New Moral Order
A new global moral order is emerging. It is one in which morality takes precedence over the politics and diplomacy of war and peace. The former pariah Libya is a good example. Now that it has renounced nuclear weapons it is warmly embraced by America and the West. The class-action lawsuits filed by the Filipino, Spanish and Swiss victims of martial law under Marcos and Pinochet are establishing a new moral high ground. Similar action against the Japanese, Nazis and their Swiss bankers by the victims of Japanese atrocities and the Nazi Holocaust helped reach that high ground.
This moral new high ground requires us to closely reexamine the world scene today. Author Conrado de Quiros points out that there is a subtle shift in the conduct of nations occurring today, and we should be elated about it. Non-interference and respect for differences in cultures remain vital principles, and should be upheld. But that should not mean the kind of conspiracy of silence -- or tacit collusion, in the case of the Swiss banks -- that have allowed tyrants to flourish in the past. The shift isn’t really that subtle. It’s been demanded for years. It just hasn’t been acted upon. No more. Marcos, Estrada, Pinochet, Bhutto, Sharrif, Fujimori, Suharto, Wahid and Saddam Hussein confirmed our new 21st century morality. Similar actions against Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Bashar al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, the House of Saud and their princely sons are next logical steps to confirm the new morality is here to stay.
In the 1970s, world leaders began to talk of a “new international economic order” that would distribute wealth more evenly across the globe. That did not happen. But the idea remains valid. I do not know why we shouldn’t start articulating a “new international moral order” today, one that is capable of introducing moral judgment in the conduct of nations, even while respecting different ways of life. Some things in life are universally right or wrong. Those that are wrong the U.N. can no longer stop. Those that are right it cannot enforce.
This moral new high ground requires us to closely reexamine the world scene today. Author Conrado de Quiros points out that there is a subtle shift in the conduct of nations occurring today, and we should be elated about it. Non-interference and respect for differences in cultures remain vital principles, and should be upheld. But that should not mean the kind of conspiracy of silence -- or tacit collusion, in the case of the Swiss banks -- that have allowed tyrants to flourish in the past. The shift isn’t really that subtle. It’s been demanded for years. It just hasn’t been acted upon. No more. Marcos, Estrada, Pinochet, Bhutto, Sharrif, Fujimori, Suharto, Wahid and Saddam Hussein confirmed our new 21st century morality. Similar actions against Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-il, Bashar al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, the House of Saud and their princely sons are next logical steps to confirm the new morality is here to stay.
In the 1970s, world leaders began to talk of a “new international economic order” that would distribute wealth more evenly across the globe. That did not happen. But the idea remains valid. I do not know why we shouldn’t start articulating a “new international moral order” today, one that is capable of introducing moral judgment in the conduct of nations, even while respecting different ways of life. Some things in life are universally right or wrong. Those that are wrong the U.N. can no longer stop. Those that are right it cannot enforce.
posted by Peter de Krassel's Custom Maid Politics at 3:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home