Visars’ blog

Below is a video with a question for republican candidates for president of the United States. We are focused on agricultural subsidies and trade policies run by developed countries and impact in poor countries, especially in Africa. This video is made from Ness and Visar.

Looking forward for your comments.

The topic is about our vision on how our future can be better from collaboration between government in America and governments around Europe, and from exchanging experiences and information between people in those two continents. Here I conceptualize my future not only about a particular career and studies I might have, but values on which I want to built my life and goals to achieve: security and independence, welfare(money, job, education etc), and exchanging information and achievements with others. To develop the topic this way was more justified because those criteria are substantial for all careers a person might take, and strives for better life, to give all potential we have. Also, even that I do not doubt what I’m going to study, I can be educated in particular field, but have different career approaches during the time, where I may find myself more beneficial. Below I’m going to present two arguments to show how my future can benefit, in the first argument from governmental collaboration, and the second one about benefits from communication between people in Europe and America.Trans-Atlantic cooperation can be made on various fields: security, peace, economic growth etc, and is important for me because I’ll be physically secure, my property will be respected, I’ll have democratic rights-be independent, have economic opportunities to become richer. Classic example of cooperation in security, peace and democracy is NATO, and its institution like Partnership for peace, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. NATO, alliance and one of the strongest military forces in the world, works to protect members from any military attack from outside, ensure that people are secure, that human rights are not being violated, and there is democratic system to guarantee freedom. In charter of foundation is not written that, NATO will intervene to protect values of human right or democracy, or will intervene to any non-member country. But the case of Kosovo, where human rights had been violated, showed in perfect way that we can rely on NATO alliance to build our own future, by protecting values. The other thing, important for my future, is American economy. Remembering that America is economic superpower, with only 5% of population produce 20% of world products, and half of 500 biggest international corporations in the world are from America. I’m realistic to believe that in near future, with any treaty, those companies will invest in Kosovo. Than for me there will be much more opportunities to get a job with better conditions, to increase my incomes, in market I’ll have cheaper and better products that are result of competition for consumers, my country from taxes can invest in many fields like in education, medicine, security, science.     

Also from exchanging information, values (what is the right thing to do), improvements (technologies, medicine etc), that is possible from communication between Europeans and Americans, I can gain a lot in different ways, and not necessary only in my career. For example from comparing values what is justified and right thing to do for society, we came to results that have impact in our lives e.g. my country should adopt presidential system, because in America this resulted in more efficiency, about democratic practices for my country like to find best way of distributing goods. America has been advancing in technology and medicine very fast, so for my future is very important to be in contact with those things because technology makes my life much easier e.g. software developed by Bill Gates, or medicine which I need for my health etc.    

In conclusion I will say that solutions of problems to a better life for society, are not prepared in formulas, but in collaboration between states, organizations and people. Collaboration of Europe (Kosovo included) with America as I showed above has major impact in improving life in all aspects, and that is why is important for my future. 

This topic is about whether countries around the world should have priority to save the nature and natural resources or if they should concern more in developing by producing goods and money. In the first glance it seems very easy to answer the question: we will do both at the same time because both are very important for us. Ironically this is not possible. If we want to save the nature we must limit economic growth and in the other side to damage nature in order to have economic growth. To explain this let’s analyze developing industry which is associated with using more fossil fuels exploiting, pollution of air, ground, water, than we have for farmland, threatening biodiversity etc. If we choose to protect our environment we have to limit usage of natural resources that cause damages like fossil fuels, saving forests, minerals etc. All those limits lead to less products in industry, job cutting’s, in itself less economic growth.If introduction above is analyzed carefully we came to conclusion that central idea in both policies, economic growth and environmental protection, is people welfare. The controversial issue here is which policy has major role in ensuring people welfare. From these view-points I found that environmental protection should be putted before economic growth, and with arguments below I would try to explain my choice.

We have wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources and in so doing have put Earth at critique point. A lot of farmlands are destroyed in order to exploit minerals and here we have problems with pollution of ground. Massive clearing of tropical forest which indicates more CO2 in atmosphere causes problem of global warming (melting of ice in poles) and threatening all species in Earth - ultraviolet rays. Also we are polluting water as well, like in industry where water is heated during different processes, add here also pollution by heavy metals etc. Result here is that those problems make this water environment impossible for species to live in etc. By melting ice in poles the level of world ocean will increase and upset some of most populated cities. And all problems above threat us in every moment and scientist believe that if it will continues with those trends than soon it will come to the end of humankind.

Nations are loosing more from polluting than they are gaining from industrialization. China is a perfect example. Twenty years of uncontrolled economic development have created a serious, chronic air pollution that has increased health problems and resulted in annual agricultural losses of billion dollars. Thus, uncontrolled growth is not only destructive to the environment, it is also unsound economically.

And to end this statement I will say first that can be clearly seen that environmental policy is better policy in ensuring people welfare because is the starting point for economy and every other human activity, and in this policy is depended economic growth. Second thing here is that no one wants to stop economic progress that could give millions better lives, but Earth cannot support unrestricted growth because this is depended in environment usage. Again I repeat: we are at a critique point, this could be explained by facts that are mentioned above, and it is our duty to preserve Earth for future generations.

 Topic is often considered in context of historic dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or 1990-s leader Slobodan Milosevic, running bloody policies that led to war, ethnic cleaning, massive killing etc. Dictatorship is a system of a governing state, in which system in a top of state hierarchy is a person with his elite supporters, that governs according on their principles, and what they think are good values and actions to be taken. Characteristic of this system is that for dictator everything is justified in order to maintain its position and realize its projects.

The issue to develop here however is, if assassination of a dictator is justified, and the right thing to do in order to change dictatorship system. Personally I do not support assassination of a dictator, because everyone has right to live, and   there are problems associated with who will assassinate and what is their legitimacy. Second reason why I’m against is because this is not the right way to make changes on the system, is very inefficient and results in violence, innocent people are killed etc. Before I go on, let me clarify that I am against dictatorship, and don’t justify dictators for their policies.

Killing a dictator mean that we’ll be at the same level as dictator, killer, every action without the backing of law, or based on human values can be considered criminal. Here roses and another question, what is the legitimacy of the government founded upon such arbitrary act, can citizens rely on those persons to lead them. Those governments are more likely to failure the way they have came. Furthermore around the world are different terrorist groups, criminals, extremist parties who claim that their violent actions like killing leaders are justified because they are against “tyranny”. So if we justify those groups we justify murder, and murder cannot be justified never.

The system cannot be changed by killing the individual, nothing is achieved. Dictators are part of wider ruling elite, assassinated dictator usually is replaced with another one, from this elite, who support the same values and ideas. In most cases, after attempt, different groups like minorities, political opponents are blamed, rightly or wrongly for the act, and for this are violated and putt under repression, or if assassination is unsuccessful dictator will revenge on those groups. So only thing we do on these cases provoke more violence. A perfect example here can be Saddan Hussein, who killed hundred of innocent people in Dujah, minorities, who were against his regime, and had unsuccessful assassinations.

As alternative of assassination can be constructive engagement or economic sanctions. Examples of Eastern Europe in 1989 and ex Yugoslavia in 1990 showed that how change can come through those policies and popular actions, often without violence. So only if we respect human rights absolutely, study things deeper and take appropriate actions in according with values of human rights, we can have right things we want even change system.

Very first friends at the WFU, from USA . 

below you have some pictures of BFTF