Technology has changed the world in the last fifty years. People can travel all over this globe in hours. People can talk with each other across continents with ease. People can watch real time soccer games and boxing matches, as well as battle scenes, thousands of miles away. An expert in Chicago can supervise in real time intricate surgery in Indonesia. Machinery produced in Illinois helps build roads in the jungles of Zaire, dramatically changing the lifestyle of that African society, while oil pumped in Arabia and Nigeria strongly affects lifestyle in the USA. Pharmaceuticals developed and manufactured in the US extend life expectancy in Uganda.
On the negative side, narcotics originating in Columbia reduce life expectancy in the US and Canada. A fatal highly contagious viral respiratory disease originating in central China can spread all over the globe within a few days. Man-made environmental disaster - setting the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire by the Iraqi despot - affected the climate and wildlife not only in that region, but also all over the globe. ?Dirty? coal burning power plants in eastern China may eventually cause drought in the American Midwest and flooding of coastal towns in Ireland. Intercontinental missiles developed in Iran, loaded with biological agents, might kill millions of people in the USA. Nuclear bombs produced by rogue countries like North Korea or Iran may kill indiscriminately hundreds of thousands of innocent people in cities in England, France or the USA, and cause death from cancer of many additional millions all over the world.
Notwithstanding the qualitative changes in communication, transportation, commerce and warfare, the different cultures that evolved over millennia in isolation from each other have not yet fully adapted to the new reality. These cultures range from pacifistic Hinduism and Buddhism to militant Islam. They include, in addition to contemporary peace-seeking Judaism and Christianity, also Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, which tolerate people who adhere to more than one religion. Finally, there is also a host of isolated tribal cultures. Each of these civilizations has its distinctive ethical value system; most are tolerant of people of other cultures. Although each desires to preserve its own beliefs and values, they can readily accept the new multi-cultural global reality.
Exceptions to this benign behavior are cultures and ideologies that aspire to politically dominate all of humanity, denying other cultures their right to exist. These include atheistic communism and racist totalitarian Nazism of the recent past, as well as contemporary radical Islamism. Since global political domination is an illusion, the latter culture is least fit for the modern global world. This mismatch has been manifested in global Islamic terrorism and in the rise of Islamic totalitarian regimes such as in Iraq. These belligerent regimes combine militant Islamism with the totalitarian ideology of Nazism or Communism, characterized by a personality cult of the ruler combined with oppression of the populace by a ruthless apparatus of party loyalists.
And yet, our technological interdependency compels us to live in a ?global village?. Like in any village there is need for village-wide functions; e.g., sanitation, health, education, etc. Our global village needs global institutions to fill these functions. And we do have them - we have a world health organization, we have a global postal service, there is worldwide control of permitted radio frequencies - traffic control of radio and TV signals as well as traffic control of civilian aircraft and of ships on the high sea, and we even have something approaching a global environmental organization.
However, when it comes to regulation of political issues our global village fails miserably. Ours is not a peaceful village. Like in any village there may be residents who disturb the peace and are a menace to their neighbors. In a typical village it is the village policeman who takes care of such things. In the classical Wild West this was the job of the Sheriff who could deputize others to help him to enforce the law when needed. In our global village the UN tries to fill this role. But the UN turns out to be an utterly dysfunctional ?sheriff.? For one, this sheriff carries a badge, but has no gun. It is supposed to keep the peace, but without the authority to arrest a bully who bribes the town clerk and the town judge, and threatens to burn down the whole village if anyone tries to apprehend and disarm him. Moreover, the village bully sets up his own laws ignoring all global village conventions. The sheriff in our global village does not keep peace, but keeps his job by appeasing the bully, taking bribes from the bully?s cronies.
And when one of the villagers says ?Enough is enough? and goes to tame the bully by knocking out his teeth, the sheriff and his gang of corrupt buddies jump all over him for disturbing the peace. They yell that this villager is out of line and should be hanged for disturbing the peace... This is a classical script for a mediocre Western. But in our global village no Lone Ranger appears for a happy ending.
We have here an intrinsic paradox. The same people who advocate the concept of a global village, object to enforcement of global law. There can be only one global law, applicable to all the villagers. This law must imply respect and tolerance of all villagers and severe punishment for anyone who infringes on the property rights of a neighbor. But in our global village we have one country, Israel, which is not tolerated by a cabal of bullies, who want to eradicate it. In our global village, the fundamentalist Muslims claim that international law does not apply to them, because it is in conflict with the law of their particular culture, which in their minds takes precedence. They say, therefore, that they are entitled to discriminate against women, abuse children, kill anyone who does not share their religious beliefs, including prisoners of war, violate treaties with infidels, destroy holy sites of other religions, and so on. To resolve this paradox, one must either enforce a universal law, one way or another, or forget the concept of global village altogether. If we give up on this concept, then we have no more use for the UN, the corrupt sheriff. Let him ride off into the sunset and disappear.
Forgetting our metaphor, let us examine the UN and explain why it is intrinsically dysfunctional. This is an organization that was designed by idealists who were oblivious to the reality of a multi-cultural world. Viewing it as an international worldwide law enforcement organization, it is preposterous that the USA, the major contributor to its budget, should have an equal share in its decision-making process as Fiji or Djibouti, which contribute less than 0.1% of its budget, if they contribute at all. No public corporation could function under these conditions - no one would buy its shares... Compare the Arab nation, which is often represented by the Arab League with its 22 votes, with the single vote of the United States of America, a federation of 50 states. Qatar with 800,000 people has the same share in the decision-making process of the General Assembly of the UN as the USA with its 281 million people. And when it comes to veto power in the Security Council, France with its 60 million people and a GDP of $1.54 trillion wields an equal veto power to that of the US with a 4.7 fold larger population and a GDP of $10.082 trillion. The UN is not a democratic institution by any reasonable criterion - it is a self-perpetuating conglomerate of bureaucrats who exploit the gullibility of the public in the economically advanced industrial countries that cover almost all of its expenses. This absurdity has been demonstrated in the recent Iraq crisis.
What would have been the situation of the world if the UN and the League of Nations, its dysfunctional predecessor, never existed? Let us take again the State of Israel as an example. With the collapse of the British Empire after WWII, the Jewish State of Israel would have replaced British colonial rule, in view of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab countries. Like all other ex-British colonies, the State of Israel would have been recognized by the USSR and the USA as well as by most other countries worldwide. The Arab attack of 1948 (which was never condemned by the UN!) would have taken place just the same; however, in the absence of the UN, there would be no self-perpetuating ?international? support (covered predominantly by US funds) for the Arab refugees. These refugees would then have settled in other countries, like all other refugees of WWII, depriving the Arabs of the driving force and excuse to eradicate the Jewish state. A 1967 war would have occurred, possibly at a later date, because the Arabs would have tried another offensive to make up for their humiliation in 1948. However, there would have been no UN international ?peacekeepers? or ?observers? in Sharm a-Sheikh who disappeared at the whim of the aggressor, just as they disappeared years later in Rwanda and most recently in North Korea. There would also be no corrupt ?peacekeepers? in Lebanon to actively help the Hizballah terrorists to kidnap and then kill Israeli captives, using other UN bureaucrats to cover up the scandalous crime. There also would not be a UN ?representative? in Israel to substantiate and help propagate Arab propaganda about the Jenin ?massacre? that never was. Obviously, there would not be those numerous Arab-sponsored UN condemnations of Israel, which fed a worldwide wave of virulent anti-Semitism that was enhanced by the Arab dominated, UN-sponsored conference in Durban, South Africa. And all this was done by an international organization that has been chartered to enhance international understanding and peace.
As this example shows - and as we just witnessed in the Iraq fiasco, when the UN did its utmost to defend an oppressive, aggressive tyrant, bound to murder millions by whichever means he could muster - the UN is not just dysfunctional, but contrary to its charter, it encourages lawlessness and violence. Let us then fire this corrupt sheriff and find other means to maintain law and order in our global village.
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Anbar Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus at the School of Medicine of the University of Buffalo.
On the negative side, narcotics originating in Columbia reduce life expectancy in the US and Canada. A fatal highly contagious viral respiratory disease originating in central China can spread all over the globe within a few days. Man-made environmental disaster - setting the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire by the Iraqi despot - affected the climate and wildlife not only in that region, but also all over the globe. ?Dirty? coal burning power plants in eastern China may eventually cause drought in the American Midwest and flooding of coastal towns in Ireland. Intercontinental missiles developed in Iran, loaded with biological agents, might kill millions of people in the USA. Nuclear bombs produced by rogue countries like North Korea or Iran may kill indiscriminately hundreds of thousands of innocent people in cities in England, France or the USA, and cause death from cancer of many additional millions all over the world.
Notwithstanding the qualitative changes in communication, transportation, commerce and warfare, the different cultures that evolved over millennia in isolation from each other have not yet fully adapted to the new reality. These cultures range from pacifistic Hinduism and Buddhism to militant Islam. They include, in addition to contemporary peace-seeking Judaism and Christianity, also Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, which tolerate people who adhere to more than one religion. Finally, there is also a host of isolated tribal cultures. Each of these civilizations has its distinctive ethical value system; most are tolerant of people of other cultures. Although each desires to preserve its own beliefs and values, they can readily accept the new multi-cultural global reality.
Exceptions to this benign behavior are cultures and ideologies that aspire to politically dominate all of humanity, denying other cultures their right to exist. These include atheistic communism and racist totalitarian Nazism of the recent past, as well as contemporary radical Islamism. Since global political domination is an illusion, the latter culture is least fit for the modern global world. This mismatch has been manifested in global Islamic terrorism and in the rise of Islamic totalitarian regimes such as in Iraq. These belligerent regimes combine militant Islamism with the totalitarian ideology of Nazism or Communism, characterized by a personality cult of the ruler combined with oppression of the populace by a ruthless apparatus of party loyalists.
And yet, our technological interdependency compels us to live in a ?global village?. Like in any village there is need for village-wide functions; e.g., sanitation, health, education, etc. Our global village needs global institutions to fill these functions. And we do have them - we have a world health organization, we have a global postal service, there is worldwide control of permitted radio frequencies - traffic control of radio and TV signals as well as traffic control of civilian aircraft and of ships on the high sea, and we even have something approaching a global environmental organization.
However, when it comes to regulation of political issues our global village fails miserably. Ours is not a peaceful village. Like in any village there may be residents who disturb the peace and are a menace to their neighbors. In a typical village it is the village policeman who takes care of such things. In the classical Wild West this was the job of the Sheriff who could deputize others to help him to enforce the law when needed. In our global village the UN tries to fill this role. But the UN turns out to be an utterly dysfunctional ?sheriff.? For one, this sheriff carries a badge, but has no gun. It is supposed to keep the peace, but without the authority to arrest a bully who bribes the town clerk and the town judge, and threatens to burn down the whole village if anyone tries to apprehend and disarm him. Moreover, the village bully sets up his own laws ignoring all global village conventions. The sheriff in our global village does not keep peace, but keeps his job by appeasing the bully, taking bribes from the bully?s cronies.
And when one of the villagers says ?Enough is enough? and goes to tame the bully by knocking out his teeth, the sheriff and his gang of corrupt buddies jump all over him for disturbing the peace. They yell that this villager is out of line and should be hanged for disturbing the peace... This is a classical script for a mediocre Western. But in our global village no Lone Ranger appears for a happy ending.
We have here an intrinsic paradox. The same people who advocate the concept of a global village, object to enforcement of global law. There can be only one global law, applicable to all the villagers. This law must imply respect and tolerance of all villagers and severe punishment for anyone who infringes on the property rights of a neighbor. But in our global village we have one country, Israel, which is not tolerated by a cabal of bullies, who want to eradicate it. In our global village, the fundamentalist Muslims claim that international law does not apply to them, because it is in conflict with the law of their particular culture, which in their minds takes precedence. They say, therefore, that they are entitled to discriminate against women, abuse children, kill anyone who does not share their religious beliefs, including prisoners of war, violate treaties with infidels, destroy holy sites of other religions, and so on. To resolve this paradox, one must either enforce a universal law, one way or another, or forget the concept of global village altogether. If we give up on this concept, then we have no more use for the UN, the corrupt sheriff. Let him ride off into the sunset and disappear.
Forgetting our metaphor, let us examine the UN and explain why it is intrinsically dysfunctional. This is an organization that was designed by idealists who were oblivious to the reality of a multi-cultural world. Viewing it as an international worldwide law enforcement organization, it is preposterous that the USA, the major contributor to its budget, should have an equal share in its decision-making process as Fiji or Djibouti, which contribute less than 0.1% of its budget, if they contribute at all. No public corporation could function under these conditions - no one would buy its shares... Compare the Arab nation, which is often represented by the Arab League with its 22 votes, with the single vote of the United States of America, a federation of 50 states. Qatar with 800,000 people has the same share in the decision-making process of the General Assembly of the UN as the USA with its 281 million people. And when it comes to veto power in the Security Council, France with its 60 million people and a GDP of $1.54 trillion wields an equal veto power to that of the US with a 4.7 fold larger population and a GDP of $10.082 trillion. The UN is not a democratic institution by any reasonable criterion - it is a self-perpetuating conglomerate of bureaucrats who exploit the gullibility of the public in the economically advanced industrial countries that cover almost all of its expenses. This absurdity has been demonstrated in the recent Iraq crisis.
What would have been the situation of the world if the UN and the League of Nations, its dysfunctional predecessor, never existed? Let us take again the State of Israel as an example. With the collapse of the British Empire after WWII, the Jewish State of Israel would have replaced British colonial rule, in view of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab countries. Like all other ex-British colonies, the State of Israel would have been recognized by the USSR and the USA as well as by most other countries worldwide. The Arab attack of 1948 (which was never condemned by the UN!) would have taken place just the same; however, in the absence of the UN, there would be no self-perpetuating ?international? support (covered predominantly by US funds) for the Arab refugees. These refugees would then have settled in other countries, like all other refugees of WWII, depriving the Arabs of the driving force and excuse to eradicate the Jewish state. A 1967 war would have occurred, possibly at a later date, because the Arabs would have tried another offensive to make up for their humiliation in 1948. However, there would have been no UN international ?peacekeepers? or ?observers? in Sharm a-Sheikh who disappeared at the whim of the aggressor, just as they disappeared years later in Rwanda and most recently in North Korea. There would also be no corrupt ?peacekeepers? in Lebanon to actively help the Hizballah terrorists to kidnap and then kill Israeli captives, using other UN bureaucrats to cover up the scandalous crime. There also would not be a UN ?representative? in Israel to substantiate and help propagate Arab propaganda about the Jenin ?massacre? that never was. Obviously, there would not be those numerous Arab-sponsored UN condemnations of Israel, which fed a worldwide wave of virulent anti-Semitism that was enhanced by the Arab dominated, UN-sponsored conference in Durban, South Africa. And all this was done by an international organization that has been chartered to enhance international understanding and peace.
As this example shows - and as we just witnessed in the Iraq fiasco, when the UN did its utmost to defend an oppressive, aggressive tyrant, bound to murder millions by whichever means he could muster - the UN is not just dysfunctional, but contrary to its charter, it encourages lawlessness and violence. Let us then fire this corrupt sheriff and find other means to maintain law and order in our global village.
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Anbar Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus at the School of Medicine of the University of Buffalo.