GLOBAL VOTINGS FOR ALL THE WORLD

Pay attention, we are not looking at whether it was the right action to start military operations or who was at fault! What we are looking at is the attitude of others, our attitude, the attitude of humanity. Is it the one we want? Is our attitude in line with our desire and beliefs?

The tragic multi-month war between Russia and Ukraine, on the outrageous pretext of the expansion of NATO and the isolation of Russia, in addition to the suffering of many millions of innocent people, also woke up the cold war from hibernation by implementing new major armaments programs and the possibility of a new world conflict seems like a reasonably possible scenario of life!

Another recent example of claims by one state against another, which eventually escalated into a war conflict, concerns the Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Once again the powerful states condemned the escalation, recommended restraint and called the two sides back to the negotiating table, while on the back side Turkey was helping its friend Azerbaijan to win and the rest of humanity remained inactive. What is left in the end are many dead, even innocent children, many displaced people who burned their houses and their churches so that the next ones would not desecrate them and much hatred and much pain, which acts as an unquenchable hearth of war in the world.

So are we satisfied with how the differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan were resolved?

The tensions that have continued for many years between Greece-Turkey and Cyprus-Turkey with continuous violations, blackmail, provocations, disputes and exploitation of immigrants, how long will they continue? Many times things get to the edge of war. Shouldn't the world community decide who is right and who is wrong and ensure that what is right is finally imposed in accordance with the ideal universal law? Shouldn't every possible action be taken to avoid another war with all its negative, ugly and bad consequences?

And the same shouldn’t happen in the case of Ukraine-Russia and in any other case when two states have differences or when a state exhibits blackmailing, threatening and aggressive behavior?

Isn't war a failure to enforce justice? Isn't war itself unjust? For how long will the small states become pawns in the hands of the great powers, in the game of competition, hostility and rivalry between them?

So this is our world’s universal law? The strongest wins? The law of the jungle? Who is really right and whether a better solution could be found and imposed is none of our business?

What we are only interested in is bullying and abuse between people and not between states; Or are we interested and we just haven't achieved this yet?...

The first universal law could be…

"All states accept the borders and the freedom of the inhabitants of each region, to choose in a democratic way, their way of life and self-determination as they wish. No state has the right to blackmail and harass another state or region, otherwise the offended state will fall under the protection and responsibility of the world community to ensure the freedom of expression of its inhabitants, while the state which offends will have to face the global security force.

When there are disputes between two states, they will be resolved automatically by the universal court, in accordance with international and universal law, and these decisions must be accepted by both parties, otherwise whichever party does not accept the decision will have to face the sanctions of the world Commonwealth

Making a new beginning as humanity, forgiving the mistakes of the past and setting a new principle where all states accept common world laws, based on the principle that all states have the same rights and obligations, as belonging to a civilized world Commonwealth.

The second universal law could be…

"When in a state or region there are suspicions or indications that its people are being held hostage and captivity by an oppressive authoritarian regime, then the world community must intervene by ensuring at least the proper conduct of a fair referendum" in order to determine whether these people enjoy the basic human values of freedom and justice and the rulers have their true approval and acceptance.

In the case it is found that the people of a state do not really accept their rulers, the world community in the context of human solidarity must take all possible measures so that there is no human being on Earth who does not breathe freely, enjoying its basic human rights of freedom and justice, since in the 21st century dictatorial and tyrannical regimes must be considered unacceptable and irrational.

The reason why no decisions can be made in UN is because the 5 "big and strong" states of the UN Security Council have the right of VETO. This means that even if 192 of the 193 world’s recognized countries believe that something is unfair and that they should intervene in a situation which could turn into an armed conflict with unpredictable consequences for the world, 1 of these 5 "strong" countries is enough to cancel the wish of all the others and and justice not to be served.

With this shameful measure for the human spirit, the possibility of making decisions and enforcing them is practically from limited to non-existent. But this must stop! All the other 188 states and the billions of ordinary people on the planet must stop accepting it and demand a change of scenery.

Even when decisions are sometimes taken by the UN Security Council, they are often ignored, as was the case with decisions concerning the occupation of Cyprus by Turkish forces, but nothing was done to implement them.

But how this World Parliament could be put into practice and be reliable and have the authority, the will and the power to decide and impose the right and justice in world affairs on a large scale?

The aim is to achieve peaceful coexistence and justice in human societies. What is required is the respect of one democracy for the other, respect for the environment, good neighborliness and security, on a larger scale. The point is not to be unfair with the powerful states and not to let them strengthen for the benefit of the weak. The aim is that the small and powerless states should not be treated unfairly, that there should be no victims of innocent people, that there should be a fair distribution of wealth and that children and the weak should not fall victims to exploitation, so that human dignity should not be violated and lost.

We, the people of the world, by choosing option C, authorize the UN General Assembly, which is the largest gathering of the world's elected leaders and is made up of all the representatives of the billions of people on earth, and we want them to rise to the height they deserve and find a way to achieve and establish the World Parliament.

The decisions that will be made there, should not be just wishful thinking and concluding statements, but should resolve serious global issues and should be unthinkable to ignore, as it should be the most respected event on the planet, as well as their implementation, which should be self-evident and accepted by everyone.

It is not that difficult. It is not impossible for something to happen, if we really like to achieve it. We just need to find a fair numerical proportion of the participation of the peoples, in the percentage that corresponds to each one, in order to accept the participation of all countries in decision-making that concerns all of humanity. We just need to find this way of working and the voting method, which ensures that the best and fairest decisions will be made, on the crucial issues for the future of the human race.

There are many issues that need to be addressed on a global scale, otherwise the policy of each state becomes powerless and incompetent, since many of what is happening on the planet are not independent-indifferent and can lead to global interactions. These issues need to be clarified in order to be regulated, anticipated and resolved.

People should not be afraid of the word globalization, but only about the way some human minds perceive it. Only in this way, all the people of the planet, would not accept an powerful group, to decide by themselves for the salvation of the planet, but demand a World-elected Government and an Organization, similar to that of the UN (maybe the same but extremely upgraded), but with substance and real power.

The world community should create something like a World State, which will not allow its member states to quarrel with each other, but will supervise and enforce the Laws of the World. In other words, in the same way that the state of democracy operates in a state, but on a larger scale, the same should apply to the planet Earth. Let’s call it Homocracy.

So even the movements that are against globalization, instead of denying the new conditions, they should find another way of approaching the issue, not so negative, but positive conditionally. In this way, all people together would be able to demand a better way of doing things and contribute to the better realization of globalization, in their own way and not on the terms that richness would like to be, which clearly would like to be the "purpose" and not the "means".

Even the President of the USA (Donald Trump) had repeatedly expressed his intention to withdraw the US from NATO, saying he did not understand the usefulness of the North Atlantic Alliance and presented it as a "burden" for the US. Of course, then the national security advisers and high-ranking NATO officials, wanting to protect the role of the organization, assured everyone that NATO is a necessary component for the security of the West!

So when French President E. Macron later said that NATO was "brain dead" and needed to reconsider its strategy, the US president appeared offended and said, "He cannot go out and say such things about NATO."

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, NATO is becoming the number one global threat. The reason is that at the same time that it is unable to answer the question "who is the real enemy?" it continues to view Russia with suspicion and China's continued rise with particular reservations, maintaining the east-west separation and creating two dangerous poles of conflict.

But are we sure that we want to see the continuation of this fanatical competition, which leads to the America-NATO and Russia-China, East-West conflict for one more time, since World War II and the Cold War that has followed to this day, in deep freezing conditions?

On the other hand, NATO cannot provide a solution, even when there are disagreements and conflicts between its members (such as between Greece and Turkey), declaring itself incompetent and pulling its tail out, saying: "find the solution by yourselves".

The UN has been sidelined as it cannot make a decision when a member of the Security Council (with the right of veto) like Russia attacks Ukraine, while when it makes a decision like in the case of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, it is simply ignored without consequences and ultimately there is no hope of finding a peaceful and just solution.

Probably no one cares who is right and who is wrong, except if someone belongs to the sphere of influence of the west or the east, as if they are two natural rival camps with such different interests and perceptions that it is impossible to reconcile, or at least agree that they accept common, universal, logic and fair rules. It is as if they are not on the same Earth that revolves around its axis from west to east and a point that would be visible to an observer from a spaceship that is in the west, after a few hours will appear to be in the east. It is as if they belong to different kinds of life and only one of the two can prevail on Earth.

However, in other cases, NATO may act voluntarily and spontaneously, such as in 1999 when NATO forces began bombing Serbia without the mandate or approval of the UN Security Council, in order to stop Serbian military operations against Albanians in Kosovo. The bombings caused thousands of casualties among unarmed civilians, Serbs, Kosovars and even other nationalities who happened to be in the area, and for some them NATO was forced to apologize.

But is this enough? Who decided this, based on which laws and on what evidence? To who is NATO accountable and by who is NATO ordered? Who is protected by this organism and who is persecuted? Can the view that this intervention was made to justify the reason for NATO's existence be correct?

The danger of nuclear catastrophe and the Cold War happily stopped with Mikhail Gorbachev's peaceful choice for the courageous internal disintegration of the USSR (1990), instead of dragging all of humanity into a new catastrophic war.

Theoretically, the West, as an adversary, should recognize the goodwill movement and show generosity from the favorable victorious position found, without battle and without blood, using this natural victory of the freedom of the people against the oppressive communist model, for the approach of the two parties and the mitigation of disputes. Unfortunately, the West continued through NATO with the same suspicion to maintain the Cold War climate.

And world leaders, instead of calling on both the Russians and the Chinese to participate in a universal alliance-agreement, in a world organization that will be far above NATO with the participation of the already friendly fellow human beings of Russia and China in an alliance against evil and injustice, they remain inactive, listening to NATO advice. However, Russia and China have not shown any hostility, at least to Western countries. Of course, when confronted with hostility from the powerful countries of the West, it is natural for them to respond in the same way. So, the expansion of NATO was used as the reason for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC), set up in 2002 to bring the Western military alliance closer together with Moscow, has made no progress because it continues to suspend its operations due to strained relations between the two sides.

Is it not the right of an ordinary person to be able to know what the real problem is? We must not know what the terms of cooperation are and who does not accept what? Where are the negotiations stuck and why does the cooperation stop?

Instead of the ordinary person understanding who is good and who is bad, who is the enemy and who is the friend, or if there are no good and bad, but only people who respect the law and others who only look their interests, instead of the common man understanding these, under the pretext of secret conversations he hears only accusations and threats from one side and the other.

The West keeps saying "We believe the dialogue should continue but the ball is in Moscow's court" and Russia says "We are tired of the West's tricks". On the one hand, the US claims Russia's electronic interference in the US elections and President Biden characterizes President Putin as a murderer (before the Russian invasion of Ukraine), and on the other hand, Russia accuses NATO of continuing to expand its military presence in countries bordering Russia, which have traditionally belonged to its sphere of influence and so it feels threatened.

But as long as it seems that this tactic of NATO and the "West" continues to attract all countries into its ranks, leaving out Russia and China, and as long as Russia feels cramped and surrounded by hostile states, every country in the middle will pay the bill.

For example, Ukraine, where no one defended its independence, no one counted on the free will of its citizens, they just made them clash with each other to choose Russia or the West! Is it necessary for a state if it chooses to leave Russian influence, to join NATO's Western influence, or could it choose its freedom and obedience only to the universal rules of justice and equal world security?

Only a global constitution could ensure that no state or organization would intervene in another state or in a dispute between states, even under the guise of aid, unless there was a prior United Nations decision based on verified information and commonly accepted , rational and fair universal laws.

Only a UN, as a world parliament, could ensure and enforce world order, having at its disposal a world security force that intervenes only on a global mandate, when world laws are violated or when decisions of the world parliament are ignored.

The existing structures of NATO could also be used in this role, so that it does not disintegrate "from where it was formed", since the need to continue its existence is highly questionable, as long as the administrative affiliation of the organization changes, its name, its composition, its dogma, its purpose, its structure and its way of thinking.

Perhaps at some point the armies of the countries will not even be needed, except in the extent of their contribution to the global security and peace force, and the funds that could be saved by limiting the national armies could be channeled into the global search for human health, for the sciences and perhaps for the realization of extraterrestrial travel, so that we can really get to know the universe in which we live.