EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT! Oh. Wait a moment. There's nothing to read.
Human rights organizations, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Korea, are repeatedly denied access to North Korea, which is notoriously reclusive yet provocative. The state-run news outlet, North Korea's Central News Agency (KCNA), is not only North Korea's only news outlet but is also (unsurprisingly) censored and nationalistic. Far from critiquing the government it speaks only in awe of it, giving it its absolute support and admiration. Consider its reporting on the 'Trial of American Journalists' who illegally entered North Korea this summer, "Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it."
As a result of its closed- doors policy, the international community, NGOs, and news stations have been forced to make things up about the country of secrets that is North Korea. The Onion has been especially successful at this:
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
A Table for Tyrants
Contributed by Meredith Morrison
A Table for Tyrants
by Vaclav Havel
May 10, 2009
IMAGINE an election where the results are largely preordained and a number of candidates are widely recognized as unqualified. Any supposedly democratic ballot conducted in this way would be considered a farce. Yet tomorrow the United Nations General Assembly will engage in just such an “election” when it votes to fill the vacancies on the 47-member Human Rights Council.
Click here to read the rest of the article on The New York Times website.
A Table for Tyrants
by Vaclav Havel
May 10, 2009
IMAGINE an election where the results are largely preordained and a number of candidates are widely recognized as unqualified. Any supposedly democratic ballot conducted in this way would be considered a farce. Yet tomorrow the United Nations General Assembly will engage in just such an “election” when it votes to fill the vacancies on the 47-member Human Rights Council.
Click here to read the rest of the article on The New York Times website.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
At a Peace Rally for Iran on June 25th, 2009
by Kenneth Reveiz
NEW YORK - June 28, 2009
I found out about the rally through an old high school acquaintance’s Facebook status:
“PEACE RALLY FOR IRAN NEW YORK Candle Light Vigil for NEDA and all those who have been so BRAVE in IRAN. Please come and support them. Wednesday, Jun 24 - 7:00pm New York Metro Union Square NYC www.freeiranbracelet.org”
The website sells, as the Live Strong campaign did, bracelets. It plans on “donating the proceeds to Reporters without Borders, who have continuously put their lives at risk in various countries throughout the world, so that the truth can be shown to all the citizen’s [sic] in the world.”
After work—still dressed in suit and tie—I took the subway to Union Square and watched as, at around 7:10PM, under a slowly graying sky, scores of Iranians and non-Iranians stretched columns of green across the plaza. Green, of course, is the color of Islam.
“This is solidarity for Iranian people,” one woman explained in a British-schooled accent to her daughters, who were dressed like twins but weren’t twins. The shorter girl held an unlit candle, a perfect white circle.
At the edges of the expanding display of color, a bearded man held a large sign. It read “DEATH TO DICTATORS,” around which words he had pasted black-and-white computer-printed pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among others I did and didn’t recognize.
I was surprised to find opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi on the poster. In fact, the bearded man was speaking to a tough-looking, white-haired police officer, complaining that he had been “pushed away” from the general demonstration. The others—one woman was near tears: “This is hurting! This is not our message!”—had been incensed by his “message of violence.” Claiming he had every right to be there as they did, it was determined that he should stand a little off to the side.
He spoke to a young woman with a tape recorder, explained that all those pictured on his poster were “basically the same,” explained that Mousavi was a hard-line dictator, no different from Ahmadinejad. I had heard one student call Ahmadinejad a “monster,” an “inhumane form of human being,” as “not deserving any kind of respect,” and “not part of Iran anymore.” I wondered if this man felt the same way about Ahmadinejad as she did, and still thought the comparison to Mousavi valid, I should have asked. In any case he spoke into the recorder with conviction, gently affirming his opinion, answering questions with the self-assurance of a serene and special truth.
An older, visibly distressed woman tried to interrupt the interview. “So aggressive—why is he so aggressive?” she asked after he and the reporter ignored her. Her husband cautioned her to not “entertain him.” I realized that, with black pen, he had scribbled into the eyes of his dictators.
There had been other rallies, in front of the United Nations building, at Union Square. This is what one tall, bespectacled redhead told me as she stretched a paper bag filled with pins to the crowd of at least a hundred.
One pin read, “NEDA Your voice will never die,” referring to a girl who was shot dead, allegedly by a Basij soldier. Videos and pictures of the brutal killing of the Iranian—now a martyr—circulate all over the Internet. “Neda” is Farsi for “voice.” A computer graphic of a dove, whose ruptured heart had plummeted centimeters below its body, accompanied the words.
The other pin read “WHERE IS MY VOTE?”
Sure enough, at the center of Union Square, which slowly grew darker, was, surrounded by a perimeter of young, white roses, a perimeter of white candles slowly being lit, which itself held down a banner, green and large: “WHERE IS MY VOTE?” with a splatter of blood; above the words were pictures of a brutalized Neda and more words: “Rest in Peace;” “Free Iran.”
As I walked back to the subway a man drew, with a compass, inky circles into a notebook.
NEW YORK - June 28, 2009
I found out about the rally through an old high school acquaintance’s Facebook status:
“PEACE RALLY FOR IRAN NEW YORK Candle Light Vigil for NEDA and all those who have been so BRAVE in IRAN. Please come and support them. Wednesday, Jun 24 - 7:00pm New York Metro Union Square NYC www.freeiranbracelet.org”
The website sells, as the Live Strong campaign did, bracelets. It plans on “donating the proceeds to Reporters without Borders, who have continuously put their lives at risk in various countries throughout the world, so that the truth can be shown to all the citizen’s [sic] in the world.”
After work—still dressed in suit and tie—I took the subway to Union Square and watched as, at around 7:10PM, under a slowly graying sky, scores of Iranians and non-Iranians stretched columns of green across the plaza. Green, of course, is the color of Islam.
“This is solidarity for Iranian people,” one woman explained in a British-schooled accent to her daughters, who were dressed like twins but weren’t twins. The shorter girl held an unlit candle, a perfect white circle.
At the edges of the expanding display of color, a bearded man held a large sign. It read “DEATH TO DICTATORS,” around which words he had pasted black-and-white computer-printed pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among others I did and didn’t recognize.
I was surprised to find opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi on the poster. In fact, the bearded man was speaking to a tough-looking, white-haired police officer, complaining that he had been “pushed away” from the general demonstration. The others—one woman was near tears: “This is hurting! This is not our message!”—had been incensed by his “message of violence.” Claiming he had every right to be there as they did, it was determined that he should stand a little off to the side.
He spoke to a young woman with a tape recorder, explained that all those pictured on his poster were “basically the same,” explained that Mousavi was a hard-line dictator, no different from Ahmadinejad. I had heard one student call Ahmadinejad a “monster,” an “inhumane form of human being,” as “not deserving any kind of respect,” and “not part of Iran anymore.” I wondered if this man felt the same way about Ahmadinejad as she did, and still thought the comparison to Mousavi valid, I should have asked. In any case he spoke into the recorder with conviction, gently affirming his opinion, answering questions with the self-assurance of a serene and special truth.
An older, visibly distressed woman tried to interrupt the interview. “So aggressive—why is he so aggressive?” she asked after he and the reporter ignored her. Her husband cautioned her to not “entertain him.” I realized that, with black pen, he had scribbled into the eyes of his dictators.
There had been other rallies, in front of the United Nations building, at Union Square. This is what one tall, bespectacled redhead told me as she stretched a paper bag filled with pins to the crowd of at least a hundred.
One pin read, “NEDA Your voice will never die,” referring to a girl who was shot dead, allegedly by a Basij soldier. Videos and pictures of the brutal killing of the Iranian—now a martyr—circulate all over the Internet. “Neda” is Farsi for “voice.” A computer graphic of a dove, whose ruptured heart had plummeted centimeters below its body, accompanied the words.
The other pin read “WHERE IS MY VOTE?”
Sure enough, at the center of Union Square, which slowly grew darker, was, surrounded by a perimeter of young, white roses, a perimeter of white candles slowly being lit, which itself held down a banner, green and large: “WHERE IS MY VOTE?” with a splatter of blood; above the words were pictures of a brutalized Neda and more words: “Rest in Peace;” “Free Iran.”
As I walked back to the subway a man drew, with a compass, inky circles into a notebook.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: In Conversation with Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Former Secretary-General of the UN
-- Contributed by Sarika Arya and Meredith Morrison
Today, the two of us sat down with Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali (DR. BBG), the 6th Secretary General of the United Nations (January 1992- January 1997) and the current President of the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) in Egypt. The three of us were alone on the 11th floor of the NCHR building (once the former headquarters of the Egyptian Communist Party), in his office: an intimate square room adorned with medals, certificates, books, a beautiful wooden desk, and golden curtains that drape a window overlooking the Nile River. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali wore an off-white linen suit, squinted his eyes, thinking hard before he answered every question, and despite his calm, soft spoken nature and 5' 5'' stature, was still able to command the room with his well-articulated and sharp opinions. In this historical, political, and all together human rights-y setting, we talked about Barack Obama, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the best part of being Secretary General.
Q: How do you define human rights?
DR. BBG: I believe it is related to the essence of men and women – by the fact that they exist, they have basic rights. And these basic rights, which correspond to their nature, their personality, we call them human rights. By the way – human rights is a continuous process; it means every year we may have new technological inventions and new problems, which are different – like the problem of climate – and this asks us to take into consideration drastic change and the fact that this change asks us to have new human rights which correspond to this new change in the public life, in the climatic life.
Q: What are the challenges of being a quasi-governmental organization that does human rights work – rather than being an NGO – as far as the NCHR is concerned?
DR. BBG: This was decided by the United Nations, which met in a summit meeting, which was held in Vienna in 1993 and then later in other meetings, in which they asked the different member states to create national commissions to take care of and promote human rights, to promote the culture of human rights, and to assist the governments. And those commissions have only an advisory opinion. They cannot intervene; their intervention is solely in declaration.
Q: Do you think human rights are a top priority for governments? If not, how can that change?
DR. BBG: I think it depends on governments. Certain governments, for them, it is a priority; other countries have other problems. For example, illiteracy, which is, in certain countries, 50% of the population, or deep poverty – so the priority will be to overcome this illiteracy, to overcome poverty, and only then they will move to a second step, which is to protect human rights. So it depends on different governments, and it depends on different periods.
During the Cold War, the United Nations was not paying attention to human rights, and they began to pay attention to human rights and the relationship between human rights and democracy only after the end of the Cold War. But because of the Cold War, it was very difficult to make a relation between democracy and human rights, so we had more than 50% of the countries who were members of the United Nations, which did not have democratic systems, and the United Nations was not involved in promoting democracy. Because if you remember Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter, it mentions that the United Nations is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of member states.
Q: What do you think is the relationship between democracy and human rights?
DR. BBG: Oh, there is a big correlation: we cannot have human rights without a democratic system, and we cannot have a democratic system with the protection of human rights. They are integrated together. Democracy is the system which will protect human rights.
Q: How do politics influence human rights – not only in Egypt, but also in the Middle East as a whole?
DR. BBG: I believe this is not limited to the Middle East, or to Egypt; it is seen in all parts of the world. If you have a military coup d’etat in Country A, he will not pay attention to human rights; he will just pay attention to how to reinforce his position after the military coup. Politics is related to democracy; democracy is related to human rights; human rights and democracy are related to economic development. So there is a kind of implication between those three different concepts.
Q: In your opinion, what is the greatest humanitarian concern facing Egypt today?
DR. BBG: I believe that you have many problems. First, you have a very high proportion of the population who are illiterate, so this is a concern. Secondly, that a high proportion of the population is very poor; this is a second concern. And a third concern is that the population, the 80 million Egyptians, are concentrated in only 4-5% of the territory; 95% of the territory is a desert. So how can we accomplish improvement? We need additional water and food. There is no rain in this part of the world, so this is related to the Nile Basin, and the possibility of having better cooperation between the different countries of the Nile Basin.
Q: What do you think is the greatest obstacle standing in the way of protecting human rights around the world?
DR. BBG: Again, you have not one obstacle; it depends. Supposing you have a military coup – the effect, the absence or the end of the democratic regime, is a basic obstacle here. In another country, you may have, suddenly, a terrible earthquake, and this would be the main concern. In a third country, you can have a new disease. Today, you can have the economic crisis. So you have not one obstacle. It depends on the period; it depends on the country; it depends on many elements.
Q: Can you recall an interesting story during your time as Secretary General, in which you learned something about human rights – positive or negative?
DR. BBG: I believe that what was important was the conference that was held in Vienna in 1993. There, for the first time, we were able to discuss the problem of human rights, to give a new dimension to human rights, and to show the importance of the relation between democracy and human rights. Because before there was a kind of division: democracy was related to the internal affairs of the state, so the United Nations was not allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of the state, and you had many countries which were not democratic countries. Change happened only in 1993, when we were at the end of the Cold War, and when we were able to show the profound relation between democracy and human rights.
Q: What was the best part about being Secretary General of the UN?
DR. BBG: It means you are able to succeed in an operation, like to put an end to apartheid in South Africa, and to find a solution to civil war in Mozambique or in El Salvador. This gives you a real satisfaction, that you have been able to achieve something. You may certainly have a disaster, like in Yugoslavia, and like the genocide in Rwanda, and then it is a failure. So the life is composed of success and failure. And what is important is in the case of the failure, you must still be an optimist, and in case of success, you must not exaggerate the importance of this success.
Q: What did the genocide in Rwanda teach you about the tension between intervening in the internal affairs of a country and protecting human rights?
DR. BBG: It taught me that the international community was not interested to intervene, and then that you have two kinds of conflicts. You have what I call the orphan conflicts, where the international society is not interested to intervene. Take the case of Somalia, a country which disappeared, which is a failed state, since 1990, and we are now in 2009. And you have another country, where suddenly everybody pays attention; in Yugoslavia, for example. So the real problem is that you have a kind of discrimination at the world level, between a dispute which attracts the public opinion, which obtained the intervention of the international community, and a dispute that doesn’t interest the international community, in which the international community is not ready to intervene to solve this dispute. So here again you have a kind of discrimination concerning the attitude of the international community concerning protecting international disputes, where disputes which obtain the mediation of the international community, the intervention of the United Nations, and other disputes, which, unfortunately, don’t obtain the attention of the international community and don’t obtain the intervention of the international community.
Q: Why do some cases get international attention and others don’t? What is the difference between a Yugoslavia and a Somalia?
DR. BBG: I believe that there still is a discrimination, that they pay attention to what is going on in Europe, and they pay less attention to what is going on in Africa. Still, there are, in the public mentality, first class countries and second class countries.
Q: What is your feeling about President Obama? Do you have faith in him to make progress in the Middle East peace process?
DR. BBG: I cannot give you any answer before one year.
Q: What were your thoughts on his speech that he gave in Cairo?
DR. BBG: I was there, and I was very much impressed by the speech, but as I mention, it is only a speech.
Q: How do you see the peace process moving forward, as far as Israel and Palestine are concerned?
DR. BBG: I am pessimist, maybe because of my age, because I have spent 50 years of my life trying to solve this problem, and I believe that this problem will not be solved during this generation. I have published a book, which is now adapted, with the president of Israel – Shimon Peres – and at the end of the book, which is a conversation of 20 hours, I mention: like Moses, and like Sadat, I will not see the Promised Lands.
Q: What would you recommend that we do, as students who study this and put all of our time into this?
DR. BBG: I believe that it is very important to pay attention to foreign affairs, because we will be confronted in the next years, in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years, by new events – what I call globalization – where the local problem will not be solved at the local level; it will be solved at the international level. So you who represent the young generation, you must pay attention to foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is what happens in Guatemala and Somalia, what happens in Mongolia. And try to open the window so that your country, the United States, will be more involved in international affairs. This is not only for the United States, but for all of the member states, because tomorrow, certain local problems will not be solved at the local level, but will be solved at the international level. So if you want to avoid that the solution will be imposed on you, then you have to participate in the solution of this problem, and the solution of this problem is an international solution. And to be able to be able to participate in an international solution, you need to pay attention to foreign affairs. You need this kind of education. The time that you spend here for one or two months is already a first step to help you pay attention to what is going on in Africa, in Egypt, in India, in different parts of the world. And this is my message to the young generation.
Today, the two of us sat down with Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali (DR. BBG), the 6th Secretary General of the United Nations (January 1992- January 1997) and the current President of the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) in Egypt. The three of us were alone on the 11th floor of the NCHR building (once the former headquarters of the Egyptian Communist Party), in his office: an intimate square room adorned with medals, certificates, books, a beautiful wooden desk, and golden curtains that drape a window overlooking the Nile River. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali wore an off-white linen suit, squinted his eyes, thinking hard before he answered every question, and despite his calm, soft spoken nature and 5' 5'' stature, was still able to command the room with his well-articulated and sharp opinions. In this historical, political, and all together human rights-y setting, we talked about Barack Obama, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the best part of being Secretary General.
Q: How do you define human rights?
DR. BBG: I believe it is related to the essence of men and women – by the fact that they exist, they have basic rights. And these basic rights, which correspond to their nature, their personality, we call them human rights. By the way – human rights is a continuous process; it means every year we may have new technological inventions and new problems, which are different – like the problem of climate – and this asks us to take into consideration drastic change and the fact that this change asks us to have new human rights which correspond to this new change in the public life, in the climatic life.
Q: What are the challenges of being a quasi-governmental organization that does human rights work – rather than being an NGO – as far as the NCHR is concerned?
DR. BBG: This was decided by the United Nations, which met in a summit meeting, which was held in Vienna in 1993 and then later in other meetings, in which they asked the different member states to create national commissions to take care of and promote human rights, to promote the culture of human rights, and to assist the governments. And those commissions have only an advisory opinion. They cannot intervene; their intervention is solely in declaration.
Q: Do you think human rights are a top priority for governments? If not, how can that change?
DR. BBG: I think it depends on governments. Certain governments, for them, it is a priority; other countries have other problems. For example, illiteracy, which is, in certain countries, 50% of the population, or deep poverty – so the priority will be to overcome this illiteracy, to overcome poverty, and only then they will move to a second step, which is to protect human rights. So it depends on different governments, and it depends on different periods.
During the Cold War, the United Nations was not paying attention to human rights, and they began to pay attention to human rights and the relationship between human rights and democracy only after the end of the Cold War. But because of the Cold War, it was very difficult to make a relation between democracy and human rights, so we had more than 50% of the countries who were members of the United Nations, which did not have democratic systems, and the United Nations was not involved in promoting democracy. Because if you remember Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter, it mentions that the United Nations is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of member states.
Q: What do you think is the relationship between democracy and human rights?
DR. BBG: Oh, there is a big correlation: we cannot have human rights without a democratic system, and we cannot have a democratic system with the protection of human rights. They are integrated together. Democracy is the system which will protect human rights.
Q: How do politics influence human rights – not only in Egypt, but also in the Middle East as a whole?
DR. BBG: I believe this is not limited to the Middle East, or to Egypt; it is seen in all parts of the world. If you have a military coup d’etat in Country A, he will not pay attention to human rights; he will just pay attention to how to reinforce his position after the military coup. Politics is related to democracy; democracy is related to human rights; human rights and democracy are related to economic development. So there is a kind of implication between those three different concepts.
Q: In your opinion, what is the greatest humanitarian concern facing Egypt today?
DR. BBG: I believe that you have many problems. First, you have a very high proportion of the population who are illiterate, so this is a concern. Secondly, that a high proportion of the population is very poor; this is a second concern. And a third concern is that the population, the 80 million Egyptians, are concentrated in only 4-5% of the territory; 95% of the territory is a desert. So how can we accomplish improvement? We need additional water and food. There is no rain in this part of the world, so this is related to the Nile Basin, and the possibility of having better cooperation between the different countries of the Nile Basin.
Q: What do you think is the greatest obstacle standing in the way of protecting human rights around the world?
DR. BBG: Again, you have not one obstacle; it depends. Supposing you have a military coup – the effect, the absence or the end of the democratic regime, is a basic obstacle here. In another country, you may have, suddenly, a terrible earthquake, and this would be the main concern. In a third country, you can have a new disease. Today, you can have the economic crisis. So you have not one obstacle. It depends on the period; it depends on the country; it depends on many elements.
Q: Can you recall an interesting story during your time as Secretary General, in which you learned something about human rights – positive or negative?
DR. BBG: I believe that what was important was the conference that was held in Vienna in 1993. There, for the first time, we were able to discuss the problem of human rights, to give a new dimension to human rights, and to show the importance of the relation between democracy and human rights. Because before there was a kind of division: democracy was related to the internal affairs of the state, so the United Nations was not allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of the state, and you had many countries which were not democratic countries. Change happened only in 1993, when we were at the end of the Cold War, and when we were able to show the profound relation between democracy and human rights.
Q: What was the best part about being Secretary General of the UN?
DR. BBG: It means you are able to succeed in an operation, like to put an end to apartheid in South Africa, and to find a solution to civil war in Mozambique or in El Salvador. This gives you a real satisfaction, that you have been able to achieve something. You may certainly have a disaster, like in Yugoslavia, and like the genocide in Rwanda, and then it is a failure. So the life is composed of success and failure. And what is important is in the case of the failure, you must still be an optimist, and in case of success, you must not exaggerate the importance of this success.
Q: What did the genocide in Rwanda teach you about the tension between intervening in the internal affairs of a country and protecting human rights?
DR. BBG: It taught me that the international community was not interested to intervene, and then that you have two kinds of conflicts. You have what I call the orphan conflicts, where the international society is not interested to intervene. Take the case of Somalia, a country which disappeared, which is a failed state, since 1990, and we are now in 2009. And you have another country, where suddenly everybody pays attention; in Yugoslavia, for example. So the real problem is that you have a kind of discrimination at the world level, between a dispute which attracts the public opinion, which obtained the intervention of the international community, and a dispute that doesn’t interest the international community, in which the international community is not ready to intervene to solve this dispute. So here again you have a kind of discrimination concerning the attitude of the international community concerning protecting international disputes, where disputes which obtain the mediation of the international community, the intervention of the United Nations, and other disputes, which, unfortunately, don’t obtain the attention of the international community and don’t obtain the intervention of the international community.
Q: Why do some cases get international attention and others don’t? What is the difference between a Yugoslavia and a Somalia?
DR. BBG: I believe that there still is a discrimination, that they pay attention to what is going on in Europe, and they pay less attention to what is going on in Africa. Still, there are, in the public mentality, first class countries and second class countries.
Q: What is your feeling about President Obama? Do you have faith in him to make progress in the Middle East peace process?
DR. BBG: I cannot give you any answer before one year.
Q: What were your thoughts on his speech that he gave in Cairo?
DR. BBG: I was there, and I was very much impressed by the speech, but as I mention, it is only a speech.
Q: How do you see the peace process moving forward, as far as Israel and Palestine are concerned?
DR. BBG: I am pessimist, maybe because of my age, because I have spent 50 years of my life trying to solve this problem, and I believe that this problem will not be solved during this generation. I have published a book, which is now adapted, with the president of Israel – Shimon Peres – and at the end of the book, which is a conversation of 20 hours, I mention: like Moses, and like Sadat, I will not see the Promised Lands.
Q: What would you recommend that we do, as students who study this and put all of our time into this?
DR. BBG: I believe that it is very important to pay attention to foreign affairs, because we will be confronted in the next years, in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years, by new events – what I call globalization – where the local problem will not be solved at the local level; it will be solved at the international level. So you who represent the young generation, you must pay attention to foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is what happens in Guatemala and Somalia, what happens in Mongolia. And try to open the window so that your country, the United States, will be more involved in international affairs. This is not only for the United States, but for all of the member states, because tomorrow, certain local problems will not be solved at the local level, but will be solved at the international level. So if you want to avoid that the solution will be imposed on you, then you have to participate in the solution of this problem, and the solution of this problem is an international solution. And to be able to be able to participate in an international solution, you need to pay attention to foreign affairs. You need this kind of education. The time that you spend here for one or two months is already a first step to help you pay attention to what is going on in Africa, in Egypt, in India, in different parts of the world. And this is my message to the young generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
