hawk,
heres my contribution.
i hope it helps.
*** g95 3/8 3-4 How Nutritious Is Your Food? ***
Nutritious Is Your Food?
BY AWAKE! CORRESPONDENT IN BRAZIL
How do you choose your food? When you buy food, what factors influence you? Is it fancy packaging? Price? Ease of preparation? Persuasive claims in advertisements? Or just the way the food looks and tastes? Making the right choices may determine whether you eat nutritious food or junk food, whether your health is improved or damaged.
POVERTY is a major cause of malnutrition. While many take food for granted, millions of others rarely enjoy a nutritious meal. “Here at home we eat anything we can get hold of,” said a Brazilian bricklayer, father of six children. That usually means stale bread and weak coffee or rice and beans. In fact, according to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 20 percent of the world’s population suffer from hunger. While there is widespread famine in some African countries, there is a larger number of hungry people in Asia. Even in the United States, 12 percent of the population, or 30 million people reportedly do not have enough to eat.
Not only is poor nutrition detrimental but it can kill. “Malnutrition caused by poor child feeding practices claims over 10 times as many lives as actual famine,” notes researcher William Chandler. “Coupled with diarrheal dehydration, malnutrition is the leading killer in the world.” Reports UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund): “No epidemic, no flood, nor any earthquake or war has ever robbed the lives of 250,000 children in just a week.” But that is the number of children throughout the world who die because of malnutrition and resulting illnesses, according to that UN agency. In fact, the damage caused by malnutrition is incalculable: Learning ability decreases, the labor force weakens, work production and quality decline.
Yet, adequate intake of the proper foods can overcome poor nutrition and such side effects as anemia and other ailments. Governmental aid such as school lunches and soup kitchens may alleviate malnutrition in some areas, but according to UNICEF officials, $25 billion is needed annually to reduce the deaths of children caused by diarrhea, pneumonia, and measles. ‘A lot of money,’ some might say. But that is reportedly what Americans spend on sports footwear and Europeans on wine in one year. Another challenge is to reduce waste. Though an estimated 32 million Brazilians go hungry, Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture reports “that harvest waste [worth $1.5 billion] in transportation or storage causes a loss of 18 to 20 percent of the nation’s agricultural output.” There are major problems in agriculture, irrigation, food storage, and transportation in many nations; yet, the earth can still provide abundantly for all. So how can you face the challenge of feeding your family?
Money Is Not Enough
In developing countries people often manage to feed their family by having two or three jobs. In Brazil 1.5 million annually leave family or friends to migrate to large cities in search of work and food. Although health depends to a certain extent on what people eat, a large part of their budget goes for clothing, housing, and transportation.
Happily, common foods, such as rice, beans, corn, potatoes, cassava, and bananas, supplemented by some meat and fish, are the main sources of nutrition for families all over the world. Brazilian nutritionist José Eduardo de Oliveira Dutra stated: “Beans and rice are a combination with very high nutritional value. With such a simple and low-priced diet, it is possible to end famine in [the country].” Yes, inexpensive and nutritious food may be available where you live. Or you may even grow some of your food.
Although you may have sufficient money, do you spend it on nutritious food for your family? Or are you influenced by clever and persistent advertising to prefer sweets or junk food and thus neglect the need for proteins, minerals, and vitamins? Is taste more attractive than wholesomeness? The World Book Encyclopedia notes: “To achieve and maintain good health, people must have basic knowledge about the human body and how it functions. Only then can they determine what will or what will not help or hurt their health. Learning about health should be a part of every person’s education.”
True, we do not live merely for eating, but food is a vital part of our lives. The Bible speaks of eating well as a reward for diligent work, saying: “Every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.” (Ecclesiastes 3:13) Do you view wholesome food as valuable and necessary? If so, please examine the following article on how proper nutrition can benefit you and your family.
*** g95 12/8 28-9 Watching the World ***
Literacy and Health
A higher level of literacy may contribute to a longer life expectancy, according to statistics cited by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). “People who have learned to read and write,” notes the magazine UNESCO Sources, “are more attentive to hygiene and health care; they tend to be less fatalistic and, in the event of illness, more likely to turn to a doctor.” Literacy, though, is only one of the factors that affect life expectancy. “Access to medical treatment, the family’s financial circumstances and the social environment” also play crucial roles.
Empty Summit
Approximately 20,000 delegates from around the world met in Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 6-12, 1995, to attend an assembly sponsored by the United Nations entitled: “World Summit for Social Development.” Their purpose in meeting? To discuss ways to bring an end to poverty, unemployment, and segregation in developing countries. It did not take long, however, to identify a major roadblock—a lack of funds. It seems that many of the poverty-stricken countries are so heavily indebted to the wealthy nations that they cannot even afford to make their interest payments. The hosting nation, Denmark, proposed that the wealthy nations follow their lead and cancel the poorest nations’ debts. There is one problem, though. Many of the poorer nations’ debts have resulted from arms procurement. Therefore, as one UN adviser explained, if the debt is canceled, they will only use the opportunity to buy more guns.
Learning Empathy
Researchers who study empathy in children have proposed that the capacity for understanding the feelings of others is learned. “It’s been shown that children who have been abused don’t respond empathically to distress in other children,” says Dr. Mark A. Barnett, a professor at Kansas State University in Manhattan, as quoted in The New York Times. “They may look at the distressed child and do nothing, or they go over and yell and push the child.” On the other hand, he adds that “a child whose own emotional needs are taken care of is more responsive to the emotions of others.” In addition to providing emotional security, however, parents need to show their children how to be empathetic. As Dr. Barnett says, empathetic parents generally rear empathetic children.
Women or Men—Who Work Longer?
Except in North America and Australia, women everywhere work longer hours on the job than men, reports Populi, the magazine of UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). The greatest gap exists in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where women in the labor force, on the average, work some 12 hours per week more than men. “In many developing countries,” notes the magazine, “women are now working 60-90 hours a week just to try to maintain their meagre living standards of a decade ago.” Meanwhile, in the industrialized world, men’s share in household work is increasing. “But,” explains Populi, this increase “is not due to a more equal division of routine cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Rather, men are taking longer to do such tasks as shopping.”
China’s Population Reaches 1.2 Billion
Earlier this year China’s population hit the 1.2 billion mark, reported China Today. The population might have reached this size nine years earlier without the national family planning program introduced in the 1970’s. Nevertheless, at the current rate of growth, China’s population will reach 1.3 billion early in the next century. Though among the world’s largest countries geographically, China’s per capita output of grain, meat, and eggs is lower than the output of countries that are more developed. In addition, total cultivated land is shrinking because of pollution and heavier land occupancy, said China Today.
Snails on the Attack
Before live South American golden snails were imported to Vietnam as a food item six years ago, scientists warned that the snails would cause great trouble if they ever escaped. Time, it seems, has proved the scientists right. Some snails did escape and quickly showed a penchant for eating rice. The government then banned the snails, but many small establishments continued to grow them anyway and sell them for food. The Associated Press reports that according to the official Vietnam News, merely eight of these tiny creatures can devour 11 square feet [1 sq m] of rice paddy in a day! The snails have reportedly destroyed 77,000 acres [31,000 ha] of rice already and have spread into the country’s most productive rice-growing region. A single female snail can lay some 40 million eggs in one year.
A Footnote to World War II
Over 50 years ago, at the height of World War II, a farmer in rural Colorado, U.S.A., might have thought himself relatively safe from enemy attack. How surprised one such farmer must have been when his tractor suddenly fell into a small cavern caused by a bomb blast! It turned out that the bomb had been launched on the other side of the Pacific Ocean—via balloon. In a curious footnote to a global war, the Japanese decided to retaliate for U.S. air raids in 1942 by launching more than 9,000 hydrogen balloons carrying small incendiary and antipersonnel bombs. The idea, according to Scripps Howard News Service, was to start forest fires and panic in the United States, some 6,200 miles [10,000 km] distant. The damage was relatively minor, although several people were killed. There were 285 balloon-related incidents reported, and at the government’s behest, the media kept the news of these quiet to avoid panic.
Tennis Anyone?
The demand for illicit drugs in Australia’s prisons has given rise to some innovative methods of drug smuggling. “People are filling tennis balls with illegal drugs and using racquets to hit them into Australian jails,” reports Reuters news service. Prison spokesman Keith Blyth says: “They pack the drug and then wrap it (in plastic film).” They then put it in a tennis ball and literally throw or hit it over the fence. In an attempt to stem the flow, the South Australian government has considered, among other things, using “drug-sniffing dogs” to patrol outside the state’s jails for “people with suspicious tennis balls,” explained Blyth. Another enterprising smuggler used a crossbow to propel drugs over a prison wall. The report said, however, that the “more traditional method of hiding drugs in cakes” and carrying them into prison is still popular.
Plants With a “Memory”
When attacked, many plants produce chemicals to ward off their attackers. New Scientist magazine reports that some also form a “memory” of the attack, allowing them to begin producing the repelling toxins more quickly if attacked again. A caterpillar chewing on a tobacco leaf triggers the manufacture of jasmonic acid, which travels to the roots. This initiates the production of nicotine, which returns to the leaves to make them undesirable to the eater. Plants with roots previously exposed to the acid reacted more quickly to attack. “This suggests that plants do indeed have a memory,” says Ian Baldwin of the State University of New York at Buffalo.
Surplus Clergy
Declining membership in Canada’s Protestant churches has led to an “unprecedented surplus of Protestant clergy,” reports The Globe and Mail. Over the last ten years, the Anglican Church in Montreal, Quebec, has seen membership plunge from 67,000 to 27,000, while the number of priests has remained the same. The surplus of clergy has resulted in some having to take on part-time jobs or go on unemployment insurance to survive. In Toronto, Ontario, the Presbyterian Church is facing a similar crisis. Jean Armstrong, the associate secretary of ministry and church vocation, says: “We’re not sure how much longer congregations can afford full-time ministers.”
*** g95 7/22 4-8 Man's Fight Against Disasters ***
Man’s Fight Against Disasters
THREE years had passed, and UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali was not cheering. “We have not moved fast enough,” he told a group of experts early in 1993. “In asking you to meet now rather than later, my aim was to see whether we could make up for lost time.” Lost time? What was on his mind? Five letters: IDNDR. What do they mean? And why the haste?
One of the experts attending that meeting was Frank Press, a geophysicist and the “father” of the IDNDR. Eleven years ago, Dr. Press began rallying the worldwide scientific community to step up its fight against natural disasters. Five years later, in December 1989, the United Nations responded to his call for an end to passivity by designating the years from 1990 to 2000 as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, or IDNDR. What is its aim?
A Change of Mind Needed
Brazilian geology professor and member of the IDNDR’s Scientific and Technical Committee, Umberto G. Cordani, told Awake! that the IDNDR is an appeal to the international community to pool its knowledge and resources and work together in reducing the suffering, destruction, disruption, and loss of life caused by natural disasters. “Reaching that objective,” stressed Professor Cordani, “requires a worldwide shift of focus from post-disaster reaction to pre-disaster action.”
Changing global thinking is, however, far more difficult than naming a decade, for “decision makers,” states UNESCO Environment and Development Briefs, “tend to focus on relief to the exclusion of prevention.” Of all money spent today on natural hazard management in Latin America, for example, over 90 percent goes to hazard relief and less than 10 percent to prevention. After all, notes the IDNDR’s newsletter Stop Disasters, politicians “obtain more support consoling disaster victims than from requesting taxes for the undramatic measures that would have avoided or reduced the disaster.”
Setting the Targets
To alter this spending pattern, the United Nations defined three targets for the decade. By the year 2000, all countries should have in place their (1) assessment of the risks posed by natural hazards, (2) long-term preparedness and prevention plans, and (3) warning systems. National committees were formed to translate the IDNDR’s philosophy and good intentions into concrete plans, and in May 1994, Japan was host to a UN-sponsored World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction. With all these activities planned or under way, why was Boutros-Ghali not content? Because of a disturbing trend.
Troublesome Trend
On the one hand, the efforts of the IDNDR are paying off. Scientists’ awareness about disaster reduction has increased, and some measures, like improved warning systems, are saving lives and reducing losses. However, despite these gains, notes Dr. Kaarle Olavi Elo, director of the IDNDR’s secretariat, “the number and the magnitude of disasters continues to grow, affecting more and more people.” We have seen “a 3-fold increase from the 1960’s to the 1980’s,” confirms another UN expert, “and a further major rise in the 90’s.” Indeed, in 1991, 434 major disasters killed 162,000 people worldwide, and in 1992, losses exceeded $62 billion (U.S.). The world, concludes UNDP (United Nations Development Program) administrator James G. Speth, has become “a disaster machine, producing crises with distressing regularity.” (UNDP Update, November 1993) What is behind this disturbing trend?
Why the Increase?
To answer, first note the difference between a natural hazard and a natural disaster. The first is a natural event—such as a flood or an earthquake—which has the potential to become a disaster yet does not always do so. For instance, floods in Brazil’s uninhabited Amazon basin are natural events doing little harm. However, floods striking Bangladesh in its densely populated Ganges delta cause widespread human, material, and environmental losses. Often such losses are so disastrous that stricken communities cannot cope without help from outside. In that case, the natural hazard has become a natural disaster. Why, though, are these disastrous collisions between man and nature on the increase?
Disaster expert James P. Bruce notes that “a trend towards more severe and frequent hazards” may be “a contributing cause.” He and other scientists concur, however, that the main cause for the increase in disasters is not an increase in natural hazards but an increase in man’s exposure to these hazards. This increased exposure, points out World Health magazine, is caused by a “mix of demographic, ecological and technological conditions.” What are some components of this disaster-triggering mix?
For one, the expanding world population. As the size of the human family keeps growing, the likelihood that a natural hazard will find some of the world’s 5.6 billion people in its path is growing as well. Moreover, population pressure keeps forcing millions of poor people to settle in unsafe buildings in areas notorious for receiving regular assaults from nature. The result is not surprising: Since 1960, the world population has doubled, but disaster losses have increased almost tenfold!
Environmental changes add to the problems. From Nepal to the Amazon and from the North American plains to the islands of the Pacific, man is cutting down forests, overcultivating the land, destroying coastal barriers, and leaving a trail of other ecological footprints—but not without a price. “As we stress the bearing capacity of our environment and modify its character,” says a former IDNDR director, Robert Hamilton, “the greater the likelihood that a natural hazard might become a disaster.”
If man’s actions, however, are contributing to the increasing appearance of disasters in today’s headlines, then the opposite would be true as well: By taking preventive measures, man can change tomorrow’s headlines. Death and destruction can be minimized. For example, 90 percent of deaths from earthquakes, say experts, can be avoided. Nevertheless, although the arguments for prevention are compelling, many people continue to regard disasters as inevitable. This fatalistic view, reports UNESCO Environment and Development Briefs, is “the single greatest barrier to disaster reduction.” On what side of that barrier are you?
Inevitable or Reducible?
Especially in the developing world, this feeling of helplessness is widespread—and no wonder! Of all the people killed by natural disasters during the last 50 years, 97 percent lived in the developing world! In some of these countries, notes Stop Disasters, “the frequency of disasters is so high that it is difficult to delineate between the end of one disaster and the beginning of another.” In fact, 95 percent of all disasters occur in the developing world. Add to this an endless cycle of personal disasters—poverty, unemployment, cruel living conditions—and you can see why helplessness engulfs the poor like a rising tide. They accept the losses caused by recurrent disasters as a bitter but fated part of life. However, are these losses inevitable?
What You Can and Cannot Do
True, you cannot control the frequency or intensity of natural hazards, but that does not make you completely helpless. You can reduce your exposure to these events. How? Think of this comparison.
Let us say a person wants to limit his exposure to the sun (the natural event) to prevent getting skin cancer (the disaster). What measures can he take? Obviously, he cannot control the rising and setting of the sun (the frequency of the event). Nor can he diminish the amount of sunshine reaching his environment (the intensity of the event). But does that make him helpless? No, he can reduce his exposure to the sun. For instance, he can stay inside during the hottest part of the day, or if that is not possible, he can wear a hat and protective clothing while outside. This increases his protection against the sun (the event) and lowers his risk of becoming a victim of skin cancer (the disaster). His preventive actions can make a difference!
Likewise, you too can take steps that increase your protection against the impact of some natural hazard. In that way, you will reduce your vulnerability and losses when a disaster strikes. For those living in the developed world, the tips in the box “Are You Prepared?” may be useful. And if you live in the developing world, the examples in the box “Low-Cost Improvements That Work” may give you an idea of the type of simple measures now available. They may go a long way in saving lives and reducing losses. With today’s available technology, reminds geophysicist Frank Press, “fatalism is no longer acceptable.” No doubt, when it comes to natural disasters, prevention is definitely better than cure.
[Box on page 6]
Are You Prepared?
THE U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends a number of ways to cope with hazards. The following are some highlights.
Get information. Contact your local emergency management office and find out which disasters could strike your community. You may be aware of some, but others may surprise you. If you learn that your home is exposed to natural hazards:
• Meet with your family and discuss the types of hazards that could threaten you. Explain what to do in each case.
• Plan how your family will maintain contact with one another if separated by such an event. Pick two meeting places: one outside your home in case of a sudden emergency, like a fire, and the other outside your neighborhood in case you can’t return home.
• Ask a friend to be your family contact so that if you cannot reach your arranged meeting places, all family members can call this contact and tell where they are. Choose a friend who lives away from your area because after a disaster it’s often easier to call long-distance than to call within the affected area. Teach children how to call this friend. Discuss what to do when you have to evacuate. Consider how you would help your neighbors who may need special assistance. Plan how to take care of your pets.
• Post emergency telephone numbers by every phone.
• Locate the main electric fuse box, water main, and natural gas main. Show responsible family members how and when to turn these off, and keep necessary tools near the main switches.
• Prepare for fire. Install smoke detectors, especially near bedrooms.
[Box on page 8]
Low-Cost Improvements That Work
JUST under half the world population, reports the World Bank, survive on five dollars a week or less. Even if you are in that position, say experts, there are proven measures that you can apply. Inform yourself about them, because education, stresses Peruvian disaster expert Alberto Giesecke, “is a key low-cost mitigation measure.” Here are two examples from South America:
The UN manual Mitigating Natural Disasters explains what can be done to build better adobe, or mud, houses:
• In mountainous terrain, excavate the land to form a platform for the house.
• Square houses are strongest; if you need a rectangular shape, build one wall two and a half times longer than the other.
• Use rock or concrete foundations to dampen seismic forces.
• Build parallel walls with the same weight, strength, and height. Keep them thin and low. Houses built in this manner incurred less damage during earthquakes than standard mud houses.
Traditional latticework (quincha) construction is another proven technique. Quincha houses, says Stop Disasters, have a framework of woven reeds and small branches supported by horizontal and vertical poles and have only a small amount of earth-fill. This type of structure, with 4- to 6-inch-thick [10-15 cm] walls, allows the houses to shake during an earthquake, and when the earthquake stops, the buildings adjust to their original positions again. When an earthquake hit in 1991, all such houses remained standing while 10,000 other houses, with solid 40-inch-thick [1 m] walls, were shaken to the ground, killing 35 people. According to UNESCO architect John Beynon, earthquakes don’t kill people; collapsing buildings do.
[Pictures on page 7]
In some places man is recklessly cutting down forests, opening the way for more natural disasters
*** g96 4/22 3 Is a World Without War Possible? ***
Is a World Without War Possible?
IMAGINE never seeing or experiencing again the ghastly reality of war and its aftermath. Imagine never hearing the sound of gunfire or bombs, never watching hoards of half-starved refugees in flight, never wondering if you or a loved one will die in some cruel and pointless conflict. How wonderful it would be to live in a world without war!
‘Not a likely prospect,’ you may say. Yet, the vision of a peaceful world burned brightly just a few years ago. In 1990 and 1991, many were saying the nations were on the threshold of a new era of security and cooperation. Reflecting the mood of the times, George Bush, who was then president of the United States, spoke on many occasions about an emerging “new world order.”
Why the optimism? The Cold War had come to an end. For more than 40 years, the threat of nuclear war had hung menacingly over humankind like a sword suspended by a thin thread. But with the demise of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the threat of a nuclear holocaust seemed to evaporate. The world breathed easier.
There was another major reason why people viewed the future with confidence, and why many still do. For four decades rivalry between the East and the West had made the United Nations little more than a debating society. But the end of the Cold War liberated the UN to do what it was designed to do—to work toward international peace and security.
The UN has in recent years intensified efforts to discourage warfare. Equipped with troops from member nations, the United Nations engaged in more peacekeeping operations in the 4 years preceding 1994 than in the previous 44 years. Some 70,000 civilian and military personnel served in 17 operations throughout the world. In just two years, peacekeeping expenditures more than doubled to $3.3 billion in 1994.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, secretary-general of the UN, wrote recently: “There are signs that the system of collective security established in San Francisco nearly 50 years ago [at the founding of the UN] is finally beginning to work as conceived . . . We are on the way to achieving a workable international system.” Despite these developments, the vision of a new world order rapidly fades. What has happened to darken hopes for a world without war? Is there reason to believe we will ever see global peace? The following articles will consider these questions.
[Picture Credit Lines on page 3]
War planes: USAF photo
Anti-aircraft guns: U.S. National Archives photo
*** g85 10/22 3-4 The UN-One Man's Vision ***
The UN—One Man’s Vision
THE Albertina, a four-engined DC-6B aircraft, flew in low over the African bush. It had just made a pass over the Ndola airport in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Its 16 occupants included one of the most important men in the world at that time.
In the black of the night, the pilot turned to make his landing. “Moments later the propellers cut the treetops . . . The wing tip was torn off, and, in the next few seconds, more and more of the wing was ripped away. . . . Nearly eight hundred nightmare feet beyond the initial brush with the trees, the stub of the Albertina’s left wing hit the base of an anthill. The aircraft swung around, cartwheeling leftward until it came to fiery rest facing the way it had come.”
When rescuers finally reached the plane, they found in it the bodies of 14 persons who had been burned to death. The single survivor lived for five days. A few yards away from the wreckage was the broken body of the secretary-general of the United Nations—Dag Hammarskjöld. The world’s top civil servant, Mr. UN as some called him, was dead.—The Mysterious Death of Dag Hammarskjold, by Arthur L. Gavshon.
The UN and the Churches
Dag Hammarskjöld’s death took the world by surprise. Some wondered how the UN would function without the leadership of this aloof, intelligent man who had stamped his style on the role of the secretary-general.
Hammarskjöld has been described as a Christian mystic. His writings seem to imply that he believed he was called by God to his destiny at the United Nations. In speaking to church groups, he said that faith in God and the UN should be parallel. On one occasion he stated: “The [UN] Organization and the churches stand side by side as participants in the efforts of all men of good will, irrespective of their creed or form of worship, to establish peace on earth.” He also claimed: “In spite of all differences in character and responsibility, the churches and the United Nations have an aim in common and a field of action where they work side by side.”
Hammarskjöld also designed the Meditation Room that is in the public lobby of the UN building. It was built with funds collected by a mixed group of Muhammadans, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. In the middle of the austere room is a polished block of iron ore illuminated by a narrow shaft of light.
How did Hammarskjöld view that iron stone? He wrote: “We may see it as an altar, empty not because there is no God, not because it is an altar to an unknown god, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and in many forms.”
Billions of people believe in God. Many of them have seen Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II as well as Protestant clergy lend their support and blessing to the peace organization. The Vatican even has its permanent observer to the UN. Because of this religious support, some believe that the UN might really be God’s way to bring peace and security to the earth. Even now they are looking to 1986 as the UN “International Year of Peace.”
Do you believe that the UN is really God’s way to peace on earth? Do you think that the 40 years of history of this organization gives evidence of God’s blessing on it? Has the UN really united the nations in peace?
[Picture on page 3]
Dag Hammarskjöld sought the support of the churches for the UN
[Credit Line]
UN photo
*** g85 10/22 4-7 The UN-Has It United the Nations? ***
The UN—Has It United the Nations?
“WHO will establish the enduring peace, and when?” Jehovah’s Witnesses asked those questions in the booklet called Peace—Can It Last? published in 1942. Because of World War II the League of Nations was in a state of suspended animation, or ‘abyssed,’ as the Bible puts it. (Revelation 17:8) Thus the question was also raised, Will the League remain in the pit of inactivity?
Even at that early date, the Witnesses found the answer in the Bible. In the midst of World War II, the Peace booklet predicted: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” Did that forecast come true?
In April 1945 a conference was held in San Francisco to adopt a charter for the United Nations. In the book The Great Design, Cornelia Meigs describes what occurred when the meeting was due to open: “There was held a great and inspiring service in the Washington Cathedral, to pray for God’s help in the new undertaking. . . . It was notable at the Conference itself how many of the principal speakers, in their opening and closing addresses, invoked the aid of God in what they were setting their hands to do.”
Some wanted the Deity to be mentioned in the Charter. Others did not. The nations were not united, so “God” was left out. That division of opinion should have been an early warning of what was to follow. Nevertheless, the 51 founder nations signed the UN Charter, and the defunct League ascended from its ashes.
How has the UN differed from the League? And has it had more success in keeping the peace? Has it really united the nations?
The Secretary-General
The groundwork for a stronger and more effective organization was laid by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and their advisers. Those men represented the Big Three—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union—in conferences held in Moscow, Tehran, Yalta, and Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.). In fact, it was President Roosevelt who finally chose the name United Nations.
The UN’s General Assembly held its first session in January 1946. By February 1 the UN had appointed its first secretary-general, the Norwegian Trygve Lie. How did he view his appointment? “I had been nothing less than catapulted into the Secretary-Generalship of this new international organization, to preserve peace and promote progress in a world beset by unrest, poverty, and great-power rivalry. It was a challenge beyond my wildest dreams; but it was a nightmare as well. . . . I asked myself again and again, Why had this awesome task fallen to a labor lawyer from Norway?”
As with the old League, originally not too much was expected from the secretary of the organization. According to writer Andrew Boyd, the founders of the UN did not perceive how far reaching the secretary-general’s powers would be. As Boyd states in his book Fifteen Men on a Powder Keg: “They [the Big Three] never even glimpsed the possibility that the new world organisation’s chief official would have to run its international forces.” He adds: “They saw him as their creature, and a timid creature at that.”
Yet article 99 of the UN Charter clearly stated: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Italics ours.) As Trygve Lie wrote: “This Article confers upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations world political responsibilities which no individual, no representative of a single nation, ever had before.” Therefore, he was going to be a force to be reckoned with.
In fact, the influence of the secretary-general as a troubleshooter grew to the point that during the Congo crisis in 1961 Dag Hammarskjöld, who succeeded Trygve Lie, raised 20,000 troops and technicians from 18 countries to help end that conflict. In 1964 U Thant, who then held the position, was responsible for three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces.
The present secretary-general, Peruvian Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, commands UN peace forces that still operate in Cyprus and the Middle East. He also heads the Secretariat that now has a staff of about 7,400 at the UN headquarters in New York. Some 19,000 more work under the auspices of the UN in other countries. Yet, with all these human resources at its disposal, has the UN been effective in preventing wars over the last 40 years?
It Barks But Cannot Bite
The answer to that last question has to be yes and no. Twenty years after the League of Nations was founded in 1919, it went into its death throes when World War II erupted. Forty years after its founding, the UN is still on its feet. But while a third world war has not yet broken out, certainly many terrible wars have been fought and millions of people have suffered the consequences. The wars in Korea (1950-53), the Middle East (1948-49, 1967, and 1973), and Indochina/Vietnam (1945-54 and 1959-75) immediately spring to mind. Logically the question is, Why was the UN incapable of preventing those wars?
The answer given by UN officials is that the organization is only as effective as its members allow it to be. Mr. Stefan Olszowski, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated in a letter dated May 9, 1985: “Even perfect decisions of the Organization cannot yield expected practical results unless and until they have the response and support in the political will of Member States. I trust that mankind will succeed in halting and reversing the course towards the precipice.”
Therefore, the UN can only be a persuasive force, not a police force with powers of arrest. It is really a world forum, a debating arena wherein the nations present their grievances—if it suits them. As former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim wrote: “If they are not prepared to bring a problem to the [Security] Council, the United Nations can be of little help . . . The side-tracking or ignoring of the Security Council erodes its prestige and weakens its position . . . I regard this as potentially one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations.”
However, if nations do bring their problems to the UN, it is often to accuse and counteraccuse. The UN becomes a forum for political propaganda. That being so, you might ask, ‘How can the UN use its influence for peace?’
The answer given by UN officials is that the UN publicizes issues and tries to sway world opinion so that governments will respond. But in itself, it cannot take any armed action to prevent or impede a war. In that case, what about its own armed UN forces?
A UN publication answers: “These forces [if empowered by the Security Council or the General Assembly] typically assist in preventing the recurrence of fighting, restoring and maintaining order and promoting a return to normal conditions. To this end, peace-keeping forces are authorized as necessary to use negotiation, persuasion, observation and fact-finding. . . . While they are armed, they are permitted to use their weapons only in self-defence.” (Italics ours.) Thus their purpose is to dissuade others from conflict and avoid it themselves.
So, in reality, what does that make the UN? It turns it into a watchdog that is allowed to bark but not to bite. But at least a barking dog gives warning of trouble. Then why does the UN appear to be ineffective?
Where the Real Power Lies
According to Andrew Boyd, the problems of the UN were built into the Charter by the Big Three. He explains: “They bluntly told the smaller fry that they had already decided on a UN security structure which would be entirely controlled by the great powers. . . . There had been full agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that the proposed United Nations organisation was to be an instrument for the execution of decisions jointly made by the Big Three (with China and France as their privileged associates).”
Boyd continues: “Obviously, a system shaped by the Three themselves was not going to be one that involved them in surrendering any part of their vast military might to the control of the whole body of smaller states; or to that of the UN Secretary-General . . . or to the International Court or anybody else.” So how did they protect their monopoly of power and control?
Boyd explains: “The Three did not trust each other. The veto was to be their shield against each other as well as against the nose-count power of the lesser states.” What is the veto? It is the right to block a decision by a negative vote. It is reserved to the 5 permanent members (China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) of the 15-member Security Council. Thus, for a major Council decision to get through, it must have at least nine favorable votes including the concurring votes of the five. However, an abstention is not counted as a veto.
Thus, with the veto included, the UN Charter “reflected an expectation that the great powers were likely to quarrel.” With this kind of beginning, the “united” nations did not get off to a good start.
Nevertheless, here we are in 1985, and so far World War III has been avoided. The UN is still playing an active role in world affairs. Therefore, is it reasonable to believe that the UN could still be God’s way to peace?
[Box on page 6]
The UN Secretary-General and Some of His Problems
Trygve Lie (1946-53)_____________War in Korea; Middle East; the
Berlin Blockade
Dag Hammarskjöld (1953-61)_______War in the Congo; Soviet
intervention in Hungary; the
Middle East
U Thant (1961-71)________________War in Vietnam; civil war in
Nigeria/Biafra; crisis in
Rhodesia; India/Pakistan war;
Soviet intervention in
Czechoslovakia; the Middle East;
Cyprus; Cuban crisis
Kurt Waldheim (1972-81)__________War in Vietnam; Kampuchea;
Afghanistan; the Middle East
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (1982-)__War in Lebanon; Afghanistan;
Iran and Iraq
[Picture on page 4]
Trygve Lie asked, ‘Why has this awesome task fallen to me?’
[Credit Line]
UN photo
[Picture on page 5]
U Thant commanded three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces
[Credit Line]
UN photo
[Picture on page 7]
Kurt Waldheim wrote about “one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations”
[Credit Line]
UN photo
[Picture on page 7]
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar heads a staff of some 26,000
[Credit Line]
UN photo
*** g85 10/22 8-11 The UN-God's Way to Peace? ***
The UN—God’s Way to Peace?
“I am convinced that the United Nations provides the best road to the future for those who have confidence in our capacity to shape our own fate on this planet.”
THAT conviction was expressed by former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim in his book The Challenge of Peace. While admitting the UN’s shortcomings, he also explained: “One should realize that the United Nations is, after all, the world in microcosm. Its weaknesses must consequently be ascribed primarily to the contradictions that characterize the world community itself.” He adds: “I should point out that it [the UN] is no more than a mirror of the world it serves. That world is a conglomerate of extremely varied, often intractable, passionate, and antagonistic nations.” But not all commentators see the UN in such a favorable light.
In their book A Dangerous Place—The United Nations as a Weapon in World Politics, Professors Yeselson and Gaglione argue that from its earliest days the UN has been a forum for expressing belligerence, and that it is a tinderbox of antagonisms and political manipulations that can only fan the flames of international conflict. And what about the world in which it operates? “A perverse yet simple truth is that world politics is very much like a jungle. National behavior is fundamentally grounded in self-interest and survival. Obsession with the latter imparts to the nation-state system not only the law of the jungle but its morality as well.” As a consequence, “war has become a permanent feature of international relations.”
What a contrast with the high hopes they had when the Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945! Its preamble stated: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind . . . HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.”
Forty years later it sounds a little hollow. Instead of combining, the nations divide. Even now war is the daily fare of millions in one part of the earth or another! Every day people suffer and die as war victims—despite the existence of the UN.
Who Is Really Behind the UN?
Although having differing viewpoints, the two books previously quoted converge in an unusual detail. Waldheim says that the UN ‘is a mirror of the world it serves,’ and Yeselson and Gaglione compare that political world to a jungle. Thus the UN must inexorably reflect the same law of the political jungle that its members inhabit.
With this in mind, it is of great interest to note symbolisms used in the Bible. The Bible speaks of a “wild beast” and also its “image,” described as “a scarlet-colored wild beast.” (Revelation 13:1, 2, 14; 17:3, 8, 11) The first wild beast represents the entire worldwide political organization that has evolved over the past 4,000 years and that has culminated in the political diversity seen in the world today. Then what must the “image” of that beast represent?
According to the sources quoted above, which organization mirrors the present political system? Obviously, the UN with its 159 member nations, these constituting almost universal representation. (See page 11.) And the Bible symbols of wild beasts harmonize well with the ‘political jungle’ image. It is sad but true that many politicians have implemented and are still implementing their political philosophies like wild beasts—savagely killing off millions of people, combatants and civilians, in their wars and political purges. Torture and death squads have been and still are tools of political coercion. And most of these same governments and philosophies have their respectable representation at the UN.
In view of the foregoing, is it reasonable to believe that the UN could be God’s way to peace, especially when, by the simplest definition, “God is love”? (1 John 4:8) But if the UN is not God’s answer to the problem, who is really behind the UN?
The Bible leaves no doubt as to the origin of the “wild beast” political system and its UN “image.” In Revelation 13:2 we read: “And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” Who does “the dragon” represent? The same Bible writer clarifies that “the dragon” is “the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” But in what way is Satan misleading the world?—Revelation 12:9.
By every possible political scheme and philosophy, including the UN, Satan, the original liar, is diverting mankind’s attention away from the only true pathway to peace and security—the rule of God’s Kingdom over this earth. (John 8:44) For nearly two thousand years, professed Christians have prayed, “Let your kingdom come.” Yet most have had no clear concept of what is meant by God’s Kingdom. What does it mean to you? Now when that Kingdom is so near it is vital to get a proper understanding of it.—Matthew 6:9, 10.
Awake! correspondents know from personal contact that many sincere and dedicated people are working to further the aims of the UN. These sincere people also see the organization’s weaknesses, but like Kurt Waldheim and others, they believe that it is man’s only hope for lasting peace and security. They are not aware of any better solution. Yet there is an alternative that they have perhaps overlooked—God’s Kingdom rule.—Revelation 11:15.
The Only True Way to Peace
The Bible shows that the Kingdom of God refers to heavenly rulership, or government of the earth from the spirit realm. (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 21:1-4) This Kingdom government by Christ is already functioning worldwide and is preparing a supranational people for everlasting life under its rulership. This completely united body of people from all nations and of all languages is known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are the truly “united nations” who have already ‘beaten their swords into plowshares.’ They have also broken the shackles of racism and of parochial nationalism, which has been called “the most powerful and destructive force in international politics.” Those very shackles still bind and impede the UN.—Isaiah 2:2-4.
Through personal study of the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses know that only God’s Kingdom can bring true and lasting peace to this earth and that the time is very near for God’s Kingdom to take action. (Luke 21:31-33; Revelation 16:14, 16) ‘What action?’ you may ask. The destruction of those who are willfully ruining the earth. (Revelation 11:18) This includes the crushing of all divisive political elements. (Daniel 2:44) Thus Jehovah’s Witnesses reject as inadequate Satan’s counterfeit solution—the UN. But why is it inadequate?
The 17th-century Dutch philosopher Spinoza defined peace as “not an absence of war” but something much more all-embracing. He said: “It is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.” That can only be achieved by educating people in love and harmony rather than in hatred and division. As the Bible writer James recorded: “The fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.” (James 3:18) By their worldwide educational work Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching God’s ways of peace, for his Word states: “All your sons will be persons taught by Jehovah, and the peace of your sons will be abundant.”—Isaiah 54:13.
If you would like to know more about God’s Kingdom government, feel free to contact Jehovah’s Witnesses in your area. They will be glad to help you get to know God’s way to peace.
[Footnotes]
For further explanation of these Bible symbols, see the book “Then Is Finished the Mystery of God,” chapters 22 and 23, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
[Box on page 11]
Major Problems Affecting the UN
A partial list of current major world problems that concern many
of the UN member nations.
1. Nuclear arms race and the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. confrontation
2. North-South world economic imbalance; foreign-debt crisis in
developing countries
3. Hunger and poverty in Africa, gradual desertification of the
continent
4. Drugs, international traffic
5. International terrorism
6. South Africa’s apartheid policy and relations with neighbor
states
7. Namibia’s independence from South Africa
8. Israel and the Palestinian question
9. Turmoil in Lebanon
10. Iran-Iraq conflict
11. Southeast Asia, Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea
12. Central America, guerrilla warfare in El Salvador and
Nicaragua
13. Afghanistan, intervention by Soviet Union
14. World refugee problem, with more than ten million people
affected
15. Human-rights abuses
This listing is based on the speeches presented at the 39th session of the UN General Assembly in 1984 by 150 representatives, including 16 heads of state or government. (See UN Chronicle, Volume XXI, Number 8/1984.)
[Box on page 11]
How UN Membership Has Grown
1945 51 nations: Central and South America 19; Europe 14; Asia 2;
Middle East 7; Africa 3; Pacific 3; North America 3
1950 60 nations: Central and South America 19; Europe 16; Asia 7;
Middle East 9; Africa 3; Pacific 3; North America 3
1960 100 nations: Central and South America 19; Europe 27;
Asia 13; Middle East 10; Africa 25; Pacific 3; North America 3
1970 127 nations: Central and South America 23; Europe 28;
Asia 16; Middle East 12; Africa 41; Pacific 4; North America 3
1980 154 nations: Central and South America 29; Europe 30;
Asia 19; Middle East 16; Africa 50; Pacific 7; North America 3
1985 159 nations: Central and South America 32; Europe 30;
Asia 20; Middle East 16; Africa 50; Pacific 8; North America 3
[Picture on page 9]
The flags of 159 member nations are on display in front of the UN
[Picture on page 10]
Who have already ‘beaten their swords into plowshares’?
*** g85 12/22 7-11 Peace on Earth-Only a Dream? ***
Peace on Earth—Only a Dream?
AFTER surviving the horrors of World War II, people everywhere yearned for peace. “We have had our last chance,” General Douglas MacArthur declared. “If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system Armageddon will be at our door.”
That same year the Charter for the United Nations was signed. “We the peoples of the United Nations,” the preamble of the Charter affirms, are “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.”
The United Nations was thereafter hailed by political and religious leaders alike. In 1961 United States President John F. Kennedy called it “our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace.” (Italics ours.) And in 1965 Pope Paul VI said: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace.”
Yet, there has been no peace! Rather, tens of millions have since died in conflicts around the world, and disillusionment in the UN has grown. Despite the UN’s recent declaration of 1986 as an International Year of Peace, people everywhere doubt that true peace can ever be realized.
Another Hope
But what of the angelic pronouncement at Christ’s birth about ‘peace on earth’? (Luke 2:14) “The kind of peace about which the angels sang,” wrote religion editor Tom Harpur, “was not a merely personal, ‘safe-in-the-arms-of-Jesus’ sort of inner calm. . . . It means the peace which comes when justice prevails, fear is put to rout, and war is no longer even thinkable.”
From a human standpoint, such true peace may not seem possible. Yet, regarding the One at whose birth the angels sang, the Bible promises: “In his days the righteous one will sprout, and the abundance of peace until the moon is no more. And he will have subjects from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”—Psalm 72:7, 8.
Yes, what is foretold here is an earth-wide rule by God’s Son, Jesus Christ. It is promised to occur in fulfillment of the angel’s assurance to Mary regarding her child Jesus, “And he will rule as king . . . and there will be no end of his kingdom”!—Luke 1:32, 33.
‘But how can this be,’ you may ask, ‘when Christians do not hesitate to go to war and kill one another? What basis do we have for believing that such true peace is really possible?’
“Christians” Who Are Not Christians
First, it is vital to clarify what Christianity is and what it is not. Jesus himself said that a person is not a Christian simply because he says he is. In fact, he warned: “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering.” Jesus also said: “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”—Matthew 7:15, 21-23.
Jesus provided this rule: “By their fruits you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:16) This is really such a simple rule, or truth. Steve Whysall, staff writer for The Vancouver Sun, pointed this out, explaining: “Often you will hear people talk about how this or that was done in the name of Christianity and what an awful thing it was to do. Well, yes, it was awful. . . . But who ever said they were Christians who did those awful things?
“Oh, you say, the established churches say so. Well, who ever said the established churches are Christian?
“So the pope blessed Mussolini, and there is evidence of other popes who have done dastardly deeds in the past. So who said they were Christians?
“You think because a man is the pope he must be a Christian? Just because a person says ‘I am a Christian’ does not mean he is one—just as a man who claims to be a mechanic may not be a mechanic. . . .
“It’s amazing how many people think the fighting in Northern Ireland is some kind of holy war. That’s a lie.
“No Christian can war against another Christian—it would be like a man fighting himself. True Christians are brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. . . . They would never, never intentionally hurt one another.”
The Bible puts the matter very plainly, saying: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother.”—1 John 3:10-12.
Clearly, the churches provide no basis for believing that they can bring earth-wide peace. What does their record show? It shows that their members were the principal combatants in the world’s two greatest wars; they slaughtered not only one another but innocent women and children as well.
Well, then, is there any basis for hope that lasting peace can be realized?
Making War Impossible
Jesus explained how his true followers could be recognized. They would be “peaceable,” he said. (Matthew 5:9) He also gave this means of identification: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” In addition, Jesus said of his disciples: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”—John 13:35; 17:16.
In view of these teachings, do you believe that Christ’s early followers participated in the wars of the nations? Discussing this matter, Professor Reo M. Christenson wrote in The Christian Century: “The earliest Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes that ‘from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army’ . . . Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to military service.”
Thus, there was no such thing as a Christian going to war against a fellow Christian. No matter what a worldly ruler ordered, Christ’s followers would not become children of the Devil by slaughtering their spiritual brothers. They obeyed God as ruler rather than men! (Acts 5:29) So if the whole earth was inhabited only by true Christians, war would be impossible!
Happily, the Bible foretells that such a situation will actually occur. It says: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4, King James Version) These words have been inscribed on a stone wall just across the street from the United Nations’ main building in New York City, but it is obvious that UN members have not fulfilled them. Yet, early Christians did!
The prominent church historian C. J. Cadoux explained: “The early Christians took Jesus at his word . . . They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture.”—Isaiah 2:4.
So peace on earth is not an unattainable dream. Since adherence to Christ’s teachings made war impossible among his early followers, basis was provided for believing that peace earth wide would eventually be achieved. Is there a similar basis today for believing that peace on earth is possible?
Basis for Hope Today
Well, the Encyclopedia Canadiana observes: “The work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the revival and re-establishment of the primitive Christianity practised by Jesus and his disciples during the first and second centuries of our era. . . . All are brothers.”
Is this really true? When the nations became involved in World War II, did Jehovah’s Witnesses obey Christ’s teachings to “love one another” and to remain “peaceable”?—John 13:34; Matthew 5:9.
Yes, they did. The book The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-45, by J. S. Conway, explains: “Basing their case on biblical commandment, [Jehovah’s Witnesses] refused to take up arms.” Contrasting their adherence to Christ’s instructions with the actions of others, the Roman Catholic St. Anthony Messenger observed: “Jehovah’s Witnesses stand outside the ‘establishment’ and accept no responsibility to bless whatever the secular government decides to do. Thousands of good people find such aloofness from political and economic interests closer to the spirit of the New Testament than the present sometimes cozy arrangements between Church and state.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses everywhere place their hope for peace, not in the United Nations or in any other human peace effort, but in the reign of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. What if everyone did that? Yes, imagine what would happen if everyone heeded Christ’s teachings to “love one another” and to remain “peaceable”!
True Peace on Earth—Soon!
‘Peace on earth’ are words often heard at Christmas, accompanied by the visual image of a babe in a manger. But is this a true picture of Christ’s position? Not at all! Christ is now more than a baby prince—he has been given rulership and authority in fulfillment of the ancient Bible prophecy: “The princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called . . . Prince of Peace.”—Isaiah 9:6.
As God’s appointed Ruler of all the earth, Christ will bring peace to earth. But this will not occur in the way that many may expect. Please open your Bible to Revelation chapter 19 and read ÞRe 19 Üverses 11 to 16. It is vital that we get the picture of Christ’s position here described—as a mighty ruler at the head of God’s angelic forces. Notice that the scripture says that Christ, who is “The Word of God,” will ‘strike the nations and shepherd them with a rod of iron,’ removing them to make way for God’s government of peace.
This, then, is how peace on earth will be realized. It will not come by means of the United Nations or any other human peace agency. But it will be realized by means of God’s Kingdom government. We are now living at the time when this Bible prophecy will be fulfilled: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself . . . will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44.
In view of the foretold divine destruction of all these present governments, as well as the religions that support them, it is vital that we examine our own situation. If you agree that war does not make sense and that you would like to live on earth when peace is universal, contact Jehovah’s Witnesses. They will be pleased to help you to learn more about how peace on earth will soon be realized under the rule of God’s Kingdom.
Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah, how he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.—Psalm 46:8, 9.
[Blurb on page 8]
“We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who . . . slaughtered his brother”
[Box on page 9]
From a Killer to a Man of Peace
A traveling overseer of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the southern United States was making house-to-house visitations along with an older German Witness. At one door a woman who identified herself as a member of one of Christendom’s churches said she wanted nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses because they did not fight for their country. She had lost a son during World War II and felt that the Witnesses should also have helped in the war effort.
As they were leaving, the older German Witness asked if he could tell the woman something. ‘You know, I fought in that war,’ he said. ‘But I didn’t fight on the side of the United States. I fought on the side of Germany. And I was personally decorated by Adolf Hitler for single-handedly killing 35 American soldiers. Many of these were with my own hands, in hand-to-hand combat. Perhaps one of those men was your son. I don’t know. But you should have prayed for me to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses back then because when I did that I was a member of your religion.’
That gave the woman an entirely different perspective. Really, how can persons be true Christians and kill fellow believers simply because they are of a different race or nationality?
[Picture on page 10]
Who is fulfilling the Bible prophecy inscribed on this wall of the United Nation’s plaza?
*** g90 12/8 20-4 Part 9: Human Rule Reaches Its Climax! ***
Human Rule Weighed in the Balances
Part 9: Human Rule Reaches Its Climax!
Supranational political systems: empires, leagues, confederations, or federations formed between nation-states on either a temporary or a permanent basis in pursuit of common goals transcending national boundaries, authority, or interests.
OCTOBER 5, 539 B.C.E., found the city of Babylon in a festive mood. A thousand top governmental officials had accepted an evening invitation from King Belshazzar. Although menaced by the besieging forces of the Medes and the Persians, Belshazzar and his fellow politicians were not disturbed. After all, the city walls were impregnable. There was no immediate cause for fear.
Then, without warning, in the midst of the festivities, the fingers of a disembodied human hand began writing ominous words across the palace wall: MENE, MENE, TEKEL and PARSIN. The king’s knees began to tremble, and he grew pale.—Daniel 5:5, 6, 25.
Daniel, an Israelite and a worshiper of the God for whom Belshazzar and his governmental colleagues were showing contempt, was called upon to explain. “This is the interpretation,” Daniel began, “MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and has finished it. TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. PERES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.” The prophecy certainly bode no good. In fulfillment, “in that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.”—Daniel 5:26-28, 30.
Overnight, one form of human rule was replaced by another! In view of recent similar political upheavals in Eastern Europe, we may wonder if what happened to Belshazzar could have meaning for our day. Could this portend something for human rule in its entirety? We have every reason to give this serious thought, because “entire civilizations do perish,” says Columbia University professor Jacques Barzun, adding: “The tremendous endings of Greece or Rome are not a myth.”
Humans have devised every conceivable kind of government. After thousands of years of trial and error, what are the results? Has human rule been satisfactory? Can it provide solutions for mankind’s mounting problems?
Promises, Promises!
A partial answer is given by Bakul Rajni Patel, director of a top research center in Bombay, India. Accusing politicians of “absolute hypocrisy,” she says: “It is fashionable in India and other Third World nations for leaders to stand up on platforms and let forth rousing rhetoric about ‘development’ and ‘progress.’ What development and progress? Who are we fooling? You only have to look at the horrible statistics relating to the Third World: 40,000 children die every day from preventable illnesses.” She adds that at least 80 million children are malnourished or go to bed hungry every night.
‘But just a minute,’ you may protest. ‘At least give politicians credit for trying. Some type of government is necessary if the serious problems facing the world today are to be solved.’ True, but the question is: Should it be a man-made government or should it be one made by God?
Do not dismiss this question as being naive, thinking, as many people do, that God chooses to remain uninvolved. Pope John Paul II evidently also thinks that God has left it up to humans to rule themselves as best they can, since while visiting Kenya some ten years ago, he said: “An important challenge for the Christian is that of the political life.” He continued: “In the state citizens have a right and duty to share in the political life. . . . It would be a mistake to think that the individual Christian should not be involved in these areas of life.”
Humans, proceeding on this theory, and often with religious backing, have long searched for perfect government. Every new kind of government has been accompanied by grand promises. But even the best-sounding promises strike a discordant note when not kept. (See “The Promises Versus the Realities” on page 23.) Clearly, humans have not achieved ideal government.
Girding Together
Did nuclear scientist Harold Urey have the answer? He contended that “there is no constructive solution to the world’s problems except eventually a world government capable of establishing law over the entire surface of the earth.” But not everyone is so sure that this would work. In the past, effective cooperation among members of international bodies has been practically unattainable. Note an outstanding example.
After World War I, on January 16, 1920, a supranational organization, the League of Nations, was established with a membership of 42 countries. Rather than being structured as a world government, it was intended to be a world parliament, designed to promote world unity, chiefly by settling disputes between sovereign nation-states, thus preventing war. By 1934 membership had grown to 58 nations.
The League, however, was founded on shaky ground. “The First World War had ended on a note of high expectations, but disillusionment was not long in coming,” explains The Columbia History of the World. “The hopes centering on the League of Nations proved illusory.”
On September 1, 1939, World War II began, plunging the League into a pit of inactivity. Although not formally dissolved until April 18, 1946, it died, to all intents and purposes, as a “teenager,” not even 20 years old. Before its official burial, it had already been replaced by another supranational organization, the United Nations, formed on October 24, 1945, with 51 member states. How would this new girding attempt fare?
A Second Try
Some people say that the League failed because it was defective in design. Another view places the main blame not on the League but on the individual governments that were reluctant to give it proper support. No doubt there is some truth in both views. At any rate, the founders of the United Nations tried to learn from the ineffectiveness of the League and to remedy some of the weaknesses the League had manifested.
Writer R. Baldwin calls the United Nations “superior to the old League in its capacity to create a world order of peace, cooperation, law, and human rights.” Of a truth, some of its specialized agencies, among them WHO (World Health Organization), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), have pursued commendable goals with a measure of success. Also seeming to indicate that Baldwin is correct is the fact that the United Nations has now been operating for 45 years, over twice as long as the League.
A major UN accomplishment was in the hastening of decolonization, at least making “it slightly more orderly than it would have been otherwise,” according to journalist Richard Ivor. He also claims that the organization “helped limit the cold war to the battleground of rhetoric.” And he praises the “pattern of global functional cooperation” that it helped produce.
Of course, some argue that the threat of nuclear warfare did more to prevent the Cold War from heating up than did the United Nations. Rather than keeping the promise embodied in its name, the uniting of nations, the reality is that this organization has often done nothing more than serve as a middleman, trying to keep disunited nations from flying at one another’s throats. And even in this role of referee, it has not always been successful. As author Baldwin explains, like the old League, “the United Nations is powerless to do more than an accused member state graciously permits.”
This less-than-wholehearted support on the part of UN members is at times reflected in their unwillingness to provide money to keep the organization operating. The United States, for example, withheld its dues from FAO because of a resolution considered critical of Israel and pro-Palestinian. Later, this major UN financial backer agreed to pay enough to retain its vote but still left more than two thirds of the debt unpaid.
Varindra Tarzie Vittachi, a former deputy director of UNICEF, wrote in 1988 that he refuses “to join the general lynching party” of those who disavow the United Nations. Calling himself “a loyal critic,” he admits, however, that a widespread attack is being made by people who say that “the United Nations is a ‘light that failed,’ that it has not lived up to its own high ideals, that it has not been able to carry out its peacekeeping functions and that its development agencies, with a few noble exceptions, have not justified their existence.”
The chief weakness of the United Nations is revealed by author Ivor, when he writes: “The UN, whatever else it can do, will not abolish sin. It can make international sinning rather more difficult, however, and it will make the sinner more accountable. But it has not yet succeeded in changing the hearts and minds either of the people who lead countries or of the people who make them up.”—Italics ours.
Thus, the defect in the United Nations is the same as the defect in all forms of human rule. Not one of them is capable of instilling within people the unselfish love for right, the hatred for wrong, and the respect for authority that are prerequisites to success. Think of how many global problems could be alleviated if people were willing to be guided by righteous principles! For example, a news report about pollution in Australia says that the problem exists “not through ignorance but through attitude.” Calling greed a fundamental cause, the article says that “government policy has exacerbated the problem.”
Imperfect humans simply cannot form perfect governments. As writer Thomas Carlyle noted in 1843: “In the long-run every government is the exact symbol of its people, with their wisdom and unwisdom.” Who can argue against logic like that?
“Be Shattered to Pieces!”
Now, during the 20th century, the climax of human rule has been reached. Human governments have schemed to form the most brazen and defiant conspiracy against divine rule that has ever existed. (Compare Isaiah 8:11-13.) They have done so, not once, but twice, creating first the League of Nations and then the United Nations. Revelation 13:14, 15 calls the result “the image of the wild beast.” That is fitting because it is an image of the entire human political system of things on earth. Like a wild beast, elements of this political system have preyed upon earth’s inhabitants and caused untold misery.
The League ended in disaster in 1939. The same fate awaits the United Nations in fulfillment of Bible prophecy: “Gird yourselves, and be shattered to pieces! Gird yourselves, and be shattered to pieces! Plan out a scheme, and it will be broken up!”—Isaiah 8:9, 10.
When will this final shattering of “the image of the wild beast,” along with the system of human rule it reflects, occur? When will Jehovah end the human rule that challenges his sovereignty? The Bible gives no set date, but Bible prophecy and world events say: ‘Very soon.’—Luke 21:25-32.
The handwriting on the wall is there to be seen by all who care to look. As surely as Belshazzar’s kingdom was weighed in the balances and found deficient, just that surely has human rule in its entirety been judged and found wanting. It tolerates political corruption, provokes wars, promotes hypocrisy and selfishness of every kind, and neglects to provide its supporters with adequate housing, food, schooling, and medical care.
When human rule goes, it will go, as it were, in one night. Here today, gone tomorrow—replaced by God’s Kingdom, perfect government at last!
[Box on page 23]
The Promises Versus the Realities
Anarchies promise unlimited, absolute freedom; the reality is that without government there is no framework of regulations or principles within which individuals can cooperate for mutual benefit; unlimited freedom results in chaos.
Monarchies promise stability and unity under the rule of a single regent; the reality is that human regents, of limited knowledge, hampered by human imperfections and frailties, perhaps even moved by wrong motives, are themselves mortal; any stability and unity are therefore short-lived.
Aristocracies promise to provide the best in rulers; the reality is that they rule because they have wealth, a certain blood descent, or power, not necessarily because they have wisdom, insight, or love and concern for others; the inadequate ruler of a monarchy is simply replaced by the multiple rulers of an elite aristocracy.
Democracies promise that all the people may decide for the benefit of all; the reality is that citizens lack both the knowledge and the pure motives necessary to make consistently right decisions for the common good; democracy was described by Plato as “a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”
Autocracies promise to get things done and to do so without undue delay; the reality is, as journalist Otto Friedrich writes, that “even the best-intentioned men, once they enter the jungle of power politics, have to confront the necessity of directing actions that they would, in normal circumstances, be inclined to call immoral”; thus “good” autocrats turn into power-driven rulers willing to sacrifice the needs of their citizens on an altar of personal ambition or expediency.
Fascist governments promise to control the economy for the common good; the reality is that they do so none too successfully and at the cost of personal liberty; by glorifying war and nationalism, they create political monstrosities like Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler.
Communist governments promise to create a Utopian, classless society with citizens enjoying complete equality before the law; the reality is that classes and inequalities still exist and that corrupt politicians fleece the common man; the result has been widespread rejection of the communist concept, with its strongholds threatened with breakup by nationalistic and separatist movements.
[Box on page 23]
About the United Nations
• The UN currently has 160 members. The only countries of any size that do not yet belong are the two Koreas and Switzerland; a Swiss plebiscite held in March 1986 rejected membership by a 3 to 1 margin.
• Besides its main organization, it operates 55 additional special organizations, special agencies, human rights commissions, and peace-keeping operations.
• Every member nation is granted one vote in the General Assembly, yet the most populous nation, China, has about 22,000 inhabitants for every one inhabitant of the least populated member, St. Kitts and Nevis.
• During the celebration of the United Nations International Year of Peace in 1986, the world experienced 37 armed conflicts, more than at any time since the end of World War II.
• Of all UN member nations, 37 percent have fewer citizens than does the united international “nation” of Jehovah’s Witnesses; 59 percent have fewer citizens than the number of persons who this year attended the Memorial celebration of Christ’s death.
[Pictures on page 24]
It has been beyond the power of imperfect humans to provide perfect government
League of Nations
United Nations
*** w86 10/1 15 1986-A Year "to Safeguard Peace"? ***
1986—A Year “to Safeguard Peace”?
THE UN has proclaimed 1986 as the International Year of Peace. What progress is there toward world peace? The following comments come from around the globe.
From April 7 to 12, 1986, legislators from 103 countries took part in the 75th IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) meeting in Mexico City.
UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar conveyed this message to the Union: “As the International Year of Peace begins, let all be mindful that its theme—‘To Safeguard Peace and the Future of Humanity’—provides an important focus not only for 1986 but for the years ahead. Let us seize the opportunities of 1986 with determination.”
The president of IPU stated that he had visited a number of countries “to ask whether the parliamentarians there could not become parliamentarians of peace.” His conclusion: “I found out how difficult this is, indeed in some cases hopeless.”
The Mexican Group itself expressed “grave disappointment that despite growing public concern at the dangers of the arms race and the efforts made by the United Nations, no substantive progress has been made in recent years in the field of disarmament.”
The Argentine Group took into account “that neither the sixty million dead in the second world war, nor its nuclear epilogue in Hiroshima, nor the one hundred and thirty armed conflicts since then have been sufficient to teach mankind that he is on the threshold of self-destruction.” It was deeply concerned that “five nuclear Powers have accumulated more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, an amount that equals three tons of conventional explosives for each inhabitant of our planet.”
The permanent members of the UN Security Council were represented, and some of their comments were as follows:
The British Group stated: “A key policy objective must be to prevent an arms race in space. However, we need to be realistic . . . Space is already militarized.” The French Group stressed “that the inability of the United Nations to maintain collective security and peace stem in particular from the violation by some States of the essential principles of international and morality law.” The U.S.S.R. Group expressed “grave concern over the danger of nuclear catastrophe threatening mankind, which can lead to the end of civilization on earth.” The U.S. delegation was reported as saying that it would “attempt to communicate the need for international cooperation to combat terrorism.”
On the other side of the earth, the International Year of Peace was marked on March 21 by a rally in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang was more optimistic than others in saying: “So long as the people of the world keep up their unremitting efforts, they will certainly win peace.”
In connection with the UN International Year of Peace, Pope John Paul II has said that the Holy See wants to inspire a “worldwide movement of prayer for peace involving all nations and all religions.”
Peace eludes this world. And why? Real peace must be based on love; the world is divided by nationalistic pride and hatred. Real peace requires wise and just rulership; imperfect human rulers cannot measure up to this standard. Real peace must center around united worship of the one true God; the world’s religions are divided hopelessly into thousands of sects, none of which honor Jehovah as Sovereign Lord. Real peace requires the removal of “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil, and his system of rulership; only Jehovah’s Kingdom in the hands of His Christ can crush Satan and his works.—2 Corinthians 4:4.
[Pictures on page 15]
Australia’s gold “peace” dollar
Kenya’s 10-shilling “peace” stamp
*** w85 10/1 3-4 Peace and Security-The Hope ***
Peace and Security—The Hope
“The General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously declared 1986 as the International Year of Peace. The Year will be solemnly proclaimed on 24 October 1985, the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations.”
HOW do you view this official statement from the United Nations organization? Does it make you feel more confident about the future? Many would say that anything that holds out even the remotest chance of bringing peace is worth trying. So why not an “International Year of Peace”?
Certainly, such a “Year of Peace” would be in harmony with the goals of the founders of the United Nations organization. Back in 1944 the president of the United States declared: “We have been determined . . . to so organize the peace-loving nations that they may through unity of desire, unity of will, and unity of strength be in position to assure that no other would-be aggressor or conqueror shall even get started. That is why from the very beginning of the war, and paralleling our military plans, we have begun to lay the foundations for the general organization for the maintenance of peace and security.”
Those ideals were shared by many. “For the United Nations to come into existence, it was necessary for a large body of persons to believe in the human capacity for good, and to feel that their hopes might be justified,” says the book Defeat of an Ideal by Shirley Hazzard, who worked for a decade in the United Nations Secretariat.
The charter of the newborn organization expressed the hopes of its founders: “The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security . . . 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . . . 3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems.” Could anything be wrong with such goals?
Admittedly, the United Nations had an impressive start. Weighty world issues were discussed. In 1948 an outstanding Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. Valuable humanitarian work was initiated to alleviate poverty, hunger, sickness, and the plight of refugees. International standards were established, such as safety standards for ships and aircraft, health certificates for travelers to some regions, uniform postal rates, and the assignment of space on broadcast bands.
The United Nations was closely involved in the efforts to make peace in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1947-49. It even showed military muscle when soldiers under its flag went into Korea in 1950 and into the Congo (now Zaire) in 1960. There are still UN peace-keeping forces in Cyprus and the Middle East. Yes, in the last 40 years the United Nations has made its mark. More than 150 countries have shown that they recognize this by sending delegates to its distinctive headquarters in New York City, on the banks of the East River.
But to what extent has the United Nations fulfilled its basic mandate to “maintain international peace and security”? And what effect will the proclaimed “International Year of Peace” have?
-Zev
Learn about the Wtbts and the U.N.
** http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69 **