Noam Chomsky: America is the gravest danger to world peace

Iranian grandfather and his grandson
Iranian grandfather and his grandson

This article titled Noam Chomsky: America is the gravest danger to world peace from Salon is beautifully written and I can’t help but comment.
I think in a world where western countries have in the past used their economic advantage to suppress dissent or force countries which do not agree with them into line, or to punish countries which disagree with them (e.g. Cuba, Zimbabwe), such carefully articulated views must be more widely disseminated in so far as showing who is in the wrong and being unfair.
In my view, it can never be right or fair for some countries to be at mercy of other countries which have an economic oligarchy / monopoly … and greater military power. The average Iranian has never done anything wrong to any American, so why should they suffer as a result of economic sanctions on Iran for the decisions of their leaders? And why should they suffer at all – just because their country’s leaders fundamentally disagree with the Americans?

In the past Americans through doctrines such as Manifest Destiny have pursued imperialist ambitions culminating with their defeat in Vietnam. And when the Shah of Iran, the puppet leader the American leadership installed in Iran was ousted, and the Islamic Revolution took off, it seems some have harboured this unreasonable anger against Iran since then. In my view it is no more than a hegemonic attempt to control other people, to exploit their resources, and suppress dissent that is driving America into conflict, and you don’t need to refer to the hacking of communications of world leaders by the NSA to see this kind of poisonous mindset.

The opposition to this nuclear deal is frankly disgusting, and for me it shows a number of things about some American leaders including:-

  • there are too many warmongering American leaders who still believe it is up to them to police the world, and tell others how they should live their live.
  • the United States is partial and dishonest about nuclear power, as it is about carbon emissions ( do as I say, not as I do)
  • If you are willing to indiscriminately bomb iran, its children, its women, what does that say of how you see the Iranian people? ……………………   Would those same leaders be happy if some country bombed New York or San Francisco?….. It’s people, its women, its children causing deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?…………… Of course not….. So why then is it acceptable or somehow even a consideration for the American airforce to bomb the people of Iran, just as they’ve done in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – causing untold devastation and suffering, causing deaths of over a million people and leading to the rise of ISIL? Why is it acceptable to bomb a middle eastern country but not acceptable to drop bombs on the people of California? The answer to that question is this: because those hawks and others who think like them, advocating military action or heavy economic sanctions against foreign countries, are racists who do not view Iranians as people in the same way that they view American people; they don’t see Iranians as people deserving peace, happiness, prosperity and security. They see them via a patriarchal lens that categorises people based on their skin colour, where they were born and what they believe in …..
  • If it was possible for some of the leadership to have normal family relations with people of Iranian / Iraqi heritage, say grandparents of a spouse in Iran, or had married Iranian women/ men, and got to visit Iran, and see the ordinary lives of the Iranian people; people who just wanted to be part of the global village, to send their kids to school, to be able to afford groceries, to be able to afford nice holidays, to have safety and security, I think some of them would realise the flaws in their thinking, and begin to see things differently. But as things stand, it’s stunning just how offensive some of the rhetoric is – which I think points to being closed minded.

Such type of divisive conduct is what made dictatorships such as Nazi Germany, and such type of thinking is what was responsible for everything from the holocaust to Colonialism and Slavery; that certain people have more value than others; that certain people deserve to be treated better than others; that certain people should be subservient to others.

I totally reject such type of thinking.

All people are equal and valuable under the sun, before God, irrespective to where they live, their skin colour, their nationality, their sexual orientation, gender or age, irrespective of where they were born, or how much money is in their bank accounts.

You may not agree with the Iranians or the Afghan people or Iraqis over one policy issue or another, but that doesn’t authorise you to bomb their country and bring death and devastation to their lands… what happened to your Christian values – if you claim to have values? Would Jesus Christ – the same Biblical character who courted the poor – authorise the bombing of Iran? Bombing another sovereign country unprovoked, and for no sensible reason only shows you to be a coward akin to a school playground bully. If he can’t get what he wants he fights.

But even if you were not Christian/religious, what about simple and old-fashioned humanity and decency? What about propriety?

I don’t believe Iran is capable of bombing Israel, if anything they are more troubled about the plight of Palestinians, as is every true muslim. Let’s be honest, Palestinians are in a much worse situation than that which black people of Apartheid South Africa ever were, and if I were a muslim I too would be more concerned than I already am.

So this ridiculous fallacy that Iran is a threat to world peace must be put to bed sooner than later, and Chomsky does a good job at this. Over the course of my life in the UK, I’ve known a few Iranians, and they tell me their country cannot attack Israel or some other country because the military wouldn’t have the support of the people. Army officers would simply refuse to effect any such nonsensical order. The establishment may have gotten away with rigging elections during Ahmadinejad’s tenure, but they would never get away with such an atrocity. The rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president, was largely because being a volunteer to the Revolutionary Guards – he may have felt obliged to appease his fellow hardliners, the same camp he may have had to return to after serving as president. So, far from his talk being threats, it was just theatrics.

Also how would the world react against Iran if they indeed fired even a single missile into Israel? The Iranian leadership is not stupid not to know that such would be the end of the Islamic Revolution. It’s a disingenuous western lie by an unholy alliance of the right-wing media and dodgy alarmist politicians who are drumming up the hatred against Iran, for some other motive – my guess a financial motive. The same kind of lies that claimed Weapons of Mass Destruction existed in Iraq.

After all the ills of the last 200 or so years, each country should decide what they want to do, and how they want to do things, it should not be up to Europeans or Americans or anyone else! to dictate to the rest of the world how they should live their lives or how they should generate their energy or what kind of policies those countries should adopt. After everything the Americans and Europeans have done in the past, which history can testify to, it sure is high time to get off the high horse.

The arrogance of Netanyahu

Obama-Netanyahu

The current wrangle between Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and President Barack Obama’s administration is another clear sign of the kind of arrogance that Israel has displayed in security matters across the middle east. Netanyahu who has travelled to the United States to address Congress, bypassed all formal protocol with the white house when he accepted the invitation from the Republican Party’s John Boehner – who is speaker of the House of Representatives, even when all sensible reason advised against such a move. Despite wide condemnation of the visit, Benjamin Netanyahu who faces an election in which his popularity is uncertain, barely 2 weeks from now gave a speech attacking Tehran and its nuclear ambitions in which he not only fiercely criticises the US led negotiations in Switzerland, but left no doubt of his contempt for the US government – the very same hand that feeds, arms, protects, and even tolerates Israel’s aggression.

But what’s behind Netanyahu’s public intervention in the domestic politics of the US, so much that he is willing to sidestep Obama’s administration?

It seems like yesterday when an annoyed Bill Clinton, emerging from his first meeting with Netanyahu remarked: “Who’s the fucking superpower here?” (Others quoted Clinton to have said “he thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.” )

That was 1996. This time, the attrition is between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran which has been building nuclear reactors for purported peaceful purposes. The US and other nations believe that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, and numerous governments have made exhaustive efforts to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear technology. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Obama is of the view that the crisis should be handled through talks where concessions can be made, to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear technology. Israel believes that whatever deal that is to be reached from the talks, will still leave Iran with the expertise and materials to build a nuclear weapon. So, according to Prime minister Netanyahu, Iran should be stripped of its centrifuges and nuclear infrastructure, a move which is unlikely to deter Iran, and which the Obama administration has called ‘unrealistic’ and unattainable.

First and foremost, President Barack Obama as the supreme commander of the United States of America has the ultimate authority to shape America’s foreign policy whichever way he sees fit. The Republican Party is in opposition and despite America being a federalist state where presidential powers can be checked, it is president Obama who is in control, a fact which many Republicans don’t sit comfortably with. It is state-protocol that any head of state travelling to country A notifies the office of the president in country A. It is also not constructive that any head of state opts to travel to country A only to meet the opposition party because he/she does not agree with country A’s foreign policy. Heads of states cannot be seen to take sides in domestic politics especially when there are fresh disagreements regarding policies hovering about.

Netanyahu’s camaraderie relationship with the Republicans undermines Obama’s administration as being incompetent in the face of a nuclear Iran. In a recent interview, Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser criticised Netanyahu when she said:

Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to travel to Washington to deliver the speech two weeks before the Israeli elections has injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship

The White house agrees with Ms. Rice’s depiction of Netanyahu’s visit and President Obama has refused to meet him. Vice President Joe Biden who is president of the senate is supposed to be present for Netanyahu’s speech, but he has said he will be travelling abroad. Secretary of State John Kerry also said he will be in Switzerland negotiating with the Iranians. The Israeli prime minister was however invited for a meeting by Democratic senators, but he declined. Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat said,

We offered the prime minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong. His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades”.

Even J Street, the influential pro-israel advocacy group criticised the visit accusing Netanyahu of using Congress as “a prop” for his election campaign, putting out a campaign to distance itself from Netanyahu.

After the speech, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said she was

“saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States . . . and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of nine Jewish senators criticized what she called “circular reasoning” in Netanyahu’s speech which she said proposed a better deal, but yet claimed Iran could never be trusted. How then can you have a deal when you can’t trust the other party?

“I don’t know what he’s saying: Should we work for a better deal or should we cut off any negotiations at this time? . . . It was not helpful at this point to criticize a deal that hasn’t even been completed.”

In a week where leaked cables revealed that Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim was contradicted by Mossad, one would have thought that Mr Netanyahu’s speech would have taken a conciliatory or at least mild tone. Especially after last summer’s Gaza incursion, which left over 2140 Gazans dead including 513 children. Yet the speech was anything but mild.

The Israeli prime minister vehemently attacked international talks with Iran on its nuclear ambitions despite the rift that might be caused. Whether this was a move to infuriate Obama or some publicity stunt designed to portray Netanyahu as a strongman, with a view to drum up political support back home prior to the elections is anyone’s guess? However, what the speech did not do is make it easier for Netanyahu to have his way. From the kind of reactions the speech has received, it is clear that it’s not won him much mainstream support.

Previously, Mr Netanyahu said,

Therefore I will go to Washington to address the American Congress, because the American Congress is likely to be the final brake before the agreement between the major powers and Iran

Iran_is_a_THREAT_to_peace_by_Latuff2

Mr Netanyahu’s efforts to stop diplomatic talks with Iran must be viewed with scepticism if not suspicion. Especially after the unreliable things he has said in the past – as reported by Haaretz, Israel’s oldest newspaper here. In a volatile time in the Middle-East, the most mature thing to do is to negotiate with the Iranians over their nuclear infrastructure. In any case, unlike Saudi Arabia and others who have offered only verbal support, Iran is infact fighting ISIS, and is suffering casualties and fatalities (including losing a high profile general). What Mr Netanyahu wants is to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and according to him, the only way to do that is through military action. Any talk of negotiations and whether the Iranians are entitled to a nuclear propgramme of sorts is irrelevant according to him. Obviously, there is no way Iran would consent to such demands, because Iran as a sovereign state also wants nuclear capability as achieved by every powerful nation in the world, including the likes of Pakistan and India.

Mr Netanyahu’s arrogance echoes of the Republican Party’s foreign policy of pre-emptive strike during the administration of George Bush. The Iraq War is the epitome of Bush’s policy where the whole campaign ended disastrously for America’s image and the Middle-East. Currently, with an unstable Syria and Iraq, it would be negligent for the world powers to engage Iran in any other way outside of diplomatic talks. It is therefore possible that Netanyahu’s siding with the Republicans is because he believes that that the Democrats are treating the Iran situation with “kid gloves”. So he probably thinks that going through the Republicans, who have a majority in both houses will halt the deal between the US and Iran.

In this regard, Republicans in the Senate are responding to Netanyahu’s address by fast tracking legislation requiring Congress to review any agreement with Tehran, and to issue more sanctions against Iran which can sabotage the talks. President Obama has made it clear that he will veto any such legislation, and after the speech – which has alienated Democrats, it looks very unlikely that the Republicans will have 13 Democratic votes to override the president.

Whichever way it goes, Mr Netanyahu’s actions are very dangerous to world peace and security. This kind of aggressive behaviour is precisely the very reason why nations seek to build nuclear weapons. So that they can deter hostile situations that arise from rhetoric such as this. Mr Netanyahu’s trip is being seen by others as the beginning of a strained relationship between the US and Israel. Yes, we may all agree that a country whose unpopular and former revolutionary guard leaders have claimed Israel is illegitiate must not come anywhere near nuclear weapons. But it is the manner which Netanyahu has sought to deliver his speech without securing authority from the highest office of the country, that has many people including the Democrats shunning him. If Israeli leaders begin to frustrate political figures from a country that supports them the most, they risk losing their biggest ally. And once the US starts sayng NO, everybody will say NO. It isn’t Iran who is a danger to world peace. In an already volatile region, it is Mr Netanyahu’s belligerence, arrogance and short-sightedness that will cost Israel peace and stability.

Satans Neonazi Conmen (Part 2): To stay put + die / migrate but risk death + persecution

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim – when he defends himself – as a criminal. Frederic Bastiat

Rich countries figured out long ago, if economies are not moving out of dead-end activities that only provide diminishing returns over time (primary agriculture and extractive activities such as mining, logging, and fisheries), and into activities that provide increasing returns over time (manufacturing and services), then you can’t really say they are developing – The Myth of Africa’s Rise – By Rick Rowden

It is better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life. ~Ghanaian Proverb

It’s a simple mathematical analysis almost every living human being is capable of making, and which nomadic tribes have used for survival for centuries :- Do I stay in my present environment and put up with this drought/ hunger/ deprivation/ corruption/ sh*t and risk death, or do I go somewhere else in search of greener pastures even though there are also dangers there. Which risk is a safer bet? Which risk is worth my life?

For some, the urgency of their situation, or the realisation that there has got to be something better in life than the status quo, than their miserable existence motivates them to take extremely challenging (or even reckless) risks (see here , here , here and here).

The result, some make it out successfully, while others still end up dead (Niger migrants’ bodies found near Algerian border – via BBC,  Substantial risks for African migrants ) while attempting to make it out. Some get to the new frontier but have to endure untold persecution for years; others make it out but find themselves victims of organised crime, while a smaller percentage eventually settle into a newer better life – one still littered with challenges.

This is a realisation which is difficult to explain” one man told me, a Somalian migrant who came to Britain 10 years ago “You have to experience it yourself to understand it

But why are people prepared to risk their lives for what is effectively a pie in the sky; a dream that may never materialise, or which may end up killing them – as it has killed thousands others in the past?

Well, some are running away from unpredictability of life, chronic economic deprivation, high death rates and low life expectancy. Living conditions that can partly be painted using the following pictures:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Others are seeking new frontiers, and are wearied by the lack of educational opportunities in their own countries (educational opportunities that are narrow, often expensive – and beyond their reach – and that do not cater for a diverse range of skill sets). These people have resolved to find education elsewhere.

Some are fleeing from wars or military conflicts that have ripped apart their societies, setting one man against his brother; fighting on ethnic or religious lines, either for political or resources control. Else, they are victims of organised crime (Trafficking victims too often treated as immigration cases, say campaigners – via the Guardian) – manipulated and scammed into believing a better life awaits them on the other side of the sea. When they get to Europe – they face more persecution!

army-60720_640

Others are purely economic migrants in search for work and better pay because the rate of unemployment in their own countries is too high. Combine that with low wages and increasing cost of living and the picture couldn’t be more depressing. For this group, using the family’s savings to get to Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia or America is a safer bet than going months on end without a job. Some families literally bet all their earnings on a single son, with the hope that if he succeeds in reaching Europe, he can get a job and help them by sending money home to them. And if you look at countries such as Somalia where their youth unemployment rate for 14 -29 year olds hovers around 67%, you can easily see why this group prefers to leave. As Mohamed Ali says in this TED talk, there is a link between unemployment and terrorism.

Else, there are those who are sick and tired of the scheming, lies and broken promises from the political classes. This group will often have waited for quite sometime before making a move, betting on one leader or another, hoping that real change that can transform their economic plight will arrive. When it doesn’t after decades of waiting, remaining in the country is not an option. In Malawi, president Joyce Banda, Africa’s second female president, who was warmly received by the international community less than 2 years ago, and who is a favourite to many leaders of Western countries, has been struggling to address a massive embezzlement scandal (see here and here) that has recently been uncovered at State House and in which millions of dollars were stolen from state coffers. Predictably, the beneficiaries of such dirty money are only a few hundred dodgy individuals-mostly those with links to the ruling party, whereas for the majority of citizens, living conditions have not improved in as many years, and in some cases they have worsened with reports of people dying because of lack of medicines, causing anger against the political elite and ruling PP party:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Then there are the enlightened younger generation who are touted to be the hope of third world. Some of these are fortunate to have received a decent education in their own country (however remote such prospects may seem) or abroad, but are held back by lack of capital, demands of bribes from officials, issues such as regionalism, ageism, nepotism and other cancerous and backward biases. To this group, which is by far ‘better informed’ than the older generations, the idiocy of the political class, the massive corruption and fraud in government, the gaffes from political leaders, the lack of opportunities in society, the water cuts, blackouts / electricity shortage, the ignorance + backwardness of some sections of the older generation, increasing cost of living in the face of low wages, the high crime rates, social sentiments that are out of touch with global happenings in general, are all too much a burden to bear or live with. They look West, or move to developed countries which have better economic and social outcomes.

As an example, consider this statement which was made by a friend on a social media outlet:

“How can a Malawian lose when he/she give up the citizenship? After all some Malawians are treated like second class citizens (Scums) in their own land just because they are coming from certain region. I remember one Malawi head of state said, “Who cares about you in this country all you contribute is 25% to this nation development.” Referring to people from certain region. Thank God he was arrested by nature. Malawi will never develop because people who can really develop the nation are completely outnumbered.”

The numbers of those trying to get to Europe illegally may be high but as I stated in my earlier post, not everyone can live in Europe or North America. And indeed not everyone must want to live in Europe or North America. The countries on these continents have finite resources and mass migration puts a strain on their medical services, and on social and welfare services. Schools can become overcrowded, and native populations can find it difficult to adjust to the newcomers. Further, the culture is different – some may not like what they find. But to top it all,  in the long run, uncontrolled migration is bound to be unsustainable.

However, the solution can never be subjecting migrants (most of whom have genuine grievances) to harsh and inhumane hostile treatment. That does not target the root of the problem – it only causes suffering and creates enmity.

In my view, while there is a historical aspect to migration (which I will explore in my next and final installment) there are things western governments can do to reduce the numbers of migrants that attempt to leave their home countries (‘source countries’) :

1. Government policies on migration should place people at the centre in that there must be realistic alternatives on home soil.

“At its heart, migration is fundamentally about human beings” – Navi Pillay

It may seem like an obvious thing to say but potential migrants living in developing countries must be given an alternative. And if for whatever reason their own government is non-existent (as the Somalian government was for a very long time), incapable or under-resourced such that it cannot provide them with better opportunities – others must decisively step in. Only then will illegal immigration begin to be curbed. Essentially this means that people in a place like Mogadishu must have a realistic shot at life (affordable food; decent educational opportunities; availability of microfinance; adequate security; accessible and affordable healthcare, etc).

A choice between something pleasant and decent – and the journey that could kill them.

This also means that more resources should be poured into challenging extremism, and these resources must be well-administered to ensure that they reach the point-of-need and are not embezzled by corrupt politicians/ officials.

In a discussion with a friend the other day he said something simple but profound:

If you are sending £600 million in aid to Pakistan, are you then monitoring how that money is being spent, or do you then just look away and assume it will be spent properly?” he said

“How can extremism be defeated if there is no accountability from both the donor and the recipient of the funds?”

On this point, while the US and other western powers are withdrawing their forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn’t it be a good idea for a battalion or two (with the help of Nato or even the likes of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran) to get into Somalia and other countries who are considered to be breeding grounds for extremism, to assist the anti-terrorism efforts against the likes of Al-Shabaab.

2. Most people don’t like to live away from their home country, their birth place, but as can be seen above, sometimes circumstances force them to leave. In order for illegal immigration to decrease, there must be better awareness in the home country from where the migrants originate. Instead of european border agencies focussing primarily on questionable measures to discourage illegal immigration, their governments should invest in training to be provided in the home countries of the migrants, to inform the local public of the dangers of illegal migration and what conditions illegal migrants live in. As involving as this may sound, if the national government of an African country such as Niger is unlikely to provide such information, isn’t it sensible for the destination country that will bear the burden of the arrivals to make it a point to do something before people think of leaving? In my view, this system would have much positive outcomes than harassing migrants who are already in Europe/ Australia.

3. Criminal organisations that encourage or fraudulently deceive people into believing that migration will give them a better life must be apprehended. There are no two ways about this-if there are 10,000 criminals trafficking people, then 10,000 must be imprisoned.

Unless the criminals who are encouraging illegal migration and who are providing the means, the actual transportation are caught and put behind bars, and kept there, it will be difficult to stop illegal migration. This also means financing and working with the ‘source countries’ to upgrade their national laws to ensure that such crimes have prohibitive penalties/ jail sentences that are long – giving a clear message.

4. Greater and more equal distribution / sharing of resources:

Western countries must change tactics in the fight against poverty. Most experts agree that ending poverty is key to solving many of the problems afflicting the continent of Africa. But few ever agree on a specific course of action. In my view, there are some ideas that can work better than others, and some ideas have been tried with little or no success.

If people can find a decent job in their own backyard, which can give them a relatively decent lifestyle, or if they can take out a loan to start a small business (and receive support from institutions that can help them succeed), why would they want to risk death for a dream they may never attain? As some argue, Is trade not aid, the answer for Africa? I believe there has to be a fundamental shift in the way western countries deal with Africa and other third world countries in that more focus should be given to getting  people financially independent (irrespective of who is leading the country), and not on the country’s resources. If people are empowered with the means to carve an existence, they will be better equipped to address the bad politics in their country.

Western governments must stop tolerating or financing mediocre and thoughtless leaders that are depriving their local populations of even the basics.

As I hinted here (and here), the quickest way to do this is to begin Research centres / Universities across Africa, with the hope that these will spur innovation in the form of sustainable industries around or alongside them – as has often happened with Universities in most western countries.

‘Working research centres’ focussing on sustainability and green technologies, or ‘Manufacturing Universities’ that make actual products designed for the African market can be built and funded to churn out a breed of African innovators.

Examples of products that can be manufactured here are Mosquito nets, Medicines, Animal feed, Juice extraction and manufacture, Software development, Manufacture of composite materials made from recycled products, Solar panel manufacture and suchlike.

5. Common problems that are hampering the progress of developing countries must be addressed. This also includes regulation of businesses at UN level to ensure that corporations that set up in places like Africa do not take advantage of weaker laws or crooked officials to sign backdoor deals at the expense of the local population, depriving the country of essential tax revenues.

6. The risks and Benefits of migration must be shared.

‘This Article argues that the global welfare gains from migration can be divided in a way that makes all stakeholders better off. It develops the idea of a “Migration Fund” that is used to insure the destination country against fiscally induced or otherwise undesirable migration while simultaneously serving as a mechanism to compensate the source country for the potential adverse effects of outward migration…’

7. Pathways of citizenship for migrants already in the destination country must be created. Most of these people have already suffered painful and unbelievable ordeals – why make them suffer more? Further, most of these people are instrumental in sending huge amounts of money back to their own countries. Some of that money fulfills the purposes laid bare above, and it is in the interest of the host country that this financial outflows continue.

8. Racism must be untaught. The more people in first world countries appreciate that migrants are humans just like them – in almost every other way, the less bias / discrimination there will be in society (irrespective of whether that society happens to be in a first world country, a developed country or in a third world country). There is no substitute to tolerance.

Similar