The country is painted red, white, and blue and the national anthem is being heard nation wide. Everywhere you look you see little American flags posted in peoples front gardens or big flags hanging in their windows. Many stores are closed, even supermarkets usually open 24 hours close for a while, and those that are open for a while have all baked goods with American flags on them. People line the streets for parades, in big or small towns alike, and everywhere you look people are dressed in red, white, and blue. It could be no other day than the 4^th of July in the United States. The big day when people remember history and unite together to enjoy their country's independence. This display of the American flag, the sound of the national anthem, and the pride people feel as they watch the morning parade is nationalism.

To have the devotion to die for one's country, to hail to one's flag, to sing one's national anthem with pride, and to fear or hate others because they are not one of you are a few of the many characteristics of nationalism. Nationalism makes a person have love, pride, and an emotional union with the nation to which they belong. Being happy and loving one's nation can be a good thing as long as this pride is kept within reason and does not engulf a nations entire existence and lead to racism and the feeling of superiority towards others. A persons pride and loyalty for their nation-state has been a recent development, since previously a persons loyalty went to one's "crown, religion, city, or clan" (Weatherby, 39). A nation-state is a legal entity with people sharing a common identity, land, government, and independence, such as the former Soviet Union. Nationalism results from four types of bonds and is displayed through four types of symbols. However, even though nationalism can bring nations together it can also hurt the unity of the entire world by causing nations to measure other nations by their own value system which leads to inferiority and racism.

One bond of nationalism is common territory, which is a natural bond since people are located close to each other. When traveling to other countries or even other areas in your own nation a person would feel closer and sometimes more comfortable in the new place if they met someone who was also from where they lived.

A second bond of nationalism is common language. When two people speak the same language they are automatically going to be able to communicate and this leads to fewer feelings of inferiority. If for example you traveled to Brazil, not being able to speak Portuguese and met someone there who spoke English you would most likely feel close to this person and start talking to them.

Another bond of nationalism is a common culture or tradition. People in the same country can have similar history, religion, and ways of living daily life. Therefore, people with a common culture can understand each other better. People many times do not understand people who do things different from themselves and many times feel awkward around those who are different. When someone you know lives in the same culture as you do and celebrates similar traditions then a bond is formed.

Common enemies is another bond of nationalism. When two countries are having trouble with the same country there is often a bond formed between these two countries to fight the opposing country. Similar to back in elementary school when one child is labeled as being mean the rest of the children in the classroom would join together to get back at the bully.

Nationalism is built on these four connecting bonds, but nationalism is seen throughout a country by the symbols used to depict a peoples pride. The flag is the first type of symbol all countries use to depict nationalism. With the right color combination a flag can magically produce feelings of pride and love to one's country. As in the 4^th of July description the red, white, and blue, stars and strips of the American flag reflects the nationalism many Americans feel towards the United States of America. Flags can become very highly worshipped pieces are material and countries can become very protective of their flag, as it represents everything they stand for.

The national anthem is another symbol and strong reflection of pride to one's country. The words are usually strong and dynamic to encourage the feelings of loyalty and love. The United States national anthem is played most everywhere, especially before sporting events and other events that gather large amounts of people. Along with Americans other all countries have an anthem to be a daily reminder of the pride to their nation.

A third symbol of nationalism is a countries historical sites. Many places around a country have special historic significance. Whether they are the place of a major battle in the fight for independence or the birthplace of a famous leader these places hold special meaning to the nations history and survival.

Legends and slogans is the fourth symbol of nationalism. Legends passed down from generation to generation are important in keeping the history of a country alive, but also in giving people a story to hold onto. Examples of slogans and legends in the United States are apples pies, the saying "my country right or wrong", and the legend of George Washington and the cherry tree.

Nationalism is good to bring a nation-state together, but a strong nationalist country can and has in the past had negative effects on the world. A consequence of nationalism is that a nation feels it is the center of the universe and feels superior to other countries. Once a nation feels it is the center of the universe it then begins to evaluate and measure other nations in comparison to themselves. So they take their own value system to measure other nations, even though it is already established that they have different commonalties as your nation.

Another consequence of nationalism, which relates to the idea of feeling your nation and its beliefs are the only beliefs with any value, is racism. Nations begin to see other nations and peoples as inferior through nationalism. Because nations can have such a love, pride, and loyalty towards their own nation all others seem inferior to them. This was seen in the Germany under the rule of Hitler, known as Nazi-nationalism.

The principle of requiring silver and gold is called mercantilism another consequence of nationalism. The rise in mercantilism, which lead to greed and also the feelings of inferiority, drove many countries into colonialism. As countries began to feel better than other countries they wanted more power and a strong characteristic of power is wealth. To gain more wealth countries went to less powerful countries and began to make them into their colonials. An example of colonialism destroying a country is when the British went into Ghana for its gold and made Ghana its colonial. Britain drained Ghana of its wealth. Many "underdeveloped countries", today are underdeveloped and poor because of the European countries with strong nationalism who destroyed these countries by making them their colonies.

Nationalism is a strong force both positively and negatively. For people of a nation to love and have pride in their nation can be a great survival technique to keep that nation together. When people form these bonds of nationalism such as common territories, language, culture, and enemies people begin to feel connected to something and part of a great thing. These bonds can allow a nation to really prosper when it has its people loyal. However, this loyalty is many times taken too far. Once symbols of nationalism start becoming symbols of war and fighting then nationalism needs to be curbed. People fight over a flag, a simple piece of material just to prove their loyalty and others weep and feel such emotion when they hear their national anthem. How can the sound of a song and the sight of colors on a flag make people love and hate people with such force? The consequences of nationalism are strong and countries need to not allow peoples pride and love to take over their minds. People can not feel superior to others just because they do not share similar bonds as those of their nation. Nationalism needs to be contained before racism spreads too far and the desire for power and wealth takes over the original concept of nationalism joining people together.

Weatherby, Joseph N. et al. The Other World: Issues and Politics of the Developing World. 3^rd ed. Longman, New York: 1997.

According to my small nephew, milk does not come from cows, it comes from stores. He's never seen a cow being milked, but he has been to the store with his mother to buy milk, so in his world, milk comes from stores.

Purchasing is a major activity in our daily lives. In fact, if there were to be a national crisis of some sort that would prevent us from being able to purchase the barest of daily necessities such as milk, bread, cereal, toothpaste, deodorant, toilet paper, or soap, it would be a very unsettling experience.

In fact, as Dr. Nassar is so fond of saying, "I know almost everyone in here is too young to remember"...everyone except me. I do remember a time in 1974 when within four hours of the onset of a national trucking strike, the shelves in the stores were empty. Not just slim pickin's...but empty. We take a lot for granted in this country. We're very lucky that we have been able to do so.

As students, we are not producers of goods, we are consumers. We live in state of economic dependence on the goods of the entire world.

So, what is interdependence? Interdependence means that two or more parties rely on what they can do for each other to succeed. Mutual contribution is necessary for the well-being of the parties involved. As a nation-state, the economy of the United States of America is interdependent on other nation-states for its well-being.

Because of the relative isolation of this continent, the U.S. was able to remain free of foreign intervention and develop a strong national identity for nearly 150 years. We were free to develop a strong sense of nationalism: an inclination toward self-reliance and rugged individualism in which we took fierce pride. It was sort of the John Wayne approach to national and international relations.

We were able to amass great wealth from our natural resources of gold, silver, furs, timber, steel, cotton, coal, and oil, to name a few. The entrepreneurial experiments of individuals were allowed to develop unhindered. Personal industry and imagination eventually developed major industries of steel, intercontinental railroads, textiles, and shipping. Innovation led to the development of the internal combustion engine and its subsequent uses in industry. Agriculture became an industry, and with the aid of intercontinental railroads and shipping, contributed to the general economy and personal wealth of many.

As a nation we produced goods that Europeans wanted and were willing to buy at a profit. In time, other nations began to depend on our cotton, wheat, steel, coal, and oil, as well as industrial and technological inventions. We gained wealth and power because of the demand for our goods.

There were many other colonies who were not so fortunate. These nations were discovered by other European countries, and perhaps because of the timing of world events and politics, were not able to break the bonds of their colonizers and develop their own identities and economies as early in their histories as the U.S.

These nations were mainly colonized by the English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and arguably the U.S. The colonies' precious natural resources were harvested to the economic benefit of the colonizers, and the few local inhabitants who did their bidding. These colonies adopted the style of government, speech, dress, and education of their colonizers, (whether by choice or by force), many of which were at odds with their own cultural and traditional values

In today's world, no one, not even the United States, can be totally independent. All nation-states depend on other nation-states for resources, markets, and trade. There is a web of interdependence throughout the world.

If we look at the tags inside a Calvin Klein T-shirt, or GAP jeans, where do they say they are made? Is it Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh, or maybe Honduras? Or does it say "assembled in Mexico"?

The truth is, companies try to keep their costs as low as possible, not so the products cost us less, but so their profits are greater. How does this effect Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Honduras, or Mexico? Well, they get a little piece of the pie: the T-shirt cost Calvin Klein $1.50 to produce, and we pay, what--$20? Those jeans cost The GAP $3.00 and we pay $50? So, of that $1.50, or $3.00 how much did the people who worked on those items rack up? And how many did they have to turn out in a day in order to keep their jobs? Sometimes it's much nicer not to know anything more than which stores sell our favorite brands.

The world is divided into the rich and the poor, the haves and have nots. In this age of instant communication, the Poor and the Have Nots are becoming more and more aware of what they have not. Communication, in the very recent past, has taken on global proportions. Popular culture spans the globe and shows us many different views of life, for good or for bad--warts and all.

Having lived in several other countries, it has been interesting to see other people's reactions to U.S. films. People seem to have the same emotional reactions: they laugh in the same places, and they are saddened by the same scenes and dialogue, (even if it is written in subtitles).

In Japan, a mania for things American Western, has reached cult proportions. Grown Japanese men dress in boots, chaps, and ten-gallon hats in swaggering seriousness with six-shooters strapped to their sides, slightly shorter versions of John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. Log homes from Montana have been shipped to Japan and built at great expense, to recreate a bit of the Old West.

But, it was when a Japanese business associate of my husband's shyly asked for my help in finding a Laura Ingalls Wilder doll, (Little House on the Prairie), to take home as a gift for his eight year-old daughter, that I gained a little insight. There is a univerality of "personal goodness" and "moral conflict" that transcend nationality and language. It represents the same concept of "heroism", or "nobility of spirit" that we all recognize and admire, and which is all the more quickly and easily exchanged via satellite.

When I was very young, living in Guatemala, Elvis Presley was popular. Believe it or not, (back in the "olden days"...just after The Flood...satellites had not yet been invented), we could not receive American television programs so I had not heard of Elvis Presley. When we came to the U. S. to visit and I asked whose picture my cousin had taped up all over her walls, she nearly died laughing. She could not believe I had never heard of Elvis Presley and delighted in advertising my ignorance to everyone she saw.

Today, with satellites and public relations networks, celebrities and recording artists in one country are known all over the world. Cultural exchange is commonplace. Re-runs of television sitcoms enjoy an international revival and popularity never imagined when the shows were originally made. People all over the world laugh at the antics of "I Love Lucy", "The Dick Van Dyke Show", and "Leave it to Beaver", not to mention "Bay Watch". These shows represent life in the U.S. to people the world over.

Even the miracle of advanced communication technology with its attendant flow of information, culture, heroes, and commercials, has its inevitable downside and negative consequences. The export of our ideology and culture, creates the "export of dreams" which many people of the world have no hope of being able to afford. For that matter, few people in the U.S. enjoy the perfect bodies and idyllic lives that are portrayed on the "big screen" and "the tube". The images we see lead to unrealistic expectations of life--a longing beyond our circumstances. But for those in the poorest nations, the gap is even wider...it is impossible.

The gap between what one gets and what one expects to get is called relative deprivation. The larger the gap, the more likely people are to resort to violence. And while the possibilities the world has to offer are brought glaringly into focus for people in poor countries via satellite, it also serves to better illuminate the inefficiencies and breakdowns in their own societies that their governments fail to address. Their dissatisfaction with their leaders' lack of responsiveness to those needs, can lead to frustration, violence, and even revolution.

This can be viewed as the fault of the exporters of the dreams, and turned to their condemnation by adept political leaders. Class envy is a powerful tool and very useful for diverting hostility. By blaming the people's discontent on the fact that other nations "have", government leaders can cloud the more relevant issues of their own misman- agement and corruption.

Compounded by their governments' ineffective leadership, is the legacy of dependency established during the days of colonialism. Then, these poor countries' riches were taken from them and put into the pockets of the wealthy nations. This is still being done by multinational businesses which are backed by powerful governments. This has not only kept these nations poor, but has kept them in a position of servitude and economic dependence necessary for contiuned exploitation.

Now, more than ever, the world is divided into two camps. The rich nations of the North, comprising North America, Europe, Japan, and the United Kingdom; and the poor nations of the South, made up of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The generalizations are that the North is literate, the South illiterate; one industrial, the other agrarian; one part overfed, overweight, and wasteful, one underfed, malnourished, and deprived; one affluent, and the other poverty stricken.

In the 1850's the economic gap between the two camps in terms of economic well-being was two to one in favor of the North. In 1950 the gap had widened to ten to one in their favor. Just ten years later that gap had widened still further, to fifteen to one. It is projected that by the year 2000 the economic disparity will double to thirty to one in favor of the rich.

So what is to be done? Will sympathy suffice for more than two-thirds of the world's population? Shall we simply pretend that what we personally don't experience does not exist? Shall we assign blame to this world power, or that corrupt government? Shall we stand up and demand that injustices of comparable magnitude be directed toward the rich to rectify the injustices against the poor?

We must also ask: what responsibility do the leaders of the poor countries bear for the corrupt governments that have ignored the cries of their own citizens, watching its children starve, and perpetrating civil wars for personal power, as we have seen in Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Sudan? What responsibility do these leaders bear for allowing the atrocities of genocide and terrorism to be played out against its weakest and most vulnerable citizens in the name of religion or ideology, as in Ireland, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Iran, China, and India?

Are these problems so neatly swept in a pile, tied in a package, and laid at the door of the "Haves"? Nothing can be that simple. Global issues require global participation for global solutions. It is counter-productive to place blame and point fingers and demand that someone else make it all better. "Global" refers not only to the players, but also to the playing field: all the countries of the world, and all of their inhabitants.

Responsibility must be accepted, and accountability for our stewardships must be made. There is enough responsibility and accountability for all nations to share. We must use our interdependence to move forward and develop solutions to global inequality.

.

We live in an imperfect world where poverty is a reality. Forty thousand children die per year of starvation. Over 1 billion cities face unemployment and poverty day to day. Three-fourth's of the world's largest poverty population live in the Third World Countries, which includes underdeveloped countries, mainly Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Originally the term "Third World" meant all those not supporting communism and the Western countries. Now, it is a term used to describe the poor countries of the world. These countries face hunger, diseases, illiteracy, and poor health care on a day to day basis. They have high population increases, the death rates have lowered over the years, but the birth rates are still high. Because of these increases in population and the low amount of resources available to accommodate these people, hunger is a rapidly increasing problem for the Third World.

"The average spending per capita is $660 in a developing country, $13,100 in a developed country, and $19,800 in the United States." "60% of the Third World lives in extreme poverty." "I knew that poverty exists, but it never occurred to me that most of the people in this world live in poverty." (Junior Padma Krishnan) That is the problem with people today, many do not realize what a reality poverty is. That is the key word, "Reality." Many sit back and watch the commercials on children starving in Kenya or the bloated stomachs of the malnourished or undernourished in Somalia, but how many actually think about what a problem this is? What is being done to help these people? Is it fair for those in America who make millions of dollars a year to ignore this and allow these children to starve? Children by far suffer the most. Poverty is shared by those of all ages, but children are much more vulnerable to the effects of malnutrition, underdeveloped health care, and poor education. Unequal distribution of goods can account for most of the third world's poverty. The conditions are worsening, and will continue to do so until something is done.

Just in the last 40 years, the world's population has gone from 2 billion to nearly 5 billion. According to the UNICEI, three fourths of that number are ranked as having high under 5 mortality rates. These are labeled as the "developing countries," which takes up two thirds of the world's population, which in turn, two thirds of that population are children. Each year 14.5 million infants die, and 1 million are above age 1. In Africa, 4.3 million children die yearly, and that only accounts for 30% of all infant deaths. It is predicted that that will be raised by 15% by the end of the century.

Many fail to look at the social welfare issues with more depth. They do not see the actual effects of the symptoms on the entire group. This may result in poor action in developing a help plan. The effect of world conditions on the children has worsened over the years. For the weakest countries, the consequences are the greatest, just as for the children, the weakest suffer the most. The financial resources provided for children in poor homes is the number one way that children suffer. Because of the set backs of the third world countries, government services for children have been cut in half. What are these children to do? They cannot help themselves. They are born into this world without a choice, and sometimes without a prayer.

Children have rights and needs. In 1959, The United Nations wrote a Declaration of The Rights of the Child.

• the right to affection, love, and understanding
• the right to adequate nutrition and medical care
• the right to full opportunity for play and recreation
• the right to name and nationality
• the right to special care, if handicapped
• the right to be first to receive relief, in times of disaster
• the right to learn to be a useful member of society and to develop individual abilities
• the right to be brought up in a spirit of peace and universal brotherhood
• the right to enjoy these rights, regardless of race, sex, color, religion, national or social origin

After reading this list, with an understanding that the poor, unemployed families of the third world often cannot provide all of this for their children, why is it that the U.S. cannot help them?

Some say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Several group organizations and charities are trying to help by improving the situations for these countries. The United Nations helps promote their needs. The U.N. was established to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," and to "promote social progress and better standards of living, along with keeping the peace."

Article 55 of the U.N. charter says "with a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations.. the U.N. shall promote, a)higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.. b) universal respect for, and observance of human rights. If one applies this to modern day situations, it could be interpreted to mean the United Nations will try to ensure that all people enjoy high standards of living and the security of employment." Poverty and unemployment should not exist, because they violate human rights.(ENN p3)

Even though the U.N. has its failures, it is still very well organized and it is still mans hope to end this constant battle. The U.N. serves as a light of hope for the people of the third world. Though they cannot solve every problem, they are widely recognized for their efforts and their effectiveness. Since 1951, it has aided 90 different countries, to 25 million different people. Their goal is to eliminate poverty all together, which seems very distant, but not impossible. One of their many successful refugees was a project help primary school established for the Humaying Village. These people suffered poverty and unemployment, and lacked education. The united nation has also done this type of aid for other countries, such as China. The U.N. helped China get back on its feet again, in both a cultural and a social sense. The Chinese named the U.N. as the most widely organized aid system in the world, which was what it was intended to be. The U.N. has been highly recognized for its ability to make poverty an increasing awareness. They let everyone know, world wide, what is going on, what problems there are, and what is being done to solve them. These problems include environmental awareness, and persistent poverty.

Everyone knows that we all love in a world of limited resources. How those resources are distributed is the main problem causing poverty. The human population continues to increase, therefore we are using the available resources very quickly, before they can be replaced. It is expected that the population will increase from 5 billion to 6 billion in only 11 years. Such a large increase in people and such a decrease in resources will make it difficult for human efforts to provide housing and social services to all of the world. The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. We obviously are not helping the poor as much as we could. It was reported that the richest man of the world earned more than three times the amount of the poorest fifth. Today it earns more than sixty times more. Eighty percent of the world population has 18 % of world trade. The U.S. is partially to blame for these uneven distributions. We are nicknamed "the bread basket of the world", because we buy more than we sell, and we are the number one consumers of beef. Over two thirds of our food is imported from the poor countries, and we buy more food from 36 of the 40 countries. Is this something that we , as Americans, can be proud of?

The horrific conditions experienced by the people of the third world are conditions that we can only begin to try to understand. Twenty five percent of children will die before their fifth birthday, and those who live will live without many things they need and are entitled to. Children are the future," they need to be tomorrow's solutions, not tomorrow's problems. There are many people out there working to eliminate poverty and improve living conditions for those in the third world countries, but they cannot do it alone. Everyone should take it upon themselves to do something. It may seem like an impossible to solve, but if everyone would work together, poverty would be lost and the third world would be a better place.

Poverty is prevalent throughout the world around us. We watch television and see famous people begging us to sponsor a child for only ten dollars a month. We think in our own minds that ten dollars is only pocket change, but to those children and their families, that ten dollars is a large portion of their annual income. We see images of starving children in far away countries, and our hearts go out to them. But we really do not know the implications of poverty, why it exists, or even what we can do to help combat this giant problem in our world.

First of all, exactly what is poverty? Well, according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, poverty is "lack of money or material possessions; poor." Two-thirds of the world's population fits this definition. I know that many times we think of being poor as not being able to buy the car we want or take the trip we can only dream about. However, being poor, living in poverty, hits a lot lower than that. For example, a resident of the country of Chad will only bring in $100 each year. Since many people can make more than that in one week, some in one day, can you imagine having the feed a family of five or six, or even a family of two, on only $100 a year? These are the conditions that exist in poverty-stricken countries.

There are many reasons why poverty is an increasing problem. The first is delayed modernization. These less-developed countries barely have enough skilled workers and managers and technology. Industrialized countries have four times as many managers and workers as the less-developed countries, also known as LDC's. It is almost impossible for the lower-developed countries to catch up or even compete with the industrialized countries. With their high rates of illiteracy and lack of on-the-job training, their poverty will continue to increase.

The second reason is the increasing population. According to Weatherby, ninety to one-hundred million people are added to the world each year. If the population continues to grow at the same rate, over eight billion people will live on earth by the year 2025. In the lower developed countries, the population is growing at a rate two to three times faster than that of the industrialized lands. This is positive in the sense that the infant survival and fertility rates have increased, but how are all these people going to eat and survive?

And that's where the third reason for poverty comes in, which is unequal distribution of wealth. The United States donates foreign aid annually to help poverty. However, how thankful can we be to our country when we learn that two-thirds of the aid goes to Israel, one of more industrialized countries in the world? Haiti, for example, whose gross domestic product (GDP) is only $350, could benefit much more from this aid than Israel ever could. Israel needs the aid much less that most of the lower-developed countries. However, because the United States and Israel are close political allies, the United States will continue to feed the people of Israel, while millions of other people live further below the poverty line and continue to starve. Another example of how the United States has too much wealth and food concentrated in their land is this fact: Dogs and cats living the United States, in one year, take in more protein through their diets, that all Latin American people put together. What is wrong with the fact that our household pets are better nourished that our fellow human beings?

Another reason for increasing poverty in the world is inflation. According to Weatherby, inflation is "where prices rise without increasing in goods and services." This creates problems because workers in these countries already have low incomes, and inflation decreases the value of what they own. When the citizens cannot survive on their incomes during inflation, the governments are required to borrow large amounts of money from banking institution, which increases their national debt. So no matter what they do, they will either starve or dig themselves deeper into debt.

Solutions to this continuing and growing problem of poverty are divided into three levels: individual, national, and global. We can individually take steps to solve poverty in our own lives. By simply joining a committee to write letters or try to change laws, or even boycotting certain foods that go to waste or companies that employ small starving children to work for virtually nothing, you can help make a difference. If everyone would just do something, collectively it could make a huge difference.

The second solution is on a national scale. In the United States, thirty-eight million Americans are living below the poverty line. As we can see, even in our own country where some people bring in millions of dollars each year, many children and adults are living in poverty. We need to make efforts to get out in the society, in neighborhoods and workplaces, and educate people of the poverty that exists in the world. Like I mentioned at the beginning, we can see the famous actors on television begging us for our ten dollar donations and without another thought, we grab a ten dollar bill out of our wallets and think nothing of it. However, if we all reached for our wallets and sent money to help out, then it could make a giant difference altogether.

The final level is global. Countries need to implement population control programs in their lands. If more men and women would enter the work force, it has been proven to decrease the number of children being produced in families. However, when a country becomes more industrialized, their medical practices become more advanced, which in turn increases the infant survival rates and increases life expectancy rates of all people. This will continue to help the population grow, which will in no way decrease the poverty problem at hand.

The second way to attempt to decrease the population is through increased active family planning programs. Especially in poor countries, it is a lot harder for women just to jump into the work force, and even harder for a poor country to become industrialized. For example, in Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, birth rates have decreased from seven children per family to only 5.5. This is largely because forty percent of Bangladesh's woman now take part in some form of family planning.

The New International Economic Order, known as the NIEO, has also taken steps to decrease the amount of poverty in the world and hopefully eliminate the large gap between the rich and the poor in the world. Through individual, national, and global aid, we can take steps to decrease the overwhelming amount of poverty in less-developed countries and even in our own lands.

There are three level to the solutions to the problems that exist in the world today. They are the Individual Level, National Level, and Global Level. These solutions can help to eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor countries.

The Individual level is were individuals do things to help eliminate problems that exist. The people are just as responsible as the nation states are. Things that we can do are: 1) Join a student group that creates awareness of these problems, 2) Minimize some of the waste that we create, 3) Sponsor a child in a poor country, 4) Change some laws and 5) Have a meatless day. If you join a group you can become more aware of the problems that exist and then spread this information to others. If we minimize our waste such as eat all the food that we make and not make extra food. This would leave food for people in poorer countries. You could sponsor a child which would give this child food, education and medical attention that he/she needs. There are many organizations that can help you to do this. Some laws that we could change would be allowing regular house hold to have a lamb. This would save on gas because it can mow your lawn for you. It also can act as a fertilizer and is good for the environment. Having a meat less day would save on the consumption of meet, so there would be more meat for the poorer countries. These little things can be a great benefit to the world and help to solve the world problems.

The national level is when a nation does something to help solve the world's problems. This would be to solve the nations problems first. If we can solve our own problems then we could start to work and concentrate on the world's problems. There are 38 million people in the United States that are below the poverty level. If these people weren't below the poverty level it would be 38 million less that the world would have to worry about. The same goes for every country, if they could decrease their people below poverty then it's less the world has to worry about. This would help to take care of the gap between poor and wealthy in the individual countries before the world gap

The Global level is the most important because the problems are global so the solutions should be global. Conflicts exists between the rich and the poor countries. The poorer or Third World Countries demanded changes. In 1974, a group of 77 countries, known as "The Group of 77," met at the United Nations to discuss the changes that they wanted. During this meeting they created the New International Economic Order or NIEO, which is proposals to eliminate the gap between the rich and poor countries. The discussions at the United Nations were known as the North-South Dialogue. They came up with 18 different clauses.

The first thing that they came up with was that each state will be free to determine its own economic and political system. The country itself is able to determine what type of government they would like to have. They would also be able to determine their economic system. This could be the same or different from the one that existed before when they were a colony.

They also wanted each state to be free to nationalize its own natural resources. They wanted to be able to decide what will be done with their own resources. Before richer countries would go into the smaller countries and take over their resources. This happened in Chile with their copper but this attempt failed. The copper was owned by IT&T, which was an American based company. In 1970, Alende ran for President and was elected. He wanted to nationalize the countries copper mines. HE did this and when the U.S. found out about it and they organized a coup d'etat because the copper was no longer theirs. They ended up killing Alende so, the copper was no longer controlled by the country. An example of this that succeeded was in Libya. England had control over Libya's oil. Quaddafi overthrew the king because he slapped him. Under Quaddafi's control he nationalized the country's oil.

The third thing that they wanted was to tie the prices of raw materials to the prices of the manufactured goods. They want this done because the richer countries keep paying the same for the raw materials but the prices of the goods keeps going up. This makes it hard for the poorer countries to afford the products produced from their raw materials. This only succeeded in the oil industry and the other raw materials are still struggling to tie their prices to the products.

The fourth item that they wanted was Organizational and legal reforms. They wanted things to be more equal and not to have the richer countries dominating the world. Under the United Nations this happens because five countries have more power than all the other countries. These five countries are: The United States, the United Kingdom, China, the Soviet Union, and France. These five have the right to veto and are the Superior Council in the UN. The poorer countries believe that this should change because of the current conditions. For example, Japan is more powerful than the United Kingdom right now so, why does not Japan have vetoing power when it is stronger than the United Kingdom. Soon one country from Asia, Africa, and Latin America along with Germany and Japan will be allowed into the superior council and have veto power.

There is a legal reform that has been made with the Third World Countries wanting Organizational and legal reforms. This is changes in the Law of the Seas. Before only 3 miles out from land was owned by the country and past that was international water. So, larger corporations were taking all the fish from area out from the countries where local countries should have been able to fish. The new agreement said that 12 miles out from the land are territorial waters so it is illegal to enter this area without an visa. Then the next 188 miles are considered the economic zone and belongs to the country for economic purposes. Any area between 200 miles out from sea is consider "Heritage of Mankind" and this area belong to everyone. To use this part of the ocean the country or company must go to the High Seas Authority, United Nations group in charge of this area, and get permission to use this area. After you've received permission, 60% of the profit made goes to the company and the other 40% goes to the High Seas Authority. The High Seas Authority then gives it to countries that have projects they want to do and need funds for. The High Seas Authority looks over requests for money and gives it out accordingly. Countries that are land locked, surrounded by land, have priority. There is one country that has not signed the Law of the Sea and that is The United States.

A fifth issue that the Third World Countries want was the transfer of science and technology. The people of the third world countries think that science and technology should belong to everyone. That it is heritage of mankind and that it should be accessible to everyone. Especially if it is going to or could save the live of people. They would like to be able to know if severe weather is going to hit their country and could destroy things. Also, that medical information should be available to everyone. For example if a cure for HIV/AIDS were found that it should be public knowledge so that everyone could benefit from it. Instead the richer countries charge the poorer countries a lot of money for this information. The richer countries claim that they spent time and money on finding what ever out so, they should be reimbursed for their time and money. The poorer countries can not afford this, so they are deprived of this information and therefore causing people to die. The poorer countries believe that if this information was available to them earlier, then they would be able to catch up to the richer countries faster.

The final thing they want is multilateral aid. Currently most of the foreign aid is bilateral meaning that one country gives it to another. Some countries use foreign aid for politcal interest instead of by who needs the aid. What they would like to see would be every year each country gives a certain percentage of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the United Nations. Then the United Nations will distribute the money to the countries that needs it.

If everyone, including individuals, nations, and the world, did something to help the world's problems it would help. The smallest things can only do better and can't turn for the worse. The problems need to be addressed by everyone so they can be solved. Nothing is going to happen overnight but over time the gap between the poor and rich in individual countries and poor and rich countries can be eliminated. All it takes is some work and compromising to get this done.

In the early 1960's the economic gap separating the first world from the third or other world began to explode. With the industrialized states controlling more than 3/4ths of the global economy the disadvantage facing the third world could easily be seen. Third world countries lacked the start-up capital, the education, and the technology to compete with the first world. In the early 1970's the United Nations began to listen to the cries from these third world states, and set out to develop a strategy at which to combat these problems. This strategy lead to the development of The New International Economic Order (NIEO) or the Group of 77 in 1974. The group consisted of 77 members " which would rectify what they see as the structural, global, economic inequality that operates to the Other World's distinct disadvantage" (Weatherby 90). The NIEO convened at the United Nations and proposed 6 major issues which they felt needed to be agreed upon in order for the third world states to close this economic gap which they faced.

The first of these issues was the idea that each state would be free to determine their own economic and political structure. This has not been the case though with Neocolonialism. On the surface it looks as though these third world countries have control over their economic and political structures because the control exercised over these states is indirect. " This influence is exercised through the interaction of the dominant nation's banking, business, cultural, and military leaders with the Other World's elites" (Weatherby 35). Because of the third world's dependence on dominant powers for economic survival they must in essence follow the desires of the more powerful states or face even greater poverty and economic hardship. The second issue facing the NIEO was the statement that each state was free to control their own natural resources. The issue upset particular rich states which had corporations located in third world states mining these different natural resources. Before this agreement rich states were basically stealing the only profitable items some of these third world states had to offer. With this issue it was stated that if there were any natural resources located in a states border. Than those resources belong to that individual state.

The third issue stated is that the prices of raw materials should be directly related to the prices of manufactured goods. This issue focuses on the continuing rise of inflation in the first world versus the stagnant growth of prices for raw materials produced by the third world. By looking at prices in the present time you can see that this issue was never accepted by all the members. The reasoning is that it would hurt us living in the developed world. As an example, the price of new automobiles has risen dramatically in just the past ten years. But the price of iron ore which is needed to make the steel frames for those automobiles has virtually stayed the same in the past ten years. So in the past ten years prices for automobiles have increased substantially due to the development of new technologies, but imagine if besides paying for these new technologies we also had to pay more for iron ore due to inflation. We as Americans would be outraged at the increase in price for iron ore. Why should we pay more for something that hasn't changed? From the third world's perspective they are being robbed blind. Here we are paying the same price for iron ore as we did ten years ago yet prices for automobiles have increased by at least 300%. If the third world states had gotten their way they would have passed an economic policy which would have allowed them to increase prices on raw materials as prices on manufactured goods increased.

The fourth issue was one of organizational and legal reforms. The problem facing third world states was that the rich and developed countries not only dominated the economic sector, but when it came to international law the rich states had a strong advantage over the other world as well. An example would be of this would be the actions taken by the United Nations. The United Nations was founded in 1945 by 55 original countries. During these earliest meetings it was decided that only the most powerful countries would be given the power to veto international legislature. Some of these countries were the United States, the former republic of Russia, France, United Kingdom, and China. As of today there are 185 current members of the United Nations. But it still holds that only those original countries given the power to veto can do so. This policy has outraged many officials from the third world. Many international laws seem to discriminate against poor countries. And these laws are easily passed since no third world countries have the power to veto. One law for example is the forbiddance of any new countries to develop or manufacture nuclear weapons. The United States has control over thousands of nuclear war heads, yet we have that it is illegal for any other countries to try and develop that technology. This issue was proposed to try and curtail these biases. The fifth issue is referred to as the transfer of science and technology. This issue basically states that if a rich, developed country develops a new technology which can save lives or better the standard of living for those living in poverty. Then it should be that countries responsibility to share that technology with the people it could help. For example the invention of weather satellites and severe storm warning devices could be used in third world countries to save the lives of many individuals that might otherwise not take shelter. But because the third world countries had nothing to do with development of these new weather satellites, and because they did not have the money to pay for this technology the rich countries were unwilling to share this new information. This problem led to the launch of an international weather satellite which would provide warnings for the other world. But the problem is much bigger than weather satellites. How is the third world supposed to ever catch up with a world that is changing faster everyday? The simple answer is that they can't!

The final issue is the desire for multilateral aid. Foreign aid right now is Bilateral. Aid is given right now to allies rather than the needy. Rich countries give more to other countries which share their beliefs and views. It is the firm desire from the poorer countries that a fund be set at the United Nations where each country would deposit 1% of its gross domestic product (GDP). This aid would then be distributed to countries on the basis of needs and not beliefs. As it stands right now the United States only gives 0.017% of it's gross domestic to foreign aid programs. In conclusion the NIEO was a strong attempt at closing the gap between the rich and the poor countries. But in the end the rich and more powerful countries still control everything. The developed countries continue to develop faster everyday. Making it harder and harder for the third world nations to catch up to our pace. It will be the developing nations final decision whether or not we will ever allow the third world to share in the same kind of lifestyle we have developed for ourselves today.

Weatherby, Joseph N., et al., eds. The Other World. New York: Longman, 1997.

All our lives we have been taught that change is good, but perhaps we should begin questioning our knowledgeable teachers. All non-western countries are changing today. They too are leaving behind traditional society and making the adjustment to Modern Society. Modern society is very different from traditional society.

Traditional society had a low level of urbanization; in fact, 95% of the people lived in agricultural and rural areas. These areas were basically self-sufficient where the people took care of themselves. They did not need to seek help from others; instead they simply raised their own animals, planted and harvested their own crops, made their own clothes, and tended to their own chores. In contrast, there is high urbanization in a modern society. Approximately ninety-nine percent of the people live in urban or suburban areas. This high urbanization in return causes people to become interdependent. They no longer have the land or resources to depend on, therefore they turn to others.

The birth rate also varies between traditional and modern societies. Women in traditional societies gave birth to many children, because many children made light work. The more children a family had the more hands they had for their chores. Parents in traditional societies have high expectations for their children and delegate many duties. Children in modern societies have a much simpler life. The average child today spends hours watching television and playing video games rather then tending to chores or helping their parents. People of modern societies have less children which is proven through the recorded low birth rates. It is very expensive to raise a child in a modern society; therefore, most families only have a few children. This way parents can support their children in this type of money hungry society.

Just as birth rates differ between the two societies, so do death rates. Along with the high birth rates in traditional society there is also high death rates. In traditional society the first five years are considered the most dangerous years of a persons life. Many parents lose their infants due to illness. Traditional societies are not fortunate enough to have many of the vaccines for disease prevention that are offered in modern societies. Modern societies have low death rates. Prevention, care, and treatment are provided in modern societies lowering the amount of deaths per year.

In traditional societies, education is usually not available or thought to be necessary. Therefore, traditional societies tend to have a low literacy rate; the majority of the people can't read or write. Rather then focusing on education, people in the traditional society focused on the old traditions and ways of life. However, education is a high priority in modern societies. The government gives a large amount of aid to help in education and people are dedicated to the education of both our adults and children. Because of the high importance of education, modern societies have high literacy rates. This is something that is sometimes taken for granted in modern societies, but in reality it is something to be proud of.

Families bring us into this world and are there for us through our entire life. Families give us unconditional love and support; therefore every society would like to believe that they value families. Traditional societies value family to a great extent. Their extended family is very important to them. All of there descendants are considered to be close family; it is not uncommon to have 30,000 in a family. A cousin is a cousin in their way of thinking no matter how distant of a cousin he or she is. With this extra love and support from their extended family members, members of traditional societies are guaranteed that someone will always be there for them. In contrast, modern societies commonly consist of simply your parents and siblings. When someone asks you about your family, you would probably assume that they were talking about your dad, mom, sister, or brother. Members of modern society are very close to their immediate family members, but unfortunately lose touch of their extended family members. Although they may see their so called extended family once a year at a family reunion, they are unlikely to know many of the people that would be considered their family in a traditional society.

Traditional and Modern societies also differ in their type of authority. Traditional society has a low level of differentiation in their leadership. Each village in a traditional society has one leader that is the one and only authority of the village. This person is the leader of all. Modern societies however, have many figures of authority resulting in a high level of differentiation. Modern societies usually have a judge to deal with legal issues, politicians to deal with political issues, and ROTC officers to deal with military issues. This differentiation in authority allows modern societies to delegate different types of responsibilities to different people.

Members of traditional society often have a low level of mobility; people rarely venture out of their small village. They have everything necessary for their way of life in the village and don't see much of a reason to leave. Travel is also very difficult in traditional society. People of traditional societies do not have easy access to ways of travel. Trips into the neighboring village can take a long time and are a big deal; therefore, it is much simpler for them to stay in their own village. Members of modern societies are very mobile. Modern societies usually have high mobility rates. People of this type of society move often. It is not uncommon for children raised in a modern society to move many times in their lifetime. They may be born in one town, go to grade school in another, move to a different town for high school, transfer to a large city for college, settle in another place with a job, and then relocate with their job to another town. Modern technology and available transportation make moving a lot easier then in the past. It is a lot simpler to pick up and leave for another town in a modern society. Traveling is considered a luxury in modern society. Instead of dreading traveling, people of modern societies take vacations for enjoyment, relaxation, and entertainment.

There are several more differences between the two societies; however, the last one I am going to focus on is that of values. Traditional societies have ascriptive values; whereas, modern societies have achievement values. Asctriptive values in traditional societies basically assign people positions in society by their gender. Roles in society are determined by a mere accident of birth. Women in traditional societies get married, have children, and take care of their family for the rest of their life. Their duties are limited to taking care of their family, cooking, cleaning, and housework. Men usually take over their dad's work. If their dad is a farmer, then they will be a farmer when their dad is too old to continue. The sons in traditional societies help their father with his duties until it is necessary for them to take over. Modern societies have more achievement oriented values. People of modern societies often value personal achievement through their accomplishments. There are less limitations in a modern society. Men and women are both able to choose what they want to do with their life.

These are several examples of the ways in which traditional and modern society differ. In lecture, we were given a real life example of Dr. Nassar's grandparents lives in a traditional society. Their home was basically a hole in the ground with a partition and outhouses. There were no luxuries such as electricity or gas. There was basically one big room with a fold down mat for sleeping. They used cow dung to start fires, and they used these fires as a stove. In the back of the house, they usually kept their cows which they used as tractors. The cows lived inside however in the winter. This kept the cows safe and also kept the house warmer. Their chickens were kept inside all year long. Both of his grandparents lived a happy and satisfied life. They got up and started their day when the sun came up and went to sleep at dark. They did their work in the morning, ate their biggest mean at about one or two in the afternoon, took a nap, and then finished their remaining chores. His grandparents spent most evenings socializing. They were a very religious couple and thankful of all of their family members. This example shows that although traditional societies are much different then our own society; people are possibly more happy and satisfied with the simplicity of their lives.

There is no way of proving which society is better, but there is a way of proving that everyone is content with their own society. It would be difficult for someone of a modern society to be completely convinced that their society is wrong, just as it would be difficult for someone of a traditional society to be totally convinced that there is a better way of life. Although completely different, traditional and modern societies are both liked by their people.

Africa is the second largest of the earth's seven continents, covering about twenty-two percent of the world's total land area. From its northern most point, to its southern most tip is the distance of nearly five thousand miles. Africa is both north and south of the equator. The Atlantic Ocean is located west of the continent, and the Indian Ocean is on the east. Width of the continent is also nearly five thousand miles. Although Africa is so large, much of it is inhabitable. Desert soils, which have little organic content, cover large areas. The Sahara Desert, in the northern part, covers more than one fourth of Africa, and the Kalahari Desert is in the southern part of the continent. These two deserts are a natural detriment to the African continent because they make it difficult to reach the inland where most of the people live. Although Africa is relatively close to Europe, travel by land over the Sahara desert is very prohibitive. Another topographical feature that also isolates the central region of Africa is the coastline.

Africa has a regular coastline characterized by few indentations. Because of the smooth coastline, natural harbors were non-existent. Today, however, there are important coastal cities, such as Lagos and Dakar. With the exception of the Mediterranean coast, most of the coastline is low-lying , generally narrow and rising sharply to high elevations. The African climate and topography varies greatly. Although temperatures are usually high, due to being so close to the equator, rainfall, soil quality and elevations are of various degrees. Because most of the African continent has not been covered by water for millions of years, soils have developed according to their weathering elements. A few areas have benefited from soils transported by rivers or ocean currents. African soils, for the most part, have irregular drainage and no definite water tables. Most are relatively infertile due to mineral leaching from heavy rainfall and high temperatures.

Achieving effective control of the water supply is a major problem. Many areas suffer low rainfall and must store water as insurance against delayed rains. Other areas have an overabundance of water, causing swamps to exist. Large areas suffer from periodic flooding. In recent years, progress has been made in the area of dams and reservoirs. With the continent's large rivers and waterways, Africa has probably the most potential for hydroelectric power in the world. However, the economic and the political standing of the region are not in a position to take advantage of this natural asset.

Africa's people are divided not only by country, but also by religion, race, and class. The Sahara also serves as a vast barrier between the people of northern Africa and those of sub-Saharan Africa. South of the Sahara, Negroid peoples, which constitute about seventy percent of the population, predominate. Primarily concentrated in southern Africa, are some five million people of European descent. Europeans began to appear in Africa in the last half of the nineteenth century. Even though they were small in number they had a lasting impact on the African way of life. Their purpose in Africa was for raw materials for their industries, naval bases, new markets, investments and their ever present quest for new lands and adventures. It was not until the last two decades of the nineteenth century that the Europeans began to exert their power in Africa as they were doing in other parts of the world. The European powers of France, Great Britain, Portugal, Germany, Turkey and to a smaller degree, Spain and Italy began to establish colonies in the region. A meeting in Berlin in 1884 and 1885, with all of the European powers present, established the basic political map of Africa, which still is in effect today. The Europeans divided the continent into colonies to suit themselves, with no regard to the ethnic, language or cultural customs of the people. People who had always lived in the same area and with the same lifestyle were suddenly separated. Colonies were governed by different rules, white people were in living in colonies with Africans. Some accepted the new way of life, others revolted to the outside powers. Each European country ruled according what was of importance to them and their country. As a result, what had been a general way of life for Africans, was now completely different according to the ruling country. Some countries such as the British ruled from "above" their citizens, while the French became involved with their subjects. The Portuguese, German and Belgian colonies treated their villagers much more inhumane than the French or the British.

The days of the great European rule in Africa only lasted five or six decades, however, the impact of their rulings was to last forever. A great part of the economy fell under the influence of the Europeans. Traditionally, the vast majority of Africans had been farmers and herders who raised crops and livestock for their subsistence. The Europeans, wanted to substitute one or two cash crops or minerals for traditional farming. They began to bring in foreign goods and issue their money in the country. Power in Africa was most assuredly in the hands of the Europeans.

When World War II began in 1939, thousands of soldiers were put into action in foreign countries. While away they learned new skills and instead of returning to their old lifestyle, they settled in the cities. This was the beginning of mass independence of the African countries. At the end of the war, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the super powers. They both saw the need for independence in the colonies.

Independence really began to emerge when Ghana became the first country to gain its freedom in 1957. For the next twenty years, countries one after the other gained their independence. Independence from the European countries had been gained, however, it was uncertain if each of these independent countries could now survive on it's own. Their governments did not have the stability and the support of the people to assure a sound and economically healthy country. Countries so intent and focused on gaining their freedom were now unstable and uncertain of their future. Government is still mainly ruled by a few people in most of the countries. State-run programs are not implemented fairly, as mainly the middle and upper class benefit from the programs. People started to demand a say in the way the government is run. As Africans became more knowledgeable about the procedures of other countries, they began to take a stand in their own behalf.

Getting their economics and natural resources back in order was going to take time and assistance. Not only do the Africans have difficult geography and climate to contend with, the Europeans had left their mark on their economy. The natural habitat in many parts of the continent had been badly abused. As mentioned before, the colonial powers demanded cash crops and the export of livestock, which meant clearing of the land and depletion of the soil to sustain crops and livestock. It was a cycle that resulted in the decline of agriculture as it once was. Not only was there less fertile soil, the population was exploding, placing an even harder burden on the economy. Nearly half of the population is children, and millions are refugees that have fled from neighboring countries to save themselves from death. In the past few years, millions of people have moved from country to country because of the continual wars. Sometimes when the fighting subsides, they return to their country, while in some countries the fighting never ends. Many have no possessions, so being transient is an easy option. Today, Africa is home for almost a third of the twenty-three million refugees in the world.

With this many people unemployed and homeless, it is next to impossible for the economy to show an improvement. Also, with the continued conflicts, money that might be spent to better the lives of the people, is still being used for military supplies. The United Nations, though hesitant to become an eternal provider for these countries, has stepped in with supplies to help end the starvation. It is their objective to end the constant struggle for power and concentrate on making these countries self-sufficient again. The United States continually sends supplies and military personnel to these impoverished nations. Not only do they distribute desperately needed food and health supplies, but they also try to establish a sense of peace. More than once our military has given their life for the cause of someone simply having the right to merely exist. It is the duty of our country to aid those less fortunate. The United States has given uncountless dollars to the African countries, knowing that repayment is nonexistent. Political instability and economic mismanagement do not promise that things will get better in the near future. A drop in oil prices, the most lucrative commodity that many of the African nations had to sell, has further devastated the economy. Nearly ninety percent of the population of Nigeria live in poverty, while the people at the top award themselves with millions of dollars.

Zaire is another country whose president Sese Seko Mobutu is a billionaire by theft, while the country is in a desperate state of being. It's ruling under the Belgian Congo left it unable to take care of itself when it gained independence. This country is actually regressing under incompetent and uncaring leadership. Mozambique gained independence from the Portuguese and formed a new government. The white minority, two years later, began an opposition to the government. During the years that followed, nearly a million people, nearly half of them very young children, were killed by former Portuguese soldiers. Another two million were permanently injured by land mines. Finally a peace pact was signed between the two leaders and today the country is slowly making progress.

South African people were mainly descendants of the Netherlands. Blacks far outnumbered the whites, however, white people held much power in the country. Racial disturbances began to emerge, and the economy began to drop. Unrest cost many lives, until demands for change were heard and the political system was revised. In 1994, the South African people went to the polls for the first time and held a democratic election in which Nelson Mandela became president. The country of South Africa has made strides in healing their broken country.

Economic ways started in the nineteenth century, still have a hold on the countries of the sub-Sahara today. These countries are all impoverished and have seen horrific civil wars, however, the general consensus is that they are making slow improvements in their economy. The starvation, overpopulation and health problems are still very evident. Perhaps continued assistance coupled with education and protection will keep them on the road to stability and more rewarding lives for their citizens.

The role of the military in any country is one of prestige. Unless having been through it personally, one could not imagine willingly subjecting oneself to the rigorous training received by so many young men and women today. The role played by the military is always to protect, defend, and assist its country in both war and peacetime, but in developing nations there are quite different roles as well. To be a leader in the armed forces, one must be strong both physically and mentally, as well as having a certain charisma, or skill with people. This is true because in order to lead, one must appeal to those he or she is leading. Not only does a developing country have armed forces for defense, but on occasion, the leaders of third world militaries use them for the overthrow of their own government. Currently serving as a soldier(reservist), I can identify with the saying, "spilling blood in the mud ," as we are trained, contracted, and sworn to do so on command, but if ever asked to help plan or execute an act against our government, I would be appalled.

This is exactly what several third world country military officers have done. Momar Quadaffi was a Lieutenant in the Libyan military and with the help of some other lower ranking officers, he successfully staged a revolution. Which is not at all bad because he is so popular he can drive around in his Volkswagen Convertible without any type of security but could you imagine Bill Clinton riding a bike down Pennsylvania Avenue without the secret service along for the ride ( I apologize if I have just created a bad mental image)? The point is, where on earth could a group of officers secretly join together and overthrow the government, other than a third world country. Quadaffi was successful because of his charismatic leadership and love of his country. Quadaffi had some big fish to fry when he decided to take over Libya but he really had a challenge when it came to keeping the oil of Libya nationalized. This is one of the big reasons why the Libyan people love him.

Momar Quadaffi does not see much of the oil money if any at all. He has stayed ever faithful to his country in that the profits from all Libyan oil goes to a fund that builds houses for their citizens. Quadaffi himself does not even own a home but instead has vowed that the last house he will build will be one for his family. This is the sort of leadership that the military creates. When your back is against the proverbial wall and it would be so much easier to quit, you must ask for more. As a young man in boot camp at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, it was told to us several times that the only easy day was yesterday.

This brings me to another reason why Momar Quadaffi has been such an agent of change, His relentless pursuit of prosperity for the Libyan people. Quadaffi has been the target of United States media bashes since before the middle eighties. He has been shot at and bombed countless times by countless numbers of people. His young daughter is dead because of an attack on his apartment. This is what makes him a great leader. When it would be easy to throw in the towel and step down in order for a new leader to gain power, he asks for more. He practically taunts the western world into fighting him. This will not happen because he is viewed as a martyr by the Libyan People and they will fight harder for him. Not only are they willing to fight for him but they are quite able. Most Libyan citizens have an A/K model 47 fully automatic assault weapon as well as formal training on how to use it. Having been given military instruction on the A/R 15, M-16A1, and M-16A2 as well as nine millimeter handgun, I don't see our President giving anyone on the street these weapons, especially in the Washington DC area. While one could argue that people could get these anyway, the point is that Libyans will not get arrested for owning them and that they would be more than willing to use them in order to defend their homeland.

Another charismatic leader is Gammal Nasser . Nasser became the leader of Egypt through a non-violent coup d'etat. Nasser was one of the first Egyptian Military Academy who was not from a noble family. In fact he was from a middle class family as his father was a civil servant. At the academy I'm sure he was given some sort of strategic instruction at some time. It was this sort of cunning and military effort that ensured his place in history. While he was trained to forcefully achieve goals, Nasser gained a Republic for a Monarchy without a single shot fired. After reading this, could you picture Generals Colin Powel or Norman Schwartkopf trying to take over our country? Sounds odd but that's what happened. I'm not saying that it was a bad thing, in fact, Nasser gave the land back to the Egyptians in that he limited the amount of land a citizen could own and took land from the rich in order to distribute to the less fortunate. I don't see Bill Clinton doing that anytime soon either. While it could be promised on the campaign trail, I would not hold my breath while waiting for it to happen.

The most charismatic feature of Gammal Nasser is his devotion to the people of Egypt. This was proven when he was an advisor o the President. In October of 1953, Nasser was in Alexandria at the time giving a speech. There was an assassination attempt and while everyone else was ducking for cover, Nasser STOOD behind the podium. After a long silence, he said, " I live for Egypt, and I die for Egypt." This event put him in the heart of millions of people. If you could not put your trust into a man who faced death rather than stand down and not let his opinion be heard, then who can you trust? This courageous act could be attributed to Nasser's military background. We are instructed to remind ourselves that we defend our way of life and that we will defend that way of life against all enemies. It's a code of conduct and it is what we are trained to believe. Nasser believed that this way of life was for all Egyptians and he implemented civil engineering facilities in addition to giving the farmland to citizens. He did this to make a good life for his people in a country where two percent of the people owned seventy-five percent of the land.

This brings me to my last military leader that has become an authoritarian, Fidel Castro. Mr. Castro was a Cuban Military member and with the help of some military friends, contacts, and a few M-16's, took over an already shaky Cuban Government. While Castro does have his flaws and has discrepancies with the Cuban people, his charming, cigar smoking figure will always be synonymous with Cuba. This rapport that Castro has established with the Cuban people is the biggest reason why he is still in power. He has taken the government and given it a degree of stability and brought in several European businesses to Cuba in order to boost the economy and provide jobs for the Cubans. Castro has applied many military guidelines to leading Cuba. He has given the people what they need but not all of what they want (economically) and they respect him for that. He has also defended his way of life against America and that has endeared him to so many poorer Cubans while bringing in the big business in order to appeal to the wealthier Cubans. He has been a stern leader which is a military virtue in itself. One could make several connections between Castro's military background and government.

In conclusion, there are many ideals and virtues that are instilled when one goes through formal military training, and these involve leadership, charisma, and a fair sense of judgment. All of these virtues can be shown in several developing nation's leaders as they themselves have gone through rigorous physical and mental training in order to help them better defend their country and its way of life. Though each leader may differ in terms of race, color, creed, or culture, their primary objective and ideologies are quite similar. While each leader has his or her country's best interest at heart when making policies and decisions that have long-standing ramifications, one can be assured that these leaders and their policies are based upon their firm military training.

Buddhism is the great oriental religion founded by Guatama Buddha, who lived and taught in India in the sixth century BC All Buddhists trace their faith to Buddha and

"revere" his person (Frederic 15). Nearly all types of Buddhism include monastic orders whose members serve as teachers and clergy to the lay community (Maraldo 19). However, beyond these common features the numerous sects of modern Buddhism exhibit great variety in their beliefs and practices. In its oldest surviving form, known as Theravada or Hinayana. Buddhism is primarily a spiritual philosophy and system of ethics (Frederic 16). It places little or no emphasis on deities, teaching that the goal of the faithful is to achieve nirvana, a blissful state of insight and release from the bonds of the self, the world, and an endless round of births, deaths, and rebirths in successive lives (Maraldo 20).

The state of spiritual perfection is achieved through the practice of humility, generosity, mercy, abstention from violence, and above all, self-control. The latter forms of Buddhism, known as Mahayana, however, often worship a pantheon of divine Buddhas and future Buddhas (Zwalf 20). Some have a elaborate hierarchies demons as well. Several varieties of Mahayana Buddhism promise the worshiper a real paradise rather than a perfected spiritual state ( Zwalf 21).

Several sects emphasize faith more strongly than works. "One sec seeks to induce in the believer a jarring, intuitive, nonrational insight into true reality" (Maraldo 24). In all lands to which Buddhism has spread it has made adaptations to local conditions. For example, in Japan extreme nationalist sects have developed. Differences may be seen in Buddhist art, architecture, inconograph, rituals, and doctrinal emphases( Zwalf 25).

Through the variety, however, common elements of tradition and attitude have persisted, so that Buddhism in its totality is comparable to an old and strongly rooted tree that has developed numerous branches through centuries of growth (Frederic 26). Buddhism flourished in India until about AD 500. It began to decline gradually becoming absorbed in Hinduism until b y the eleventh century it had almost disappeared (Frederic 30). Meanwhile, it had spread and become influential in other lands of Central and East Asia, where it continues to maintain vitality.

Today, Buddhism survives in two major forms. The early Theravada form is practiced in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and in the Southeast Asian countries of Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia (Frederic 40). The later Mahayana form prevails in China, including Tibet, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, and Mongolia (Frederic 40).

The teachings of Buddha played a major role in the religion of Buddhism. Buddha's teaching was a deeper , more ethical protest against "Vedic formalism" (Snellgrove 50). Rejecting authority of both Vedas and Brahmin priests, he proclaimed a

new way of deliverance discovered by himself. This was shown in his first sermon, "Turning the Wheel of Doctrine" (Snellgrove 51). Essentially this way is knowing and

living by "four noble truths (Snellgrove 51)."

First, "The Noble Truth of Suffering" was "suffering is inherent in all life in the experiences of birth, old age, sickness, and death; in union with the unpleasant ; in separation from the pleasant; in failing to obtain what one wishes ; in short, in all clinging to existence (Snellgrove 51)." Second, "The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering", this is "craving, which leads on to rebirth, is accompanied by delight and passion, rejoicing at finding delight here and there (Snellgrove 52)." Thirdly, "The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering", which is the "cessation of craving by forsaking and relinquishing it so that one is freed from it (Snellgrove 52)." Fourthly, "The Noble Truth of the Path that Leads to Cessation of Suffering", which is an "Eightfold Path of right-namely, right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration (Snellgrove 53)." By following the path craving is destroyed and deliverance from suffering "ensues".

The Buddha's teaching stands in sharp contrast to the Vedic tradition, which depends on rites of sacrifice to nature "deities". "Reliance is not on external ministrations of priests, but on inner self-deliverance through rightness in thought, conduct, and spiritual discipline (Snellgrove 55)." His doctrine also runs into to the Brahmanism of the Upanishads.

The Upanishadic seers had ceased, indeed, to trust in material sacrifices. They preserved, however, an idea of "self (atman)" as changeless, eternal essence. Realization of the oneness of all bonded selves in the Universal Self was their way to emancipation from the realm of ignorance and transmigration. Gautma, on the contrary, was deeply concerned with the practical problem of freeing persons through ethical and spiritual purification. He opposed the ideas of a "static", unchanging self-essence. There is "no-self" in this sense. What is called self is a bundle of constantly changing physical and mental constituents. All through right thoughts and deeds. Every act has its own consequence. Recognizing this law "karma", a changing self may eliminate by right "effort every impulse to evil acts which bring on retributive sufferings in the continuous round of births and deaths (Snellgrove 56). " For the perfected disciple, the outcome is Nirvana, state of calm insight, passionless, and wisdom, no longer subject to rebirth into the sorrows of existence (Snellgrove 57)."

The ethics of Buddhism has stressed the universal norms (dharmas) which are constant and apply to everyone (Maraldo 25). They should not conflict with human nature. "The way of Gautama the Buddha is called the Middle Path because it avoids extremes ( Maraldo 25)." "One extreme is the outright pursuit of worldly desires; the other is the practice of severe, ascetic disciplines, followed by the ascetics (Maraldo 25)." The doctrine of the Middle Path that the Buddha proclaimed is a "humanistic ethic." It is related, even in religious life, to the fundamental attitude of Buddhism which is mainly represented as the absence of "special dogmas." The universal norms of human life are constant, although the ways of applying them vary. Therefore, in each case, they must be applied in the most suitable way. The general principles must be adapted to the infinitely varying circumstances of actual life.

Today, Buddhists are present in considerable numbers in the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan, and in Sikkim, in northern India (Frederic 45). They are found in much smaller numbers (less than one percent of the population) in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia (Frederic 46). Outside Asia, a few thousand live in North America (300,000), South America (160,000), and Europe (20,000) (Frederic 48). The total number of Buddhists in the world is not surely known; estimates vary from less than 200,000,000 to 500,000,000 (Frederic 48).

Buddhism is one the major religions of the world. Buddhism is become a dominant religious, cultural , and social force in most of Asia. It has combined with elements like Hinduism. Buddhism will continue to spread out across the world.

Maraldo, John. Buddhism in the Modern World. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Zwalf, W. Buddhism Art and Faith. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Frederic, Louis. Buddhism. New York: Flammarion, 1995.

Snellgrove, David. The Image of Buddha. New York: Serindia, 1991.