7.0.6 Global Obligations - Overview

Version 1.2 December 2013                                                        (Previous Version)

We need not-for profit, non-government organizations (NGOs) to counter big business and big government.  History shows that:

●  unbridled capitalism leads to corruption, inefficiencies and human rights abuses, as well as an grossly unfair imbalance between rich and poor;

●  democratically elected leaders are strongly influenced by their commercial or political backers;

●  many area governments are corrupt, unstable or simply ineffective;

●  even the best democratic area governments are still prone to short-term, parochial self interest;

●  risks to global and local environments are not being adequately addressed.

Non-government global organizations include charities, such as the Society of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Médecins Sans Frontières, World Vision and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, the Open Society Foundation and Human Right Watch; and environment organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.  There are also numerous local NGOs with specific interests.

Though they are still subject to state control via the UN, various agencies of the United Nations are, almost, global non-government organizations, such as World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Court (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

A major role for NGOs is to provide free access to information and advocacy for human rights.  Examples are Wikipedia, Amnesty International and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

A serious drawback of current NGOs is that they dispense “charity� as they see fit.  The beneficiaries of the charity are sometimes consulted on what they receive but they have no rights.  Donors are not obliged to continue donating.  There are no formal obligations between donors and recipients.  Even leading charities, such as the Society of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, are submissive to area governments and irregular militias, and have limited enforcement capabilities.  “Charities� have no real accountability, are not democracies, and are relatively powerless.

Another major concern of most charities is “mission creep�: though they begin focusing on one area of need, they soon discover that many needs are interrelated: poverty and ill-health are linked with each other and with political disempowerment, which is linked to environmental degradation.

We need a comprehensive, financially viable, organization, that is rights based, not charity based, to address our global obligations, that respects the roles of area government, business and other non-profits, but addresses our Global Obligations  in a democratic and accountable way.

We work through the next level of detail on each of the above issues (more).  After considering this evidence, we’ve looked for a way to state our conclusions briefly, and we come to the following summary.

Is this the best way to state our conclusions in this area?  Click on feedback, or add a comment below, if you can improve the substance or the phrasing.

   more                                                                            Statement 40

Our global obligation is to address ignorance, intolerance, delusion, apathy, selfishness, ugliness, negligence, oppression and despair; reflecting, respectively, our core values of truth, diversity, reality, life, love, beauty, responsibility, equality and hope.