Leaders from all over the world are now submerged in diplomacy!
I opine that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, should be applauded for their engagement of diplomatic relations regarding Syria; these two powerful world leaders resolved to confer on the near-disaster issue of chemical weapons utilized in Syria. Multilateral decisions within the global arena will always have a better outcome than a unilateral one - especially when human lives are at stake. The Syrian resolution reflects teamwork at its best, and we (citizens of the world) certainly want our leaders to converse on pertinent issues for the common good of mankind.
The United States and Iran have been at odds since the Iranian Revolution 30 years ago, and the time has come to make amends. President Obama's willingness to "extend the olive branch" and President Rouhani's verbal assurance to the world that his country will not produce nuclear weapons are milestones that should be acknowledged by all. Yes, it would be advantagous to have some type of concrete verification of this; however, shouldn't the leader of a country such as Iran be taken at his word until proven otherwise? Can you imagine a religious leader testifying to the international community of Iran's "fundamental religious and ethical convictions" (as directly quoted by President Rouhani) NOT to obtain nuclear weapons, and still there are those who adamantly deny the truthfulness of his statement? President Obama's diplomatic gestures are positive and progressive actions. It is time - in fact overdue, for open-mindedness when dealing with international issues and sovereign countries. President Obama's diplomatic course is quite refreshing; I most definitely agree with his decision to engage in diplomacy and work with other powerful leaders to resolve international matters of great concern.
There are those who are obstinate about Iran's intentions regarding nuclear weapons, who have nuclear weapons themselves - this is a contradiction within itself. Countries that have not been forthcoming/open about their own nuclear weapons should NOT have the right to admonish Iran. The old saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" definitely holds true in this case. I think the UN Security Council should insist that all countries report their nuclear capacities - especially in light of the ongoing call for transparency in Iran. Just how many countries in the world have nuclear weapons who have not acknowledged this to the international community? Why haven't they? Why hasn't the UNSC insisted on nuclear transparency for all countries? Why is there a double standard in this respect?
Check out this video for information on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24277021
Successful results will reflect a precedent for international communities to follow for decades to come, and the United Nations endeavor to bring together the most intelligent minds on earth will no doubt provide the official stamp of diplomatic relations. The UN Security Council, which consists of five (5) permanent members: U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China have authority to maintain international peace throughout the world - and lately, it seems Germany is sitting in on the most critical meetings. In the news, this additional sovereign country's interjection of intellect on the UN Security Council is being referred to as "5+1" - and five heads are better than one (and as of September 2013, six heads are better than one). With all of this intelligence divulging on pertinent issues, diplomatic relations between leaders of powerful sovereign nations should certainly agree on resolutions that will circumvent war. War should always be the "last resort" to a problem, when nothing else has worked - when sovereign leaders have become irrational and unresponsive to the international community-at-large. War was necessary to stop the reign of Hitler! However, most sovereign countries today have leaders who are sensitive to the consequences of "international sanctions" and "international resolutions" - and thereby, willing to engage in diplomacy.
I opine that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, should be applauded for their engagement of diplomatic relations regarding Syria; these two powerful world leaders resolved to confer on the near-disaster issue of chemical weapons utilized in Syria. Multilateral decisions within the global arena will always have a better outcome than a unilateral one - especially when human lives are at stake. The Syrian resolution reflects teamwork at its best, and we (citizens of the world) certainly want our leaders to converse on pertinent issues for the common good of mankind.
The United States and Iran have been at odds since the Iranian Revolution 30 years ago, and the time has come to make amends. President Obama's willingness to "extend the olive branch" and President Rouhani's verbal assurance to the world that his country will not produce nuclear weapons are milestones that should be acknowledged by all. Yes, it would be advantagous to have some type of concrete verification of this; however, shouldn't the leader of a country such as Iran be taken at his word until proven otherwise? Can you imagine a religious leader testifying to the international community of Iran's "fundamental religious and ethical convictions" (as directly quoted by President Rouhani) NOT to obtain nuclear weapons, and still there are those who adamantly deny the truthfulness of his statement? President Obama's diplomatic gestures are positive and progressive actions. It is time - in fact overdue, for open-mindedness when dealing with international issues and sovereign countries. President Obama's diplomatic course is quite refreshing; I most definitely agree with his decision to engage in diplomacy and work with other powerful leaders to resolve international matters of great concern.
There are those who are obstinate about Iran's intentions regarding nuclear weapons, who have nuclear weapons themselves - this is a contradiction within itself. Countries that have not been forthcoming/open about their own nuclear weapons should NOT have the right to admonish Iran. The old saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" definitely holds true in this case. I think the UN Security Council should insist that all countries report their nuclear capacities - especially in light of the ongoing call for transparency in Iran. Just how many countries in the world have nuclear weapons who have not acknowledged this to the international community? Why haven't they? Why hasn't the UNSC insisted on nuclear transparency for all countries? Why is there a double standard in this respect?
Check out this video for information on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24277021
With nibbles of chocolate, I contemplate the world around me,
giving off an aura of mental encouragement to those
world leaders who have resolved to engage in progressive diplomatic relations
w/the intent of circumventing war.
world leaders who have resolved to engage in progressive diplomatic relations
w/the intent of circumventing war.