The World Peace Organization for the One World Government

Peace in the Middle East: Kuwait

Blessings to you from The World Peace Organization for the One World Government and the spiritual hierarchy!

For peace to come in the Middle East, there must be the sense that each country is able to be autonomous and its culture to be expressed.

The Arab countries are very similar in terms of religion, art and culture, but your geographical locations have caused you to have slightly different pasts. For Egypt, for example, with the Nile River running through it, transportation in the past was much easier and facilitated the development of culture. A country such as Kuwait, wit ports on the Persian Gulf, has a different history and size than Iraq, or a country that is mostly desert, or depends on oil, or has a harsher or milder climate. All of these factors have led to a different way of expressing a sense of creativity.

Our organization is working to start world peace in Iraq. We have introduced a proposal to their government, to Saddam Hussein specifically. We would like to inform you and Saudi Arabia of our intentions, and to introduce to you the same opportunities so you may benefit also from our plans.

For world peace to come, every country — and in fact every individual — has to be able to create the life they choose with their own sense of creativity. Each country must be autonomous. Each individual has a right under the Creator of us all to create that life so long as we do not interfere with the right of another to do the same.

All of the major religions of the world are based on the concept of Universal Law and understand about the law that says, "Whatsoever you do to another will be done to you." You see, in the past it was necessary to create a world presence, or within the region, but now we are turning this concept around to allow each country to create this life, to be autonomous and to express their creativity in any way this culture or this country chooses.

Iraq is a country of conflict due to its past circumstances. It has been at the crossroads of civilization and it has created, based on its location, many rifts. A rift is a tear in the energy fabric of the planet that leaves a sense of helplessness and hopelessness in its population. While Iraq has been attempting to create a world presence with a population that is suffering from these effects of past conflicts from these rifts, by attempting to intimidate or force its will on its surrounding countries, it has created a backlash effect from them.

This organization understands how to resolve this issue in a peaceful manner. What we propose to do is to enable each of the countries in the Middle East to begin to express their highest sense of creativity by allowing each country to be autonomous, to teach them how to overcome the past effects of wars and rifts, and to enable each country in the future to express its creativity in any way it chooses. We offered the nation of Iraq our services as an organization to come as advisors and to begin the process of healing their economy and their military status to enable it to turn into a more peaceful country.

The cultures of Iraq and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are all very fine. You have wonderful past histories. You have a wonderful capacity in terms of natural resources to do what you would like to do. The country of Kuwait has done a marvelous job in creating a lifestyle that is resplendent.

But at the same time, like a vulture hovering over a being in the desert that is attempting to walk forward alone, so Baghdad hovers over Kuwait and threatens to intimidate as it did in the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

What we propose to do, as an organization, is to introduce the idea of an international government, and to create the government that will allow each country to express its creativity without fear of intimidation from another country. We intend to take disputes out of the realm of a military response and allow the disputes to be resolved in a court system that we intend to introduce.

Our organization has submitted proposals to several governments already introducing this idea, and I am sure that other governments that we have not yet approached have heard of our plan. It is up to the individual governments to choose for themselves whether it is in their best interest to begin to approach this plan.

Military spending to maintain an army or a defensive position is a lucrative business for arms manufacturers, and is very lucrative for certain companies. But the loss of life is so expensive, and the loss of natural resources when the monies could be spent for better uses — for making your own country prosper or for creating an economic presense through manufacturing — not weaponry, but to manufacture inventions that will benefit all people.

Your country is a desert country, and removed from civilization, the climate could be considered very harsh. There are inventions now that make it possible to turn your country into a Garden of Eden — like an oasis that covers the entire country, where you can produce your own food, grow your own crops and not depend on others for maintaining your lifestyle.

Each time a country out-sources an aspect of what it needs, and depends on imports or exports to maintain a lifestyle, you run the risk of, if that product is no longer needed or is available for you to import... Say a famine were to hit an area that produces much of your food outside of your country... then you run the risk of no matter how wealthy your country cannot buy food. Oil cannot purchase the lumber or steel that you need.

So you see, it is a matter of looking at this issue and resolving this to be more autonomous.

Before I continue with the rest of the proposal, which will be rather short compared to my proposal to Baghdad and Saddam Hussein, I would like to address the idea of the price that you must pay for allowing a sense of protection within your country from Iraq.

To allow a foreign government to come in as a military force, you open your borders o a sense of inequality. You could say that both sides look down on the other when one side is in need. There is an issue that if you cannot protect yourself and must buy a mercenary army, then should that army choose to walk out on you, even if it is the United Nations, it leaves you in a vulnerable position. At the same time, to hire someone allows you to look down on that army because you are paying for a service. As an employer, you can demand certain rights. While it create a sense of contempt and manipulation to enter into the equation, a sense of inequality and distrust is the ultimate reaction to this.

The United Nations has been admirably working to make sure that the Middle East functions in such a way that countries are kept safe. The peacekeeping forces that are brought into a country make it possible for peace to be maintained, but at the risk again of showing a sense of vulnerability in what you are capable of handling on your own.

The international government that our organization is introducing — based on fair and equitable practices, where each country is looked at as equals and is treated fairly and equally in the court system in disputes between countries — instead of relying on the established countries of the United Nations, or the superpowers that have vested interests in your oil and are working to make sure that your oil is protected but not necessarily that your culture is protected and respected.. Our organization is working to ensure that you, as a country, are treated on the highest level possible, as equals to all other countries. Disputes will be handled on a continental basis.

Say, for example, in the future you and Saddam Hussein, or any leader of a government in Africa or the Middle East, were to come to a dispute. Another country within that same continent in the legal system we are proposing will settle the dispute. It will not be "hashed out" or discussed within the United Nations as the issue related to Iraq has been. You could say that these past events with Iraq have shown the world that a superpower should not have the right to intimidate another country because it holds more power.

Our organization's proposal for this international government intends to treat each of the world's leaders that go as representatives to the executive branch that we are proposing, and each will be treated as equals. Not one leader will have more control than another.

Be at peace and know all is well.

In my next session I will discuss how this judicial system that we are proposing will function.

For peace to come, there must be a sense of equality between all of the relationships. On a personal level, there needs to be a sense of balance and equality within family and friends and within the home. Your population is very good at creating beautiful surroundings out of very little. At the same time, due to the harsh climate, it has created oases — islands — of humanity within this stark countryside. The contrast is very great in your country.

You have people of great wealth and capacity, and they have been able to create a marvelous life for themselves. A very high standard of living. But once they get out amongst the rest of the world, it is easy to see the stark contrast in their lives also. The great abundance to the other extreme of poverty and deprivation. To create a sense of balance and equality here it will take spreading the concept of capacity to be creative out amongst the population in general and amongst those who have very little.

In your country, there has been a series of battles or wars, and you, too, have rifts within your country, and these areas are fairly obvious of where the fighting has occurred. It is where the population has this sense of helplessness and hopelessness.

The oil revenues that share the wealth amongst the people is a very positive example for the rest of the world of how natural resources can benefit all people.

Before I continue, I would like to address another aspect of how to approach the judicial of this international government, and how it will be played out. For a jury of peers to be fair in a legal system there must be a sense of equality. If your country is being judged by one of the countries of extreme poverty in Africa or in Asia — whichever continent you choose to be aligned with... There are countries of extreme poverty, third world countries where people live on a subsistence level. If your country is of great wealth and is facing a dispute with another country of great wealth, there has to be some sense of equality in the courts and amongst all people so that judgment is fair when your country goes to court and a third world country must adjudicate disputes, or vice versa, if a country with a very high standard of living must adjudicate a dispute between countries of extreme poverty.

In this court system, a series of Local Courts on a continental basis will decide disputes, and if it is deemed unlikely that a country within that continent can have a fair trial amongst neighboring countries, or other countries within that continent, then it will be tried amongst peers from another continent.

But you see, within the world there are countries that have many natural resources and have been able to market them or to utilize the wealth that has come from them, and other countries where conflict, such as Iraq, that have vast oil reserves but have not been able to market them. It has been a matter of vast inequities amongst the countries of the world. Before this can be approached there must be a way for more of a sense of equality to come so that these disputes can be handled fairly and equitably.

Our organization recommends, and is proposing, that a constitution to set up this international government states that all individuals who are citizens under this international government be afforded certain rights, and one of these rights includes that if a government has been oppressive to its citizens, that they be allowed to leave. To participate in the plan our organization is proposing related to the rights that an individual has to leave the country, well, you could ask where would this individual be most likely to go? Will they go to an equally oppressive regime in another country or will they go to find a place where they have more opportunities to reside and to partake in its economy? You will see a more equalizing force as people move around.

What we are proposing is to make it possible for the countries, the third world countries that have been oppressed by a dictator, that they begin to treat their population more respectfully. In the legislative branch of this proposed international government, a country's power in this government, on a legislative level, will be determined by its population. The laws will be written by the legislative branch, and laws related to the rights of the people will be created in a House called the Senate, and this will be based on each country having an equal representation no matter how large or how small the country is. But in the House of Representatives, which writes laws based on the will of the people, such as whether or not the people think it is a good idea to be able to do something, as opposed to the Senate where they decide whether they have the right to do something, then within the House of Representatives, these issues will be based on population. Those countries with larger population will have more representation. So, it is in a dictator's best interest for his government to not oppress his people in any way.

Also, in this international government, a dictatorship will be next to impossible to maintain due to the fact that the individuals who represent that country in the international government will be out of the country for a period of time, as determined by the government itself, discussing issues and writing laws and passing laws and deciding on issues within the courts. You could say that it would be impossible to maintain a government at home and have it split between the two responsiblities. What will happen is one level of the government will turn in towards the country and not have any responsibility toward foreign affairs or policy, and the individual who represent their country in this international government will not have any responsibility for what happens within the country. They will just represent their national interests in the international government.

So you see, that for a period of time, until people understand what is involved, there will be a sense of fair play in this international government and the people will understand what rights they have. As I said, one right will be to leave the country.

You must understand, should you accept this proposal, it is possible that due to the fact that your country has a very high standard of living, that you might be, should refugees or people leaving another country nearby choose to come into your country to find a better lifestyle, you might find yourself dealing with this. I recommend that you consider very carefully what it is that you choose to create. Under Universal Law, what you choose to do to another will be done to you. If you choose to keep people out of your country and to draw a proverbial wall around your country to keep people out that you choose not to have enter, that is your right to do so. But under Universal Law, what you do to another will be done to you, and you will find yourself limiting your capacity to create.

This international government depends on the idea of equal representation and an equal right to create the life that people would like to live. But at the same time, it is next to impossible to do it without the interaction between all peoples. Those individuals who are considered on the lower end of the social scale, so to speak, and those people who would seem to have no redeeming qualities in terms of creating a business, oftentimes these people are the ones with the new ideas. They are the ones that are capable of introducing something into your country that no one has ever considered before.

If you have a very large, established business, for example, that has functioned in the same capacity for a long period of time, things start to stagnate within that company, and it comes to the point where, although change is inevitable, change does not come easily.

But when you introduce a new idea, someone who is at the bottom of the scale, while they might be un-empowered from past circumstances, they are motivated oftentimes to do something that is innovative in order to create a lifestyle for themselves. You will find that these individuals, once they become aware of what is possible, they will blossom and grow with news ideas — new, innovative ideas that will astound the average person who has assumed they understood how things function.

The reason that I bring this up, and I would like to use this as an example, is that Suzeranda Melchizedek, who is the principal of this organization, and who could be considered an individual who was on the lower level socio-economically within the U.S economy, was such an individual and who came up by using her talents and abilities and gifts, and is in the process of creating this international government. The old established ideas of putting one over another — one individual over another, or one company over another, or one country over another — it became apparent to her that there had to be a better way of doing this. So by using her talents and gifts, she began to introduce this concept of fair and equal government based on the highest good for all people. It became something where the concept had to come from a source outside of what you would consider "limited thinking."

Now the United Nations is not considered, by any means, limited thinking. It has had a great deal of parnership in the world, and in some way every person on the planet has been affected by the UN's activities. But you could say that the United Nations is limited and its time has reached an ending point and obsolescence because it is still functioning with the idea that it is putting the will of one individual or one country over that of another. By bringing in the concept that the Security Council has five members with veto power and other nations have no power, or they must rotate out of the Security Council, this leads to a sense of inequality and unfairness. Why should George Bush be able to intimidate the United Nations into going to war with Iraq when no other country would have a say and be able to accomplish this?

In this era of world peace, and the international government, all the leaders of the world representing their country will be considered as equal. Not one will have more power than another. There will be fair and equitable practices determining which laws are written and passed and accepted. The Constitution for this international government will be written by individuals from all the countries, and they will rewrite it until every person on the planet can agree to it. So you see, everyone must benefit and come out ahead for this international government and its concept to be accepted, and for it to be instated as a viable alternative to war and terrorist activities.

©Copyrights 2012, Karen Holmes