User:Pauljhansen

== '''The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party or one nation. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world."                                                                                             - President Franklin D. Roosevelt

==

''' According to the Conflict Barometer, a respected annual study from the University of Heidelberg in Germany, half the world is at war. In 2008 there were 328 political conflicts that registered on the study’s barometer. Six of these were wars, and 25 were deemed severe crises. Ninety-nine conflicts were classified as crises. All together, 130 conflicts were carried out violently. Most of these are civil wars, which means each country gets to spend twice as much for weapons with which to kill each other. The world now, for the first time, has gone over the trillion-dollar mark in military expenditures. Where do countries get the money for guns? Many take it from the mouths of their own people. Eritrea, a small African nation in a very dangerous neighborhood, spends almost 20% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on weapons. About a dozen Middle Eastern nations spend around 10% of their GDP on military expenditures. Meanwhile the distribution of the world’s wealth is increasingly out of balance. One quarter (48) of the poorest nations in the world have a combined wealth that is less than the collective assets of the world’s three richest people. One in two children in the world live in poverty. Half the population of the world (3 billion people) lives on less than two dollars a day. Thirty thousand children a day die as a direct result of poverty. A billion people cannot read a book or sign their name. Educated or not, we all need a place to live. A report from the World Wide Fund (WWF) in October of 2007 outlines concerns that “vertebrate species populations have declined by about one-third in the 33 years from 1970 to 2003. At the same time, humanity’s Ecological Footprint— the demand people place upon the natural world— has increased to the point where the earth is unable to keep up in the struggle to regenerate.”

By 2050, there will be almost 10 billion people on the planet. The strain on the environment and on a nation’s ability to peacefully provide for its people will be enormous. Global warming will seriously affect the world’s ecosystem, as will an ocean empty of edible fish. These statistics can easily become over-powering. If you live in comfort, it can be hard to imagine a world so out of control. But these statistics are only the tip of the (melting) iceberg. Now, here's the good news. Never in the history of the world has there been such an opportunity for people to reach out and help each other as there is today, at this moment. And no country in the history of the world is better poised to reach out to other nations than the United States. '''

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
'''But to overcome these sad statistics we need a new, strategic long-range vision for the world. This requires the United States to move beyond the current doctrine of “Unilateralism” to a new policy of “Engagement.” A policy that recognizes how interconnected the world is and that failure to move swiftly will have catastrophic results. It also requires a newly revitalized United Nations, and other organizations such as NATO to move into the 21st Century. In the past the United Nations has been disparaged as being too wishy-washy or too Anti-American. In part, that is because the United States has always used the UN as a junior partner or a court of last resort. There are certainly many instances of UN members voting for their particular interests or being willing to do anything that will go against the needs and wants of the United States. But no other body has the potential to bring true systemic change to the world. Past experiences need not forswear a future where countries come together to reduce conflicts and build a better world. There is growing agreement around the world on numerous issues, including such hot topics as Climate Change. The United Nations must be a fair arbiter in the 21st Century. It must be adequately funded to address important issues and appropriately managed to end corruption. In fact, the need for an international organization that can be effective and responsive to global issues has never been greater. And more and more people are beginning to recognize it.

'''

A Concert of Democracies
'''A recent report from Princeton University entitled Forging a World Under Liberty and Law calls for a new international agreement among willing nations – a “Concert of Democracies” – where nations would come together and commit to a world that honors liberty and law. Since eight of the top ten richest countries in the world are functioning democracies, they would be the likely leaders in such a concert. The United States, Japan, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Brazil are all countries that elect their leaders on a regular basis. Russia, a great and powerful country, has a sad, long history of conflict and oppression. In light of Putin’s new programs it might be considered, at best, a struggling democracy. But that only means that the Russians could most benefit from such an agreement – if they felt that a real change was underway whatever democratic forces remain within their country would have a new issue to rally around. China, the world’s most populous nation, is poised to become the richest country in the world in the near future. Could a Concert of Democracies persuade it to open up? It is important to note that there are new forces at work in China. If the Chinese people could be convinced that America and the world’s intentions, specifically on environmental matters, were genuine, they might embrace change. The United States can and must be part of a greater force that works with others to solve the world’s problems. The list of impending crises is too long and the time is too short to do otherwise. Terrorism is not a country. It cannot be defeated on a single battlefield or blamed on any one country. A bomb in the hands of an angry young man can appear on any street, in any country in the world. Even as we move to destroy those whose anger has led to murder, we must work ever harder to insure that the causes of that anger are brought to light and solved by the world community.'''

The Opportunity
''' In a recent book entitled The Opportunity, the respected president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, writes that now is the time to demand a world where people are safe, free, and able to enjoy a basic standard of living. He reiterates that the major threat facing the world today is not war among the great powers. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction have emerged as the preferred “equalizers” of both rogue states and suicide bombers. Haass calls for a new doctrine of “Integration” to supplant the old Cold War policy of “Containment” outlined by American diplomat George Kennan in the late 1940’s and adhered to by American policymakers from the 1950’s to the 1990’s. Haass calls it an opportunity because the time for change will not last forever. “Like all great moments,” he writes, “It will pass. If we are not careful, the world could see its energies diverted by a new Cold War. Or, even worse; descend into anarchy defined by terrorism, disease, the spread of nuclear weapons, genocide, and extreme poverty.” The idea, while laudable, cannot happen if the United States does not lead the way. Why should China work with the United States on North Korea if they think the US is only pursuing its own interests? We must show that it is in all of our interest to work together for a peaceful world. And there is only one way to do that. We must show what we mean by the actions we take. We must reach out, as we have never done before, and lay the groundwork for a new American Foreign Policy. This policy should engage the world in a concerted effort to find common ground on contentious issues. This can only happen if we understand and respect diversity is all its forms. And to do that, we need an organization such as the United Nations. In spite of all of its shortcomings, the UN has done an excellent job in its World Food Programs and its health initiatives. It could do much more if it were reinvented for the 21st Century. The UN’s poor record in stopping civil wars or preventing war among smaller nations is attributable to the fact that they have little power to do so. And that will continue as long as countries see the UN as a private club used by and for the biggest and richest nations. But reforming the UN will not happen unless the United States and the European Union take the lead and make compromises. In today’s world, there are few secrets. A nation’s actions are, for the most part, transparent. Reform and a commitment to engagement would make the news on television networks around the world. As Haass notes in his book, “In our increasingly interconnected world the main threats to security stem from developments within states rather than from their external behavior. Yet the UN’s founding Charter insists that a state’s domestic affairs remain essentially outside the purview of others.” Haass’ Concert would have the power, in emergency situations, to interfere with the internal affairs of other nation-states. But this is a sticky situation. We might interfere with the Sudan, but it is unlikely that we would meddle with China or members of the Concert. Furthermore, creating such a Concert, while better than doing nothing at all, has severe limitations. First, it would take years to develop. Haass envisions a bureaucracy rivaling the United Nations, complete with summits, ministers and budgets. It feels like a slow ocean liner even before it sails. In short, it would be far better to re-equip the UN and move quickly with both determination and perseverance to bring a new sense of direction to the existing world body.'''

Time is of the Essence
 It’s an old cliché but time is truly of the essence. With pressing domestic issues, far-reaching environmental problems, and the growing threat of terrorism, we must not waste it inventing a new world organization that may or may not work. Creating a Concert that excludes countries like China because of its human rights violations, or Syria and North Korea because of their autocratic regimes will only further alienate those countries and make it less likely that they would agree to anything the new organization might insist upon.

Conversely, incorporating many of Haass' excellent  suggestions into a revitalized United Nations could make the world a better place in a shorter period of time. Excluding most nations for not being like us would not. A newly revised UN with a deeply committed United States could do a much better job promoting economic growth and development for poorer nations as well as stand up for democracy and human rights around the world. And on the crucial environmental issues, statistics and findings from a world scientific body would encourage all nations to move together toward change. These successes could lead to other agreements. But a fresh coat of paint will not suffice. People around the world are too smart, too connected to believe that the United States, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is really taking the lead without money and intentions set into action. One of the most important facts that we need to remember is that a country is much more than its government. It has often been said, for example, that the young people of Iran are pro-Western. It is the aging Mullahs who are lost in the past. What if we could use the Internet, which is growing and changing almost daily, to reach out to those people with a message of peace and mutual prosperity?''' Technology will either be our friend or our enemy in the coming decades. Our operating systems connect families in every country of the world. But even as we break down technical barriers, bad old habits sprout up. Throughout Africa and the Middle East a return to tribal power is raising havoc by accentuating differences instead of commonalities. From Kenya to the Congo to Iraq and Pakistan, stress and uncertainty are causing divisions among people who have lived side by side for generations. We must move quickly before these differences become more pronounced. Software engineers are working hard to break down some of these barriers using proven language translation software. In the near future these translation services will allow citizens in all countries to communicate with each other in a manner only once seen in a science fiction magazine. Changes such as these will allow us to speak directly and honestly to a vast majority of people around the world. And if we speak words of peace and compassion, our message will be heard. But again, it all comes back to the United States being truly engaged. We are the dominant culture on the planet. Our Gross Domestic Product is equal to all of the 26 members of European Union. We import almost 20% of the world’s goods. And while we pollute the airwaves as much as the environment, there is nowhere on earth where an idea can germinate more freely. Even more importantly, we are the world. It is not just a song anymore. Somewhere in New York is a loyal citizen whose cousin lives in a small village in Afghanistan. Somewhere in Santa Fe is a U.S. citizen whose niece was just caught trying to come to America illegally. A Chinese-American in San Francisco has a sister in Beijing who just got a job with a Seattle-based software company. John Hume, Ireland’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, once said, "When people are divided as we were in Ireland, they cannot be brought together by guns and bombs. That only deepens the divisions. The history of conflict resolution in Europe is based on three principles: respect for difference, creation of institutions that respect difference, and a healing process based on working together for our common interests. The essence of unity is respect for diversity.” We can no longer ignore the fact that the world has become a much smaller place. By definition, this proximity brings us closer together; and a plethora of perils gives us purpose to create a better world. The best place to begin that work is in a new and improved United Nations.'''