[Respenus]

While I agree with you all that people like Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad shouldn't be, in principle of respecting what is written down in the Universal Proclamation of Human Rights and the UN Charter, allowed to speak or appear, to hold any function until they are in compliance of international law. The same could be said about the USA and their donations to the UN, which are far overdue, yet when we do such an analysis, we make the mistake of taking international law for what is written.

States have and always will be pragmatic, interested only in their survival and the survival and welfare of the political elites running them. It has always been so and will stay this way in the future, unless we, the people, the individuals who make up this "universal society" take up cause and say "No more!" and take things into our own hand. An action which would unfortunately in most cases turn into the same mess as we are in today.

The thing with the UN, which has been a constant throughout its history, is that it is, luckily, a forum where world problems can be discussed, yet not necessarily resolved, even though the UN charter speaks of this. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was founded on the same, although much more lax principles, as it does not know binding resolutions. As long as career politicians exist and there are states representing citizens, we will need something like the UN and other organisations, either we like it or not, either they are corrupt or not. We can strive to change them, either ourselves or through our leaders which must, yet not always do, follow the wishes of the people. Yes it is a hard thing to swallow, and I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the whole international system and politics in general. The ELU, as Skybird has gracefully named it (You don't mind I use it, do you Sky?), serves its purposes, as does the UN.

Now, as far as the idea of equality is concerned. I have always believed all human are equal. No matter social status, religion, nationality, any other conviction. Equal in the fact that they have certain rights, which are not always protected, and that they should all be given the same chance in life and helped by their community along the way if the hit a snag or two. I understand the question of culture and am against forcing something down people's throats which they will not like and even fights against (forcing Western style of ruler-ship throughout the world, separated from the question of human rights, although they usually walk hand in hand).

Yet it is our actions we take that define us later on, which tells others, the Whole, as Skybird put it, what kind of people we are generally. Yet the whole is never rational. It will never look at people and see them in grey, it will see them in black and white. Within here lies the problem of forgoing the premise of everyone being equal. I agree with Sky that everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, yet this supposes that we get rid of both all the corruption, something which I would like to see; and that the Whole becomes rational in the sense that it sees everyone as an individual. An individual, with his own mindset and his own ideas and his own culture. Yet this in itself contradicts the wishes of the Whole, as it looks at differences in a hostile manner, not an accepting one. The moment you don't fit in the Whole, you are rejected, once again, we require the premise of equality in order to maintain order and protection of the week against the strong.

These are complex issues, ones which we as a society have tried to solve for a long time and are not even close to imagining a solution, yet alone realising it. We may only take small steps. Yet this does not mean that world leaders with no respect for international law can be let to reign freely in the UN. As far as this is concerned, we are all in agreement.