The false face of democracy

Football Match Democracy...

I am certain that one does not have to be a "Remainer" to cringe every time a politician or member of the public declares that the British government must to respect the "will of the people". It as though the people who voted to remain in the EU suddenly lost the right to be considered as people. "The people have spoken!" Yes, just over half of those who went to the polls. What about the rest?

At least in a general election one can obtain representation even if one's party loses and ends up in the opposition. Of course, with the British "first past the post" policy that does not allow for proportional representation, many votes are lost. Nevertheless, when it comes to a referendum, if the winning side does not wish to take your view into consideration, you've had it! It's like loosing a football match: you're just a loser. That is certainly the view of many "Leave" voters despite the fact that the referendum was flawed anyway.

This is not democracy

This view of democracy fits in with the definition of it as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." This is not what democracy is about and important decisions should not be taken with the tossing of a coin. The issue here is not just a matter of majority versus ignored minority. It is even more serious than that. The danger is in the simplistic idea that a complex issue can be settled with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Few things are that easy, although many, including politicians would like them to be. Leaving the EU certainly wasn't. 

It is like asking "the people" whether to allow immigration of not. There are so many other questions that would need to be taken into account, including whether we would have the right to ask such a question in the first place! But put that to a public vote after panicking people that foreigners are plotting to take their jobs and there you have it. A Brexit situation that would become a nightmare to unravel.

Real democracy

Democracy is not just about votes. It requires education, consultation and most importantly, a solid foundation on inviolable principles. Referendums too, as part of democratic process require safeguards. Her is an extract form an article I wrote earlier this year entitled Five things Brexit can teach us about referendums:

1. For a referendum to be meaningful and ethical, voters must be given an informed choice. In Switzerland, for example, where referendums are important feature of democracy, ballot papers are accompanied by information booklets. These include explanations, arguments for and against, and government recommendations. In Britain, people did not have a clue what they were voting for. Of course, no amount of booklets would help if the people have no civic education from an early age.
2. Without safeguards, referendums can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians. This is what David Cameron did when he promised a referendum regarding Britain’s EU membership. Another politician could offer a people’s vote on whether they wanted free public transport. This, just to get elected, without any consideration at all as to where the funds would come from.
3. The government has a duty to protect its citizens from lies, disinformation and meddling by third parties with a vested interest in causing harm. The Conservative government failed in its duty to protect the people from falsehoods.
4. If the government makes a mistake in its handling of a referendum, then it should readdress the wrong and consult the people in a second vote. Mrs. May prefers to plough ahead and lead the nation to a cliff’s edge and possibly over it. 
5. Apart form education, information and choice, voters need moral integrity. Perhaps only a small proportion of those voting to leave the EU may have done so for racist of xenophobic reasons. Nevertheless, their vote may have tipped the balance. Referendums should never be held about choices that discriminate against minorities. And the same can be said about choices that could ruin the livelihood of thousands of people.

UN-aligned for a fairer democracy: JOIN US today!

The Power of Dreams: UN-aligned

To have a dream is not enough... 

A voice, crying out in the desert... Cassandra rambling on, unheeded... UN-aligned was launched last Friday. What has changed? It was like planting a seed in the ground. Some seeds sprout and grow, others rot or wither before they even start to grace the earth with beauty. One can but try. Yes, but success depends on many factors: vision, luck, skill, support... 

Today I would like to write about vision. If I had to speak to you about a near perfect world, you would most likely be delighted with its representation: peace, harmony, justice, mutual support, beauty... However, the minute I started talking about how to make that world a reality, most people would switch off. Some will start shooting down concrete suggestions with taunts of "idealism!" 

Planning the journey

The issue is not that people are unable to live with dignity in an orderly and pleasant world. Of course they can. The problem is that we are blinkered by "short-termism" and a certain fatalism. People rarely question how to get from A to B, when A is the society we now live in and B is a more Utopic one. 

UN-aligned has a vision of a better world and proposes the steps needed to attain it. No doubt, it will need to adapt and develop. What are its chances of success? I am uncertain. What is certain, however, is that it exists. Without a plan to reach a specific destination, the chances of getting there are nigh on impossible. That is the crux of the matter. This seed will not rot in the earth. Its first enemy will be apathy, its second will be direct confrontation. Meeting these challenges are part of that planning for the journey form A to B.

Three types of people

So, broadly speaking, there are three types of people. The first kind plod along absorbed in short-term or self-centred goals. The second type project a better world and suggest how to achieve it. While the third, acknowledge the potential of this better world, but are too busy shooting down "idealistic" proposals, to offer alternative or improved trajectories. What sort of person are you?

Join UN-aligned and help us usher in a better world...

UN-aligned Launched Successfully!

Here is a video that premiered on Friday as one of the events that celebrated the launch of the UN-aligned:

UN-aligned Launch!

And now for something completely different...

Today marks the launch of UN-aligned, an ambitious organisation that hopes to change the way the world is governed! Please visit the website and read about its various aims, which are summed up on the Home Page as:

Putting humanity before nationality and the planet before greed...

UN-aligned, however, is much more than this! It aims to create a new united nations from the bottom up, cleansed of all the hypocrisy and power games. Visit the website and become part of this exciting new venture!

Demonising Immigrants

Picking on the weakest...

Some people just need a common enemy. Any group that can be easily picked on offers the perfect target. Minorities of every sort are often chosen because of their vulnerability. Bullying them makes weak or bigoted citizens feel superior. Some of these minorities have fought back and with time secured a certain level of safety, and the protection of their human rights. Still, immigrants are often the most threatened, because they are insecure. They do not know the ropes and cannot easily fight back.

Forgetting one's roots

Figures will vary from place to place and from time to time, but I am always amazed to find that many of the most intolerant people I know were immigrants or children of immigrants themselves. There is nothing wrong with drawing a line behind one's past, but please, don't use it to throttle others!

Anti-immigration sentiment on the rise

Anti-immigration sentiment is increasing in various parts of the world. In Australia, a 2018 Lowy Institute poll indicates a sharp rise in opposition to immigration over the previous four years. More than half Australians believed that the number of people immigrating to their country was too high. Of course, this does not mean that all those people are xenophobic or racist. However, the fact that the rate had been capped at 190,000 for those four years would indicate that either the impact of immigration was being felt more strongly, which is unlikely in a population of about 25,000,000, or that intolerance is on the rise. 

Scott Morrison's victory of Saturday's Australian federal election is not that much of the "miracle" he made it out to be, even if it did defy the polls. Many countries are polarising towards the right, or intolerance, to which the left is not exempt. The European elections due this week may continue the trend. Nationalists claims to be the force that can save Europe from a wave of immigration that will drown its customs and well-being. The benefits of immigration are passed over. The thousands drowning in the Mediterranean are ignored, or actually helped to drown. 

Nationhood without integrity and justice is hell

The issue is to protect nationhood. So we hand power to ruthless people, like Italy's Salvini. We forget that nationhood without integrity and justice is hell. We get our governments to do our dirty work and slam our doors on progress and on the needy. 

Thankfully, some people can see the world darkening before their eyes and are doing something about it. It is these people who are the light of the world; not those who demonise other human beings in case they may have to share some of their bounty. Sitting on the fence is no longer an option: act now and work for a fairer world, before the norm will be demonising the "other". Today it may be the immigrant... tomorrow it may be you.

UN-aligned is working for a fairer world. To be part of this movement you may join here.

Ten reasons why not to commit suicide...

When suicide beckons...

Suicide often presents itself as the best solution only because the simplest help is not at hand. This is a disgrace and governments, as well as citizens, should do more to tackle the problem. Suicide prevention is one of the aims of UN-aligned and we will not stop campaigning for better worldwide services to help people in difficult situations. 

Sima Qian, the Han Dynasty historian who had every reason to commit suicide, but chose to write instead

In extreme circumstances, such as terminal illness and unbearable pain, killing one's self may be a viable option. However, every possible support needs to be available in order to ensure that a lack of services is not the real reason why suicide presents itself as the best solution. Here is a list of International Crisis Lines one can contact for support. You may also email me directly for informal advice, if you prefer (adrian.liberto@gmail.com). 

Below are some reasons why it may not be a good idea: 

1. You may be killing a future self who may not want to be terminated. You are his or her guardian. Fight the moment and pass on the baton of your personal growth.
2. That future self may have an important role to play, even if it is just saving a butterfly from drowning, or someone who will prove to be a great benefactor to humanity... or you, yourself, may become that benefactor.
3. You are a winner. Part of you outraced millions of spermatozoa racing to fertilise the egg. You owe it to all those potential lives to make the most of your own. As the Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa states: "To be born a human being is rarer than a star that shines by day."
4. Whatever it is that life is about, problems are there as challenges that help us learn. Perhaps death will merely postpone those lessons and you may have to meet the same challenges with all the preceding crap until you get there again.
5. Many suicides go wrong; even well planned ones. You may find yourself with the same problems, plus the added inconvenience of being severely disabled or having to deal with some stupid reactions from those closest to you.
6. "This too will pass!" Sometimes we just need to weather the storm, because however frightening the situation may be, it may pass. If not, it is always more worthy to "take arms against" those "slings and arrows" than "oppose" them by ending your own self, which is really not opposing them at all, but taking their side!
7. Sometimes, a chemical imbalance or a trivial matter may cause disproportionate reactions. Important decisions should not be taken at our lowest ebb.
8. The urge to end it all is sometimes a reflection of what lies without, not what lies within you. See it a a nudge to change direction. There usually are many alternatives and we just have to break away from the conditioning that makes us believe that we are bound to the hopelessness of our environment.
9. Bigoted social and religious pressures often force us to be what we are not. This can be hell. Don't take that hell with you. Stick your middle finger up to it instead and don't let bigotry crush you.
10. Your death could have unhappy consequences: sadness, despair, more suicides...

Life is cannot be meaningless when there there is so much to do! Help us fight for a better world.

Abortion and the balancing of rights and language

Alabama's vote to ban abortion

Law makers in Alabama voted on Tuesday to make abortion illegal. The ban covers every stage of pregnancy and the only exception is when the mother's life is in serious danger. Doctors who carry out the procedure could spend the rest of their lives in prison. The ruling goes counter to the famous 1973 Roe versus Wade verdict. That confirmed women's right to privacy and therefore abortion within certain perimeters, in line with the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. So, even with the President's full support, Alabama will have problems pulling this through.

Clarity before passion

In response, Senator Bernie Sanders Tweeted:

What Alabama is doing is blatantly unconstitutional and disrespects the fundamental right a woman has to make decisions about her own body. 

Such responses are misleading. They give the impression that pro abortion means that a woman can decide to have an abortion at any time, even at nine months, if she so chooses. Such an interpretation is incorrect. 

There comes a point...

There comes a point when an embryo becomes a foetus with rights. Though there may be some grey areas as to when this happens, it does, and this fact cannot be ignored. Carrying a child past this stage becomes a commitment. It is a bit like adopting a child. I have the right to decide who lives in my home, but if I adopt a son, I cannot then throw him into the street because I decide that I should not have adopted him in the first place.

I am sure Sanders did not intend to say that women should  have the right to have late abortions, but when dealing with such a delicate subject one must measure one's words very carefully. 

UN-Aligned: Article 14

As the launch of UN-Aligned draws near, here is an extract from its Manifesto: 

Article 14

There are many occasions when certain individuals or groups find themselves in difficulty; it is the duty of those in a position to help, to do so in proactive and pre-emptive ways

Suicide is one of the most common causes of untimely death and too little is done to deal with the problem.

Society and nature are far from perfect and many of the tragedies and troubles people face are often beyond their control. Sometimes, suicide presents itself as the only way out and its power to do so comes from a disgraceful lack of support mechanisms. 

Links that are both professional and informal in nature could provide a network that guarantees a certain security for people when things go wrong. Generally, social, medical, governmental or voluntary services are so limited in their scope, that they cannot deal with the wide range of human ills. A more flexible structure must be set up to be able to support individuals whatever their problems may be.

The political party will commit to:

• Highlighting the issue of suicide and the support mechanisms that are available
• Developing a range of help centres specialised to deal with the specific triggers; for instance, those linked to a person’s environment, financial situation, traumatic experiences and physical and emotional wellbeing.
• Dealing with social issues that exacerbate the problem, such as bullying, prejudice and bigotry.

The Erosion of National Liberties: US Foreign Policy

US-Iran tensions 

The tension between the US and Iran are increasing. Trump is a loose cannon. Iran is strong enough, perhaps, to be defiant. The greater danger, however, is the unseen. The forces behind the scenes; on the one had, those manipulating Trump; on the other, those emboldening Iran. On the surface, it looks like posturing. The reality, however, is much more dangerous.

Doing as you are told...

But there is another danger in all this; and a serious one at that! The US, Trump recently declared, is not looking for war with Iran. Perhaps it isn't. After all, it may  rather bring Iran to its knees more cheaply. Nevertheless, by pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal and imposing painful sanctions on Iran, the US is certainly pursuing hostile acts. 

The bizarre thing about these sanctions is that through them the US is not only bullying Iran. It is bullying all other nations too, threatening retaliation if they trade with Iran. This, despite the fact that many of these countries had signed a treaty with Iran; a treaty the US was also party to. Yet what is it that gives the US this divine right to tell other countries what to do? Sadly, it is the greed of those countries, that would rather be dictated to by a third party than risk losing trade deals. 

Trade before integrity and freedom 

This is the same greed that keeps countries trading with Saudi Arabia despite the atrocities in Yemen, the abuse of human rights and the Khashoggi murder. But there is something unique about this situation that sets a modern precedent. Namely that foreign policy will become the domain of a few powerful nations. 

This is unacceptable and it is about time sovereign states put integrity and independence before profit. If not, before we know it we will be victims to a new form of colonisation. And though we may end up wondering how we got into that situation, the writing is clearly on the wall now. Wake up, Mammon is coming to get you!

UN-aligned: working for a freer and fairer world.

The oppression of lèse-majesté and blasphemy laws

Tools of Oppression...

Lèse-majesté laws and blasphemy laws are just another form of oppression and often indicators of despotic regimes. Hate speech or inciting to violence is one thing. Yet why should criticising a monarch, a god, or his prophets be a crime? We are not only talking here about a rap on the knuckles. 

"Protecting" the Monarchy with Lèse-majesté Laws

Penalties for lese-majesty laws in Thailand can be up to 15 years per count, although in practice it can be even more sinister than that. Thailand is no friend to democracy. In January, two exiled critics of the king and the military were found murdered in the Mekong river. Their bodies had been stuffed with concrete, to help them sink. They were 56 year-old  Chatcharn Buppawan and 46 year-old Kraidej Luelert. Today, Reuters news agency reported that three Thai citizens have disappeared from Vietnam, for the same reason. 

"Defending" God with Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy laws are even worse. They often incur the death penalty, even when the evidence is dubious, as the case of Asia Bibi, the Christian lady who just fled Pakistan, proves. However, if you think that they are limited to counties with sharia law, think again! 

About a quarter of the countries in the world have blasphemy laws. In some, the penalties are mild, such as fines or restrictions. In others, even if they do not result in execution, the penalties can be quite severe. Therer are many such countries, such as Russia and India, where the "crime" could involve lengthy prison sentences. Two members of the Pussy Riot punk group, for instance, spent two years in a Russian prison for their stint in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral in 2012. They had been protesting against the Russian Orthodox Church's support for Putin. 

The True Insults

Insults are one thing, criticism another. Insults are always in bad taste and they say more about the people making them than the people they are directed to. Reasonable hate speech laws should be able to deal with extreme cases. And I mean extreme. People have the right to be dickheads if they want to (oops, did I just hurl an  insult?). Criticism is quite different. Valid or not, it always makes us think and reassess. If gods and kings fear it, it means that their grandeur lacks in evidence. If people fear it on their behalf, it is they who are insulting their king or god. 

UN-aligned for a fairer world!

The panhandle and beyond

It has come to this...

A country that is largely made up of immigrants has a president who laughs and jokes when suggestions are made to shoot immigrants. Demonising groups and presenting them as less than human has led to all sorts of massacres throughout history. The demonising and the killing are not two separate events. They are intricately linked and the latter is nurtured by the former until it is powerful enough to strike. That the US president is party to this would be beyond belief, but then again, we all know Trump. 

Voluntary Versus Involuntary Extinction

Trying to save the planet...

This blog is full of articles on the alarming and deteriorating state of our biosphere. Today, eight EU countries issued a statement calling for 25% of the EU budget to be spent on tackling climate change. They are France, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. Even though the group is made up of less than a third of EU countries, the proposal sends a strong message to the world of the urgency of the situation.

Tacking the problem the VHEMT way

Is anyone listening? Is it too late? The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) thinks that whatever the answer to those questions is, the best solution to the problem is the voluntary extinction of the human race. VHEMT was founded by Les Knight, an American environmentalist in the 1970s when he decided that as long as we were around, the planet could never be safe. The idea is terrifying, but let's face it, he has a point. In one of the videos on the VHEMT website we are compared to a cancer. It gets the message across clearly, as do many of the answers to some of  the typical objections to the proposal.

The Earth needs people to take its side

My main objection is that only conscientious people would consider not procreating to save the planet. Of course, many conscientious people would pursue other options, like UN-aligned, for instance. But let us assume that all people of good will opted for voluntary human extinction. Who would be left? The Trumps and Putins of this world. The selfish, the greedy and the uncaring. How would the world fair then? A lot worse, I expect. 

Involuntary human extinction may win the day

Nevertheless, while I propose staying on and fighting for a more balanced and sustainable world, I do not exclude the possibility that VHEMT will get it way. Only the extinction will not be voluntary. Rather it will be as a consequence of our stupidity. And with the billions of innocent lives that will be lost, billions more lifeforms will also perish. Some of them, however, will survive and the world may be full of song and colours again.

Turkey on the edge

Erdoğan's power-grab 

So, first we have the imposition of martial law after the attempted coup on the 15th July 2016. It was supposed to last three months, but lasted until 19th July, 2018, that is, after the presidential and parliamentary elections. Then we had the April 16, 2017 referendum (also while Turkey was under martial law). This was anything but free and fair and it resulted in sweeping new powers for the president. And now we have the the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election, because President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did not like the results.

I say "first", but the writing had been on the wall a long time before that. In fact, it was Erdoğan's bigotry and intransigence that probably led to the coup attempt in the first place.

A slap in the face for Erdoğan

Losing Istanbul to the opposition was a big blow to the president for a number of reasons. First, it is Turkey's largest and most populous city, with over 15,000,000 people. Second, Istanbul is the financial, cultural and historical hub of the country. As Constantinople, it had been the capital of the later Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. It was only replaced by Ankara in 1923, when Turkey became a republic. Third, Istanbul is strategically located straddling the Bosporus Strait that separates Europe from Asia. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Erdoğan, his political career took off as Mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to 1998. Apart from being a great blow to Erdoğan's ego, losing Istanbul can be seen as an omen of his decline. 

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!"

Still, by annulling the vote and calling a re-run over dubious claims is probably going to undermine his credibility and popularity even more. This time he could lose by more than a few thousand votes and the impact will be even more painful. Unless he cheats, that is, which is not out of the question; but that may end up being just as detrimental to him. In fact, it could prove a lot worse.

Erdoğan has proved to be very resourceful. His rise to power was linked to a pro-EU stance. This was soon abandoned for nationalism when he realised that the EU could not be duped by mere promises of combating bigotry and corruption. Nevertheless, the June 23 re-run date is around the corner. There is not much he can do in such a short time to change the course of events without causing even more outrage. 

At the end of the day, his constitutional changes still allow for a President to be put on trial, as long as there is a a two-thirds majority. Will Erdoğan stop digging himself into a hole? So far, it seems rather unlikely...

Another alarming report many will ignore

"The world on notice"

A United Nations report on the global impact of human activity on the planet puts the world "on notice". The report was compiled by 400 experts from over 50 countries. It runs into 1,800 pages, but there is also a 40 page Summary for Policymakers. To say that the report is alarming, would be an understatement. 

Still, if anyone has not yet been alarmed by what we knew already, I wonder if anything will wake these people up. The planet is going to pot before our very eyes, while the climate is going crazy. Scientists are tearing their hair out like possessed Cassandras. And for those of us who are old enough to remember, the countless butterflies that used to grace our fields are no more. In many places, you would be lucky if you saw a cabbage white! 

This blog is full of articles on this topic, for instance:

• Our parasitic impact
• Playing the fiddle, while earth burns
• Polly Higgins, a quest to eradicate ecocide
• The climate changes as we look on

The situation is only getting worse

The situation seems to get worse with every new report. This one goes so far as to claim that "one in four species" is on the verge of extinction and it highlights the fact that our long term crop security is also at risk. These are not trivial issues. They concern one-fourth of  all flora and fauna on this planet. Besides, if we are not part of the doomed percentage now, we soon could be. 

Of course, the scramble for the limited and dwindling resources that remain may mean that we could kill each other off before starvation does. Either way, it won't be much fun. 

The good news is that the report states that we are still in time to do something about this dire situation if we adopt very radical solutions. The bad news, however, remains that so far many of us have proved not to give a damn.

Federation is not assimilation

UN-aligned and the super-state...

Here is another reply to one of the questions in the FAQ section of UN-aligned. It clarifies that UN-aligned does not hope to create a super-state, but a federation of nations that are committed to the basic principles of justice, peace and respect for the planet. 

Isn't a super-state more dangerous than the divided world we live in today?

UN-aligned does not advocate a super-state, but a federal world order that promotes self-determination even more so than it is in most nations today. The power that it envisages is not that different to the one that the United Nations would wield if it were taken seriously by all of its members. 

The problem of the United Nations is that more or less all nations became members, irrespective of whether they believed in its principles or not. We only need to look at the human rights situation around the world to see that the UN is like a club of lapsed members. UN-aligned federated states will be joined by the same vision regarding principles that are not negotiable. Namely, that humanity comes before nationality and the health of the planet before corporate greed.

Would a total smoking ban violate human rights?

Tobacco under fire

In 2004, Bhutan became the first nation to make the sale of tobacco illegal. The industry is too lucrative for the ban to have caught on elsewhere, apart from a few exceptions, like the Vatican where the sale of tobacco was completely banned by Pope Francis I. In August 2012, Tasmania's Upper House unanimously passed a motion that banned the sale of tobacco and tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000. That would have meant that the post-millennium generation would have been entirely smoke free, apart form the remaining twentieth century smokers. However, he Bill was not approved by the lower house and as long as you are over 18, you can still buy cigarettes in Tasmania.

Smoking and human rights

Would it be a violation of our human rights for the introduction of a law like that proposed by Tasmania? No more than banning strolling on railway tracks or unhygienic restaurants. The issue has nothing to do with human rights: it is all about the Mafia of tobacco companies, their influential friends and their economies. But the cost is too high. If a few brave countries or states make the first move, they will soon show the other up and the trend may snowball. Bring it on!

Here's what the World Health Organisation has to say about smoking:

• Tobacco kills up to half of its users.

• Tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year. More than 6 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 890 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

• Around 80% of the world's 1.1 billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.

The rights of others

Many things are unhealthy and people should have the right to choose for themselves whether to care or not. Heavy taxes could be imposed to meet the additional costs to the economy of reckless behaviour. Smoking, however, does not only kill the smokers. A model like the one that Tasmania had proposed, therefore, seems fare and just.

IS UN-ALIGNED TOO IDEALISTIC FOR THE REAL WORLD?

UN-aligned is idealistic, but...

UN-aligned will be launched on May 24. The organisation will focus on putting humanity before borders and the environment before greed. It will fight for a real united nations; one that is not compromised by a flawed structure and destructive members. Here is an extract for the FAQs section that covers its idealism.

UN-aligned is idealistic in the sense that it focusses on ideals that are far-reaching and not yet realised. This does not, however, mean that they never will be. Simple growth does not require vision. It unfolds spontaneously one step at a time. Most people feel comfortable with this slow pace, even though their dreams may already be ahead of them. Creation, on the other hand, is a divine quality, so to speak, that is born of vision and a certain faith in what could be. It is this quality that gave us the great leaps in technology and civilisation, including milestones in social progress and innovation in arts. We would still be living in caves, if people didn’t dare to dream…

UN-aligned is not idealistic in the sense that it is aiming at the impossible. None of its objectives are beyond the reach of humanity. Our mission, therefore is to inspire and enthuse people to believe and strive for a better future.

Haiti deserves more than just aid

Haiti's history has been been so seeped in exploitation, that its status as the country with the lowest Human Development Index in the Americas is not surprising. In 2013, Haiti had called for European nations to pay reparations for ongoing hardships brought on by years of slavery. Some may argue that giving in to that claim would encourage thousands of others. Maybe that is the case, but that does not mean that it would therefore be fair to ignore the claim. Particularly so, as Haiti's current predicament is largely linked to foreign (though not only European) abuse. Here is a timeline of some of those abuses:

• 1492: On 5 December Christopher Columbus landed at Môle Saint-Nicolas and claimed the island for Spain.
• 1503 (circa): Queen Anacaona and her husband Caonabo who tried to resist the Spanish invasion are captured and executed.
• 1507: smallpox and other epidemics began to wipe out local populations who did not have the immunities to resist these imported diseases. This disaster became a pattern in the New World and ill treatment exacerbated the situation.
• The Spanish immediately began to exploit the indigenous population. Many were forced to work in their gold mines, while the less productive or more resistant were either killed or sold into slavery.
• 1512–1513: The Laws of Burgos gave the natives some rights, but still allowed them to be exploited by feudal-like system known as the “encomiendas”. Many were coerced to convert to Christianity.
• 1517: Charles V authorised the importation of slaves from Africa following the near annihilation of the indigenous Taíno population.
• 1600s: The west of the island, which had started to become popular with French pirates and buccaneers, began to attract colonial families from neighbouring islands owing to its crop-growing potential and cheap labour.
• 1697: With the Treaty of Ryswick, France and Spain formally divided the island of Hispaniola between them, eventually leading to the creation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The French, whose portion of the island is called Saint-Domingue, prosper thanks to their exploitation of slavery which reaches levels of sheer brutality. A mixed race population begins to emerge as the colonialists take advantage of their female slaves.
• 1794: Inspired by the French Revolution, Domingue, Toussaint Louverture, a former slave, takes control of Saint-Domingue after a successful revolt.
• 1802: Napoleon tries to regain Saint-Domingue, but fails because of disease that decimates his forces.
• 1803: Toussaint Louverture is invited to negotiate, but is abducted and sent to France where he dies under his captors hands. Jean-Jacques Dessalines takes over and manages to defeat the French.
• 1804: On the 1 January Saint-Domingue is formally declared independent and called "Ayiti". Approximately 100,000 slaves died during the rebellion, as well as over half of the 40,000 or so colonists.
• 1806: Dessalines is assassinated by internal factions.
• 1825: The forces of King Charles X of France attempt to retake the island and in order to avoid the risk of defeat, President Boyer agrees to pay a massive indemnity. Haiti borrowed heavily form German and US banks at high interest rates to repay the debt. By 1900, 80 percent of Haiti's GDP was spent on debt repayments. Though the debt was finally paid off in 1947, Haiti has never fully recovered from the financial drain of these bizarre payments.
• 1876: The US finally eases the debilitating restrictions it had imposed on Haiti and recognises the government there.
• 1912: Syrians living in Haiti destroy the Presidential Palace in an anti-government attack.
• 1914: US, British and German forces occupy Haiti with the pretext of protecting their nationals during a period of social unrest.
• 1915: The US takes over the administration of Haiti and remains in control until 1934.
• 1957–1986: During the Duvalier family dictatorship Colombian Drug traffickers take root in Haiti.
• 2004: President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is ousted following a rebellion. Aristide and his bodyguard claim that they were abducted by US forces. Wikileaks documents indicated the the US and the UN were complicit in undermining his return to government.
• 2010: On the January 12 an earthquake strikes killing about 316,000 people and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless. The US takes a huge administrative fee to coordinate the charity relief funds.
• 2010: Cholera is confirmed. It was introduced by Nepalese UN workers.
• 2012: By this date the epidemic had already killed thousands of people and the UN connection had been confirmed.
• 2016: Hurricane Matthew devastates much of Haiti, leaving about 3,000 dead and exacerbating the cholera situation there. Climate change is making these extreme weather events even more likely.
• 2018: In June, the British charity Oxfam is banned form operating in the country after its staff were accused of sexual exploitation.

So, it would seem fair to say that Haiti deserves more than just aid for having been so mistreated by nature. It should also be given assistance to to get back on track after having been derailed so many times by reckless foreign interference. 

War must be a criminal offence

Today, I would like to offer a taste of UN-aligned with a extract from the Manifesto regarding war (Article 6):

War is an unacceptable way of resolving differences, or crimes committed by one country against another. It should not be glorified with epithets like ‘just’ or ‘holy’; nor should it be legitimised with conventions aiming at damage limitation. 

Differences between nations need to be arbitrated in accordance with international law, just as personal or municipal conflict is now subject to national laws. Crimes committed by one nation against another should therefore be dealt with by international law enforcement officers or police. Combatants on the side of the aggressor will be criminals. Countries can no longer be allowed to use the term ‘soldier’ or ‘patriot’ to justify the deployment of people to commit crimes.

Until the international order will have the means to deal with aggression according to established laws, nations will probably have to defend themselves as far as it is possible for them to do so. This perpetrates the scenario where countries compete against each other for stockpiles of weapons. It is therefore imperative that the international order, with a force capable of deterring aggression within law enforcement perimeters, be set up as soon as possible. Also, since we have no guarantees against extra-terrestrial attacks or potentially destructive phenomena, defence and research in these areas must be ongoing, though not to the detriment of more immediate issues.