It's time to change the world!!!
I have a dream that the poor, united, being more numerous than the powerful, can press for changes to be made. Similarly, it is not logical that there are a few countries that rule the world and exercise their power to prevent international legality.
There are recent examples, as in Gaza with the civilian population, but there are dozens or more, previous, in the conflicts since the Second World War. There are also examples of unfair bodies, such as the World Bank, the European Central Bank, etc. But about those who control money (really) and economic power, I will speak on another occasion.
Peace. Photo: Pink Sherbet Photography
The UN was created to avoid a Third World War, preserve legality and other concepts covered in falsehood. It was created because the League of Nations was a failure, and so is the UN. The UN is not democratic, since the Security Council is composed of permanent members with a right of veto (incompatible with a democratic system), which means that if one of them wishes to prevent the will or legality, it can do so. There are countries like Switzerland that are not in the UN, nor have an obligation to respect their mandates (including the Universal Human Rights Law), even though during the previous period and during World War II committed mass murders against Jewish citizens at the border, after entering their wealth in their banks, without ever having been judged or punished for it. Switzerland has always been a country greatly benefited by all countries, since the elite keeps its reserves and money ...
The United States, France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia have the right to veto since the creation of the UN. All the people of the world are supposedly represented in the UN, through their countries, but it is false, because if in a country there is a dictatorship, for example, its people will be represented only in a small part, which governs That country. But neither is the current voting system democratic, since the vote of a small country like the Vatican State, with just a few thousand inhabitants, would be the same as the vote of India, with many millions of inhabitants, so it is necessary , to be democratic, to be weighted by the number of inhabitants, for example.
There is another problem, and it is how much money each country contributes to the UN, but here the most logical thing is that it is based on its Gross Domestic Product, and not according to inhabitants, obviously. There is a theory that says that the right to veto was granted to them because they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction (atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs or H, etc.) but, although we give this for certain when the UN was created, today many others countries have these weapons, such as Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. can cause life in all or part of the Earth to be destroyed or seriously damaged, so they should also have veto and be permanent members of the Security Council, which approves sanctions and interventions of the "blue helmets" or international military forces of the UN in conflicts in different countries. The logical thing could be that those countries with weapons of mass destruction were members of an independent organism that established controls to eliminate them or to limit their use by regulating them, but this is just an idea and there may be better ones, of those who read this. But I wonder: What are these weapons for, if they are not used in any conflict since the Second World War? It would be better to eliminate them, or establish protocols between the countries that own them.
Just imagine that someone could ask the whole planet to give their support or signature to ask for a Democratic United Nations, where the principles that inspired its creation, and to eliminate the current failures. On the Internet there are media such as Change.org or forwarding through social networks, for example ... But there was a man who mobilized all of India to fight peacefully for the freedom and independence of Pakistanis and Hindus and he did it, but I do not compare myself with Gandhi, I'm not a leader. I believe that the common will does not need a single leader, but that each one of us is a little leader of a great goal or objective.
It is also possible to continue like this, but I ask you: Would not you like your children or nephews or grandchildren, etc. live in a more just world? If the power resides in the town and the majority of the people peacefully asks their countries for a change like that, would not they support it? If we ask our friends from countries with nuclear weapons or veto in the UN something as logical, just and peaceful as to get rid of those weapons worldwide and renounce the veto, would not it be possible?
Just imagine that someone could ask the whole planet to give their support or signature to ask for a Democratic United Nations, where the principles that inspired its creation, and to eliminate the current failures. On the Internet there are media such as Change.org or forwarding through social networks, for example ... But there was a man who mobilized all of India to fight peacefully for the freedom and independence of Pakistanis and Hindus and he did it, but I do not compare myself with Gandhi, I'm not a leader. I believe that the common will does not need a single leader, but that each one of us is a little leader of a great goal or objective.
It is also possible to continue like this, but I ask you: Would not you like your children or nephews or grandchildren, etc. live in a more just world? If the power resides in the town and the majority of the people peacefully asks their countries for a change like that, would not they support it? If we ask our friends from countries with nuclear weapons or veto in the UN something as logical, just and peaceful as to get rid of those weapons worldwide and renounce the veto, would not it be possible? Are we all the same or are there citizens from other countries with more rights?
In reality it all comes down to, as John Lennon said: "Just Imagine."
