"--World War I. (I will later voice some commentary concerning the massive costs and losses sustained by mankind as a result of this colossal episode of violence, and others of like nature.)
But even from the greatest tragedies blessings can sometimes flow. Following World War I, this blessing could have been the worldwide organization anticipated by American President Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson envisioned an association of governments that would have been a vehicle for worldwide democracy. Unfortunately, the League of Nations ended in failure, a failure that was soon followed by the beginning of a Second World War, even more horrendous than its predecessor.
PAST EFFORTS AT JOINDER
In a recent post, regarding meetings having economic orientation, I referred to the June, 2003 meeting of the "Group of 8," held in Evian, France. Another purpose of this conference was sociological in nature: i.e., the promotion of French President Chirac's concept of "durable development," which constituted efforts to deal with world poverty and disease, and to provide the poorer nations with better access to drugs to combat nightmares such as AIDS.
The common denominator of all these examples, and the value expressed in each of them, is the extension across political borders of cooperation, assistance, and friendship. Many more can be cited. But they would all symbolize and demonstrate the same single, obvious principle: brotherly love, without reserve due to political or giegraphic factors.
To repeatr a term so often mentioned of late, a giant element of our present day integration of the nations of the world, and of its citizens, has been the phenomenon called "globalization." As the costs of communication and transportation have ever decreased; and as many of the previous unnecessary manmade barriers to the movement of capital, products, and services have been reduced or abolished, man has generated more and greater hopes and opportunities for the future. Globalization has been credited with reducing the sense of isolation felt in the developing world; and with giving the inhabitants thereof access to vast stores of knowledge and resources; which would have been beyond the reach of any of us a hundred years ago. Thus, many people live longer, and enjoy a far superior standard of living, than their forefathers.
On the other hand, we are reminded that many of the benefits of involvement in this new "global milieu" have been unevenly apportioned, as between the have and have-not nations. From a sociological standpoint, globalization is a good thing--while uneven distribution of its benefits is not. But, if there were no nations to begin with, it would follow that it would be accurate only to say that these aforementioned advantages were disproportionately distributed between different places upon our planet. This could and would be a whole lot more easily corrected, by reason of the fact that neither persons nor conditions would any longer be compelled to remain forever within a "have" or "have-not" nation or region; but would theoretically be easily movable or transportable to or from one or another such sector of our planet, or society within it.
Naturally, particular individuals, their abilities and consequent accomplishments, vary, within any society. And this would continue to be the case in a world containing a more or less single society. There would continue to be successes and failures, achievers and nonachievers. But the distinguishing factor could no longer be said to be a geographic factor. That is to say, everyone, everywhere, would--as they should--have an equal opportunity to enjoy and to profit from the new fruits of our globalization, without the need nor opportunity to blame confinement within a small space defined by geographic borders as the culprit which has caused his or her nonsuccess.
* * * * *
The common denominator of all these examples, and the value expressed in each of them, is the extension across political borders of cooperation, assistance, and friendship. Many more can be cited. But they would all symbolize and demonstrate the same single, obvious principle: brotherly love, without reserve due to political or giegraphic factors.
To repeatr a term so often mentioned of late, a giant element of our present day integration of the nations of the world, and of its citizens, has been the phenomenon called "globalization." As the costs of communication and transportation have ever decreased; and as many of the previous unnecessary manmade barriers to the movement of capital, products, and services have been reduced or abolished, man has generated more and greater hopes and opportunities for the future. Globalization has been credited with reducing the sense of isolation felt in the developing world; and with giving the inhabitants thereof access to vast stores of knowledge and resources; which would have been beyond the reach of any of us a hundred years ago. Thus, many people live longer, and enjoy a far superior standard of living, than their forefathers.
On the other hand, we are reminded that many of the benefits of involvement in this new "global milieu" have been unevenly apportioned, as between the have and have-not nations. From a sociological standpoint, globalization is a good thing--while uneven distribution of its benefits is not. But, if there were no nations to begin with, it would follow that it would be accurate only to say that these aforementioned advantages were disproportionately distributed between different places upon our planet. This could and would be a whole lot more easily corrected, by reason of the fact that neither persons nor conditions would any longer be compelled to remain forever within a "have" or "have-not" nation or region; but would theoretically be easily movable or transportable to or from one or another such sector of our planet, or society within it.
Naturally, particular individuals, their abilities and consequent accomplishments, vary, within any society. And this would continue to be the case in a world containing a more or less single society. There would continue to be successes and failures, achievers and nonachievers. But the distinguishing factor could no longer be said to be a geographic factor. That is to say, everyone, everywhere, would--as they should--have an equal opportunity to enjoy and to profit from the new fruits of our globalization, without the need nor opportunity to blame confinement within a small space defined by geographic borders as the culprit which has caused his or her nonsuccess.
* * * * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)