Building Bridges to the Unity of Humanity

[Sumadji]

The world decided in 2022

UN General Assembly demands Russian Federation withdraw all military forces from the territory of Ukraine

On 2 March, the UN General Assembly adopted — by an overwhelming majority of 141 against 5 — a resolution rejecting the Russian Federation's brutal invasion of Ukraine and demanding that Russia immediately withdraw its forces and abide by international law. The resolution was prepared by the...

www.eeas.europa.eu

"On 2 March, the UN General Assembly adopted — by an overwhelming majority of 141 against 5 — a resolution rejecting the Russian Federation's brutal invasion of Ukraine and demanding that Russia immediately withdraw its forces and abide by international law"

The issue was that the UN has not been given the power to enact international law.

Regards Tony

Thank you

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thank you

You are always welcome. The UN makes lots of decisions about International law, yet Nations ignore them.

Link to UN Resolutions

The persecution of religious minorities in Iran has been the subject of resolutions for decades, yet they just plain ignore them.

Thus the wisdom given in the power of enforcement of laws by the International community.

Regards Tony

 

[Sumadji]

Thus the wisdom given in the power of enforcement of laws by the International community.

Not a simple matter?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not a simple matter?

No most likely not, still way too much self and national interests at play, over the common good of all humanity.

Good thing is, I see more and more people are now thinking and acting as global citizens, and have open arms to people of all races and cultures.

Regards Tony

 

[Ponder This]

The Nations will all disarm simultaneously, apart for the required weapons to maintain internal police forces. There will be no weapons of mass destruction.

That's a non-starter: a disarmed populace fundamentally unable to defend itself is untenable from a basic human rights perspective: it being well-established that individuals have the right to self-defense.
As for mass destruction: it's a Pandora's box problem. You can't put the problem back in the box. You have to keep digging through the box until you find hope. If you don't have a vision for the future that allows for the continued existence of weapons of mass-destruction, then you don't have a viable plan for the future; you have a critical blindness to reality.

A good plan for the future must include contingencies for what happens when things go wrong. What do you do when there is a dispute is far more useful than pretending there will be no disputes.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's a non-starter: a disarmed populace fundamentally unable to defend itself is untenable from a basic human rights perspective: it being well-established that individuals have the right to self-defense.
As for mass destruction: it's a Pandora's box problem. You can't put the problem back in the box. You have to keep digging through the box until you find hope. If you don't have a vision for the future that allows for the continued existence of weapons of mass-destruction, then you don't have a viable plan for the future; you have a critical blindness to reality.

A good plan for the future must include contingencies for what happens when things go wrong. What do you do when there is a dispute is far more useful than pretending there will be no disputes.

Sorry, disagree, it would be a fundamental requirement for peace, that no nation has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

One such United Nations article.

Disarmament | United Nations

Since the birth of the United Nations, the goals of multilateral disarmament and arms limitation have been central to the Organization’s efforts to maintain international peace and security.

www.un.org

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Step 1, How this will be achieved will require the body consultation process. My idea of how it could work, could only be tabled, there would be many opinions. One would most logically think that it has to be the people that decide. Such voting must be free and open with no fear of persecution. To reach this stage, unfortunately will only develope for the results of the current conflicts.

The fist step would.most likely require humanity to see we need a world federation that has power over National Sovereignty, the power to enforce the international laws. Laws that were broken that enabled the current conflicts and civil disorders.

You managed to use a lot of words here without clearly saying anything.

Are you saying that border disputes would be settled by votes at a modified version of the UN? The UN would enforce national border lines over the wishes of the countries involved?

 

[ppp]

You are optimistic if you think that Baha'u'llah is just another religious crank.

You think that seeing the Baha'i as "just another religious crank" is an optimistic view. Interesting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This will happen, it has basically started, you will note that RF is already reflecting this in more increasing postings.

This attempt will fail, as it will be found put that religion is necessary part of global order and structure.

By "religion," you mean your religion, don't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, disagree, it would be a fundamental requirement for peace, that no nation has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

One such United Nations article.

Disarmament | United Nations

Since the birth of the United Nations, the goals of multilateral disarmament and arms limitation have been central to the Organization’s efforts to maintain international peace and security.

www.un.org

Regards Tony

There's a certain arrogance in looking at the decades of work that diplomats and world leaders from many nations have done to achieve the goal of WMD disarmament and just saying "all you need to do is disarm!"

Or maybe it's ignorance - not knowing that all this work has happened.

 

[McBell]

The concept plan for the peace process was offered by the Baha'i to the entire world in 1986.

A plan was presented in 1986, right?

How much of said plan has been accomplished since its presentation?

 

[Balthazzar]

That is an issue, a theocracy is not being promoted nor was it intended.

The system proposed for the Lesser Peace is not a theocracy.

It is democratically elected people from and representing all Nations. Nations that are a minority will have a larger delegated representation.

Thus you approach has been from a misunderstanding.

Regards Tony

That's typically how it works. Something is presented, a presumption is made based on the motive, then the comes the dialogue. I appreciate the correction. Who would the delegates and representatives be and will the average citizen still be involved in the decision making? We the people are a much larger sum than a few self-chosen, self elected representatives.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe in the goodness of humanity. That it will rise above its aggression and corruption and at last fulfil the dream of past ages which we all hope and wish for. If people could only know the glorious future humanity is destined to embrace their hearts would throb with joy. The pain the world is going through is the death pangs of the old ways and the birth pangs of a beautiful peace on the horizon.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You managed to use a lot of words here without clearly saying anything.

Are you saying that border disputes would be settled by votes at a modified version of the UN? The UN would enforce national border lines over the wishes of the countries involved?

Yes that is the key, (PS that was stated in the opening OP in a lot fewer words at the bottom of the OP). Every Nation would be involved in the setting and policing of the boarders.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

By "religion," you mean your religion, don't you?

I mean faith in God, for God to impart His Will to humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's typically how it works. Something is presented, a presumption is made based on the motive, then the comes the dialogue. I appreciate the correction. Who would the delegates and representatives be and will the average citizen still be involved in the decision making? We the people are a much larger sum than a few self-chosen, self elected representatives.

We will have to wait and see how the structure will be built. It appears that as a citizen the election process will remain as us electing our governments and then they appoint representatives. (Quote below of a suggested structure)

After the first world war it was the League of Nations, after the 2nd world war the United Nations, after the 3rd world war? A World Federation, the structure yet to be decided.

This was offered after the first world war.

"....For example, the question of universal peace, about which Baha’u’llah says that the Supreme Tribunal must be established: although the League of Nations has been brought into existence, yet it is incapable of establishing universal peace. But the Supreme Tribunal which Baha’u’llah has described will fulfill this sacred task with the utmost might and power. And His plan is this: that the national assemblies of each country and nation — that is to say parliaments — should elect two or three persons who are the choicest men of that nation, and are well informed concerning international laws and the relations between governments and aware of the essential needs of the world of humanity in this day. The number of these representatives should be in proportion to the number of inhabitants of that country. The election of these souls who are chosen by the national assembly, that is, the parliament, must be confirmed by the upper house, the congress and the cabinet and also by the president or monarch so these persons may be the elected ones of all the nation and the government. From among these people the members of the Supreme Tribunal will be elected, and all mankind will thus have a share therein, for every one of these delegates is fully representative of his nation. When the Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either unanimously or by majority rule, there will no longer be any pretext for the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the Supreme Tribunal, be negligent or dilatory, the rest of the nations will rise up against it, because all the governments and nations of the world are the supporters of this Supreme Tribunal. Consider what a firm foundation this is!" – Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, pp. 306-307.

Abdul'baha offered that would be established in the 20th century, so it is possible the United Nations is that body, but needs the given power of enforcement and vetoed votes are not allowable.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There's a certain arrogance in looking at the decades of work that diplomats and world leaders from many nations have done to achieve the goal of WMD disarmament and just saying "all you need to do is disarm!"

Or maybe it's ignorance - not knowing that all this work has happened.

Your not making sense. Who said it was easy and who has ignored the efforts to do so?

The necessity to disarm was given before the massive stockpiles started.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A plan was presented in 1986, right?

How much of said plan has been accomplished since its presentation?

As much as people are willing to pursue the proposal.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

When war comes home, people attitudes will change, whan great disaster hits, those that survive change, as they really have no choice, work together or perish.

Yes, attitudes will have to change. And Baha'is tell us what attitudes people will need to change... but will everybody's attitude change for the good? There always seems like some people will hold a grudge and wait for the chance to get even.

So, can you discuss how Baha'is believe that there will be a qualitative change and that Baha'is say that there will be a "new race of men". Because without a spiritual change of attitude, I'm afraid the same negative attitudes will continue to crop up.

My guess is people will be electing people that have shown a great history of contributing to world peace, not those that dominate it by the use of weapons.

And who's going to vote for them? Again, unless there's your "new race of men" this old race of men is going to want a strong, forceful leader to represent them.

The UN makes lots of decisions about International law, yet Nations ignore them.

So, what good are their decisions?

Thus the wisdom given in the power of enforcement of laws by the International community.

Ah, but give them the power to enforce them, then we've got something... and it's probably going to be a war.

But which country is so innocent? Give land back to the Palestinians? Stop Russia from invading Ukraine? Well, what about the U.S.? Will the World Tribunal demand giving the Native People their land back? Reparations for what was done to the Blacks?

Lots of stuff has got to be fixed. What's the just thing to do? What would God do? Oh yeah, give the power to the meek, the down trodden. And punish those that abused their power.

And who's going to do that? The World Tribunal that was given their power by the ones in power? Like they're not going to put in their own people in? But rather peace loving people?

But like I said, I'm sure God has thought this through and knows what he is doing. Just look at how well all his other plans went.

 

[CG Didymus]

As much as people are willing to pursue the proposal.

Regards Tony

Which you say won't happen until wars and other catastrophes. So, right now... not much.

But I've heard Baha'is say that what they are doing is building their administrative order and communities. That way, when the old world order collapses, they already have the foundation of the new world order established. Can you talk a little about that? And is that correct?