STWR - Share The World's Resources

One of the most respected representatives at the United Nations is that of the Vatican, which may be viewed to be the smallest nation on earth with a territory of less than one square mile. The Chief of State of this small but seemingly influential nation is the Pope. The current one is Benedict XVI who succeeded fairly recently the well-known and highly respected Pope John Paul II. Each of these personalities has proved over the past few decades to be a real statesman in the strict sense of the word.

Statesman Versus Politician

A statesman differs from a politician quite radically. While a politician reveals interest in the promotion of good that would benefit some to the exclusion of others, the statesman demonstrates genuine concern for the welfare of all people across every continent without exception. In fact, if the government of every nation were to be guided by statesmen instead of politicians, the very concept of war would be obliterated completely. World peace would become the characteristic for future generations to enjoy and to cherish.

In the world at large, we do find politicians who may be termed as dangerous and obnoxious but we hardly ever find statesmen that have proven to be a detriment to any segment of society. Whereas politicians in general tend to cater for the powerful and the rich, statesmen as a whole tend to dedicate themselves to the helpless and the poor to alleviate them from their misery. If we want to judge government members in terms of being statesmen or politicians, let us see what they are doing for their people in terms of the vital needs of life.

People in every country have a sacrosanct right by Natural Law to be provided with free medical care and free education from the cradle to the grave. In countries where people are provided with these vital opportunities, we may fairly suspect and conclude that such nations are being guided by statesmen. Also, people have the sacrosanct right for survival through good nourishment, environmental protection and adequate shelters, commonly known as homes.

Governments that demonstrate respect for such people’s basic human rights may be viewed as statesmen for all practical purposes. We all know the dictum: Charity begins at home. The best way to help other nations is to set for them a good example. This has been the problem in the past as well as in the present with the leading nations of the world, known at times as world powers. Every world power has demonstrated the urge to boss around not only its own people but the people of other nations as well. Needless to say, this approach has created systematically among people suspicion, distrust and restlessness that often led to acts of violence and terror.

Fallacy of Weapons as Security

When this happens we begin to experience rapidly a series of crucial complications. Instead of having the governments resorting to fairness and justice by providing people with vital and indispensable needs of life, such governments resort to equip themselves with more and more weapons under the guise of self-defense. Since World War II ended in 1945, the weapons industry has turned itself into a lucrative business where plenty of money is made through the infliction of endless suffering on people everywhere.

While statesmen at the United Nations advocate a program of international disarmament and arms control, politicians continue to encourage every single country to be equipped with the most sophisticated and devastating weapons under the pretext of self-defense and the “preservation” of peace. One of such countries happens to be the United States that is viewed as the only super power in the world at this stage of history. The concern that the current United Nations’ Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, reveals for all the people in every single country across every continent, qualifies him to be more of a statesman than a politician.

The strategic plan of the weapons industry is to diffuse its product everywhere through a widespread sense of fear. This tragic industry is pushing many nations to rearm to the teeth if possible. Through this policy the world is experiencing more uncertainty and less security. The Vatican has taken the lead to advocate that the United Nations should concentrate on the achievement of one of its perennial established goal: disarmament and arms control.

From statistical studies made, it has been observed with tangible evidence that the surge in global military spending, which has now exceeded $1 trillion dollars has served to instigate terrorist attacks everywhere, new wars and a total breakdown in the process of international law. Increased sales in guns, both large and small, is leading the world away from security rather than toward it.

The United States is largely responsible for the proliferation of weapons. In its constitution there is a clause that refers to the “right to bear arms.” Even though this phrase was inserted by the nation’s founders at a time when there were no telephones, no airplanes, no trains, no cars and no means of any transportation except for horses, the US government still adheres to this clause. Even though it has been proven that more people die of gun shots every year in the United States than in all of the countries combined, the US government still wants to make sure that the sales of weapons should be made as easy as “buying candy” to quote one teenager in California.

Importance of Setting a Good Example

The American government’s determination to continue to put top priority on the development of newer and more devastating weapons, while advocating other nations to follow the same suit, is forcing the same government to neglect noticeably its obligations to people’s education, health care and housing. It is shameful that in a country that is viewed as the richest nation on earth has 20 percent of its children suffering from malnutrition with some 40 million people lacking vital heath care necessities of life because they have no insurance. Recently, the United Nations compared some regional areas of the United States with those of poorest developing nations.

In October 2004, in a speech that was delivered at the United Nations, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, speaking on behalf of the Vatican, remarked saying: “The Millennium goals are left lagging while military priorities claim scarce funds.” Several studies made by UN experts on the safety and security of the world reveal that security and safety could be only achieved through a program of disarmament and arms control along with the development of the human and natural resources for positive and constructive purposes.

The benefits of disarmament are of great magnitude. It has been calculated that with an immediate cut of 50% of military expenses, the world could rid itself of AIDS and most of cancer maladies. The problem of hunger would be solved for good and all people across every continent would have adequate homes where they could have shelter for the rest of their lives. Not only so, but the crime rate would be reduced considerably and significantly. Countless millions would be alleviated from their needless pain and suffering almost overnight. Weapons are being produced and sold internationally on black markets as well as by state-sponsors. This reveals why more weapons are procuring us with less security. These lethal objects are detrimental to all people without exception. With them everyone ends up to be a loser and no one a winner in the long range.

The danger of the continued manufacture and sales of weapons lie in the fact that, sooner or later, they may be secured by terrorists and use them to devastate entire populations. Prevention is better than cure. We need to reduce the number of weapons considerably. We need, above all, to abolish all nuclear weapons without further delay. Moreover, we need to develop an international cooperative program where disarmament and arms control would become a tangible reality. Besides, we need the expertise and cooperation of every single group, agency or organization we have to enable our next generation to live in a culture of peace that would replace our present culture of war.

Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which initially gave the world great hope in the prevention of a possible nuclear war, has become increasingly weakened. As long as we have nations with nuclear armaments there is always the danger of other nations trying to follow the same suit. The rationale goes as follows: If the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, India and Pakistan, in addition to others, feel the right to have nuclear weapons, a number of other nations that would include North Korea and Iran would expect to have the same right or capability.

Those nations that do not have nuclear capability should not try to have any of such devices. At the same time, those nations that have already nuclear capability should immediately develop a program of complete elimination of such weapons. That would be a gigantic step in the direction of safety, security and peace for all the nations of the world without exception. Until the whole world is free of nuclear weapons, no nation would feel really safe. As Pope Pius XII said to Great Britain and to Germany on the even of World War II, “In a war everyone is a loser and no one is a winner.” The Pope’s warning proved to be prophetic. Germany lost the war and its economy collapsed and people were poor everywhere.

Great Britain won the war and its economy equally collapsed and people were poor everywhere. Not only so, but Great Britain, in spite of winning the war, lost its British Empire. The countries that have taken steps to modernize nuclear weapons and to give them a fighting capacity have emerged to become the most dangerous nations at this stage of history. The doctrine of preemption, which was advocated by the US President, if followed it would lead to an assured turmoil and lawlessness that was never experienced in history. This doctrine deals with an assumed nation’s right to attack and devastate another nation without any warning or justification.

For those who believe that the safety and security of a nation lies in being equipped with devastating weapons of destruction, in addition to conventional weapons, they need to reflect and think for a moment. Would a nation feel safer when equipped with these lethal devices of death while the surrounding nations are also equipped with the same identical devices? Or, would a nation feel safer when it has no such lethal weapons while, at the same time, the surrounding nations do not have any of such lethal weapons as well? This is not a matter of opinion. It amounts to pure common sense.

Absence of Weapons Source of Security

To illustrate this in a more vivid way we may bring this example. Suppose we are in an auditorium that has a capacity of 5,000 people and we are watching there a stage show. What makes us feel safer, if each one of these 5,000 people is carrying a loaded gun or if none of these people is carrying any gun at all? The answer is obvious and we do not need to be smart to figure out the correct one. Also, the US President, supported by his government, spoke of the so called Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which consists of putting endless weapons in space orbiting our planet. The space is known as our last peaceful frontier. What really make us feel safer and secure if we were to have orbiting in the sky over our heads thousands of weapons of destruction or if we were to have none of such lethal devices orbiting over us? The answer is equally obvious.

In view of what has been stated, it is obvious that those politicians who are advocating the manufacture of more and more weapons instead of promoting and international program of disarmament and arms control must have ulterior motives. One of such ulterior motives is definitely money, which is meant to come from the promotion of a lethal business that wants to build a capital from the promotion of fear, the exploitation of peoples’ anxieties and the infliction of crucial suffering. This policy is immoral to say the least and it reveals insanity to say the most. Teachers and professors at all levels of education ought to become highly critical of such a dangerous policy.

Besides, businessmen ought to divest themselves from such detrimental space war ventures. In addition, no conscientious citizen should allow himself or herself to work in the manufacture of such space weapons. And finally, the clergymen ought to become adamantly and determinedly vocal in condemning any political decision made that leads to the proliferation of weapons in space ventures especially. This way, the rational and sane guidelines that have been provided by the Vatican in the best interest of all people across every continent without exception would be allowed to come to fruition.

Name

Email

Comment smaller | bigger

Write the displayed characters

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment