It is carved on a wall facing the UN.

by Blueblades 11 Replies latest jw friends

Blueblades

No matter what your beliefs, the words of the prophets still ring out for all humankind: Carved on a wall facing the United Nations headquarters in New York is one of Isaiah's most powerful -- and as -- yet -- unfullfilled -- prophecies: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore."
With the way the nations are in some way or other warring, engaging in some form of hostility, whether in military conflict or other struggles, one can only wonder whether Isaiah's prophecy is just one man's dream that yet remains unfullfilled.If it came true in Isaiah's day,then, how is it that the nations have learned war again?
I wonder how many of the representatives actually read that carving on the wall and try to fullfill it.Or how many just walk by it on the way to work with an indifference, a shrug of the shoulders, giving no thought to the words what so ever,as they see to the everyday affairs of the nations.
It seems to me that we will not see a fullfillment of those words any time soon in the near future, if ever.
Any thoughts on this?
Blueblades
Bubbamar

It won't happen while Bush is in office --That's for sure.
THe swords will be reduced to liquid steele when the "nucular" weapons start going off though.
I think the sun will burn out before humans become so peaceful and loving as to stop fighting.
Just my .2c I hope I'm wrong!!!
Happy Guy :)

I wonder how many of the representatives actually read that carving on the wall and try to fullfill it.Or how many just walk by it on the way to work with an indifference, a shrug of the shoulders, giving no thought to the words what so ever,as they see to the everyday affairs of the nations.
I would hazzard to guess that many know that war is bad for everyone not just from a direct human misery toll but economically as well. Most nations just want to improve their lot and from an economic point of view the "peace dividend" is by far the most prosperous route for nations in the long term and for sustained economic growth. It will take more than a few decades to undo thousands of years of warlike behaviour. As well, there will always be the existance or threat of existance of lunatic dictators. That is something which will make any efforts of the U.N a work in progress.
kwintestal

Until the root causes of war and terrorism are addressed and defeated, there will always be war and terrorism.
No matter what country you live in, people don't like to be exploited, and the western world is doing just that to third world countries.
Until you stop that, terrorists will create terror, and Dictators will attempt to conquer.
Kwin
Undecided

Kwin,
people don't like to be exploited, and the western world is doing just that to third world countries.
How is the western world doing the exploiting of the third world countries? Considering the money being given to them by the western world it seems the opposite is true.
Ken P.
kwintestal

How is the western world doing the exploiting of the third world countries? Considering the money being given to them by the western world it seems the opposite is true.

True, there is money going over there, for services recieved. But how much money goes over there? Is it enough to ensure that the workers recieve the same quality of life as the average western world individual?
These people often work long hours for next to nothing just to get by, living in shacks, while corporations thrive off their sweat.
Think of that and justify it as you will, however you must understand that however you rationalize it as being OK, the one being forced to work for next to nothing is the same one who will fight and terrorize to get a better lot in life. Is it right? No. But what do they have to lose?
Kwin
czarofmischief

I agree, Kwin. But how can we help them? They need to unionize. And to unionize, you need a democratic government - the first thing any dictator does is bust up the unions. And how can democracy best be acheived?
CZAR
Happy Guy :)

Kwint my fellow Canadian (how I love thee) but please explain these comments:
True, there is money going over there, for services recieved
What about all the money sent over in the form of aid?
Is it enough to ensure that the workers recieve the same quality of life as the average western world individual?
Why is it up to the Western world (you and I) to ensure that the workers recieve the same quality of life as us?
Is it not enough that we are improving their conditions must they be the same?
and, if they are to be the same how do we ensure that the many who make their home in the armpit/hellhole of Bangladesh or the wasteland of some desert equal to a Canadian who wakes up to the splendor and magnificence of the Canadian rockies or the luxuries of Toronto?
and lastly,
the one being forced to work for next to nothing is the same one who will fight and terrorize to get a better lot in life.
Where are western corporations forcing people to work for next to nothing- what country? Are you sure it is not by choice?
If the Corporations were to not do business in these countries and not offer these third world people work in exchange for monetary compensation are these third world people better off without these employment opportunities? or worse off?
If western corporations did not do business and employ third world labour who would? would they be any more fair?
Would these people not have an opportunity to improve their lot and organize into collectives where they can bargain for higher wages and healthcare? These are labour concepts which are intertwined with western capitalistic business/labour culture.
kwintestal

Hey there Happy Guy. Very good points, some I hadn't thought of. I'm not educated and could very well be misinformed (I won't say wrong cuz that never happens!) These are just my personal thoughts on things.
What about all the money sent over in the form of aid?
Is there enough money sent? I know that anything helps, but with so many 3rd world nations, is there enough money given to go around. Much of the money given is earmarked for a certain cause, ie. AIDS or the like.
Why is it up to the Western world (you and I) to ensure that the workers recieve the same quality of life as us?
Is it not enough that we are improving their conditions must they be the same?
It's not up to us. But if you were living in "the armpit/hellhole of Bangladesh or the wasteland of some desert" and constanly got visuals of beautiful Canada/USA/Western Europe wouldn't you long for something better, and do something to get it. What caused WW2? A large part was the burdens that the world put on Germany. It ruined the economy, and quality of life. So how did they improve it for themselves? They took things, those things being other countries much wealthier then them.
Don't get me wrong, improving things is a good start. I think there must be more.
Where are western corporations forcing people to work for next to nothing- what country? Are you sure it is not by choice?
It is their choice. But take the example of Nike shoes. They pay the person who makes the shoe $0.20 an hour wage. The shoe sells for $100. COULD Nike offer more to that employee? Yes. Does the employee take the wage? Yes. Why? Because that's all he can get. There's noone else offering. That where I feel these people are being exploited.
If the Corporations were to not do business in these countries and not offer these third world people work in exchange for monetary compensation are these third world people better off without these employment opportunities? or worse off?
Your point is 100% correct. They would be worse off, no doubt about it.
Would these people not have an opportunity to improve their lot and organize into collectives where they can bargain for higher wages and healthcare? These are labour concepts which are intertwined with western capitalistic business/labour culture.
When was the last time you heard of a unionized sweatshop? Would these corporations negotiate with 3rd world unions? I'd think that the union would have very little bite, as the employee often as much more to lose then the company.
The problem Happy Guy, is that someone has to lose. How can you get a win-win situation, where someone in a third world country has enough that he isn't envious of what you and I have?
Kwin
Happy Guy :)

Just a couple of things Kwint:
What caused WW2? A large part was the burdens that the world put on Germany.
It is interesting because this was Hitler's propoganda and apparently it was so effective that inspite of his racial monstrosities, people 50 years later still use (or should I say misuse) his propoganda. Let's remember that other countries were aggressors in WW2 as well. Let's take the example of Italy and Japan. Are we to believe they were aggressors in WW2 because they were somehow protesting a western world placing burdens on Germany? I think not. Even Germany's involvement in WW2 was driven by an evil psycopath who was fixated on world domination and ethnic cleansing. He ruled his country like a cult. Many actually did not like what Hitler stood for but they were so afraid of being exposed as against Hitler by their neighbours that many went along for the evil ride.
With regard to Nike offering pay to citizens of less developed countries: Is it that the citizen has no other alternatives for a livelihood or is it that Nike is it's best alternative. Why should western companies be critisized for offering a superior wage to third world citizens simply because the wage is low by our western standards? Should we be so interventionist and arrogant as to impose our higher wages (minimum wage) on foreign countries or should we allow them to control there own free market forces? This type of action should only be used against countries who violate human rights.
and with regard to this:
When was the last time you heard of a unionized sweatshop? Would these corporations negotiate with 3rd world unions? I'd think that the union would have very little bite, as the employee often as much more to lose then the company.
This is where you are mistaken (as are many others). The whole process of industrial revolution (and more importantly evolution) will force the development of collective bargaining just as it has in western economies. In fact more so today because of the rapid access to and flow of information and people.
As for companies having more bargaining power, it is very much dependant on: Economic conditions; regional labour market conditions; and, global ease of capital movement. These are conditions which will be issues in every country. As for a concern that a company would have more leverage in negotiating: Even if it were always true (because it is not always true); that's life. Somewhere there is a point of agreement where Business and Labour meet. The goal of a free society is (in many western countries) to provide everyone an educational (or learning skills) opportunty to better themselves. This would be a far better goal to improve these educational opportunites for everyone.
As for the comment you can't have a win-win situation i.e. there must be a loser. That too is incorrect. The function of free markets is that we all are (or will be) better off through specialization and trade in the long term. Many have a difficult time understanding this in the short term as they go through a process of re-tooling their skills with (in my opinion) not enough help from society with skills training costs while the worker is temporarily realigned into the labour force..

It is carved on a wall facing the UN.

Share this