Sunday, April 7, 2019

Mankind at the Crossroads: Where will disputes between nations be resolved?

Our  proposal to reunify North and South Korea is the last of the first year's proposals, and it has demonstrated the potential of the plan to enable nations that have been backed into a corner to function on a higher level. Rather than continue to be backed into the corner with two untenable options, what is becoming apparent is that the way out of the corner is to do what is in everyone's best interest, and it is in everyone's best interest to join the debate on the plan for the international government. 

Is that what really happened? The talks between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un were kept private. How do we know what these two men agreed to do to end the threat of nuclear war? Unless Kim confided in his advisers, no one else knows. With that in mind, is either government responsible for following through on their agreement?  Did their talks set a protocol for ending future disputes that drag mankind to the brink of nuclear war, or just obfuscate the solution? 

The question is still, how will disputes between nations be resolved? 

The Mueller investigation has ended after spinning off parts of it to other jurisdictions that are continuing on with their investigations, so while Mueller didn't recommend any indictments, the Trump administration is still not free and clear of any legal problems. Trump's victory lap is premature, and the Russians and Chinese are continuing to influence the US elections.

Nations are torn apart when other nations interfere. No one has the right to interfere. One of the unalienable rights we all have granted to us by our Creator is to be able to live our lives without interference. Power grabs are oppressive to the people. They go against Universal Law that says ""do unto others as  you would have them do to you," and it is because what you do to others will be done to you. The United States has interfered in the elections of other nations, and now our elections are facing interference.

The power games have seemed to work as successful foreign or domestic policy, but there is always a backlash to the games. How can a nation defend itself from prejudice and ulterior motives, and so then what if prejudice and ulterior motives appear to be successful policy? That brings mankind back to the beginning of the devolving global crisis, the Iraq War. It was based on prejudice and ulterior motives that appeared to work. The United States even interfered in Iraqi elections. The power grab backlashed on George W. Bush and Tony Blair, and it started a civil war  in Iraq. What was supposed to get control of Iraq's oil reserves and a strategic location in the Middle East to contain Iran's influence in the region didn't work. The policy of preemption is failed policy. 

Each of our government proposals ends the crisis but also addresses failed policy. 

If a policy doesn't work, what will work? 

Mankind has three options now for handling disputes between nations. Up, down or straight ahead. Up is to stand on the principles. Down is to wage war. Straight ahead is to ignore the crisis and pass it on to future generations, and it takes seven generations to unto the damage that has been done.

The historic talks between the US and North Korea have occurred, and the question is, do we go back to address the first government proposal--the  Exit Strategy for Iraq, which sets up a protocol for ending disputes in court? Do we watch Russia and China--and the United States--interfere in other nations, tearing them apart like Iraq, Syria and now Venezuela? Can disputes between nations be resolved in the existing international courts? Is the UN quickly becoming obsolete? What will take its place? 

Mankind is at the crossroads, and we have three options. We are no longer backed into the corner because there is always the option that allows mankind to get out of the corner, and that is to do what is in everyone's best interest.