Further Consideration

Image linked to: "What To Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Immanent"






This issue touched upon in the previous blog has arisen by the very poison of isolationist mentality. It is this un-evolved tribal mind-frame in the form of blind nationalism which threatens to destroy us all. The "us" verses "them" mentality has fostered these dark cabals into their presently highly threatening manifestations. There is ironically, no security with technological advancements of warfare weaponry which cannot be localized in time and space. Weapons such as the ones referred to in this post will cause harm to more than any one nation state and its peoples. Such borders which delineate between nations are humanly contrived and are quite arbitrary in relation to radioactive pollution in our atmosphere, water, and soil. What we do to our brothers ~ we do to ourselves. The sooner we as a species understand this inter-connectivity, the better.



Honestly speaking, it is not in any Nation State's best interest to utilize such means for any reason. Imposing such threats with weaponry which threaten life to this degree is unparalleled in the history of humanity. After the first nuclear weapons were utilized in World War II, the United Nations formed around the framework of five "permanent" members. The defining characteristics with these permanent members was based upon their being a nuclear power. The framework of this governing body is in its infancy relatively speaking from the vantage point of our growing world conscious civilization. Right out of the gates, it has already given precedence to valuing primarily those countries which harbor nuclear weapons. Since the initial framework was set in place along with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, other countries have worked on developing these weapons (Pakistan, India, N. Korea, Iran, etc). Let us question then, why such continued developments in this arena would be taking place.



Why would other countries seek to create that which we already possess in such quantities that defy logic? The sovereign entities known as "Nation States" that are not permanent members do not have the same authority on the global stage, they do not have veto power, and they are not permanent members of the "Security Council." Thus, the United Nations framework as it currently stands, sets a dangerous priority in place. From the current standpoint, it seems having nuclear weapons is not just about creating a deterrent. For those who wield such weapons of devastating proportion by their very nature force others to either become their equal, or perish by the might of the superior war-faring nations which posses them already. Although it seems prudent to create such weapons to keep other nation states from attacking, there also seems to be the pressure of standing up to the bullies, and having such weapons is the only way to legitimize any real or lasting sovereignty for each respective Nation State. It is a dangerous precedent indeed! Bless the human beings in South Africa for having created them and then disarming their arsenal entirely.


In relation to the current wars that began with the Bush Administration, it is also necessary to remind others that the main premise which moved American social opinion in favor of invasion of a country which did not attack the U.S. (Iraq) was through the indoctrination of fear regarding the supposed threat of "weapons of mass destruction." The propaganda spin would have the general population believe that the US was justified in being an aggressor state because Iraq was suspected of creating the very things the United States has in mass quantities. *Gasp* We must bomb them before they make any bombs! The "Shock and Awe" campaign proved which country should be feared for having weapons of mass destruction. Ah but fear is the problem isn't it? In reflecting upon the trauma our worlds societies have experienced and witnessed in World Wars, and the Wars which have occurred since then, I recall the wise words of F.D. Roosevelt who said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."



But it certainly is not fear alone that drives this behemoth, no. Pride is also a vanity which threatens our collective life. There is such a nationalistic pride for being a "superpower," but possessing such power requires an extremely high level of responsibility. If the wrong person rises to power in their leadership within any country, we see many nefarious events transpire, leaving many in the wake of devastation. The insidious ego of military might can still rear its ugly head- even in great Nations that originally espoused the Philosophy of Liberty. Is it any wonder why we see those who have been mentioned as our "enemies" (ie: the axis of "evil") striving toward producing the very weapons we fear becoming a part of their possession? Does anyone remember the phrase, "you reap what you sow"? The Security Council did not authorize such an invasion in Iraq. The invasion was illegal under the UN Charter, which the acting U.S. president signed and the U.S. senate ratified. This makes it a legal document which is part and parcel with our U.S. Constitution and is considered a part of the "supreme law of the land." Yet, who has pressed charges or has moved toward indictment of those in violation of International laws when those who are guilty come from the United States? I am not pointing the finger solely at the country in which I reside, for as we are all in this together- there is a responsibility for all of us upon this Earth.



Since we are on this subject of guilty parties and pointing fingers, it is also pertinent to mention that the permanent member countries in the United Nations are the largest arms dealers in the world. This is something worth thinking about, for how we relate to one another as a one world society will need to change from its current standpoint. Our priorities (if we are to go about growing in the global arena of commerce and exchange of labor/goods/resources/ideas, etc.), in this new millennium should be focused upon how to successfully co-exist peaceably and respectfully. The General Assembly should have more power, as the smallest nations share the same planet with those nations which have the power to make the planet inhospitable to life. There is no point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor the countless covenants the United Nations has drawn up if those involved in the politics of the here and now cannot stand up to leaders of aggressor states and call for absolute adherence to the rules set forth. If we are to truly usher in an age of peace, we must adjust the framework of these, our United Nations, we must learn how to enforce the treaties, declarations, and covenants that each nation state has adopted in a dignified way. Not with the might of an iron fist, but with the spirit of brotherhood. Given the urgency of our post-modern plight, there is no more ripe a time to embrace the true light of the Universal Brotherhood for all of humankind.