An Essay And Article On “One World”

It has always been the dream of humans, to live together. After all, we are said to be the members of a single large family. The whole world is said to be the dwelling place of that large family. But, we don’t live together. We have separated ourselves with national boundary. Most of us show allegiance to this boundary only. We are not at all concerned, what is happening on the other side of the wall. But, we do not fail to pole at others affairs, if that suits our requirements. The result of the interference in others’ matters is the present world, full of conflicts.

World Condition Today

Going by the present world situation, one world is a utopian concept. But, if we consider the benefits of the ‘One World’, it is worth-trying for it even after a thousand failures. We spend billions and billions of dollars on buying defense equipments. All this money would then be utilized for development purpose to solve the problems of hunger, illiteracy, disease, etc. We always live under the shadow of possible nuclear holocaust. All nuclear equipments would be disposed off due to non-existence of boundaries in the ‘one world’. People of the one world would strive for higher meanings of life, try to discover existing life in other parts of the universe if any, try to free this world from deadly disease, spread only love, love and love.

Since the one world is a utopian concept. In the near future we may not reach that target. But by making serious efforts, we may make the world a better place to live in. Currently, there are many areas which are worrying us. The four major areas of concern are: economy, environment, international law and community. Since complex environmental questions such as holes in the ozone layer and global warming are not confined to individual nations, they cannot effectively be addressed by individual nation states. They require international ethical thoughts and the international cooperation of governments, scientists and citizens. Exploring a number of ways to think ethically about environmental questions, considering principles of fairness, such as “he who harms pays,” and finding ways to apply the utilitarian calculus of the greatest good for the greatest number, it can be concluded that the United States and other rich nations should bear much more of the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the poor nations-perhaps even the entire burden.

The rich nations use a dis- proportionate share of the world’s resources but can get away with not paying their fair share of the burden by standing simply on their presumed rights as sovereign nations. The one organization which is behind the major economic concern is World Trade Organization. Its decisions actively harm the environment and ignore human rights; that through many of its rules and trade agreements and its philosophy of free trade, it erodes national sovereignty; that its decision- making structure is undemocratic; and that the economic trade it promotes actually increases the gap between rich and poor nations. There is some validity in these complaints-that something like the WTO is necessary. Just as national laws and regulations were eventually seen as essential to prevent the inhuman harshness of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism in the industrialized nations, so instituting global standards is’ the only way to prevent an equally inhuman form of uncontrolled global capitalism.

However, it is possible to imagine a reformed WTO in which the overwhelming commitment to free trade is replaced by a commitment to more fundamental goals. The world needs global standards and an end to uncontrolled global capitalism. The charge of the developing country is the WTO is a primary mechanism through which northern and western countries impose their philosophy of trade on the rest of the world, for their own great economic benefit. The same complaint is raised against other international agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The dictatorships or other “non-legitimate” forms of government is making bad environmental and economic decisions. The need of an hour is an international “tribunal consisting of judges and experts to scrutinize the credentials of each government on a regular basis.

The historical evidence to demonstrate that something like an international standard of what a sovereign state should be, has evolved, a standard that could be used to guide intervention; The ‘democratic concept of legitimate government’ in which the concept of national sovereignty carries no weight if the government rests on force alone. Even UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan supports humanitarian intervention. When death and suffering are being inflicted on large numbers of people, and when the state nominally in charge is unable or unwilling to stop it.” The emerging area of the ethical debate to which informed citizens, religious communities and the like need to pay attention: What are the proper limits of national sovereignty? It makes sense to insist that “global ethics should not stop at, or give great significance to, national boundaries. National sovereignty has no intrinsic moral weight.” Yet one is forced to ask many questions about one’s position. What distinguishes the simple imperial invasion of one country by another from the humanitarian intervention? Who decides? The limits of the state’s ability and willingness to protect its people are also the limits of its sovereignty. This argument addresses some issues but raises a series of other issues.

World needs Unity And Peace

For example what about the many ways the language of humanitarian intervention may be cynically used to justify imperial and military aggression? What about the fact that some nation states have a highly disproportionate amount of military power? The argument may sound reasonable enough if one is sitting in the US where we can be pretty sure that no other country will dare invade. But it does not sound reasonable to those in countries that are likely to be on the receiving end of the logic. In fact, American exceptionalism in the past several years proves the point that power is an important factor while thinking about moving beyond the nation state. There are many instances in which the US had refused to cooperate with already established international rules or in creating new ones, ranging from the Kyoto Treaty, to the treaty on landmines, to its frequent disregard of the United Nations, are examples of one way of living globally, as a hegemonic power that plays by its own rules. The international concern over such American exceptionalism is widespread. Americans should try to comprehend it and take it seriously. The issue is not simply how to live together in this world, but how to live together when one nation is so economically and militarily dominant.

Incoming search terms:

• essay about livig in one season