Don't Rush to Believe "World Opinion."

Just when you think you’re beginning to understand what’s really going on in the world, you stumble across a new piece of information that allows you to further “connect the dots” and that reminds you, once again, just how misinformed and naïve you actually are.

Happened to me just the other day.

I’ve been going around and around, in my own mind, on the whole issue of Iran and the way in which Western media have tried to paint that country as an outlaw, as non-cooperative, as belligerent and as one that condones “human rights violations.” As part of all of that, every now and then, we’re reminded that Iran and other nations, which with we happen to disagree, suffer from “unfavorable” world opinion.

It’s been clear that the whole point has been to communicate to all of us that Iran’s leaders were not only too irresponsible to have access to nuclear power, they were also probably not suited to run their own country, and that the members of "the world" are in general agreement in that regard.

For awhile, they almost had me – especially when I began to see the news reports about the “secret” nuclear facilities that the Iranians have been operating away from the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the rest of the so-called “world leaders." That brought to mind, again, my nagging curiosity about the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which seems to be dragged out only when nations ruled by people of color begin to explore the advantages of creating their own nuclear energy.

If you’re anything like me, you’ve asked yourself, from time to time, why the same “stink” isn’t raised when European nations, or nations controlled by people of European descent, begin to explore their nuclear options. Recently, you’ll recall, it was North Korea that was sharply criticized for having nuclear ambitions, followed, in quick order, by Iran.

A lot of this began to become very clear for me a few weeks ago, when I revisited the United Nations Charter.

You remember the United Nations, don’t you?

That’s the organization that was established, by the Western Powers, in the mid-1940's, to control the political and economic affairs of the world, and to launch joint military initiatives, if necessary, all in the name of world peace.

There are 6.7 billion people on earth and 238 separate nations, and 192 of those nations, or 80.6 percent of them, are members of the U.N. Being a member essentially permits them to sit as delegates to the U.N. General Assembly and to cast votes on resolutions, whenever they’re presented.

There’s another separate, more powerful, body within the U.N., itself, called the Security Council. You remember the scene in George Orwell’s "Animal Farm" when the pig (either Snowball or Napoleon, I can't remember which one) said to the other farm animals that although all animals were created equal “some are more equal than others?” Well, that’s the Security Council.

The Council is comprised of 15 members, 10 of whom are rotating participants with two-year terms. The other five members – and this is where the “more equal than others” part comes in ─ are what are known as “permanent” members." They include the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China, and each has unilateral veto power. Any single one of the Security Council members can, with their one “no vote,” shut down any proposal that comes across the table from the other 191 members.

At the same time, there happens also to be a small number of nations, under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, that are defined as being full-fledged “nuclear weapons states.” Guess who they are….the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, the same countries, coincidentally, that make up the U.N. Security Council.

There are four other nations – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – that have conducted tests and that are believed to have some nuclear capability, but only the Security Council “permanent members” have been identified as full “nuclear weapons states."

So, is this what the game has been all the time? Is becoming a "nuclear weapons state" the price of admission to permanent Security Council status? Is that what you have to do to get your hands on that veto power? Is that what constitutes true world leadership? It seems that you don't necessarily have to be a huge supporter of "world peace" or even agree philosophically with the other Security Council members. All you have to do is have "the bomb" and the means to deliver it, and you are, apparently, in.

No wonder China and Russia are so routinely at odds with their fellow-Security Council member nations--the U.S., France and Britain. No wonder U.N. sanctions against Iran have been so difficult to come by.

I must admit that, in the middle of these high-profile nuclear discussions and reports about how “world leaders” feel about those things, I’ve been just a little confused about who the “world” actually is, and who its leaders are supposed to be, anymore.

You hear in the news that “world opinion” is solidly against Iran or solidly opposed to the Somalians, or is showing signs of impatience with the Nigerians, or now reflects clear frustration with the whole litany of Middle Eastern nations. It makes you scratch your head and wonder who these guys in “the world” actually are.

When the Associated Press, CNN, Fox or the New York Times give us their periodic updates on how the “world” feels, you have to wonder if they’ve remembered that there are increasingly populous and economically powerful African, Asian and Latin American nations in that world? We also have to wonder whether any of those people, from any of those places, have been asked to offer their opinions on the topic of the day?

Apparently, it seems, our media outlets still believe that it’s possible to offer a fair and accurate report of global attitudes while ignoring the input from 85 percent of the world’s population.

Has it ever occurred to them that it may be finally time to include responses from the three billion Asians other than the Chinese, from the one billion Africans, from the 349 million residents of the Middle East, and the 382 million South Americans? Don’t their opinions count?

After all, when you only consider the input of those who represent the interests of the five Security Council members you leave about five billion people on earth without a voice in global affairs, and there are growing signs that the non-Security Council members, those who constitute the rest of the world, are getting a little tired of that arrangement.

Maybe U.S. leaders and the Security Council haven’t been paying enough attention to the fact that political alliances outside of the Council are also being formed among the six Middle Eastern nations, the two South American nations, and four African nations that comprise the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and that those alliances are finding their way into discussions and relationships on the floor of the U.N. Maybe some of those relationships are behind the talk you hear about restructuring the Security Council, or even the “buzz” about moving U.N. headquarters to a country outside the U.S.

According to one definition, “world opinion” can be identified when there is general consensus among informed and interested individuals around the world, involving major global issues.”

The problem, however, is that many experts doubt that the concept has any true validity. They hold that true “world opinion cannot be measured because there is no single, general framework capable of drawing credible responses" from people in rural areas of emerging and developing nations. What, for example, does the villager in China, or in Zimbabwe or in Colombia really think about Nuclear Proliferation?

Hence, it seems, the “world opinion” we’ve been routinely given on nations, including Iran, Somalia, Nigeria and China, is almost certainly bogus, manufactured to hold onto a rapidly deteriorating status quo and to create political and media advantage.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, we’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there really is a world beyond Europe, the U. S. and Canada, and that pretending that it doesn’t exist is just not going to “get it” anymore.

I hope it’s not already too late.


######



###############