Currency devaluation epidemic

We cannot talk about world security without talking about financial stability for all. We're going to focus on one aspect of it in this post, currency devaluation. 

In the past decade, several currencies have not only lost more than 50% of their value against the USD but have effectively collapsed. Here are some of these most devalued currencies and by how much:

1. Venezuela - Bolívar  ~100%
2. Zimbabwe - Dollar >99%
3. Lebanon - Pound >98%
4. Argentina - Peso >98%
5. Turkey- Lira >90%
6. Iran - Rial >90%
7. Egypt - Pound >80%
8. Nigeria - Naira >75%
9. Pakistan - Rupee >60%

Which is turning the vast majority of these populations from comfortable middle class to below poverty line, in no time, through no fault of their own (meaning ordinary people, regardless of how you may feel about their governments). This is typically driven by hyperinflation, political instability/incompetency, and often, aggressive manipulation from more powerful nations.

We need to stop and think: what can be done?

Not every country needs its own currency. It's very expensive to maintain and requires some economic conditions that most countries don't have (e.g. strong exports, significant reserves, etc..).

That's why the world needs one fallback international digital currency for banking that is backed by the UN.

Opponents of a global currency can list a dozen of good reasons against (sovereignty, interest rates, imports/exports, etc..), but whether we like it or not, currently the USD is the de facto global currency, and most of these now-poor countries resort to using it anyway instead, out of necessity, making these reasons obsolete. So, a true global currency, would be at worst, like the USD but without all the burdens that are attached with the dependency on the USD.

To be clear, this isn't about replacing all currencies with one global currency.  Countries that would rather keep their own currencies would do so. And others who have the infrastructure to completely switch to a digital currency, could switch to it. While the rest could opt to use it only for banking (as a way to protect their savings) while having their own paper currency for everyday transactions.

The BRICS is already building an alternative banking system, which is good step in the right direction, but it's not exactly a global currency that will address this devaluation epidemic,

The Euro is a great success story, but it's only for the euro-zone, a digital currency, backed by the UN, would work better world-wide.

The alternative is that the list above will only grow and grow in the next decade, and more populations will fall under poverty. And for every poor country squeezed out, its riches go to the top already exceedingly rich countries, who would then complain again about mass migrations. 

We need to talk about the home of the brave

..not because we hate the USA, on the contrary, the world is at awe with the many accomplishments that came out of this country.

It's none of our business how each country governs itself. But it does raise a problem for the rest of us, when the US is, and has been for decades, the undisputed hegemon of the world.

We want to look at it from a different angle and ask, what is the US? Is Trump's USA the same as, for example, Obama's USA? Why should the world suffer this severe bipolarism and uncertainty, depending on who the US elects?

How is it that one man who we, the rest of the world, never voted for, single-handedly decides whether we, the rest of the world, gain or lose territory? occupy or be occupied? live or die? Never mind us, does this leader even truly represent their own people?

We don't mean to single out the US. Of the 5 permanent members of the UNSC, it can be said that 2 are fairly democratic (France and UK), 2 are not quite (Russia and China), and then there's the US, which is its own beast.

 Americans don't truly decide who heads their government. 

Because of the US's severely polarized 2-party system and flawed primary elections that often lead to candidates that are all but hand-picked by oligarchs, corporations and special interest PACs, who spend 100s of millions of dollars shaping the outcome. And because of the flawed electoral college, ultimately, only a tiny handful of swing voters, in a tiny handful of swing states, decide for the whole of the country, who, of the two questionable candidates, will be the next president, and thus, much to our dismay, the de-facto leader of the world.

It's one thing to accept the hegemony of one responsible country, if it's been, more or less, leading to prosperity and stability for most. But is it acceptable to subject the whole world to the will of one man, only at the mercy of the US's internal system keeping his power in check? When this system falls apart such as with today's US, he ends up with unchecked powers at home, and with the US having unchecked powers on the world stage, one man ends up with unchecked powers over the whole world. Now, what if such man is inexperienced, unstable, greedy, corrupt and openly hellbent on dismantling the international order?

President Trump believes that that he has the authority to attack and "own" any country.  When he spoke in Davos he said "unless I decide to use excessive force " - I - not the USA, spoken like a true dictator. Keeping in mind that under the US constitution, only Congress has that power, which they've unfortunately given up for their silly partisan priorities.

Worse, he is openly corrupting the international legal system by, for example, menacing and sanctioning the ICC and the ICJ, crippling the UNSC, and establishing a competing "board of peace" where he's president for life and he solely has veto power over its decisions.

 He, under the impression that the US, the richest country by far, is somehow not doing well enough, is devastating world economies who've grown to be too dependent on the US.

 When asked about his global powers, he said that his "morality" is the only thing that is there to stop him. In other words, we've learned that previous presidents behaved, not because the checks and balances system kept them in check, but because they were only stopped by their own morality - actually, public opinion of their morality. But Mr. Trump has shown future presidents that there's no need for any of that. And with US elections getting more and more polarized, it's inevitable that we'll see more and more extreme and unstable US presidents. 

If you think things couldn't get worse, Mr. Trump still, relatively speaking, has a few things to worry about, such as his businesses, legacy, and financial backers at home and overseas. What is to happen to the world, when the likes of his more hawkish advisors grab hold of this presidency? Let that sink in.

So, in the spirit of honoring the undeniable human right of self-determination, we'd like to put forth the proposition that, either the whole world must be allowed to vote in the elections of each of the permanent members of the UNSC, or, on a more serious note - we need immediate UN reforms. Of course, we're only aiming for the latter. 

Proposal TLDR

Our draft proposal has been moved to this page:

• United Nations reform draft proposal by fairUN.org

TLDR

• The goal is to make the UN fairer, more democratic, more just, and more effective at securing peace and justice for everyone.
• The new General Assembly use weighted voting based on a reward system (i.e. rewarding good actors with more votes, penalizing bad actors) as a fairer alternative to veto power or permanent seats in the UN Security Council. 
• The new UN Security Council is composed of experts and scholars, not affiliated with any governments, and elected by the General Assembly.
• The new UN Security Council only puts forward resolutions. The new General Assembly votes on and pass them.

Please feel free to leave comments and feedback. Suggestions that make sense will be applied to the proposal.

Resurgence

This project which was started in 2007 with a deep desire to make a good difference in this world of ours, was sadly put on hold for many years due to a lack of resources and bandwidth, as well as a waning sense of naïve hopefulness that a difference could indeed be made.

However, looking back at our draft proposal, we'd like to think there are many good ideas in there that are worth revisiting and keeping in the light, in the hope that others might pick up and build upon.

Now, more than ever, with all the madness going on in the world today, and all but complete abandonment of the lessons learned from the previous world wars and the law-based world order: Allies turning against each other, trade wars, casual threats of invasion and annexation, casual nuclear threats, devastating civil wars, endless occupation and oppression, imposed starvation and baffling complicity of supposedly pro-human-right countries, etc.  And worst of all: the complete inability of the UN - the one organization that was put together following the horrors of WWII to prevent future horrors - to prevent any of it. 

Not that we've suddenly gained a stronger conviction that a difference can be made; with ethno-extremism and ultra-nationalism on the rise again hijacking otherwise good democracies, empathy now considered weakness, and lines between right and wrong blurred with alternative facts and convenient spins on narratives - We haven't.

But it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying in our small way. Right?  Our goal was never to make the difference ourselves, but to inspire people, in whichever capacity we have, to start thinking about a desperately needed change, to get the ball rolling so to speak.

So… we've moved to Blogger (select posts only without the old comments). We are re-uploading our draft proposal here and we will figure out what else can be done. ✌

DDoS Attacks

Even before any promotion or organization, the website was taken down / overwhelmed by tremendous traffic (aka DDoS attack) and bot comments coming from a few IPs (from 2 or 3 countries that we'll not mention for now).

Moving to a more capable hosting service.

A dire change is needed

WW3 is inevitable  - IF The United Nations security council is unable to stop conflicts.

 Currently it's not. 

 The countries that are most likely to be participants in the next major world conflict, all have veto power at the council.  Which renders the security council utterly impotent, when no resolution can be passed, that it's not in the interests of any of the permanent members or their friends. 

That's not true justice. That's corruption. That's the mafia having the local judge and police department on their payroll. 

A dire change is needed soon before it's too late.

"I don't know what weapons might be used in World War III. But there isn't any doubt what weapons will be used in World War IV. Stone spears. " 

Albert Einstein

It's not expected that greedy humans, power hungry humans, ever learn from history.  We need to inspire the change.

Blind justice for all. End to veto power. Fair UN.

It begins...