Interesting the way the word “world” is employed in political discourse.

This is particularly true in the brash and false pronouncements by the Western leaders, above all, in the US and the UK, that use the term “world” to garner support for their proposals. Both Obama and Cameron state without fact that the “entire world” condemns an act committed by terrorists or supports and participates in a given policy (their’s). Really?

Their “world” seems better defined by a selected number of countries, to wit, the US, the UK and some, not all, and not always, European countries. Left out entirely are pretty substantial nations such as China, India, and Brasil, none of which are committed to bombing Syria or being in anyway militarily engaged. Add to this many other Asian, Middle East and Latin American countries that have no wish to participate in Western misadventures and frequently, condemn the Western nations’ policies or, they simply go silent.

The misuse of “world” is a reflection of how the Europeans in general and the US and UK in particular are still living in the colonial and post World War II era and not recognising the rise and influence of advanced developed counties. The most blatant example of this is the UN Security Council with a permanent membership comprised of only one Asian country, China, one Eurasian nation, Russia and the other three, the Transatlantic Axis. The UN must surely be the most undemocratic international institution in the world, a total membership of 193 countries guided by five countries. Talk about minority rule!

Little wonder the non-Western nations feel resentment. When 129 people are killed in France, there is outrage and a clarion call for worldwide action. Yet, hardly a day passes that dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of people in the Middle East or Asia are victims of terrorism. Unless there is a Western citizen amongst those killed, little if any attention is given to the act by the Western nations or the media.

The “world” is indeed a tiny place.

Baoluo