Thursday, December 29, 2011



Successful economic performance of an enterprise is a pre-requisite for the growth and security of its employees. The role of productivity therefore assumes great importance.

Improving productivity has always been a live issue for managements. As the profitability of an organization mostly depends on improvement in productivity therefore, managers are always striving to find ways for achieving the target of improved productivity.

Productivity is usually defined mechanically, as the ratio between input and the output. But, it is in fact an Organizational challenge encompassing the human, cultural, technological and moral aspects. It is an all-out effort in every sphere of activity of the organization towards achieving the target of most efficient management of all the available resources.

“Money", 'Machine", "Material" and "Method" all have their share of importance for increasing productivity But, it is "Man" i.e. the human resource which dominates the show. No amount of money, technological ingenuity or work innovation will do the trick. Unless the most vital resource, i.e. the human resource is ready to rise to the occasion there is no chance of meeting this challenge. Undue emphasis on engineering aspects may, affect the Esprit De Corps and culture of the Organization. Thus the human resource of the organization should form the focal point for any movement towards increasing productivity.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Encountering Peace: Half-way there


Our prime minister has learned to say the things the world wants to hear, but only his father really understands the truth: He doesn’t mean it.
‘I am very pessimistic on the future of Israel. The trends in general mood in Israel, US, worldwide are towards polarization, conflict and pessimism, and all is made worse by the worsening worldwide financial problems which I expect to end in a depression pretty much everywhere. I don’t expect Israel to avoid war with considerable casualties and damage.”

This is a letter I received this week from an American Jewish friend who is long-time friend and supporter of Israel, who has visited Israel many times. He is a regular contributor to pro-Israeli organizations – the Jewish Federation and others. His letter indicates deep concern and is similar to many voices that I hear from Jewish and non-Jewish groups visiting Israel. There are a lot of reasons this negativity.

The world on the eve of 2012 does not look like a happy place. As former US president Bill Clinton said, it is the economy probably more than anything else that is affecting the global mood of doom and lost hopes. In that respect, maybe this is the explanation for why Israel’s domestic mood appears to be somewhat more hopeful. We are not on the verge of economic/fiscal collapse.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Canadian Peace Alliance: Time to wage war against carbon emissions

Copenhagen. Cancun. Durban. Another year, another collective disappointment for people all over the world looking to the UN climate talks to produce the urgently
needed international action addressing the emergency of climate change. (For updates as negotiations wrap-up tonight or this weekend.
Luckily, even while the big polluters and obstructionists like the Harper government keep the world fiddling, there are grassroots movements and indigenous communities leading the struggle for climate action and climate justice. In April 2010, they convened in Bolivia and gave the world the Cochabamba People's Agreement. It's worth re-reading today, especially if you are feeling despair about the talks at Durban.

Monday, December 5, 2011


OBAMA' PEACEBy : Tasneem Hameed

President Obama has come a long way back, on the road for peace in the Middle East. It has been two steps forward and four steps backward. He got an enthusiastic welcome on his arrival at the international stage with hope and confidence that a new era had come. The Nobel Peace Prize for him although surprising for everyone (only, the people deciding about the award had thought about it) found few critics. There was an air of excitement about the things to follow. Obama's views on peace, human rights and dignity, equality and an equitable World Order made him a role model for the People working and aspiring for these causes. The change, he successfully sold to the American People looked inevitable at the international level as well. If the planet's most powerful man says something, he must be meaning that, they all thought. However, what did, actually happen and why, that is a separate story.

It would be worthwhile to trace Obama's thoughts and actions through his speeches at the international level for analyzing the reasons that brought about the change in his own thinking instead of the change he promised to the world. In his famous address at Cairo on 4th of June, 2009 President Obama after tracing the Arab-Israel conflict had this to say:
" For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop".

The message President Obama delivered to both Israel and Palestinians was that they should to forget their tragic past and instead of repeating it, move to create two states side-by-side recognizing each other's right to exist. He stated in clear terms that United States consider continued Israeli settlements as illegal.

In his first speech as president Of the United States at the UN General Assembly in 2009 he stated in unambiguous terms his charter for the human community by declaring:
"Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared. The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or they can tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child -- anywhere -- can enrich our world, or impoverish it.
In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it is what I will speak about today -- because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.
We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent action. For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.
On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.
This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way -- and I quote: "The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations -- or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world."
The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common.
In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides -- coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.
The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.
I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements".
The words he spoke, and the spirit behind the words arose the audience to acclaim the arrival of a messiah. The people the world over heaved a sigh of relief that at last the time they have waited for long has arrived. Here, was a leader destined to change the course of history and bring peace and prosperity to the world afflicted by violence, inequity, inequality and ruled by the principle of "Might is Right". The announcement about closure of Guantanamo Bay highlighted Obama's unequivocal attachment to law, and values of humanity. His mention of a shared destiny, quoting Franklin Roosevelt on United Nation's vision showed his belief in an equitable world order and exhibited his great vision of peace and equality. His reference to Arab-Israel conflict was, an unbiased statement of intent and drew positive comments.

In the 2010s session of the UNO General assembly President Obama after recounting the history of the Arab- Israel conflict had this to say:
"Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We have travelled a winding road over the last twelve months, with few peaks and many valleys. But this month, I am pleased that we have pursued direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem.
Now, many are pessimistic about this process. The cynics say that Israelis and Palestinians are too distrustful of each other, and too divided internally, to forge lasting peace. Rejectionists on both sides will try to disrupt the process, with bitter words and with bombs. Some say that the gaps between the parties are too big; the potential for talks to break down is too great; and that after decades of failure, peace is simply not possible.
But consider the alternative. If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to co-existence. The hard realities of demography will take hold. More blood will be shed. This Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity.
But consider the alternative. If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to co-existence. The hard realities of demography will take hold. More blood will be shed. This Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity.
I refuse to accept that future. We all have a choice to make. And each of us must choose the path of peace. That responsibility begins with the parties themselves, who must answer the call of history. Earlier this month, at the White House, I was struck by the words of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security, and dignity." President Abbas said, "We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause."
These words must be followed by action, and I believe that both leaders have the courage to do so. But the road that they have to travel is difficult, which is why I call upon Israelis and Palestinians--and the world--to rally behind the goal that these leaders share. We know there will be tests along the way, and that one is fast approaching. Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. Our position on this issue is well known. We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. Now is the time to build the trust--and provide the time--for substantial progress to be made. Now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so that it doesn't slip away.
The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here, next year, as we have for the last sixty, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. We can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life. We can do that.
Or, we can say that this time will be different - that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire. This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem's soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what's best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations - an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.
One of the first actions of this General Assembly was to adopt a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. That Declaration begins by stating that, "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.
The idea is a simple one - that freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice, and peace in the lives of individual human beings. And for the United States, this is a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity. As Robert Kennedy said, "the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit." So we stand up for universal values because it's the right thing to do. But we also know from experience that those who defend these values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights - whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments - have chosen to be our adversaries".

It was a great speech exhorting Israel and Palestinian Authority to come out of the past, and instead of relying on mere words convert these words into actions for achieving peace which is for the good of every one. Thanks to Obama, as narrated by him there was a definite progress during the year in the efforts to resolve the conflict. Talks, between Israel and Palestinian Authority started on the initiative of President Obama. He appreciated Israel's settlement moratorium and declared its extension as official US policy. He wanted the talks to continue until they were complete.
Hopes for an early and fair solution of the conflict were raised to new heights only because President Obama was involved in the efforts and due to his vision and an evenhanded approach. Obama looked on the way to glory and success where many others before him had failed miserably. Perhaps, it was due to his courage, leadership qualities and a mission to become part of a glorious chapter in the world's history. However, some pessimist thought that it was too early to pronounce a judgment on his achievements, as according to them he had still to face the political realities and power centers in his own country.
However, despite the emphasis on Human Rights there was no mention in his speech of closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay which was his first order as stated by him in his last year's speech. The order which was purely an internal matter having no external implications was eventually taken back. Does, that indicated the patterns of things to come and the existence of very strong hidden forces?

The year 2011 again saw President Obama at the United Nations General Assembly with almost 3 years in presidency, more experienced, more specific, but more elusive. The tone of a go- getter has changed to that of one who was only hoping for the best. Following is a part of his speech about peace in the Middle East.
"One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It's well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn't the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.
Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us -- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.
Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That's the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That's the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties.
We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There's no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.
But understand this as well: America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.
The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.
That is the truth - each side has legitimate aspirations - and that's part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes; each side can see the world through the other's eyes. That's what we should be encouraging. That's what we should be promoting".
There it was, and everybody could see a sea change in the tenor and the content of his speech in 2011, in the lack of urge for going the extra mile for the peace. While in 2010 he was saying that "we can come back here, next year, as we have for the last sixty, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. We can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life".

But, there he was, at it himself. He cited a list of familiar Israeli grievances amounting to accusations of the countries surrounding Israel. He did not have a plan to move forward, except for advising both Israel and Arabs to empathize with each other. There was no mention of Israeli settlements and non-extension of moratorium , which a year before was the official policy. The advice to the Arabs was clear and loud, "Recognize Israel" Israel's precondition for any talks.

What happened in 12 months that completely changed his mind, his peace initiative, his exuberance, his vision? Was it, something internal to the United States or there were some external factors?

It was a mix of both.

Internally his declining popularity, sagging economy, defeat in the Congressional Elections might have adversely affected his confidence. Or, as discussed elsewhere he for once, has come face to face with the political realities and Centers Of power with his tenure approaching its final year. Externally the blunt refusal by the Prime Minister of Israel to listen to him and his inability to do anything to counter the tough stand and uncompromising behavior shattered him as a person. But, this was not something new and he should have thought about all these factors before embarking on this journey.
Through his words he had created an impression that he is different from the previous lot. As a true leader he is ready to take on any one coming in his way for achieving what he considered, best for his country as well as for the world. The world had welcomed the emergence of a Statesman in Obama but, he too turned out to be a Politician , not even a Leader. He must remember that a Statesman gives his allegiance to the people and country while a Politician gives his allegiance to government. A Statesman's primary concern is to secure freedom for future generations while a Politician's primary concern is to get elected or re-elected. A Statesman will cause peace while a Politician will cause wars. A Statesman creates history while a Politician becomes part of the history the day he is out of office.

If President Obama thinks that his chances of being re-elected as president will be adversely affected if he takes necessary drastic actions for Israeli-Palestinian peace not liked by Israel, and that after re-election he would become stronger and could take on all those who are thwarting his way, he is not only sadly mistaken, but also playing in the hands of those who wants the status quo. He may, still lose taking all his good intentions and plans with himself to Chicago. On the contrary, if he stands up now, he may make peace, create history, recognized as a Statesman and still win the elections as well as an hounrable place in the history by winning peace. The choice lies with Obama, if he fails to grasp this moment of truth, the people of the world must join hands and voices in demanding the taking back of the Nobel Peace Prize from him which, he did not deserve then and does not deserve now.

Friday, December 2, 2011



The Psychological Roots of War  (An extract from  Peace Within Our Grasp By Crandall R. Kline Jr.)

...we know that in order for people to live together peacefully, in a civilized manner, many rules are necessary.

Man's loose interpretation of the meaning of "freedom" has contributed to his discontent. People tend to think of freedom in an absolute sense. The ultimate freedom is living on a deserted island where one has no need to be concerned about neighbors or what neighbors think. This is of course an impossible ideal in a crowded world, so we need to define freedom as it applies to living in a democracy, and this we have done (in Chapter 17). When people understand the limitations of freedom, they will not be misled by unrealistic expectations and will be more satisfied, less discontent, with all the rules of civilization.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


Threats to humanity loom as climate change talks start in Durban

Durban - The Summit on Climate Change starts today in Durban, South Africa, aiming to reform the global energy system and to negotiate the renewal of the Kyoto Protocol until 2020; the possibility of failure to reach a significant agreement looms.

The XVII Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol began today in the South African city of Durban. Some 20,000 delegates and observers from 194 countries and regional blocs will meet until December 9 to address the problems associated with climate change.

Sunday, November 13, 2011


By: Tasneem Hameed

Although all inhabitants of the planet earth are similar in their physical being and basic needs, still it stands divided geographically, historically, politically, economically, socially, psychologically and emotionally. Despite great strides in the areas of human rights, democracy and technological development inequity and inequality continue to haunt us. It would be proper go through The Preamble and some articles of Universal Declaration Of Human Rights issued by the United Nations Organization to know, what was the agenda for our world and, where we stand now.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of Mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
· All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.

· Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
It sounds sweet, but its hollowness is for everyone to see.
Historical divide mostly relates to the past events, wars and acts of torture perpetrated by one country on another, and should have served as a lesson learned and accepted as closed and past transaction. But, the talk of war between civilizations, crusades and the like resulted in opening old wounds and spreading hatred among different religions and communities.
Geographical divide to a certain extent was natural, but to use it for further dividing the world is illogical and dangerous. This classification of groups, the North into the rich northern countries, and the South into the poor southern countries had political, and economic reasons . Although based on the theory that most of developed countries are in the north and most of the developing or underdeveloped countries are in the south. But, it is important to remember that not all countries in the North could be called "developed" while some of the countries in the South, could be called developed. So why this divide?

Political divide is the mother of all divides and played a devastating role in dividing the people and the states for political gains and expediency. The Cold war gave rise to the concept of new worlds. The terms "First World," "Second World," and "Third World" countries differentiated between democratic countries, communist countries, and those countries that did not align with democratic or communist countries. Another group of countries calling itself non-aligned also came into existence during this period to take their seat at the table as representative of the third world. However, that too was more an attempt by its main leaders to build their reputation internationally than to do some good for the countries they were representing. Ironically some of the prominent countries were actually more aligned with the First or the Second world for their interests, but not officially. The Chief George Manuel of Shuswap tribe, invented the term "Fourth World in 1970s that refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous people, "First Nations" as described by him living within or across national state boundaries.
After the cold war the terms became obsolete and, the worlds and groups irrelevant.

The inventor of the most recent divide was the ex-President George Bush, who after the most tragic and barbaric events of 9/11 declared that a country is either with the USA or against it, dividing the world into two groups , one who supported the USA , declared as friends and the others as enemies.

Economic and the social divide have common patterns because of their close relationship. The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor countries as well as rich and poor people, has bifurcated the world between haves and have-nots. According to one study the economic and social gap between the world's richest and poorest 1 billion people has no historical precedent.

According to a report of the World Health Organization (WHO) roughly 1.2 billion people are undernourished, underweight, and often hungry. At the same time, roughly 1.2 billion people are over nourished and overweight, So, while a billion people spend their time worrying whether they will eat , another billion worry about eating too much. Disease patterns also reflect the widening gap. The billion poorest suffer mostly from infectious diseases- malaria, tuberculosis, dysentery, and AIDS. Malnutrition leaves infants and small children vulnerable to infectious diseases. Unsafe drinking water takes a heavier toll on those with hunger-weakened immune systems, resulting in millions of fatalities each year. In contrast, among the billion at the top of the global economic scale, it is diseases related to aging, obesity, smoking, and exercise deprivation that take the heaviest toll.

Formation of the Group of 5 and Group of 8 (G5 + G8) countries is the latest method of dividing the world. The most affluent countries decided among themselves to decide the economic destiny of the world by planning and implementing economic policies at the international level. The international financial institutions being mostly funded by these countries helped in their implementation.

Psychologically and emotionally a vast population of the world stands alienated and find itself in the throes of poverty, ignorance, disease and misery. They see the other side of the divide thriving and controlling all the resources for their own good. This has led to the feelings of despondency, hopelessness, fear, anger and hate for those who matters and who could do much to make the world a better place to live, but are busy in making more money, getting more resources and powers. This divide, is relatively a recent phenomenon and has started to take a definite shape. If inequity and inequality continue to rise and there is no serious attempt to bridge the yawning gap between the two ends of the great divide a situation is fast approaching where the suffering people will take matters in their own hands, movement like Capture Wall Street could be a symbol of things to follow.

The agenda set by the UNO is in tatters, there are no signs of any positive development to reverse the situation and take immediate remedial steps. Those who control the destiny of the world are in partnership irrespective of their professions, or state boundaries for their common cause. So what lies in store? What could be done? Is Professor Dr. Steven Hawking right in expressing doubts about the survival of human race when he asked the big question "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially, and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?"

For finding a way out it is necessary to decide about the starting point. As discussed above the political divide is the mother of all divides and could be the starting point. Evidently the power of state dominates all other powers and if it does not continue to stay subservient to political expediency, the so-called national interests, greed for more power and its retention, then a lot could be done to reverse the situation.

The most powerful countries of the world must to work together for saving humanity from the impending disaster, and if they failed they too will ultimately become the victim of its consequences. The rulers of these (8 to 10) the most powerful countries, economically as well as militarily must set an agenda for the next 25 years based on the following fundamental principles and stand guarantors for its implementation:

1. A declaration that there is only, ONE WORLD and that Peace and prosperity is the right of every human being and that and every country will have an equal right to the resources of the planet earth based on its needs, made and signed by all the countries of the world. The countries and the people who have been left far behind on the human development scale will have the priority in this distribution.

2. The policies of all the countries must conform to what is right and just, instead of on double standards, political expediency and self-interest .

3. All the weapons of mass destruction will be destroyed, and drastic cut made in the conventional weapons.

4. Ensure the goal of Peace in the world by removing the underlying causes of war, conflicts and terrorism for preempting them in future.

The first point of the agenda enunciates the principles while the remaining three will greatly help in its implementation. One can imagine about the resources that will be available if the huge amount spent on nuclear and other weapons will be used for improving the lives of people inhabiting our planet. No doubt there will be difficulties in setting the agenda and its implementation, but if, those who could do it are honest, realistic and bold enough to realize what will be the consequences for everyone, if the present situation and conditions continue, they could do it.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Human Race Survival


“In a world that is in chaos politically, socially, and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?” Dr. Steven Hawking
One way to answer the question posed by Dr. Steven Hawking, is to predict the future events. It could be done by looking into the events of the immediate past and present having common patterns and having, lasting effects. History tends to repeat itself in similar circumstances, and it may also be helpful in finding a way to probable future events. A fact however, should not escape our attention, and that is the factor of change. Change is inevitable and is supposed to be the only Constant. Change will be factored into any analysis about future events. Thus, it’s a mix of continuity and constancy which will define the future.

Considering the period 1910-2010 as the immediate past, analyzing it from the political, social and environmental point of view will be helpful in predicting their likely shape in the hundred years beginning 2011.
Starting from Politics, we find a mixed bag of events ranging from wars to victories in the areas of democracy and human rights. The first world war resulted in the killing of 15 million people, and in the second world war 63 million people lost their lives. There had been wars in Viet Nam, Middle East, South Asia, Yugoslavia, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq to mention the more prominent in which millions lost their lives. The nuclear bomb used for the first time in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA and the number of nuclear states continued to grow. There had been revolutions in the Soviet Union, China and Iran with far-reaching consequences. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of terrorism also happened during this period.
This was a period of great advances in science and technology. It saw the invention of the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Simultaneously, technology also helped in ushering a new era of development in business, trade and industry. The arrival of the Internet completely changed the landscape of business leading to globalization. However, despite these positive changes bad management practices derailed the economies of even the most developed countries. The gap between the rich and the poor continued to grow even in the most developed countries. The rise of China as the second biggest economy of the world greatly influenced the international markets and business. Democracy and the concept of human rights and its protection became more widespread, although not achieving the level expected of a civilized world.
The education and health sectors saw great strides in their modernization and finding cures for fatal diseases, however, it was limited to the developed countries. Growth and technological development brought new health problems and challenges.
In the environmental area there was a very late, and very little realization about its importance and consequences of being ignored. The developed countries, the main cause of global warming, failed to act properly in controlling it and continued to care more about their industrial development than acting to avert the looming disaster.
Seeing in totality hundred years ending 2010 were the years of turmoil, destruction, inventions, advancement of democracy and human rights and rapid changes.
For answering the question, which is the topic of this discussion, it is important to find the factors which need constancy and those that must change. The answer is not very difficult. Factors which enhance the survival and sustenance of human race must stay and those that hinder or contribute to it will be eliminated. As discussed in the beginning change is the only constant and cannot be averted, it is necessary to direct it towards the efforts of sustaining the human race.
In the near past the elements which endangered the human sustenance had been wars, nuclear weapons, inequity and global warming. For removal of the dangers to human sustenance world needs the following measures:
Removal of the underlying causes which had and may lead to war and terrorism.
Destruction of nuclear weapons and putting limitations on conventional weapons.
Master plans for the economic development and provision of education and health facilities to underdeveloped countries and its implementation in letter and spirit.
All acts contributing to global warming will be declared international crime and regulations enacted for monitoring and control.
But, who will do it and why will all the countries agree to it?
A new world organization by the name of One World Organization will be created in place of the United Nations Organization with the charter of implementing the measures enumerated above with full powers of implementation. All the countries should sign the charter and help in its implementation. This is the change discussed earlier which would cut dangers to sustenance of the human race and help in laying the foundations of a new world order, based on the principles of equity, human dignity, and sharing of gains and pains. ONE WORLD ORGANIZATION is the solution of all the problems confronting humanity. We have one earth why cannot we have one world when we all say all human beings are equal.