Since World War Two the world is much fragmented and troubled following the break up of empires. Ex-colonies that have won independence are ruined by internal power struggles.
Following the collapse of Communism, the USSR disintegrated into its component countries, except for resource-rich Chechnya, a largely Muslim country, which still struggles painfully for its freedom from Russia.
Yugoslavia broke up amidst bitter fighting, requiring the hardly-successful intervention of the UN. In Asia, the Korean conflict is still unresolved, while Vietnam's war of independence damaged America irretrievably. We are troubled by the Chinese annexation of Tibet and the ongoing threat to Taiwan, while opposition leaders in Malaysia and Burma are effectively neutralised, either in prison or under house arrest. In numerous African ex European colonies internal strife has been the rule. One somewhat brighter spot has been the elimination of South Africa's apartheid regime.
Currently, it is said, there are some fifty conflicts in progress throughout the world, while a multitude of serious problems baffle an overloaded and under-resourced UN, and new threats to peace are constantly emerging.
Northern Ireland's problems linger on. Britain rejected the only real answer years ago. The secret ballot in Stormont was proposed to the Thatcher government, and again at times subsequently. The ancient sectarian/nationalist problems demand a fresh approach. Meanwhile bitter sectarian enmity ensures the breakdown of successive British attempts to bring reconciliation between Sin Fein and the Protestant hardliners.
Kashmir, on the border of India and Pakistan has been a virtual time bomb, with the dangerous complication of nuclear arms in the possession of both India and Pakistan, while contrasting religions create a constant danger of conflict.
The West Irian and Aceh movements for freedom from Indonesia have dangerous potential, while Papua New Guinea, like many African ex-colonies, vainly struggles to marry its own culture of tribal government with western-style democracy, implemented by Australia at the time of independence under the Whitlam government.
With group against group, faction against faction, the problems of many countries repeatedly defy solution, and often escalate to violent confrontation and civil war. Even countries that espouse some form of democracy are unable to avoid a disturbing measure of internal turmoil.
Rather than seeing long-term serious problems being solved, we see positions hardening around old demands and enmities. These factors engulf the people, who would be willing to forget the past so they can get on with life, if only militant leaders and activists would allow them to do so. While the majority of people want peace, the waters become so fouled that the stepping-stones to peace cannot be found.
Numerous confrontations destroy trust and generate the hatred that precludes peaceful solutions. In far too many countries, violence prevents political solutions; which have not been found despite the efforts devoted to the search. One hopes that democracy can turn the tide of failure; but it seemingly cannot succeed, at least in its present forms.
The Middle East
Palestine is a disaster with no solution in sight. Powerful elements on both sides cling to the notion that the 'promised land' is all theirs, the Palestinians by virtue of centuries of possession perhaps, and the Israelis by virtue of some ancient promises that Israel was destined to conquer many nations, occupying all the lands from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Euphrates.(1) Israel's orthodox, 'religious-right', appears to control the agenda and be intent on seeing the fulfilment of this prophecy. Perhaps Palestinians see this as a dangerous obsession with merely tribal history.At the UN sponsored formation of the state of Israel in 1948 it appears that hundreds of thousands of the Arab population were forced from their homes. These fled to neighbouring lands, forming the large refugee camps in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, futilely hoping for the UN to fulfil its promise.
UN resolutions to create a separate Palestinian state, with its own autonomous government, have all failed due to Israeli defiance, and American preference to support Israel rather than uphold UN policies, and upset its own Jewish lobby. Israel's well-equipped army, thanks to modern weapons and finance from America, has quickly defeated several angry attacks by neighbouring states. Repeatedly defeated in war, the Palestinian people (and Arab supporters) have taken recourse to a war of attrition on Israel with guerrilla warfare and suicide bombers. The power of this option rests entirely on a religious willingness of young Islamic believers to die for the Palestinian cause. In response to the ancient prophecies, Jewish settlements have multiplied in the UN assigned Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This expansion has virtually crippled any chance of creating an integrated, governable Palestinian State. As a result there has been a growing concern and anger in the Islamic world. While some Palestinians would undoubtedly like to drive Israel into the Mediterranean, the majority would presumably welcome even the autonomy of an independent state.
Meanwhile the US spin makes feeble declarations of support for the Palestinians' just cause for an established homeland. It is a matter of deep concern that America has failed to procure justice for the Palestinians. It is quite evident that Israel can ignore with impunity the request of President Bush to withdraw the Israeli army and settlers from Palestinian territory. They know he is helpless to insist. In fact the Israeli prime minister clearly felt no obligation to heed the US president's belated calls to vacate Palestinian territory 'without delay'.
In an article ironically headed: 'You'll do what you're told or, by George, you'll really be in trouble', Gay Alcorn comments: '[President] Bush sounded like a hapless parent who had lost control of an unruly child', and quotes US Secretary of State, Colin Powell:
- .. any move [to review its financial aid, to pressure Israel] would be enormously unpopular. When Bush's father, former president George Bush, threatened to withhold US$10 billion in loan guarantees after the Gulf War, in protest at the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas, there was a threatened political and public revolt. The then president said he was just 'one lonely little guy' standing up against the power of the American/ Jewish lobby.(2)
Palestinian terrorists have added fuel to the flames with suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets in Israel and ambush attacks on settlers. Israel has responded with frequent invasions of Palestinian areas, attacking defenceless towns with tank and helicopter gun-ships. This has easily led to further suicide attacks on civilian targets in Israel.
The West needs to reflect long and hard on the origins and causes of this conflict. America has not supported the UN. Does a minority on this issue dominate American policy? Are the majority of Americans concerned with America's partisan stance and long neglect of this running sore? If not, why not? A serious question arises over America's democracy.
In common with all existing democracies, the American people cannot depend on their president to put international justice before minority political interests. Unfortunately, the festering sore in Palestine was to have an unanticipated explosive outcome.
September 11, 2001
On this unforgettable day, Islamic extremists hijacked four American commercial aircraft to make suicide attacks in New York and Washington, stunning America and horrifying the world.The shock of this attack on America's premier institutions was something akin to that of the attack on Pearl Harbour some sixty years earlier. Jennifer Byrne, New York Foreign Correspondent for the Australian ABC said that this incident crushed the confidence of a nation, not to mention the world. It certainly ushered in a new dimension to the problems of the Western World.
It seems clear that the hijackers had three critical targets representing America's economic, military and political power-the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and lastly the White House, residence of US President George Bush.
The White House was, almost certainly, only saved by the raw courage of the male passengers on the fourth aircraft, who heard of the attacks on the World Trade Centre by mobile phone. Their attack on the hijackers caused the aircraft to crash in bushland instead of the intended target.
Both of the World Trade Centre towers quickly burned to the ground with the loss of thousands of lives, remains of many of the victims never being found.
Why did this happen?
Osama bin Laden, fundamentalist leader of the terrorist group, al Qaeda, claimed that the suicide attacks in New York and Washington were a response to the US obstruction of the UN on the Palestinian issue. He said in a video that the Palestinian problem is a major issue for Muslim nations, and America's persistent support for Israel was a key reason for the attack.
Islamic leaders have insisted that Islam does not endorse such action. While that may be true, militarism was prominent in the early days of Islam, and the concept of the Jihad, or holy war, seems not to be rejected by Muslims generally, being even nurtured in some mosques. The rejoicing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, appearing on TV, were obviously delighted at the spectacular success of these attacks on America's centres of power. On the other hand, can we really be surprised at this reaction from such a depressed people when America has sided with Israel rather than the UN on the issue of Palestinian/Israeli confrontation?
Americans' horror at these suicide attacks in their own country turned quickly to national anger with President Bush declaring a 'war on terror'; with the demand that all countries join in or be labelled 'the enemy'.
Based in Afghanistan, with the support of the Taliban, an oppressive, fundamentalist Islamic government, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda group could not be reached without military intervention. Finding common cause with dissident groups in the north of the country, America launched an extensive bombing campaign. The subsequent ground action by the Afghan Northern Alliance, with American and Australian assistance, ousted the Taliban government.
Nevertheless, it later seemed clear that Osama bin Laden, the main target of the war for the US, had escaped. The failure of the US to apprehend the al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan appears to have sent incendiary units of al Qaeda scattered throughout the world. This frustration meshed with a new concern for the possible acquisition of still more serious weapons by the 'terrorist' Islamic fundamentalists.
War with Iraq?
It was feared that terrorists might have links with Iraq, which would probably have biological, and chemical warfare supplies left from the earlier confrontation with Iran. It was also feared that nuclear weapons might have been produced. Such 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMD) in the hands of terrorists would obviously be the stuff of nightmares. After the first Gulf War a UN inspection team had struggled inconclusively with the Iraqi dictator for some years, to ascertain what stocks of (WMD) might exist in Iraq. The search had been abandoned in 1998. Why? A good question.Fearing further attacks by an invisible enemy, possibly with access to Iraqi WMD, President Bush determined to unilaterally launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, although the idea of a terrorist link with Iraq seemed to many to be somewhat tenuous. Declarations of hate for Sadam Hussein by President Bush brought to light a foiled bomb attack on President Bush snr and his wife in Kuwait two years after the first Gulf War.
Iraqi oil was also raised as a not unlikely motive. American author Jim Wallis tells how in August 1990 he stayed up very late one night, in Australia, to hear President Bush Snr speak live to the American people. 'I then watched George Bush tell the American people that we must be prepared to go to war to protect the supply of oil. Nothing less was at stake, said the president, than our "way of life"'.(3) For the 'war-hawk' friends of Israel in the White House and Pentagon there also seemed to be a further agenda.
Members of the UN Security Council were alarmed at the idea of a unilateral attack on Iraq. To oust Sadam Hussein from government, the 'unfinished business' of the first Gulf War, seemed to be properly a matter for the UN, which undertook the conflict to free Kuwait. The US threat of unilateral military action in Iraq, to extract Sadam Hussein's 'teeth', probably added a new dimension to the determination of the Arab 'terrorist' network to retaliate. Terrorist threats escalated in response to US pressure on the UN to take drastic action.
The US president's bold push to unilaterally deal with the ongoing threat drew attention to his country's experience in the Vietnam War - when all the power of America was helpless to defeat an enemy that was virtually invisible and careless of casualties. Would America really be able to solve its security problems by unilateral action?
'If the UN doesn't, I will', said Bush. With repeated declarations that the UN had become irrelevant, America it seemed, from being a vacillating supporter of the UN, was proposing instead to be its master. Only by degrees did members of the Security Council persuade President Bush that Iraq should have the chance to prove its claim of freedom from weapons of mass destruction, before determining on military action to 'topple' President Hussein. Following considerable wheeling and dealing by the US in the Security Council a firm UN resolution (1441) requiring Iraqi cooperation was passed, while the Washington hawks constantly snorted fire.
If supported to the hilt by the US, the UN inspectors would probably have succeeded in establishing a viable UN authority in Iraq to remove the danger of any weapons of mass destruction getting into terrorist hands. If not thus supported, they probably would not succeed. Can the war solve the security problems, or simply light the fuse to an Islamic powder keg?
In an insightful article, (4) Timothy Garton Ash speaks of the evolving view in Washington. 'Following September 11 (9/11), the Bush administration's earlier tendency to isolation vanished. Washington, that is the whole city, was "at war", also on the "brink of war", and thinking ahead to a democratic post-war Iraq, which might be a catalyst for democratic change in the Middle East'. However, the war in Afghanistan did not appear to have resolved that country's political problems.
With the airing of a view that, after Iraq, Iran and Syria might also merit Washington's attention, the world became still more worried about the determined warlike stance of this, the most powerful nation on earth.
Bali attack
Indonesian extremists had been attacking Christian churches in Indonesia for some time but with the stimulus of the al Qaeda outrage in America, their attacks suddenly escalated.On 12 October 2002, a suicide bomber in Paddy's Bar, and a massive car bomb at the Kuta Night Club demolished these Australian-frequented nightclubs in the Indonesian town of Kuta, in Bali. Hundreds died, including eighty-eight Australian holidaymakers, many of whose remains could only be identified by DNA examination.
Australia had already incurred some unpopularity with Indonesians over Australia's active support for independence in East Timor but, despite Prime Minister John Howard's assertions to the contrary, information received does tend to blame this attack on Australia's haste to align with President Bush's proposal for a unilateral attack on Iraq. For example, Abu Bakar Bashir, Indonesian Islamic leader, claimed Australia would be destroyed for siding with America against Islam.
Pre-emptive America
Insisting on the need for action on Iraq, President Bush asserted on television: 'I get to decide that', and his henchmen fell over themselves in their efforts to please. Even the moderate US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, fell into the vortex of compliance. Sir Edward Woodward, Director-General of Security retd, commented: 'It was noticeable that, in the early days of the debate about Iraq, a number of the top advisers to George Bush snr spoke out against the course the US was pursuing. They seem to have gone quiet now, perhaps out of family loyalty'.(5) When no one argues with the 'leader', democracy wilts; 'dictators' walk tall and ordinary people are confused and troubled.Prime Minister Howard enthusiastically promised support for George Bush's preoccupation with attacking Iraq, and promptly deployed troops: without referring the question to parliament. With dissenting voices silenced in the Coalition party room the same pattern of high-handed decision-making in our government was clear; but the discomfort of Coalition members in voicing the obligatory party line in the token parliamentary debate that followed, did not go unnoticed. There is some ground for believing Australia's support was not entirely without connection to the Prime Minister's hope of a free trade agreement with America.
With the troops already deployed (but not committed!), the Prime Minister announced: 'Parliament will be recalled to vote on "war or peace", if cabinet decides to commit forces against Iraq.'(6) (My italics.)
Without a parliamentary secret ballot, this vote would never be free. As expected, the vote changed nothing - just as Prime Minister Howard had no reason to doubt, with his Coalition party members safely 'in his pocket'. What sort of democracy is this? The real worry has always been the arrogance of so-called 'democratic' leaders behaving like dictators. The more popular they are, the greater is the danger of them overreaching themselves.
Contemptuous of the (irrelevant!) UN's patience, President Bush launched a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Understandably, other members of the UN Security Council were alarmed at America's unilateral attack. With many other tyrants around the world, who would be next? Following international consternation, in an article titled 'US cools Iraq war talk', we read that US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, claimed 'Washington's allies should respect the "principled leadership" of the United States, even if they did not always follow it ...' (7)a worryingly aloof attitude.
With the prompt moral support of Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Blair, President Bush proclaimed the 'Coalition of the Willing' and pushed ahead with his threatened pre-emptive strike on Iraq; the avowed aim being to prevent 'Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the terrorists'.
However, many believed there were other reasons for this war, which the UN Security Council refused to endorse at Washington's urging. Finishing the first Iraq war's 'unfinished business', and access to Iraqi oil, were suspected to be the more pressing reasons.
While the Iraqi government was quickly defeated, President Bush's politically motivated proclamation of an end of hostilities, turned out to be a hollow victory. The heavy destruction of power, water and other public infrastructure; Saddam's earlier release of criminals; and the disbandment of Iraqi police and army units, produced serious unemployment and a lack of security. The earlier popular relief at the toppling of Saddam Hussein soon turned to substantial opposition.
The ambitious 'war on terror' became increasingly shaky, with significant revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan, guerrilla attacks on the occupying troops in Iraq and an apparent fragility in the interim administration, which was cobbled together by the US to introduce the Middle East to 'democracy'.
When the prolonged search by weapons inspectors, from both the UN and the US failed to find the expected weapons, as a sufficient cause for war, quick replacements were needed the self-justifying US Administration. Removal of the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, and an ambitious plan to introduce the whole Middle East to 'democracy' (American style?) were proclaimed to justify military action. It became clear that the job of achieving a democratic 'peace' among Iraq's conflicting groups, never mind the rest of the Middle East, might just prove beyond the capacity of 'the West'. (We might recall that Western democracies have each passed through their own long periods of internal adjustment, and often-bloody traumas, on the road to such democracy as we have achieved.)
While the 'Coalition of the Willing' previously dismissed the UN as irrelevant, the realisation has gown that the task may well be unattainable without the moral authority of the UN, and the material assistance of the members of the Security Council whose views were previously despised.
Keen to appear altruistic in the light of the approaching election the US on 28th June 2004 transferred sovereignty to the appointed Iraqi interim governing council, with the US army remaining on hand, at the government's 'invitation'. The attacks of 'insurgents' have escalated and only time will tell if the Bush administration will survive the awkward situation in Iraq. A real humiliation for the US could result should its plan for Middle East democracy prove just too difficult to achieve.
More countries have become terrorist targets, including Spain, Turkey, the Athens Olympic games, the Philippines and Korea, with a new twist - the threatened, and actual in some instances, execution of captives. Though often non-combatants, the end of their nation's participation in Iraq is the price of their release.
The vulnerability of participating states is plain, regardless of the bravado of 'we will never negotiate with terrorists', by Coalition leaders.
Meanwhile we devote more funds to defence, including the decision to purchase the top level Abrams tank from America; the most powerful in the world. Why? Can we shoot terrorists with them? Or is it a further gesture in the 'anywhere with LBJ' syndrome? Decisions by executive governments, made under the tensions of anger and fear, have a habit of turning to disaster, as cooler and wiser heads are powerless to hinder the rashness of institutionalised government power. With dissent suppressed, the concealment and twisting of the truth creates a compliant but troubled public. The outcome in Coalition country elections remains to be seen.
Meanwhile the situation in Iraq is deteriorating with regular bombings and guerrilla attacks. 'Insurgents' are blamed; which perhaps means that Coalition interests prefer not to acknowledge the possibility of a fundamental instability in Iraq. It does not seem impossible for a dictatorship to re-emerge out of the need for civil order.
In Iraq we see the trouble that the world suffers where authoritarian leaders freely assert their authority; regardless of widespread dissent, just because they can. They rely (often quite successfully) on their public's short-term memory and relish for election sweeteners. Small wonder that few expect morality to prevail in politics.
As the basis of Bush's pre-emptive war is being increasingly questioned, and while Blair has provided that an investigation will be completed before his next election, Bush and Howard are clearly determined to not let that happen to them - certainly not independent inquiries.
All three are wriggling out of responsibility for the war which has resulted in some ten thousand dead, by presenting the view that any mistakes were inadvertent not deliberate. In Britain, Lord Butler, reporting on the failure of intelligence input to the British government, has declared that there is no evidence to suggest that Tony Blair deliberately misread the intelligence. Though it does seem that they quoted selectively from what was presented to them those aspects which they chose to believe, and what all three leaders deliberately did do was to ignore the UN and its properly constituted authority.
Australia will now have a new (a fourth?) intelligence organisation, 'The National Threat Assessment Centre', with a new round of spending on national and international intelligence capability, which will 'not be the end of the additional commitment',(8) says Prime Minister Howard. Will that save us from our fear? It is strange how our 'Christian' leaders have forgotten our origins, and the way of peace, to our peril. 'When a man's ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him'.(9)Perhaps we should begin by attempting to understand our enemy.
Islam
The world has struggled through the political ideologies of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War and many lesser conflicts, with millions dead, but we now face a complicated confrontation between world religions, which has been clearly accentuated by the Palestinian people's fading hope for an autonomous state.This seemingly insoluble conflict between Israeli intransigence, Palestinian despair and Islamic anger has ushered in a new era of dangerous world possibilities, while a concomitant factor is the Islamic contempt of the 'depraved culture' of Western nations, especially America. Islam sees a quagmire of materialism, alcohol, drugs and sex in the West, with Christianity having lost the plot. Some Muslim leaders appear moderate, claiming that Islam is a way of peace, but Stuart Robinson (missionary and Baptist pastor) quotes Reza Safa's question: 'If Islam is a peaceful religion why did Muhammad engage in 47 battles?'(10)It is said that Islam, wherever it is a minority, is happy to manipulate the existing democratic freedom and privileges but, when in the majority, its acceptance of democracy rapidly dissipates in favour of the implementation of the Shariah, Islamic fundamental law.
It is clear that the drive for Islamic domination has not been limited to Afghanistan, with mounting pressure in Asia and Africa. A worldwide upsurge of Islamic 'evangelism' with the declared aim of establishing Islamic clerical rule in every country is evident. Robinson also adds, from the official declaration of a London public meeting of the Muslim political organisation Al-Muhajiroun: 'Islam must dominate the world'.(11)
Following the bombing of the Bali nightclubs, it was revealed that there have been regular visits by Abu Bakar Bashir, leader of the Indonesian Jemaah Islamiah, to Australia as early as 1993, when he was preaching the doctrine of the Jihad to achieve Islamic rule here. Coming under notice, however, his rhetoric was amended, stating that it may take a hundred years.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew (12)has foreseen ten years of terrorist threat ahead for South East Asia, while Maria Livanos Catlavi, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce, has drawn attention to the need for all areas of government and business to rally resources to cope with the disruption to trade, finance and investment, caused by the security measures against the terrorist threat.(13)
We need to be aware that Islamic doctrine has no place for democracy. In his comprehensive study of Islam, Robinson quotes the view of London-based Muslim Cleric, Abu Hanza al-Masri, that: '...the principle of democracy is hostile to God and is therefore condemned'. Robinson further notes: 'This "evil" of democracy however has been used to good effect to obtain further Islamic rights ... to a Muslim [it is] simply another means to reach the goal of Islamisation. Not all political systems have the stamp of Islamic approval. But any may be used along the way.'(14)
If we merely respond with fear-driven reactions to this religion-exacerbated conflict we will only sink further in the mire. Democracy must rise over religion to establish stability in the world, through goodwill and sanity. The world must: 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.(15)
It is obvious that the prime function of religion is to minister to the human spirit; not the economic or political condition. Religions of all sorts must come under political scrutiny to protect society from their strong tendencies to political involvement. While religious movements and doctrines have, historically, often led to political outcomes, it is time to call a halt. It must now be abundantly clear that such doctrines and ambitions cannot displace democratic theory and practise in the politics of the world today. Only with the democratic rule of the people can sanity prevail.
This plants the flag of priority squarely on the reform of our parliamentary democracies to advance the participation and power of all the people. Nothing less will suffice. Let's be very clear about that.
Now, we need to distinguish what we might call political Islam from ordinary Muslims who might just like to have a peaceful life in a freer environment. It has been said that, for many Muslims, belief is not so much of paramount importance as belonging. (The same could be said of any religion, so often formal in practice.) Of course fundamental interests always want to have their entire following in mindless agreement. It simply means that we must attain to a purity of democracy consonant with those genuine moral values which sincere Muslims in our land can respect, and with which they can fully concur. That is quite a tall order but if we think that we can win this argument with Abrams tanks and helicopter gun ships we deserve to lose. We cannot pretend to prevail with a 'holier than thou' attitude. A real righteousness, individual or national, needs no defence.
In a seminal letter to The Age, Waleed Aly, Melbourne lawyer, on the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, notes the danger of prejudice, but says:
- We Muslims must not wallow in victim status. This is not a time for self-pity, nor is it a time to be paralysed by fear. Prejudice is ultimately a product of ignorance. And further, that it requires us to confront prejudice, openly and sincerely engaging with the wider Australian society. This in turn requires us Muslims to engage with our own shortcomings.(16)
Democracy threatened
The world is rapidly heading towards an abyss with the West having not a clue what to do about it, except to pass new laws to add to government, police and counter-espionage powers. In an article headed 'Is this the end of democracy?' Stanford University professor of philosophy, Professor Richard Rorty, sees that government and its bureaucracies:- ... will probably think it necessary to end the rule of law, as well as the responsiveness of governments to public opinion...not by a fascist putsch, but rather a cascade of government actions that would ..., bring about a fundamental change in the conditions of social life in the West.'(17)
UN and the future
It is quite clear that the Security Council, with its power of veto, was formed as a barrier to the power of the growing multitude of smaller nations forming the bulk of the UN Assembly.As the most powerful nation on earth America must fulfil its obligations to the UN for financial, military and moral support. It must give back to the UN its moral and political authority by being prepared to honour its decisions. Only the UN can have the moral authority to advance the cause of world democratic government. To do so it must have the tools. It is clear however that such a loyalty to democratic principle would be enormously unpopular to some in America, threatening its hegemony.
It is also clear that an unequivocal acceptance of the UN's authority by rich nations would also threaten their wealth. We see in the meeting of the G8 (rich nations) a group that may well take over from the UN any semblance of world authority. Commencing as the G6 group of nations, it has expanded to eight, with the likelihood soon of the inclusion of India and China - with more aspirants to follow as they gain in economic prestige. In contrast to the UN, which includes the multitude of the weak and poor nations, the predilection of the rich for their own company and power stands stark.
Nurturing a selfish public by harping on the primacy of the 'national interest', and the shredding of international aid, are a gross denial of the principled leadership required in a very needy world. Could Australia have the moral courage to set the example that might inspire other, bigger nations to take a costly stand for real democracy at the world level? The problem is that we don't practise the caring principles of a real democracy either. Adversarial politics skates over principle in the pursuit of power; which is the very antithesis of the democratic spirit of the 'fair go'. 'Government by the people' is a farce in this country too, and since 'the people' do not govern in any real sense, we have been led to ignore our responsibility.
The world response to ongoing occurrences of genocide, in Cambodia, Rwanda and now in Darfur, Western Sudan, has been uniformly marked by, a virtual indifference or, at best, help arriving too little too late. The West, totally absorbed in the internal conflicts of party politics has had little time for the more serious matters beyond its immediate influence. Guy Rundle is scathing of the well heeled nations saying: 'the threatened slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and death by starvation and disease of thousands, rates so little in the scheme of things.(18))Bill Clinton, ex US President, when talking with Andrew Denton, related how he went to Rwanda and apologised for America's inaction at the genocide there. He was told that noone else did anything either - but he at least did say: 'Sorry'.(19) In an age when the free flow of international information should enable a rapid and effective response, we see the UN crippled by the dysfunction of the Security Council and the preoccupation of its members with their own relatively trifling affairs.
We have seen that extremes in Islam are opposed to democracy. Meanwhile nation after nation asserts democracy is best, but denies or ignores its principles. Unless we cease this hypocrisy and act as we say we believe, can there really be any certainty that Islamic determination and oil wealth will not crush our vague and unprincipled ideologies?
The UN cannot fulfil its dream function of world order and cooperative progress in so many aspects of the world's life unless the nations fulfil the true destiny of democracy, each in their own lands. A start towards serious democratic reform is long overdue. The question is: 'Who will wake up and do something about it?'
'The ball's in our court!'