concept for translating
Let's ask the world's leading politicians, why they can not agree!
We know good result of cooperation of the Soviet Union, the US, Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and other countries in the fight against Hitler and his allies. Then, these were states, officially based on contradictory principles and the collaboration only began due to the common existential threat from Hitler's world-conquering ambitions. Now we have organized terrorists instead of Nazis and the situation is even more critical because technology and organization of destruction has reached the status when too many people can easily trigger slaining all of us and all the living things on Earth. Indeed, do we just passively watch how world leaders can not agree? Indeed, can we only look silly how people in Syria suffer because of it and how we need to solve, what about those millions of people in this situation desperately fleeing into the unknown?
Individuals
make decisions by feelings developed by evolution for cooperation in
small groups. Therefore, with a little effort they can negotiate with
a potential enemy far better than politicians who decide according to
general aspects and who are constrained by the need to maintain the
support of many people in their charge. Therefore, they hold old
clichés used among the large number of people, which is very
inertial in principle. That is very dangerous in a situation such as
that after World War I and now, when people in a significant portion
of the world feel deceived/defeated. Russians remember strongly their
cooperation with the West in defeating common mortal enemy in the
World War II and then Reagan embracing with Gorbachev during
perestroika prelude to the collapse of the Soviet empire. Did the
democratization effort there really improve their living standards so
that it could compensate for their feeling that they lose their
influence on the development of malignant world? And that they have
got that enemy in a different way trying again to get to neck by
violating the military balance. And, with an excuse for their
defensive response, by worsening of their living by sanctions as a
preparation for the final assault. There is the cliché clear: NATO
is an enemy just as deadly as Nazis were. In the West we have the
cliché: the Russia is a dictatorship, and dictatorship must be
slaughtered, whether it is worth what it costs; still, we are
stronger and every concession to Russia is appeasement. But:
Is
the absolute black and white image of their system against our quite
good and the superiority of our forces with the probability of our
victory so clear? And do we really want to make that last experiment?
Leading US politicians say clearly: the nuclear war with Russia is
not possible, because that would be the end of life on Earth. The
result
is
summarized in red
words
above, up to now "only"
for the Syria and Ukraine.
What
if the world tried to build
on the cooperation between people in the Russian-American teams of
astronauts
and
to let the
society control system to be tested by competition while gradually
improving mostly the system that suits worse
the
needs and feelings of the population? .
This means to build
further joint teams, if possible for the most serious challenges:
Ending the war in Syria and the surrounding area and the settlement
of the situation in Ukraine. And to gather the ideas for solution to
which those politicians still are not able to grow and lead the world
to ruin.
Politics
is the art of what is possible. Let's check how many people are
willing to get a bit involved and organize a debate and vote on a
query that needs to be asked those politicians and on a challenge to
world media to ask the questions and to publicly debate the answers.
We call those people for establishing the 'Movement
for question on global cooperation'
in countries of the UN and to future cooperation of them; we propose
a first
approach to the challenge for the media in that
text,
Tomáš
Pečený
on behalf of authors of a possible
scenario for the development of the world
(Please
for the proposals
of
the question
(the
presented solution)
and of the query, and for drafts of a charter of the emerging
Movement. I am ready to publish all of it according to the rules
(now
Czech only) at a list
of correspondence; you can ask for anonymization, especially in
the case of a communication on a petition requesting origin of this
Movement; 1000 signs are necessary in the Czech Republic.
I
shall deem these communications as private under the rules. I will
continuously publish at least the number of positive responses from
each country. I will let posted all the dated versions (of this
article and) of the approach to the challenge.)