Category: United Nations

Why is world peace so hard to attain?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-world-peace-so-hard-to-attain/answer/Desmond-Last

Until we learn how to live without killing each other World Peace is not possible. We have democratically elected Governments in many parts of the World who are signatories to the International Convention of Human rights.

That convention does not allow children to die of starvation or from war. But they do – every day. We have also allowed crime to become too acceptable a part of our lives.

Yet our Governments appear on television and tell us how important it is that we allow all persons not to be harassed or bullied. They tell school children not to bully and harass. They tell us the People we will be arrested and go to Prison for life if we commit murder.

They (our Governments) shake hands with Government who lock up their citizens because of their ethnic group or faith, who put them in labour camps, and who shoot then without trial.

Our Governments then increase their hypocrisy by visiting those same countries and giving them AID money which allows those same Countries to arm more military and suppress their citizens rights with an even greater excess of force.

How can there ever be World Peace without adherence to the Principal of Defending the Weak and the Innocent and the Principal of respect for another human?

If I ever become the Prime Minister the United Kingdom I would close down every embassy in the UK whose Government abused human rights – and that would include China.

We must reform the U.N and use overwhelming Military Intervention to bring conflicts to an end and that means all of the Security Council not just the U.S.A the U.K and their allies.

Until we draw the red line of human rights and defend that red line we will never have World Peace.

 

Why has the world failed to maintain peace?

https://www.quora.com/profile/Desmond-Last

Because ‘We the People’ have no democracy at the International Level. We have no say in who represents us at the United Nations.

This is a very strange state of affairs considering that the United Nations is meant to be the ‘peak’ organisation in the World representing human rights’.

In face none of the International Organisations that exist have representatives of Countries in which the people have a say in whom is to speak and act for them.

I live in Sydney, Australia. I work alongside all race and their respective cultures. In Sydney Jew works and plays with Arab. In the Gaza they kill each other.

It is not the people preventing the World from enjoying World Peace it is our Governments and vested interests.

On the day that ‘We the People’ have a say in International Democracy then that is the day when the road to World Peace will begin.

I have written a new United Nations. It is not the people who do not read it or prevent it from being read – it is Theresa May, Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Malcolm Turnbull and the media who do not acknowledge and support my work.

We must ask the Question ‘ When are we the people going to be able to vote in the United Nations for Peace?’

WeThePeople

Photo by May on Unsplash

What even is world peace? Wouldn’t it stop innovation and creativity? Isn’t world peace subjective?

Q&A on Quora

World Peace is subjective. To a child who was moments before sitting chuckling to herself as she amused her imagination with her tatty and dust laden angel who had promised her that all the dreams she could ever had would come true, it was very subjective. After her chuckling came a sound she had never heard before. It was loud, very loud. If pain could be given a name then that was the sound she heard. Her Angel was gone. Instead two mangled bleeding bloody legs remained. She was a victim of collateral damage – that is the term the Generals use so that they don’t scare their own children.

To the Prime Minister or President who ordered the bombing attack World Peace was also subjective. But he or she never felt the pain or the fear whilst in the Vatican shaking hands with the Pope.

I have used the illustration above to show that World Peace is indeed subjective. If you are a victim of the lack of World Peace then your view is very different to those who are not,

War does not innovate. All it does is speed up the rate of technology change that produces more weaponry to kill us with. More weapons are developed in so-called Peacetime than in major conflicts.

World Peace will provide the People of the World with the opportunity to live lives of mutual self-respect. Unfortunately at the moment it is unlikely to occur.

Until the United Nations is reformed to ensure that no sides are taken by all the members of an enlarged Security Council in any conflict then we will never have World Peace.

Is it worth it to sacrifice one million people to create everlasting world peace?

truth

This is my answer to this Q which is on Quora.

If I were the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which is a country with nuclear weapons, which you would have to be equipped with in order to answer the question I would state this:

“Nuclear weapons have only one purpose and that is to kill in the millions. The only deterrent they have been is to ensure those Nations with Nuclear Weapons do not make a sudden decision to use them on other Nations with nuclear weapons.

They did not stop Al Qaeda killing 3000 Americans at 911 and they did not stop the Vietnam War or ISIS invading Syria and Iraq. I would use them at the negotiating table to provide a framework with other countries to discuss and achieve a planned and phased reduction in nuclear weapons. Which is a forum much promised but lacking in delivery.

However, if my only option to end an immediate threat to the United Kingdom from a nuclear military force was to use them specifically to bring an immediate end to the threat I would do so. It is highly unlikely that such a threat would involve one million civilians. It is also highly unlikely that such a situation would occur without any of the United Kingdom’s allies being involved. Therefore the question is too hypothetical to consider a more detailed response”.

I would also state that the United Kingdom as an Island is at much more of a risk from a hostile force than the majority of developed Nations. An island is a strategic target and one which is between Europe and the United States even more so. Unless we are able to ensure we know where every Nuclear Weapon in the World is there can never be a complete nuclear disarmament.

Theresa May did not give that answer. Without thinking May said ‘I would’ to the question by Jeremy Corbyn of would she kill 100,000 with a nuclear strike.

Let us hope that Theresa May is able to ‘think’ when faced with a real situation of a ‘United Kingdom under threat’.

Theresa May does not hesitate to say she would kill 100,000 with nuclear strike

There can be no everlasting Peace that comes about with the death of a million people. The deaths of one million people and more occured in 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 with no everlasting Peace.

1.5 million have died in Afghanistan since 1979. A negotiated Peace for the war weary people of Afghanistan is as distant as it has ever been.

If the World wants everlasting Peace then it must begin with the reform of the United Nations. The Security Council must be expanded, the veto dropped and every conflict dealt with by not taking sides.

 

What military options are there for the US on N. Korea and will they all lead to direct conflict with China as well?

truth

This is my answer to this Q on Quora.

The Military Options may exist on paper but it is fair more likely that they will continue to remain in their role as feasible deterrents rather than positive actions.

Kim Jong Un is not a stupid man. He knows that any conflict with the U.S.A will result in the destruction of his fragile economy. Troops need to eat and they need fuel. Neither will be available once a conflict with the U.S begins.

However, Kim Jong Un has decided to take a shortcut to the membership of the World’s SuperStates and in doing so has to ensure that at some point he sits down with President Trump.

There are over 26 million North Koreans and each one has the potential to buy a product or a service from the U.S.

America’s’ Military has never failed in their duty to the U.S and the World but it is America’s Economy that has made America great. President Trump is well aware that Peace has a Profit and War only a loss.

China has continued to ensure that it sits on the fence – as usual. Nikki Haley the American Ambassador the U.N has been right to remind all the members of the Security Council of their legal and moral responsibility in regard to North Korea. China would never get involved in a conflict with the U.S. They know President Trump would stop all exports to the U.S. They have too much to lose. However, that does not mean that they would not use a display of force should it be required.

What is needed now is for President Trump to publicly show that America is ready to engage North Korea in talks which is no doubt happening with the recent reporting of ‘diplomatic speak’.

Nobody will win in any war with North Korea. The North Koreans will fight to the death. The Pacific region needs stability and it is up to China to broker the talks between North Korea and the United States.

Kim Jong Un is on a deadline. He will not be able to use the nuclear big stick for ever – his economy is unable to support such a large military expenditure. His population needs feeding and though they are loyal they will want more than military parades and anti-America rhetoric to satisfy their growing thirst for knowledge and world involvement.

Whoever sits down with Kim Jong Un will be able to ensure the massive expansion of the North Korean Economy, which will follow any negotiated agreement, is of benefit to both sides of the negotiating table

President Trump has to ensure it will be America who benefit and not Russia or China. It could also be President Trump’s worst nightmare – Iran, who engages with North Korea in negotiations to halt his nuclear weapons expansion.

In an ideal World the U.S. Russia and China would all be involved in talks with North Korea. However, as Aleppo, Syria and Climate Change have illustrated our World Leaders are not the brightest kids on the block.

In politics of Australia, why do people tend to bring up homeless people in response to asylum seekers?

cropped-cropped-truth2.jpg

Answered on Quora

For those outside of Australia it would appear to be almost deliberate that there are any homeless people and to some extent that is almost true.

Successive Governments have failed to produce policies which last longer than their term of Government and State Politics work against each other.

Australia’s refugee policy has become inhumane, ridiculous and very expensive. It has divided Australia as it offers no solutions only controversy.

Like most citizens of any country people want their own looked after first hence the homeless and asylum seekers debate.

These are my suggestions;

There are many buildings in Australia that lie empty and it would not be difficult to draft legislation that ensures every developer builds x number of social housing homes per x of commercial development.

The economies of scale of even a moderate commercial development of 10 homes would make building a social home less expensive than as a stand-alone construction.

Australia also needs an industrial strategy that provides value-added employment. It has bled it’s resources dry. Australia has a powerhouse in the sun and that too has the potential to provide thousands of jobs should Australia decide to become a net exporter of energy.

There are no doubt those who say Australia’s first priority should be to its citizens – to which I agree. But the relatively small amount of asylum seekers when processed can be quite easily absorbed with a minimum term of directed location by a country which still seeks legal immigrants.

What Australia needs is a Bi-Partisan refugee policy so asylum seekers are not subjected to Political football .

Unfortunately selfish Party Politics would appear to produce self-obsessed Party Policies which only produce the destructive forces of economic disunity and mediocre politicians.