Blog

HUMAN UNITY CONGRESS CALLED NOW FOR 2021

武汉加油!! –  Courage Wuhan!!

Dear Friends,

We have applied again together with the NGO Peace and Cooperation for a meeting with Madrid City Hall in order to retake or propose anew the celebration in Madrid of a Congress on Human Unity in 2021 since 2020 as planned would be to short time now for arranging it.

 

We convene a Congress in order to adopt a system of inclusive decision making (human unity) because in this way we will only deal about how to benefit ourselves –and so we will avoid the purpose of harming each other as the consequence of partial or exclusive decision making.
To be inclusive means that each proposal, like the one above, is open and transparent, this is; it exposes its purpose so that each person can improve it, point out any inadequacy or agree with it and make it her own.

 

The Congress shall be financed by the input of the participants or sponsoring companies, however, the Congress return is the peace dividend generated by inclusive decision making. Cooperation agreements with or among companies are voluntary and public so that each person can judge in case of dispute or doubt according to their public agreement, this is the usual guarantee among them and it could not be otherwise in international business.

We all share common sense and each person not only can and shall judge about all what she knows, including her relations with the rest of human beings, but it must have right to it and not only to judge about issues concerning her country, actually about her leaders election, so that they assume the relationship with other countries.

This is the first human right. If we deprive ourselves of that right, we are deprived of every human right and we can only have political rights, depriving us of the possibility of living together. We need indeed that right in order to set up the human community. And we cannot obtain it by claiming for it, claiming it to or from whom? We have just to take it, to assume it and put it in motion calling the Congress.
States make sense only against each other, their advantage can be relative only, but regarding Humanity, states have nothing to say.

The reason why we do not have a right to our own opinion on international relations is because they are mediated by violence and, consequently, their purpose has to be hidden from other people, not only from the enemy but also from nationals, citizens or people or whatever you call those without post in the state, always subjects but never friends, and this is why war and injustice or inequality is the same issue.  But, once violence is not the way, politicians can act with humanity also.

Rousseau saw this well when analyzing the Abby Saint Pierre Perpetual Peace proposal to the European states by setting up a Confederation. Rousseau says that states are not suitable for such a project because their only possible interest is relative to the others, it has to be exclusive –Rousseau concludes that since states can´t assume such an initiative, maybe a revolution was the only way…-but for us today common sense is just enough.

And here we are, and from here we can offer a deal to all human beings which can be freely accepted by all and each of us.

Read more

HUMAN UNITY AND POLITICS. THE NEW CIRCULAR SILK ROAD; RELATIONS BETWEEN SPAIN/EU AND CHINA

As the director of Chinese studies in Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, ICEI, I have participated in a seminar about “ExpAs the director of Chinese studies in Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, ICEI, I have participated in a seminar about “Experience of the Chinese investments in Spain”, inserted in the general project: “A new impulse in China Spain relationship in the political frame of the European Union”.
With it in mind I have read or re-read a good part of the most recent information of our most signified experts on China – Spain relations. And it is interesting to notice that most of them point out the special attention that China is addressing to Spain. However, Spain does not pay much attention to it and, worst, is not getting any corresponding investments or economic returns of it, not even similar to others UE partners. The Elcano Instituto expert, Mario Esteban, puts it this way: “friends, but not partners”, where I shall insist that friendship comes just from one side because Spain, probably limited by her alliances and her self-absorption, shows reticence, misgiving and incompetence in regard to this relationship which causes irritation among entrepreneurs.
Diplomats with direct experience in dealings with China attribute such a special attention from China to Spain because Spain never closed her embassy after the violent eviction of the students from Tiananmen Square, was very much in favor of involvement with China to support her reform process instead of her involution and the Spanish Foreign Affair minister, Ordoñez, was the first to visit China after June 1989. Surely because all that, the Instituto Complutense de Asia Office, I was founder and manager of it, was opened in Beijing in 1994.
However, my opinion differs or is not limited to those of the diplomats, it is possible that this deference of China towards Spain is due to their previous relationship which has to be found in China records. In Spain, Asia is not included in the world for the academy.
Even if the Portuguese were first to arrive in China, the first regular and sound relationship with a western power was Spain. Spain set up her empire in the Philippines where, besides her general mission of converting the native there to Catholicism (Universalism), Spaniards there mostly were dedicated to commerce with China. We have the data of the yearly two ways journey of the Manila galleon for several centuries leaving from Acapulco in Mexico with silver from Potosi (Bolivia) crossing the Pacific, the Spanish Lake at that time, to return from Manila fully loaded of Chinese goods. During those centuries many Chinese, called shangleys, were stablished in Manila with their families, most of them suppliers and dealers. They kept a constant and fluid relations with the Spaniards there and this enabled them to appreciate and transmit the ways, vision, proposals and propaganda of the Hispanic civilization and compare it with their own.
In the Spanish and Catholic side, the Jesuits entered into China to know her civilization learning the language and looking for the conversion of the Chinese people. It seems that their main target was the emperor. Particularly interesting in this regards are the records of the Italian Jesuit Mateo Rizzi who stablished himself in Beijing and of special significance the experience of the Spanish Jesuit Diego de Pantoja. This last one was commissioned to represent Philip II in front of the Ming emperor and during two years was busy looking for presents which would show him Spanish ways and intends. His travel was finally cancelled, when a good part of the presents were already in Mexico. And the reason for it was that Philip learnt that making presents to the Chinese emperor meant to be his subject.
Even though we have information of some reckless plans to invade China emulating Cortés in Mexico, those were not carried out, but in any case they were subordinated to the idea of converting China to Catholicism and put it under the unifying authority of the Pope. And Chinese saw that Jesuits would learn other people language, so the tagalo in Philippines as also standard Chinese, in order to preach the gospel in their hosts` languages.
When some centuries later China faced the British Empire and other powers, Western civilization had changed a lot. After the Westphalia peace treaty a new system of sovereign nation states had come to place and nationalism as the totalitarian contemporary ideology more and more sharpened by the French Revolution and by Romanticism. Last, but not less, also supported by the convenience of new peripheral or maritime powers, the new hegemons, UK and later USA, whose strategic interest was to divide as much as possible the continent.
Therefore, the destructive approach of the British Empire, prone to cannon politics and opium business was quite shocking for China where the sovereign nation state concept had not been introduced and her vision was more similar to the Spanish one of integrating the world under a single rule able so to guarantee peace, very much in contradiction with people mistreatment since a new and uprising power was supposed to gain them for her cause.
Chinese documents of the time usually refer to the British as “rebels”, since they assumed their intention was to install themselves in the throne of the Central Empire (Zhong Guo – China) displacing the Manchus, as it had happened before with the Mongols and with themselves, who, as Manchus, were also ‘foreigners’ in China. That very question has recently emerged by the occasion of the Hong Kong handover when the contemporary Chinese authorities called the Qing deals with the British “unequal treaties” since they showed a clearly different concepts or standards in international relations according to the mentioned approach. And probably that candid old concept of China was key preventing China to apply a policy or strategy for dividing foreign powers, as the situation of the XIX century very much invited.
I think that, given our current unidimensional system of nationalism, it is not unappropriated to illustrate it saying that three centuries back it would have been incomprehensible to put a bomb in a market or to bomb a city killing civilians indiscriminately to bend a state. It would have been considered terrorism, not only if coming from illegal groups, since the people was not linked to power -the monopoly of violence-, as now, no matter if democratically elected or not. And, in any case, such an action was incompatible with the traditional Hispanic or Chinese systems whose proposal was about inclusion and, in their own ways, their purpose was to pacify the world. Indeed, both powers shared the same concept of evil as originated by exclusion, or partial decision taking. (It does not mean that I am closing my eyes to fact that Hispanic supremacy on Europe, particularly on the Holy Roman German Empire, was facilitated by sense of threat in Europe caused by the Ottoman Empire, as also the disappearance of this perception contributed very much to its end).
On her side, China had to adapt to modern times; first overthrowing the Qing dynasty with a revolution lead by the Nationalist party and then with a second revolution led by the Communist party against the previous one because it was not Nationalist enough since the Nationalist party was “selling the country”, to foreign powers and operated in connivance with them according with the Communist party.
Nowadays, however, when China has reached a powerful enough position in the world as to reflect on her own experience needed to project herself to the world, it has not been able to refute her own ancestral discourse and acknowledgement that the sovereign national states system is very much in contradiction with her most basic understanding as also, in my opinion, with simple common sense –we will mention it later.
For Chinese civilization the main task of the state is to provide safety, security for the people, and her response is inclusive decision making. So sees it Confucius who claimed for the restoration of a unified command system according with the previous Zhou dynasty as the only way to put an end to ceaseless wars among the many states of his time. “Partiality is the root cause of all calamities of the world”, says also Mozi in order to expose his doctrine of Universal Love, which also begins this way: “The wise person, assuming the task of thinking the government of the world, shall first investigate the cause of disorder, in the same way as a doctor study the cause of the illness of the patient to look for a cure” (Book 4, Universal Love I, 1)
Indeed, the first thing Western people note in Chinese managing ways is their will to reach consensus of all the parts according with a hierarchy. However, Chinese must have doubts about a single rule of the world coming from the Middle Kingdom throne while the world lives day and night at the same time and, perhaps, they can´t avoid to long for a partner like Spain, a Spain that in past times shared their principles in search of a pacifying or unity proposal while the British Empire and other Western powers resulted just destructive forces only good for alliance against a third one.
China under Xi Jinping leadership seems to be rescuing that concept of shared security and common fate of humanity and it departs from economic measures and shared development to look for it. This approach has also been well noticed by the West and it has been as much the principle of the EU as also the globalization engine; growing trading, economic engagement and cooperation prevent confrontation and war. In this regard, the New Silk Road project or BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, pretends to integrate the worlAs the director of Chinese studies in Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, ICEI, I have participated in a seminar about “Experience of the Chinese investments in Spain”, inserted in the general project: “A new impulse in China Spain relationship in the political frame of the European Union”.
With it in mind I have read or re-read a good part of the most recent information of our most signified experts on China – Spain relations. And it is interesting to notice that most of them point out the special attention that China is addressing to Spain. However, Spain does not pay much attention to it and, worst, is not getting any corresponding investments or economic returns of it, not even similar to others UE partners. The Elcano Instituto expert, Mario Esteban, puts it this way: “friends, but not partners”, where I shall insist that friendship comes just from one side because Spain, probably limited by her alliances and her self-absorption, shows reticence, misgiving and incompetence in regard to this relationship which causes irritation among entrepreneurs.
Diplomats with direct experience in dealings with China attribute such a special attention from China to Spain because Spain never closed her embassy after the violent eviction of the students from Tiananmen Square, was very much in favor of involvement with China to support her reform process instead of her involution and the Spanish Foreign Affair minister, Ordoñez, was the first to visit China after June 1989. Surely because all that, the Instituto Complutense de Asia Office, I was founder and manager of it, was opened in Beijing in 1994.
However, my opinion differs or is not limited to those of the diplomats, it is possible that this deference of China towards Spain is due to their previous relationship which has to be found in China records. In Spain, Asia is not included in the world for the academy.
Even if the Portuguese were first to arrive in China, the first regular and sound relationship with a western power was Spain. Spain set up her empire in the Philippines where, besides her general mission of converting the native there to Catholicism (Universalism), Spaniards there mostly were dedicated to commerce with China. We have the data of the yearly two ways journey of the Manila galleon for several centuries leaving from Acapulco in Mexico with silver from Potosi (Bolivia) crossing the Pacific, the Spanish Lake at that time, to return from Manila fully loaded of Chinese goods. During those centuries many Chinese, called shangleys, were stablished in Manila with their families, most of them suppliers and dealers. They kept a constant and fluid relations with the Spaniards there and this enabled them to appreciate and transmit the ways, vision, proposals and propaganda of the Hispanic civilization and compare it with their own.
In the Spanish and Catholic side, the Jesuits entered into China to know her civilization learning the language and looking for the conversion of the Chinese people. It seems that their main target was the emperor. Particularly interesting in this regards are the records of the Italian Jesuit Mateo Rizzi who stablished himself in Beijing and of special significance the experience of the Spanish Jesuit Diego de Pantoja. This last one was commissioned to represent Philip II in front of the Ming emperor and during two years was busy looking for presents which would show him Spanish ways and intends. His travel was finally cancelled, when a good part of the presents were already in Mexico. And the reason for it was that Philip learnt that making presents to the Chinese emperor meant to be his subject.
Even though we have information of some reckless plans to invade China emulating Cortés in Mexico, those were not carried out, but in any case they were subordinated to the idea of converting China to Catholicism and put it under the unifying authority of the Pope. And Chinese saw that Jesuits would learn other people language, so the tagalo in Philippines as also standard Chinese, in order to preach the gospel in their hosts` languages.
When some centuries later China faced the British Empire and other powers, Western civilization had changed a lot. After the Westphalia peace treaty a new system of sovereign nation states had come to place and nationalism as the totalitarian contemporary ideology more and more sharpened by the French Revolution and by Romanticism. Last, but not less, also supported by the convenience of new peripheral or maritime powers, the new hegemons, UK and later USA, whose strategic interest was to divide as much as possible the continent.
Therefore, the destructive approach of the British Empire, prone to cannon politics and opium business was quite shocking for China where the sovereign nation state concept had not been introduced and her vision was more similar to the Spanish one of integrating the world under a single rule able so to guarantee peace, very much in contradiction with people mistreatment since a new and uprising power was supposed to gain them for her cause.
Chinese documents of the time usually refer to the British as “rebels”, since they assumed their intention was to install themselves in the throne of the Central Empire (Zhong Guo – China) displacing the Manchus, as it had happened before with the Mongols and with themselves, who, as Manchus, were also ‘foreigners’ in China. That very question has recently emerged by the occasion of the Hong Kong handover when the contemporary Chinese authorities called the Qing deals with the British “unequal treaties” since they showed a clearly different concepts or standards in international relations according to the mentioned approach. And probably that candid old concept of China was key preventing China to apply a policy or strategy for dividing foreign powers, as the situation of the XIX century very much invited.
I think that, given our current unidimensional system of nationalism, it is not unappropriated to illustrate it saying that three centuries back it would have been incomprehensible to put a bomb in a market or to bomb a city killing civilians indiscriminately to bend a state. It would have been considered terrorism, not only if coming from illegal groups, since the people was not linked to power -the monopoly of violence-, as now, no matter if democratically elected or not. And, in any case, such an action was incompatible with the traditional Hispanic or Chinese systems whose proposal was about inclusion and, in their own ways, their purpose was to pacify the world. Indeed, both powers shared the same concept of evil as originated by exclusion, or partial decision taking. (It does not mean that I am closing my eyes to fact that Hispanic supremacy on Europe, particularly on the Holy Roman German Empire, was facilitated by sense of threat in Europe caused by the Ottoman Empire, as also the disappearance of this perception contributed very much to its end).
On her side, China had to adapt to modern times; first overthrowing the Qing dynasty with a revolution lead by the Nationalist party and then with a second revolution led by the Communist party against the previous one because it was not Nationalist enough since the Nationalist party was “selling the country”, to foreign powers and operated in connivance with them according with the Communist party.
Nowadays, however, when China has reached a powerful enough position in the world as to reflect on her own experience needed to project herself to the world, it has not been able to refute her own ancestral discourse and acknowledgement that the sovereign national states system is very much in contradiction with her most basic understanding as also, in my opinion, with simple common sense –we will mention it later.
For Chinese civilization the main task of the state is to provide safety, security for the people, and her response is inclusive decision making. So sees it Confucius who claimed for the restoration of a unified command system according with the previous Zhou dynasty as the only way to put an end to ceaseless wars among the many states of his time. “Partiality is the root cause of all calamities of the world”, says also Mozi in order to expose his doctrine of Universal Love, which also begins this way: “The wise person, assuming the task of thinking the government of the world, shall first investigate the cause of disorder, in the same way as a doctor study the cause of the illness of the patient to look for a cure” (Book 4, Universal Love I, 1)
Indeed, the first thing Western people note in Chinese managing ways is their will to reach consensus of all the parts according with a hierarchy. However, Chinese must have doubts about a single rule of the world coming from the Middle Kingdom throne while the world lives day and night at the same time and, perhaps, they can´t avoid to long for a partner like Spain, a Spain that in past times shared their principles in search of a pacifying or unity proposal while the British Empire and other Western powers resulted just destructive forces only good for alliance against a third one.
China under Xi Jinping leadership seems to be rescuing that concept of shared security and common fate of humanity and it departs from economic measures and shared development to look for it. This approach has also been well noticed by the West and it has been as much the principle of the EU as also the globalization engine; growing trading, economic engagement and cooperation prevent confrontation and war. In this regard, the New Silk Road project or BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, pretends to integrate the world central island, Eurasia and Africa and it is a move in that direction with independence of other possible motives that can impulse it. And it is not just this project, but other China policies aim at globalization development or, even more, a step beyond it; integration, in a time when their promoters of yesterday, UK and USA, step back and look to protectionism.
In my opinion, the EU shall reach a comprehensive agreement with China not only on the BRI but also on new standards for a sustainable industry and economy able to mitigate climate change under a regulatory frame valid for the whole world. This time, however, the EU does not need to push to impose her concept of (political) human rights on China as she has been doing up to now. On the contrary, the EU shall make an effort to understand and recognize China´s own human rights concept which refers mainly to safety or security and, in consequence, goes beyond the sovereign nation state and long for humanity. All this, I insist, without the EU renouncing to her own values, where many of her virtues come from, because China shall and actually want to learn some good practices applied by European governments in terms of transparency, responsibility, accountability and clear and precise regulations and rules.
But even this complementarity is not enough; a specific contribution from Spain is needed, a Spain which, as China, shall be able to look back at herself and not just meekly take and assume without further consideration the refusal and contempt on herself, on her past, from the vision of her historical competitors and rivals. And here, she also needed to look for Portugal priceless contribution since both enjoy a special position to rescue a part of the world very unfairly and painfully relegated and forgotten, the South Atlantic area, and to propose those countries at its banks to create a cooperation and joint development area joining that EU and China BRI project of integral development.
Likewise, we need to take into account and acknowledge that main source of security in the world central island is Russia, something quite clear according to my perception, even if the UE might not want to take notice. We can appreciate it, however, just by seeing those involved in conflicts in the area turning their eyes on Russia once US is leaving. At the same time, Russia shall cooperate to attract another great country and culture, India, and so on and on.
At this point we can notice here that regulations and agreements transparency are only possible if their purpose is universal, look for the inclusion of all, even if this incorporation is step by step. I think that China has historically seen with skepticism the concepts of transparency and participation, something easy to understand since decision taking in the past could not have such an universal character and, therefore, even if benevolence was meant to be at the roots of government, her objectives could not be but strategic and, therefore, they had to be hidden.
Nowadays, however, the seal of universality is transparency and vice versa. Most important is that the vision is inclusive, so that everyone has a place in it where they can see themselves there and recognized themselves in it or, if not, they will have the chance to dispute it and correct it.
In this way, as we see it now, the last countries to incorporate into a world sharing a common development system and a shared security system could be UK and USA, the North Atlantic area. Since they are the last world leaders, it is to understand that any status quo revision might always be seen detrimental to their interests. It is not the case, universality and inclusion is a disruptive step which brings us to a new stage leaving history as we know it behind. A new scenario beneficial for all without exception, finally outside the zero sum game of history. However, from the beginning we have to recognize their worries and interests and keep open the door for their participation until the human project is accomplished. If the project is not inclusive and universal, transparency will be impossible. Unilateral as also bilateral and even multilateral decision taking will not achieve it since it will turn out to be about a dealing with the reaction it prompts in those excluded, well against its purpose
And this is not all; transparency or universality implies also that those agreements, regulations have to be argued, beyond the planet protection and sustainability, based on human rights and so on the vital rights or those people in marginal areas, as South Atlantic and others, and the protection of those rights and the integration of those areas shall be assumed as a priority and important part in the economic and political projections and activities, so that any development contributes to welfare and integration of those who need it more, because if it is not so it results all the same a remorseless and ill-intentioned deed as in the past since the needs of those people are at sight and to look somewhere else and claim for human rights at the same time is contradictory.
Yes, my friends, humanity, human principle is based on putting ourselves in other people shoes -and surely Africans can be well our teachers since they are people who did not submit to the brutalizing and alienating action of the state. We can´t pretend to be inclusive or talk about human rights and at the same time think in terms of states as the absolute reference. To be inclusive is to be inclusive with the people and maybe this is the most difficult part to understand and to execute. How can we pretend to be inclusive if at the same time we let others starve or endure terrible hardships? The ability we have to understand each other is based in our ability to put ourselves in other people place, this is our common sense and the base of everything else. This is what humans have and if we renounce to it in order to base our relationship on the armed units or states, we will be discriminating and, therefore, we will need to keep applying as up to now to irrationality, harmful for all, the state of violence we live in now and we will not ever go anywhere from it.
But politicians are also people, persons, and if their main mission has always been to put themselves by the side, it is time for them to give face.
d central island, Eurasia and Africa and it is a move in that direction with independence of other possible motives that can impulse it. And it is not just this project, but other China policies aim at globalization development or, even more, a step beyond it; integration, in a time when their promoters of yesterday, UK and USA, step back and look to protectionism.
In my opinion, the EU shall reach a comprehensive agreement with China not only on the BRI but also on new standards for a sustainable industry and economy able to mitigate climate change under a regulatory frame valid for the whole world. This time, however, the EU does not need to push to impose her concept of (political) human rights on China as she has been doing up to now. On the contrary, the EU shall make an effort to understand and recognize China´s own human rights concept which refers mainly to safety or security and, in consequence, goes beyond the sovereign nation state and long for humanity. All this, I insist, without the EU renouncing to her own values, where many of her virtues come from, because China shall and actually want to learn some good practices applied by European governments in terms of transparency, responsibility, accountability and clear and precise regulations and rules.
But even this complementarity is not enough; a specific contribution from Spain is needed, a Spain which, as China, shall be able to look back at herself and not just meekly take and assume without further consideration the refusal and contempt on herself, on her past, from the vision of her historical competitors and rivals. And here, she also needed to look for Portugal priceless contribution since both enjoy a special position to rescue a part of the world very unfairly and painfully relegated and forgotten, the South Atlantic area, and to propose those countries at its banks to create a cooperation and joint development area joining that EU and China BRI project of integral development.
Likewise, we need to take into account and acknowledge that main source of security in the world central island is Russia, something quite clear according to my perception, even if the UE might not want to take notice. We can appreciate it, however, just by seeing those involved in conflicts in the area turning their eyes on Russia once US is leaving. At the same time, Russia shall cooperate to attract another great country and culture, India, and so on and on.
At this point we can notice here that regulations and agreements transparency are only possible if their purpose is universal, look for the inclusion of all, even if this incorporation is step by step. I think that China has historically seen with skepticism the concepts of transparency and participation, something easy to understand since decision taking in the past could not have such an universal character and, therefore, even if benevolence was meant to be at the roots of government, her objectives could not be but strategic and, therefore, they had to be hidden.
Nowadays, however, the seal of universality is transparency and vice versa. Most important is that the vision is inclusive, so that everyone has a place in it where they can see themselves there and recognized themselves in it or, if not, they will have the chance to dispute it and correct it.
In this way, as we see it now, the last countries to incorporate into a world sharing a common development system and a shared security system could be UK and USA, the North Atlantic area. Since they are the last world leaders, it is to understand that any status quo revision might always be seen detrimental to their interests. It is not the case, universality and inclusion is a disruptive step which brings us to a new stage leaving history as we know it behind. A new scenario beneficial for all without exception, finally outside the zero sum game of history. However, from the beginning we have to recognize their worries and interests and keep open the door for their participation until the human project is accomplished. If the project is not inclusive and universal, transparency will be impossible. Unilateral as also bilateral and even multilateral decision taking will not achieve it since it will turn out to be about a dealing with the reaction it prompts in those excluded, well against its purpose
And this is not all; transparency or universality implies also that those agreements, regulations have to be argued, beyond the planet protection and sustainability, based on human rights and so on the vital rights or those people in marginal areas, as South Atlantic and others, and the protection of those rights and the integration of those areas shall be assumed as a priority and important part in the economic and political projections and activities, so that any development contributes to welfare and integration of those who need it more, because if it is not so it results all the same a remorseless and ill-intentioned deed as in the past since the needs of those people are at sight and to look somewhere else and claim for human rights at the same time is contradictory.
Yes, my friends, humanity, human principle is based on putting ourselves in other people shoes -and surely Africans can be well our teachers since they are people who did not submit to the brutalizing and alienating action of the state. We can´t pretend to be inclusive or talk about human rights and at the same time think in terms of states as the absolute reference. To be inclusive is to be inclusive with the people and maybe this is the most difficult part to understand and to execute. How can we pretend to be inclusive if at the same time we let others starve or endure terrible hardships? The ability we have to understand each other is based in our ability to put ourselves in other people place, this is our common sense and the base of everything else. This is what humans have and if we renounce to it in order to base our relationship on the armed units or states, we will be discriminating and, therefore, we will need to keep applying as up to now to irrationality, harmful for all, the state of violence we live in now and we will not ever go anywhere from it.
But politicians are also people, persons, and if their main mission has always been to put themselves by the side, it is time for them to give face.
erience of the Chinese investments in Spain”, inserted in the general project: “A new impulse in China Spain relationship in the political frame of the European Union”.
With it As the director of Chinese studies in Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, ICEI, I have participated in a seminar about “Experience of the Chinese investments in Spain”, inserted in the general project: “A new impulse in China Spain relationship in the political frame of the European Union”.
With it in mind I have read or re-read a good part of the most recent information of our most signified experts on China – Spain relations. And it is interesting to notice that most of them point out the special attention that China is addressing to Spain. However, Spain does not pay much attention to it and, worst, is not getting any corresponding investments or economic returns of it, not even similar to others UE partners. The Elcano Instituto expert, Mario Esteban, puts it this way: “friends, but not partners”, where I shall insist that friendship comes just from one side because Spain, probably limited by her alliances and her self-absorption, shows reticence, misgiving and incompetence in regard to this relationship which causes irritation among entrepreneurs.
Diplomats with direct experience in dealings with China attribute such a special attention from China to Spain because Spain never closed her embassy after the violent eviction of the students from Tiananmen Square, was very much in favor of involvement with China to support her reform process instead of her involution and the Spanish Foreign Affair minister, Ordoñez, was the first to visit China after June 1989. Surely because all that, the Instituto Complutense de Asia Office, I was founder and manager of it, was opened in Beijing in 1994.
However, my opinion differs or is not limited to those of the diplomats, it is possible that this deference of China towards Spain is due to their previous relationship which has to be found in China records. In Spain, Asia is not included in the world for the academy.
Even if the Portuguese were first to arrive in China, the first regular and sound relationship with a western power was Spain. Spain set up her empire in the Philippines where, besides her general mission of converting the native there to Catholicism (Universalism), Spaniards there mostly were dedicated to commerce with China. We have the data of the yearly two ways journey of the Manila galleon for several centuries leaving from Acapulco in Mexico with silver from Potosi (Bolivia) crossing the Pacific, the Spanish Lake at that time, to return from Manila fully loaded of Chinese goods. During those centuries many Chinese, called shangleys, were stablished in Manila with their families, most of them suppliers and dealers. They kept a constant and fluid relations with the Spaniards there and this enabled them to appreciate and transmit the ways, vision, proposals and propaganda of the Hispanic civilization and compare it with their own.
In the Spanish and Catholic side, the Jesuits entered into China to know her civilization learning the language and looking for the conversion of the Chinese people. It seems that their main target was the emperor. Particularly interesting in this regards are the records of the Italian Jesuit Mateo Rizzi who stablished himself in Beijing and of special significance the experience of the Spanish Jesuit Diego de Pantoja. This last one was commissioned to represent Philip II in front of the Ming emperor and during two years was busy looking for presents which would show him Spanish ways and intends. His travel was finally cancelled, when a good part of the presents were already in Mexico. And the reason for it was that Philip learnt that making presents to the Chinese emperor meant to be his subject.
Even though we have information of some reckless plans to invade China emulating Cortés in Mexico, those were not carried out, but in any case they were subordinated to the idea of converting China to Catholicism and put it under the unifying authority of the Pope. And Chinese saw that Jesuits would learn other people language, so the tagalo in Philippines as also standard Chinese, in order to preach the gospel in their hosts` languages.
When some centuries later China faced the British Empire and other powers, Western civilization had changed a lot. After the Westphalia peace treaty a new system of sovereign nation states had come to place and nationalism as the totalitarian contemporary ideology more and more sharpened by the French Revolution and by Romanticism. Last, but not less, also supported by the convenience of new peripheral or maritime powers, the new hegemons, UK and later USA, whose strategic interest was to divide as much as possible the continent.
Therefore, the destructive approach of the British Empire, prone to cannon politics and opium business was quite shocking for China where the sovereign nation state concept had not been introduced and her vision was more similar to the Spanish one of integrating the world under a single rule able so to guarantee peace, very much in contradiction with people mistreatment since a new and uprising power was supposed to gain them for her cause.
Chinese documents of the time usually refer to the British as “rebels”, since they assumed their intention was to install themselves in the throne of the Central Empire (Zhong Guo – China) displacing the Manchus, as it had happened before with the Mongols and with themselves, who, as Manchus, were also ‘foreigners’ in China. That very question has recently emerged by the occasion of the Hong Kong handover when the contemporary Chinese authorities called the Qing deals with the British “unequal treaties” since they showed a clearly different concepts or standards in international relations according to the mentioned approach. And probably that candid old concept of China was key preventing China to apply a policy or strategy for dividing foreign powers, as the situation of the XIX century very much invited.
I think that, given our current unidimensional system of nationalism, it is not unappropriated to illustrate it saying that three centuries back it would have been incomprehensible to put a bomb in a market or to bomb a city killing civilians indiscriminately to bend a state. It would have been considered terrorism, not only if coming from illegal groups, since the people was not linked to power -the monopoly of violence-, as now, no matter if democratically elected or not. And, in any case, such an action was incompatible with the traditional Hispanic or Chinese systems whose proposal was about inclusion and, in their own ways, their purpose was to pacify the world. Indeed, both powers shared the same concept of evil as originated by exclusion, or partial decision taking. (It does not mean that I am closing my eyes to fact that Hispanic supremacy on Europe, particularly on the Holy Roman German Empire, was facilitated by sense of threat in Europe caused by the Ottoman Empire, as also the disappearance of this perception contributed very much to its end).
On her side, China had to adapt to modern times; first overthrowing the Qing dynasty with a revolution lead by the Nationalist party and then with a second revolution led by the Communist party against the previous one because it was not Nationalist enough since the Nationalist party was “selling the country”, to foreign powers and operated in connivance with them according with the Communist party.
Nowadays, however, when China has reached a powerful enough position in the world as to reflect on her own experience needed to project herself to the world, it has not been able to refute her own ancestral discourse and acknowledgement that the sovereign national states system is very much in contradiction with her most basic understanding as also, in my opinion, with simple common sense –we will mention it later.
For Chinese civilization the main task of the state is to provide safety, security for the people, and her response is inclusive decision making. So sees it Confucius who claimed for the restoration of a unified command system according with the previous Zhou dynasty as the only way to put an end to ceaseless wars among the many states of his time. “Partiality is the root cause of all calamities of the world”, says also Mozi in order to expose his doctrine of Universal Love, which also begins this way: “The wise person, assuming the task of thinking the government of the world, shall first investigate the cause of disorder, in the same way as a doctor study the cause of the illness of the patient to look for a cure” (Book 4, Universal Love I, 1)
Indeed, the first thing Western people note in Chinese managing ways is their will to reach consensus of all the parts according with a hierarchy. However, Chinese must have doubts about a single rule of the world coming from the Middle Kingdom throne while the world lives day and night at the same time and, perhaps, they can´t avoid to long for a partner like Spain, a Spain that in past times shared their principles in search of a pacifying or unity proposal while the British Empire and other Western powers resulted just destructive forces only good for alliance against a third one.
China under Xi Jinping leadership seems to be rescuing that concept of shared security and common fate of humanity and it departs from economic measures and shared development to look for it. This approach has also been well noticed by the West and it has been as much the principle of the EU as also the globalization engine; growing trading, economic engagement and cooperation prevent confrontation and war. In this regard, the New Silk Road project or BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, pretends to integrate the world central island, Eurasia and Africa and it is a move in that direction with independence of other possible motives that can impulse it. And it is not just this project, but other China policies aim at globalization development or, even more, a step beyond it; integration, in a time when their promoters of yesterday, UK and USA, step back and look to protectionism.
In my opinion, the EU shall reach a comprehensive agreement with China not only on the BRI but also on new standards for a sustainable industry and economy able to mitigate climate change under a regulatory frame valid for the whole world. This time, however, the EU does not need to push to impose her concept of (political) human rights on China as she has been doing up to now. On the contrary, the EU shall make an effort to understand and recognize China´s own human rights concept which refers mainly to safety or security and, in consequence, goes beyond the sovereign nation state and long for humanity. All this, I insist, without the EU renouncing to her own values, where many of her virtues come from, because China shall and actually want to learn some good practices applied by European governments in terms of transparency, responsibility, accountability and clear and precise regulations and rules.
But even this complementarity is not enough; a specific contribution from Spain is needed, a Spain which, as China, shall be able to look back at herself and not just meekly take and assume without further consideration the refusal and contempt on herself, on her past, from the vision of her historical competitors and rivals. And here, she also needed to look for Portugal priceless contribution since both enjoy a special position to rescue a part of the world very unfairly and painfully relegated and forgotten, the South Atlantic area, and to propose those countries at its banks to create a cooperation and joint development area joining that EU and China BRI project of integral development.
Likewise, we need to take into account and acknowledge that main source of security in the world central island is Russia, something quite clear according to my perception, even if the UE might not want to take notice. We can appreciate it, however, just by seeing those involved in conflicts in the area turning their eyes on Russia once US is leaving. At the same time, Russia shall cooperate to attract another great country and culture, India, and so on and on.
At this point we can notice here that regulations and agreements transparency are only possible if their purpose is universal, look for the inclusion of all, even if this incorporation is step by step. I think that China has historically seen with skepticism the concepts of transparency and participation, something easy to understand since decision taking in the past could not have such an universal character and, therefore, even if benevolence was meant to be at the roots of government, her objectives could not be but strategic and, therefore, they had to be hidden.
Nowadays, however, the seal of universality is transparency and vice versa. Most important is that the vision is inclusive, so that everyone has a place in it where they can see themselves there and recognized themselves in it or, if not, they will have the chance to dispute it and correct it.
In this way, as we see it now, the last countries to incorporate into a world sharing a common development system and a shared security system could be UK and USA, the North Atlantic area. Since they are the last world leaders, it is to understand that any status quo revision might always be seen detrimental to their interests. It is not the case, universality and inclusion is a disruptive step which brings us to a new stage leaving history as we know it behind. A new scenario beneficial for all without exception, finally outside the zero sum game of history. However, from the beginning we have to recognize their worries and interests and keep open the door for their participation until the human project is accomplished. If the project is not inclusive and universal, transparency will be impossible. Unilateral as also bilateral and even multilateral decision taking will not achieve it since it will turn out to be about a dealing with the reaction it prompts in those excluded, well against its purpose
And this is not all; transparency or universality implies also that those agreements, regulations have to be argued, beyond the planet protection and sustainability, based on human rights and so on the vital rights or those people in marginal areas, as South Atlantic and others, and the protection of those rights and the integration of those areas shall be assumed as a priority and important part in the economic and political projections and activities, so that any development contributes to welfare and integration of those who need it more, because if it is not so it results all the same a remorseless and ill-intentioned deed as in the past since the needs of those people are at sight and to look somewhere else and claim for human rights at the same time is contradictory.
Yes, my friends, humanity, human principle is based on putting ourselves in other people shoes -and surely Africans can be well our teachers since they are people who did not submit to the brutalizing and alienating action of the state. We can´t pretend to be inclusive or talk about human rights and at the same time think in terms of states as the absolute reference. To be inclusive is to be inclusive with the people and maybe this is the most difficult part to understand and to execute. How can we pretend to be inclusive if at the same time we let others starve or endure terrible hardships? The ability we have to understand each other is based in our ability to put ourselves in other people place, this is our common sense and the base of everything else. This is what humans have and if we renounce to it in order to base our relationship on the armed units or states, we will be discriminating and, therefore, we will need to keep applying as up to now to irrationality, harmful for all, the state of violence we live in now and we will not ever go anywhere from it.
But politicians are also people, persons, and if their main mission has always been to put themselves by the side, it is time for them to give face.
in mind I have read or re-read a good part of the most recent information of our most signified experts on China – Spain relations. And it is interesting to notice that most of them point out the special attention that China is addressing to Spain. However, Spain does not pay much attention to it and, worst, is not getting any corresponding investments or economic returns of it, not even similar to others UE partners. The Elcano Instituto expert, Mario Esteban, puts it this way: “friends, but not partners”, where I shall insist that friendship comes just from one side because Spain, probably limited by her alliances and her self-absorption, shows reticence, misgiving and incompetence in regard to this relationship which causes irritation among entrepreneurs.
Diplomats with direct experience in dealings with China attribute such a special attention from China to Spain because Spain never closed her embassy after the violent eviction of the students from Tiananmen Square, was very much in favor of involvement with China to support her reform process instead of her involution and the Spanish Foreign Affair minister, Ordoñez, was the first to visit China after June 1989. Surely because all that, the Instituto Complutense de Asia Office, I was founder and manager of it, was opened in Beijing in 1994.
However, my opinion differs or is not limited to those of the diplomats, it is possible that this deference of China towards Spain is due to their previous relationship which has to be found in China records. In Spain, Asia is not included in the world for the academy.
Even if the Portuguese were first to arrive in China, the first regular and sound relationship with a western power was Spain. Spain set up her empire in the Philippines where, besides her general mission of converting the native there to Catholicism (Universalism), Spaniards there mostly were dedicated to commerce with China. We have the data of the yearly two ways journey of the Manila galleon for several centuries leaving from Acapulco in Mexico with silver from Potosi (Bolivia) crossing the Pacific, the Spanish Lake at that time, to return from Manila fully loaded of Chinese goods. During those centuries many Chinese, called shangleys, were stablished in Manila with their families, most of them suppliers and dealers. They kept a constant and fluid relations with the Spaniards there and this enabled them to appreciate and transmit the ways, vision, proposals and propaganda of the Hispanic civilization and compare it with their own.
In the Spanish and Catholic side, the Jesuits entered into China to know her civilization learning the language and looking for the conversion of the Chinese people. It seems that their main target was the emperor. Particularly interesting in this regards are the records of the Italian Jesuit Mateo Rizzi who stablished himself in Beijing and of special significance the experience of the Spanish Jesuit Diego de Pantoja. This last one was commissioned to represent Philip II in front of the Ming emperor and during two years was busy looking for presents which would show him Spanish ways and intends. His travel was finally cancelled, when a good part of the presents were already in Mexico. And the reason for it was that Philip learnt that making presents to the Chinese emperor meant to be his subject.
Even though we have information of some reckless plans to invade China emulating Cortés in Mexico, those were not carried out, but in any case they were subordinated to the idea of converting China to Catholicism and put it under the unifying authority of the Pope. And Chinese saw that Jesuits would learn other people language, so the tagalo in Philippines as also standard Chinese, in order to preach the gospel in their hosts` languages.
When some centuries later China faced the British Empire and other powers, Western civilization had changed a lot. After the Westphalia peace treaty a new system of sovereign nation states had come to place and nationalism as the totalitarian contemporary ideology more and more sharpened by the French Revolution and by Romanticism. Last, but not less, also supported by the convenience of new peripheral or maritime powers, the new hegemons, UK and later USA, whose strategic interest was to divide as much as possible the continent.
Therefore, the destructive approach of the British Empire, prone to cannon politics and opium business was quite shocking for China where the sovereign nation state concept had not been introduced and her vision was more similar to the Spanish one of integrating the world under a single rule able so to guarantee peace, very much in contradiction with people mistreatment since a new and uprising power was supposed to gain them for her cause.
Chinese documents of the time usually refer to the British as “rebels”, since they assumed their intention was to install themselves in the throne of the Central Empire (Zhong Guo – China) displacing the Manchus, as it had happened before with the Mongols and with themselves, who, as Manchus, were also ‘foreigners’ in China. That very question has recently emerged by the occasion of the Hong Kong handover when the contemporary Chinese authorities called the Qing deals with the British “unequal treaties” since they showed a clearly different concepts or standards in international relations according to the mentioned approach. And probably that candid old concept of China was key preventing China to apply a policy or strategy for dividing foreign powers, as the situation of the XIX century very much invited.
I think that, given our current unidimensional system of nationalism, it is not unappropriated to illustrate it saying that three centuries back it would have been incomprehensible to put a bomb in a market or to bomb a city killing civilians indiscriminately to bend a state. It would have been considered terrorism, not only if coming from illegal groups, since the people was not linked to power -the monopoly of violence-, as now, no matter if democratically elected or not. And, in any case, such an action was incompatible with the traditional Hispanic or Chinese systems whose proposal was about inclusion and, in their own ways, their purpose was to pacify the world. Indeed, both powers shared the same concept of evil as originated by exclusion, or partial decision taking. (It does not mean that I am closing my eyes to fact that Hispanic supremacy on Europe, particularly on the Holy Roman German Empire, was facilitated by sense of threat in Europe caused by the Ottoman Empire, as also the disappearance of this perception contributed very much to its end).
On her side, China had to adapt to modern times; first overthrowing the Qing dynasty with a revolution lead by the Nationalist party and then with a second revolution led by the Communist party against the previous one because it was not Nationalist enough since the Nationalist party was “selling the country”, to foreign powers and operated in connivance with them according with the Communist party.
Nowadays, however, when China has reached a powerful enough position in the world as to reflect on her own experience needed to project herself to the world, it has not been able to refute her own ancestral discourse and acknowledgement that the sovereign national states system is very much in contradiction with her most basic understanding as also, in my opinion, with simple common sense –we will mention it later.
For Chinese civilization the main task of the state is to provide safety, security for the people, and her response is inclusive decision making. So sees it Confucius who claimed for the restoration of a unified command system according with the previous Zhou dynasty as the only way to put an end to ceaseless wars among the many states of his time. “Partiality is the root cause of all calamities of the world”, says also Mozi in order to expose his doctrine of Universal Love, which also begins this way: “The wise person, assuming the task of thinking the government of the world, shall first investigate the cause of disorder, in the same way as a doctor study the cause of the illness of the patient to look for a cure” (Book 4, Universal Love I, 1)
Indeed, the first thing Western people note in Chinese managing ways is their will to reach consensus of all the parts according with a hierarchy. However, Chinese must have doubts about a single rule of the world coming from the Middle Kingdom throne while the world lives day and night at the same time and, perhaps, they can´t avoid to long for a partner like Spain, a Spain that in past times shared their principles in search of a pacifying or unity proposal while the British Empire and other Western powers resulted just destructive forces only good for alliance against a third one.
China under Xi Jinping leadership seems to be rescuing that concept of shared security and common fate of humanity and it departs from economic measures and shared development to look for it. This approach has also been well noticed by the West and it has been as much the principle of the EU as also the globalization engine; growing trading, economic engagement and cooperation prevent confrontation and war. In this regard, the New Silk Road project or BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, pretends to integrate the world central island, Eurasia and Africa and it is a move in that direction with independence of other possible motives that can impulse it. And it is not just this project, but other China policies aim at globalization development or, even more, a step beyond it; integration, in a time when their promoters of yesterday, UK and USA, step back and look to protectionism.
In my opinion, the EU shall reach a comprehensive agreement with China not only on the BRI but also on new standards for a sustainable industry and economy able to mitigate climate change under a regulatory frame valid for the whole world. This time, however, the EU does not need to push to impose her concept of (political) human rights on China as she has been doing up to now. On the contrary, the EU shall make an effort to understand and recognize China´s own human rights concept which refers mainly to safety or security and, in consequence, goes beyond the sovereign nation state and long for humanity. All this, I insist, without the EU renouncing to her own values, where many of her virtues come from, because China shall and actually want to learn some good practices applied by European governments in terms of transparency, responsibility, accountability and clear and precise regulations and rules.
But even this complementarity is not enough; a specific contribution from Spain is needed, a Spain which, as China, shall be able to look back at herself and not just meekly take and assume without further consideration the refusal and contempt on herself, on her past, from the vision of her historical competitors and rivals. And here, she also needed to look for Portugal priceless contribution since both enjoy a special position to rescue a part of the world very unfairly and painfully relegated and forgotten, the South Atlantic area, and to propose those countries at its banks to create a cooperation and joint development area joining that EU and China BRI project of integral development.
Likewise, we need to take into account and acknowledge that main source of security in the world central island is Russia, something quite clear according to my perception, even if the UE might not want to take notice. We can appreciate it, however, just by seeing those involved in conflicts in the area turning their eyes on Russia once US is leaving. At the same time, Russia shall cooperate to attract another great country and culture, India, and so on and on.
At this point we can notice here that regulations and agreements transparency are only possible if their purpose is universal, look for the inclusion of all, even if this incorporation is step by step. I think that China has historically seen with skepticism the concepts of transparency and participation, something easy to understand since decision taking in the past could not have such an universal character and, therefore, even if benevolence was meant to be at the roots of government, her objectives could not be but strategic and, therefore, they had to be hidden.
Nowadays, however, the seal of universality is transparency and vice versa. Most important is that the vision is inclusive, so that everyone has a place in it where they can see themselves there and recognized themselves in it or, if not, they will have the chance to dispute it and correct it.
In this way, as we see it now, the last countries to incorporate into a world sharing a common development system and a shared security system could be UK and USA, the North Atlantic area. Since they are the last world leaders, it is to understand that any status quo revision might always be seen detrimental to their interests. It is not the case, universality and inclusion is a disruptive step which brings us to a new stage leaving history as we know it behind. A new scenario beneficial for all without exception, finally outside the zero sum game of history. However, from the beginning we have to recognize their worries and interests and keep open the door for their participation until the human project is accomplished. If the project is not inclusive and universal, transparency will be impossible. Unilateral as also bilateral and even multilateral decision taking will not achieve it since it will turn out to be about a dealing with the reaction it prompts in those excluded, well against its purpose
And this is not all; transparency or universality implies also that those agreements, regulations have to be argued, beyond the planet protection and sustainability, based on human rights and so on the vital rights or those people in marginal areas, as South Atlantic and others, and the protection of those rights and the integration of those areas shall be assumed as a priority and important part in the economic and political projections and activities, so that any development contributes to welfare and integration of those who need it more, because if it is not so it results all the same a remorseless and ill-intentioned deed as in the past since the needs of those people are at sight and to look somewhere else and claim for human rights at the same time is contradictory.
Yes, my friends, humanity, human principle is based on putting ourselves in other people shoes -and surely Africans can be well our teachers since they are people who did not submit to the brutalizing and alienating action of the state. We can´t pretend to be inclusive or talk about human rights and at the same time think in terms of states as the absolute reference. To be inclusive is to be inclusive with the people and maybe this is the most difficult part to understand and to execute. How can we pretend to be inclusive if at the same time we let others starve or endure terrible hardships? The ability we have to understand each other is based in our ability to put ourselves in other people place, this is our common sense and the base of everything else. This is what humans have and if we renounce to it in order to base our relationship on the armed units or states, we will be discriminating and, therefore, we will need to keep applying as up to now to irrationality, harmful for all, the state of violence we live in now and we will not ever go anywhere from it.
But politicians are also people, persons, and if their main mission has always been to put themselves by the side, it is time for them to give face.

Read more

STOP THE WAR

It is time to think about war, just as simple people and in an open way.

I think it would be a good reference to look at it in the Iliad and The Art of War because war is the topic of both books, what could be for us, poor humans, more important?

Written in a similar time, both works ground and configure two main development lines of human civilization, Western and Chinese. Both are clear about war definition; war is the art of deception.

Say it so The Art of War without delay nor palliative in its first page and so the Greeks win it by deceiving the Trojans with the wood horse honoring the goddess Pallas Athenian.

But, if deceiving the enemy is prompted, deceiving the subordinate is permanent. The Iliad is by itself a case of political falsity; nationalist propaganda, which particularly justifies the invasion with Helena’s story or tale and, in the end, war, they say, is caused by the Gods.

While The Art of War does not care about any origin of war and simply says it is state´s way of life, the Chinese book illustrates very well the need to materially and mentally manipulate the subordinates or soldiers, among others resources those of propaganda and mystification put in practice by the Iliad.

War causes that we deceive each other (or vice-versa), so we need to make things clear; human problem is not a question of misunderstanding or even of lacking of communication capabilities, we have those enough and we all know who we are, where do we come from and where are we going, the real problem is that we deceive each other.

 

Now, how to use or set up the truth or some truth to get along with each other, in order to cooperate instead of look for mutual destruction and to trust each other? God was an idea.

Indeed personal freedom makes it uncertain because we are free, and each person can change her view from one to next second. However, this is nothing to worry too much about, because if she changes her view, before acting unilaterally and upset others, first she’s got to tell, expose and coordinate in the same ways we do with any initiative since it has an individual origin, right?

But something is for sure; we have to start proposing it, I think.

And if something is also sure it is that the truth requires transparency and transparency is the same as universality. That was unfeasible in the past, but now globalization allows it and it is actually requiring it because most important of all is that we are proposing it to everyone without distinction nor discrimination; is it not its guarantee and at the same time its novelty?

For this reason, we are calling for an open and transparent World Congress on human unity so that we can all cooperate according to common sense and to the objectivity of actions and objects which constantly reveal the truth by its practice, here its simultaneity or concerted effort for a common objective.

The Congress is not an idea, it is an activity we know, or at least preview (such as a journey) from the beginning to the end and that Congress is about how to get all along for cooperation instead of for destruction. In that activity time, money, management is invested because those services are being bought –in order to add value to them.

Bye!

Read more

BREAK RANKS!

Soldiers have right not to violate human rights

Read more

ON HUMAN SECURITY

Very happy holidays!

We are celebrating the best of the year, (in) New Year´s Eve, but it has not merit enough, it is that we all are celebrating together, so ¡this is the date!

Life is not to be bought
To look for a job to live, for satisfying basic needs like to eat, dress and lodge is falsely defined in economic relations terms –as much in the right as in the left parties, when, actually, it concerns to security, namely, the regulation and control of our lives (physically, materially), the means of linking the people to the command chain.
Inclusive decision making or human unity means, for instance regarding food, that we share it. It does not mean that we will necessarily have it always available and in abundance since a catastrophe could cause some shortage. The question is that we manage this shortage together since it is a human security question, which raises the use of inclusive and non-discriminating criteria to face the shortage.
Certainly, since we do not have a guarantee on the supply and without a predetermined criteria available now for food distribution, Fatalism could find something to hold on to. We could think that if we have enough certainty on having assured food, dress and lodging we will ending up avoiding any effort and, after a while, we will not have enough for eating. Given this uncertainty accentuated by the risk of change, we are not actually feeling ready to proceed.

However, regarding human or shared security we have absolute certainty and Fatalism vanes under clear light because it is obvious that we shall not expend our energies against each other as we are doing now. If weapons, more demanding than hunger, are not used, it is a waste, and if they are used, even worse.
Beyond sharing resources, human unity is basically about to eliminate the obstacles for our development, by working altogether and dedicating our cooperation to common benefit only. It happens, however, that what refers to the need of satisfying some life requirements, instinct is enough and we all understand it by just checking our stomach, but what refers to eliminate those obstacles for our development, the weapons, it requires communication, which does not mean to use the same language, but our intelligence.
A person certainly is an individual entity, but a person`s activities are necessarily linked to society, they make sense in and from our relationships.

The alternative to genocide is human unity; we want human unity and propose to implement inclusive decision making as soon as possible with an open and transparent World Congress this year 2020. You can see this alternative to genocide if you think about your options: or human unity or, if not, genocide, destruction of one army or the other, one part or the other. Here there is no way out. Syria´s conflict has not ended yet and forces from several countries are ominously gathering in Libya to fix the head of the command chain there.
The press, the media accept and propagate Fatalism of partiality because unconditional submission was needed in the past in an unknown world, but today we have to look for friends of humanity to talk to them about human-unity, universality, inclusion so that those politicians, those media also will have available the alternative to genocide and, in their turn, they will transmit the good news to their peers or counterparts and to every person everywhere in the world; put in short: the human right to shared security.

Happy New Year!

Read more

ON ECONOMIC FREEDOM

First, I would like to inform you that we have received a kind email from Mr. David Llistar, Director of Global Justice and International Cooperation of the Barcelona City Hall, where he writes:

“Thank you for your proposal (‘the possibility of cooperation for celebrating an open and transparent Universal Congress on Human Unity’ –he mentions). Once we have carefully studied it and given the sensitive situation of the issue, we do not consider well-timed at this moment to cooperate with this kind of initiative”.

We do not understand well what he means with the expression “given the sensitive situation of the issue”, (we think he is probably meaning the political situation in Catalonia since we mentioned our understanding of it and our wish to contribute to solve it with our human-unity and inclusive decision-making proposal) and we have required some clarification about it. Also, we do not understand well what is referred with the “kind” of this initiative or what “kind” of initiative would be of the City Hall interest

In any case, we sincerely appreciate his attention

Now our options for a Congress venue are dependent on to retake the contact with Madrid City Hall next year, as they suggested, or we could think of another place. It could also be a Virtual Congress.

 

Today we would like to go back to the idea of freedom we talked about in our previous post, namely, about economic freedom which usually refers to the free market.

According to our Master Mo, among the world governance (human unity) features are consequentialism –we value everything according to its effects, and utilitarianism –we value each thing, object or activity according to its use, benefit. This utilitarianism is also a main piece of theory of the modern liberal democracies.

However, as Amartya Sen points out in his Introduction to Rationality and Freedom, referring to Utilitarianism:

“But what exactly is utility-maximizing behavior? It is the same as maximizing behavior in general (without any restriction as to what is to be maximized), or is it the maximization of the fulfillment of one´s self-interest in particular? That distinction is lost in a large part of modern economics….” (Harvard University Press, 2002, page 26)

Let’s try to see this clearly. Utility-maximizing does not ‘distinguish’ between ‘general interest’ and ‘one´s self-interest in particular’ at one point; if you earn more, accumulate more, the state obtains more from you via taxes, resources, etc. There is no problem here and this is the concept of the modern economy (If you just change the word rationality by nationality you will read it clearer –it actually happens to me since I cannot see well near). Therefore, our current economic questions are ¿how to create jobs? Which is the same as questioning ¿Where can we (the state) invest to be more competitive? What could be our monopoly, talent, innovation, cheap workforce..?

Further than this, however, the ‘utility maximizing’ concept breaks up and indeed makes some distinction or is no longer harmonious when it deals, at once side, about exploiting a person paying her as less as possible while maximizing her utility, which is of ‘general interest’ and, at the other side, ‘maximization of the fulfillment of one´s self-interest in particular’ (to be pretty, for instance), this is personal interest, ‘yours’, ‘mine’, ‘her’, the interest of the real people.

Obviously, those different interests are not confronting each other in a ‘dialectical’ struggle; definitely and without any doubt ‘one´s self-interest’ is subordinated to the ‘general interest’ as it is shown by the vital fact that it is not that you want to eat but that you have to eat to go on living and you can only eat if you are first integrated in the ‘utility-maximizing’ system. Those who already have enough to eat, some eat a lot and some, those who can go on eating with their savings for a while without working, are motivated with new needs or desires, for instance, a car which, even if it could be substituted by public transport, it ‘maximizes self-interest’ as it does a luxurious perfume, etc.

Here we have that this ‘maximizing of self-interest’, consumption, is also ‘utility-maximizing behavior’. I will tell you here an anecdote. I have asked my mother what does she need or wish for a Christmas present. She says that sneakers because the sneakers we gave her last year she does not dare to use new for kitchen works. Oh my friend, I am afraid now that I will not be able to find a present for my mother; I am looking in every shop and I cannot find old sneakers.

There is not a real social contract, just maybe a representation, theater, even cirque, because society origin is the state, the armed unit, and also state prevalence is above society and so its strategic relationship with other states. This is manifested in all aspect, just we need to pay some attention to it or lift the veil because we are not told the whole picture.

I have the impression that Fatalism has substituted human evil nature as explanation or cause of the scourge humans are permanently experiencing, like misery, exploitation, perfidy, and war. This replacement might have been caused in view of a great majority of people sacrificed and resigned to be submitted and exploited long and intensive journeys just for being able to lodge somewhere and to eat so that actually they are allowed to go on living. This picture probably prevents the added scourge of qualifying people´s nature as ‘evil’, it would be too shameless, so that we have got the Fatalism of the new Illustration, legitimating Despotism as the old one (and as Confucianism did).

Despotism, which according to very alarming indicators, is vertiginously leading us all to collapse by ruthless exploiting the people not only as tools but also as, supposedly, insatiable and relentless consumers. A Despotism legitimated by a scientific Fatalism, as exposed by Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor and author of Enlightment Now (2018). Pinker deals in that book first page with the world’s evil according to a Fatalism based in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, called Entropy. It justifies the irrational or violent characters of all human relationships as the Mother Nature way to avoid the natural tendency to inactivity. Once the possibility of freedom eliminated by this Fatalism, Pinker expends the whole book claiming Enlightment´s or Illustration´s achievements, we could name them also Historical merits, this is; an always more scientific manipulation, reduced to everything goes better (but ourselves).

Indeed, as much in China as in the West, manipulation or exploitation of the people has become more explicit and intensive than before since the state uses scientific progress at its service. Equipped by the most modern technologies of all kinds; psychological or induced motivation, along with sophisticated baits, doping or directly by cameras control, all transactions registration, localization, etc. all possible surveillance at service of the state security. Security is indeed the supreme interest of the state and its people, but it is not the ‘one´s self-interest in particular’ the interest of the real people, of persons as you, me, she, everybody for whom, obviously, is of more interest a shared security system.

At the same time, the system falls apart; a crack grows in the state monopoly on information since globalization (different countries people can actually interact, live peacefully together) and the web which have generated or facilitated the fake news, mainly those funded by foreign states, or just no official news, as in former communist countries, for instance, in China some decades ago when every information outside the propaganda frame was qualified of “pornography”. HUM is located in this area. Fake news, pornography? Please, decide for yourself.

Why we are not sharing security? It is clear that our main source of insecurity is originated from the (around 200) armed units in the world, the states aggressions against each other. Therefore, the key and disruptive word or consign for us (those supporting inclusive decision making or human unity), is that used by Mozi, “universality, inclusivity without exclusion, simultaneity…” As you like to put it. Everybody understands the meaning of shared security so that such a claim transcends countries and becomes binding for all of them. Thus they will be deprived from sovereignty or their right to destroy –and aiming at it.

Once on this stage, where we all share security and, therefore, we do not harm each other, will Entropy effects start leading us to inactivity? I do not think so, we have a lot to do, as cleaning and embellishing our environment which is much, better our bodies to be more loved which is not little, and expand in the cosmos as it suits.

Regarding economic freedom, indeed everybody has the right to eat, everybody has the right to lodge, every person in the world has the right to go on living with her material conditions of subsistence ensured without dependency from her work because we know that dependency has nothing to do with justice (freedom) but it is a way of violent submission. Those mentioned above are the right to live together, call them HHRR if you like, but remember there is no right without freedom first and there is no freedom without universally sharing security.

All the same, we all will work, contribute to society, but just voluntarily, freely, and this is if only we agree with other initiative aims, the common cause we will add our will, our effort, and our work to, a Utilitarianism without contradictions because it does not any longer go about doing anything to buy food, it simply lines up universal and personal interest. ¿Any problem?

Read more

THE RIGHT TO BE FREE

THE RIGHT TO BE FREE
II HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM (AT THE 71TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS DECLARATION)
HUMAN UNITY MOVEMENT, HUM, SPEECH BY MANUEL HERRANZ

INTRODUCTION

Dear friends, thank you very much for your presence. Many thanks to the Rioja Center for organizing the event and also my deep appreciation to the distinguished speakers: Mr. Joaquín Acuña, president of Peace and Cooperation, Mr. Emilio Ginés, of the UN Committee for Torture Prevention and Mr. Enrique Gaspar of the Instituto Seda España.

Human Unity Movement, HUM, whose sole purpose is to promote and achieve human unity and inclusive and joint human decision making, wants to claim on this day a new and most needed human right: The right to freedom.

PRAISE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE

The right to be free shall be the first human right because, without it, if others decide for us we cannot even agree with it, even if we would like to since we don’t have the right to agree or to disagree.

And even more important; without the right to freedom we are not responsible nor can we ask for responsibilities to anyone.

WE UNDERSTAND WHY THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN UNTIL NOW

Until now the right to freedom was not possible because the world and its inhabitants were unknown and, therefore, inclusive decision making and universal cooperation were not viable. Although the expression ‘more inclusive’ is often heard, in the real world the only alternative to exclusion or partiality is inclusion or universality and there is no intermediate point between inclusion and exclusion or partiality and universality.

Exclusive, partial, sovereign decision necessarily causes contradiction and confrontation between those who are mutually excluded. This circumstance brings about that defense is the greatest need and priority and therefore societies were necessarily organized as command chains, as hierarchical or pyramidal systems and this is, precisely, the way and form of denying personal right to freedom.

WE NEED THE RIGHT TO BE FREE

Today all human are connected, all humans are actually living together and we have the conditions for inclusive and joint decision-making, but we also find out that the current obstacle to peace, harmony and common well-being –those being the consequences of inclusive, join decision making or human unity- is that we do not have the right to freedom.

– The current situation:

Given that without the right to freedom, current rights are enforced by violence, their implementation can always and only correspond to the strongest party, so that the result of the application of human rights is not the fairest or most human but that one according to the interests of the strongest state.

Worse; human rights implementation is just adding evil to evil. Once some human rights are not implemented or are violated, the way of dealing with those cases is just punishment, destruction.

Besides, law is no human. It does not see what any human eye sees; this is a bad intention. The law does not judge on armies and weapons production and development, or on international blockages, or on provocations or threats, and in general, all strategic decisions meant to dominate the other, to put the other party at mercy by whatever means, either by threat or by deprivation.

FREEDOM NOW

The reason why we are claiming the right to freedom is to be able to unite, to set a system of join and inclusive decision making so that consequently we will not produce or undertake for damaging ourselves and/or violate humans rights.

Also, inclusive, universal decision making will no longer be conditioned by the need and priorities generated by the parties’ confrontation relationship. Inclusive decisions will be meant only for human benefit and well-being of each and every one of us, thus including the true implementation of all other human rights.

Today we have within reach the possibility of peace and harmony, the problem turns out to be now that we have no personal freedom, we are constrained to positive law, the right subordinated to the state, the right subordinated to partiality so that we are limited, we can only choose what refers to our part, which unavoidably is discord, confrontation, and war and we are not allowed to be concerned about humanity we are already living together with and we are able to make peace and cooperate with -this is really a scandalous abuse.

– This is not an abstraction; the questions posed by the state to the people are constrained to its borders and its purposes, those emitted by its communicators, its media, and its televisions. The public sphere is limited to that frame preventing humanity in us, prevent human feelings from its free and natural flow. Not only are the questions rigged but also the answers.

REFERENCES

We, those supporting human unity or joint and inclusive decision making, are followers of an ancient Chinese sage, Mozi, who was already promoting human unity, universal love, 25 centuries ago. He would say: “If you love someone, it does not mean that you love all people. However, if you do not love someone it does actually mean that you do not love anybody because in this way you are forcing all people to take sides: your side or his side…”

Thus, when we have the right to freedom we are going to take care of each other because that is certainly our most beautiful and finest natural disposition, that is why this same philosopher, Mozi, also continually said that human union was Universal Love and that it was Heaven’s Will which had arranged it that way, in spite of opposite ideologies talking about evil in human nature and thus justifying the chains.

– Chains of Zeus rule on humans we have lived imprisoned with so far, as ancient Greeks put it. Indeed, Greeks were well aware of the terrible inhumanity in which we all live in, pushed or forced to fight and kill each other, but now we can finally overthrow Zeus rule on us and set up the human rule on Earth and in Cosmos as was foresaid and announced to men by Prometheus.

BE FREE

Well, dear friend, thank you for your attention to my talk. Obviously, what I said was a joke. How can be there a right to freedom? That makes no sense because the law is given to you by the government or authority to which you are precisely a subject so that claiming the right to freedom to somebody else is an actual contradiction.

Indeed, freedom can´t be but a personal decision. It is about assuming personal sovereignty the actual way to become free and our human-unity movement is made of free people because only in this way we can propose human unity to each other, without nationalities discrimination, specifically supporting the Human Unity Congress.

How can people refuse to be free? Once we invite people to be free, everybody will join and cooperate with us, each person from her current political, social position; the poor and the rich, those from below and those from above in the current command chain, those on the left and those on the right, those from the north and those from the south, we are all the same, all good people, able to understand, willing to cooperate for human unity, just many do not know about that freedom is possible now. Another thought you might have is wrong, I assure you. As Mozi well says: it is the Will of Heaven, it is arranged this way: all´s interest is precisely the interest of each one of us.

Now you can be free!

Enjoy!

Manuel Herranz
December 9, 2019

Read more

PLEASE, SUPPORT PEACE

PLEASE, SUPPORT PEACE

Dear and excellent friend,

I am Manuel Herranz, president of the transparent and non-profit NGO, Human Unity Movement, HUM, and I addressing you requesting your support for the most ambitious and hopeful project.

According to our understanding, we are in a position to make a decisive change towards a human world, where people move from discord and competition (to death) to a world of harmony and cooperation. A change made possible only in our time.

 

Indeed, one of the most relevant circumstances of our present is globalization, a crucial human condition already dreamed by many wise and / or independent thinkers.

They became aware that discord, war, and human misery is due to exclusive or partial decision taking.

Exclusive or partial decision-taking necessarily leads to contradiction and confrontation among the parts and when the world was unconnected and unknown there was no way out of it because the alternative to partiality and exclusion is universality and inclusion and there is no an intermediate point.

These same thinkers knew that peace – which is the common cause – depends on inclusive decision-making because the logical consequence of inclusive decision-making is the end of entrepreneurship for harming -which would be as absurd as harming oneself.

With inclusive decision taking the aim of harming each other is fully replaced by the cooperation of all for common benefit.

Once we eliminate the purpose of harming, which obviously needs to be hidden or disguised in front of the others, we will be able to use common sense with transparency and without discrimination for the management of our relationships based on common objectives of cooperation.

 

In order to launch inclusive decision-making, we are convening a World Congress in Fall of 2020 to be broadcast live and open to everyone in the world. We propose to organize it into 6 working groups: Development, Security, Technologies (in turn divided into Food, Health, Environment, Energy, Mobility and Infrastructure), Women and Communication.

We will invite to participate in the Congress the best experts in those fields from around the world in order to produce consensus proposals for establishing and organizing coexistence and coordinate joint human common development. Then we will ask for support to those proposals from all people in the world regardless of their nationality and, therefore, those consensus proposals are of binding nature for the states

 

And now hereby we are requesting your support and cooperation for the convening and holding of the Congress because we expect your reflection and understanding of this proposal to be outside the framework of politics, nationalities. The point where we all can meet and forge a new way of dealing with ourselves, on the basis of common sense is not the ideologies, but the rationality we all share.

We all are human beings, we all have bodies, needs, and conditionings that we can understand by putting ourselves in the place of the other regardless of the country in which we were born or the ideological figurations we have been indoctrinated with.

 

An immediate and principal effect of the World Congress is the recycling of the world current investment in defense, meant against each other, for the benefit and well-being of humanity -this is the initial humanity asset because only human unity makes this investment for harming redundant and also, we, all the people, are the cause and guarantee of this investment becoming redundant, useless.

With human inclusive decision-making, we also eliminate the ‘strategic or confrontational need and priority’ of partial decision-taking, which subordinates and undermines people’s needs, desires and interests and causes exploitation, abuse, and discrimination. Inclusive decision-taking lets us all decide, plan and act only for humanity, people´s benefit.

That ‘strategic or confrontational need and priority’ of partial decision-taking also causes overexploitation of the planet and its natural resources, fast and uncontrollable environmental deterioration, fauna and flora extinction and prevents us from acting properly against climate change. Right decision making in response to these challenges is possible only if it is inclusive.

 

I thank you very much for your consideration and stay at your disposal so that no aspect remains without clarity and transparency and also looking forward to your cooperation in order to convene and organize the Congress.

Thank you very much for your attention

Very cordially

Manuel Herranz Martín
Presidente
HUM – Human Unity Movement
C/ Puerto Serrano, 32 5ºA
28045 Madrid
Mobile:+34 656339490
Phone: +34 91 031 40 10
www.human-unity.org
manuelhm@human-unity.org

Read more

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION CALL FOR HUMAN UNITY CONGRESS

Dear friends,

We have received notification from the Madrid city council indicating that this year they cannot take on more (preparation of) activities, so we could talk about it next year. However, we hope that Barcelona city council will accept the proposal to hold the Unity Congress shortly and we can begin with its organization for celebrating it in the autumn of 2020.

We have started this week to send sponsorship proposals to various companies thanks to the great work of our Fundraising Manager, as well as we appreciate the progress of our Communication Group, volunteers from IE University. I invite you to follow their work on Instagramm, now @humanunityhum. They are also preparing a video promoting inclusive decision making, human unity.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The next two weeks will be dedicated to climate change, as we proposed an open workshop on “Strategies for control or mitigation of the effects of climate change and common decision-making possibilities” at IE University. Depending on the participation, the workshop could be divided into several groups that would segment the analysis to finally share conclusions and generate recommendations. We will have it in mind as a model for the Union Congress. We would also like to participate in the climate summit, have sent application, we understand that HUM’s proposal for inclusive decision making is the key factor for the summit to be successful.

Regarding climate change, our individual experience is limited to little more than, usually it is hotter in summer here in Madrid than in winter, but accumulated data as well as other scientific certainties well reported and popularized, have identified a process of global warming, largely or entirely caused by the human action which will lead to big damages we must prevent and avoid, or at least mitigate.

It is, therefore, a matter of common human security and this climate change summit should find measures agreed as wider as possible with this objective of prevention. The weight that each country gives to this matter is different and, for instance, it has been informed that the US refuses to any commitment about assuming measures agreed upon by that multilateral framework.

Even if global warming is a fact and its negative effects for the planet and humanity are highly probable, the priorities of the countries are diverse and it is difficult to reach effective agreements. The fact that the state´s approach to it is necessarily strategic can generate suspicion as about the possible benefit of some and detriment of others. For example, some countries may take advantage of those measures to establishing standards for homologating products and services worldwide as part of the fight against climate change resulting in increased exports of their own and undermining the sales/exports of other countries dependent on the first countries technologies. It does not mean that these countries are not rightly claiming their leadership on this innovation and accordingly reward as usual and proper in such cases, just it shows different interests. But, this is only one case to quote some of those possible suspicions or interest differences between countries, apart from the unequal impact of warming in different areas, etc.

And beyond that fact, although very committed voices have been raised for human action in the against climate change, it is shocking that there are no voices so committed in the struggle for human dignity crying out against abuse, oppression and war. What expectation can these voices have against climate change about unanimous response from humanity? It will necessarily be a political one, this is a particular yield, because while common measures are required to tackle the (potential) damage that climate change can cause to mankind, the damage that many people now (actually) suffer is not considered and, therefore, humanity (solidarity) seems not to include them or to discriminate them as part of humanity. That could be the case of Extinction Rebellion, we have addressed to cooperate, and have not replied. I could be that, in addition to fight against climate change, it does not go without a political gain (or political management).

COMMUNICATION AND DECISION MAKING

Ecological awareness, the fight against climate change, fauna and flora diversity preservation and many other issues that concern humanity have very different readings in very different countries, despite being obviously matters of common human interest, for it makes an inclusive decision-making system increasingly urgent.

The enormous disagreement between ideologies, countries, etc. on information can make us doubt about the possibility of global governance, but communication is really no different from decision making. The clear awareness of this is what leads us to request Communication companies to be both a Working Group of the Union Congress and the Co-organizers of it. Actually, it is enough that our communication pretend to be inclusive, so that the decision-making process is also inclusive.

The current communications system is based on confrontation and war and, therefore, the objective of communication is the expansion of the domain of the publisher (actually the one who finances the publication) over the others. Any interpretation / communication about the facts, needless to say, is intended to claim a right (a past right is the fundament for present right) and also the assessment of those facts or data that manifest a trajectory, as is the case of warming, for each one will imply different effects in a way that each one will expose them or emphasize something to be used to imply something that favors their particularity; a right, a privilege, a primacy, etc.

In this context, it is surprising that we, those who are for inclusiveness –are you in?, are being able to go little by little spreading the proposal of human unity. This would be impossible without the existence of common sense because in the state of violence we live in as absence of common sense makes the medium equal to the message and there does not seem to be an actual message. This is assumed by politics (not cosmopolitan politics). I explain it:

Information in China, for example, is controlled by the state and the communist countries in the past, or some populisms simply seek to control information or propaganda, as they assume it is its real name, as a means to achieve their political goals. And, on the other hand, according to Chomsky, the media in the capitalist countries, particularly in the United States, are under the big companies control which “manufacture consensus” according to their interests, since they have a monopoly on information.

As some Chinese friends told me, in Hong Kong Western social networks, which are not allowed in mainland China but have deep roots in Hong Kong, do not allow to propagate arguments in favor of mainland China. If this would be the case, on the other hand, the many (human) resources of the Chinese state would occupy quickly those media by publishing massive arguments in favor of the interests of the People’s Republic, so that these media only admit information in favor of the protests. The situation reaches the absurd that since YouTube does not allow such content, some of these videos exposing arguments in favor of mainland China case are loaded in PornTube since it does not censure them, which, perhaps, also look beyond their actual message pointing out to that censorship in those Western supported media… Regarding the information some countries media give about others countries, I just very much wish this could be the last word on the subject.

INCLUSIVE DECISION MAKING

Mozi said: “Criticizing without alternative is like trying to put out a fire with fire or stop a flood with water. Therefore, Mozi always said: Partiality must be replaced by universality. ” Communications have to be transparent, this means that they have to make their purpose explicit. The purpose includes the definition of what is intended and the benefits it shall provide as well as the means available for achieving it and the effort it requires. At this point, it is not even about our will to be inclusive, but just the transparent exposition of the purpose reveals its suitability for all of humanity and, therefore, in that way amounts to inclusive, joint decision-making, whose realization is common cooperation. Such are all advances in medicine, food, transport, etc. They are for everyone’s benefit without discrimination.

Each of the working groups of the Union Congress, as experts in their sector and knowledgeable about their resources, proposes the development objectives that best meet human needs and desires, assign tasks and cooperate for their achievement. The reorganization for cooperation that replaces the competing motivation for the monopoly (of innovation) is generated by replacing the imposition and violent submission by deprivation by rational and voluntary cooperation. The shared transparent purpose creates community.

PALESTINE

We would like to organize as soon as possible a visit to Israel and Palestine, Gaza, and we are trying to raise funds to cover expenses for it in order to draw attention to the situation of the people there, particularly in the Gaza Strip, a place where there is no other interest than humanitarian and where, therefore, we precisely want to express and spread our proposal for human unity, as well as beginning our mediation work in Western Asia (Middle East) that leads to the truce prior to the Universal Congress.

Read more