Overcoming Developmental Categorization & a Revived Pursuit of Internationalism:

When confronted with the numerous challenges that continue to question the human capability, we need to ask ourselves a simple inquiry: "Are we resilient enough to set aside our differences to work for mutual interest?" Such an inquiry is not only vague, but totally abstract. The mutual best interests of one group may not necessarily reflect that of another. There are many who will argue that any attempt to address such a question on a worldwide scale is an utter waste of time and resources. When has humanity ever uniformly acted for the better of mankind and the international community as a whole? As we witness fossilized politicians bargain away the futures of nations, peoples, and cultures, we must begin to question the interests in which they are serving. The realm of politics presents us with a paradigm that is sharply complicated by the differentiating agendas that are brought into a particular delegation.

In particular, this can be seen and observed within the halls of the United Nations. One particular echelon of this organization brilliantly demonstrates this irony in the form of the security council. The nations that represent political, economic, and diplomatic giants have virtually monopolized the realm of international politics. Nations that do not exert such displays of power (respective of these three categories) will be marginalized and those who do not conform to the bidding of the sovereign giants come to terms with a sense of alienation. When attempting to reason with these underlying realities, how do we come to terms with each individual case as it has existed, both past and present? What do these qualities mean to our individual livelihoods as law abiding citizens within our own respective nations? Exchanges and deals that are struck from within these institutions seem to scarcely affect our overall quality of life on a day-to-day basis.

This differentiates if someone happens to reside in an international hotspot, then the sweeping decision made by such an institution (such as the security council) will be immediately felt. We are then left with an extremity that is imposed by the dominating superpowers who then formulate a status quo in which lesser developed nations must abide in order to survive. Obviously, a great complication arises when attempting to validate these particular realities of marginalization. As such, these experiences have been ongoing throughout the course of human history. Will it then be possible to take an eccentric step into the unknown and attempt to move into an entirely different direction? This suggestion is not merely a solution, but represents an answer to what could be acknowledged as the unified resolve to the underdeveloped world.

A solution of this magnitude is only feasible if its statures are able to abide by the terms and limitations of a developing nation (terms that are respective of the people and not the empowered government). In what may seem to be a minor elementary reiteration, each and every nation has its political crises, economic problems, and detriments of social infrastructure. Therefore, a lucrative policy must be willing to factor these aspects into the bigger picture of bettering the human condition, not to overlook these denominating attributes in their totality. Threads of idealism which are often lead by naive progressives do not immediately realize the necessity of such an accommodation. The intervening force that penetrates the sovereignty of another nation must achieve a prominent sense of understanding among its people and members of government.

It will essentially be an utter waste of effort if the intervening force is viewed as an outside power that has arrived to impose the will of a handful of all powerful nations. Humanitarian, political, and economic intervention must channel through proactive (not counteractive) incentives which queue the developing world into a path of first world opportunism. The suggestion behind this clause insists that the sovereign members of the first world community of nations can create pathways which enable sustainable, progressive, and proactive forms of societal development for these "at risk" nations. At the end of the day, most of us have realized why the United Nations continues to fail at its overall mission while awarding tremendous gaps between the developed and underdeveloped world.

Rather than functioning as some sort of shouting contest between career oriented diplomats, politicians, and autocrats; the organizational umbrella of the United Nations must make every effort to break the foundation of special interest lobbying within the institutions that proclaim to advocate for the best interests of mankind and our beloved planet Earth. How can greater threads of international unification exist if there is such a strong presence of divisional contrast between two categories of sovereign nations? The United Nations is not the only organization that has failed at its mission. There are many variants such as the World Monetary Fund that awards and resorts to the same level of institutional behavior among its member and affiliated nations. If we seek to better the living standards and inevitable preconditions that surround, challenge, and complicate the developmental progress of the underdeveloped world; then there is one analogy that uniquely attaches itself to the follow principle at hand.

A fisherman must not feed an impoverished soul on one occasion with their accrued resources, but should teach the individual how to fish so that they can put food on the table each day for themselves. This demonstrates a necessity and coming signs of self-sufficiency which initiates forms of interpersonal behavior among human beings which can directly pertain to the levels of interaction among sovereign nations. Our fellow man often forgets that the people and not abstracted institutions are the individualized facets that create the real world essence of a nation. In turn, the same analogy should be applied between two different nations invested into different concentrations of developmental capability and readiness. Institutions that proclaim that they are internationalist must focus on this particular paradox in order to bring about stability, sustainability, self-sufficiency, education, and infrastructural development to the underdeveloped world.

The humanity of the twenty-first century must resort to lengths that seek to eradicate this form of divisional elitism within our internationalist institutions if we really seek to achieve a sense of progress for mankind as a proportional whole. From what may seem to be a paradoxical redundancy from a previous clause within this work, the developed world must first mentor and educate the developing world to achieve equal or adequate standards of living. Sharing our intellectual capital on such a tremendous scale presents the true test of internationalism and the level of devotion behind those who proclaim to be its advocates. All the while, the true statures of egalitarian rights work their way into the center fold of the international community in what is initially an effort to castrate these divisions among the world's diversified community of nations.

The people of the underdeveloped world should be given that chance to entitle their respective citizenry to reach new heights once unknown before. If this is ever accomplished, we will immediately see the difference and when the established incentives of self-sufficiency begin to speak before the consciousness of the underdeveloped people, further progression is only inevitable (as marginal and insignificant as it could be). As a result, these societies become more stable and have the much needed ability to provide for their own needs. Such an accomplishment can represent an internationalist resolve and plight for the betterment of mankind which has no discrepancy on a basis of race, skin color, nationalistic creed, or developmental categorization. On these grounds, an entirely new organization can be formulated to rectify such an undertaking. How will it be done? A handful of motivated and truly passionate individuals will make such a realization come true and perhaps this new organization can replace the fossilized structures of institutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.