THE SPEECH TO THE UNITED NATIONS








A Study in Thought

sa057



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A bland and innocuous personality, who does not take sides lightly.
How to avoid verbal hostilities from becoming bloody battles in the field.
More than a forum to accuse each other with angry speeches.
Ambassadors for whom?
An Institution of Hope.
The attitudes of pride and national honour trap us, time and again.
We all want peace, and yet, we make war.
Is a war ever completely justified?
What destroys the attitudes of trust and cooperation?
Understanding a position of power and privilege.
The enormous resistance created by a violent challenge.
How are we going to get a dialogue going between the rich and the poor?
We all are subjected to the temptations of greed and elitist exclusivity.
What do we mean with the words we use.
There will always be a need for "authority".
Punishment for wrong-doings is an essential part of the implementation and maintenance of a condition of justice.
The "philosophy of justice".

Ladies and gentlemen, I must begin in the traditional way; by telling you, how honoured I am to be standing, here, before you as your new Secretary-General. I am deeply awed by the responsibilities, as well as the opportunities of this office, and, I promise you, that I will dedicate all my energies and efforts to furthering the goals and objectives of this glorious organisation; the United Nations.

Some of you may smile, perhaps, when you hear me declare my enthousiasm for the job you have just given me. Perhaps, you are thinking that all my efforts and best of intentions are not going to amount to much, because I am, after all, the compromise choice of a complex process of behind the scenes negotiations. You want to tell me, that I have been chosen, not so much for the expectations I arouse on account of my experience in the United Nations, or my background and function as an ambassador of my own country, but, I have been chosen, just because I come from an obscure, bland and innocuous background. I have been chosen, because, in spite of my long association with the field of international diplomacy, I am a bland and innocuous personality myself.

The great powers in the world, represented, here, at the United Nations, were able to agree about my choice, only, because they expected that the status-quo would not be changed. They expected that no new, bold and potentially disruptive initiatives would be undertaken during my tenure; that I would tiptoe, cautiously, in the treacherous quicksand of international relations, careful not to offend anyone, and destined for an unobtrusive place in history. Is this not what many of you, who are familiar with the tortuous negotiations that preceded my election, would like to tell me, when you smiled at my introductory remarks?

You are right; I am an innocuous and bland personality. I have no strong likes or dislikes; I prefer to analyse situations carefully and cautiously, before responding to them, and, I am primarily interested in understanding the circumstances, motivations and personalities of people. I like to study the reasons, why we seem to get, so easily, into a confrontation with each other. I also want to understand the similarities that exist between many different people, and, I want to reflect the shared hopes and dreams of people all over the world. I want to scrutinise the traditional wisdoms and attitudes about the nature of human beings, as well as the common-place concepts about the inevitability of conflicts and wars.

I am not going to take sides lightly, but, with your help, we are going to study, carefully, and, in greater depth than has ever been done before, why, and how, a conflict-situation arises, and, what avenues are open to mediate a fair solution with a minimum of strife and hardship for the peoples involved. I am not going to accuse anyone particular society, country or leadership, but I am going to question the justification and legitimacy of everyone's behaviour. I will not point an accusing finger at anyone in particular, but, I will try to show, with complete honesty and openness, that we share many, if not all the trends and motivations that bring us into conflict with each other.

Perhaps, you are beginning to doubt, now, whether I am the bland and innocous personality you thought you chose, and, you are wondering what kind of trouble my election will bring. You wonder, what prerogatives this new Secretary-General is assuming. Perhaps, you are beginning to wonder, whether you are getting a lecturer and a moralist, rather than a professional international civil servant or diplomat. Perhaps, you wanted an unobtrusive but tireless worker, arranging meetings, conferences, sessions and deliberations, so that the delegations of the various countries can continue their interminable rounds of mutual accusations and angry verbal squabbles.

I certainly will help you, tirelessly, to avoid verbal hostilities from becoming bloody battles in the field, but, let us, indeed, review, for a moment, why we are, here, in the first place. You all are ambassadors, sent to the United Nations to represent your respective countries. However, you represent, primarily, the leadership that is in power. Most of you represent leaderships that have been duly elected by the people, and, I am pleased to see, that there is general agreement amongst the majority of the leaderships in power, that they should represent the peoples of their countries. Undoubtedly, most leaderships counsider themselves genuinely representative of the people of their country, in spite of the fact, that there is a great variability in the ways and means this "representation" has been established.

I do not want to consider, at this time, the details of leadership representation. Let us agree, that you represent the leadership that is presently in power in your country, and, it is logical, and natural, that you feel a strong sense of loyalty to, and affiliation with, this particular leadership. What each one of you does or says, officially and unofficially, here, at the United Nations, reflects the basic fact, that, each one of you can be recalled immediately, if you happen to displease, in one way or another, the leadership back home.

Yet, in addition to representing the leadership of your country, you also represent the hopes and dreams of many millions of people of good-will all over the world; ordinary people, who always lose the most, whenever belligerent posturing leads to war. These people hope, fervently and honestly, that the function of the United Nations is more than just a forum for your leaders to accuse each other with angry speeches. Many people hope, and expect, that you, and your leaders, come to the United Nations in an honest effort to resolve your differences; to build a framework of mutual understanding and cooperation; to avoid the devastation and misery of warfare, and, to promote a greater sense of justice and equality of opportunity for the many peoples of the world.

I see, you are smiling again. Perhaps, you are saying to yourself; "I was worried for a moment, that our new Secretary-General would become a troublesome meddler in our international affairs, but, he is bland and naive after all. Perhaps, his idealism to do good and to help the poor will keep him out of our hair, and let us continue our diplomatic jockeying and fascinating power-plays, just as before".

Ladies and gentlemen, you are not only ambassadors sent by your respective governments to represent the wishes and interests of those leaderships back home. You also represent the wishes, interests and goals of our founding fathers, who set-up the United Nations in an honest and sincere effort to avoid the terrible tragedies and sufferings of those, who were caught-up in warfare and violent confrontations. You and your leaderships may have forgotten, that the United Nations are supposed to be more than just a convenient forum for belligerent and proud posturing by sovereign governments, but your forefathers and the common peoples of the world made it very clear, what the ultimate purpose of this body was supposed to be.

After all, the ordinary working citizens in your respective countries, pay, not only, for the maintenance of this "Institution of Hope", but, they pay, also, for your salaries and accomodations, as well as for the maintenance of your national leaderships and their government bureaucracies. What is more, your citizens pay for the wars that are unleashed by their leaders, and, they pay for it, not only, with their money, their property and their sweat, but, also, with their tears, their relatives and their lives.

People pay dearly for the decisions of their leaders. Certainly, these decisions are not always wrong or questionable, but, they are still, too often, emotional, short-sighted and guided by an impatient pride. The attitudes of pride and national honour trap us, time and again, in an irreversible attitude of belligerent posturing and armed conflict.

We are here to mitigate those tendencies, and, to change the course of human history, but, before we can become an effective instrument of universal justice, hope and good-will, we will have to study and analyse, carefully, the mechanisms and reasons, why, even, our best intentions, our most serious and honest efforts to compromise with our adversaries, still have a tendency to end-up as an all-out conflict; where only death and destruction of one side or the other can solve the unbearable tensions of hatred and distrust.

We are, here, gathered together, as ambassadors of our countries, because peoples from all over the world, including most of their leaders, want us to help ease the tensions that exist between us, but the people and their leaders can not help us with precise or specific suggestions, how such a task is to be accomplished. If our sovereign governments would know how to get-along better with each other, we, the United Nations, would not be necessary, and, we would never have been created.

Is it, therefore, illogical or unreasonable to assume, that we have a mandate to search for new ways to make the world a more peaceful and just place to live in? We all want peace, and yet, we make war. The people and their leaders profess that they want to live in peace with each other, and yet, we see a nearly continuous round of strife and friction.

Are our leaders to blame for most of the wars? Yes, I believe that this is largely the case, but, it is wrong to see these acts of warfare and belligerence as a form of behaviour that is not supported by the people. Occasionally, a leadership miscalculates the mood of the people and starts a war for which there is no popular support. Most of the time, however, the people are behind their leaders. Sometimes, they are even more aggressive than their leaderships, and a successful war-effort will net the leadership, invariably, a large measure of prestige.

People never ask themselves the question, whether or not the war they have just won was justified. The justification of a war is always implied in the fact, that they went to war in the first place, but no-one likes to lose a war. Questions will be raised, then, because the price of defeat is astronomical.

How many people will chastise their leadership, if it seizes someone else's territory in a quick and opportunistic act of aggression that costs relatvely little in bloodshed or material losses? It is amazing, how easy it is to find a good intellectual justification for such an act of opportunistic gain, or annexation. The reasons range from "ethnic togetherness", or, the "liberation of an oppressed people", to historical reasons why the territories should fuse, once again. Then, there are the matters of pride, security, or, the "teaching of a lesson".

It would be unfair to blame, therefore, only leaders for acts of aggression, and, we have to acknowledge, that we all are susceptible to the lure of a quick and easy gain. We have to see through our own instinctive drive to justify giving-in to the temptations of an expansionist drive. If we would understand, better, our own nature, as well as the way we use our ability to think, speak and persuade each other, we would also find it easier to recognise the similarities in behaviour between ourselves and those we consider to be, for one reason or another, our "enemies".

Everyone, leaders, thinkers and artists, the merchants and the entrepreneurs, the establishment, as well as those who like to challenge the established hierarchy with an impatient rebellion, we all have to learn, what drives us, and, what kind of behaviour will make it possible to live in harmony, prosperity and freedom.

We have to understand, what sort of trends, attitudes and activities, developments and transactions will poison the atmosphere between people. We have to know what destroys the relationships of trust and agreement, be it between individuals or societies. We can analyse these trends and happenings, now, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and, we come to the conclusion, that the social divisions between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the oppressed, the privileged and the uneducated, can be overcome, if we really make-up our mind to do it.

On the other hand, we will also come to the conclusion, that many of us pay only lip-service to the ideals of equality of opportuinty and a decent standard of living for everyone. Most of us are genuinely interested in promoting global justice, if we only knew how, but, we will have to persuade a large number of privileged and powerful people to do the actual work of implementing a situation of global justice, and, we know, that most of these people have no intention to contribute to a process of global equalisation and justice. Before we condemn them as traitors to the ideals of humanity, let us understand the psychology of the rich and the privileged, and, let us understand, why they seem so persistent in resisting a change towards greater degree of justice and equality.

Are they blind and insensitive to the plight of the poor and depraved? Are they completely indifferent to the needs of other people? Are they inhuman degenerates, who have to be annihilated as quickly as possible? Certainly not, because they are ordinary human beings, just like you and me. They have become very dependent upon their easy way of life, as well as the privileged conditions of their existence. We should understand, why they resist any attempt to separate them from these privileges. They are defensive, because they do not know, how to cope in a more hostile environment, where the demands upon their personal capabilities will increase to a remarkable extent.

Certainly, such a defensive attitude is not justified, just because we understand why it is happening, but, let us, at least, understand these people, and, let us search for ways and means, whereby we can make it easier for them to let-go of some of their inherited privileges. It is a mistake to see them as inhuman monsters.

A relentless pressure upon those who are rich and privileged may appear to make them inhuman monsters, because they have no choice, then, but to resist all changes with a stubborn determination. If we hate such people, and, if we can only fight them relentlessly, they know, that they are fighting for their lives, and, they know, that they will be reduced to a miserable life of poverty in bondage, if they survive at all. Yielding to just demands is then perceived as the beginning of a fatal weakening of their defenses against an arch-enemy.

Those of us, who strongly believe in the virtues of revolutionary change, should think, soberly, about the enormous resistance which impatient and violent challenges create amongst those, who have built a shell of security with their property and privileges. Try to calculate, how much less effort, toil and misery would be required, if a less impatient approach to the many injustices in society would have been adopted.

You may think, that it is naive to believe that one can "talk" the privileged into surrendering some of their privileges. The historical records are extremely meager to support the contention, that changes can occur on the basis of good-will and insight alone.

Yes, I agree with you, and, I do not want to suggest, that it is possible to "move" the conscience of the rich, sufficiently, with merely a sermon on justice and the rights of the human individual, but, I do maintain, that all people, even, the rich, have the capability to acknowledge that injustices do occur, and, that it would be desirable to eradicate most of the poverty, ignorance, oppression and other inhuman conditions that are still present in many of our societies.

The question is; how are we going to get such a dialogue going, and, how are we going to keep it alive? How are we going to prevent those, who champion the cause of the poor, to become impatient, and, how are we going to prevent the rich from merely stalling for time, or paying lip-service to the ideals of justice we all agree-upon?

Indeed, is it easy to agree amongst ourselves, what we mean by a condition of justice? Do we agree what oppression is? We all have different ideas about poverty and property. We all have different ideas about the rights and abilities of people to obtain a measure of security with hard work and responsible attitudes.

The entrepreneurial societies have been able to achieve a measure of power and success through the virtues of hard work and a frugal way of life, and, they are naturally inclined to argue, that everyone has a similar chance to build-up a life-style of affluence and property. Those, who have experienced the frustrations of a corrupt, inert and insensitive bureaucracy, as well as the entrenchment of a privileged class, tend to dream about the virtues of a revolutionary over-throw, where, once and for all, injustices and reactionary attitudes can be eradicated by destroying the aristocracy and the propertied classes.

Both attitudes are naive, because the goals of wealth and property can only be obtained by a few, hard-working and lucky people, while the reactionary attitudes such as greed, the accumulation of wealth and privileges, or the exploitation of ordinary people, are, of course, not limited to those, who have acquired material wealth. These attitudes and practices are behavioural potentials that have been born into us all. These traits may come to the fore, whenever people happen to become powerful.

We have to learn to see, that we are all subjected to the temptations of greed and elitist exclusivity, and, that we all want to work hard, at times, as long as we see that it pays-off to do so. We all can be discouraged by failures, by a sense of futility, or, by the overhwelming injustices created by a corrupt and oppressing elite. If we do not know any better, we can not take advantage of opportunities as they come along, because we can not recognise them.

Anyone, who thinks that the problems of ignorance, a lack of education, biased information and manipulative propaganda can be easily overcome, is just not realistic. Gigantic problems have to be solved, before we can give every human being, at least, a chance to live a decent life.

Before we start to outline, what we have to do in order to further the cause of global justice, dignity and peaceful co-existence, we have to review our concepts and ideas. First, we have to agree, what we mean with the words we use, and, then, we will have to agree amongst ourselves, what we mean by a condition of "global justice". What sort of a global standard of living can we aim for, and, what will the privileged have to give-up for the sake of global justice? We will also have to look, carefully, into the mechanisms required to maintain a state of global justice and peaceful integration, and, we have to ask ourselves, what kind of a supervisory and authoritative body we need to maintain social order and judge disputes competently.

Let us face things realistically. Even, if we are justified in assuming, that the future societies will experience a level of literacy and understanding we can only dream about, we still have to acknowledge the likelyhood, that human nature will be roughly similar to what it is now.

A much greater knowledge and insight will certainly help us to curb our instinctive behaviour, and, it may give us a standardised guide for ethical conduct, but, we will always need a body of authority to keep us in line; an authority that is able to identify, competently and quickly, the offender of commonly accepted behaviour. We need an authoritative body that is able to protect the individual and his social environment, and tries to correct or rehabilitate those, who give offense to others or the society at large.

As one of the essential characteristics of justice, we have to accept the principle, that, those, who violate the code of justice, will be punished. To get-away with unjust or unethical behaviour creates a condition of injustice and undermines the incentive of everyone else to abide by ethical guidelines. If such violations are allowed to persist, others will rightfully conclude, that it is futile, as well as a waste of time, to obey the laws of society, and, quickly, the atmosphere will sour. Mistrust and suspicion will get the upper hand, once again, and, we would destroy the just society, primarily, because of a failure to maintain a condition of justice.

However, let us not go into the problems of law-enforcement, or all the other requirements for maintaining a stable condition of justice. Let us concentrate on the situation we find ourselves in, at the present time. What sort of debate and study do we need, in order to make an intelligent and valid diagnosis of social problems? Let us discuss, first, a "philosophy of justice", before we attempt to create a society based upon it. Let us analyse our relationships with each other, as well as with our governments, and the societies, we, as ambassadors, represent. Let us see, how we can evolve into a more effective World Body of Nations, which can be seen to be working towards the goals it was created for.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A good look at the Organisation of the United Nations.
Freezing a status-quo of injustice.
The need for a supra-national power.
The phenomenon of "alignment".
Essential equality can only be guaranteed, if one has the power to impose a settlement in a dispute.
Constitutional Guidelines, and the power to enforce these guidelines.
The problems faced by an effective and representative leadership.
The ultimate responsibility of ordinary citizens.
Would a supra-national "power" necessarily be dominated by the major powers?
An attitude of complacency, and the continuation of a sterile debate.
The existential realities of being an ambassador at the U.N.
Is our primary concern to please the leadership back home?
Acknowledging limitations.
Are we a thoughtless mouth-piece for national leaders?
Let us ask our leaders to come and debate the issues themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should have a good look at ourselves and the Organisation we form. However, right from the start, we run into problems. Perhaps, it is not so difficult to characterise the Organisation to which we have been sent by our governments, because, as we have mentioned, we embody the intentions of our founding fathers, who had just fought a major war, and, we still represent, to some extent, the hopes of many millions of people, who stand to lose so much from continued warfare, and, who look to us as the only means to fulfill their aspirations for a better way of life.

Yet, we all know, and the world knows, that our accomplishments are meager, indeed. Through its committees and branch organisations, the United Nations has certainly been helpful in gathering information about many of the poorer and troubled regions of the earth, and, we have also been instrumental in disseminating information and ideas, which have helped to formulate a more enlightened level of awareness amongst the people. People realise, now, that poverty does not have to be endured indefinitely; that there are better ways to live; that social injustices and conditions of oppression do not have to be tolerated, any longer, without a thought of dissent, because these conditions are not the Will of God, nor are there immutable powers that decree social conditions forever.

In spite of a lack of political will-power, as well as the absence of effective means to force a recalcitrant or delinquent government to conform to the often vague wishes of our Assembly, we may look upon a variety of peace-keeping operations with a measure of optimism. Yet, we should not forget, that we tend to freeze a problem into an arbitrary status-quo by our peace-keeping missions. Hostilities cease, by and large, and the local populations benefit from the absence of war and the influx of monies that comes with the stationing of peace-keeping troops. The problems remain, however. No political progress is being made, as both sides cling stubbornly to their concepts of sovereignty and independence, and, the world-community has to keep financing these nearly interminable peace-keeping operations.

Indeed, the peace-keeping operation seems to symbolise, in many ways, the possibilities and limitations of our Organisation. If a majority of the societies in the world, including the major powers, can agree amongst themselves, that a local conflict is not in their interests, we are capable of putting a lid on the fighting and keep the belligerents apart with a peace-keeping force, but, we are unable to solve the core of the problem. The essence of the dispute remains, because we have no binding authority, nor do we have the facilities to make binding judgements, which sovereign States have to acknowledge and abide by.

The suggestion, that there should be an authoritative body that can impose a solution upon a sovereign, national leadership, is unanimously rejected by all sovereign leaderships. It seems nearly impossible for sovereign leaderships to give-up, voluntarily, at least, some of their powers, and, we see, clearly, how easy federally integrated national entities become bogged-down, unless external circumstances force the member States into an effective cooperation that has become necessary to survive.

Similarly, if popular representatives of political Parties, chosen in an honest and fair election, come together in a Parliament where there is no overall leadership, or, a set of clear-cut and generally accepted Constitutional Guidelines, we see, how the business of the nation stagnates, as politicians start to bicker and fight with each other. Eventually, law and order break-down, leadership disappears all-together, corruption and anarchy flourish, the extremes of the political spectrum get into open hostilities, and, eventually, the nation slides into a civil warfare.

We do not want to pursue this line of thought, here, because we only want to point-out, that a loose federation of States or nations, such as we represent in the Organisation of the United Nations, or, any loose federation of political Parties in a democracy, without an overall leadership or adequate Constitutional Guidelines to ensure the continued existence of the State as a whole, such a loose federation or organisation is doomed to failure because of a state of chronic inefficiency.

What is the point for us as an Organisation of United Nations to criticise or condemn the actions and behaviour of one nation or another, if we have virtually no power to impose sanctions? Most nations can, and do, ignore, completely, the wishes of the world-body, and, certainly, the more powerful nations on earth tend to use our Organisation as a private sparring ground to air their grievances and suspicions. They dominate and manipulate many of the smaller nations, because these smaller nations have important economic ties with them, and, they can not afford to adopt a truly independent stance because of fear of affronting a powerful neighbour.

Certainly, it is perfectly logical, that a small nation is tied, economically and politically, to a large and powerful neighbour, and, it is unavoidable, that such a vulnerable nation is going to support its neighbour in an Organisation such as ours. However, these practical developments of alignment into blocks of nations according to national interests, makes a mockery of the principles of national sovereignty.

We, as representatives of our national entities, object, violently, as soon as someone suggests a change in attitude, or, a line of thought that challenges, at least, to some extent, the principles of absolute national sovereignty, but, we all know, that most nations have aligned themselves with one major power or another, or, they have aligned themselves in an organisation of "non-alignment". While recognising that alignment with a major power has significant, and, frequently, undesirable consequences for their independence and sovereignty, these smaller nations are looking desperately for a way to group-together into a common attitude of "non-alignment".

I do not criticise or begrudge these developments, because I recognise, that they are unavoidable, especially, if there is no encompassing power-structure to guarantee everyone a measure of freedom or sovereignty, regardless of size. Here, we see an important principle come to the fore; nl. that the ideals of social equality, be it between the individual members of a society, or, between the member-states of a world-organisation, is only possible, if a power-structure exists guaranteeing these principles or mechanisms of operation.

No nation or institution can function according to principles of operation, or Constitutional Guidelines, unless a powerful leadership with an effective governing body is able to enforce these Constitutional guidelines and principles. This is the reason, why democratically elected leaderships are so prone to a proces of stagnation, and have a tendency to decay into a state of inertia and corruption, because the leadership itself becomes so easily fragmented by bickering factions, and, there is, then, no authority in the nation to halt such an unproductive process of infighting.

The principles of a democratically elected leadership and a Legislative Assembly, or House of Representatives, are the only just and viable way to secure a leadership, that is, at least, potentially, truly accountable to the people. However, we have to be careful, that a multi-individual leadership can not be split by bickering factions, because we would destroy the effectiveness of the leadership, and, with it, the viability of society.

I favour a system, where the entire population of a country selects an overall leader, or President, who governs in conjunction with a House of Representatives. While there can still be devastating clashes between the President and the members of a democratically elected House of Representatives, we are, at least, avoiding the possibility of a complete stale-mate, as well as a disastrous deterioration of the leadership. The latter is likely to occur with Parliamentary systems, especially, when there is a coalition government, made-up from multiple political Parties that have been elected on the basis of proportional representation.

Let the President govern for a number of years, and, if he does a poor job, let us elect someone else, when his turn of office has expired, but, let us avoid, at all costs, a Parliament, where no political Party can govern effectively. The disappearance of effective leadership leads, inevitably, to chaos, corruption, anarchy and injustice, inviting extremism and terrorist attacks, as well as political take-overs, either from the Right or the Left.

I do not want to get too deeply involved with the problems of effective and representative leadership, but, let us all be aware of the enormous problems associated with the existence of fair and competent leadership. Let us only say, here, that the solution can never be found, entirely, in an "ideal" type of representative leadership. Certainly, the manner in which representative leadership has been elected will contribute significantly to the effectiveness or the problems of a particular system of government, but, we should not forget, that a crucial contribution has to be made by the members of society themselves.

People have to be educated, and wise enough, to realise, that they have an important responsibility and obligation to fulfill towards their society and themselves. If the people are willing to let themselves be goaded by superficial and facile political promises and solutions that offer only temporary or short-term benefits, then, the electorate contributes to the development of a political leadership that will, eventually, polarise the society into opposing camps, where political patronage is rampant, public office is used to further one's own goals and interests, as well as those of friends and supporters. Public office becomes, then, a way to reward those who are faithful and loyal to a particular political Party in power, and, official functions become an instrument to suppress or oppress those, who are in opposition or may pose a challenge to the leadership in power. Political differences of opinion may slide, then, quickly, into a personal vendetta and an all-out struggle for power.

Dogmatic Socialism has sought to overcome the problems of a truly diversified political leadership by the imposition of "One-Party Rule", but, eventually, this leads to a nearly irreversible alienation between the people and the ruling Party.

There can be little doubt, that the behaviour of every citizen, including those who aspire to political leadership, has to be carefully regulated by Constitutional Guidelines, which are themselves the product of a long, communal search for a conscious formulation of an acceptable code of conduct. Ordinary citizens have to be the real guardians of these Constitutional Guidelines, because, only then, can this insidious process of alienation between the peoples and the ruling elite be avoided. Only then, can we speak of a truly democratic government, where the electorate as a whole retains a measure of independence in their thoughts and actions, as well as a large measure of responsibility for the well-being of their society. Only then, can the people be truly in power and remove from office any leader, politician or bureaucrat, who violates the Constitutional Guidelines.

However, if the people are not aware of their ultimate responsibilities; if their level of awareness and education is insufficient; if their minds become poisoned with biased propaganda; if their journalists, reporters and critics are denied access to the media to point-out people's responsibilities towards society and point a finger at the short-comings of the leadership, yes, then, the whole system breaks-down. The Constitutional Guidelines become a dead and unheeded set of unintelligible and irrelevant codes, and, once again, we are witnessing a society that is on a precipitous decline.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is not difficult to recognise these general principles, because we are all too aware of the limitations that have been placed, by design or by default, upon our own Organisation. However, you may want to ask a few questions. You may want to ask me, first of all, whether or not the United Nations should be anything more than a forum for debate; an Organisation that helps to spread information, technology and contacts around the world, as well as an Organisation that is able to freeze a boiling conflict into an uneasy truce with the help of a peace-keeping force, giving the leaders of the warring nations or factions a chance to discuss their problems and search for an acceptable compromise solution.

You may argue, that, any attempt to create a truly powerful supra-national Organisation would, inevitably, be dominated by the major powers in the world, and, you may argue, that, such a supra-national body would legalise their tendency to dominate the smaller nations in the world. "No", you say, "it is probably a good thing, that the United Nations are what they are, and, that we defend the principles of national sovereignty and integrity against the covetous eyes and expansionist intentions of our powerful neighbours".

I agree with you, that, under the present circumstances, any attempt to create a supra-national body of authority with the power to punish States that do not heed the resolutions of our Organisation, would quickly become an instrument in the hands of powerful nations, and, I agree, that such a development would polarise the nations of the world even further into a few large political and military blocks that are constantly at loggerheads with each other.

However, we should ask ourselves, also, whether or not the circumstances as they now exist, will remain the same for the next few generations. We all know, that the circumstances, as well as our perceptions of these circumstances, change continuously, and, we know, that we have to ask ourselves, time and again, whether or not we are fulfilling the mandate of our founding fathers, as well as the hopes of the peoples of the world. We should be aware of the fact, that an attitude of complacency and a continuation of the sterile debates and hostile skirmishes on the floor of this Hall, will only diminish our authority and prestige in the eyes of ordinary peoples around the world.

Many people expect more from us, and, if we do not deliver more, we may find ourselves, eventually, completely ignored. This will lead to a constant lack of funds, and, this will frustrate even those activities we have been able to carry-out. It is dangerous to become satisfied with the status-quo, or, to feel, that we are fulfilling our duty by this endless round of discussions and meetings.

I know, very well, that the attitude outlined above, is much closer to the realities of our lives, compared to the high-flown idealism of a world-body that is a true gateway to the future world-society of peace and prosperity. If we look at ourselves, more closely, we see, how varied and complex our backgrounds and circumstances really are. I hear you answering me in the following manner;

"We can never forget that we are abassadors, and, that our primary loyalty is to the governments we represent. Our loyalty is not primarily directed at the United Nations and its high principles and ideas. After all, if we displease our governments back home, and, if we show a line of thought, or a measure of initiative, that is too independent from the source of power that makes our existence, here, possible, we will find ourselves, quickly, recalled and replaced by someone else. No, our primary loyalty is to our governments, and, their loyalty is primarily towards themselves, and, perhaps, the society they claim jurisdiction over".

"Our primary task, here, is to make sure, that the interests of our leaderships and our country are represented, and, the objectives of seeking collectively ways and means to make the world a better place to live in, are idealistic positions and statements that sound good, but, they do not represent reality".

"Indeed, realistic behaviour includes a fine appreciation for the relationships of power and dependence "as they exist" in a cold appreciation of reality. Just as we saw, that, many of the smaller nations are much less independent from their powerful neighbours than they would like to acknowledge, so is it realistic to agree, that, we, representatives of our countries at the United Nations, are much less independent in our actions, thoughts and behaviour than we would like to be. Perhaps, many of us will openly acknowledge that our primary concern is to please the leadership back home. If we fail in this delicate task to please those, who send us, and, to score political points for them, our security is in jeopardy, and, our whole way of life may suddenly come to an end".

"Most of us will find it difficult enough to keep abreast of the rapid changes in the power relationships back home, in particular, if the leadership of our country is not established along Constitutional Guidelines, and, if the mechanisms of popular elections have not been firmly established. If our leaders have to maintain their positions of power by force and intrigue, we have to be extremely careful not to say or do anything that may offend them. We depend, therefore, always on our own country, and, by implication, we depend on the leadership that is in power. We do not want to think in terms of global justice, and, we certainly do not want to take issue with the opinions and positions our leaders have staked out vis a vis their adversaries, be they internal or external enemies".

"It does not matter, what the charter of the United Nations sets-out as goals to be accomplished, or, what sort of behavioural attitudes have to be adopted. We are foremost concerned with representing the powers that make our existence possible. How can you expect us to even listen to a message of good-will, or, a program of political initiatives that touch upon the pre-rogatives of our national leaderships?", you may ask. "Do you expect us to rebel "en masse" and then go back to our leaders and give them a lecture on how to behave more humanely towards their own citizens, other social groupings, and those, who oppose them?"

"You must be utterly naive to think, that there is any useful purpose in trying to tell us to work towards a better world-society. Even, if we would agree wholeheartedly with your lofty ideals, we would have to ask the question; what can we do? Our hands are tied. If we adopt even a small portion of the ideals you are portraying so vividly before us, we would be finished. There is no point in talking to us this way. Why do you not invite the real leaders of each and every country to listen to what you have to say, and, perhaps, you can convince them, that there is some merit in your observations and proposals".

If you would want to say this to me, then, you are, once again, perfectly right, because, indeed, we are nothing more than representatives, who have been rewarded by our leaders with a position at the United Nations. For some of us, this may be the beginning of a career in the leadership of our country, and, in our ambitious dreams, we concentrate on making a good impression back home, so that we have a chance to advance in the hierarchy of this leadership. Other representatives at the United Nations are seasoned diplomats, with a long experience in the field of international diplomacy. They know, exactly, what their governments want to hear, and, what they have to say to stay out of trouble. They know, how to maintain their security, and, how to keep the lines of influential contacts open. What they really think, they keep to themselves, and, they will certainly listen with a faint smile to the idealism and enthousiasm of their new Secretary-General.

Certainly, it is perfectly justified to keep the existing power relationships in mind, and, I am not advocating a political suicide. I do not want to say to you, that you should ignore the real source of power and possibilities of your existence, but, perhaps, we should acknowledge, a little more openly, at least, to each other, that we are all captives of our governments.

I know, that many of you do not like the word "captive", because most of you identify so completely with the position of your government, that you do not even realise, or want to realise, that you have no choice in these matters. Fine, you are completely convinced of the wisdom and the righteousness of your leaders, and, you see no discrepancy between your opinions and those of your leaders. You admire your leader and his government, and, you will work hard and obey his instructions to the letter.

I do not deny, that some of you may honestly feel this way, but, let me tell you, that you have been chosen, then, primarily because of your unquestioned loyalty. If you would start to think a little differently from your leader, you would not survive very long. Perhaps, you may not lose your life, but, your career would be ended, and life would certainly be a lot more difficult. This is what I mean by not having a choice in your attitudes or opinions. You are a mouth-piece for your leader, and, you do not have the authority, nor the ability, to think for yourself.

At least, your leader can make decisions. He can even change his mind, or think independently, but, you have to echo, blindly, his opinions as you know them, and, if you are confronted with something unfamiliar, you will have to confer immediately with the leadership of your country, before you can make a decision.

I am not saying, that this is wrong, but, I want to point-out, that such a slovenly attitude and a completely thoughtless identification with your leadership hampers you in your duties and responsibilities as a delegate to the United Nations. Your are, here, to represent your country, true, but, you are here, also, to represent the spirit of cooperation and compromise, of common-sense and good-will, which still exists amongst many peoples in the world, including your own country.

If your focus of attenion is exclusively tuned to the personality and interests of the leaders in your country, you are only representing the ruling circles. If you feel, that you do not have the freedom, nor the ability, to be your own man or woman, perhaps, then, it would, indeed, be better to ask your leaders to come, here, and participate in the debates and negotiations of the United Nations themselves.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

We have to find a measure of freedom and independence in our work, in order to live-up to the expectations of people all over the world, including our "founding fathers".
We will have to discuss, fearlessly, the requirements of good leadership.
An outline of the human personality.
A symbiosis of billions of cells.
The origins of socially integrated behaviour.
Behaviour is determined, partly genetically, partly culturally.
The art of transferring a cultural code adequately.
The ability to finely tune our behaviour in response to the circumstances of the moment.
The search for inter-dependence and specialisation in function.
The transience of a position in the hierarchical order.
The balance of rights and obligations associated with belonging to society.
The qualities of natural leadership.
The origins of the "sense of justice", versus the concept of justice.
The concept of a "biological heritage".
Basic psychological mechanisms.
The function of natural selection in shaping natural leadership qualities.
Building upon the instincts of parental care.

Ladies and gentlemen, we, as delegates to the United Nations, have to find, somehow, a measure of freedom from the controls excercised by our leaderships back home. Otherwise, it will not be possible to work together in a spirit of cooperation, nor will it be possible to make real progress with the problems of the world. I am convinced, that many of the more progressive and far-sighted leaderships will be happy to give their representatives a measure of freedom, because they realise, that we all have an obligation to work towards a more equal and just world-society, but, leaderships that are defensive and held-together by fear, are not likely to allow much room for dissent, discussion or a multi-facetted representation from their own societies. These leaderships will be very suspicious of any development that may undermine their authority, and challenge the methods by which they excercise their powers.

Before we can work towards the creation of a just family of nations together with a more equal distribution of food, educational opportunities and a measure of physical and psychological well-being amongst all the peoples of the world, we will have to come to an agreement between ourselves about a number of concepts, and, one of the fundamental discussions centers around the definition of "good leadership".

In spite of our dependence upon the leaderships back home, and, in spite of the great variety of opinions and concepts about what constitutes fair and just leadership, we will have to learn to discuss, freely, the requirements of leadership. We have to know, and, therefore, we have to discuss amongst ourselves the question what leadership is; what it is supposed to do; how it should regulate the relationships between citizens, between leaderships and their citizens, as well as between independent and sovereign national entities.

We should discuss the many ways a leadership can come to power, and, we should take a stand regarding the merits of some methods and the faults of others. We should discuss, how leaderships have to organise themselves, how they should ensure a smooth transition of leadership, and, how they should educate the citizens of their societies in such a way, that the citizenry produces, in turn, wise, far-sighted and benevolent leaders.

We will come to the conclusion, that a discussion about the qualities and objectives of leadership is impossible without reviewing, first, the main features of the human personality. Let us discuss, then, the basic outline of the human personality, together with the inborn trend of all human beings to form a small-scale social unit. Let us discuss the mechanisms of hierarchical stratification and the phenomenon of dominance and submissiveness, and, we will understand, how the most powerful individual functions as a natural leader of such a small-scale, hierarchically stratified, social entity.

Each one of us represents a highly complex society of billions of cells. These cells have "learned" to live together in a community, where the tasks of survival have been divided over a large number of cellular communities, and these cells have, therefore, become specialised in form and function. The code of instructions for such successful multi-cellular behaviour-patterns, (a form of symbiosis), has been developed over several billions of years in the experiments of evolution and natural selection, and, this code is securely locked into the genetic code of each and every cell of such a multi-cellular individual.

Many of the more complex, behaviourally flexible animals have also experimented with a more loosely organised form of inter-dependent and cooperative behaviour, which is, again, an expression of the search for a more secure existence. However, there are important differences between a society of cells, forming a single, multi-cellular individual, such as ourselves, and, the social integration of a number of "socially inclined animals" into the loose entity of a social grouping, like a social unit of human beings.

The cellular society of the single, multi-cellular organism has a very long evolutionary history, and the behavioural, anatomical and functional requirements of successful integration and inter-dependence are securely and completely locked into the genetic code of each and every cell. In contrast, the behaviourally flexible, socially inclined animal exhibits a form of behaviour that is only partly determined by its genetic code. In part, its behaviour is determined by past experiences and the specific examples and instructions it has received from parents and other members of the group. This is the reason, why they are called "behaviourally flexible" animals, because they can "finely tune" their behaviour in accordance with rapidly fluctuating circumstances.

Behavioural flexibility represents a short-cut in the mechanisms of adaptation. This short-cut became necessary for the larger, multi-cellular animals in order to make maximum use of the possibilities given by their environment, or "ecological niche". Many circumstances fluctuate far too rapidly, and, the genetic "turn-over", from one generation to the next, is far too slow, to allow the genetic code adequate opportunities for a precise adaptation. By making use of past experiences and parental examples, the individual organism can "learn" to make the most efficient use of the prevailing environmental conditions and circumstances. Adaptation comes-about, then, by varying its behavioural response.

While improving the speed with which an adequate adaptation can take place, the adaptation by individualised learning is highly vulnerable to decay, as well as an improper transfer of essential information from one generation to the next. Crucial skills, "knowledge", habits of behaviour, or bits of information, have to be transmitted to the younger generations by a process of "learning", but, if this transfer is defective, the next generation will be severely handicapped.

The human species is, by far, the most advanced on the scale of behavioural flexibility, and, we all know, how vulnerable the human being is, whenever an individual is not properly cared-for by parents or guardians. The human being has to depend for its survival on learned skills, technological aids and intellectual tools, as well as the help, skills and knowledge of other people in his or her environment. We are extremely dependent upon this code of learned skills and knowledge, individually as well as collectively, and, we have begun to appreciate the fact, that the entire code of learned skills and knowledge can be defined as the "cultural code".

Together with the biological or genetic code, which forms the body, the cultural code determines the range of our behaviour-patterns. The genetic code lays the organic foundation for the ability to acquire a vast body of skills and knowledge, but, the cultural code makes it possible for us to behave appropriately in a large variety of circumstances, and, to survive, individually, as well as collectively, in the form of a "social entity". The cultural and genetic codes determine, together, the specific characteristics of behaviour and existence for each individual human being.

However, we know, also, that this definition of the human being is not quite sufficient to give us a working hypothesis for understanding our own behaviour. We should elaborate another important evolutionary principle. We have seen, that, cells sought, under certain circumstances, to enhance their viablity by a mode of "symbiotic togetherness" in the structure of a multi-cellular unit, which is the multi-cellular individual. These multi-cellular individuals would behave, once again, on a level of "primary competitiveness", unless we see a similar, but not identical process, where a number of multi-cellular individuals would orden themselves into a hierarchical unit or socially integrated grouping.

Obviously, a trend towards mutual inter-dependence was stimulated by the pressures of survival, and, this process of mutual inter-dependence required a curiously contradictory set of behavioural trends, before the processes of socialisation were successful. In order to follow the train of logical extrapolations, which we have begun, here, it is important to realise, that the socially integrated groupings that came into contact with each other, would behave, once again, on a primitive and primarily competitive level of behaviour, while the members of these societies were already learning, increasingly, to tolerate and trust each other in tentative relationships of mutual inter-dependence and task-differentiation.

We do not know, exactly, how behaviourally flexible animals started to form socially integrated groupings, but, it is clear, that the pressures upon the ability to survive facilitated a completely subconscious search for better ways to live, and, one solution was found in the formation of a socially integrated or inter-dependent grouping. We assume, that, initially, the behaviour-pattern of multi-cellular members of a species was "territorial", where the adult members would spread-out over a large territory. Every individual, or, perhaps, a couple of one male and one female would lay claim to a certain part of this territory.

The instinct to claim a territory is related to the need to secure a minimum supply of food, or energy, in order to sustain life and raise a family. When a population becomes dense, (and this always happens when a species is successful), territorial competition becomes intense, and, it seems logical, that, eventually, the members arrange themselves around a number of particularly strong and aggressive "bullies". In exchange for protection from other "bullies", the members orden themselves into a "hierarchical grouping", where the overall leader has undisputed jurisdiction over the fused territories of all the members.

The members arrange themselves in a sort of "pecking order", where those who are aggressive and strong-willed, dominate most of the others, while the timid and the weak have to tolerate dominance by a majority of the members in exchange for a measure of security. Whatever the precise mechanisms were, and, whatever modifications have taken place in the make-up and behaviour-patterns of a socially integrated group, we can be sure, that these groupings must have been of some benefit to all the members. If some members found that the price of "belonging" was too high, they would break-away from the group, and, they would start to form their own socially integrated grouping, or, they would try, once again, to live completely independently.

As soon as the leader could not defend his territory, or, as soon as he would lose against a challenger for the position of leadership, he would automatically be displaced by the successful challenger. Natural leadership is defined as a specific constellation of behavioural traits and characteristics, which would lead to survival and success for a natural leader in a small social grouping. These characteristics would include a courageous, even, ferocious attitude and agressiveness towards outsiders and challengers, and, a protective, or, even, "tender" attitude towards the weaker members of the group, together with a firm and intuitively "fair way" of settling disputes amongst the more belligerent members.

In order to make the concept of "fair" intelligible, we have to outline, briefly, how the naturally occurring hierarchical order gives rise to an intuitive feeling or "sense" of justice. This sense of justice plays an ever more important role in social relationships, as well as in all happenings and events that tend to change these relationships.

The hierarchical order, or pecking order, is established by a process of trial and error, where each member "finds out" by a test-fight or a contest of wills, whom he can dominate, and, by whom he will be dominated. If changes occur in the relative strength of animals, the hierarchical order will automatically change, because these "test-fights" take place frequently. The hierarchical order is, therefore, an accurate reflection of the relative strength of the "personalities" involved, and, we assume, that the position each animal or member of a socially integrated grouping occupies, corresponds with his or her abilities and powers. This constitutes a satisfied "sense of justice".

I agree, that this is a somewhat anthropomorhpic interpretation of instinctive feelings that take place in animals, which do not have any awarenesses that can be verbalised or "labeled". The human being makes constantly use of verbalised ideas and concepts, and, it is natural, but not quite accurate, to extrapolate into the behaviour of non-conceptualising animals, feelings or awarenesses we can abstract and label, but the animal can not.

Yet, the similarities in behaviour between ourselves and the highly developed mammalian species' are so striking, that we can not help but interpret the internal, psychological feelings or awarenesses of animals in the same way as we experience them ourselves. However, we should keep clearly in mind the fact, that an animal can not conceptualise or verbalise. At least, we have no clear-cut evidence that they can, and, only some of the closest anthropoid relatives may have a rudimentary capability to form concepts.

The main point is this; nearly all the animals we come in contact with, do not think or speak, and, we are dealing, therefore, with an intuitive feeling of satisfaction that is associated with a commensurate position in the hierarchy of a social grouping. We distinguish this intuitive feeling or "sense of justice" from the specific human abstractions and thoughts that constitute the "concepts of justice".

As a brief sideline, I like to point-out, that this distinction is not only useful to indicate the different levels of psychological awareness between human beings and the non-verbalising animals, but, we see, also, that this distinction is useful to clarify our own behaviour. We may experience a strong emotional surge or force, whenever our sense of justice has been affronted for one reason or another, and, our behaviour may become violent, or intensely emotional, if we are unable to verbalise, precisely, the reasons for this strong emotion.

Our concepts of justice may then be insufficient, and, our intellectual ability to perceive and describe, exactly, what is going-on, may lack clarity and precision. Our strong emotional involvement may hamper, whatever intellectual grasp we have, but, the primary, emotional, gut-reaction to a "wrong", or, to something that affronts our intuitive sense of justice, shows, clearly, the influence and importance of this "sense of justice", which is so much a part of our biological heritage.

Here, we arrive at another concept we need to clarify, briefly. Our "biological heritage" contains, not only, the instructions that directed the construction and organisation of our body with its numerous organs, functions and control mechanisms, but, our biological heritage also gave us the potential, and the range, of our cultural code, or, rather, it gave us the potential to execute culturally determined behaviour-patterns. In addition, a large part of the behaviour-patterns we call instinctive, or, strong, emotionally coloured patterns of behaviour, have been genetically encoded and are "pre-formed" in us all. They are often modified very substantially by our intellectual abilities to control emotional behaviour and, they are also curbed by a variety of socially or culturally determined "taboos" or checks.

However, if we analyse the most basic and instinctive patterns of human behaviour, "shorn", so to speak, from cultural inhibitions, we see a remarkable similarity of instinctive behaviour-patterns in peoples all over the world. Look, for example, at the behaviour of infants. Their behaviour is nearly identical, and, if there are differences, they seem to be determined by anatomical and physiological differences, rather than by any cultural influences. They cry, suck, sleep and move the same way, and, even, much later in life, the instinctive behaviour-patterns of people are very similar, the world over. We look and search for food, whenever we are hungry. We look for shelter and security, when we feel threatened. We are happy, when we have a full belly, and, we tend to become sexually interested, whenever we feel good and exuberant.

When threatened, we become defensive and suspicious, but the way we exhibit our caution and weariness differs markedly from one culture to the next, and, from individual to individual. When we are secure, warm and sheltered, we are generally friendly towards others, but we also need a dose of excitement and challenges, at least, once in a while, especially, when we are young and have a lot of excess energy to burn. We are angry or disappointed, whenever we feel cheated or taken advantage of, and, we all have a sense of justice that can be wounded by insults, or, which is satisfied and soothed, if we feel that "life has not treated us badly".

Of course, what each one of us can accept as "satisfactory or justified" differs enormously. If I have been granted life as a prisoner of war by a benevolent conqueror, or the winner in a conflict my own society initiated, I can feel a sense of gratitude and justification, even, when living in slavery, but, if I have been led to expect something on the basis of a promise or a natural course of events, then, I may feel unhappy and dissatisfied, in spite of the fact, that I may live a life of great privileges, luxury and affluence.

Nature did not, and could not have equipped the human being for the complex tasks and difficulties, that are associated with the dramatic changes in the size of the human society since "early civilisation", and, we will discuss the reasons, why man had to create, with a conscious effort of his collective will, the necessary leadership structures that made the larger societies somewhat viable, but, nevertheless, temporary and tentative social units.

We have seen, how nature can select the viable and valuable traits of good natural leadership by rewarding those small groups with the gift of life, which had good leaders, while those leaders, who were not beneficial to their groupings, either lost their groups and became solitary individuals, or, they suffered such heavy causalties that they were not able to let their off-spring participate in the next generation of the species.

As we have seen, good, natural leadership implies a courageous ferocity and willingness to defend the group against external dangers, the ability to settle serious and potentially weakening fights between belligerent members within the group, as well as an attitude of "help", compassion, tenderness or assistance to the weaker members, such as the young, the old, the pregnant females, and the handicapped or wounded.

The instinct of parental care had already prepared the human personality for the possibility to be tender and protective, and, we assume, that, good, natural leadership implied these same parental instincts, which were now extended to the entire group by those who challenged, successfully, the existing leader for the top position in the group. If the leader did not behave as a good parent, his followers would melt-away, and he would become a solitary animal, but, at the same time, he would have taken himself out of the mainstream of reproduction.

Only groupings with successful and viable leaderships would reproduce successfully. These mechanisms constitute the essence of natural selection, and have shaped the characteristic profile of "natural leadership".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A successful species.
The ravages of competitive strife.
A spurt of cultural evolution.
The tasks and burdens of leadership have become gigantic.
The limits of knowing what is going-on.
An "insignia" for recognition.
The evolution of multi-individual leadership.
How difficult it is to keep a social leadership well-organised and free from corruption.
Comparisons between small-scale and large-scale social leaderships.
The role of "advisors" and other "intermediaries" in the link between leadership and ordinary members.
Making use of opportunities to fortify a position of leadership.
The far-reaching consequences of the practice of "favouritism".
A rapid divergence between clever and gullible people.
Beneficial and harmful leadership practices.
We need a clear understanding about the objectives of leadership.
A look at prevailing beliefs and opinions.
Most people are happy to leave the chores of the "political household" to those, who are interested.
We can learn a great deal about sensible leadership by studying those, who consider themselves "ordinary citizens".
A good life, and a measure of equal opportunity for everyone.
A definition of essential equality.
Can we have a pragmatic social philosophy that is acceptable to most people, regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural background?
The possibilities and problems of an "enlightened relativity".
Different ways of looking for "security"; religion and science.
Why it is so difficult to synchronise the "collective will".
Convictions of the new Secretary-General.
Any leader, worth his salt, will welcome a serious and balanced effort to evaluate his performance and impact upon society.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is important that you bear with me in this lecture, because we will now trace the development of the much larger society, which demonstrated, so dramatically, the limitations of natural leadership. Let us skip quickly over this immensely fascinating field of human pre-history, where we see the gradual emergence of belief structures, cultural differentiations, as well as the more sophisticated use of all kinds of tools, weapons and "knowledge". During this time, man still lived an essentially nomadic existence, tapping, ever more successfully, the food-supplies of the large mammals that roamed the plains.

Let us not speculate, here, how man invented the technique of symbolic representation, and, eventually, this marvelous tool of "speech", and, let us go directly to one of man's most important crises, when, shortly before the advent of the first Great Civilisations of recorded history, man felt the need to aggregate into much larger social groupings than he had ever done before.

Why? The reasons were obviously pragmatic, and, if we look at the great tensions that were generated by such a remarkable concentration of people, we can be sure, that man was compelled to experiment with living closely together in a much larger society. Man did not create the first, truly large civilisations because of a sense of curiosity, or, as a result of his voluntary choice.

The human species had become supremely successful, and, its population had become so large and dense, in particular in the more favourable climates and fertile areas of the globe, that strife between neighbouring groupings reached a feverish pitch. Man had, already, a long time before, become his own most serious enemy, and, man had also begun to experiment with the techniques of domesticating animals and plants. This made a nomadic existence more difficult, because a settled way of life required an increasingly more sophisticated defense of the communal territories. It is not surprising, therefore, that we see a natural inclination for social groupings to seek shelter under the protection of the most powerful social grouping in the area.

Perhaps, we are justified to see, here, a remarkable parallel with the origins of socialised behaviour in the behaviourally flexible animals. However, the burdens and tasks for the leadership of a "society of groupings" became gigantic, and, a rapid development of sophisticated cultural tools was necessary to make the large, conglomerate society a somewhat viable entity.

The members of a small socially integrated group have to know each other well, in order to "know" each other's place in the hierarchical order, and, they have to know the fact, that each one of them belongs to the group. Similarly, the leader has to know each of the members well, in order to know, whom to defend, and, how to settle a dispute. In the larger societies, the members, nor the leadership, can possibly know each other intimately, and a large grouping makes the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening or positioning, therefore, much more difficult.

Probably, the groupings themselves began to form a hierarchical order within the larger society, and, the leadership of each sub-grouping would submit to an overall leader. The members of the small sub-groupings retained more or less the hierarchical order with their own leadership as they did before, but, the leadership of a sub-grouping had lost some, or, perhaps, nearly all of its "sovereignty". Yet, members and leaders alike must all have become aware of the fact, that many other groupings were also belonging to the same overall society, and, they had to acknowledge that they shared a common, overall leadership, in spite of the fact, that, people from different sub-groupings would be virtual strangers to each other.

Here, we see the value of "cultural characteristics" come to the fore, because specific cultural characteristics became an "insignia" for mutual recognition, facilitating a classification of each other's rank and position. The qualities of understanding each other's speech and behaviour, or familiarity with each other's personal characteristics, took a back seat, as people relied, increasingly, upon quick and somewhat arbitrary insignia, or cultural characteristics, to recognise and "place" each other.

At the same time, the leadership underwent a remarkable evolution. It became a multi-individual unit, structured under an overall leader with a supervisory function, together with a number of individuals in charge of a specific function. Later, this leadership unit evolved into separate departments with their own bureaucracies, which took upon themselves some of the specialised functions and responsibilities the overall leader had delegated to them.

Multi-individual leadership, if properly organised and assisted with sophisticated technological aids, became an extremely powerful and efficient form of leadership, but the numerous ways in which such a multi-individual leadership can go wrong, show us, how difficult it is to organise a multi-individual leadership structure, and keep it well organised and free from inefficient and corrupt practices.

If we compare, once again, multi-individual leadership with individual, natural leadership, it becomes easier to see, which trends and developments open-up possibilities for overall improvement and a better handling of necessary tasks, and, which developments tend to sour the relationships between the members of a large social entity.

In a small group, with a single, natural leader, all the relationships and happenings are transparent, and the number of events and people involved, is small enough for each member, including the leader, to fully know and grasp. This means, that there is a quick, efficient and complete "flow of information" towards the leader. This flow of information is still manageable and comprehensible, while the leader's decisions and actions are monitored constantly by himself, without the need for a special apparatus, or bureaucracy, to collect such information.

This element of social transparence allows the leader a constant check on what is going-on, and, he can modify his actions and decisions quickly, according to the prevailing circumstances. In these aspects, the natural leader resembles the way each one of us "leads and guides" our own society of contradictory impulses and trends through a maze of behavioural possibilities, as we relate to other people and the changing circumstances of our environment.

As soon as a society of people grows in size, the tasks become much more complex. The number of events and inter-personal relationships we have to be familiar with, reaches rapidly a limit of grasp and comprehension. The memory capabilities, as well as the time available to familiarise ourselves with the circumstances, are limited, because there are physiological limitations to an individual's ability to know and process information.

Soon, the leader finds it necessary to have "advisors", who help him with the tasks of remaining in touch with what is happening. However, now, another individual, and another "mind", with its own interpretations, stands in between the leader and the reality he has to know in order to come to appropriate decisions. The flow of information is enlarged by such "intermediaries", but, the chances for distortion, or, for a subconscious or deliberate bias and filtering of the information, increase rapidly.

Similarly, the monitoring processes are affected, and, the transparence of social conditions and circumstances begins to suffer. The leadership, as well as ordinary members, can not oversee, anymore, what is happening in society. Leadership behaviour becomes "secretive", as the leader and his advisors tend to keep their deliberations secret. The disappearance of social transparence leads to a rise in feelings of suspicion, and, with suspicion comes hostility.

Multi-individual leadership, however, also opens the possibility to fortify the position of power, because certain members of society can be attracted into a special relationship with the leadership. In return for special favours, these individuals promise to defend the leadership against challenge and attack from within society, and, here, we see, how such a development distorts the natural hierarchical ordening of the members in society. Some of them are now "artificially" elevated by special privileges and relationships with the leadership, while others flock to the leadership, trying to "sell" their loyalty and fighting abilities in exchange for special favours.

Favouritism ruptures the fabric of social relationships. It distorts the natural hierarchical order, and, it affronts the sense of justice. Suspicions and hatred grow, and, this requires an ever-increasing defensive effort by the leadership to protect its position of power.

We see, then, how the leadership and the privileged classes tend to bond together in the larger societies, and, they become, thereby, a powerful and nearly immutable force. The natural mechanisms of leadership replacement on the basis of personal merit, have been stifled. The non-privileged classes are reduced to poverty, serfdom, exploitation and slavery, but, because of the increased population pressures that exist everywhere, they have nowhere to go.

Multi-individual leadership, the rise of special, privileged classes, as well as the inability of ordinary people to break-away from their social environment, are the main reasons, why the "natural" safeguards of mutual benefit for every member, (which were such an important characteristic in the small social grouping), have been destroyed by the formation of much larger social units. Oppression, a division in classes, as well as a rise in tensions between the various classes of society, are all results of the same pressures that led to the formation of the larger social units in the first place.

The tendency towards a differentiation of society into a variety of hierarchically ordened classes is also promoted by the conquest of other territories and their inhabitants. The development of trade and industry contributed to a rapid divergence between the clever and the gullible, the rich and the poor. These mechanisms separated the frugal, hard-working and fortunate individuals, from those, who had a tendency to take life a little easier, show less initiative, and were more easily satisfied with the status-quo.

Time and again, the overall leadership of a large, conglomerate society had to work hard towards correcting the trends of social polarisation, and, far-sighted leaders have always recognised the dangers of favouritism; of privileged classes, self-serving interests, and people looking for power or influence. Far-sighted leaders recognised the dangers of a rapid rise in the differentiation of wealth and life-styles; of a large, poor, uneducated, neglected and exploited lower class, and, a powerful, complacent and ruthless elite.

Leaders and leaderships have nearly always tried to do something about these dangerous trends, but, just as often, they became defensive and suspicious, especially, if their efforts turned to failures or were poorly received and understood. Then, in an effort to save face, and, often, their own lives, these same well-intentioned leaders would again contribute to the problems of divergence and disparity by adopting the practice of favouritism; by oppressing their opponents, by securing private wealth and security, by neglecting the poor and the oppressed, by taxing most heavily, those, who have the least power to resist the pressures of taxation and exploitation.

Natural leadership also tends to oscillate between a forward-looking, concerned and extrovert attitude that takes care of the social unit as a whole, and, a trend towards defensive, egocentric, introvert, unconcerned, exploitative, suspicious and divisive attitudes. I believe, that it is useful to look for the overall outlines of these alternative and mutually exclusive attitudes in every leadership-situation, because the general orientation of the leadership tells us, quite accurately, whether it is effective and beneficial, or, defensive and anxious; whether it is concerned with the maintenance of social justice, or is set to become a scourge for its own people, as well as the members of other social entities.

Of course, such an evaluation is not easy, and, it will often be controversial, because, just as in the personality traits of most people, we can always see contradictory features and trends. Some actions, intentions and behaviour-patterns of a leadership can be interpreted as beneficial, while others have to be seen as failures, signs of inertia or stagnation, or, as outright attempts to maintain a position of power by force.

Therefore, it is desirable, and necessary, for all of us, who are concerned with the trends and developments in our societies, to make a concerted effort to come to a clear understanding about the role and objectives of large-scale social leadership. Only then, can we take the functions of social leadership out of the hands of fate or chance, and, out of the sphere of power and dominance. Let us put leadership, especially, overall, political leadership, into the hands of a deliberate and well thought-out choice; by an informed, concerned and far-sighted electorate.

"Here, you are, again, the naive idealist", many of you will think, but, before rejecting the idea out of hand, that we can find commonly agreed-upon criteria to judge the quality of leadership and design the mechanisms of installing, guiding and controling leaderships, hear me out, and, then, judge, whether or not these ideas have any merit.

Before we can, even, begin to discuss the criteria by which to judge the quality and justification of leadership, we will have to discuss, how people and their leaders see themselves. If, for example, a society considers it "normal and just", that a small segment of the population has all the wealth and privileges, then, we can not expect the leadership to be working towards a more democratic system, just because we judge such a situation of polarisation to be abnormal and unjust.

It is important, therefore, to be familiar with the cultural code, including the prevailing opinions about the nature of human existence, the way society is organised, as well as the many customs, mores and codes of behaviour that operate in such a society, before we can judge, whether or not a leadership is performing according to the ideals and objectives of its own people.

In adopting such a relativistic approach, we may get the impression, that we have opened a Pandora's box, because the variety of opinions, beliefs and attitudes is so great, so confusing, and, often, so difficult to grasp or summarise, that we may be inclined to throw our hands up in despair. However, before we do so, let us have another look, because we see, that the information explosion of our times, as well as the emergence of a sophisticated communications network, have streamlined our opinions about right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable social conditions.

Many cultural diversities in beliefs and opinions still exist as a remnant from the time, that people existed much more in isolation from each other. It is interesting to note, that the main religious and philosophical perceptions of reality have already converged, while the cultural diversity is still immense. We can certainly grasp the main systems of beliefs in a fairly limited number of social and religious philosophies, which seem popular and acceptable, regardless of the great cultural diversity of the many different population groupings who have adopted these beliefs.

Before we analyse a number of philosophies about the nature of man and his societies, let us remind ourselves, that a political leadership is nearly always carried-out by a small number of people, regardless of the type of society, or the philosophical or religious guidelines operating in society. Only a small number of people seek a career in a political leadership function, and, most people are happy to leave the chores of the political household to those, who are interested.

Many people prefer to pursue a scientific, technological or artistic career, or, they are happy to become clerks and bureaucrats, or, they want to be more independent, as merchants, industrialists, farmers or fishermen. Even in those societies, where a vigorous social philosophy is actively debated and widely spread amongst the people, we still see, that, actual political involvement remains in the hands of a small minority, while the majority of people are spectators and willing students in the schools of political indoctrination.

In most societies, people are too busy making a living, looking after their dependents, organising their own household, farm or business, to be occupied with social problems or leadership functions. Yet, many of us, who would not consider ourselves to be leaders, have to fulfill leadership functions, such as being good and concerned parents, and, we see, often, remarkable leadership qualities amongst those unassuming and unobtrusive people, who go about their business quietly, and preserve the strength of their society and culture for the benefit of their children and future generations. In the mean time, "official" overall political leaderships, together with the ruling elite, are frequently engaged in one folly after another. Therefore, we can often learn more about sensible and beneficial leadership by studying the behaviour and attitudes of those, who consider themselves to be merely "ordinary citizens".

However, this is a sideline, and, we want to emphasise, here, only, the fact, that, in nearly every society, the functions of overt leadership remain in the hands of a few people, while the rest of the people have other important chores and problems to take care of. If we look at recorded history, we see, that society was, nearly always, ruled by a small group, or, even, an absolute, single ruler, who came from a privileged minority. Nearly always, these ruling elites, the warrior and priestly classes, would become dependent upon a continuation of their privileged status. All the hard work was done by the lower classes, so that the elite had the time, and the privilege, to engage in the politics of warfare, power-struggles and intrigues.

Perhaps, we are unkind to these ruling elites, because we see many serious attempts at providing genuine leadership, and, we see, also, that an occasional rule by the lower classes, after a successful revolt, degenerated, quickly, into a regime of brutality and mob-rule, leading to anarchy and injustices that were just as devastating as the injustices it tried to "cure".

Only recently, have we been able to formulate a number of principles for human existence, which have become widely accepted throughout many, if not most, cultures. For the first time in history, these principles have raised realistic expectations about the prospects for a global integration of mankind, because our modern technological aids are now making it possible to create complex and large leadership structures that could have the same degree of efficiency and transparence as the benevolent leadership of a single, gifted, natural leader.

Without the modern technical aids of communication, as well as the computerised gathering and sorting of information, the ideals of equal opportunity and education for everyone had to remain a utopian dream, because such ideals would, invariably, shatter upon the barriers of an inert bureaucracy, together with the difficulties of overcoming the obstacles of inefficiency and corruption. Even, now, most societies still have a long way to go, before they can honestly claim, that all citizens have a good life of equal opportunity; where everyone is given a number of rights against abuse and exploitation, as well as a variety of opportunities to advance their learning and acquire the insights enabling them to participate meaningfully in some of the many functions of social integration.

Yet, in spite of the fact, that, most of our contemporary societies still have a long way to go, it is truly remarkable, that many of us can already agree about the wisdom and advisability of the principles of equal opportunities for all people, regardless of class, race, religion, ethnic or regional origin. It is remarkable, that many of us can already agree with the idea, that a status of social equality represents a condition of justice, and, that a set of laws and a series of codes of behaviour can be formulated, without requiring a uniformity of religious and philosophical beliefs.

Let us examine this statement a little more in detail, however, because, during our confused times, there is a definite trend towards the resurgence of a fusion between specific beliefs and the conditions of social justice. During a long historical development, the emancipation of rational thought and scientific experiment seemed to bring us out of a frame of mind, where we thought we had to persecute those who thought differently, or, who disagreed with an officially proclaimed divine order and truth.

One of the greatest advances in recent human behaviour was the acceptance of the fact, that we can afford to leave every individual free in the way he or she saw the nature of man, the relationships between God and man, as well as the specific beliefs about his or her own place in such a religious or philosophical perception of reality.

Yet, our attempts to regulate society, and, in particular, our attempts to regulate the ethical behaviour of man on the basis of logical or scientific insights, have never been very successful, because it has always been difficult for man to design a convincing set of rules and regulations, without invoking the authority of a divinely revealed truth, or a set of God-given commandments. Therefore, in spite of an "enlightened" relativity in the freedom of religion and speech, social conduct, as well as the laws of social behaviour, remained firmly rooted on religious principles, which are, in our Western societies, primarily Christian in nature.

Those of us, who come from a white, Christian, affluent, technologically and commercially advanced background, should be able to understand, why the dubious morals and confusing behaviour of the "White Civilisation", together with the frightening consequences of modern technology and commercial pressures, have sent many people scurrying for their traditional and fundamentalist religious roots. In many areas of our Western culture, people are looking for security and salvation in a fundamentalist religious belief structure, which puts on everything such a clear-cut and comforting label of good or evil, right or wrong, saved or damned.

It is not difficult to understand, why people revert to religious certainties and absolute truths in times of chaos and confusion, but, we have to consider such a trend a step backwards. People forget, so easily, how difficult it was to free ourselves from religious narrow-mindedness and intolerance, and, now, for the sake of an easy certainty and facile solutions to difficult problems, we reach, once again, for a society that is dominated by religious "Certainties".

Probably, we are not dealing, here, with a firm trend, because the intellectual and emotional problems that come to light when an enthousiastic religious minority tries to impose a religious point of view and a religious way of life, create so much resistance and resentment, that they lead again to a violent revolt. Yet, during the relative short period in which such a fundamentalist attitude and practice prevails, we may see a remarkable degree of social upheaval and injustice, reminding us, with a stark, contemporary example, about the many lessons we could have learned from history.

We tend to forget history so quickly, but, what is even more depressing, we also lose, so easily, the ability to understand history. We lose the ability to see history in a comprehensive over-view, as soon as our own conditions of existence become confused and stressful. Comprehensive thought, as well as a diligent search for large patterns and common denominators, could help us to extract relevant information from historical records, but, we seem to lose this insight all too quickly.

Without such a comprehensive, detached approach to history, we remain fragmented, emotional and flippant in our understanding of the experiences and efforts of previous generations. Often, we behave like a somewhat spoiled and fickle child that never made an effort to understand the ways of its parents. Somehow, this child failed to mature and truly grasp the importance of the questions it faces. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand, why many people, or, even entire societies, try to find a measure of security and stability in old-fashioned, well-tried, religious truths.

We run for cover to a familiar hiding place, but, we do not ask ourselves the question, what the consequences are of our actions; whether or not the hiding place really gives us the protection we think it does; what hardships and injustices our egocentric search for security may bring to others.

One of the reasons, why intellectual thought and the scientific interpretations of nature have never been very persuasive to a majority of people, even in the best educated societies, is the extreme fragmentation and confusion with which this scientific picture of man is coming to light. Most people will not even be able to see any sense in the scientific imagery of human existence. People can see, only, a cold and emotionally unsatisfactory evolutionary image, that places man, together with all animal life, in an eternal and ruthless struggle for survival.

Besides, the sciences are the direct cause of a technological proliferation and uncontroled industrial growth, which have given us the wide-spread dangers of nuclear war, radio-active pollution, as well as a large number of highly toxic and dangerous chemical waste-products. It is not surprising, therefore, that many people recoil from such a bleak intellectual picture of man, and, it is not surprising, that they seek refuge in a comforting creed, or, a more cynical attitude of immediate gratifications, ruthless egocentricity, and unbridled consumption.

Yet, in spite of these problems, as well as the recurrent tendency to see man in the light of an absolute religious reality, there is widespread agreement about the desirability of universal human rights. Who would seriously deny the justification of the concept, that every human being should have the right to sufficient food, health and education; to live a decent life, with, at least, a minimum of possibilities to develop a few of his or her many potentials. No individual would be able to argue, seriously, against the statement, that such a status would be highly desirable, but, at the same time, very few people believe, that such an idyllic situation can ever be realised on a global scale.

Let us see, first of all, whether or not we can all agree, that, every human being should inherit a package of rights by virtue of having been born a human being. Ideally, this package should include a minimum standard of living, which can be specified as a certain standard of food, shelter, education and health, in order to live without hunger or chronic fear; with access to the cultures of man, and, with the ability to develop, at least, a few of one's potentials.

Let us not ask, immediately, how we are going to realise such an ideal situation, and, how we are going to prevent the decay or deterioration of such ideal conditions and circumstances. Let us assume, for the time being, that the technical difficulties of implementing and maintaining such a state of well-being for everyone, are not insurmountable.

It is far more difficult to generate a sufficient synchronisation of our "collective will", because, only then, can we initiate a momentum in this direction, and, part of the reason, why it is so difficult to generate this momentum, is the fact, that we find it so difficult to believe that this condition of global justice and well-being can really be achieved. We tend to disbelieve and discredit such notions as an "empty idealism" that should not be allowed to spread beyond the confines of a high-school composition.

We, experienced and world-wise adults, tend to believe, that we serve mankind better by concentrating on the difficulties of the moment, and, by exploring, patiently, what can be realised, now; as a practical contribution to the well-being of this or that group.

Certainly, I agree, that we should not lose sight of what can be achieved, now, and, I agree, that we should not disregard, impatiently, as insignificant, whatever miniscule progress can be obtained by the activities of our Organisation. On the other hand, we also have to re-evaluate, from time to time, whether or not the pace of progress is real and sufficient. Is the pace of progress real and sufficient in view of the pressing problems and gigantic injustices that keep demanding our attention? Is it real and sufficient in view of the many decades of serious efforts by the United Nations?

Therefore, I would like to propose, that we initiate a series of debates, where we concentrate, not only, on the conditions of human existence and global justice, because we have already made a good start in the definition of human rights. We have to realise, that the real stumbling block to progress in this direction is the fact, that the quality of overall political leadership in many countries, perhaps, in all countries, is insufficient to realise the goals and aspirations, which the large majority of the world-population can identify with.

I realise very well, that, such an outspoken criticism of the political leaderships in the world will raise many eyebrows, and, I know, that many leaderships will consider such a discussion to exceed the mandate of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. On the other hand, I am convinced, that a careful and balanced approach to the development of criteria by which to judge the quality and organisation of political leaderships, will be welcomed by many people, who are, themselves, in a position of responsible leadership.

I am convinced, that, a great majority of people who find themselves in a position of leadership, are genuinely concerned people, who welcome all the help and guidance they can get, and, they will welcome every clarification that may help them to become better and more benevolent leaders for their peoples.

I am sure, that most leaders recognise the dilemma they are faced with, when their efforts become failures, and, when popular support turns into distrust and disloyalty. Many leaders have put their best efforts and best intentions forward, only to be reviled and misunderstood by a non-understanding and ungrateful populace. Many leaders must have been driven to despair and were inclined to adopt an attitude of cynical defensiveness, when they saw all their efforts and good intentions come to nothing, or, lead to a disastrous set-back for the society they so genuinely cared for.

Most leaders are human beings with strongly developed qualities of persuasion and intelligence, as well as strong emotions and powerful ambitions. They are people, just like ourselves, but they are a little larger than life; a little more unbridled in their behaviour; a little more intense in their emotions, and, far more powerful and influential than their followers.

Leaders are rarely sages or saints, and, just because they are so much like the ordinary citizens, they need education and guidance, just like everyone else. Therefore, the genuinely concerned and far-sighted leaders will welcome any honest and thorough effort to help them understand; to help them predict, with increased accuracy, the emotional reactions and intellectual decisions of human beings, because such insights will help us all, including our leaders, in the tasks of contributing and guiding our complex, conglomerate, social environments.

Any leader, worth his salt, will appreciate a serious and balanced effort to evaluate and gauge his performance, including his effects upon society. I even expect, that it is possible, eventually, to convince the concerned leaderships of most sovereign nations, to cooperate fully with a development, that will see the emergence of an ever more effective, global federation of nations.

One of the most difficult tasks, for any leadership, is, to work towards a goal that reduces its position of power and independence, but, if a leadership can be genuinely convinced, that such a development is truly to the benefit of the entire society, and, if it can be convinced, that the guarantees of justice and equality of opportunity are strong enough to prevent treachery or deceit, then, I think, leaders and leaderships, even, of sovereign nations, can bring themselves to abdicate or transfer, voluntarily, some of their sovereign powers to a supra-national Body or Institution.

Why am I so confident that this is possible, you ask? Primarily, because such an attitude, and such a course of events, would mirror, quite closely, the developments in attitudes and behaviour of the ordinary members of society, who decided, subconsciously, way back in this nebulous past of early socialisation, that it was to their own benefit to abdicate some of their personal sovereignty and territorial ambitions, in order to obtain a gain in security and an easier way of life with the help of those who were more powerful.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

There are many fears associated with an implementation of the principles of global justice.
Limits on the ability to amass a fortune, or to squander talents and opportunities.
Is it so difficult to acknowledge the value of responsible behaviour?
How do we get the cooperation of a privileged elite?
Foregoing the taste of revenge.
The evolution of a truly competent and honest government.
A "New Socialist Society".
The ideal of behavioural control.
A comprehensive form of education.
An instant profile of social happenings and events.
Reviewing the existential anxieties associated with "having a job".
Honest mistakes, regardless, how serious, will never be considered a crime.
An unimaginable transparence.
There is no chance that the situation will improve "by itself".
Pessimistic prospects.
Helpless spectators of a final decay.

Let us answer some of the frequently expressed doubts about the possibility to create such a paradise of equal opportunity for all peoples in the world. We will have to answer the realistic and justified fears and doubts of many people, who are worried that the implementation of such a gigantic scheme of equality and justice, would entail major dislocations and sacrifices for a privileged minority.

It certainly would be utterly irrealistic to expect, that everyone's standard of living could rise to meet those, who are leading a life of luxury. Equalisation in the standards of living will mean, that many people are going to have to do with much less, and, the question that arises, immediately, is the following; how are we going to get people to abandon their wealth and privileges? Is it possible, that they will give-up their luxuries voluntarily, or, do we have to take it from them by force?

How are we going to avoid a subsequent differentiation of people into those, who are successful, and those, who are not? Even, if people start-out with scrupulously equal opportunities, they still wind-up in vastly different conditions near the end of their lives. Many have done something useful and worthwhile, while others have squandered everything.

I am not really concerned about a differentiation between people on the basis of individual or personal merit, as long as we can give everyone an equal opportunity at the start. Those, who squandered their opportunities, will not consider it unjust, that they have less than those, who saved and worked hard. One of the most important aspects of social justice is an equal opportunity for everyone at the start of life, and, a differentiation based on individual achievements and failures.

Nevertheless, there is a need for continuous guidance and safeguarding of the conditions of social justice throughout adult life. This means, that society can not afford to let people squander their opportunities and waste their assets, and, it will be considered socially undesirable that those, who work hard, will use their efforts and talents, primarily, to accumulate a personal fortune.

If there is a guarantee of equal opportunity and basic rights for all, we will lose this existential drive to think, primarily, about our own personal security, and, our behaviour will be freed from most existential anxieties by such guarantees. These guarantees will promote a broad outlook to seek satisfaction and reward in a job well-done; an opportunity seized, a talent developed, a task carried to a satisfactory conclusion.

We will not see a great disparity in life-style between those, who are extremely talented and conscientious, and those, who have only limited abilities and a borderline intelligence. Both categories of people will be encouraged to perform and contribute according to their abilities, but, they will both enjoy, in essence, the same security, rights and guarantees.

It may seem to you another utopian dream to expect, that such a high level of responsibility and insight will colour the actions and attitudes of a majority of people. Yet, if many, ordinary people can already acknowledge the value and need for responsible behaviour, now, as good parents for their offspring, why, then, can not everyone learn to be a responsible citizen with an abundance of good-will and trust in the near future, when the level of education will be so much more advanced?

We see many failures in our contemporary educational efforts to raise well-motivated citizens, but, let us not assume, that our contemporary educational systems and curricula are adequate for the job. As a matter of fact, even, the most affluent and education-conscious societies still do not understand, fully, the meaning of education. We still do not have a clear idea, what to teach our youngsters, because we lack a clear-cut global orientation in our outlook. We lack a globally agreed-upon way of looking at ourselves, as well as a globally acceptable system of social organisation that will bring basic guarantees to everyone.

Too often, we teach our youngsters, either, a crash-course in personal survival in order to cope with a competitive social environment, or, we teach them a set of somewhat out-dated religious images and moral guidelines. Sometimes, we teach them a revolutionary fervor of unquestioned righteousness, setting the tone for unnecessary violence and bloodshed. Until such time that we can develop a globally acceptable, practical philosophy of social justice and competent, fair and transparent leadership, our educational efforts and objectives will remain confused.

We have now the technological means to teach ourselves, and our children, on a global scale, but, we do not know, what to teach them, and, we can not agree, as yet, what the goals of an educational curriculum should be. Let us study and acknowledge the immense importance of a globally standardised program of education, because we, delegates to the United Nations, could work-out a program of basic social justice, standardised social relationships and essential leadership qualities, which we could then teach to people all over the world.

It will not be easy to implement, even, such a basic proposition as equal opportunities for everyone, because, in spite of the fact, that such a goal is morally and intellectually indisputable, too many people are dependent upon a position of privilege, and, they can not relinquish it without experiencing severe anxieties and hardships. Therefore, your question, how we are going to get the cooperation of those, whose interests run counter to a global program of equalisation of opportunities, rights and standards of living, is a valid one, and, it has to be answered carefully.

Let us first discuss, how it can not be accomplished. It can not be accomplished by brute force, because, on the one hand, the resistance created would be staggering, and the earth would probably be destroyed, if we engage in an all-out nuclear conflict with those privileged elites, who have surrounded themselves with formidable armies and nuclear arsenals.

Can we reasonably expect to accomplish such a transition to global equalisation voluntarily? It is, indeed, naive to expect the rich and the privileged to give-up their privileges as a result of having been moved by the beauty of a social doctrine of global justice. Yet, an appeal to their sense of good-will and justice should always remain an important mechanism in bringing-about social change, but, it is also important to address ourselves to their "hired henchmen"; the military, as well as other segments in those polarised Capitalist societies, who are being used as instruments to keep a privileged elite in power. These hired servants of the wealthy elite tend to identify with them, because their livelyhood depends on the ability of the rich to employ them.

If we can convince the servants of the rich of the basic injustice of the social situation they have become entrapped in, we may be able to isolate, almost completely, this core of wealthy people, especially, when it dominates society ruthlessly.

The rich and the privileged should be guaranteed the same rights and privileges as everyone else, and, we should avoid, at all costs, to "make them pay" for the injustices, which their wealth and privileged positions have created. We have to understand the severe sacrifices in comfort and security these people will have to make for the sake of the common good, and, we should have patience and admiration for any effort on their part to contribute, voluntarily, to the ideals of social justice. Certainly, in addition to maximum possible guarantees for their safety and dignity, we should use the pressures of public opinion and reasoned argument, as well as a variety of economic and international pressures, to make them understand, that the trends towards global equalisation, and a standardised level of existence, are irreversible.

Perhaps, the most convincing way to persuade the privileged elite to cooperate with such a trend towards global justice, is to show the evolution of truly competent, honest, efficient and open governments, which are fully capable of implementing and maintaining the many social and economic changes that are taking place. The proponents of social justice on a global scale have to understand, also, the need to maintain a scrupulously honest but firm grip on law and order, punishing abuses and violations impartially, regardless, whether they have been committed by the rich or the poor.

The ethical code of the future global society has to be solidly based on the principle, that everyone belongs to society, and, that everyone enjoys the same rights and the same level of protection by virtue of having been born into the family of mankind. Freedom of opinion, be it religious, political or otherwise, should be scrupulously maintained, but, so should the right of every citizen to be free from harassment and coercion, and, therefore, we have to draw a sharp distinction between the right to freely express an opinion, and the act of sedition, or, the encouragement to infringe upon the rights of others, which is unlawful in its intent and criminal in its effects.

The "New Socialist Society" will recognise the basic existential needs of all people. These needs translate into a package of essential rights and privileges, but, the new society also recognises the need to make every citizen aware of his or her obligations towards society, as well as the need to contribute, fully, to society, each according to his or her talents, as well as the opportunities of the moment.

Comprehensive education into a commonly accepted perception of reality, taking into account the nature of our existence, our societies, the possibilities of development, as well as the strong, instinctive and emotional traits of human behaviour, will help us regulate our conduct and make us more compatible with each other.

I know, that I put a great deal of faith in the mechanisms of education, and, you may have your doubts, whether or not it is, indeed, possible to bring-about such a high level of understanding for one's own needs, as well as the needs of other people. You may doubt, whether or not it is, indeed, possible to educate man into becoming a better and wiser human being.

Let me emphasise, here, the concept of "comprehensive education". It is a very broad field of primary experiences and "secondarily transferred" or taught experiences and items of knowledge. Because of the fact, that human behaviour and survival is completely dependent upon a cultural code and a conceptual mastery over himself and his environment, we have no alternative, but to trust the mechanisms of honest and competent education, and, to make education a life-long, unforgettable and indispensible experience.

After all, man has always used education as the mainstay of cultural stability, even, if the authority of the taught material came from an attitude of awe and reverence towards a divine truth, rather than from a careful intellectual evaluation and an honest admiration for a structure of logical persuasiveness.

It will not be easy to do without the sanctions and authority of a divine message, or, without the unquestionable truths of revolutionary dogmas, because we are so used to these channels of authority. However, we will have to learn to live with a reality perception that is complex and flexible, and, we have to learn to live with a form of truth that is relative and shifting in its appearance and interpretation. We will have to learn to live with the authority of an idea rather than a specific personality. This is a difficult task, but, in essence, our viability as a species depends on it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the requirements of excellent, large-scale, social leadership are now beginning to emerge, because, as a parallel to the quick flow of transparent information and behavioural guidelines in the inter-actions of a natural leader with his small group, we see, now, why a complex, multi-individual leadership has to accomplish a similar swiftness and transparence in the flow of information and the execution of behavioural responses for the much larger society. This can be done by creating, carefully, a net-work of computerised information-centers that become an effective central nervous system for the society at large. This will allow anyone, who has been placed in a position of responsibility and authority, to quickly receive all the necessary data in an accurate and digestible form, and, at the same time, every individual can monitor the effects and consequences of all our actions and decisions. We can, then, oversee everyone's behaviour, as well as all other events that are taking place in society.

Certainly, what can be known at the touch of a computer terminal greatly exceeds what anyone individual can comprehend or digest, and, we all have to be selective with the information we want to acquire. We also have to make increasingly use of condensed and summarised statements, and, it is clear, that a high level of expertise, as well as many safeguards against distortions or an unintentional bias, have to go into such a computerised system of information gathering, retrieval and display, in order to make it reliable and useful.

The multi-individual leadership, together with the channels of incoming information and outgoing directives, will resemble, increasingly, the functions of a central nervous system in a highly flexible and alert animal. It is also obvious, that a universal package of human rights and obligations makes it possible to remove existential anxeties from those who hold a bureaucratic or privileged position. The reasons are clear, why this would be an enormous step in the right direction, because we all are familiar with the existential anxieties of people, who have to please their superiors or employers in order to maintain a precarious and vulnerable position.

In the leadership structures of future societies, no position, be it in the actual leadership, the Legislative Assembly, or the many bureaucratic channels, is tied to the existential security of "having a job". In the future, it will not make one iota of difference in someone's level of security or standard of living, whether or not one occupies a highly responsible position. The incentive to work, as well as the ability to contribute to the leadership or regulatory processes of society, are determined by the needs of society for a particular skill.

Of course, it also depends on the judgement of an informed electorate, whether or not an individual is suitable for a post of leadership and high responsibility. The only rewards will be those of a job well-done, and, of course, a job well-done will evoke admiration, and, even, fame. However, we do not foresee any privileges to be associated with occupying or having occupied a responsible position in society. The responsible citizen will be relieved, when his arduous term of office is over, and, he will relish the time for himself, as well as the possibility to disappear in the anonymity of society, quietly pursuing his hobbies and studies, while concentrating on the less flamboyant, but equally important tasks and duties for his family or local social environment.

There will be no loss of prestige, if an individual is judged to be unsuitable for a certain position, or, if he or she wants to retire early from a responsible job. Honest mistakes, regardless, how serious, will never be considered a crime.

The level of transparence will be nearly unimaginable compared to our contemporary societies. While we may have many reservations and objections to such a high level of openness in society, we will come to the conclusion, that such a high level of transparence, as well as the ability to check, at any time, what someone else is doing or planning, provides the essential basis for an attitude of mutual trust. Mutual trust has to be the foundation for a stable society, and, this attitude of trust has to be strongly developed, before a social fabric can obtain its fullest bloom. Yet, all these transformations will take place gradually and simultaneously.

As we obtain an ever clearer picture of ourselves, our needs, and the direction into which we have to develop, we will see a gradual implementation of this package of essential human rights. Deprivation, poverty, hunger and ignorance will gradually give-way to a quiet dignity of existence. It will be a basic but essentially comfortable existence for everyone, where hunger has been eliminated, education is available for every human being, awarenesses are growing, and the sense of justice is satisfied and motivates everyone to work efficiently for the common good.

Utopia, again? Perhaps, but, let us examine the consequences of a failure to move into this direction. We will see a continuation of strife and bickering, of clashes and hostilities between nations and within nations, but, we will also see a steady deterioration in the plight of many millions of people who are starving, ridden with disease, ignorant and apathetic. These people will be so impoverished, so crushed by the conditions of deprivation, disparity and injustice, that they do not even have the energy to protest their conditions. They will continue to suffer and die, virtually unnoticed by the rest of us, while those, who are more energetic and better of, squander their energies and resources in empty consumerism and lunatic acts of warfare.

There is no hope at all, that the situation will improve "by itself", without a concerted effort by us all to make things better, because the problems are increasing and not diminishing. The world population is still increasing, and the population density in many areas is reaching a flash-point. People all over the world are becoming more aware of the inequities and injustices that exist between nations, as well as between the rich and the poor, or the powerful and the oppressed, within national entities. Our resources are dwindling, pollution and contamination by dangerous chemicals of man-made waste add to the natural threats of pests and pathogenic micro-organisms. All those, who have something to lose are becoming more defensive, and, soon, we will be peeking at each other in tense suspicion from behind our enclaves and fortifications, as we try to survive the increasing pressures upon our existence.

The break-down of cooperation, trade, industry and technology on a large or international scale, will suddenly make us realise, how vulnerable we are, and, how little defense we have against the threats of pollution, disease and deprivation, and, in stead of being in a position of continued development and increasing mastery, mankind may find itself, quite suddenly, entrapped in anxious, lethargic and indecisive enclaves; mere remnants of a powerful technological civilisation; reduced to fearful and piecemeal defensive measures against the hostile forces of the environment; oblivious of the fact, that the battle for long-term survival has already been lost.

Do not think that these are unduly pessimistic prospects, without the possibility of becoming a reality in the near future. Let us look at the many pollution problems we face already. How many of us are really concerned about the thousands or millions of tons of deadly radio-active waste and other, highly toxic, man-made chemicals, we really do not know what to do with? We may be able to bury them, somewhere, and forget them, for a number of years, but we can be sure, that our children and grand-children will be confronted with these problems. Perhaps, they will be confronted with them in a dramatic and disastrous way, because these chemicals are likely to become widely spread throughout all the terrestial eco-systems.

Our ignorance and failure to deal, effectively and definitively, with these problems, now, may be the cause of death for millions upon millions of innocent and, perhaps, ignorant people in the future, who have no defense against these threats. By ignoring these problems, now, and, by continuing our ways of conflict and warfare, we are, probably, laying the foundation for a disastrous and irreversible chain of events that may lead to the extinction of the human species.

Let is not deceive ourselves. We are going to need, ever more urgently, an intact body of highly developed technological aids and expertise, in order to maintain our viability in an environment that is becoming increasingly dangerous and difficult to live in. If we destroy this body of technological expertise and organisational abilities, we may find ourselves, within the time-span of a few short generations, in a position, where we are powerless against the ravaging effects of all sorts of toxic waste-products. We may, then, be completely helpless spectators, as we see, within the turn-over of a few generations, how the human genetic code has been damaged beyond repair, and, the ability to form a healthy and normal human being, has been lost, forever.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

We have no choice, but to make serious and persistent attempts to make the world a better place for everyone.
The meaning of Democracy.
A warning against the failures of leadership.
Welding a nation into a unit of loyal, grateful and happy people.
Leadership structures and Constitutional Guidelines.
A scrupulous equality in opportunity.
The power of transparence.
The motive of personal profit will slowly give-way to the satisfaction of a job well-done.
Egocentric bureaucrats and officials.
Work for the United Nations.
Conflict situations between sovereign States.
Controling the urge to fight.
A thorough study of the factors that lead to violent conflict.
A judicial inquiry at the United Nations.
A few questions about practical problems, when trying to settle an international dispute with judicial means.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have no alternative to making serious and persistent attempts to transform the world into a more beneficial and just place to live in; for everyone, and, not, just for those, who are privileged and fortunate. If you think, that this is a task that lies beyond the possibility of realisation, and, if you refuse to give your full attention and best efforts to initiate a momentum into this direction, you will be held responsible for the consequences of such a negligent and defeatist attitude.

Let me remind you, once again, that we all have been given a mandate of hope by our peoples, over and byond the specific instructions of our contemporary leaderships, and, if we heed, only, the immediate existential concerns of our leaders and ourselves, our peoples will eventually remove us from our posts, together with our leaders.

If our leaders continue to rule, primarily, for the benefit of themselves, and those who support them, their life-span will be short, because people know too much, now, to accept, for any length of time, an oppressive and exploitative regime. Let those regimes, be they dictatorships of the "right" or the "left", who still believe, that they can suppress large segments of their subjects and ignore the wishes and opinions of those who disagree with them, ponder the consequences of their archaic behaviour and the inevitability of their demise.

On the other hand, let those leaderships, who allow themselves to become completely fragmented, ineffective and stagnant by constant bickering, realise, that their days are numbered as well. Let them be aware of the fact, that they are making a mockery of the principles of democratic leadership. Democratic or representative leadership, means, being elected by, and being responsible to, the people, but, it does not mean a licence to become paralysed by endless debates, or to abrogate the responsibility of carrying-out the necessary functions.

If a Parliamentary Democracy allows the channels of government to become clogged by posturing egos, or inefficient and complacent officials, and, if such a Parliamentary Democracy allows corruption and inefficiency to proliferate, it has lost the right to exist and to call itself a representative government. A democratic or representative leadership, means, leadership, as well as representation.

Leadership, means, that the necessary functions of government are taking place, and, that they are taking place, efficiently and justly. It means, that the people are guided and inspired to contribute to the common good. Representative leadership, means, a guarantee of protection and basic human rights, together with efficient efforts to maintain the conditions of social justice.

If such leadership fails, (and democratic or representative leadership can fail miserably, just as a dictatorship can fail), then, it should not be surprised to find iself suddenly replaced by a different, more dictatorial form of leadership.

While I have criticised the fragmented, paralysing and ineffective forms of democratic leadership that have been destroyed by irreponsible Parliamentary bickering, I do not want to leave the impression, that I favour a more dictatorial form of government. Often, a dictatorial form of government is "easy", and, it may be necessary, for a while, because of a lack of a viable alternative. If the dictator turns-out to be a genuinely concerned and reasonably secure leader, who can galvanise and inspire a majority of his people, we may see a very beneficial form of leadership with the power to cleanse the bureaucratic channels from inefficiency and corruption. Such a leadership may weld a nation into a loyal, grateful and happy population that recognises the basic fairness and justice of the leader's actions and decisions.

Throughout history, and, even, in some of our contemporary societies, we see, how a gifted leader can perform "miracles" that seem to be beyond the reach of a much more cumbersome Parliamentary form of representative or elected leadership. Yet, as we have seen, so often, in the past, this type of dictatorial leadership is extremely vulnerable to a sudden and dramatic deterioration, whenever the gifted leader is replaced by a less inspiring and more defensive personality. Then, the trends towards favouritism, special privileges, the harsh suppression of dissent, and the rising levels of discontent come to the fore, once again. Then, society freezes and stagnates, corruption and injustice proliferate, and the seeds are sown for the next round of bloody revolts and armed conflicts.

There must be a better way to organise a multi-individual, representative leadership structure, together with its bureaucratic channels and the mechanisms for a successor to come to power. Certainly, there are examples of representative leadership that avoid most of the potential for a Parliamentary stalemate, and, yet, allow for a regular review of the leadership performance in the form of free and fair elections with a genuine political choice.

I have indicated my personal preference for a Presidential System, where a popularly elected President governs in conjunction with a similarly elected House of Representatives, but, my preferences are not important. I would like to propose to the delegates of our Organisation, that we set-up a series of study-sessions in order to thrash-out the advantages and disadvantages of the many leadership systems that are in use.

I propose, that, we, eventually, design, carefully, in a proces of continuous consultation with each other, a leadership structure that seems to be best suited to implement the philosophy and principles of justice and equality of opportunity for people all over the world. Before we can begin to design the Constitutional outlines of such a leadership structure, together with its departments and governmental channels, we have to enumerate, first, a number of functions the leadership has to fulfill. May I give you, therefore, a preliminary list of functions a designed leadership has to carry-out and adhere to, before it can be considered to form a solid basis for a just and competent society?

Foremost in our minds, should be the simple requirement, that the structures of leadership and government have to work towards a situation of social justice and essential equality of opportunity for all members. Only, then, is it possible for everyone to experience the benefits of belonging to society, and, to spread the burdens and opportunities of contribution amongst all those, who have the capability to make a contribution or carry a responsibility.

These requirements impose a heavy task upon the structure and competence of the leadership and its government, and, we see, clearly, that the following are needed; extensive information gathering and classifying channels, allowing all people involved in governmental functions to inform themselves, quickly and accurately, about the situation at hand. We need a complete inventory of resources and peoples, but, also, of problems and tasks that require attention.

We need a carefully constructed package of rights and obligations, which has to be conveyed to the members through a competent system of education. Basic educational programs have to be the same for all people. People have to be educated, and, they have to learn about the rights they have been guaranteed by society. They also have to learn, that these rights require a serious and sustained effort from all of us, in order to make these rights and guarantees possible and meaningful.

A condition of scrupulous equality in opportunity means, that no-one can start life in a privileged position. Children can not inherit large assets from parents or other relatives. Positions in society are to be filled on the basis of individual merit, and, not on the basis of "connections", or lines of influence. All transactions between people, governments and their departments, leaders and other institutions, have to be completely open. Each citizen has the right to examine all information, including the records and files that pertain to himself, his relatives or his neighbours.

All deliberations have to be open to scrutiny. There is no reason, why citizens should not know, what their leaders think, what possibilities they are weighing, what deals they are making or trying to make. The idea of "State security" or national security has to be made obsolete, but, it should be made obsolete for all nations in a gradual process of simultaneously increasing transparence. We have to make sure, that, indeed, all segments in society, as well as each and every society, moves into the same direction, at roughly the same pace. Otherwise, transient opportunities of unfair advantage-taking and abuse will be created.

The principle of equal opportunity and equal standards of living, means, that, within a certain range of variability, people should be living in roughly the same circumstances, but, it is important to allow for a basic shell of personal belongings that become a part of our personality, and, it is important to allow for a significant range of variability in the possessions we can own, because we all develop differently and our interests vary.

The motive of personal profit will slowly give-way to savouring the satisfaction of a job well-done. The opportunity to make a contribution will be the prime motivation to work, be it in the form of a responsible, decision-making post, an artistic or athletic contribution, or, in the fields of science and technology. Certainly, we should not forget the important contributions of being a good mother or father for our children, a conscientious provider for our dependents, as well as the contribution of being a concerned and helpful member of the community. A contribution does not have to be measured in the number of master-pieces produced. It can just as well be measured in the degree of affection and loyalty shown to others, and by others.

Governments require an extensive but efficient organisation to monitor the events that are taking place in their social environment. They have to be able to guide the education of its members, to settle disputes in a fair and thorough manner, to conduct studies and monitor the socially significant events around the globe, to catalogue the inventory of resources and supplies, and, to decide upon responsible changes in the economic structure and patterns of consumption.

Indeed, the concerns of economic development, resource depletion, pollution, unnecessary consumption, as well as the divergence between the rich and the poor, are so important, that all these factors have to come under the control of competent and efficient leaderships, and, we should design a course of development for society, where we see a slow and beneficial fusion between the large, efficient, but profit-oriented multi-national corporations of today, and the governments of the future. These governments will surpass, by far, the integrity, efficiency and competence of contemporary governments.

Indeed, there are many reasons, why governments of affluent societies seem to be so helpless, when dealing with the many pressing problems that require attention. Look at their grossly inadequate structure and organisation, their confused loyalties, their entrenched bureaucracies. Look at the politicians and other public figures, who all think, first, about their own well-being, and, only secondarily, about the well-being of the nation they are supposed to serve.

At the present time, even, the most sophisticated governments of the large and affluent nations are incapable of designing comprehensive economic and fiscal policies taking the long-term future into account. They are unable to ensure justice and equal opportunity for everyone, stability in the value of their currencies, or the prices of goods and services; nor can they guarantee the fairness of wages and incomes.

Let us not re-iterate, here, the long litany of ills that beset incompetent and confused, affluent governments, but, let us get-on with the task of examining these short-comings, as well as the requirements of future societies, in order to design a leadership and a governmental structure that will be capable and acceptable to every nation in the world.

As I mentioned before, we first have to agree, what features this just society of the future should have, before we can design, in detail, the leadership and governmental structures that are capable of producing and maintaining a social environment with a lasting justice and a durable peace. I do not want to add any specific suggestions, here, because we will be drafting a number of working-papers, which we will debate in the various committees, and, eventually, in the Assembly as a whole. We should be able to produce a package of socio-philosophical principles and technical design-features, which we can then present to our governments for serious study, and, hopefully, for full implementation. Let us be patient, but determined, to succeed in the long run.

We will notice in the course of our efforts, that, on many occasions, we interpret the same words and ideas in different ways. We will learn a lot about communicating with each other and understanding each other's reality perceptions, fears, emotions and prejudices, and, it is in this light, that I would like to discuss, briefly, my final proposal with you. This proposal is geared towards a more efficient and effective way of dealing with the problems of communication during a situation of conflict.

My proposal applies, not only, to conflict-situations between sovereign States, but, also, to nations that are being torn-apart by civil strife or persistent attempts to secede. If a conflict-situation between nations is debated in our Organisation, it takes, usually, the form of a series of statements and speeches, where each side tries to score as many political points as possible. A number of nations get into the fray, and, each one of them seems to be more concerned to look after its own interests than to search for a genuine solution to the problems at hand.

If combating regimes are not really interested in finding an alternative solution to war, the conflict rages on, while the more perceptive people are calculating, what this excercise in bloodshed and destruction is costing the peoples of the warring nations. The politicians argue and posture. You, ambassadors, go faithfully through the ritual of making speeches, and, you reflect, carefully, the attitudes of your leaders back home. The spectators on the side-lines are watching and politicking. Each participant is anxiously trying to secure an advantage, but, ladies and gentlemen, while we make speeches and, occasionally, listen to each other, our leaders back home are waging a war, and, they are leading or sending armed forces into war with each other, which will kill many thousands or hundreds of thousands of their citizens.

Perhaps, "leading" is a misplaced word, here, because, as a rule, the political leaderships of our contemporary societies remain safely behind, just as the top military brass, while ordinary citizens become soldiers and have to do the dirty work of killing and destroying each other. I am not suggesting, that the people do not support their leaders, but, they are rarely given a true choice in the matter. By and large, the leadership of a country has sufficient credibility, that the people will follow, if it decides to engage in warfare, and, not infrequently, militant segments of the population are pressuring the leadership to begin a military conflict.

We seem to have few difficulties getting into an armed confrontation with each other. We are, then, guided and goaded by primitive instincts. These are the ancient and primordial instincts of our biological heritage, and, they are the most powerful "behavioural organisers" of our personality. We have a long evolutionary history behind us, where ferocious conflicts award the winner with survival and the spoils of war, and, we should not be surprised to see, that it is difficult to overcome the drive to go to war.

We feel so good, preparing for a violent conflict. We feel so powerful with our shiny weaponry, and, we are so proud in our feelings of patriotism and our willingness to defend the fatherland. Our religious leaders bless us. Often, we fight an enemy who worships the same God and, even, belongs to the same Faith, or Church, but, we do not want to think about this. The same God blesses the combatants on both sides, and it must please God, then, in some way, to see man destroy himself, time and again, because God has tolerated man's continuing violence against each other.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to be facetious, nor, do I want to mock the tragedy of war and conflict. I only want to emphasise, that we have now a better insight into the many reasons, why man opts for warfare, rather than for negotiations and compromise, but, I want to emphasise, also, that the price of warfare is getting higher all the time, and, that the ordinary citizen is always the biggest loser, in any war.

If our leaders are not able to lead the way into a life-style that is more tolerant and peaceful, then, the people will, eventually, rise-up against such incompetent and insensitive leaderships, and, they will replace them with a wiser, more tolerant and far-sighted leadership.

I propose, that we begin to study and discuss the problems that lie behind an armed conflict, or rebellion, in a more honest and thorough manner. We can do this by inviting the top leaderships to come and address the United Nations, explaining, fully, their particular perception of the causes of the conflict, as well as the chain of events that led to the outbreak of armed hostilities.

After each side has presented its views and perceptions, we will invite a number of experts, who are not related to, or involved with, either side, to give us their objective analyses. They will give us a thorough review of the history and background of each nation, its population, its history of conquests and defeats, its aspirations, hopes and dreams. These experts will also give us a thorough analysis of the leaderships a nation has had, as well as the leaderships that are now engaged in warfare with each other.

After the completion of this presentaton, we will give the leaders and their expert advisors a chance to cross-examine these independent experts, and, to argue with them about their interpretations. After a painstaking confrontation of the independent experts with the leaders and advisors of the nations at war, it should be possible to come to a presentation and a view-point that has the merit of being balanced. This may be a lengthy process, but, there is good reason to believe, that an utterly thorough debate, review and presentation of facts and data, could lead to a highly accurate, objective and penetrating presentation of the realities as they relate to a particular situation of conflict.

After we have completed this stage of the presentation, the leaders and representatives of the warring leaderships will be called-back to be subjected to extensive questioning and cross examination, so that all the delegates of the United Nations, as well as selected members, who will function as a "jury", will be able to clear-up any lingering questions about the reasons for the conflict, as well as the events that led to the conflict.

This entire, quasi-judicial process takes place right here, completely open to public scrutiny, with each phase of its proceedings broadcast and recorded for future study and reference. We think, that the President of the United Nations, or, someone else appointed by the World Body, should preside over these proceedings, and, obviously, he or she should be a complete outsider to the conflict.

I guarantee you, that, after such a thorough examination of the facts, the historical background, the motivations of the peoples and their leaders, we all will have a fairly good idea what a fair and equitable solution to the crisis would be. If it is still not clear, what a generally acceptable solution entails, then, we should have a further debate to thrash-out our differences, and, we should eventually vote on a series of proposed solutions, or resolutions, to resolve the differences between the combating parties.

After the jury and the membership have reached a "verdict", and, after they have adopted a resolution spelling-out the manner in which the conflict in question should be defused, we should mobilise public opinion all around the world, as well as all the pressures and sanctions we can bring to bear upon the combatants, in order to resolve the dispute according to the guidelines outlined by the resolutions of the United Nations.

I predict, that such a thorough analysis of a situation of conflict will show, that both sides have a nearly equal share of the blame for this conflict, and, I predict, that the leadership of either country has been negligent and incompetent, when dealing with the inequities and injustices within and between their respective countries. We also will learn, how neighbouring nations, as well as more remote societies, can make a contribution to the definitive resolution of the problems and tensions that lie behind a specific conflict.

"What happens, if we can not get the leaders of the belligerent nations to testify in the Court of the United Nations? In particular your suggestion about having them cross-examined about the statements they have made, the facts they have presented, and the motivations they displayed, may be doomed to failure from the start, because no self-respecting "sovereign" leader will seriously consider the risk of being exposed and humiliated by such a cross-examination. How do you propose to get them to subject themselves to such a stern test of public scrutiny and intense questioning?"

Here again, we see the value of public opinion and open scrutiny. Any leader, who fails to give an account of himself in the international forum of the United Nations, runs the risk of losing prestige, perhaps, to the point of being totally discredited, and, he will want to make sure, that the case of his country and government are presented as favourably as possible.

Indeed, we should have stringent guidelines to make sure, that the dignity of each individual is preserved, in spite of a fearless questioning by the members of the United Nations, and, in spite of the fact, that many questions will be considered to be "prejudicial" by the leadership that is being questioned. We need therefore, to debate, as one of the preliminary projects, how we can safeguard the right to ask any question, while protecting the integrity and credibility of an individual, who has been asked to testify.

I believe, that this problem is not any more difficult than the problems of strict fairness and equal rights that guide the competent judicial inquiry, which most countries are already familiar with. Here, too, the role of the "judge" or "moderator" of such an international judicial inquiry is crucially important, but, there is no reason to believe, that it will be impossible to design a number of fair and effective guidelines for the questioning of sovereign leaders. Then, they can be questioned and cross-examined in a manner that can be acceptable to all sides.

May I leave these suggestions with you as a source for reflection and debate, and, I want to thank you for your attention.

.......

Summary

1. A bland and innocuous personality, who does not take sides lightly.
   How to avoid verbal hostilities from becoming bloody battles in the field.
   More than a forum to accuse each other with angry speeches.
   Ambassadors for whom?
   An Institution of Hope.
   The attitudes of pride and national honour trap us, time and again.
   We all want peace, and yet, we make war.
   Is a war ever completely justified?
   What destroys the attitudes of trust and cooperation?
   Understanding a position of power and privilege.
   The enormous resistance created by a violent challenge.
   How are we going to get a dialogue going between the rich and the poor?
   We all are subjected to the temptations of greed and elitist exclusivity.
   What do we mean with the words we use.
   There will always be a need for "authority".
   Punishment for wrong-doings is an essential part of the implementation and maintenance of a condition of justice.
   The "philosophy of justice".
   
   
   
2. A good look at the Organisation of the United Nations.
   Freezing a status-quo of injustice.
   The need for a supra-national power.
   The phenomenon of "alignment".
   Essential equality can only be guaranteed, if one has the power to impose a settlement in a dispute.
   Constitutional Guidelines, and the power to enforce these guidelines.
   The problems faced by an effective and representative leadership.
   The ultimate responsibility of ordinary citizens.
   Would a supra-national "power" necessarily be dominated by the major powers?
   An attitude of complacency, and the continuation of a sterile debate.
   The existential realities of being an ambassador at the U.N.
   Is our primary concern to please the leadership back home?
   Acknowledging limitations.
   Are we a thoughtless mouth-piece for national leaders?
   Let us ask our leaders to come and debate the issues themselves.
   
   
   
3. We have to find a measure of freedom and independence in our work, in order to live-up to the expectations of people all over the world, including our "founding fathers".
   We will have to discuss, fearlessly, the requirements of good leadership.
   An outline of the human personality.
   A symbiosis of billions of cells.
   The origins of socially integrated behaviour.
   Behaviour is determined, partly genetically, partly culturally.
   The art of transferring a cultural code adequately.
   The ability to finely tune our behaviour in response to the circumstances of the moment.
   The search for inter-dependence and specialisation in function.
   The transience of a position in the hierarchical order.
   The balance of rights and obligations associated with belonging to society.
   The qualities of natural leadership.
   The origins of the "sense of justice", versus the concept of justice.
   The concept of a "biological heritage".
   Basic psychological mechanisms.
   The function of natural selection in shaping natural leadership qualities.
   Building upon the instincts of parental care.
   
   
   
4. A successful species.
   The ravages of competitive strife.
   A spurt of cultural evolution.
   The tasks and burdens of leadership have become gigantic.
   The limits of knowing what is going-on.
   An "insignia" for recognition.
   The evolution of multi-individual leadership.
   How difficult it is to keep a social leadership well-organised and free from corruption.
   Comparisons between small-scale and large-scale social leaderships.
   The role of "advisors" and other "intermediaries" in the link between leadership and ordinary members.
   Making use of opportunities to fortify a position of leadership.
   The far-reaching consequences of the practice of "favouritism".
   A rapid divergence between clever and gullible people.
   Beneficial and harmful leadership practices.
   We need a clear understanding about the objectives of leadership.
   A look at prevailing beliefs and opinions.
   Most people are happy to leave the chores of the "political household" to those, who are interested.
   We can learn a great deal about sensible leadership by studying those, who consider themselves "ordinary citizens".
   A good life, and a measure of equal opportunity for everyone.
   A definition of essential equality.
   Can we have a pragmatic social philosophy that is acceptable to most people, regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural background?
   The possibilities and problems of an "enlightened relativity".
   Different ways of looking for "security"; religion and science.
   Why it is so difficult to synchronise the "collective will".
   Convictions of the new Secretary-General.
   Any leader, worth his salt, will welcome a serious and balanced effort to evaluate his performance and impact upon society.
   
   
   
5. There are many fears associated with an implementation of the principles of global justice.
   Limits on the ability to amass a fortune, or to squander talents and opportunities.
   Is it so difficult to acknowledge the value of responsible behaviour?
   How do we get the cooperation of a privileged elite?
   Foregoing the taste of revenge.
   The evolution of a truly competent and honest government.
   A "New Socialist Society".
   The ideal of behavioural control.
   A comprehensive form of education.
   An instant profile of social happenings and events.
   Reviewing the existential anxieties associated with "having a job".
   Honest mistakes, regardless, how serious, will never be considered a crime.
   An unimaginable transparence.
   There is no chance that the situation will improve "by itself".
   Pessimistic prospects.
   Helpless spectators of a final decay.
   
   
   
6. We have no choice, but to make serious and persistent attempts to make the world a better place for everyone.
   The meaning of Democracy.
   A warning against the failures of leadership.
   Welding a nation into a unit of loyal, grateful and happy people.
   Leadership structures and Constitutional Guidelines.
   A scrupulous equality in opportunity.
   The power of transparence.
   The motive of personal profit will slowly give-way to the satisfaction of a job well-done.
   Egocentric bureaucrats and officials.
   Work for the United Nations.
   Conflict situations between sovereign States.
   Controling the urge to fight.
   A thorough study of the factors that lead to violent conflict.
   A judicial inquiry at the United Nations.
   A few questions about practical problems, when trying to settle an international dispute with judicial means.

.......