The first round of counting is over and the contest
seems to be between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf
Ghani to become the next President of Afghanistan. No
one would have expected that the elections fwould be
such a success story. Undoubtedly, this was one of the
most historic moment in the contemporary history of
Afghanistan. Not only was this election historical, but
also likely to set an important milestone in
Afghanistan’s transition and its progress towards
becoming a democratic polity.
There was so much pessimism about the future of
Afghanistan, as could be seen from the multiple reports
during the last one year in terms of what would happen
to Afghanistan once the international security forces
leave in 2014. There were questions also about the
ability of the Afghans to take the transition process
ahead as the draw down comes closer. The elections is
a partial, but a positive answer, signaling a slow but a
steady transition.
The first round of elections in choosing the next
President took place in a particular geo-political
environment. Karzai’s tenure as the President comes to
an end with no possibility of him being elected for a
third time legally. Though Karzai could not “appoint” his
successor, he had allowed the electoral process to
decide who would be the next President. This election
was special, for the simple reason, there were not many
such examples in the recent decades in the history of
Afghanistan.
When was the last time, a ruler in Afghanistan, allowed
an electoral process to choose his successor? Mullah
Omar, Najibullah, Babrak Karmal, Nur Taraki, Daoud
Khan, Zahir Shah—the history of succession in
Afghanistan in the last hundred years has been more
through coup, forcible ouster and exile with so much of
blood shed; political and peaceful transition has never
been a part of the Afghanistan’s history from one rule
to another. That is why this election is so important
and a milestone in the history of Afghanistan.
Second, the security, political and geographic
environment was not that conducive, when the elections
took place during the first week of April 2014. The
security situation within Afghanistan and the regional
security situation outside were not too positive.
Consider the following in this context: the Afghan nation
is deeply polarised along the ethnic lines – the
pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and the Hazaras. The internal
peace process vis-a-vis the Taliban has not made any
major breakthrough; nor there has been a great success
in the efforts of the international community to
“discover” the good Taliban and strike a successful
dialogue with them.
In terms of external security, Karzai refused to sign the
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United
States, following which the latter had threatened to cut
the aid and military support to Afghanistan. Even more
importantly, relations with Pakistan had hit a low and
were yet to recover when the elections took place.
And then, there has been another great question: are
the Afghans ready for democracy? The April elections
and the Afghan vote have to be interpreted in the above
background. The Afghan nation seems to be on a
positive road towards the transition. What are the
challenges ahead? Will they be able to convert the
positive elections into a successful transition and draft
a new history?
8 Jun 2014
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: CONSEQUENCES OF AMERICA EXIT.
The announcement of a drawdown timeline for US
troops from Afghanistan predictably garnered mixed
reactions. However, most of the issues that brought the
US-led ISAF to the region still remain unresolved. Where
on one hand Osama bin Laden’s killing is an ace for the
US, the al Qaeda as an entity still remains. This leaves
the second spoiler, the Afghan Taliban, as well as their
faith brothers, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Both
of them have the advantage of being sons of the soil.
There is no timeline to chase, so they have the luxury to
act as spoilers, keep the security profile turbulent in real
time and wait for the ‘foreigners’ to exit. Though the
Afghan Taliban has suffered significant losses, their
structures, ability to recruit, and countrywide operations
remain intact with new tactics and means to hold
ground.
Afghanistan today is not the one left in the wake of the
Soviet withdrawal and the faulty Geneva Accords. This
is good news, as even in the worst-case future scenario,
one cannot envision the international community leaving
Kabul in the lurch. However it correspondingly gives rise
to another problem: that too many actors with vested
interests will turn Afghanistan into their proxy strategic
playfield. For the moment, Afghans are happy with this
international focus and seemingly positive attention, but
the years to come may change this happy picture. A
larger chunk of Afghan civil society, which is highly
proactive in democratic nation-building, is drawn from
the Afghan diaspora, who despite their best intentions
may not be able to withstand a possible surge in
militancy and violence in case a situation so arises. The
law enforcement and security apparatus, ANSF, though
much improved and stronger than before still has a long
way to go and its performance post transition would at
best remain a mixed bag, which given Afghanistan’s
complex security dynamics, is not at all a good news.
That leaves the ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’
democratic and nation-building process, which like
many of the ‘Made in US’ products leaves much to be
desired. In a cross-section of Afghan nationals, there
exists deep skepticism about the ‘Afghan-owned’
component largely missing from the frame, thus once
again constructing a system that has very weak
foundations.
Much depends on the results of the forthcoming
elections. With all the presidential candidates and their
affiliates minus incumbent president Karzai consenting
to the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), Afghanistan
requires a strong representative government with
indigenous legitimacy and capacity to extend its writ
outside Kabul without external props. Will the Taliban
be willing to negotiate and agree to some non-violent
power-sharing? There are serious doubts. What would
be the impact of these developments on Pakistan?
Though the Pakistani government is already in talks
with the TTP (Pakhtun faction) and there is a temporary
respite from the US drones, bombings and civilian
killings have not reduced and nor has the US announced
a complete termination of its drone attack policy. In fact
most of the Taliban high shura has comfortably crossed
over into Afghanistan and will remain there for as long
as it suits them. Though the Afghan and Pakistani
Taliban are pursuing their independent agenda, one
must not forget their past links and the strength and
resilience of their networks. In addition, the history of
Pak-US relations is highly checkered, and even after
eleven plus years, Pakistani society remains highly
divided about whether this has been Pakistan’s war.
In case the talks with the TTP fail and there is a breach
in the security framework that would result as a part of
the agreement, would post-2014 Afghanistan be able to
provide security cooperation to Pakistan, mainly in the
shape of border closure, hot pursuit into ‘friendly’
territory to capture militants, intelligence-sharing and
perceivable joint operations? With divergent perspectives
and a strong sense of the other side being the spoiler,
there is doubt that such a cooperative security regime
could work. However, for the Afghan and Pakistan
Taliban, the post 2014 timeline would actually be a
welcoming notion. So long as there is an American
security interest and presence, there is optimism for a
better security framework. Both Pakistan and
Afghanistan can conveniently dump their bad diplomacy
on the US. It also acts as a balancer against a stronger
Indian presence.
Though Pakistani decision-makers have reinforced the
point that they have no reservations with New Delhi’s
‘legitimate’ interests in Afghanistan, they would always
remain wary of any military or strategic role India has in
Afghanistan. Realistically, every country, be it the US
(Monroe doctrine) or India (Nepal, Bhutan), has similar
concerns when it comes to its strategic interests.
Afghanistan of the future holds increased economic and
commercial activity and corresponding involvement of
the international community, as well as pressure for
increased transit and trilateral (India-Pakistan-
Afghanistan) trade. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the
changing trends and pressures. Ironically, the energy
pipelines still remain somewhat elusive; a problematic
profile for energy-stressed Pakistan specifically. The
coming months are fraught with multiple challenges that
need a sustainable, well-articulated and well thought-
out approach. The 2014 exit timeline in fact heralds a
new chapter in the region’s strategic relations, which
would largely shape future dynamics.
troops from Afghanistan predictably garnered mixed
reactions. However, most of the issues that brought the
US-led ISAF to the region still remain unresolved. Where
on one hand Osama bin Laden’s killing is an ace for the
US, the al Qaeda as an entity still remains. This leaves
the second spoiler, the Afghan Taliban, as well as their
faith brothers, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Both
of them have the advantage of being sons of the soil.
There is no timeline to chase, so they have the luxury to
act as spoilers, keep the security profile turbulent in real
time and wait for the ‘foreigners’ to exit. Though the
Afghan Taliban has suffered significant losses, their
structures, ability to recruit, and countrywide operations
remain intact with new tactics and means to hold
ground.
Afghanistan today is not the one left in the wake of the
Soviet withdrawal and the faulty Geneva Accords. This
is good news, as even in the worst-case future scenario,
one cannot envision the international community leaving
Kabul in the lurch. However it correspondingly gives rise
to another problem: that too many actors with vested
interests will turn Afghanistan into their proxy strategic
playfield. For the moment, Afghans are happy with this
international focus and seemingly positive attention, but
the years to come may change this happy picture. A
larger chunk of Afghan civil society, which is highly
proactive in democratic nation-building, is drawn from
the Afghan diaspora, who despite their best intentions
may not be able to withstand a possible surge in
militancy and violence in case a situation so arises. The
law enforcement and security apparatus, ANSF, though
much improved and stronger than before still has a long
way to go and its performance post transition would at
best remain a mixed bag, which given Afghanistan’s
complex security dynamics, is not at all a good news.
That leaves the ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’
democratic and nation-building process, which like
many of the ‘Made in US’ products leaves much to be
desired. In a cross-section of Afghan nationals, there
exists deep skepticism about the ‘Afghan-owned’
component largely missing from the frame, thus once
again constructing a system that has very weak
foundations.
Much depends on the results of the forthcoming
elections. With all the presidential candidates and their
affiliates minus incumbent president Karzai consenting
to the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), Afghanistan
requires a strong representative government with
indigenous legitimacy and capacity to extend its writ
outside Kabul without external props. Will the Taliban
be willing to negotiate and agree to some non-violent
power-sharing? There are serious doubts. What would
be the impact of these developments on Pakistan?
Though the Pakistani government is already in talks
with the TTP (Pakhtun faction) and there is a temporary
respite from the US drones, bombings and civilian
killings have not reduced and nor has the US announced
a complete termination of its drone attack policy. In fact
most of the Taliban high shura has comfortably crossed
over into Afghanistan and will remain there for as long
as it suits them. Though the Afghan and Pakistani
Taliban are pursuing their independent agenda, one
must not forget their past links and the strength and
resilience of their networks. In addition, the history of
Pak-US relations is highly checkered, and even after
eleven plus years, Pakistani society remains highly
divided about whether this has been Pakistan’s war.
In case the talks with the TTP fail and there is a breach
in the security framework that would result as a part of
the agreement, would post-2014 Afghanistan be able to
provide security cooperation to Pakistan, mainly in the
shape of border closure, hot pursuit into ‘friendly’
territory to capture militants, intelligence-sharing and
perceivable joint operations? With divergent perspectives
and a strong sense of the other side being the spoiler,
there is doubt that such a cooperative security regime
could work. However, for the Afghan and Pakistan
Taliban, the post 2014 timeline would actually be a
welcoming notion. So long as there is an American
security interest and presence, there is optimism for a
better security framework. Both Pakistan and
Afghanistan can conveniently dump their bad diplomacy
on the US. It also acts as a balancer against a stronger
Indian presence.
Though Pakistani decision-makers have reinforced the
point that they have no reservations with New Delhi’s
‘legitimate’ interests in Afghanistan, they would always
remain wary of any military or strategic role India has in
Afghanistan. Realistically, every country, be it the US
(Monroe doctrine) or India (Nepal, Bhutan), has similar
concerns when it comes to its strategic interests.
Afghanistan of the future holds increased economic and
commercial activity and corresponding involvement of
the international community, as well as pressure for
increased transit and trilateral (India-Pakistan-
Afghanistan) trade. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the
changing trends and pressures. Ironically, the energy
pipelines still remain somewhat elusive; a problematic
profile for energy-stressed Pakistan specifically. The
coming months are fraught with multiple challenges that
need a sustainable, well-articulated and well thought-
out approach. The 2014 exit timeline in fact heralds a
new chapter in the region’s strategic relations, which
would largely shape future dynamics.
AMERICAN ENDGAME IN AFGHANISTAN POST 2014
As the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
prepares to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014,
it is of significance to assess larger American interests
at play in the country and the region. How will the US
leverage its resources to secure those interests?
American Strategy: Keeping a Residual Force
Several voices in the US are of the view that the troop
drawdown is reasonable. The US has achieved the
mission of killing Osama bin Laden and has paralysed al
Qaeda's operational structure. The prevailing argument
is that the war that has been expensive and has
resulted in the loss of several thousand American lives
needs to finally end. Yet, official declarations talk in
terms of ensuring stability in Afghanistan that requires
US presence for training and supporting the ANSF while
focussing on counter-terrorism missions.
What remains understated is how Afghanistan, as an
important geopolitical asset, serves larger American
interests in the region. It is the Pentagon’s only military
base in Central Asia, with Iran to the west, Pakistan to
the east, China to the northeast, various resource-rich
former Soviet republics to the northwest, and Russia to
the north. A presence in Afghanistan would not only
serve to enhance economic and trade interests but also
help the US keep a close tab on these countries.
This explains US involvement in painstaking negotiations
to conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that
would enable it to maintain bases post-2014. The
prospect of a continued presence in Afghanistan has
also led the Obama administration to seek a peace deal
with the Afghan Taliban by offering them a de-facto
diplomatic mission in Qatar.
The charged confrontation between the US and Russia
over Ukraine has further boosted the support towards
maintaining bases. Former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in a Washington Post article , linked
Russia’s actions in Ukraine with the troop withdrawal
from Afghanistan. According to her, anything less than
the American military’s requirement for 10,000 troops
will suggest that the US is not serious about helping to
stabilise that country, which is likely to embolden
countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia.
Aid as Carrot and Stick
The US Congress has been giving out multibillion dollar
annual bills as aid to the Afghan army. However, with
Karzai sticking to his word on not signing the BSA until
after elections, the administration has claimed that the
financial assistance, whether for armed forces or
development programmes, is likely to drop steeply. In
January 2014, Congress slashed the development
budget for Afghanistan by half and even reduced
security aid by 60 per cent.
A recent report by the United States Institute of Peace
(USIP) states that the delay in signing the BSA is
compounding uncertainty and diminishing economic
confidence in Afghanistan. According to the report, the
Afghan economy is witnessing increased capital flight,
delay in investments, incipient job losses, declining
demand for goods and services, and is leading to
farmers planting more poppy. More families are
choosing to arm themselves, leading to a hike in
weapon prices. Stating that it is bound to spread into
the government and security structures, the report puts
the BSA as an anchor in navigating transition
challenges.
Using the Region to Leverage US Interests
It is a given that with or without the BSA, the US is
likely to play a lesser role in Afghanistan in the coming
months. However, the region as a whole has braced
itself for more involvement in Afghanistan, with
America’s blessings. The neighbouring countries realise
that an unstable Afghanistan is likely to become an
incubator of terrorism, poppy production and other illicit
activities. Pakistan and Iran understand the
repercussions of a failed state in their backyard that has
the potential to create unrest and instability within their
own territories. Russia and China are already worried
about the spread of insurgency in the troubled
Chechenya and Xinjiang provinces respectively.
India for its part is uniquely positioned - as a friend to
both Washington and Kabul. India remains in a position
to use its good offices to ensure that a version of the
BSA agreeable to both the countries is signed. Building
on the 'narrative of opportunity' to counter the anxiety
of withdrawal, New Delhi is attempting to shift focus to
regional confidence-building, development, governance,
trade and investment. India until now has transferred
‘no strings attached’ aid directly to Kabul despite
knowing that the Afghan government is considered
corrupt. India has also tried to deal with Pakistan’s
fears over military involvement in Afghanistan. Thus, it
has been evasive towards Afghan requests for tanks,
field guns and aircraft. As it turns out, Washington,
which was more than ambivalent regarding India’s
participation in the region, wants more from New Delhi
today.
The ‘new silk road’ initiative to link Afghanistan’s
energy, mineral and trade resources with the rest of the
world ideated by the Obama administration is also being
taken up by the region collectively to exploit the transit
potential that can accrue much needed economic growth
for the country. If successful, the project can serve as a
conduit for mutually beneficial cooperation between the
US, Central Asia and Russia, helping the US to continue
playing a consequential role in the region.
prepares to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014,
it is of significance to assess larger American interests
at play in the country and the region. How will the US
leverage its resources to secure those interests?
American Strategy: Keeping a Residual Force
Several voices in the US are of the view that the troop
drawdown is reasonable. The US has achieved the
mission of killing Osama bin Laden and has paralysed al
Qaeda's operational structure. The prevailing argument
is that the war that has been expensive and has
resulted in the loss of several thousand American lives
needs to finally end. Yet, official declarations talk in
terms of ensuring stability in Afghanistan that requires
US presence for training and supporting the ANSF while
focussing on counter-terrorism missions.
What remains understated is how Afghanistan, as an
important geopolitical asset, serves larger American
interests in the region. It is the Pentagon’s only military
base in Central Asia, with Iran to the west, Pakistan to
the east, China to the northeast, various resource-rich
former Soviet republics to the northwest, and Russia to
the north. A presence in Afghanistan would not only
serve to enhance economic and trade interests but also
help the US keep a close tab on these countries.
This explains US involvement in painstaking negotiations
to conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that
would enable it to maintain bases post-2014. The
prospect of a continued presence in Afghanistan has
also led the Obama administration to seek a peace deal
with the Afghan Taliban by offering them a de-facto
diplomatic mission in Qatar.
The charged confrontation between the US and Russia
over Ukraine has further boosted the support towards
maintaining bases. Former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in a Washington Post article , linked
Russia’s actions in Ukraine with the troop withdrawal
from Afghanistan. According to her, anything less than
the American military’s requirement for 10,000 troops
will suggest that the US is not serious about helping to
stabilise that country, which is likely to embolden
countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia.
Aid as Carrot and Stick
The US Congress has been giving out multibillion dollar
annual bills as aid to the Afghan army. However, with
Karzai sticking to his word on not signing the BSA until
after elections, the administration has claimed that the
financial assistance, whether for armed forces or
development programmes, is likely to drop steeply. In
January 2014, Congress slashed the development
budget for Afghanistan by half and even reduced
security aid by 60 per cent.
A recent report by the United States Institute of Peace
(USIP) states that the delay in signing the BSA is
compounding uncertainty and diminishing economic
confidence in Afghanistan. According to the report, the
Afghan economy is witnessing increased capital flight,
delay in investments, incipient job losses, declining
demand for goods and services, and is leading to
farmers planting more poppy. More families are
choosing to arm themselves, leading to a hike in
weapon prices. Stating that it is bound to spread into
the government and security structures, the report puts
the BSA as an anchor in navigating transition
challenges.
Using the Region to Leverage US Interests
It is a given that with or without the BSA, the US is
likely to play a lesser role in Afghanistan in the coming
months. However, the region as a whole has braced
itself for more involvement in Afghanistan, with
America’s blessings. The neighbouring countries realise
that an unstable Afghanistan is likely to become an
incubator of terrorism, poppy production and other illicit
activities. Pakistan and Iran understand the
repercussions of a failed state in their backyard that has
the potential to create unrest and instability within their
own territories. Russia and China are already worried
about the spread of insurgency in the troubled
Chechenya and Xinjiang provinces respectively.
India for its part is uniquely positioned - as a friend to
both Washington and Kabul. India remains in a position
to use its good offices to ensure that a version of the
BSA agreeable to both the countries is signed. Building
on the 'narrative of opportunity' to counter the anxiety
of withdrawal, New Delhi is attempting to shift focus to
regional confidence-building, development, governance,
trade and investment. India until now has transferred
‘no strings attached’ aid directly to Kabul despite
knowing that the Afghan government is considered
corrupt. India has also tried to deal with Pakistan’s
fears over military involvement in Afghanistan. Thus, it
has been evasive towards Afghan requests for tanks,
field guns and aircraft. As it turns out, Washington,
which was more than ambivalent regarding India’s
participation in the region, wants more from New Delhi
today.
The ‘new silk road’ initiative to link Afghanistan’s
energy, mineral and trade resources with the rest of the
world ideated by the Obama administration is also being
taken up by the region collectively to exploit the transit
potential that can accrue much needed economic growth
for the country. If successful, the project can serve as a
conduit for mutually beneficial cooperation between the
US, Central Asia and Russia, helping the US to continue
playing a consequential role in the region.
US-CHINA: THE PROBLEM OF CONGAGEMENT
Over the past two decades, China has grown
exponentially, both in military prowess and economic
might. The US, one of the major contributing factors to
China’s rise, now realises the importance of countering
this advancement. But is its policy of ‘congagement’,
apt for the issue at hand?
Inconsistent Engagement
Over the past decade, the US maintained a policy of
‘engagement’ towards China. This has in fact been a
tactic to hedge its own bets, without getting into the
primary context. Militarily, Washington has been
facilitating Beijing’s participation in multilateral defense
exercises such as the Cobra Gold and RIMPAC, thus
coming clean and allowing China to gauge US intentions
in the region. Economically, the US has granted China
the Most Favoured Nation status, thereby reducing
export control policies and allowing Beijing to operate
relatively freely in the US markets.
Washington has tried to maximise bilateral ties while
keeping existing disputes in control. Simultaneously, the
US continuously tries to bring China into various arms
control regimes dealing with WMDs, proliferation, arms
trade, etc., and also into international regimes such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Bilaterally, Washington has tried to involve Beijing in the
regional issues regarding North Korea, and may also
invite it to assist with Iran.
While there can be several intended results from this
relationship, the most practical and favorable outcome
is that of Beijing’s integration into the international
system. If China gets as engaged in international
relations as most other Western nations, the probability
of a military intervention by Beijing decreases. This is
because the leadership in Beijing understands the
benefits the current ‘rules of the game’ have to offer,
and also to avoid doing anything that would scuttle its
own off-shore interests.
However, engagement is a relatively flawed policy, as it
does not offer advice on what needs to be done, in the
event of Beijing not adhering to current international
norms. The primary assumption – engaging China on
the international stage as a primary actor, to change its
outlook towards a positive direction – is an a priori
concept. Should this prove to be incorrect, engagement
would have only assisted China in becoming a more
threatening adversary in the future.
Containment: Boon or a Bane?
Containment is seen as a more realistic approach of
dealing with a powerful China in the future. Under this
policy, all elements of the US-China relationship would
be subservient to the primary objective: preventing
China’s growth. This would entail drastically reducing
US-China trade agreements, particularly insuring non-
proliferation of technology and military
development. Furthermore, Washington will have to
enhance its regional presence in the Asia-Pacific,
engaging with other nation states in the region, into
forming an ‘anti-China’ alliance. The US would also
have to convince other potential political and security
partners into limiting their diplomatic and trade
relations with China.
As realist international theory dictates, rising powers
generally tend to assert themselves on the global scene
and challenge the predominant power. This challenge
often translates in a systematic war with the
predominant power. Washington needs to take these
containment steps to ensure this ‘systematic war’ is not
realised. Also, given its political tradition of imperial
rule, China is unlikely to democratise, and this would
only lead to an increase in its bellicosity.
In the present geopolitical scenario, containment will be
a difficult policy to implement. Obtaining domestic
consensus for subordinating other policy goals (such as
trade and commerce) to dealing with a Chinese threat
that is yet to manifest itself will not be easy. This may
even lead to Beijing becoming increasingly hostile
towards the US’ interests. Furthermore, policy will
require the total cooperation of all leading industrial and
military nations of the world to succeed – that which
doesn’t seem to be the case. In the last decade, along
with the US, other major regional players too have been
pivoting to China, and not all of them may want to
sever their economic and diplomatic relationship with
the latter.
Feasibility of a Middle Path
Not only the Obama administration, but much of the US
policy establishment is ambiguous in their reactions
towards the growing Chinese economic and military
power. Recently, the curious term called
‘congagement’ (a mix of containment and engagement)
is making rounds in the US policy circles. It describes
the current policy confusion and contortions of
Washington towards Beijing Well. Many call this a
hedging strategy.
‘Congagement’, however, is built on contradictory
policies. The aspects of engagement and containment
are incoherent – they do not complement each other.
This hedging strategy is unsubstantiated. Hedging is
defined as ‘making an investment to reduce the risk of
adverse decision movements in an asset’. In the China
policy analogy, the US position is that of engaging
China in bilateral agreements, facilitating the bridging of
the gaps between both countries, while at the same
time enhancing its own position to ensure proper
counter-measures for any future Chinese threats.
This confusing stance is the primary reason why
Washington cannot directly or indirectly retaliate to
Beijing’s influence or activities detrimental to its own
security. US President Barack Obama’s ambiguous
silence on the issue of the South China Sea dispute
stands evidence for this. Furthermore, Washington’s
inability to react more than just making international
statements in the recent case of cyber espionage by
China validates this.
exponentially, both in military prowess and economic
might. The US, one of the major contributing factors to
China’s rise, now realises the importance of countering
this advancement. But is its policy of ‘congagement’,
apt for the issue at hand?
Inconsistent Engagement
Over the past decade, the US maintained a policy of
‘engagement’ towards China. This has in fact been a
tactic to hedge its own bets, without getting into the
primary context. Militarily, Washington has been
facilitating Beijing’s participation in multilateral defense
exercises such as the Cobra Gold and RIMPAC, thus
coming clean and allowing China to gauge US intentions
in the region. Economically, the US has granted China
the Most Favoured Nation status, thereby reducing
export control policies and allowing Beijing to operate
relatively freely in the US markets.
Washington has tried to maximise bilateral ties while
keeping existing disputes in control. Simultaneously, the
US continuously tries to bring China into various arms
control regimes dealing with WMDs, proliferation, arms
trade, etc., and also into international regimes such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Bilaterally, Washington has tried to involve Beijing in the
regional issues regarding North Korea, and may also
invite it to assist with Iran.
While there can be several intended results from this
relationship, the most practical and favorable outcome
is that of Beijing’s integration into the international
system. If China gets as engaged in international
relations as most other Western nations, the probability
of a military intervention by Beijing decreases. This is
because the leadership in Beijing understands the
benefits the current ‘rules of the game’ have to offer,
and also to avoid doing anything that would scuttle its
own off-shore interests.
However, engagement is a relatively flawed policy, as it
does not offer advice on what needs to be done, in the
event of Beijing not adhering to current international
norms. The primary assumption – engaging China on
the international stage as a primary actor, to change its
outlook towards a positive direction – is an a priori
concept. Should this prove to be incorrect, engagement
would have only assisted China in becoming a more
threatening adversary in the future.
Containment: Boon or a Bane?
Containment is seen as a more realistic approach of
dealing with a powerful China in the future. Under this
policy, all elements of the US-China relationship would
be subservient to the primary objective: preventing
China’s growth. This would entail drastically reducing
US-China trade agreements, particularly insuring non-
proliferation of technology and military
development. Furthermore, Washington will have to
enhance its regional presence in the Asia-Pacific,
engaging with other nation states in the region, into
forming an ‘anti-China’ alliance. The US would also
have to convince other potential political and security
partners into limiting their diplomatic and trade
relations with China.
As realist international theory dictates, rising powers
generally tend to assert themselves on the global scene
and challenge the predominant power. This challenge
often translates in a systematic war with the
predominant power. Washington needs to take these
containment steps to ensure this ‘systematic war’ is not
realised. Also, given its political tradition of imperial
rule, China is unlikely to democratise, and this would
only lead to an increase in its bellicosity.
In the present geopolitical scenario, containment will be
a difficult policy to implement. Obtaining domestic
consensus for subordinating other policy goals (such as
trade and commerce) to dealing with a Chinese threat
that is yet to manifest itself will not be easy. This may
even lead to Beijing becoming increasingly hostile
towards the US’ interests. Furthermore, policy will
require the total cooperation of all leading industrial and
military nations of the world to succeed – that which
doesn’t seem to be the case. In the last decade, along
with the US, other major regional players too have been
pivoting to China, and not all of them may want to
sever their economic and diplomatic relationship with
the latter.
Feasibility of a Middle Path
Not only the Obama administration, but much of the US
policy establishment is ambiguous in their reactions
towards the growing Chinese economic and military
power. Recently, the curious term called
‘congagement’ (a mix of containment and engagement)
is making rounds in the US policy circles. It describes
the current policy confusion and contortions of
Washington towards Beijing Well. Many call this a
hedging strategy.
‘Congagement’, however, is built on contradictory
policies. The aspects of engagement and containment
are incoherent – they do not complement each other.
This hedging strategy is unsubstantiated. Hedging is
defined as ‘making an investment to reduce the risk of
adverse decision movements in an asset’. In the China
policy analogy, the US position is that of engaging
China in bilateral agreements, facilitating the bridging of
the gaps between both countries, while at the same
time enhancing its own position to ensure proper
counter-measures for any future Chinese threats.
This confusing stance is the primary reason why
Washington cannot directly or indirectly retaliate to
Beijing’s influence or activities detrimental to its own
security. US President Barack Obama’s ambiguous
silence on the issue of the South China Sea dispute
stands evidence for this. Furthermore, Washington’s
inability to react more than just making international
statements in the recent case of cyber espionage by
China validates this.
US, UKRAINE AND THE END OF UNIPOLARITY
When Ukraine became a sovereign independent republic
following the Soviet disintegration, a unipolar world
order was born. Now with Crimea’s secession from
Ukraine and the annexation to Russia, the death of the
unipolar world seems certain.
US unilateralism during the era of a unipolar world order
remained unchallenged.
There was no one to question then US President Bill
Clinton’s decision to rain missiles on Afghanistan as a
response to the bombing of two US embassies in Africa;
no one could challenge then US President George Bush’s
decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, withdraw from Kyoto Protocol, invade
Iraq, and overthrow Saddam Hussein from power.
Incumbent US President Barack Obama promised to
promote a liberal world order; employ more diplomacy
and less force; end occupation of Iraq; talk Iran out of a
suspected nuclear weapon programme; bring North
Korea back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; positively
engage the Islamic world; strive for establishment of a
nuclear weapon free world; reach out to the largest
democracy of the world; make China a responsible
stakeholder; make Russia a partner for peace; and many
more.
However, project Obama, although partially successful,
it has largely failed. President Obama can be given
credit for Iran’s decision to accept the détente with the
US, Syria’s willingness to destroy its chemical weapons,
US Navy Seal’s spectacular assassination of Osama bin
Laden, and his successful approach to stemming the
country’s downward economic spiral.
Nevertheless, his foreign policy flops appear more
stunning. The Arab world is clearly on fire with
dangerous political upheavals and unrelenting violence.
The White House will have to accept a fair share of the
blame for the Libyan chaos, Egyptian instability, the
interminable civil war in Syria, and the North Korean
nuclear tenacity.
Additionally, the US is not in a position to inspire
confidence among its Asian allies at the time of growing
Chinese assertiveness. All goodwill between India and
the US appears to have become a thing of the past
following the fierce diplomatic discord sparked by the
arrest and perceived mistreatment of an Indian consular
officer by the New York Police Department. The
Marshall Plan aid to Europe in the post World War II
period remains in the history books, and the present day
US is simply incapable of instituting a similar
assistance programme to rescue Europe from its current
economic calamity.
In other words, the unipolar world order was already
facing the risk of extinction, when Russia’s response to
the political turbulence in Ukraine threatened to alter
that order. During the period of Soviet disintegration,
pundits could not predict the final outcome of events in
Moscow. Similarly, in the case of the Ukrainian political
turmoil, no one could imagine the speed with which
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be able to
dismantle Ukrainian political geography and annex
Crimea.
The Obama administration’s response was slow and
meek. Along with the EU, it imposed sanctions against
some Russian individuals. Although Russia’s
membership from the G8 and its voting rights in the
Council of Europe was suspended, no sanctions could
be imposed on critical sectors of the Russian economy,
and nor could any military measure be contemplated.
High rhetoric and docile measures highlight
Washington’s response.
All these are the result of the resilience of a resurgent
Russia and the relative decline of the US. The US
military presence in Europe is far less today compared
to that during the height of the Cold War. There are no
US aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean; US navy
personnel numbers in Europe have reduced to 7000 from
40,000; and army personnel numbers have been
reduced to 66,000 from over several hundred thousand
in the recent past.
Reduction in the US military presence has coincided with
the increased Russian leverage in Europe, especially in
the energy sector. Germany purchases one-third of
Moscow’s gas; Russia accounts for over half of
Austria’s gas imports; and Finland imports all of its gas
from Russia. Germany’s exports to Russia stand at $40
billion a year; France’s banks have over $50 billion
claims from Russia; and UK reaps billions of dollars of
profit from the indulgences of Russian Oligarch in
London.
How can the US and the EU unite to resist expansion of
Russian sway over Ukraine?
While the European allies have developed mistrust in the
US since the Snowden episode, Asian allies lack
credibility in the US in the wake of Chinese muscle
flexing. Brazil is upset with the US’s eavesdropping
activities and India is more than offended by the State
Department’s handling of the Devyani Khobragade
incident.
President Obama managed his relations with US allies,
strategic partners and emerging powers shoddily, and
finds it difficult to deal with Russian advances in
Ukraine. South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea have
fallen into Russian hands, and three provinces in
Eastern Ukraine seem to be in the queue. As the
dominoes fall, the unipolar global order also appears to
be breaking down.
following the Soviet disintegration, a unipolar world
order was born. Now with Crimea’s secession from
Ukraine and the annexation to Russia, the death of the
unipolar world seems certain.
US unilateralism during the era of a unipolar world order
remained unchallenged.
There was no one to question then US President Bill
Clinton’s decision to rain missiles on Afghanistan as a
response to the bombing of two US embassies in Africa;
no one could challenge then US President George Bush’s
decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, withdraw from Kyoto Protocol, invade
Iraq, and overthrow Saddam Hussein from power.
Incumbent US President Barack Obama promised to
promote a liberal world order; employ more diplomacy
and less force; end occupation of Iraq; talk Iran out of a
suspected nuclear weapon programme; bring North
Korea back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; positively
engage the Islamic world; strive for establishment of a
nuclear weapon free world; reach out to the largest
democracy of the world; make China a responsible
stakeholder; make Russia a partner for peace; and many
more.
However, project Obama, although partially successful,
it has largely failed. President Obama can be given
credit for Iran’s decision to accept the détente with the
US, Syria’s willingness to destroy its chemical weapons,
US Navy Seal’s spectacular assassination of Osama bin
Laden, and his successful approach to stemming the
country’s downward economic spiral.
Nevertheless, his foreign policy flops appear more
stunning. The Arab world is clearly on fire with
dangerous political upheavals and unrelenting violence.
The White House will have to accept a fair share of the
blame for the Libyan chaos, Egyptian instability, the
interminable civil war in Syria, and the North Korean
nuclear tenacity.
Additionally, the US is not in a position to inspire
confidence among its Asian allies at the time of growing
Chinese assertiveness. All goodwill between India and
the US appears to have become a thing of the past
following the fierce diplomatic discord sparked by the
arrest and perceived mistreatment of an Indian consular
officer by the New York Police Department. The
Marshall Plan aid to Europe in the post World War II
period remains in the history books, and the present day
US is simply incapable of instituting a similar
assistance programme to rescue Europe from its current
economic calamity.
In other words, the unipolar world order was already
facing the risk of extinction, when Russia’s response to
the political turbulence in Ukraine threatened to alter
that order. During the period of Soviet disintegration,
pundits could not predict the final outcome of events in
Moscow. Similarly, in the case of the Ukrainian political
turmoil, no one could imagine the speed with which
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be able to
dismantle Ukrainian political geography and annex
Crimea.
The Obama administration’s response was slow and
meek. Along with the EU, it imposed sanctions against
some Russian individuals. Although Russia’s
membership from the G8 and its voting rights in the
Council of Europe was suspended, no sanctions could
be imposed on critical sectors of the Russian economy,
and nor could any military measure be contemplated.
High rhetoric and docile measures highlight
Washington’s response.
All these are the result of the resilience of a resurgent
Russia and the relative decline of the US. The US
military presence in Europe is far less today compared
to that during the height of the Cold War. There are no
US aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean; US navy
personnel numbers in Europe have reduced to 7000 from
40,000; and army personnel numbers have been
reduced to 66,000 from over several hundred thousand
in the recent past.
Reduction in the US military presence has coincided with
the increased Russian leverage in Europe, especially in
the energy sector. Germany purchases one-third of
Moscow’s gas; Russia accounts for over half of
Austria’s gas imports; and Finland imports all of its gas
from Russia. Germany’s exports to Russia stand at $40
billion a year; France’s banks have over $50 billion
claims from Russia; and UK reaps billions of dollars of
profit from the indulgences of Russian Oligarch in
London.
How can the US and the EU unite to resist expansion of
Russian sway over Ukraine?
While the European allies have developed mistrust in the
US since the Snowden episode, Asian allies lack
credibility in the US in the wake of Chinese muscle
flexing. Brazil is upset with the US’s eavesdropping
activities and India is more than offended by the State
Department’s handling of the Devyani Khobragade
incident.
President Obama managed his relations with US allies,
strategic partners and emerging powers shoddily, and
finds it difficult to deal with Russian advances in
Ukraine. South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea have
fallen into Russian hands, and three provinces in
Eastern Ukraine seem to be in the queue. As the
dominoes fall, the unipolar global order also appears to
be breaking down.
7 Jun 2014
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Since its creation, the Electoral College has faced debate
between those who believe it benefits the electoral
process and those who view it as detrimental. The
Electoral College debate focuses around various issues,
including the relevance of the popular vote, the
allocation of voting power between states and how the
system affects minority groups.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that one of the
main benefits of the system is that it requires the
winning candidate to have a broad appeal throughout
the nation. By requiring candidates to appeal to voters
throughout the country, the Electoral College prevents
candidates from winning based on winning the support
of urban areas alone, which would allegedly
disenfranchise rural voters. In a similar way, proponents
of the Electoral College argue that the current system
empowers minority groups because it requires
candidates to appeal to minority groups to win enough
states to win the election.
Supporters also claim that the current system is in line
with the federal character of the US government. This is
because the current system gives more voting power to
less populous communities, and proponents of this view
argue that even the opinions of a sparsely populated
area should matter to the federal government. They take
the position that the Electoral College provides for
greater national stability. By requiring candidates to
appeal to a broad collection of voters, new ideas and
innovations have to meet with broad-based approval
before those who hold those views can gain power in
the government.
Those who criticize the Electoral College often do so on
the grounds that it makes the popular vote irrelevant
and point to four elections, those in 2000, 1888, 1876
and 1824 where the candidate who won a victory
through the electoral college did not have a plurality of
the total votes cast. This is generally viewed by
detractors of the Electoral College as not in line with the
principles of a democratic society. Detractors also argue
that the present system encourage candidates to appeal
only to certain swing states in each election. They
argue that instead of finding broad-based appeal,
candidates tailor their campaigns to win over swing
voters in a handful of states.
The Electoral College Debate Continues
Those who support changing the present system also
argue that the Electoral College discourages voter
participation in states that are not identified as
battleground states. They argue that this is because of
party domination in certain states that renders the votes
of those not in that party irrelevant to the national
election. In this way, detractors of the Electoral College
believe that the present system disenfranchises minority
groups.
between those who believe it benefits the electoral
process and those who view it as detrimental. The
Electoral College debate focuses around various issues,
including the relevance of the popular vote, the
allocation of voting power between states and how the
system affects minority groups.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that one of the
main benefits of the system is that it requires the
winning candidate to have a broad appeal throughout
the nation. By requiring candidates to appeal to voters
throughout the country, the Electoral College prevents
candidates from winning based on winning the support
of urban areas alone, which would allegedly
disenfranchise rural voters. In a similar way, proponents
of the Electoral College argue that the current system
empowers minority groups because it requires
candidates to appeal to minority groups to win enough
states to win the election.
Supporters also claim that the current system is in line
with the federal character of the US government. This is
because the current system gives more voting power to
less populous communities, and proponents of this view
argue that even the opinions of a sparsely populated
area should matter to the federal government. They take
the position that the Electoral College provides for
greater national stability. By requiring candidates to
appeal to a broad collection of voters, new ideas and
innovations have to meet with broad-based approval
before those who hold those views can gain power in
the government.
Those who criticize the Electoral College often do so on
the grounds that it makes the popular vote irrelevant
and point to four elections, those in 2000, 1888, 1876
and 1824 where the candidate who won a victory
through the electoral college did not have a plurality of
the total votes cast. This is generally viewed by
detractors of the Electoral College as not in line with the
principles of a democratic society. Detractors also argue
that the present system encourage candidates to appeal
only to certain swing states in each election. They
argue that instead of finding broad-based appeal,
candidates tailor their campaigns to win over swing
voters in a handful of states.
The Electoral College Debate Continues
Those who support changing the present system also
argue that the Electoral College discourages voter
participation in states that are not identified as
battleground states. They argue that this is because of
party domination in certain states that renders the votes
of those not in that party irrelevant to the national
election. In this way, detractors of the Electoral College
believe that the present system disenfranchises minority
groups.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative action programs are created in an attempt to
make sure that all groups within a given society have
the same opportunity to succeed. The term "affirmative
action" was coined by President John F. Kennedy and
expanded by President Lyndon Johnson. Although
different terms are used for affirmative action in different
nations, the concept is the same; affirmative action
means making sure that active steps are taken so that
minority groups are represented and hired in
organizations, government and businesses. Employment
decisions, admission to educational institutions, public
health policies and other arenas have all been affected
by a commitment to affirmative action.
Instituting an affirmative action policy comes from a
particular assessment of a nation's past; it is seen as
necessary as a compensatory measure in cultures that
have a history of discrimination or of withholding
economic opportunities based on race or national origin.
While some countries refuse to participate in affirmative
action because they have so-called "color-blind" laws
mandating that all races simply be treated equally,
other countries feel that favoring previously oppressed
groups, often called "reverse discrimination," at least for
a period of time, is the only way to restore complete
equality in the long term. This belief can lead to the
adoption of hiring quotas in which a certain number of
hires or appointments must come from previously
under-represented groups of people. In the United
States, affirmative action has been widely practiced, but
nearly as widely critiqued.
Critiques of Affirmative Action
Proponents of affirmative action point out that the
groups it currently favors are coming out of
backgrounds such as slavery, which made it nearly
impossible for them to succeed; thus, they deserve a
positive advantage when competing for jobs or
positions against others who experienced no systemic
barriers to success. Without a special opportunity to
enter into the system, disadvantaged groups might
never be able to overcome the handicap which was
forced on them by the exclusive priorities of their
culture. Eventually, all should be able to compete
equally, but discrimination is too recent to expect
underprivileged groups to do so now. In the end, the
goal is a free and equal society in which nobody gets a
head start to success. There are, however, many people
who are skeptical about these claims. These critics of
affirmative action point out that selecting someone
purely based on their ethnicity or origin actually
devalues the person's real accomplishments; they also
say that this devaluation ends up hurting the wider
ethnic or racial group from which a candidate comes.
Another common criticism is that as a form of reverse
discrimination, affirmative action keeps societies aware
of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates
alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse
groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial
tension. Another concern is that affirmative action may
encourage individuals to misrepresent themselves as
members of an underprivileged group so that they can
get a job or appointment.
Finally, critics claim that racially-based hiring or
appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform
at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get
the position anyway, and the privileged, because they
cannot be hired no matter how well they perform. The
affirmative action debate is heated; while most
Americans favor affirmative action when it is focused on
gender and seeks to make sure that enough women are
hired, fewer of them claim to support racially-based
affirmative action programs.
make sure that all groups within a given society have
the same opportunity to succeed. The term "affirmative
action" was coined by President John F. Kennedy and
expanded by President Lyndon Johnson. Although
different terms are used for affirmative action in different
nations, the concept is the same; affirmative action
means making sure that active steps are taken so that
minority groups are represented and hired in
organizations, government and businesses. Employment
decisions, admission to educational institutions, public
health policies and other arenas have all been affected
by a commitment to affirmative action.
Instituting an affirmative action policy comes from a
particular assessment of a nation's past; it is seen as
necessary as a compensatory measure in cultures that
have a history of discrimination or of withholding
economic opportunities based on race or national origin.
While some countries refuse to participate in affirmative
action because they have so-called "color-blind" laws
mandating that all races simply be treated equally,
other countries feel that favoring previously oppressed
groups, often called "reverse discrimination," at least for
a period of time, is the only way to restore complete
equality in the long term. This belief can lead to the
adoption of hiring quotas in which a certain number of
hires or appointments must come from previously
under-represented groups of people. In the United
States, affirmative action has been widely practiced, but
nearly as widely critiqued.
Critiques of Affirmative Action
Proponents of affirmative action point out that the
groups it currently favors are coming out of
backgrounds such as slavery, which made it nearly
impossible for them to succeed; thus, they deserve a
positive advantage when competing for jobs or
positions against others who experienced no systemic
barriers to success. Without a special opportunity to
enter into the system, disadvantaged groups might
never be able to overcome the handicap which was
forced on them by the exclusive priorities of their
culture. Eventually, all should be able to compete
equally, but discrimination is too recent to expect
underprivileged groups to do so now. In the end, the
goal is a free and equal society in which nobody gets a
head start to success. There are, however, many people
who are skeptical about these claims. These critics of
affirmative action point out that selecting someone
purely based on their ethnicity or origin actually
devalues the person's real accomplishments; they also
say that this devaluation ends up hurting the wider
ethnic or racial group from which a candidate comes.
Another common criticism is that as a form of reverse
discrimination, affirmative action keeps societies aware
of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates
alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse
groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial
tension. Another concern is that affirmative action may
encourage individuals to misrepresent themselves as
members of an underprivileged group so that they can
get a job or appointment.
Finally, critics claim that racially-based hiring or
appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform
at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get
the position anyway, and the privileged, because they
cannot be hired no matter how well they perform. The
affirmative action debate is heated; while most
Americans favor affirmative action when it is focused on
gender and seeks to make sure that enough women are
hired, fewer of them claim to support racially-based
affirmative action programs.
GAY MARRIAGE
Same-sex marriage is defined as a union between two
people who are of the same gender or biological sex.
Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have
made this type of union legal. Whether or not to
recognize such marriages remains a source of debate as
far as civil rights, political and social issues go.
Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often
comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The
word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across
cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a
relationship of one or more men with one or more
women that is recognized by law and involves certain
legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are
married also carry a legal responsibility for children that
they produce together. Modern definitions of the word
have much more variation. The Oxford English
Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex
marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many
conservative publications have not yet changed their
definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for
the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage
between two people of the same gender. Associated
Press uses the term "gay marriage" and warns that this
can refer to marriage of both gay men and lesbian
couples.
Gay Marriage Debate Controversy
It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage
that this topic carries with it a large amount of
controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage
often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage,
regardless of sexual orientation. Those who are opposed
often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the
rearing of children as the main reasons for their
opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not
a simple one. It involves many legislative, cultural,
religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of
the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of
marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the
opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that marriage
is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those
of a particular sexual orientation.
Gay Marriage and Religion
Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate
often involve religious factors. Some religious
associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-
sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex
marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people
were created as such by God and should have the same
rights as others. Those who are against it argue that
same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will
and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to
produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its
approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith
openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in
Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-
sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family.
Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a
father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a
homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the
other hand, scientific studies have found that children
raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable
of providing heterosexual parenting to their own children
later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one
because of the many social and legal factors involved.
Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage,
political and social groups everywhere are working hard
to form their own opinions and arguments.
people who are of the same gender or biological sex.
Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have
made this type of union legal. Whether or not to
recognize such marriages remains a source of debate as
far as civil rights, political and social issues go.
Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often
comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The
word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across
cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a
relationship of one or more men with one or more
women that is recognized by law and involves certain
legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are
married also carry a legal responsibility for children that
they produce together. Modern definitions of the word
have much more variation. The Oxford English
Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex
marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many
conservative publications have not yet changed their
definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for
the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage
between two people of the same gender. Associated
Press uses the term "gay marriage" and warns that this
can refer to marriage of both gay men and lesbian
couples.
Gay Marriage Debate Controversy
It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage
that this topic carries with it a large amount of
controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage
often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage,
regardless of sexual orientation. Those who are opposed
often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the
rearing of children as the main reasons for their
opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not
a simple one. It involves many legislative, cultural,
religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of
the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of
marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the
opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that marriage
is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those
of a particular sexual orientation.
Gay Marriage and Religion
Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate
often involve religious factors. Some religious
associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-
sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex
marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people
were created as such by God and should have the same
rights as others. Those who are against it argue that
same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will
and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to
produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its
approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith
openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in
Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-
sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family.
Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a
father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a
homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the
other hand, scientific studies have found that children
raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable
of providing heterosexual parenting to their own children
later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one
because of the many social and legal factors involved.
Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage,
political and social groups everywhere are working hard
to form their own opinions and arguments.
LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION
Prostitution is defined as the act of providing sexual
services to a person in exchange for money, goods or
other services. Worldwide, this practice produces over
$100 billion in revenue annually. Prostitution practices
vary greatly from country to country. Prostitution is
legal in some countries; however, prostitution is
considered so serious a crime that it is punishable by
death in other countries. Currently, prostitution is illegal
in the United States with the exception of a few small
jurisdictions in Nevada. Some believe that legalizing this
industry would bring many benefits, while others have
identified many negatives of legalized prostitution.
Arguments in Favor of the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents for the legalization of prostitution generally
believe that, since prostitution is a harmless act, it
should not, by definition, be considered a crime. Many
believe that criminalizing prostitution only exacerbates
the spread of diseases, and if the practice were legal, it
would encourage cleaner working conditions and better
STD testing for prostitutes. Those who support
legalization also believe that there is nothing immoral
about sex, and since it is freely dispensed, there is no
harm in charging for it. Many also believe that
criminalizing the industry only brings discrimination and
poor working conditions for sex providers and
purchasers. Current laws do not stop prostitutes from
selling sex, but seems only to make them more prone to
violent acts while working. Many also think that if
women could legally participate on their own free will,
the likelihood of underage prostitution and sex slaves
would decrease.
Arguments Opposed to the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents opposed to the legalized prostitution debate
believe that prostitution is simply immoral and should
be considered a crime. They also believe that legalizing
prostitution would increase the spread of disease,
stating that it takes several weeks to get the results
from STD tests allowing an infected prostitute to
continue infecting her clients. Many also believe that
since most sex workers are female, the practice is
demeaning to women and enhances the changes of rape
and violence. Some go so far as defining prostitution as
a type of rape, since it turns a woman into an object for
a man's use. Others state that prostitution increases
the involvement of sexual predators and the use of
minors as sex slaves.
services to a person in exchange for money, goods or
other services. Worldwide, this practice produces over
$100 billion in revenue annually. Prostitution practices
vary greatly from country to country. Prostitution is
legal in some countries; however, prostitution is
considered so serious a crime that it is punishable by
death in other countries. Currently, prostitution is illegal
in the United States with the exception of a few small
jurisdictions in Nevada. Some believe that legalizing this
industry would bring many benefits, while others have
identified many negatives of legalized prostitution.
Arguments in Favor of the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents for the legalization of prostitution generally
believe that, since prostitution is a harmless act, it
should not, by definition, be considered a crime. Many
believe that criminalizing prostitution only exacerbates
the spread of diseases, and if the practice were legal, it
would encourage cleaner working conditions and better
STD testing for prostitutes. Those who support
legalization also believe that there is nothing immoral
about sex, and since it is freely dispensed, there is no
harm in charging for it. Many also believe that
criminalizing the industry only brings discrimination and
poor working conditions for sex providers and
purchasers. Current laws do not stop prostitutes from
selling sex, but seems only to make them more prone to
violent acts while working. Many also think that if
women could legally participate on their own free will,
the likelihood of underage prostitution and sex slaves
would decrease.
Arguments Opposed to the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents opposed to the legalized prostitution debate
believe that prostitution is simply immoral and should
be considered a crime. They also believe that legalizing
prostitution would increase the spread of disease,
stating that it takes several weeks to get the results
from STD tests allowing an infected prostitute to
continue infecting her clients. Many also believe that
since most sex workers are female, the practice is
demeaning to women and enhances the changes of rape
and violence. Some go so far as defining prostitution as
a type of rape, since it turns a woman into an object for
a man's use. Others state that prostitution increases
the involvement of sexual predators and the use of
minors as sex slaves.
OCCUPY MOVEMENT
The Occupy movement is an international movement
with the goals of enhancing social and economic
equality. One of the movement's main objectives is to
reorganize the power relations in society in order to
close the gap between the rich and the poor. There are
many local divisions of the Occupy movement; each has
some of its own goals and aspirations. However, one of
the unifying concerns is the large degree of control that
financial systems have in the world economy and the
fact that only a small minority of people benefit from
this economic arrangement. Those who support the
Occupy movement believe that this arrangement
undermines democracy and makes the government and
world economy unstable. The Occupy movement relies
on picketing, general strikes and demonstrations to
make its goals known. Participants are known to camp
out for weeks or even months in large cities and form
tent communities in which they live and promote their
cause. Their slogan is "We are the 99 percent." Occupy
movements have sprung up in many nations, such as
New Zealand, Malaysia, Germany, France, England, the
United States and even Norway.
Occupy Movement Debate Supporters
Those who support the Occupy movement believe that
economic inequality has grown over the years and that
somebody needs to do something about it before it gets
any worse. The top 1 percent receives 23 percent of all
U.S. income. The movement calls attention to these
disparities in a way that is hard for politicians and
citizens to ignore. Its worldwide nature calls attention
to the fact that economic disparities are not just a
problem in the United States, they are, in fact, worsening
worldwide.
Occupy Movement Debate Critics
There are many people who find fault with the Occupy
movement. Most are not against the movement
because they do not believe that economic disparities
do not exist or that the financial system is not marred.
However, the major disadvantage to the Occupy
movement, they believe, is that it lacks focus and is
inefficient at making its goals known. Many protesters,
when questioned, do not know exactly what they are
protesting. Those who are against the movement call
attention to the fact that some nations have made
strides towards greater economic equality, and that it is
not necessarily a worldwide problem. China, for
example, has increased its economic equality over the
last several decades.
with the goals of enhancing social and economic
equality. One of the movement's main objectives is to
reorganize the power relations in society in order to
close the gap between the rich and the poor. There are
many local divisions of the Occupy movement; each has
some of its own goals and aspirations. However, one of
the unifying concerns is the large degree of control that
financial systems have in the world economy and the
fact that only a small minority of people benefit from
this economic arrangement. Those who support the
Occupy movement believe that this arrangement
undermines democracy and makes the government and
world economy unstable. The Occupy movement relies
on picketing, general strikes and demonstrations to
make its goals known. Participants are known to camp
out for weeks or even months in large cities and form
tent communities in which they live and promote their
cause. Their slogan is "We are the 99 percent." Occupy
movements have sprung up in many nations, such as
New Zealand, Malaysia, Germany, France, England, the
United States and even Norway.
Occupy Movement Debate Supporters
Those who support the Occupy movement believe that
economic inequality has grown over the years and that
somebody needs to do something about it before it gets
any worse. The top 1 percent receives 23 percent of all
U.S. income. The movement calls attention to these
disparities in a way that is hard for politicians and
citizens to ignore. Its worldwide nature calls attention
to the fact that economic disparities are not just a
problem in the United States, they are, in fact, worsening
worldwide.
Occupy Movement Debate Critics
There are many people who find fault with the Occupy
movement. Most are not against the movement
because they do not believe that economic disparities
do not exist or that the financial system is not marred.
However, the major disadvantage to the Occupy
movement, they believe, is that it lacks focus and is
inefficient at making its goals known. Many protesters,
when questioned, do not know exactly what they are
protesting. Those who are against the movement call
attention to the fact that some nations have made
strides towards greater economic equality, and that it is
not necessarily a worldwide problem. China, for
example, has increased its economic equality over the
last several decades.
DATING SECRETS FOR SPLENDID RELATIONSHIP
1. Be Open Minded : The number one rule we
have heard from both sides of the fence is to go
into every date with an open mind. Your ideal
partner, based on your personal checklist, may be
completely different from the person that you could be
truly compatible with. Everyone has this warped sense
of who their perfect partner should be, but when
interviewing countless older couples who have been
married for more than 50 years – their life partners were
completely different from the person they initially
imagined.
2. Don’t Research Before a First Date: In these days of
Google and Facebook, it’s easy to be tempted to do a
little research before you even go out on a first date.
Don’t do it! You’ll get a false impression of the person,
and can make strong judgments without even knowing
him/her yet.
3. Don’t Bring Baggage : Avoid talking about old
relationships, negative experiences, etc. Have those
conversations only after several dates. There is little to
gain by dwelling on the past.
4. Be Honest About Yourself: You can avoid specific
topics early on, but don’t lie about things. Starting a
relationship based on lies is never a good idea.
5. Leave on a High Note : Keep a first date short, and
it’s always better to leave on a high note. Meeting for
coffee or a meal is great, but don’t make long drawn
out plans for another date – excuse yourself and say
goodbye. Better to leave the person wanting more.
have heard from both sides of the fence is to go
into every date with an open mind. Your ideal
partner, based on your personal checklist, may be
completely different from the person that you could be
truly compatible with. Everyone has this warped sense
of who their perfect partner should be, but when
interviewing countless older couples who have been
married for more than 50 years – their life partners were
completely different from the person they initially
imagined.
2. Don’t Research Before a First Date: In these days of
Google and Facebook, it’s easy to be tempted to do a
little research before you even go out on a first date.
Don’t do it! You’ll get a false impression of the person,
and can make strong judgments without even knowing
him/her yet.
3. Don’t Bring Baggage : Avoid talking about old
relationships, negative experiences, etc. Have those
conversations only after several dates. There is little to
gain by dwelling on the past.
4. Be Honest About Yourself: You can avoid specific
topics early on, but don’t lie about things. Starting a
relationship based on lies is never a good idea.
5. Leave on a High Note : Keep a first date short, and
it’s always better to leave on a high note. Meeting for
coffee or a meal is great, but don’t make long drawn
out plans for another date – excuse yourself and say
goodbye. Better to leave the person wanting more.
STIMULUS SPENDING
On February 13, 2009 the American Recovery and
Investment Act of 2009 was passed by the United
States Congress. The act is also known as President
Obama's stimulus package and was only approved by
three Republicans in all of Congress. The package,
composed of $787 billion in tax reductions and
expenditures for education, energy, infrastructure, health
care and many other projects, was created to help get
the U.S. economy out of the recession by creating
several million jobs and replacing money in the
economy. Read on to learn more about the major ups
and downs to the stimulus package.
Stimulus Spending Debate Pros
The biggest pro for the stimulus package is, of course,
that if it works it can pull the U.S. economy out of a
terrible recession. The stimulus package has the ability
to upstart the economy and provide millions of jobs.
This would stop the ever-increasing unemployment rate.
Additionally, the stimulus package has the backing of
economic historians, who argue that the Keynesian-
style spending inherent in the package has shown
previously great success in ending the Great Depression
and propelling economic growth during the 1950's and
1960's.
There are also a number of smaller, more specific pros
that come out of the stimulus package. First, the
package calls for a great deal of repair to U.S.
infrastructure. The repairs are certainly needed and
affect roads, power, bridges, airports, sewage systems
and more. Next, the package provides a great deal of
aid to school districts. The package works to expand
public transportation, with funds dedicated to a high-
speed rail system. There are increased unemployment
benefits. The package increases food assistance for
Americans with low-income and increases medical
coverage for military members, families and veterans.
Criticisms of the Stimulus Spending Debate
There are a great deal of critics of the stimulus
spending debate as well. Those who criticize the
package consider a number of cons. First, the money
funding the package must come from outside sources,
increasing the national deficit. Economists predict that
within a few years the hole in the economy will triple the
amount spent in the package, so the package is
potentially not nearly enough to do anything worthwhile.
Among the biggest criticisms of the bill by those who
lean right politically is about the nature of government
involvement in economics itself. Many Republicans feel
that the federal government was already too large prior
to this crisis. They objected to the stimulus on the
grounds that the federal government should get reduced
in size, scope and responsibility. They argue that this
government contraction would create breathing space
for the economy to correct and revive itself.
Investment Act of 2009 was passed by the United
States Congress. The act is also known as President
Obama's stimulus package and was only approved by
three Republicans in all of Congress. The package,
composed of $787 billion in tax reductions and
expenditures for education, energy, infrastructure, health
care and many other projects, was created to help get
the U.S. economy out of the recession by creating
several million jobs and replacing money in the
economy. Read on to learn more about the major ups
and downs to the stimulus package.
Stimulus Spending Debate Pros
The biggest pro for the stimulus package is, of course,
that if it works it can pull the U.S. economy out of a
terrible recession. The stimulus package has the ability
to upstart the economy and provide millions of jobs.
This would stop the ever-increasing unemployment rate.
Additionally, the stimulus package has the backing of
economic historians, who argue that the Keynesian-
style spending inherent in the package has shown
previously great success in ending the Great Depression
and propelling economic growth during the 1950's and
1960's.
There are also a number of smaller, more specific pros
that come out of the stimulus package. First, the
package calls for a great deal of repair to U.S.
infrastructure. The repairs are certainly needed and
affect roads, power, bridges, airports, sewage systems
and more. Next, the package provides a great deal of
aid to school districts. The package works to expand
public transportation, with funds dedicated to a high-
speed rail system. There are increased unemployment
benefits. The package increases food assistance for
Americans with low-income and increases medical
coverage for military members, families and veterans.
Criticisms of the Stimulus Spending Debate
There are a great deal of critics of the stimulus
spending debate as well. Those who criticize the
package consider a number of cons. First, the money
funding the package must come from outside sources,
increasing the national deficit. Economists predict that
within a few years the hole in the economy will triple the
amount spent in the package, so the package is
potentially not nearly enough to do anything worthwhile.
Among the biggest criticisms of the bill by those who
lean right politically is about the nature of government
involvement in economics itself. Many Republicans feel
that the federal government was already too large prior
to this crisis. They objected to the stimulus on the
grounds that the federal government should get reduced
in size, scope and responsibility. They argue that this
government contraction would create breathing space
for the economy to correct and revive itself.
FOOD CRISES
For two decades, leading up to the millennium, global
demand for food increased steadily, along with growth
in the world’s population, record harvests, improvements
in incomes, and the diversification of diets. As a result,
food prices continued to decline through 2000.
But beginning in 2004, prices for most grains began to
rise. Although there was an increase in production, the
increase in demand was greater.
Food stocks became depleted. And then, in 2005, food
production was dramatically affected by extreme
weather incidents in major food-producing countries. By
2006, world cereal production had fallen by 2.1 percent.
In 2007, rapid increases in oil prices increased fertilizer
and other food production costs.
As international food prices reached unprecedented
levels, countries sought ways to insulate themselves
from potential food shortages and price shocks. Several
food-exporting countries imposed export restrictions.
Certain key importers began purchasing grains at any
price to maintain domestic supplies.
This resulted in panic and volatility in international grain
markets. It also attracted speculative investments in
grain futures and options markets. Perhaps as a result,
prices rose even higher.
Subsequently, food commodity prices appeared to be
stabilizing. But prices are expected to remain high over
the medium to long term with devastating consequences
for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
demand for food increased steadily, along with growth
in the world’s population, record harvests, improvements
in incomes, and the diversification of diets. As a result,
food prices continued to decline through 2000.
But beginning in 2004, prices for most grains began to
rise. Although there was an increase in production, the
increase in demand was greater.
Food stocks became depleted. And then, in 2005, food
production was dramatically affected by extreme
weather incidents in major food-producing countries. By
2006, world cereal production had fallen by 2.1 percent.
In 2007, rapid increases in oil prices increased fertilizer
and other food production costs.
As international food prices reached unprecedented
levels, countries sought ways to insulate themselves
from potential food shortages and price shocks. Several
food-exporting countries imposed export restrictions.
Certain key importers began purchasing grains at any
price to maintain domestic supplies.
This resulted in panic and volatility in international grain
markets. It also attracted speculative investments in
grain futures and options markets. Perhaps as a result,
prices rose even higher.
Subsequently, food commodity prices appeared to be
stabilizing. But prices are expected to remain high over
the medium to long term with devastating consequences
for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
ATOMIC ENERGY
The UN and the nuclear age were born almost
simultaneously. The horror of the Second World War,
culminating in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, brought home the need to address the
nuclear issue. By its first resolution, the General
Assembly established the UN Atomic Energy
Commission to deal with the problems raised by the
discovery of atomic energy. And a landmark address by
United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953,
“Atoms for Peace”, led to the establishment in 1957 of
the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA).
Today, 439 nuclear power reactors produce
approximately 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. In
nine countries, over 40 per cent of energy production
comes from nuclear power. The IAEA, an international
organization in the UN family, fosters the safe, secure
and peaceful uses of atomic energy and helps ensure
the use of nuclear technology for sustainable
development.
Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons ( NPT ), the IAEA conducts on-site
inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are used
only used for peaceful purposes. Prior to the 2003 Iraq
war, its inspectors played a key role in uncovering and
eliminating Iraq’s banned weapons programmes and
capabilities. In 2005, the Agency and its Director
General, Mohamed ElBaradei were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy
from being used for military purposes and to ensure that
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the
safest possible way.”
The UN Conference on Disarmament, the sole
multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament,
produced the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ,
which was adopted in 1996. The Office for
Disarmament Affairs promotes nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space produced the 1992 Principles on the use
of nuclear power sources in outer space . The UN
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
reports on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing
radiation, providing the scientific basis for protection
and safety standards worldwide.
Addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, the UN has
also produced the Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980), and the International
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (2005).
simultaneously. The horror of the Second World War,
culminating in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, brought home the need to address the
nuclear issue. By its first resolution, the General
Assembly established the UN Atomic Energy
Commission to deal with the problems raised by the
discovery of atomic energy. And a landmark address by
United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953,
“Atoms for Peace”, led to the establishment in 1957 of
the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA).
Today, 439 nuclear power reactors produce
approximately 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. In
nine countries, over 40 per cent of energy production
comes from nuclear power. The IAEA, an international
organization in the UN family, fosters the safe, secure
and peaceful uses of atomic energy and helps ensure
the use of nuclear technology for sustainable
development.
Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons ( NPT ), the IAEA conducts on-site
inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are used
only used for peaceful purposes. Prior to the 2003 Iraq
war, its inspectors played a key role in uncovering and
eliminating Iraq’s banned weapons programmes and
capabilities. In 2005, the Agency and its Director
General, Mohamed ElBaradei were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy
from being used for military purposes and to ensure that
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the
safest possible way.”
The UN Conference on Disarmament, the sole
multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament,
produced the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ,
which was adopted in 1996. The Office for
Disarmament Affairs promotes nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space produced the 1992 Principles on the use
of nuclear power sources in outer space . The UN
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
reports on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing
radiation, providing the scientific basis for protection
and safety standards worldwide.
Addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, the UN has
also produced the Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980), and the International
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (2005).
BOKO HARAM
Boko Haram is the Islamic sect that have
emanated from the northern part of Nigeria
agitating for cancellation of western
education in Nigeria and also to make Nigeria
and Islamic country. They are the Islamic
fanatics that are using religious to carried out
their destructive plans on the innocent
Nigerians.
Boko Haram is the Islamic groups that started
carrying out their evil intension and action
on Nigerians since late last year their first
place of operation was Bauchi state police
stations, second was outside Eagle square
Abuja after last year independence
celebration, thirdly was the bomblast on
united Nations office in Abuja killing about
twenty- six expatriates.
Boko Haram, the Islamic fanatics that came
from the northern Nigeria has become a
serious threat to the security of lives and
properties in Nigeria, Boko Haram groups
does not know what they want because what
they are saying can never be possible as long
as this great nation is concern, the
cancellation of western education and making
Nigeria an Islamic country will be practically
impossible. Boko Haram groups activities and
operation is a threat to the national security,
also their operations does not give peace,
harmony, unity and love a place or chance in
this country.
emanated from the northern part of Nigeria
agitating for cancellation of western
education in Nigeria and also to make Nigeria
and Islamic country. They are the Islamic
fanatics that are using religious to carried out
their destructive plans on the innocent
Nigerians.
Boko Haram is the Islamic groups that started
carrying out their evil intension and action
on Nigerians since late last year their first
place of operation was Bauchi state police
stations, second was outside Eagle square
Abuja after last year independence
celebration, thirdly was the bomblast on
united Nations office in Abuja killing about
twenty- six expatriates.
Boko Haram, the Islamic fanatics that came
from the northern Nigeria has become a
serious threat to the security of lives and
properties in Nigeria, Boko Haram groups
does not know what they want because what
they are saying can never be possible as long
as this great nation is concern, the
cancellation of western education and making
Nigeria an Islamic country will be practically
impossible. Boko Haram groups activities and
operation is a threat to the national security,
also their operations does not give peace,
harmony, unity and love a place or chance in
this country.
REFUGEES
A peaceful and prosperous world is one in which people
can feel safe and secure in their homes, with their
families and in their communities. It is a world in which
they can feel confident in their country, their culture and
in the family of nations and peoples on our common
planet.
Sometimes, for economic or other personal reasons,
people choose to leave their homes, to begin and new
life in a new location. For better or worse, these
decisions are made as a matter of conscious choice.
But when nature intervenes in the form of natural
disasters people's homes are washed away, blown
away, or shaken to the ground, uprooting entire
communities. When war or civil unrest ravages a
community, masses or people are forcibly displaced or
simply flee to protect life and limb. At the extreme, they
are left with only two options: death by privation,
assault or genocide, or life in exile. One need only think
of those forced to flee the violence in Darfur to glimpse
the severity of their need.
This is the plight of the refugees and the internally
displaced today. In 2010, the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR)
counted 43.3 million forcibly displaced people worldwide
—the highest number since the mid-1990s. This
included 27.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs),
15.2 million refugees and 983,000 asylum-seekers. Of
the 15.2 million refugees, 10.4 million were under
UNHCR’s responsibility, and 4.7 million
were Palestinian refugees under the mandate of the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East ( UNRWA ).
More than 26 million people—10.4 million refugees and
15.6 million IDPs— were receiving protection or
assistance from UNHCR at the end of 2009, one million
more than in 2008.
By 2010, UNHCR had identified some 6.6 million
stateless persons in 60 countries. Yet it estimated that
the overall number of stateless persons worldwide could
be far higher, at around 12 million.
Unfortunately, conflict and natural disasters continue to
take their toll on such persons. But their lot is much,
much better than it might have been, thanks to the
commitment of the UN family to help them return to
their homes, and to protect and sustain them until their
return becomes possible.
When their homelessness results from conflict, UN
peacekeepers are often there to protect the camps in
which they must live. When they are left without access
to such basic necessities as food, water and sanitation,
the UN family provides it. When their health is
endangered, the UN system sees to its protection.
Much of this support is provided through the United
Nations humanitarian action machinery. The Inter-
Agency Standing Committee ( IASC), through its “cluster
approach”, brings together all major humanitarian
agencies, both within and outside the UN system, for
coordinated action. UNHCR is the lead agency with
respect to the protection of refugees and the internally
displaced. With the International Organization for
Migration ( IOM ), it is the lead agency for camp
coordination and management. And it shares the lead
with respect to emergency shelter with the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
UN bodies actively involved in this cluster approach
include the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations ( FAO ); the United Nations Development
Programme ( UNDP); the United Nations Children’s Fund
( UNICEF ); the Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA ); the World Food
Programme ( WFP); the World Health Organization
( WHO ); and the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights ( OHCHR).
AGEING
The world is in the midst of a unique and irreversible
process of demographic transition that will result in
older populations everywhere. As fertility rates decline,
the proportion of persons aged 60 and over is expected
to double between 2007 and 2050, and their actual
number will more than triple, reaching 2 billion by
2050. In most countries, the number of those over 80 is
likely to quadruple to nearly 400 million by then.
Older persons are increasingly seen as contributors to
development, whose abilities to act for the betterment of
themselves and their societies should be woven into
policies and programmes at all levels. Currently, 64 per
cent of all older persons live in the less developed
regions — a number expected to approach 80 per cent
by 2050.
To begin addressing these issues, the General Assembly
convened the first World Assembly on Ageing in 1982,
which produced a 62-point “Vienna International Plan of
Action on Ageing ”. It called for specific action on such
issues as health and nutrition, protecting elderly
consumers, housing and environment, family, social
welfare, income security and employment, education,
and the collection and analysis of research data.
In 1991, the General Assembly adopted the United
Nations Principles for Older Persons , enumerating 18
entitlements for older persons — relating to
independence, participation, care, self-fulfillment and
dignity. The following year, the International Conference
on Ageing met to follow-up on the Plan of Action,
adopting a Proclamation on Ageing . Following the
Conference's recommendation, the UN General Assembly
declared 1999 the International Year of Older Persons .
Action on behalf of the ageing continued in 2002, when
the Second World Assembly on Ageing was held in
Madrid. Aiming to design international policy on ageing
for the 21st century, it adopted a Political Declaration
and the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing .
The Plan of Action called for changes in attitudes,
policies and practices at all levels to fulfil the enormous
potential of ageing in the twenty-first century. Its
specific reommendations for action give priority to older
persons and development, advancing health and well-
being into old age, and ensuring enabling and supportive
environments.
PEACE AND SECURITY
Saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war
was the main motivation for creating the United
Nations, whose founders lived through the devastation
of two world wars. Since its creation, the UN has often
been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating
into war, or to help restore peace when armed conflict
does break out, and to promote lasting peace in
societies emerging from wars.
The Security Council, the General Assembly and the
Secretary-General all play major, complementary roles in
fostering peace and security.
Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous
conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council
— the organ with primary responsibility, under the
United Nations Charter , for the maintenance of
international peace and security. When a complaint
concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the
Council's first action is usually to recommend to the
parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In
some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation
and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or
request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his
good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful
settlement.
When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first
concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On
many occasions, the Council has issued ceasefire
directives which have been instrumental in preventing
wider hostilities. It also deploys United Nations
peacekeeping operations to help reduce tensions in
troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and create
conditions for sustainable peace after settlements have
been reached. The Council may decide on enforcement
measures , economic sanctions (such as trade
embargoes) or collective military action.
According to the Charter , the General Assembly can
make recommendations on the general principles of
cooperation for maintaining international peace and
security, including disarmament, and for the peaceful
settlement of any situation that might impair friendly
relations among nations. The General Assembly can
also discuss any question relating to international peace
and security and make recommendations, if the issue is
not currently being discussed by the Security Council.
Pursuant to its “Uniting for Peace” resolution of
November 1950 ( resolution 377 (V) , the General
Assembly may also take action if the Security Council
fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent
Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat
to or breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The
Assembly can consider the matter immediately with a
view to making recommendations to Members for
collective measures to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Two of the General Assembly’s six main committees are
involved in matters of peace and security. Besides the
First Committee which is concerned with disarmament
and related international security questions, the Special
Political and Decolonization Committee deals with a
variety of political subjects not dealt with by the First
Committee, including decolonization, Palestinian
refugees, human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer
space , public information, atomic radiation and the
University for Peace .
The Charter empowers the Secretary-General to "bring
to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of
international peace and security". One of the most vital
roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his
" good offices " – steps taken publicly and in private that
draw upon his independence, impartiality and integrity
to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating
or spreading.
was the main motivation for creating the United
Nations, whose founders lived through the devastation
of two world wars. Since its creation, the UN has often
been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating
into war, or to help restore peace when armed conflict
does break out, and to promote lasting peace in
societies emerging from wars.
The Security Council, the General Assembly and the
Secretary-General all play major, complementary roles in
fostering peace and security.
Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous
conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council
— the organ with primary responsibility, under the
United Nations Charter , for the maintenance of
international peace and security. When a complaint
concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the
Council's first action is usually to recommend to the
parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In
some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation
and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or
request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his
good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful
settlement.
When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first
concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On
many occasions, the Council has issued ceasefire
directives which have been instrumental in preventing
wider hostilities. It also deploys United Nations
peacekeeping operations to help reduce tensions in
troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and create
conditions for sustainable peace after settlements have
been reached. The Council may decide on enforcement
measures , economic sanctions (such as trade
embargoes) or collective military action.
According to the Charter , the General Assembly can
make recommendations on the general principles of
cooperation for maintaining international peace and
security, including disarmament, and for the peaceful
settlement of any situation that might impair friendly
relations among nations. The General Assembly can
also discuss any question relating to international peace
and security and make recommendations, if the issue is
not currently being discussed by the Security Council.
Pursuant to its “Uniting for Peace” resolution of
November 1950 ( resolution 377 (V) , the General
Assembly may also take action if the Security Council
fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent
Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat
to or breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The
Assembly can consider the matter immediately with a
view to making recommendations to Members for
collective measures to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Two of the General Assembly’s six main committees are
involved in matters of peace and security. Besides the
First Committee which is concerned with disarmament
and related international security questions, the Special
Political and Decolonization Committee deals with a
variety of political subjects not dealt with by the First
Committee, including decolonization, Palestinian
refugees, human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer
space , public information, atomic radiation and the
University for Peace .
The Charter empowers the Secretary-General to "bring
to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of
international peace and security". One of the most vital
roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his
" good offices " – steps taken publicly and in private that
draw upon his independence, impartiality and integrity
to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating
or spreading.
AIDS.
In 2011 the world commemorated 30 years of AIDS and
the AIDS response.
In June 1981, scientists in the United States reported
the first clinical evidence of a disease that would later
become known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
or AIDS. Its cause, the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), was identified in 1983. Thirty years later the AIDS
epidemic has spread to every corner of the world and
more than 60 million people have been infected with
HIV.
HIV is found in the bodily fluids of a person who has
been infected - blood, semen, vaginal fluids and breast
milk. It can be transmitted through unprotected sexual
contact. It is also spread among people who inject
drugs with non-sterile injecting needles, as well as
through unscreened blood products. It can spread from
mother to child during pregnancy, childbirth or breast
feeding when the mother is HIV positive.
Over the ensuing decades, the rate of infection soared
dramatically, as did the rate of fatalities. But
eventually, new antiretroviral treatment began to extend
the lives of those who were infected. More than 5
million people had access to antiretroviral treatment in
2009, which has reduced AIDS-related deaths by more
than 20% in the past 5 years.
Also in the past ten years at least 56 countries have
either stabilized or reduced new HIV infections by more
than 25%. New HIV infections have been reduced by
nearly 20% and new HIV infections among babies have
dropped by 25%—a significant step towards achieving
virtual elimination of mother-to-child transmission of
HIV by 2015.
The UN family has been in the vanguard of this
progress. Since 1996, its efforts have been coordinated
by UNAIDS — the Joint United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS. The Programme is co-sponsored by 10 UN
system agencies: UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP , UNFPA,
UNODC , the ILO, UNESCO , WHO and the World Bank .
In 2000, world leaders set specific goals to stop and
reverse the spread of HIV at the General Assembly’s
Millennium Summit. A 2001 special session of the
General Assembly expanded on that. Heads of State and
Representatives of Governments issued the Declaration
of Commitment on HIV/AIDS which set out a series of
national targets and global actions to reverse the
epidemic. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria was created in 2002. And in 2006, the
Assembly held a high-level review of progress made
since its special session, adopting a 53-point Political
Declaration on the way towards universal access to HIV
prevention, treatment, care and support services.
ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER SCANDAL
Talk about déjà vu. Once again the party out
of power is demanding an investigation. To
which the administration responds: (a)
There's nothing to investigate because, (b)
we've already investigated and explained it,
(c) too much time has been wasted on it as it
is, (c) the country has more pressing
problems that need our attention, and (d) any
or all of the above. Or, to put it in more
concise fashion: Move on, there's nothing to
see here.
Nothin' doin', says the loyal but insistent
opposition, aka the Republicans in the House.
Yes, there have already been seven different
investigations in addition to 13 hearings on
what happened before, during and after the
bloody massacre at Benghazi, which took the
lives of four brave Americans. Jay Carney,
the White House press secretary, wasted no
time counting them all up, and noting that
none of them had hit pay dirt.
But that was before a smoking gun was
discovered in the form of an email from a
political operative at the White House laying
out the administration's cover story for its
mouthpieces to repeat--a version of events
that fell apart once there was enough time to
examine it. So let's start Investigation No. 8.
Besides, the GOP has a fighting prosecutor to
lead the next investigation, and he doesn't
care how many reams of documents the
administration released about Benghazi while
holding back the key one. "I'm not interested
in summaries, I'm not interested in
synopses," says Trey Gowdy, a congressman
from South Carolina who's been chosen to
captain the GOP team this time around. "I'm
interested in access to the documents . . . and
I'm not interested in whether the appropriate
questions were asked in the past."
To which Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip
in the House, responds in his always eloquent
way: "That's baloney."
I can identify. I've been there. It was another
scandal in another year, another decade,
another century, a whole other era. That
scandal was dubbed Watergate, after the
apartment building where the headquarters
of the Democratic National Committee had
been burglarized, raising questions and
setting off demands for an investigation. I
was writing editorials at the time in that key
listening post, Pine Bluff, Ark., and it all
sounded like baloney to me.
Week after week, month after month, our
editorials in the Pine Bluff Commercial pooh-
poohed the whole idea that the White House
was involved in some nefarious conspiracy to
cover up the truth. But then we -- and the
country -- learned that the attorney general
of the United States, the Hon. John N.
Mitchell, who was married to a Pine Bluff
belle, character, and heavy drinker named
Martha Beall Mitchell, had been lying about
Watergate all along. And even more
surprising, at least to me, Martha had been
telling the truth.
The scales fell from my eyes. Why, it hadn't
been baloney after all. The Pine Bluff
Commercial would sponsor a nationwide
drive to erect a monument to Martha, and I
was proud to lead it. People all over the
country sent in their little $5 and $10 checks
to help build it. Blessed are the poor. These
folks had believed Martha all along. It was
both embarrassing and cleansing to be have
been proved wrong, and I was grateful to
her.
I can still hear echoes of that old scandal in
this new one. Some of the lines don't seem to
have changed much at all: "After 12 weeks
and two million words of televised testimony,
we have reached a point at which a
continued, backward-looking obsession with
Watergate is causing this nation to neglect
matters of far greater importance to all of the
American people. We must not stay so mired
in Watergate that we fail to respond to
challenges of surpassing importance to
America and the world. We cannot let an
obsession with the past destroy our hopes for
the future." -- Richard M. Nixon, Address to
the Nation, August 15, 1973.
I had a friend back then, Steed Joyce, who
after years of keeping track of supplies at the
Cotton Belt railroad, decided to go off and
became an Episcopal priest. He tried to warn
me not to put my trust in princes, specifically
R. Nixon and his minions. To commemorate
my folly he sent me a beautifully calligraphed
scroll in the perfect Hebrew script he'd
learned in seminary. It's a copy of Verse 1,
Chapter 8 of the Book of Nehemiah: And all
the people gathered themselves together
before the water gate . . . Steed, now the
Reverend Mr. Joyce, had thoughtfully penned
the Hebrew words for Watergate, Shaar
Hamayim, in red. So I couldn't miss them.
I've still got that little piece of Scripture, now
preserved in a simple black frame, hanging
on my office wall where I can see it every
day. Just in case I'm ever again tempted to
dismiss talk of a White House scandal as
baloney.
of power is demanding an investigation. To
which the administration responds: (a)
There's nothing to investigate because, (b)
we've already investigated and explained it,
(c) too much time has been wasted on it as it
is, (c) the country has more pressing
problems that need our attention, and (d) any
or all of the above. Or, to put it in more
concise fashion: Move on, there's nothing to
see here.
Nothin' doin', says the loyal but insistent
opposition, aka the Republicans in the House.
Yes, there have already been seven different
investigations in addition to 13 hearings on
what happened before, during and after the
bloody massacre at Benghazi, which took the
lives of four brave Americans. Jay Carney,
the White House press secretary, wasted no
time counting them all up, and noting that
none of them had hit pay dirt.
But that was before a smoking gun was
discovered in the form of an email from a
political operative at the White House laying
out the administration's cover story for its
mouthpieces to repeat--a version of events
that fell apart once there was enough time to
examine it. So let's start Investigation No. 8.
Besides, the GOP has a fighting prosecutor to
lead the next investigation, and he doesn't
care how many reams of documents the
administration released about Benghazi while
holding back the key one. "I'm not interested
in summaries, I'm not interested in
synopses," says Trey Gowdy, a congressman
from South Carolina who's been chosen to
captain the GOP team this time around. "I'm
interested in access to the documents . . . and
I'm not interested in whether the appropriate
questions were asked in the past."
To which Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip
in the House, responds in his always eloquent
way: "That's baloney."
I can identify. I've been there. It was another
scandal in another year, another decade,
another century, a whole other era. That
scandal was dubbed Watergate, after the
apartment building where the headquarters
of the Democratic National Committee had
been burglarized, raising questions and
setting off demands for an investigation. I
was writing editorials at the time in that key
listening post, Pine Bluff, Ark., and it all
sounded like baloney to me.
Week after week, month after month, our
editorials in the Pine Bluff Commercial pooh-
poohed the whole idea that the White House
was involved in some nefarious conspiracy to
cover up the truth. But then we -- and the
country -- learned that the attorney general
of the United States, the Hon. John N.
Mitchell, who was married to a Pine Bluff
belle, character, and heavy drinker named
Martha Beall Mitchell, had been lying about
Watergate all along. And even more
surprising, at least to me, Martha had been
telling the truth.
The scales fell from my eyes. Why, it hadn't
been baloney after all. The Pine Bluff
Commercial would sponsor a nationwide
drive to erect a monument to Martha, and I
was proud to lead it. People all over the
country sent in their little $5 and $10 checks
to help build it. Blessed are the poor. These
folks had believed Martha all along. It was
both embarrassing and cleansing to be have
been proved wrong, and I was grateful to
her.
I can still hear echoes of that old scandal in
this new one. Some of the lines don't seem to
have changed much at all: "After 12 weeks
and two million words of televised testimony,
we have reached a point at which a
continued, backward-looking obsession with
Watergate is causing this nation to neglect
matters of far greater importance to all of the
American people. We must not stay so mired
in Watergate that we fail to respond to
challenges of surpassing importance to
America and the world. We cannot let an
obsession with the past destroy our hopes for
the future." -- Richard M. Nixon, Address to
the Nation, August 15, 1973.
I had a friend back then, Steed Joyce, who
after years of keeping track of supplies at the
Cotton Belt railroad, decided to go off and
became an Episcopal priest. He tried to warn
me not to put my trust in princes, specifically
R. Nixon and his minions. To commemorate
my folly he sent me a beautifully calligraphed
scroll in the perfect Hebrew script he'd
learned in seminary. It's a copy of Verse 1,
Chapter 8 of the Book of Nehemiah: And all
the people gathered themselves together
before the water gate . . . Steed, now the
Reverend Mr. Joyce, had thoughtfully penned
the Hebrew words for Watergate, Shaar
Hamayim, in red. So I couldn't miss them.
I've still got that little piece of Scripture, now
preserved in a simple black frame, hanging
on my office wall where I can see it every
day. Just in case I'm ever again tempted to
dismiss talk of a White House scandal as
baloney.
NUDISM
It has been customary for all, except for the occasional
infant, to have their genital area and buttocks covered
when in public. Females over a few years of age are
normally expected to also wear coverings over their
nipples. Decades ago, men were required to wear tops,
even at the beach. Recently, thong bathing suits, which
expose almost the entire buttock area, have changed
our concept of acceptable clothing in many areas of
North America. Some jurisdictions allow women to go
topless.
Naturists believe that if weather, location and laws
permit, activities such as sports, swimming, hiking and
relaxing in a social environment can be enjoyed without
the necessity of wearing clothing. " Naturism is not the
exploitation of nakedness, exhibitionism, a religion, or a
cult...Naturists accept and admire the beauty of the
human body as it is, regardless of age, gender or form."
1
Some people oppose social nudity (also called nudism
and naturism) and would like to criminalize it even if it
is confined to private naturist resorts. Some feel that
nudity, when practiced within a family, is a form of child
sexual abuse. Many people feel awkward when a
woman breast-feeds her infant in public. Topless
women can be arrested in most of North America, even
though the practice is generally accepted on European
beaches.
infant, to have their genital area and buttocks covered
when in public. Females over a few years of age are
normally expected to also wear coverings over their
nipples. Decades ago, men were required to wear tops,
even at the beach. Recently, thong bathing suits, which
expose almost the entire buttock area, have changed
our concept of acceptable clothing in many areas of
North America. Some jurisdictions allow women to go
topless.
Naturists believe that if weather, location and laws
permit, activities such as sports, swimming, hiking and
relaxing in a social environment can be enjoyed without
the necessity of wearing clothing. " Naturism is not the
exploitation of nakedness, exhibitionism, a religion, or a
cult...Naturists accept and admire the beauty of the
human body as it is, regardless of age, gender or form."
1
Some people oppose social nudity (also called nudism
and naturism) and would like to criminalize it even if it
is confined to private naturist resorts. Some feel that
nudity, when practiced within a family, is a form of child
sexual abuse. Many people feel awkward when a
woman breast-feeds her infant in public. Topless
women can be arrested in most of North America, even
though the practice is generally accepted on European
beaches.
6 Jun 2014
BULLFIGHTS
Each year, more than 40,000 bulls are barbarically
slaughtered in Spain’s bullrings. Most foreign visitors
who witness a bullfight never wish to see one again.
They are repulsed, disgusted and saddened by the
cruelty of the spectacle.
At best, the term “bullfighting” is a misnomer, as there
is usually little competition between a nimble sword-
wielding matador (Spanish for “killer”) and a confused,
maimed, psychologically tormented and physically
debilitated bull.
One of the biggest supporters of bullfighting is the
tourist industry. Travel agents and bullfight promoters
portray the fight as a festive and fair competition. What
they do not reveal is that the bull never has a chance to
defend himself, much less to survive.
Bulls are intentionally debilitated by various means,
such as having sandbags dropped on their backs.
Drugging is also very common. A study conducted by
scientists at Spain’s Salamanca University found that
20 per cent of the bulls used for fighting are drugged
before they step into the ring. In a sampling of 200
bulls, one in five had been given anti-inflammatory
drugs, which mask injuries that could sap animals’
strength.
Another common practice is to “shave” bulls’ horns by
sawing off a few inches. Bulls’ horns, like cats’
whiskers, help the animals navigate, so a sudden
change impairs their coordination. Shaving is illegal, so
the horns are sometimes inspected by a veterinarian
after a fight. In 1997, the Confederation of Bullfighting
Professionals – which includes Spain’s 230 matadors –
went on strike in opposition to these veterinary
inspections.
In a typical bullfight, the bull enters the arena and is
approached by picadors – men on blindfolded horses
who drive lances into the bull’s back and neck muscles.
This impairs the bull’s ability to lift his head. They twist
and gouge the lances to ensure a significant amount of
blood loss. Then banderilleros enter on foot and proceed
to distract the bull and dart around him while plunging
banderillas – bright sticks with harpoon points on their
ends – into his back. When the bull has become
weakened from blood loss, the banderilleros run the bull
in more circles until he is dizzy and stops chasing.
Finally, the matador appears and, after provoking a few
exhausted charges from the dying animal, tries to kill
the bull with his sword. If he misses, succeeding only
in further mutilating the animal, an executioner is called
in to stab the exhausted and submissive animal to
death. The dagger is supposed to cut the animal’s
spinal cord, but even this can be blundered, leaving the
bull conscious but paralysed as he is chained by his
horns and dragged out of the arena.
If the crowd is happy with the matador , the bull’s ears
and tail are cut off and presented as a trophy. A few
minutes later, another bull enters the arena and the
sadistic cycle starts again.
It is a very cowardly event. The matador has the choice
to be there – the bull does not. From the moment he
enters the ring from the dark alleyway where he is kept,
the bull doesn’t stand a chance. He may be weakened
by beatings with sandbags, have the muscles in his
neck cut in order to prevent him from lifting his head up
all the way, be debilitated with laxatives, have his horns
shaved or have petroleum jelly rubbed into his eyes in
order to alter his ability to judge distance.
slaughtered in Spain’s bullrings. Most foreign visitors
who witness a bullfight never wish to see one again.
They are repulsed, disgusted and saddened by the
cruelty of the spectacle.
At best, the term “bullfighting” is a misnomer, as there
is usually little competition between a nimble sword-
wielding matador (Spanish for “killer”) and a confused,
maimed, psychologically tormented and physically
debilitated bull.
One of the biggest supporters of bullfighting is the
tourist industry. Travel agents and bullfight promoters
portray the fight as a festive and fair competition. What
they do not reveal is that the bull never has a chance to
defend himself, much less to survive.
Bulls are intentionally debilitated by various means,
such as having sandbags dropped on their backs.
Drugging is also very common. A study conducted by
scientists at Spain’s Salamanca University found that
20 per cent of the bulls used for fighting are drugged
before they step into the ring. In a sampling of 200
bulls, one in five had been given anti-inflammatory
drugs, which mask injuries that could sap animals’
strength.
Another common practice is to “shave” bulls’ horns by
sawing off a few inches. Bulls’ horns, like cats’
whiskers, help the animals navigate, so a sudden
change impairs their coordination. Shaving is illegal, so
the horns are sometimes inspected by a veterinarian
after a fight. In 1997, the Confederation of Bullfighting
Professionals – which includes Spain’s 230 matadors –
went on strike in opposition to these veterinary
inspections.
In a typical bullfight, the bull enters the arena and is
approached by picadors – men on blindfolded horses
who drive lances into the bull’s back and neck muscles.
This impairs the bull’s ability to lift his head. They twist
and gouge the lances to ensure a significant amount of
blood loss. Then banderilleros enter on foot and proceed
to distract the bull and dart around him while plunging
banderillas – bright sticks with harpoon points on their
ends – into his back. When the bull has become
weakened from blood loss, the banderilleros run the bull
in more circles until he is dizzy and stops chasing.
Finally, the matador appears and, after provoking a few
exhausted charges from the dying animal, tries to kill
the bull with his sword. If he misses, succeeding only
in further mutilating the animal, an executioner is called
in to stab the exhausted and submissive animal to
death. The dagger is supposed to cut the animal’s
spinal cord, but even this can be blundered, leaving the
bull conscious but paralysed as he is chained by his
horns and dragged out of the arena.
If the crowd is happy with the matador , the bull’s ears
and tail are cut off and presented as a trophy. A few
minutes later, another bull enters the arena and the
sadistic cycle starts again.
It is a very cowardly event. The matador has the choice
to be there – the bull does not. From the moment he
enters the ring from the dark alleyway where he is kept,
the bull doesn’t stand a chance. He may be weakened
by beatings with sandbags, have the muscles in his
neck cut in order to prevent him from lifting his head up
all the way, be debilitated with laxatives, have his horns
shaved or have petroleum jelly rubbed into his eyes in
order to alter his ability to judge distance.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The environmental movement is a movement that
pushes for the conservation of natural resources and the
passing of legislation that promotes environmentally
friendly behavior. Those who support the movement
advocate sustainable management of resources as well
as taking responsibility for the welfare of the
environment through public policy and personal
participation in efforts to preserve the earth and its
resources.
This movement can be traced back the 19th century
when protectionists such as John Muir wanted to set
aside land for its own sake. In order to do so, he
founded the Sierra Club, one of the largest
environmental groups in the United States. He also
founded Yellowstone Park, the world's first ever national
park. Around this time, Gifford Pinchot also proposed
managing natural resources for human use. Thoreau, a
well-known poet, also was very concerned about
environmental protection and wrote the poem Walden
about the wildlife that he saw from his cabin.
Varying Environmental Movements
There are several primary foci in the realm of the
environmental movement. The conservation movement
seeks to protect natural areas for hunting, fishing and
trapping. Environmental conservation is another process
that involves pollution control, reforestation and
recycling. The Ecology movement is a newer movement
and involves analysis and improvement of the
interactions of humans with the earth and its resources.
The anti-nuclear movement is a relatively new
movement in environmentalism that involves the
prohibition of nuclear technology on the grounds that it
causes damage to plants and animals on the earth.
Environmental reactivism is a term that refers to a
staunch opposition to technology, such as harmful
pesticides and water additives. Adding fluoride to the
water system, for example, can lead to problems in fish
populations. The NIMBY movement, which stands for
Not in My Back Yard, is one that illustrates the public
outcry against potentially harmful plants and centers
being installed in neighborhoods.
Environmentalism has quickly become a concern on the
community level. Many churches and local groups now
have programs to support environmental issues. They
may collect recyclables for donation or they may even
volunteer to spend a weekend picking trash out of local
creeks and streams. Some groups also go door-to-door
spreading information on greener ways of living and
reducing one's consumption of valuable fuels and
resources.
In the last several years, a form of environmentalism
called radical environmentalism has arisen. This
movement is based on activism and pushes for a
change in government policy in an effort to change the
way people live and consume resources in their daily
lives. Radicals often cite religious reasons for their
beliefs and suggest a reconsideration of policies as deep
as capitalism and globalization.
pushes for the conservation of natural resources and the
passing of legislation that promotes environmentally
friendly behavior. Those who support the movement
advocate sustainable management of resources as well
as taking responsibility for the welfare of the
environment through public policy and personal
participation in efforts to preserve the earth and its
resources.
This movement can be traced back the 19th century
when protectionists such as John Muir wanted to set
aside land for its own sake. In order to do so, he
founded the Sierra Club, one of the largest
environmental groups in the United States. He also
founded Yellowstone Park, the world's first ever national
park. Around this time, Gifford Pinchot also proposed
managing natural resources for human use. Thoreau, a
well-known poet, also was very concerned about
environmental protection and wrote the poem Walden
about the wildlife that he saw from his cabin.
Varying Environmental Movements
There are several primary foci in the realm of the
environmental movement. The conservation movement
seeks to protect natural areas for hunting, fishing and
trapping. Environmental conservation is another process
that involves pollution control, reforestation and
recycling. The Ecology movement is a newer movement
and involves analysis and improvement of the
interactions of humans with the earth and its resources.
The anti-nuclear movement is a relatively new
movement in environmentalism that involves the
prohibition of nuclear technology on the grounds that it
causes damage to plants and animals on the earth.
Environmental reactivism is a term that refers to a
staunch opposition to technology, such as harmful
pesticides and water additives. Adding fluoride to the
water system, for example, can lead to problems in fish
populations. The NIMBY movement, which stands for
Not in My Back Yard, is one that illustrates the public
outcry against potentially harmful plants and centers
being installed in neighborhoods.
Environmentalism has quickly become a concern on the
community level. Many churches and local groups now
have programs to support environmental issues. They
may collect recyclables for donation or they may even
volunteer to spend a weekend picking trash out of local
creeks and streams. Some groups also go door-to-door
spreading information on greener ways of living and
reducing one's consumption of valuable fuels and
resources.
In the last several years, a form of environmentalism
called radical environmentalism has arisen. This
movement is based on activism and pushes for a
change in government policy in an effort to change the
way people live and consume resources in their daily
lives. Radicals often cite religious reasons for their
beliefs and suggest a reconsideration of policies as deep
as capitalism and globalization.
ABORTION LAST RESORT?
Abortion involves terminating a pregnancy by the
removing or expelling of a fetus or embryo from the
uterus. This is sometimes due to the death of the fetus;
however, it can also result in the death of it. Abortion is
a very controversial topic because its frequency of
occurrence, legal, cultural and religious status varies
extensively in different regions of the world. There are
many high-profile groups that champion either pro-
choice or pro-life, and such organizations bring up a
host of issues to further their often political agenda. In
the United States, pro-life groups favor greater legal
restrictions on abortion, or even the complete
prohibition of it. They argue that a human fetus is a
human being with a right to live, so abortion is similar
to murder. In contrast, pro-choice groups argue that a
woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the
choice on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
One of the most common reasons why some women
want to have an abortion is because they have the
desire to delay childbearing because they themselves
are young. Other reasons include not wanting to stop
work or schooling and/or because of financial or
relationship instability. These reasons are consistent
across numerous countries, including America. Most
abortions that occur in the United States are obtained
by women of a minority race because they are having
higher incidences of unintended pregnancies. In
developing countries, women have the additional
concern of health risks and complications that occur as
a result of unsafe practices in medical settings.
Some abortions happen because of societal pressures.
This occurs to when there is little social support, when
a specific gender of a child is preferred or when
governments enforce population control, such as
China's one child policy. It is suggested that sex-
selective abortion could account for disparities between
the birth rates of male and female children in some
countries. Many countries in Asia like China, South
Korea and India have cultures that prefer male children.
When abortion occurs because of societal pressures,
women sometimes have to resort to unsafe practices
because the legalized healthcare route is not an option.
As a result, countries that have restrictive abortive laws
have more women that seek unsafe abortions. Unsafe
abortions occur when they are performed by individuals
without adequate medical skills or in an unhygienic
environment. Such situations occur globally, and result
in about 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million maternal
disabilities per year.
Currently, laws regarding abortion are diverse and differ
by states in the U.S. Some states have a 24-hour
waiting period before an abortion can be carried out and
require that information regarding fetal development is
given out. The abortion debate also focuses on whether
laws should be passed mandating that the pregnant
woman has the consent of others, especially if the
woman is a minor.
removing or expelling of a fetus or embryo from the
uterus. This is sometimes due to the death of the fetus;
however, it can also result in the death of it. Abortion is
a very controversial topic because its frequency of
occurrence, legal, cultural and religious status varies
extensively in different regions of the world. There are
many high-profile groups that champion either pro-
choice or pro-life, and such organizations bring up a
host of issues to further their often political agenda. In
the United States, pro-life groups favor greater legal
restrictions on abortion, or even the complete
prohibition of it. They argue that a human fetus is a
human being with a right to live, so abortion is similar
to murder. In contrast, pro-choice groups argue that a
woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the
choice on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
One of the most common reasons why some women
want to have an abortion is because they have the
desire to delay childbearing because they themselves
are young. Other reasons include not wanting to stop
work or schooling and/or because of financial or
relationship instability. These reasons are consistent
across numerous countries, including America. Most
abortions that occur in the United States are obtained
by women of a minority race because they are having
higher incidences of unintended pregnancies. In
developing countries, women have the additional
concern of health risks and complications that occur as
a result of unsafe practices in medical settings.
Some abortions happen because of societal pressures.
This occurs to when there is little social support, when
a specific gender of a child is preferred or when
governments enforce population control, such as
China's one child policy. It is suggested that sex-
selective abortion could account for disparities between
the birth rates of male and female children in some
countries. Many countries in Asia like China, South
Korea and India have cultures that prefer male children.
When abortion occurs because of societal pressures,
women sometimes have to resort to unsafe practices
because the legalized healthcare route is not an option.
As a result, countries that have restrictive abortive laws
have more women that seek unsafe abortions. Unsafe
abortions occur when they are performed by individuals
without adequate medical skills or in an unhygienic
environment. Such situations occur globally, and result
in about 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million maternal
disabilities per year.
Currently, laws regarding abortion are diverse and differ
by states in the U.S. Some states have a 24-hour
waiting period before an abortion can be carried out and
require that information regarding fetal development is
given out. The abortion debate also focuses on whether
laws should be passed mandating that the pregnant
woman has the consent of others, especially if the
woman is a minor.
THE MESSIAH WITHIN
The concept of the Messiah is a divine archetype or
aspect of God that exists at the very heart of our being.
The role of Mythic Hero and World Saviour is a latent
potential that lies within all of us.
Here we explore a recurrent theme that is found in most
of the world's great faith traditions and also forms an
integral part of the prophesies of the World's religions.
In the world of religion there are few concepts which are
able to excite such passion from the faithful or else
elicit such disdain from secular people. What we are
talking about here is the idea of the expectation and
future coming of a special person who will play a
decisive role in the unfolding of the events of the
prophesies and in bringing about of their full realization.
This expected or chosen one is given many different
names by the different religions of this world. To Jews
he is the Messiah, to Muslims he is the Mahdi, to
Christians the Second Coming, to Hindus the Kalki and
to Buddhists he is the Maitreya. Also Zoroastrians await
the Saoshyant and even Taoist/Confucian scriptures talk
of the coming of the Future True Man. It is however
reasonable to suppose that all these different names
and titles are really referring to the same person. If we
take it as our starting point that all world religion is
really worshipping the same God and asking after the
same truth, then all the world's prophesies are coming
from the same source and so are really describing the
same set of events and circumstances. Therefore all the
World's religions all really waiting for the same person.
So this person has the role of acting as the catalyst and
instigator of the events prophesied. There follows a
discussion and an interpretation of the prophesies for
this long awaited person. I should mention here that for
clarity and succinctness I'll use the term Messiah or
else 'The Expected One' to mean all the other epithets
as well. That is, instead of Messiah or 'Expected One',
one might equally substitute the name Mahdi, Second
Coming or Maitreya etc. with equal standing and also
with the same meaning.
First I'll answer a question concerning the expected one
that I am often asked or else I am sometimes led to in
my discussions with people in this sort of thing. The
question is this, 'Is the Messiah[or Expected One], going
to be a single person or is it going to be a collection of
people?'. The best and most practical answer to this
question is to suppose that it's going to be a large
collection of people all working towards the realization
of the prophesies. That is, to suppose that everyone has
the Messiah, Mahdi or Christ within them and that it is
through a collective effort that the role of the Messiah is
fulfilled. One of the roles of the World Saviour is to save
the planet. There is these days in the present age,
definitely a planet to be saved and obviously one person
isn't by himself or herself going to save the world. So
therefore it has got to be a group effort involving
millions of people and more. With this interpretation of
the prophesies, the Messiah is therefore seen as an
archetype or essential aspect of our innermost being
which can be activated and brought to the surface of
our consciousness. It is like a dormant potential that
exists within us all, which may under certain conditions
be awakened and incorporated into our being. That is, if
we choose, we may express through our actions the
attributes of the Messiah and take on his roles in our
lives. Through this exercise, in a sense we are
manifesting the divine and also personifying a powerful
aspect of God. We become the preserver of life and the
creator of a new world. However this interpretation of
the prophesies for the Messiah also leaves open the
possibility for a single person or a small group of
people, to play some critical role in the unfolding of the
prophesies. At the same time, this person(s) is not
acting not alone but in concert with a large segment of
humanity; with the common aim of saving the planet
and bringing about peace on Earth.
For the rest of this section I'll be talking in the singular
purely for the sake of conformity with common usage of
terms. So when I say 'Messiah', I really mean
'Messiahs'. Now, we turn to examining the descriptions
of the 'Expected One' contained in the various scriptures
of world religion. Who and what is this person? What is
his role? and what is his meaning in relation to the
prophesies?
When we examine the prophesies and read what they
have to say, we may gain a composite picture of what
the Messiah is all about. What the scriptures seem to
be describing is a peace bringer and unifier of mankind.
Also he is a bringer of justice and arbiter of disputes. So
for example in the Bible we have the following passages
from Isaiah...
' He [The Messiah] shall judge between the nations, and
shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more ' - Isaiah 2:2-4
'The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the
Lord...' - Isaiah 11:2
And in the scriptures of Islam we find in the holy text
called the Nahjul Bhalaga...
" The Imam who will create a world state will make the
ruling nations pay for their crimes against society. He
will bring succor to humanity. He will take out the
hidden wealth from the breast of the earth and will
distribute it equitably amongst the needy deserving." -
Khutba 141
In the ancient and influential religion of Zoroastrianism,
the expected one is known by various names. For
example he is called the Saoshyant which means
'Victorious Benefactor' and he is also known as the
'Astavat erata', which means 'World Renovator'.
Finally the one who's coming has long been prophesied
is also a world teacher and revealer of important truths
and ultimate mysteries. In Buddhist scriptures the
Maitreya is so described...
' I am not the first Buddha [ awakened one ] who has
come upon the Earth, nor will I be the last. In due time
another Buddha will rise in the world, a holy one, a
supreme enlightened one, endowed with auspicious
wisdom embracing the universe, an incomparable leader
of men, a ruler of gods and mortals. He will reveal to
you the same eternal truths, which I have taught you.
He will establish his law [ Religion ], glorious in its
origins, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal
in the spirit and the letter. He will proclaim a righteous
life wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.
His disciples will number many thousands, while mine
number many hundreds. He will be known as Maitreya .'
- Buddha Gautama
And also prophesies in Islam about the Imam Mahdi say
the following...
"He will teach you simple living and high thinking. He
will make you understand that virtue is a state of
character which is always a mean between the two
extremes, and which is based upon equity and justice.
He will revive the teaching of the Holy Qur'an and the
traditions of the Holy Prophet after the world has
ignored them as dead letters.... He will protect and
defend himself with resources of science and supreme
knowledge. His control over these resources will be
complete. He will know how supreme they are and how
carefully they will have to be used. His mind will be free
from desires of bringing harm and injury to humanity.
Such a knowledge to him will be like the property which
was wrongly possessed by others and for which he was
waiting for the permission to repossess and use." -
Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 141, 187
Generally what the prophesies are describing is a potent
agent of change and transformation. Someone who
comes along to address our deepest human yearnings,
concerns and fears. In a sense he is a symbol who
represents our desires for a better world and a happy
outcome for the current world situation. He acts like a
beacon, giving people the hope that one day in the
future all the wrongs of our human condition will be
rectified and that the struggles of daily life will be
shown to be ultimately meaningful.
aspect of God that exists at the very heart of our being.
The role of Mythic Hero and World Saviour is a latent
potential that lies within all of us.
Here we explore a recurrent theme that is found in most
of the world's great faith traditions and also forms an
integral part of the prophesies of the World's religions.
In the world of religion there are few concepts which are
able to excite such passion from the faithful or else
elicit such disdain from secular people. What we are
talking about here is the idea of the expectation and
future coming of a special person who will play a
decisive role in the unfolding of the events of the
prophesies and in bringing about of their full realization.
This expected or chosen one is given many different
names by the different religions of this world. To Jews
he is the Messiah, to Muslims he is the Mahdi, to
Christians the Second Coming, to Hindus the Kalki and
to Buddhists he is the Maitreya. Also Zoroastrians await
the Saoshyant and even Taoist/Confucian scriptures talk
of the coming of the Future True Man. It is however
reasonable to suppose that all these different names
and titles are really referring to the same person. If we
take it as our starting point that all world religion is
really worshipping the same God and asking after the
same truth, then all the world's prophesies are coming
from the same source and so are really describing the
same set of events and circumstances. Therefore all the
World's religions all really waiting for the same person.
So this person has the role of acting as the catalyst and
instigator of the events prophesied. There follows a
discussion and an interpretation of the prophesies for
this long awaited person. I should mention here that for
clarity and succinctness I'll use the term Messiah or
else 'The Expected One' to mean all the other epithets
as well. That is, instead of Messiah or 'Expected One',
one might equally substitute the name Mahdi, Second
Coming or Maitreya etc. with equal standing and also
with the same meaning.
First I'll answer a question concerning the expected one
that I am often asked or else I am sometimes led to in
my discussions with people in this sort of thing. The
question is this, 'Is the Messiah[or Expected One], going
to be a single person or is it going to be a collection of
people?'. The best and most practical answer to this
question is to suppose that it's going to be a large
collection of people all working towards the realization
of the prophesies. That is, to suppose that everyone has
the Messiah, Mahdi or Christ within them and that it is
through a collective effort that the role of the Messiah is
fulfilled. One of the roles of the World Saviour is to save
the planet. There is these days in the present age,
definitely a planet to be saved and obviously one person
isn't by himself or herself going to save the world. So
therefore it has got to be a group effort involving
millions of people and more. With this interpretation of
the prophesies, the Messiah is therefore seen as an
archetype or essential aspect of our innermost being
which can be activated and brought to the surface of
our consciousness. It is like a dormant potential that
exists within us all, which may under certain conditions
be awakened and incorporated into our being. That is, if
we choose, we may express through our actions the
attributes of the Messiah and take on his roles in our
lives. Through this exercise, in a sense we are
manifesting the divine and also personifying a powerful
aspect of God. We become the preserver of life and the
creator of a new world. However this interpretation of
the prophesies for the Messiah also leaves open the
possibility for a single person or a small group of
people, to play some critical role in the unfolding of the
prophesies. At the same time, this person(s) is not
acting not alone but in concert with a large segment of
humanity; with the common aim of saving the planet
and bringing about peace on Earth.
For the rest of this section I'll be talking in the singular
purely for the sake of conformity with common usage of
terms. So when I say 'Messiah', I really mean
'Messiahs'. Now, we turn to examining the descriptions
of the 'Expected One' contained in the various scriptures
of world religion. Who and what is this person? What is
his role? and what is his meaning in relation to the
prophesies?
When we examine the prophesies and read what they
have to say, we may gain a composite picture of what
the Messiah is all about. What the scriptures seem to
be describing is a peace bringer and unifier of mankind.
Also he is a bringer of justice and arbiter of disputes. So
for example in the Bible we have the following passages
from Isaiah...
' He [The Messiah] shall judge between the nations, and
shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more ' - Isaiah 2:2-4
'The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the
Lord...' - Isaiah 11:2
And in the scriptures of Islam we find in the holy text
called the Nahjul Bhalaga...
" The Imam who will create a world state will make the
ruling nations pay for their crimes against society. He
will bring succor to humanity. He will take out the
hidden wealth from the breast of the earth and will
distribute it equitably amongst the needy deserving." -
Khutba 141
In the ancient and influential religion of Zoroastrianism,
the expected one is known by various names. For
example he is called the Saoshyant which means
'Victorious Benefactor' and he is also known as the
'Astavat erata', which means 'World Renovator'.
Finally the one who's coming has long been prophesied
is also a world teacher and revealer of important truths
and ultimate mysteries. In Buddhist scriptures the
Maitreya is so described...
' I am not the first Buddha [ awakened one ] who has
come upon the Earth, nor will I be the last. In due time
another Buddha will rise in the world, a holy one, a
supreme enlightened one, endowed with auspicious
wisdom embracing the universe, an incomparable leader
of men, a ruler of gods and mortals. He will reveal to
you the same eternal truths, which I have taught you.
He will establish his law [ Religion ], glorious in its
origins, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal
in the spirit and the letter. He will proclaim a righteous
life wholly perfect and pure, such as I now proclaim.
His disciples will number many thousands, while mine
number many hundreds. He will be known as Maitreya .'
- Buddha Gautama
And also prophesies in Islam about the Imam Mahdi say
the following...
"He will teach you simple living and high thinking. He
will make you understand that virtue is a state of
character which is always a mean between the two
extremes, and which is based upon equity and justice.
He will revive the teaching of the Holy Qur'an and the
traditions of the Holy Prophet after the world has
ignored them as dead letters.... He will protect and
defend himself with resources of science and supreme
knowledge. His control over these resources will be
complete. He will know how supreme they are and how
carefully they will have to be used. His mind will be free
from desires of bringing harm and injury to humanity.
Such a knowledge to him will be like the property which
was wrongly possessed by others and for which he was
waiting for the permission to repossess and use." -
Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 141, 187
Generally what the prophesies are describing is a potent
agent of change and transformation. Someone who
comes along to address our deepest human yearnings,
concerns and fears. In a sense he is a symbol who
represents our desires for a better world and a happy
outcome for the current world situation. He acts like a
beacon, giving people the hope that one day in the
future all the wrongs of our human condition will be
rectified and that the struggles of daily life will be
shown to be ultimately meaningful.
REINCARNATION
There is a view of the nature of Eternal Life that is
common to all the Worlds Great Religions though, more
often than not, censored, suppressed or else kept
hidden.
This section deals with one of the eternal questions of
life, that is 'What happens when I die?'. Closely related
questions are 'Is there a soul?', 'Is there an afterlife?'
and 'What is the nature of the soul?'. I hope to provide
the reader here with answers to these timeless
questions.
So what is the truth about eternal life? To the Atheist or
the Materialist, the whole idea of life after death is an
absurdity. To them it might seem like some invention
designed to deal with the fear of death, or some fantasy
that allows religious people to better cope with the
passing away of loved ones. The debate between those
who believe in eternal life and those who dismiss the
idea of it, has been going on throughout history. The
kinds of people who deny the reality of eternal life will
often also have materialist assumptions. That is they
will usually suppose that our existence is based on our
physical bodies with nothing else being in existence
apart from the material Universe. They will find it
impossible to see how anything of what we are can
survive after our bodies have stopped working and
decayed away. Or else they'll counter the idea of eternal
life with the objection that it is something which can
never be proven. In another section of this website I
show how the truth about eternal life actually works
(See Nature of Reality section) and I also show how
indeed it can be proven (See Everyone is God section).
Here I shall present the common truth about eternal life
that is found at the mystical heart of all world religion
namely reincarnation. And I also show how it is that in
religions not normally associated with reincarnation,
such as Christianity, the truth has been censored, made
heresy and then suppressed.
The religiously minded believe and have believed
through the ages, all sorts of different stories
concerning the details of the passage of the soul. Most
Christians and Muslims of this world believe in the idea
of 'resurrection'. That is after death we return to life
with the same physical bodies that we had during our
lives on Earth. This 'resurrected' body will then inhabit
for all eternity either some sort of paradise i.e. Heaven
or else will be condemned to some sort of Hell. Often it
will also be believed that we may meet again deceased
friends and loved ones, who will also be similarly
physically reconstituted in this imagined afterworld.
Another version of the afterlife believed by people of the
Mormon faith holds that when a good Mormon dies then
he or she will become a god of a new universe and
inhabit a planet of their own along with their spouse or
spouses. Then eternity is spent in a state of bliss
producing star children who are the new souls for the
new lives that will inhabit the new universe in which the
perfected Mormon has become God. This is what is
implied by the much quoted aphorism invented by one
of the early presidents of the Mormon church which
goes 'As man is, God once was and as God is, man
may become.'
However there is another widely held belief about
eternal life which is common to the mystical heart of all
world religion. This is the well known but not universally
believed idea called reincarnation or the transmigration
of souls. At first it may seem that this is an idea which
is exclusive to the Eastern religions such as Hinduism
or Buddhism. However when we examine the other
religions more closely then we find one of two things.
Firstly that the idea of reincarnation has either been
once prevalent but then later suppressed. Or else
secondly we discover that reincarnation is believed by
the mystics at the heart of their respective religions and
also by the members of certain esoteric sects within
World religions that we don't normally associate with
reincarnation. We when study closely all the main
religions of this world, then we find that the idea of
reincarnation occurs again and again.
It is true that there exists in the Worlds religions many
different and conflicting ideas about eternal life. But it is
when we examine the history of the World's great
religions and understand how doctrines become
changed for political ends, that we see how truths and
in this case truths about eternal life may be suppressed.
I will be showing how in the case of Christianity, the
idea of reincarnation was quite systematically made
heresy and banned even though it was a widely held
belief in the early church. Also in world religion, it has
often been the case that important and ineffable truths
have often been communicated through the invention of
fantasies and simplistic stories that the common people
could more easily grasp. That is, religious truths are
often two tiered. There is the actual truth for the
mystics and the more esoterically minded followers of
religion, i.e. the kinds of people more deeply involved in
religion and also more interested in knowing about
matters of life after death; then there are the fairy tales
and stories of miracles which are created to capture the
imaginations of the laity and common folk. These would
be the majority of the followers of their respective
religions, who don't actually want to spend a lot of time
thinking about the true nature of eternal life but are
looking for reassurance and a view of the afterlife that
they can easily digest and absorb. Hence we have
popular stereotypes of what eternal life is, such as
heaven being a place in the clouds or else some other
plane of existence where we go spend the rest of
eternity with our deceased friends and loved ones.
Scenarios such as these are useful fictions which
through history have served a necessary purpose.
However when taken literally they don't stand up to
critical analysis and deflect attention from the real truth
about the nature of eternal life, which is reincarnation.
Therefore I will show how this has been the case in
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also I'll show that in
all these three major religions, reincarnation has been a
central and integral aspect, even though this is
sometimes in the background or else is hidden for
various reasons.
I'll now go through some of the major religions of the
world and discuss the idea of reincarnation in relation to
these main faiths. Firstly we'll discuss the religious
traditions which are not commonly associated with
reincarnation. To start I will discuss judaism,
christianity and islam in this order which reflects the
order in which they first emerged. I will show that the
belief in reincarnation is or has been an important
aspect of all these three faiths. Later on I'll be dealing
with Hinduism and Buddhism. We'll deal with these two
faith traditions last mainly because the idea of
reincarnation is a central belief in both, therefore the
case for the importance of reincarnation in these two
religions is very straight forward and easy to make. Also
because the idea of reincarnation is commonly identified
and closely associated with both Hinduism and
Buddhism, the case for reincarnation in both these faiths
is a less interesting one to make. Anyway... we now
examine the idea of reincarnation in some of the major
religions of the world.
common to all the Worlds Great Religions though, more
often than not, censored, suppressed or else kept
hidden.
This section deals with one of the eternal questions of
life, that is 'What happens when I die?'. Closely related
questions are 'Is there a soul?', 'Is there an afterlife?'
and 'What is the nature of the soul?'. I hope to provide
the reader here with answers to these timeless
questions.
So what is the truth about eternal life? To the Atheist or
the Materialist, the whole idea of life after death is an
absurdity. To them it might seem like some invention
designed to deal with the fear of death, or some fantasy
that allows religious people to better cope with the
passing away of loved ones. The debate between those
who believe in eternal life and those who dismiss the
idea of it, has been going on throughout history. The
kinds of people who deny the reality of eternal life will
often also have materialist assumptions. That is they
will usually suppose that our existence is based on our
physical bodies with nothing else being in existence
apart from the material Universe. They will find it
impossible to see how anything of what we are can
survive after our bodies have stopped working and
decayed away. Or else they'll counter the idea of eternal
life with the objection that it is something which can
never be proven. In another section of this website I
show how the truth about eternal life actually works
(See Nature of Reality section) and I also show how
indeed it can be proven (See Everyone is God section).
Here I shall present the common truth about eternal life
that is found at the mystical heart of all world religion
namely reincarnation. And I also show how it is that in
religions not normally associated with reincarnation,
such as Christianity, the truth has been censored, made
heresy and then suppressed.
The religiously minded believe and have believed
through the ages, all sorts of different stories
concerning the details of the passage of the soul. Most
Christians and Muslims of this world believe in the idea
of 'resurrection'. That is after death we return to life
with the same physical bodies that we had during our
lives on Earth. This 'resurrected' body will then inhabit
for all eternity either some sort of paradise i.e. Heaven
or else will be condemned to some sort of Hell. Often it
will also be believed that we may meet again deceased
friends and loved ones, who will also be similarly
physically reconstituted in this imagined afterworld.
Another version of the afterlife believed by people of the
Mormon faith holds that when a good Mormon dies then
he or she will become a god of a new universe and
inhabit a planet of their own along with their spouse or
spouses. Then eternity is spent in a state of bliss
producing star children who are the new souls for the
new lives that will inhabit the new universe in which the
perfected Mormon has become God. This is what is
implied by the much quoted aphorism invented by one
of the early presidents of the Mormon church which
goes 'As man is, God once was and as God is, man
may become.'
However there is another widely held belief about
eternal life which is common to the mystical heart of all
world religion. This is the well known but not universally
believed idea called reincarnation or the transmigration
of souls. At first it may seem that this is an idea which
is exclusive to the Eastern religions such as Hinduism
or Buddhism. However when we examine the other
religions more closely then we find one of two things.
Firstly that the idea of reincarnation has either been
once prevalent but then later suppressed. Or else
secondly we discover that reincarnation is believed by
the mystics at the heart of their respective religions and
also by the members of certain esoteric sects within
World religions that we don't normally associate with
reincarnation. We when study closely all the main
religions of this world, then we find that the idea of
reincarnation occurs again and again.
It is true that there exists in the Worlds religions many
different and conflicting ideas about eternal life. But it is
when we examine the history of the World's great
religions and understand how doctrines become
changed for political ends, that we see how truths and
in this case truths about eternal life may be suppressed.
I will be showing how in the case of Christianity, the
idea of reincarnation was quite systematically made
heresy and banned even though it was a widely held
belief in the early church. Also in world religion, it has
often been the case that important and ineffable truths
have often been communicated through the invention of
fantasies and simplistic stories that the common people
could more easily grasp. That is, religious truths are
often two tiered. There is the actual truth for the
mystics and the more esoterically minded followers of
religion, i.e. the kinds of people more deeply involved in
religion and also more interested in knowing about
matters of life after death; then there are the fairy tales
and stories of miracles which are created to capture the
imaginations of the laity and common folk. These would
be the majority of the followers of their respective
religions, who don't actually want to spend a lot of time
thinking about the true nature of eternal life but are
looking for reassurance and a view of the afterlife that
they can easily digest and absorb. Hence we have
popular stereotypes of what eternal life is, such as
heaven being a place in the clouds or else some other
plane of existence where we go spend the rest of
eternity with our deceased friends and loved ones.
Scenarios such as these are useful fictions which
through history have served a necessary purpose.
However when taken literally they don't stand up to
critical analysis and deflect attention from the real truth
about the nature of eternal life, which is reincarnation.
Therefore I will show how this has been the case in
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also I'll show that in
all these three major religions, reincarnation has been a
central and integral aspect, even though this is
sometimes in the background or else is hidden for
various reasons.
I'll now go through some of the major religions of the
world and discuss the idea of reincarnation in relation to
these main faiths. Firstly we'll discuss the religious
traditions which are not commonly associated with
reincarnation. To start I will discuss judaism,
christianity and islam in this order which reflects the
order in which they first emerged. I will show that the
belief in reincarnation is or has been an important
aspect of all these three faiths. Later on I'll be dealing
with Hinduism and Buddhism. We'll deal with these two
faith traditions last mainly because the idea of
reincarnation is a central belief in both, therefore the
case for the importance of reincarnation in these two
religions is very straight forward and easy to make. Also
because the idea of reincarnation is commonly identified
and closely associated with both Hinduism and
Buddhism, the case for reincarnation in both these faiths
is a less interesting one to make. Anyway... we now
examine the idea of reincarnation in some of the major
religions of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)