Moving from a War System to Enduring Peace
By Ronald J. Glossop
I. The issue for us is not just how to end the war in Iraq or stop the violence against some innocent people in Sudan or Burma. We must aim to end all war and tyranny.
A. When I tell people that my life is dedicated to abolishing war, I often get the response, "You will never be able to get rid of all conflict." My response is "Conflict isn't always bad. Sometimes it stops injustice and provides a basis for progress."
B. But war and unjustified violence, whether among nations or within nations, is always bad; we all need to join in the effort to abolish them from human society.
II. To successfully deal with war and unjustified violence (or any other problem) we must get clear on the precise nature of the problem to be solved.
A. "War, whether between countries or within countries, is large-scale, violent conflict between organized groups which already are governments or which seek to establish their own government over some territory." (Ronald J. Glossop, CONFRONTING WAR, 4th ed., p. 10).
B. This definition makes it clear that not all conflict is war, that war is not between separate individuals but groups, that war is for political power, and that there is a geographical area over which governmental control is sought.
C. This definition completely agrees with the statement of the famous scholar Carl von Clausewitz that "war is a mere continuation of politics by other means."
D. To see what can serve as an alternative to war, in that definition of "war," let us change the word "violent" to "nonviolent." What do we now have a definition of? Something (what is it?) is large-scale, NONviolent conflict between organized groups which already are governments or which seek to establish their own govern-ment over some territory." This nonviolent battling is the alternative to war.
1. I think that that is a good definition of what happens when opposing groups are battling for control of a society by democratic means, that is, by voting.
2. That is what will be happening in this country between now and the Nov. 4, 2008 election. The winner of this election will be in charge of the U.S. government.
III. This talk on "Moving from a war system to enduring peace" applies both to the war in Iraq and the more general problem of war, an ongoing sickness of society.
A. In Iraq the aim of the Bush administration to establish a democratic govern-ment where conflicts are resolved by political and judicial means is the right goal. But the unilateral military action being used to reach this goal is the wrong means.
1. The right means would be to use the United Nations, both to conduct the nation-building work for the government being created and to enforce agreements.
2. All U.S. military forces should be removed within one year and replaced by U.N. peacekeeping forces, a majority of which could come from Muslim countries. Dennis Kucinich's bill HR 1234 calls for such action, but it is being ignored by most.
3. Focusing on when the U.S. forces should be withdrawn instead of what is to be done at that time is a horrible mistake. Real conflicts exist, and it is necessary to create political institutions and police forces that can keep that conflict under control.
B. In the world as a whole there should be a shift from trying to get peace by establishing an American Empire to creating a global-level democratic government.
1. Americans generally don't like the idea of an American Empire controlling the whole world (the view that the present administration seems to favor), but they (and apparently most of our other national political leaders) lack a clear idea of a viable alternative for a peaceful global community.
2. They realize the United Nations has been a move in the right direction. It has had successes in stopping aggression, helping refugees, coordinating disaster relief, promoting human rights, advancing the adoption of treaties to deal with global problems, and making important declarations about ideals to be pursued. But they also know that in the end the U.N. is an association of national governments each of which aims to advance its own narrow national interests and to protect its national sovereignty. It lacks the structure to deal effectively with many global problems.
3. The answer on how to improve the U.N. lies in our own political history and in understanding the key differences between a confederation and a federation.
IV. Differences between a confederation (as the U.N.) and a federation (as the U.S.)
A. In a confederation member states retain all of their sovereignty, including having their own armed forces, but in a federation some matters related to the welfare of the larger community are under the control of the central government.
B. In a confederation member states can secede from the central organization for any reason, but in a federation secession is not permitted.
C. In a confederation the citizens of the member states must work through the state government and have no right to interact directly with the central govern-ment, but in a federation they have a right to interact with the central government.
D. In a confederation the central government can't pass laws which hold indi-viduals accountable, but in a federation the central government can pass laws that apply to individuals and take action against individual violators of those laws.
E. In a confederation loyalty of individuals is just to the state government, but in a federation loyalty to the central government overrides loyalty to the local state.
F. In a confederation all financial resources of the central government come as contributions from the member states, but in a federation the central government has its own independent sources of revenue.
V. The U.N. can become more effective if it is transformed into a world federation.
A. A move in this direction has been the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has authority to prosecute individuals, even national leaders, for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. You can get more infor-mation about the ICC at <http://www.iccnow.org> & <http://www.amicc.org>.
B. Another good action has been adoption of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) principle, that if national governments don't protect the rights of their citizens other nations have a right to intervene. More info is at <http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org>.
C. Another move in this direction would be to create a U.N. Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) composed of individually hired persons who can respond quickly to crises. For more information about UNEPS, see <http://www.globalsolutions.org>.
D. Another move in this direction would be the creation of a U.N Parliamentary Assembly, where elected national legislators would act as an advisory body to the General Assembly. For info on this effort, see <http://www.unpacampaign.org>.
E. For a world federation to fully succeed, loyalty to the nation-state (patriotism) will need to be subordinated to loyalty to the human community (humatriotism).
F. Once a democratic world federation exists, military spending would rapidly decline to zero. Laws could be enacted to eliminate all nuclear weapons and to protect the environment. It could manage the international economy and more effectively control international crime. It could govern outer space and the oceans and other parts of the world not controlled by national governments. It would be able to promote a sense of world community and could recommend that all children be taught a common global language such as Esperanto.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Philosopy professor Ronald Glossop kicks off 2007-2008 Vision of Hope speaker series
Glossop is exploring the shift from internationalism to globalism
-->