The United Nations as well as a selected number of international humanitarian organizations must have a right to assist victims of natural disasters, wherever they are and whatever the circumstances for a period of six to twelve months with or without the co-operation of local authorities.

Therefore, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) must vote by majority - without veto - resolutions to identify cases of humanitarian disasters in the world and introduce the notion of Shared Sovereignity over disaster zones. The right of Shared Sovereignity entitles those involved in humanitarian relief to monitor operations effectively. Should local authorities object or actively oppose the right to Shared Sovereignity, they will have to be prosecuted for indirect crimes against humanity. Further resolutions against the government in place must be considered.

Globwatch defends the right to have unlimited access to the victims of catastrophs well above the right of national sovereignity, because in cases of natural disasters, humanity becomes a global entity. Any action committed directly or indirectly against that entity legitimizes a proportional reaction against the author of these actions to eliminate the threat. Read also United Nations Security Council: more power to rule, gw's policy on UN Security Council, International Sanctions and Humanity as a Global Entity.

0n September 8, 2000, the United Nations celebrated the new century with a United Nations Millenium Declaration (UNMD) that was meant to bind member states to rules of humanity. However, none of its statements and propositions ever mentioned population growth as a threatning factor to the acomplishment of the United Nations ideals, that should have translated into social well-being for the whole of humanity. And so, in denial of reality, the United Nations organized, financed and implemented environmental, security and humanitarian programs that were meant to fail in countries characterized with strong demographic growth, because natural behavioural factors, characterized by the need to secure food and wealth for the reproduction of the human species, were not taken into account. World population is striving for food and wealth, and states are ready to engage in wars to serve their people's needs. If the United Nations cannot stop by law the vicious circle of environmental destruction that feeds a useless demographic growth, none of the humanitarian programs will ever put an end to misery. this is a look at the world's population density.

On poverty:

The UNMD states that nations 'have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level (UNMD I. 2.) .... to create an environment - at the national and global levels alike - which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.'(UNMD III. 12.) The declaration goes on to propose to 'halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world's people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water.' (UNMD III. 19. a.) Finally, it sets the goal 'by 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of a least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the Cities Without Slums initiative.'(UNMD III. 19. f.).

All in all, the goals were set in a project called Millenium Development Goals.

The above map was designed by the UN Statistic Division on behalf of the Millenium Project, and as part of the 2005 Progress Report. The squares in dark red show the number of areas where there was no progress made; the squares in brown show the number of areas where no progress is expected; those in light green illustrate where progress is expected and dark green where targets were met. The picture illustrates how little progress was made in regions where population growth remains highest, that is, in Subsaharian Africa, Oceania as well as in some parts of Asia and Latin America.

On environmental issues:

The UNMD mentions that 'we must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs.' (UNMD IV. 21.)

Not once in this long chapter is Population Growth given as a variable leading to scarcity of ressources. The fact is, today, world population grows at a rythm of about 250'000 inhabitants per day and the living standard of developed and most developing nations is rising, resulting in a higher consumption of natural ressources.

On peace, security and disarmament:

The UNMD states 'we will spare no efforts to free peoples from the scourge of war, whether within or between states, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade...'(UNMD II. 8.)

In a recent statement on the food crisis, French President Sarkozy said 'we cannot remain indifferent to the unrest among those people who, in developing countries, can no longer satisfy their hunger.' This official statement aknowledges that unrest and possibly wars are linked to poverty and hunger.

The UNMD also states the case of war against drug trafficking, and says nations must 'redouble efforts to implement our commitment to counter the world drug problem' (UNMD II. 9. f.)

Since Allied Forces toppled the Taliban regime, with the United Nations' beneplacito, the world has been flooded with cheap heroine made from Afghan opium. Thousands of families were torn apart, and more individuals have ruined or lost their lifes because of drug consumption. Meanwhile, drug trafficking finances terrorism worldwide and compensates for extreme poverty in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Again, not once, in its whole millenium declaration, does the UN mention demographic growth as a factor of empoverishment. For whatever political reasons, this institution is denying common sense. It should fight the world's devils, instead, provokes them in denial of common sense.

The diagram above shows how ending stocks, that is, the total production of wheat less its use for exports, food and industries, have dramatically fallen over the last decade causing prices for wheat to increase significantly. Wheat is not only used for making bread, it is also used for pastries, pasta and a whole range of other processed foods. When ending stocks of wheat fall as strongly, prices rise to extremes in order to prevent shortages of the product. While consumers shift to other less expensive products, the likelyhood for these products to experience shortages also increases. This is the so-called food crisis.

Get the latest on wheat here: http://www.wheatworld.org

Some European countries including Russia have suggested the world should function following rules of multipolarism, as opposed to rules based on US-lead politics. The debate here is who should lead in world politics. The same debate existed on an organisational level in the 1990s. Should decisions in organisations be taken following a vertical or horizontal type of structure? As far as Jerry Lee knows, there's always just one person taking on the ethical and historical responsibility for the consequences of a decision, even though the decision may be taken among a group of people. Shared responsibility in politics, as in organisations, really, does not exist. So, what's the point with multipolarism? Should a European country or Russia have equal influence on decision-making as the US when they have less interests at stake? These very same countries push for more of their own influence in European affairs, against smaller nations' interests. So, does multipolarism exist? Jerry Lee's answer, evidently, is no. Multipolarism is a fiction. He says we live in the same organisational world as yesterday, and this will not change. This world is pyramidically organized. While the strongest holds the most power, the weakest tends to keep quite, so as to better survive. Morally, pyramidal structures may not be fair, but are Jungles or Oceans fair places? Should the system be changed? Maybe. How? Any way possible as long as it follows rules of diplomacy. When people ask the question of why Iran or North Korea should not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons, if France, Russia and the US hold them, Jerry Lee answers that it is precisely because multipolarism does not exist. The strongest rules, as always before, and so will it always be. If one challenges these rules, it's like an employee arguing with his boss. Smaller states may put pressure on stronger ones while uniting to others. While any diplomatic pressure should always remain curteous and worthy of democratic states for best results, politicians know it's always better to be on the side of the strongest because it is more practical and affordable. This is diplomacy. Diplomacy self maintains the unipolar system with its leaders and followers, as well as with its losers. Who wants to follow idealists like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro, who like Don Quijotes run after Windmills, or understand vague terms like multipolarism when, at the end, democratic nations all wish the same very thing: a better quality of life for its people over time.

Germany's last population survey showed a population size close to 82'315'000 inhabitants in 2006. By March of 2008, German's population was set at around 82'255'000 inhabitants. A loss of 60'000 inhabitants in a little more than one year. Hence, the question is why encourage population-control measures, or restrictions on new births and immigration flows when modern societies may just follow german's path to self-demographic control. Are demographic measures with the objective to control population growth needed by law?

The Berlin Institut of Population and Development sponsored a study carried out by the Institut fuer Demoskopie in Allensbach with the goal of understanding Germans motivations for having children. The study revealed that on 1'257 individuals - with or without children - between the age of 18 and 44, an average of 28 percent of the interviewees explained they did not have children because they did not find the right partner. An average of 30 percent said they did not have more children because they did not have the financial means to have any or more. Only 14 percent said they simply did not wish any or more children. An average of 22 percent stated they did not want any or more because of professional reasons. Age - too young or too old - was also mentioned as a reason for not having any or more children.

The study demonstrates clearly that people do not have any or more children because of their choice not to have them, but because of circumstancial reasons that do not allow them to have any or more. The main reason for not having any or more is the right partner; then follows financial and professional issues. Most revealing is that an average of only 14 percent of the German population freely decided not to have any or more children. This means, would Germans ever have the means to choose, they would not only have children, they would also have more of them. For this very reason, birth control must be fixed by law. A law that regulates births would also constitute a moral base to regulate immigration flows to developed countries.

Globwatch welcomes Germany's latest demographic statistics showing lower numbers of inhabitants - Germany is now unknowingly experiencing the PopCo effect, see PopCo Button -, but insists they are only circumstancial and may not last over time.

Through their personal and professional achievements, in a Society often dominated by Conformists, the following Politicians lead our democratic political-systems to higher standards.

Condoleezza Rice, Nov 11, 1954, USA - Secretary of State - Republican Party - Serves under the Presidency of George Bush Jr. She is a former national security adviser to the President, and was chosen by him to replace Colin Powel when he left office after President's Bush first mandate in 2004. Since she started studies in international relations, Condoleezza Rice has been a convinced conservative, making herself an anomaly in the black community. Mrs. Rice is praised for being the first woman ever to serve as national security advisor, and admired for her confident personality and her resolve, to have never wavered even in the most difficult times. Her role in the White House may have been misunderstood at times. She represents the views of the different agencies that make up the national security-council. As a Secretary of State, she is Bush's teacher of world politics, the person the President most trusts in foreign affairs. Condoleezza Rice Middle-East policies lie on the principles that the region is or was largely under influence of Extremists, and that everything that looked stable, like Saddam Hussein's regime, in reality was a threat to regional peace and the long-term democratic progress in the region. She views the United States as the only nation capable of promoting progress in the world through democratization. Hence, her legacy may be to put democratization at the center of US-foreign policy since 2004.

One of Society's most promising fields that will provide fantastic health benefits to those with genetic and other difficult-to-treat pathologies is stem cell research. Unfortunately, divergence of ethical views on how scientific research must be lead, may have limited the progress in the field. Can we permit embryos to be destroyed for research purposes, when the benefits still remain hypothetical and alternative research offer more practical opportunities?

Embryo stem cells have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. These cells are characterized by their pluripotentiality and have long fascinated Scientists who see possibilities to one day clone human life by developing cultured embryonic stem cell lines. Sixty or so embryonic stem cell lines already exist in the industry and were taken from destroyed embryos. Problems remain to be solved: stem cell lines do not remain pluripotent after nuclear transfer (cloning), and the development of cells must be controlled to prevent cancer.

By contrast, adult stem cells are believed to be multipotent alone in that they develop in more specialized type of cells.

For more information on how scientists achieve cloning, please read Discoveries Leading to Cloning and globwatch's positioning on cloning.

Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research exists only since 1998 when Doctor James Thomson from the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Unfortunately, promises of cures to a range of diseases still remain remote dreams. By contrast, adult stem cell from bone marrow or hemapoetic stem cells have been commonly used for decades. Examples of successful applications of adult stem cells are: cancer, auto-immune, cardiovascular, immunodeficiency, liver and bladder, and neural degenerative diseases. Adult stem cells are also effectively used in cases of injuries, anaemia and other blood conditions. Unfortunately, adult stem cells are present in only minute quantities and are difficult to isolate and purify. Other problems include the quality of the cells which DNA may be damaged by sunlight, toxins or simply cell aging.

Jerry Lee believes that stem cells research should be promoted by all means. However, scientific advances cannot be permitted without an absolute respect for ethics. Jerry Lee promotes 'clean' science, a type of science that develops using ethical means. Any scientific research hurting common sensitivity should be banned or strictly regulated. And so, Jerry Lee wishes to see all tests carried out on human or even animal embryos simply banned. State funds should be directed to promote only 'clean' science with adult or umbilical stem cells offering far enough material for further investigation.

Adult stem cells hold more resources than what is thought today. Sometimes it is only a matter of research and time before we discover the true resources of what we hold. It is only after, that we realize the mistakes we've made. Please refer to our positioning on death penalty and the role society should play in preventing violence. Also, refer to adult stem cell breakthrough.

Is the President or any government or representatives of the people entitled to carry out policies that ruin the nation, knowing it will not affect them as hard as the people themselves? The most ruining policy a governement can follow is to go on an all-out war with the invasion of a foreign territory and a prolonged occupation. Some examples include Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Louis XIV of France spent half of his 70 years' reign spending public money to finance wars against hypothetical ennemies, like against the Dutch in 1672. His campaign cost him 6 years of harassment from the Dutch. He never thought that this little 'Israel of Western Europe' could resist that long. Today, no one remembers the reasons of the war. The Sun King died in 1715. He left behind him a broken, indebted country.

Napoleon Bonaparte waged massive wars that left at least 3.5 Million dead in Europe. His madness put the French into bankrupcy. When he died in 1821 he confessed he had had this weakness of loving too much war. Today, no one remembers the reasons for his absurd continental blocus on England or his senseless conquest of Russia, like the Germans in 1944.

Were these statesmen entitled to carry out expensive military campaigns without the aproval of the people? Jerry Lee believes a great majority of wars in History were illegitimate. The cost of wars are traditionally far higher than the benefits. France would have been better off today, had it only used diplomacy instead of guns, or spent public money to defend the nation only against immediate threats.

Similarly, the US and Europe might have been far better off today, if they had spent public money only to defend immediate threats, leaving the job of implementing democratic ideologies to those who are directly concerned. A better management of financial resources would have brought the West to far more prosperity. The West may have abandoned long ago fossil-based fuel and converted existing source of energy into totally renewable ones; it may have become independant from the Middle-East and could have let it find solutions to its own cultural problems long ago; the world might have known times in which everything would have been far easier for everyone, long ago.

Instead, current wars have cost each American family more than USD 20'000 sofar; worse, within the next two generations no one will even remember the reasons of these costly wars.

Therefore, Jerry Lee wishes to see decisions on all-out wars put to a referendum; that is, to the people's vote. The results of these votes will teach governments and representatives of the nation that the people does not want public money to be spent on wars; and much less, if the threat is not imminent.