I can’t recall just how often I’ve found myself in this situation. Doing this effectively, no doubt, requires the individual to be familiar with the general customs, habits and practices of the “target audience”.

More and more, I find that I am speaking to a secular audience– an audience that visibly locks up when the word “religion” is mentioned, yet opens up and listens when using the word “cause” instead. This got me thinking: what do these words conjure in the mind of the average individual? Here are some ideas, based on personal interactions and observations, so please take them at face value:

Religion: taboo, intolerant, close-minded, divisive, personal, unnecessary.
Cause: courage, purpose, direction, praiseworthy, necessary.

Would you agree with this list? It is interesting how the positive aspects of religion have been sidelined, yet with the division caused by multiple, seemingly-conflicting belief systems, can people really be blamed for thinking in this way? On the other hand, Baha’u'llah gives us a stark warning of the consequences of ignoring the pursuit of religion:

Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness and justice, of tranquillity and peace cease to shine. Unto this will bear witness every man of true understanding.

(Baha’u'llah, Tablets of Baha’u'llah, p. 125)

It is clear that, throughout history and across societies, religion has been the primary force regulating moral conduct and fostering a spirit of brotherhood between people. So, as unpopular as the concept of religion may be nowadays, it is evident that the “chaos and confusion” in the world is a direct consequence of the absence of true religion.

What about describing this Faith as a Cause? Out of curiosity, I performed an electronic search through an important Baha’i work, and found that the frequency of appearance of the word “Cause” outnumbers “Religion” by a 2:1 ratio. This is food for thought! Yet, it is understandable when one ponders the magnitude of the mission revealed by Baha’u'llah, and the amount of dedicated sacrifice required to achieve it. How can one explain, in 30 seconds, that Baha’is are busy building the pattern of a future world society; laying the foundations of a structure that will, in time, lead to the political, social and economic unification of the planet? Try as I might, my explanations tend to be wholly inadequate.

Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 202)

…the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others.

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 64)

Revealed well over a century ago, the significance of these words has been demonstrated time and time again on the world’s fragile political scene. And now, here are the latest set of incidents presented in the news that have aroused the suspicion of political leaders:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin expresses strong reservations over the proposed U.S. missile defense shield, saying that this will lead to a new arms race.
• The West fears the recent rocket test by Iran is ominous in terms of their perceived nuclear ambitions.

The increase in incidents of this nature is deeply worrying, for in the Atomic Age, differences between nuclear powers can no longer be resolved by simply resorting to warfare, as the consequences would clearly be catastrophic. We find ourselves in an unfortunate situation, where the technological gains made in the past century have not progressed in parallel with the moral sense of how best to use them. Distressing, too, are the vast sums spent worldwide in developing weapons and military equipment. We are only 40 days into 2008, and already estimated spending has topped the USD$150 billion mark (click on the link to watch that how quickly that number rises).

The Baha’i International Community, in it’s statement on The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development, makes three important observations:

• Disarmament and development are interrelated. Funds used to make weapons are a drain on the national and world economies. Such funds could be better used to raise the living conditions of the world’s peoples.

• The economic connection between disarmament and development represents only one side of the issue. A spiritual connection also exists. Resources spent for weapons drain not only national treasuries; they also drain the reservoirs of human hope and trust.

• The two issues must be approached in an integrated manner. Not only can disarmament further the cause of development; development can further the cause of disarmament. Indeed, the key to advancing the cause of both disarmament and development lies in fostering a sense of global unity. Unless unity is attained, true peace and security will remain out of reach.

Part 2 will discuss some of the options available to us…

…and they think that they do well, and that they are harbored in the citadel of security. The matter is not as they suppose: tomorrow they shall see what they [now] deny.

(Abdu’l-Baha, A Traveller’s Narrative, p. 79)

History has demonstrated that mankind’s capacity to develop increasingly powerful and sophisticated weapons has been exceeded only by it’s willingness to use them. Each time we hear of a new weapon, we hear that it will “only be deployed under exceptional circumstances”, yet the mere fact that it is developed presupposes its eventual use. If humanity is going to break the cycle, and avoid the wasted bloodshed that results from it’s own continued negligence, it needs to re-examine seriously the goals of world peace and disarmament in light of recent history.

The goals of world peace and disarmament are fundamentally linked, in that disarmament would never succeed without a governing authority that is empowered, as well as universally supported, to ensure that the provisions of a disarmament treaty are enforced.

In attempting to push the agenda of disarmament, whilst ignoring the imperative for a world authority to oversee the process, the following options have been suggested in the past:

1. Unilateral Disarmament: On the surface this appears like a noble option, however on further reflection it’s impracticality becomes evident:

   No nation can follow a peace policy while its neighbour remains warlike. There is no justice in that. Nobody would dream of suggesting that the peace of the world could be brought about by any such line of action. It is to be brought about by a general and comprehensive international agreement, and in no other way…

   (Extracts from interview with newspaper reporter, quoted in “‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Canada” (Thornhill: Bahá’í Canada Publications, 1987), pp. 34-35)

2. Disarmament to anything above Deterrence Levels: In his book, “World Government and World Peace“, J Tyson puts it eloquently: “Who will find comfort in the knowledge that there are now 6,000 nuclear warheads pointed at his country, simply because the number was previously 10,000?” Our mutual destruction, although delayed, would still be assured.

3. Disarmament to below Deterrence Levels: Whilst reducing their severity, disarmament to below deterrence levels would increase the likelihood of wars, as nations would have less fear of reprisal.

4. Full disarmament: This is unlikely to happen, considering a nation’s duty to provide a sense of security for their citizens. Also, there is no guarantee that a neighbouring nation wouldn’t secretly develop weapons, starting the cycle of conquest all over again.

For disarmament to truly be effective, it has to be carried out within the context of a larger framework, one that would make nations answerable to their actions. This, in turn, requires some ceding of the current rights to do with national sovereignty. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 demonstrated to the world the ineffectiveness of treaties that do not address the issue of national sovereignty in relation to the common good; that don’t impose strict punishment on nations acting in violation of the agreed terms. Sixty-two nations, the majority of the world at the time, signed a treaty “providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.” As it turned out, within ten years the treaty had already been broken by Japan, Italy and Germany, who all went ahead and invaded other nations.

Ultimately, since the Pact did not make any provisions for a united response to any acts of defiance, it proved ineffective in achieving it’s primary aim.

The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation.

(Baha’u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah, p. 248)

Part 3 to follow (in the meantime, your comments are welcome).

Part 2 discussed the traditional disarmament options that a fragmented world has considered putting in place. It was concluded that any efforts in this regard would ultimately prove futile without the existence of a world authority, endorsed by all nations, with the necessary strength to ensure that all conditions of a disarmament treaty are realized.

Few, if any, would agree that current international bodies have the necessary backing to achieve any kind of sustained progress. Indeed, for meaningful progress to be made, a mental shift on the part of both individuals and governments is required, such that the importance placed on national sovereignty — and only doing what is considered beneficial for one’s country — is replaced by a higher aspiration, in line with Baha’u'llah’s statement that “The Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens“. The fostering of a sense of unity, and the establishment of peace, are prerequisites for lasting disarmament, and not an outcome.

J Tyson, in World Peace and World Government, notes that the Baha’i model of governance takes the best elements of Western models, but introduces certain key elements based on the concept of unity. And while this may appear strange to some at first, “anyone who observes the problems that plague existing national governments as a result of their internal disunity will readily acknowledge the value of these unifying proposals.”

In World Order of Baha’u'llah, Shoghi Effendi provides us with an outline of the manifold aspects of world governance which future generations will seek to establish. In the process of advancing towards this vision, the issue of disarmament will need to be addressed, such that we can get to the stage where nations will have willingly ceded “all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions.“

However, it should be added that Baha’is do not view disarmament or the establishment of systems of world governance as a panacea to the world’s ills, but rather as a necessary first step in confronting them.

All we can reasonably venture to attempt is to strive to obtain a glimpse of the first streaks of the promised Dawn that must, in the fullness of time, chase away the gloom that has encircled humanity.

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 34)

Observe that if such a happy situation be forthcoming, no government would need continually to pile up the weapons of war, nor feel itself obliged to produce ever new military weapons with which to conquer the human race. A small force for the purposes of internal security, the correction of criminal and disorderly elements and the prevention of local disturbances, would be required — no more. In this way the entire population would, first of all, be relieved of the crushing burden of expenditure currently imposed for military purposes, and secondly, great numbers of people would cease to devote their time to the continual devising of new weapons of destruction — those testimonials of greed and bloodthirstiness, so inconsistent with the gift of life — and would instead bend their efforts to the production of whatever will foster human existence and peace and well-being, and would become the cause of universal development and prosperity.

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 65)

The “new” South Africa is 14 years old now. I just assumed that blatant and institutionalised racism was thing of the apartheid past. But it seems I have been naive. Just the other day, I was taken aback to listen to a conversation, between a highly-educated, well-meaning, culturally diverse group, about how they have recently come to realize that all humans are affected by the same emotions, regardless of their colour. Having been brought up as a Bahá’í, the oneness of humanity seems to me to be a perfectly obvious truth, one I have known since my earliest days.

Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth.

(Baha’u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah, p. 288)

Perhaps, then, the answer is spiritual and moral education for children. It is not enough to hope that our children will somehow figure out right from wrong, or that it is okay to abdicate our rights as parents and family and leave it all to schools. The formative years of life can be the most crucial in forming an upright character. A compilation on Bahá’í Education includes the following exhortations from Bahá’u'lláh:

Man is even as steel, the essence of which is hidden: through admonition and explanation, good counsel and education, that essence will be brought to light. If, however, he be allowed to remain in his original condition, the corrosion of lusts and appetites will effectively destroy him.

As to the children: We have directed that in the beginning they should be trained in the observances and laws of religion; and thereafter, in such branches of knowledge as are of benefit, and in commercial pursuits that are distinguished for integrity, and in deeds that will further the victory of God’s Cause or will attract some outcome which will draw the believer closer to his Lord.

We beg of God to assist the children of His loved ones and adorn them with wisdom, good conduct, integrity and righteousness.

A number of you may have heard of Pangea Day (www.pangeaday.org), the event that recently took place around the world and was billed as the Earth’s first global campfire.

But you may not have known about the Pangea Day Filmmaker’s Retreat — an event which only certain selected filmmakers were invited to participate in. Fortunately, there were three Bahá’í filmmakers in attendance: Bita Haidarian, Josh Homnick and myself.

The following is summary of my experiences at this phenomenal and historically unprecedented event:

In the evening of Friday May 8^th, there was a poolside reception for all of the filmmakers. Hors d’oeuvres and cocktails were served, and it was a very impressive display indeed. Actually, I must add, the filmmakers were very well treated and well fed for the duration of the event. When I entered the reception area, I felt very much at home, surrounded as I was by filmmakers from all over the planet, and over the next few hours I met many more filmmakers, talking to them about their projects. I was deeply humbled to be in the company of so many accomplished film artists, all of whom were passionately committed to serving humanity in some way.

The next day was the Pangea Day Filmmakers retreat. To begin with, documentarian Jehane Noujaim and Chris Anderson, curator of the TED foundation, addressed us. It was highly significant to hear from these two individuals. Jehane’s work as a filmmaker was launched into the public’s consciousness with her documentary “Control Room“.

Soon after this newfound renown, Jehane won the TED Prize from its namesake foundation which gives winners $100,000 — and the opportunity to fulfill a wish. In Jehane’s case, her wish for world peace is a bit beyond TED’s mandate, so instead she chose to work towards it with Pangea Day — a live, global event simultaneously broadcasting from locations on every continent. The idea behind Pangea Day, Jehane explained, was to bring people from around the world together, through the universal language of film.

Chris Anderson reinforced this idea, sharing a thought I’ve really only heard articulated in depth in the literature of the Bahá’í’ Faith: “Whenever we look at the big problems we face, we see that they are global in nature. Therefore their solutions also need to be global. But in order to adequately meet these challenges we must unite humanity.”

He then said he regarded us as founding members of a movement of global filmmakers whose purpose is to build bridges into a new world.

After this stirring address, we were broken up into various groups with our own group leaders, all of who were accomplished in the world of cinema in some way. My group leader was Matthew Modine, the actor probably most known for his role in Full Metal Jacket. Matthew proved to be a truly lovely human being. Surprisingly, he had never heard of the Bahá’í’ Faith, but he seemed very interested upon hearing about it. We introduced ourselves and spoke about culture and how it informed our storytelling, as well as addressing the question of whether or not there was a universal narrative that connects us all…

[to be continued]

[Continued from Part I]

The next talk we heard was from Deborah Scranton, Matthew Modine and Lee Daniels on finding hope in telling terror tales. I very much appreciated this talk. Deborah has made a documentary on soldiers in Iraq called “War Tapes” and when she spoke of the need for her to remain non-political in her work, in order for people to listen to her, it resonated with me as a Bahá’í’. Matthew Modine addressed the tremendous changes wrought in the world since the American nation came into being, and how with less technology than is in your cell phone, we had landed on the moon. The theme he really brought home, which again resonated with my understanding of the Baha’i Faith, was how we as a species had been pulled together through technology. He added that the overriding narrative of our time is a global narrative. One thing in particular that Matthew said stays with me: “Your dreams as filmmakers can alter the way we live on this planet.”

Duncan North (“The Tao of Steve”) and Ondi Timoner (“Dig”) spoke about finding truth in a story. I was struck by Ondi’s comment that “Truth is achieved through a prism.” It reminded me of the Baha’i conception of consultation:

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87)

Following this was a talk by Udi Aloni (“Forgiveness”), Haile Gerima (“Sankofa”) and Marco Williams (“Banished”), who spoke on the subject of “Who tells the Story of the Other?” There was a lot of anger at the injustices in the world, as well as their lack of representation in the film industry. Haile, a Somali filmmaker, spoke at length on the difficulties faced by filmmakers of color. What impressed me greatly was her unifying statement that — while it is true that there is injustice — she had been touched by filmmakers of every hue and race, and that many different voices had empowered her as a filmmaker.

The last panel discussion was by Caroline Baron (“Capote”) and Alex Gibney (“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”). Together they spoke of the impact of film on our society. To that end, Alex cited an example he learned of in making “Taxi to the Dark Side”. He told the story of how the U.S. military begged the producers of the show “24″ to change the hardball tactics of Jack Bauer, since it was giving new recruits the wrong idea about how to conduct interrogations. That was interesting I thought, and spoke of the complexity of the world we live in.

The last activity we did in our groups: shoot little films with these new and very high quality camera phones. So now I can honestly say I made and co-starred in a film with Matthew Modine!

The next day was the Pangea Day event itself, pulled off with tremendous aplomb. Everywhere I looked, everything I saw, seemed to embody a world-embracing vision. I won’t bother describing the remarkable program of inspiring short films, world music and edifying talks, but I do encourage you to check it out at www.pangeaday.org. I felt deeply humbled to attend both the Pangea Day Filmmakers Retreat and Pangea Day itself, and to be in the company of so many visionary individuals. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to teach the Baha’i Faith in a few instances.

I left inspired and aware of my solidarity with those likeminded groups and individuals who also see the world as a single homeland and all of humanity its citizens. And as a result, I felt a greater sense of empowerment and obligation in my work as a filmmaker. A great yearning came to me. A yearning to see more work from Bahá’ís, both infused with spiritual vitality and made for a global audience. The world is waiting for us and doesn’t even know it…

Now picture this scenario: we have one young player on the team, going by the name of Zim, who has been committing fouls persistently throughout the game (in full view of everyone). This carries on for a while, everyone sees it but feels powerless to do anything because, well, none of them are referees, nor do they consider it their job to intervene.

Eventually it goes too far, Zim commits one foul too many and everything boils over. Two of the older players, call them Britain and the United States, charge up to Zim and start yelling and gesticulating. “Get your act together and play by the rules!” they shout, to which Zim impetuously shrugs his shoulders and responds: “Who are you to tell me what to do? I’ve seen the two of you committing plenty of fouls yourselves. Besides, it’s no secret that both of you have fouled me in the past.”

Along come two more of the senior players — China and Russia — and they join in the fray: “Leave him alone,” they say, “It’s not our job to sort this situation out, nor has he fouled any of us, so basically we have nothing to gain from intervening!” They argue back and forth on this theme for a while, neither party giving an inch, until eventually they turn to Zim’s best friend hoping that maybe he can do something about it.

And, as if things weren’t divided enough, South Africa has worked out his own strategy: “Don’t worry, I’m talking to him. All he needs is a bit of encouragement. I hope that at some point he will play by the rules, but in the meantime we’ll just have to tolerate him.” So, after wasting the whole afternoon arguing, they carry on playing with nothing resolved.

Doesn’t it seem obvious at this point that a referee is needed?

The question of Zimbabwe is merely the latest in a whole catalog of decision-making failures at the international level, and as people scratch their heads for answers yet again, one wonders when the penny will finally drop. Will it require another major crisis, on the scale of a world war, for leaders to realize that their priorities are worn and outdated? That the days of selfish nationalism, of excessive patriotism, of stubbornly clinging to the perceived good of one’s own nation instead of sincerely caring for the good of the whole, are well and truly over. Well over a century ago, Baha’u'llah stated:

The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.

And with every passing crisis, with the increasing complexity of modern-day issues, the truth of these words becomes more and more evident. What’s more, (and I apologize for using the football analogy again), it becomes increasingly apparent that the game of politics can’t keep being played without, at the very least, a base set of laws that all will adhere to. Nor can it continue to be played without a referee who has everyone’s full backing, not only to make decisions, but more importantly to ACT on those decisions. Although, perhaps “referee” is the wrong term to use here (after all, history has repeatedly demonstrated how excessive centralization has a tendency to promote despotism). Anyone who has watched a game of football knows how frustrating it can be when the ref makes one (unchallengeable) decision and video replays confirm he got it totally wrong! A “refereeing panel”, or world parliament backed by a formidable international force, is more like the answer, according to the Baha’i Writings.

The Baha’i International Community, in a fascinating document entitled “Turning Point For All Nations“, broadly surveys the political landscape in the light of past and present happenings. In addition, the document offers several compelling suggestions on how to advance towards the goal of lasting peace. For example, in addressing the question of which of the myriad political systems to choose as a model for world governance, they write the following:

Furthermore, in devising a specific framework for the future international order, leaders should survey a broad range of approaches to governance. Rather than being modeled after any single one of the recognized systems of government, the solution may embody, reconcile and assimilate within its framework such wholesome elements as are to be found in each one of them.

For example, one of the time-tested models of governance that may accommodate the world’s diversity within a unified framework is the federal system. Federalism has proved effective in decentralizing authority and decision-making in large, complex, and heterogeneous states, while maintaining a degree of overall unity and stability. Another model worth examining is the commonwealth, which at the global level would place the interest of the whole ahead of the interest of any individual nation.

Extraordinary care must be taken in designing the architecture of the international order so that it does not over time degenerate into any form of despotism, of oligarchy, or of demagogy corrupting the life and machinery of the constituent political institutions.

So federalism has proven it’s effectiveness in uniting diverse groups within a flexible framework, and is a possibility, as is the idea of a world commonwealth. Well, what next? The temptation exists to simply file these thoughts away and worry about the future when it happens, playing the role of passive observer. Wrong approach. In the atomic age it is clearly dangerous to ignore such questions for too long. What the world desperately needs right now is a critical mass of people who share the same vision of unity — and who will strive their utmost to promote it.

While we believe this formulation of a world government is at once the ultimate safeguard and the inevitable destiny of humankind, we do recognize that it represents a long-term picture of a global society. Given the pressing nature of the current state of affairs, the world requires bold, practical and actionable strategies that go beyond inspiring visions of the future. Nevertheless, by focusing on a compelling concept, a clear and consistent direction for evolutionary change emerges from the mire of contradictory views and doctrines.

(Baha’i International Community, 1995 Oct, Turning Point For All Nations)

Photograph by Nathan Wolfe

There is a softness that often times creeps in when sitting silently. The despondent and yet comforting rain falling outside lends itself to a certain mood. OK. Take a breath. Close your eyes.

The peal of the lightning and thunder somewhere up above me keeps playing on my mind. It settles in. Happiness settles in. And yet this quiet but incessant voice speaks to me — “what do you know of hardship, of persecution, of oppression?” And then a chain reaction is set off and I ask myself — how do I even suppose to know empathy? How do we communicate happiness as an actual remedy for the harshness and brutality that we see in the world? Does a focus on happiness and contentment simply distract us from seeking and attaining justice?

Here are two ideas which help shape my next series of thoughts:

- Baha’is work for the betterment of the world, and
– The pivotal belief in the oneness of all mankind directs our efforts.

The Baha’i Faith is not simply concerned with survival, as any emerging consciousness or force in the world often has to come to terms with. Its purpose is not to generate an enclosed community composed of a core of devoted adherents. It seeks to be in constant motion, ever inviting all to participate in building the unity of the world. This sense of purpose necessarily directs a certain mindset that must not be divided.

I met a Hindu man recently who spoke of how seemingly in the West there exists this dichotomy between the heart and the mind; and that success in this plane of reality is bent upon one thing — the integration of being and doing. Then, perhaps to be content or happy does not negate striving for justice. We are not so limited in our emotional and spiritual capacity to only exist in one state at a time. The challenge is to bring a sense of unity to our efforts that spans across and enfolds all manifestations of the human experience. We must seek a mindset built upon coherence. When the fundamental ideas that act on or shape our identity presuppose each other, so that in isolation they would be meaningless, that is coherence.

When reflecting on the interaction between happiness and justice, understanding that they are interrelated and quite deeply connected is integral to their application. There are, of course, many types of happiness or things that bring us joy in this world. Our appreciation of those things is often related to our present state of orientation, and there is much in this world that makes itself available for personal pleasure. At this point, I think we have to review in what way we are defining happiness. True joy and true happiness (as described in the Baha’i Writings) is what comes from a deep and abiding sense of purpose. In fact, Baha’u’llah has defined true well being in the world as this: “Human life was created for happiness and not for sorrow”.

Happiness is in fact a spiritual concept. Abdu’l-Baha has affirmed this when he wrote that “spiritual happiness is the true basis of the life of man”. It is related to the spiritual transformation of both the individual and the collective society. It acts as a force for attraction. It is a super-sensuous phenomenon, ultimately transcending this physical reality, but nevertheless manifests itself, in its true form, as unity.

Its true aim, by serving as a foundation for a collective consciousness built upon the purpose of individual and collective spiritual development, is for the unification of mankind. Thus, it is an inherent quality in the construction and attainment of human relationships of all kinds, be they interpersonal or institutional.

When considering how one works for the betterment of the world, justice is a fixed component of that effort. Rather than seeking a utilitarian view that happiness, on a grander scale, should only be sought for the greatest number of people, we should understand justice as that which is the strongest foundation for the securing of happiness of all. Baha’u’llah has written that perhaps the primary purpose of government is that, through justice, contentment must be secured for all its citizens. He has also written that “justice is the appearance of unity amongst men.”

In this we can surmise that perhaps through the attainment of spiritual happiness, unity is born. Justice, which in one sense can be described as the application of reward and punishment and also as the power of discernment, is the indomitable tool with which we both continue our spiritual search but also safeguard our unity and happiness.

There is much that clouds our ability to attain happiness in this world — but working to cut through all that, to focus on principle, value, and the spiritual qualities inherent in everything, we can access a force and power which will help direct the rehabilitation of our surroundings.

Well as it turns out, there’s more to the story.

Since the article was written we’ve seen the sub-prime mortgage crisis and feared credit crunch hit the light of day. And while companies are facing foreclosure or downsizing, and workers face the very real prospect of retrenchment, an odd thing has happened. Average food prices have actually gone down instead of up — the price of corn in particular – this without any real policy shifts in major biofuel-producing nations. Confusion reigns. The experts revise their figures and it turns out that while the correlation between the two factors still exists, it isn’t as great as previously estimated. So why have prices dropped?

Surprise surprise, all these factors are interconnected. As major investors and investing firms watched the housing bubble pop — so the explanation goes — they looked for other avenues to make a profit. With higher oil prices and a greater push to convert food crops to biofuels, it seemed a safe bet to assume that food prices would rise as a result (since there would be less of it). The frenzied investments around this assumption led to what is known as a speculative bubble, where the market value of a resource greatly exceeds its intrinsic value. Commodity prices rose dramatically, and kept on rising, until a point where it got ridiculous and the bubble burst, along with all the other speculative bubbles.

Without fail, this “bubble and pop” cycle has caused untold misery for the world’s poor. And while we would like to imagine that the worst is over, this NY times article predicts prices to rise again next year. So the question arises: is it acceptable for a handful of speculators, who are sitting on masses of wealth, to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people living “downstream”?

Stephen Pearlstein, business columnist for the Washington Post, described the situation as it was happening:

this bubble is causing economic discomfort for households and businesses around the world, and misery for hundreds of millions of hungry people who suddenly cannot afford a bowl of rice or scrap of meat… the global food crisis has provided a grim reminder that the global economic ecosystem has become so interdependent that a drought in Australia, a tax credit in the United States, French farm subsidies and export controls in India can wind up forcing a desperate African farmer to eat his seed corn.

Shad Rowe, a Dallas money manager, remarked that the situation raises the bigger question of “whether people in a complex society ought to be allowed to make bets that affect other people and that have nothing to do with them.“

The insanity of 2008 has forced world leaders to finally sit up and take notice. At last month’s G-20 Summit aimed at combatting the financial situation, world leaders agreed “to a far-reaching action plan that, over the next 4 1/2 months, would begin to reshape international financial institutions and reform worldwide regulatory and accounting rules.” The plan included a joint statement:

We are determined to enhance our cooperation and work together to restore global growth and achieve needed reforms in the world’s financial systems.

Sounds good – and time will tell if the proposed measures lead to meaningful results. But then, given our chequered history with international reform, should there be any cause for optimism? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Let us, for a moment, dust off our magnifying glasses and take a closer look at the phrases “cooperation” and “work together”. Have our past actions always done them justice? What does it really imply when a determined group of previously separate entities work together in unity to fix a problem? Part of the answer lies in this quote. It starts by describing what unity is not, followed by what it is, and what tremendous effects it has had throughout history:

Unity is not… merely a condition resulting from a sense of mutual goodwill and common purpose, however profound and sincerely held such sentiments may be, any more than an organism is a product of some fortuitous and amorphous association of various elements. Unity is a phenomenon of creative power, whose existence becomes apparent through the effects that collective action produces and whose absence is betrayed by the impotence of such efforts. However handicapped it often has been by ignorance and perversity, this force has been the primary influence driving the advancement of civilization, generating legal codes, social and political institutions, artistic works, technological achievements without end, moral breakthroughs, material prosperity, and long periods of public peace whose afterglow lived in the memories of subsequent generations as imagined “golden ages”

(Century of Light, p. 41)

For a creative power which is essential to no less a cause than the advancement of civilization, isn’t it perplexing that the concept of unity receives no real thought or attention at any of these world showcases? Not a mere passing mention or goodwill gesture, but a profound grasp of what it is, what its implications are, and how to set about reconciling the complex misunderstandings and scattered beliefs that presently exist among nations.

For many, I suspect, achieving unity is seen as being incompatible with nationalistic priorities. Or perhaps it is dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky notion, too abstract and loosely-defined. Nothing at all like those big bad economic theories with the graphs and the formulas that make your head spin…right? Well, not really.

How’s this for a concise definition of what unity is all about:

For unity to exist among human beings — at even the simplest level — two fundamental conditions must pertain.
Those involved must first of all be in some agreement about the nature of reality as it affects their relationships with one another and with the phenomenal world.
They must, secondly, give assent to some recognized and authoritative means by which decisions will be taken that affect their association with one another and that determine their collective goals.

(Century of Light, p. 40)

A solid, scientific definition of unity, “at even the simplest level”. For a practical example of what this means, look here.

No guesswork required.

And herein lies the great paradox surrounding our scientific markets: for what is speculation, if nothing more than an educated guess?