Excerpt from Raymond Williams (1921 - 1988):
Necessary Linkages
"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …
This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."
* * *
This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".
For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams
Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572
==========
It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.
Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.
No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.
Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...
In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.
I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.
In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).
It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...
Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.
[More on this later.]
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Friday, May 4, 2007
Willing to Work for the Poor (Who Fight against Poverty)
I suppose I am not the only person who would rather make a very modest living working for a good cause than make oodles of money working for rich people (and/or for a cause that is harmful to life on this planet). Sadly, poor people are not hiring...
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
Monday, April 2, 2007
Who is Anseynol?
Anseynol is a name that I made up for myself. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a word in any language. (Google searches yield only results that relate to me.)
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
Peace Movement? What Peace Movement?
I started my theoretical work on 'world peace' in 1980 (when I was 18). By 1983, I had written a few hundred thousand words generally related to some of our global problems and issues. Although I did not consider my writings to be ready for publication, I was convinced that they were worthy of the attention of all 'peace activists' throughout the world. I traveled to Paris and London in August 1983, on a very short tourist visa. I tried to contact a few anti-war activists and members of CND and END. I corresponded with E. P. Thompson, but was unable to meet him face to face.
Ever since 1980, my commitment to 'peace and justice' has been unwavering. I came to the US in 1988, hoping to make some waves here.
...
To this day, I do not see a 'peace movement' in the US. An 'anti-war' movement would presumably require a commonly-held and clearly-articulated set of values that oppose any war. Sadly, I do not believe that a 'movement' for this exists in the US. There is not even a (strong enough) movement for disarmament. Instead, we have an 'anti-this-war' movement. If this movement has any 'leaders' to speak of, they should realize that their record has been pathetic.
Some of my posts on this blog site are intended to offer some constructive criticism to my peace-loving contemporaries.
Ever since 1980, my commitment to 'peace and justice' has been unwavering. I came to the US in 1988, hoping to make some waves here.
...
To this day, I do not see a 'peace movement' in the US. An 'anti-war' movement would presumably require a commonly-held and clearly-articulated set of values that oppose any war. Sadly, I do not believe that a 'movement' for this exists in the US. There is not even a (strong enough) movement for disarmament. Instead, we have an 'anti-this-war' movement. If this movement has any 'leaders' to speak of, they should realize that their record has been pathetic.
Some of my posts on this blog site are intended to offer some constructive criticism to my peace-loving contemporaries.
Support These Organizations
I support Orbis, Free the Children, and Edhi International (order of my first hearing about them). I am not sure if I would agree with all of what they do, but I salute their main goals and dedication. All three of these organizations deserve more coverage than they get. I believe that it is scandalous that Edhi gets too little. As I stated before I am a laruuni, not a Muslim. But I do feel, along with some Muslims who make the point, that Edhi could easily have won a Nobel Peace Prize if he were not such a 'scary-looking' Muslim --white beard and all. More info about the organization at:
http://www.edhifoundation.com/contact.asp
http://www.edhifoundation.com/contact.asp
Conscientious Nonprocreator
I am a conscientious nonprocreator. I started the Yahoo group Conscientious Nonprocreators Contranational. The URL is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conscientiousnonprocreators/
It has not, so far, been an 'active' group. Still, it continues to present a voice against 'pronatalism'.
By 18, I decided to remain childless (I do not remember exactly when I made the decision). I am now 47, and I never had a split second of regret over my decision not to have a child. This does not, however, suggest that my view of having children is pessimistic --from my own perspective. Of course, if I had a child like Shirley Temple, Craig Kielburger, Greg Smith, Alia Sabur, ... , I could personally benefit from parenthood. Although I do not think it prudent to assume that I would be that lucky, my conclusion about nonprocreation is a moral one. I believe that my decision was morally right. Holding the values that I do, I could not have a clear conscience even if I found myself blessed to have a one-in-a-million child. Put differently, I can easily imagine myself being 'rich and famous' mainly due to an exceptional child, but I cannot imagine myself feeling any better about the matter of procreation/nonprocreation.
I am generally kind to children. I was raised in a place where (and at a time when) most grown-ups were friendly to and protective of children --anybody's children. Perhaps my own parents were also close to 'good enough', when it comes to kindness to children. Thanks in part to these facts, I often make faces at other's children, even tap their heads occasionally, and show kindness and generosity when I am allowed to interact with them (which is not often enough). I wish there were a shortcut gesture that could tell the parents: "Hey! I am kind to babies and children. I want to 'welcome' them, in my capacity. But I do not condone your decision to add another human being to this planet!"
"Babies are not responsible for population growth. Parents are."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conscientiousnonprocreators/
It has not, so far, been an 'active' group. Still, it continues to present a voice against 'pronatalism'.
By 18, I decided to remain childless (I do not remember exactly when I made the decision). I am now 47, and I never had a split second of regret over my decision not to have a child. This does not, however, suggest that my view of having children is pessimistic --from my own perspective. Of course, if I had a child like Shirley Temple, Craig Kielburger, Greg Smith, Alia Sabur, ... , I could personally benefit from parenthood. Although I do not think it prudent to assume that I would be that lucky, my conclusion about nonprocreation is a moral one. I believe that my decision was morally right. Holding the values that I do, I could not have a clear conscience even if I found myself blessed to have a one-in-a-million child. Put differently, I can easily imagine myself being 'rich and famous' mainly due to an exceptional child, but I cannot imagine myself feeling any better about the matter of procreation/nonprocreation.
I am generally kind to children. I was raised in a place where (and at a time when) most grown-ups were friendly to and protective of children --anybody's children. Perhaps my own parents were also close to 'good enough', when it comes to kindness to children. Thanks in part to these facts, I often make faces at other's children, even tap their heads occasionally, and show kindness and generosity when I am allowed to interact with them (which is not often enough). I wish there were a shortcut gesture that could tell the parents: "Hey! I am kind to babies and children. I want to 'welcome' them, in my capacity. But I do not condone your decision to add another human being to this planet!"
"Babies are not responsible for population growth. Parents are."
Laruunash
Laruunash is my religion. I started it. Laruunash is a completely new invented word (has no etymology), and is not intended to sound like any word that I know. Laruunash is a religion that has no 'prophet' and no sacred text that is claimed to be a 'revelation'. It does have a 'dogma': That goodness is superior to evil, even if it does not bring good consequences to the first person singular. In other words, it is a set of beliefs that is not reducible to 'enlightened self-interest'.
My final decision to start this religion goes back to the summer of 1998. The name was invented in December 2000.
http://laruunash.blogspot.com/
was the first blog site where I announced it.
My final decision to start this religion goes back to the summer of 1998. The name was invented in December 2000.
http://laruunash.blogspot.com/
was the first blog site where I announced it.
Offer of Help
I consider myself a 'privileged' person in many respects. Even though I am not rich in material terms, I have a great deal that I can part with. Among other things, I have a great deal of books, CDs, PC parts, and medical reference works. I am more than willing to be of service to those who are in need, provided that they are themselves 'fighters against poverty'. Presently, I am in the United States (not the country of my choice). I like to think that some help from me can reach people on different continents. Please contact me if you think I can be of help.
On Global Security
On Global Security
We are told that members of our species had been around for tens of thousands of years. We are also told that this planet can sustain life for hundreds of millions of more years –a few billion years, in fact. Exactly how far back our ancestors go, how their intelligence compared to ours may never be established on scientific grounds. We can be certain, however, that the nation-states or even religious communities that we pledge our allegiance to today are not what they were loyal to. Despite common assumptions of nationalists as to the ‘naturality’ of the sense of nationalism (despite myths about ‘blood’, ‘race’, ‘destiny’, and so on) nation-states go back only a few hundred years. Much more relevant for us, perhaps, should be the possibility that some of today’s nation-states may disappear or disintegrate within our lifetimes. Few proud nationalists can convince themselves that their nations will continue to exist for hundreds of millions of years (or until the demise of this planet).
Most probably, our ancestors had an even vaguer idea of what happened to their distant ancestors than we do. Also, it would be futile for us to conjecture whether or not they wished us to have a different set of values than we have now, and/or whether or not they would urge us to have a ‘global consciousness’ today. Likewise, it may be futile to conjecture whether or not future generations will surpass the level of moral commitment to our planet that the most conscientious of our generation had attained. But we can be certain of this: The nuclear era is the very first era in which human existence (on this planet) had been put at risk. (I may note here that I see no reason to think in terms of centuries or millennia. The post-1945 era seems to me to continue unchanged in many respects, and the world still remains threatened by nuclear technology.) We, who have witnessed some of the most impressive advancements in science, and even some nearly-global improvements in the plight of humankind, have to admit that a far greater shame and moral responsibility falls on our shoulders than on any other generation before the advent of the nuclear age.
The vast majority of humankind acquire their ‘citizenship’ through birth, and are socially, if not also legally, coerced to remain loyal to the nation that they had not chosen. Yet, few nationalist ideologues would settle for happenstance as the basis of why they expect their conationals to remain loyal to their state, and to value each other more than citizens of other nation-states. However successful they may be in their rhetoric, they cannot hide these two facts: 1) There are serious differences in the value systems of members of any nation-state, however small its population may be. These differences appear to be impossible to iron out or bridge. In fact, in the case of many states, the differences are the causes and/or consequences of bloody conflicts. 2) Groups of people who find themselves in conflict with their own conationals, no matter how marginal and parochial they may be, are aware that they could easily recruit members, or at least pick ‘better neighbors’ from among the citizens of other countries. In other words, given human diversity that exists (and the diversity that had survived many attempts at forced homogeneity, or even ‘ethnic cleansing’), and given the fact that many people seem to be similar to people elsewhere around the world, one has to admit a global mismatching of humans. Some, like me, perceive this as a criminal case of 1) forcefully yoking incompatible people together, and 2) forcefully segregating people with similar values –due to present policies of (mostly) hereditary citizenship. This mismatching ends up being a deadly serious issue in the case of some individuals. In most countries, far more people are killed by their conationals than by ‘aliens’, terrorists, or soldiers/agents of other countries.
The above may have been obvious to many people who continue to support their nation-states (even after they concede that their system may not be the best, that their neighbors may not be the best, and that their state will not last much longer). The fact that the vast majority of humankind seem willing to perpetuate nation-states should tell us that acknowledging this much is not enough.
The present system where humankind is divided into nations that are antagonistic to each other has not been designed by any living human beings. We all inherited it. Some of us have the courage to take issue with it; but most of us don’t. All the same, (for those of us who are reluctant to take into account cosmic forces, deities, ancestors’ spirits, tradition, ‘history’, etc.) we have to admit that the present existence and prevalence of nation-states can be blamed only on ourselves –whoever started it, none but the present-day living perpetuate it.
Part of the reason why nation-states still command the loyalty and support of the majority of their citizens is that they claim to offer ‘security’. Someone had said “Nation-states are criminal organizations that sell protection at monopolistic prices.” I appreciate the humor; but I still find this an unjustifiably lenient assessment of the criminality of states. Criminal organizations are not responsible for the creation of a system that parceled out virtually all the habitable areas of this planet; they had not waged wars on any scale comparable to the wars between and among states; they do not inculcate their values into children with a system comparable to the school systems and propaganda machines that most nation-states employ; and, at least at this point, they do not have access to the kind of weapons of mass destruction that (most) states have. Also, while almost all criminal organizations at least occasionally have ‘brushes with the law’, nation-states enjoy the unique privilege among criminal organizations of actually writing and rewriting the laws that go unquestioned in their own territories. (‘International laws’ are written by the states that happen to have the ‘biggest sticks’ at given historical moments, and are forced upon weaker states. Strangely, even where defeated/weaker states had committed unspeakable crimes that no ‘criminal organization’ could, there often is an enormous amount of (undeserved) respect for what are called ‘sovereignty rights’.)
On the other hand, states perform a far wider variety of functions than do ‘criminal organizations’. The total set of functions that each state performs may be different from other contemporary states, and/or states of the past. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even the most beneficent, the most generous, and the least harmful state could be ‘undersold’ by other entities (for-profit and nonprofit organizations, communities, global agents, and the like). In other words, it can be argued that whatever is accomplished by the best of states could be accomplished at a lower cost by another social entity, and/or that the latter could easily accomplish far better things at the same cost –had there been the opportunity to compete with states. I do make a detailed case for this elsewhere, where I take up some of the supposedly unique functions of states, and show how states are at least self-defeating in their performance (to say nothing of their corruption, unaccountability, resistance to improvements, etc.). For the purposes of this paper, I will only acknowledge the relevance of such functions to the understanding of why people obey their states, and proceed with the promise of dealing with them later.
In the end, it has to be admitted (not based on anything that I cited above, but based on what some of us learn ‘the hard way’) that the vast majority of humankind are cowards, yes cowards. However forcefully they may deny such a charge, the vast majority of humankind can easily be intimidated to sacrifice their own interests, the interests of their loved ones, and even the future of humankind as soon as they are presented with any credible threat of physical or even financial harm. States, through their monopoly of establishing and maintaining armies, and their efforts to create a ‘nation-in-arms’ seem to be instilling the virtue of courage. They certainly continue to benefit from the ‘bravery’ of many of their citizens who sacrifice their own interests, even their lives, in the service of their ‘country’. Nonetheless, states deliberately create a climate of fear/cowardice. Their operations can run ‘smoothly’ only as long as the vast majority of their adult citizens are kept in fear. (I am not so naïve as to assume that cowardice and courage are opposites. In fact, I would argue that many of the ‘brave’ are too afraid to perceive and judge themselves as cowardly. Nor do I think that it is possible, or even desirable, for people to shed themselves of any and all forms of fear. I, for one, choose to place my fear of witnessing my contemporaries cause irreparable harm to this planet over and above any other fears that I have. In other words, it is not the state of being afraid that is reprehensible, but placing the wrong priorities on one’s fears…)
Not many cowards have enough courage (or wisdom) to recognize and admit their fears. And the vast majority of humankind, shameful cowards that they are, should not be expected to quietly accept the verdicts of those who are foolish enough to speak the truth about them. Then again, as destructive as their fury may be, how else can cowards account for the fact that religious leaders changed their doctrines to allow for the dictates of rulers (many of whom had no claim to piety), or how millions of people of the same faith continued to pray to the same deity/deities, and fight against their neighbors who did the same, and bury their dead in the same way, both sides praying for retribution and victory?.. It seems hard to deny that many people are so afraid of their states that they go against the requirements of their own religion, thereby sacrificing what they ‘believe’ to be their eternal lives in ‘the other world’, and cooperate with what they recognize as the evil that their states do.
It is true that, very often, citizens are forced to make a choice between the evil that their state (or local ‘warlord’) does and the evil that their ‘enemy’ does or might do. Therefore, it would be simplistic to suggest that wiser and braver choices are available to the cowards of the world at all times. We have to admit that even the most powerful states are not powerful enough to abolish the present system of international antagonism that they inherited. Even a large alliance of the most powerful nations from all continents may not suffice to change the system itself.
In an age when so-called superpower states (which have nuclear technology and weaponry, among other assets) are not safe from nuclear threat from small terrorist groups, few ideologues can dismiss the need for supranational collaboration to attain global security. Some of those who accept the moral obligation to come up with bold proposals, however, may go much further than any adherent of the nation-state system can tolerate. For my part, I would welcome help and support of any kind from nation-states in the direction of achieving global security.
One does not need to be an adherent to Realpolitik ideology or a ‘bizarre’ religious cult to accept that there are many evil people on this planet who are bent on destroying innocent lives, and almost oblivious to the long-term consequences of their actions. Even though there is no shortage of people who advertise a general cure to ‘educate’ or ‘humanize’ such evil people (some of whom are still insisting that their formulas from hundreds of years ago deserve more chance), there remain too many people who have not received, or have not responded to, such panaceas. Instead of adhering to ideas of the ultimate ‘goodness’ of human nature even as we witness the slaughter of millions, I suggest that we should be prepared to neutralize or kill anyone and everyone who poses a serious threat to innocent human lives and to our environment. This is only one step toward true readiness to accept responsibility for the creation and maintenance of global peace.
Rather than settling for the role of being ‘the conscience’ of our respective nation-states, inviting our leaders and conationals to higher moral principles than they seem to have, we should clearly and unequivocally dissociate ourselves from any national, religious, ethnic, political, etc. ties, and step forward to accept our role as custodians of life on this planet. In doing so, we will be assuming responsibilities that no pre-nuclear generation had even conceived. The pace of ‘rat race’ that international antagonism requires (not to mention our private greed, social pressures, etc.) may already pose too much demand on our time and energy. Then again, without mustering the courage and determination to assume such additional responsibilities, we may have no hope of serious reduction in our ‘rat race’…
We may find ourselves surrounded by people who think that ‘defense’ is the one thing that states are good at; they may even think that states are supremely competent at this task. Some may advertise this as a ‘piece of wisdom’ that they had just discovered for themselves. We have no choice but to try to convince them that far greater success can and should be attained through global collaboration.
I argue that the kind of global collaboration that is needed will have to utilize some of the people, tools, ‘intelligence’, and perhaps even some strategies of existing nation-states. However, in order to be effective and sustainable, an ‘alternative defense system’ will have to be different in many ways.
1) First, we need to distance ourselves from any short-term or long-term commitment to the interests of existing nation-states (or classes, religious groups, etc.). Instead of seeking to gain or maintain strategic advantage, we should seek to establish a global security system that protects all innocent human beings from human aggressors (as far as organized aggression is concerned) and natural disasters that human beings can predict. I realize that this is contrary to the values that may have been instilled in us. Then again, what was good enough for our ancestors cannot be good enough for those of us who want to improve on their record. It seems that, even for those whose faith demands charity, compassion, selflessness, and so on, one of the commandments that people actually live by is: “Steal from your neighbors (and, if need be, just kill them) to feed your family and loved ones.” When it comes to foreign relations, any unilateral aid or concession to weaker states is generally viewed as betraying, or at least jeopardizing ‘national interests’. I fully acknowledge the prevalence of these values through the practices of states with different religions and/or ideologies. Nevertheless, I step forward (as someone who sees himself as a relatively privileged person with much that he can afford to give away) and argue that we should complement our dedication to global security with a dedication to achieve a global redistribution of wealth and some other resources (such as education; health care; transportation; access to clean water, energy, transportation, decent habitats; etc.).
Many argue that no system of peace would be sustainable where there remains a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Some may also point out that a clear dedication to redistribution of wealth is the only way that the more powerful nations can expect satisfactory collaboration from poorer countries. While I cannot take anything away from such arguments, I prefer to argue for global redistribution of resources on moral grounds. After all, as focused as I am on peace, I recognize my obligation to embrace many other goals at the same time.
2) Our alternative defense system should aim not at ‘peace through strength’, but at general and complete disarmament; we need to destroy all nuclear weapons, all nuclear plants, and get rid of nuclear technology; we need to close down educational and research facilities that spread nuclear know-how; we need to destroy all other weapons of mass destruction, and all weapons that can be used against civilian populations. In fact, we should aim to destroy all firearms that cannot be programmed with humane safety measures. In other words, whatever supranational global security forces we may end up maintaining should continue to disarm itself, even after it remains the largest body of law-enforcement on the globe.
3) We should adhere to a much stricter sense of professional and moral responsibility and accountability than was ever exercised by armies before. We should allow for much better scrutiny by watchdog institutions, create a ‘civilian’ legal body whose authority we accept and enforce on the armed forces. With security forces that can recruit new members from any place on earth, and in a political climate where, hopefully, there will be far less need for armed forces, there should be no tolerance for those who consider themselves above the law, and/or abuse their powers.
4) The global security forces need to be permanently stationed on all continents and in the most populated regions of each continent. They should be required to participate in several large civilian projects such as general preparedness for natural disasters and crises (such as earthquakes, floods, extreme weather conditions, fires, food and water shortages, etc.). They should strive to lower their response time to emergencies and increase their efficiency in meeting their goals. Their nonemergency work should aim at various preventive programs that reduce threats to civilians. Some such work should include literacy programs for children, youth, and adults; general educational programs that cover matters of health and hygiene; building of civilian infrastructure; distribution of clean water and food; and the like. Additionally, the security forces should work to increase the mobility of the civilian populations that are threatened either by violence or by forces of nature.
5) The global security forces should be ruled not by persons or groups of people, but by principles and ideas. The principles should be clearly laid down in advance, and ideas (as to the implementation of the principles) should be ‘open to the public’. Instead of trying to create a uniformity of policies, the supranational global security forces should try different ideas in ‘pilot projects’, and try to determine which ideas work better under which circumstances.
6) We should seek to establish and/or work with religious, charitable, and voluntary organizations, etc., that try to intermediate in conflicts in specific regions or all around the globe. Where the groups that threaten public safety give indications of abiding by certain religious, ethical, or other codes some of which are shared by the defenders of peace (concerned citizens and the security forces), we should welcome the ‘diplomatic’ efforts of groups that are respected by the conflicting sides.
It is necessary and possible to go into more detail, and enumerate more principles. But, at present, I leave the list open-ended, reemphasizing 1) a deeper sense of moral accountability; 2) dedication to the cause of eliminating nuclear technology and all organized threat to civilian life; 3) an admission of fallibility and an openness to ‘progress’/better ideas; and 4) a lack of interest in maintaining the power of individuals or groups, and a preparedness of the armed forces to shrink in size.
For those who remain loyal to their nation-states, the above ideals and promises may have little attraction. Many will also consider it treason to take from the presently-rich and give to the presently-poor (both within and among nation-states). Some of the horror that the idea of global redistribution of wealth spreads in some people’s minds can be dispelled by another radical proposal: A global reduction of human population through birth control. Egalitarianism does not have to mean pauperism. Instead of declaring ourselves successful after a more just dividing of the pie, we should accept an obligation to increase the pie. We should not hesitate to enforce on the unwilling whatever feasible ideas we may have for such an increase. We should also remain open to criticism and alternatives offered by others.
The principles underlying our commitment to reduce the global human population are not limited to a desire to reduce the resistance to the global redistribution of wealth. I, for one, advocate a blanket prohibition of human births for at least 40 years. With a proposal like that, I am aware that far greater resistance can be expected from rich and poor alike. Pleasant or not, this is a pill that our generation may have to swallow for the future of humankind and of the many species that we threaten with extinction. (I clarify the details of this radical proposal elsewhere, and list the many possible justifications for it. Here, I can only acknowledge that the devil will have to lie in the details…)
In our quest to eliminate the threat to the very existence of our species (created by some of the most reprehensible members of our species), we should not be oblivious to the threat that we will continue to pose on other species. While we may (and perhaps should) continue to hold our species dearer than others, we should demand that all humans accept boundaries to their interests. After all, much of our richness (much of the ‘pie’ that we divide) is created by other species. More of them (especially plants) and fewer of us means more pie for us humans (and more pie left for them).
To be continued.
This short document was written for a proposed appearance in a one-hour radio program (one that was expected to be open to some listener phone calls). The producer of the program that asked me to ‘write something’ was opposed to some of the post-9/11 security measures implemented and contemplated in the U.S. The ideas expressed here are obviously half-baked. I had written, in far greater detail, several chapters that relate to global security as part of my unfinished manuscripts for “On the Threshold of …”. The limitations of this document and the relatively informal style may or may not be excused, but they need to be understood in this context.
Anseynol
December 2001
(Posted this file on 2 Apr. 2007)
We are told that members of our species had been around for tens of thousands of years. We are also told that this planet can sustain life for hundreds of millions of more years –a few billion years, in fact. Exactly how far back our ancestors go, how their intelligence compared to ours may never be established on scientific grounds. We can be certain, however, that the nation-states or even religious communities that we pledge our allegiance to today are not what they were loyal to. Despite common assumptions of nationalists as to the ‘naturality’ of the sense of nationalism (despite myths about ‘blood’, ‘race’, ‘destiny’, and so on) nation-states go back only a few hundred years. Much more relevant for us, perhaps, should be the possibility that some of today’s nation-states may disappear or disintegrate within our lifetimes. Few proud nationalists can convince themselves that their nations will continue to exist for hundreds of millions of years (or until the demise of this planet).
Most probably, our ancestors had an even vaguer idea of what happened to their distant ancestors than we do. Also, it would be futile for us to conjecture whether or not they wished us to have a different set of values than we have now, and/or whether or not they would urge us to have a ‘global consciousness’ today. Likewise, it may be futile to conjecture whether or not future generations will surpass the level of moral commitment to our planet that the most conscientious of our generation had attained. But we can be certain of this: The nuclear era is the very first era in which human existence (on this planet) had been put at risk. (I may note here that I see no reason to think in terms of centuries or millennia. The post-1945 era seems to me to continue unchanged in many respects, and the world still remains threatened by nuclear technology.) We, who have witnessed some of the most impressive advancements in science, and even some nearly-global improvements in the plight of humankind, have to admit that a far greater shame and moral responsibility falls on our shoulders than on any other generation before the advent of the nuclear age.
The vast majority of humankind acquire their ‘citizenship’ through birth, and are socially, if not also legally, coerced to remain loyal to the nation that they had not chosen. Yet, few nationalist ideologues would settle for happenstance as the basis of why they expect their conationals to remain loyal to their state, and to value each other more than citizens of other nation-states. However successful they may be in their rhetoric, they cannot hide these two facts: 1) There are serious differences in the value systems of members of any nation-state, however small its population may be. These differences appear to be impossible to iron out or bridge. In fact, in the case of many states, the differences are the causes and/or consequences of bloody conflicts. 2) Groups of people who find themselves in conflict with their own conationals, no matter how marginal and parochial they may be, are aware that they could easily recruit members, or at least pick ‘better neighbors’ from among the citizens of other countries. In other words, given human diversity that exists (and the diversity that had survived many attempts at forced homogeneity, or even ‘ethnic cleansing’), and given the fact that many people seem to be similar to people elsewhere around the world, one has to admit a global mismatching of humans. Some, like me, perceive this as a criminal case of 1) forcefully yoking incompatible people together, and 2) forcefully segregating people with similar values –due to present policies of (mostly) hereditary citizenship. This mismatching ends up being a deadly serious issue in the case of some individuals. In most countries, far more people are killed by their conationals than by ‘aliens’, terrorists, or soldiers/agents of other countries.
The above may have been obvious to many people who continue to support their nation-states (even after they concede that their system may not be the best, that their neighbors may not be the best, and that their state will not last much longer). The fact that the vast majority of humankind seem willing to perpetuate nation-states should tell us that acknowledging this much is not enough.
The present system where humankind is divided into nations that are antagonistic to each other has not been designed by any living human beings. We all inherited it. Some of us have the courage to take issue with it; but most of us don’t. All the same, (for those of us who are reluctant to take into account cosmic forces, deities, ancestors’ spirits, tradition, ‘history’, etc.) we have to admit that the present existence and prevalence of nation-states can be blamed only on ourselves –whoever started it, none but the present-day living perpetuate it.
Part of the reason why nation-states still command the loyalty and support of the majority of their citizens is that they claim to offer ‘security’. Someone had said “Nation-states are criminal organizations that sell protection at monopolistic prices.” I appreciate the humor; but I still find this an unjustifiably lenient assessment of the criminality of states. Criminal organizations are not responsible for the creation of a system that parceled out virtually all the habitable areas of this planet; they had not waged wars on any scale comparable to the wars between and among states; they do not inculcate their values into children with a system comparable to the school systems and propaganda machines that most nation-states employ; and, at least at this point, they do not have access to the kind of weapons of mass destruction that (most) states have. Also, while almost all criminal organizations at least occasionally have ‘brushes with the law’, nation-states enjoy the unique privilege among criminal organizations of actually writing and rewriting the laws that go unquestioned in their own territories. (‘International laws’ are written by the states that happen to have the ‘biggest sticks’ at given historical moments, and are forced upon weaker states. Strangely, even where defeated/weaker states had committed unspeakable crimes that no ‘criminal organization’ could, there often is an enormous amount of (undeserved) respect for what are called ‘sovereignty rights’.)
On the other hand, states perform a far wider variety of functions than do ‘criminal organizations’. The total set of functions that each state performs may be different from other contemporary states, and/or states of the past. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even the most beneficent, the most generous, and the least harmful state could be ‘undersold’ by other entities (for-profit and nonprofit organizations, communities, global agents, and the like). In other words, it can be argued that whatever is accomplished by the best of states could be accomplished at a lower cost by another social entity, and/or that the latter could easily accomplish far better things at the same cost –had there been the opportunity to compete with states. I do make a detailed case for this elsewhere, where I take up some of the supposedly unique functions of states, and show how states are at least self-defeating in their performance (to say nothing of their corruption, unaccountability, resistance to improvements, etc.). For the purposes of this paper, I will only acknowledge the relevance of such functions to the understanding of why people obey their states, and proceed with the promise of dealing with them later.
In the end, it has to be admitted (not based on anything that I cited above, but based on what some of us learn ‘the hard way’) that the vast majority of humankind are cowards, yes cowards. However forcefully they may deny such a charge, the vast majority of humankind can easily be intimidated to sacrifice their own interests, the interests of their loved ones, and even the future of humankind as soon as they are presented with any credible threat of physical or even financial harm. States, through their monopoly of establishing and maintaining armies, and their efforts to create a ‘nation-in-arms’ seem to be instilling the virtue of courage. They certainly continue to benefit from the ‘bravery’ of many of their citizens who sacrifice their own interests, even their lives, in the service of their ‘country’. Nonetheless, states deliberately create a climate of fear/cowardice. Their operations can run ‘smoothly’ only as long as the vast majority of their adult citizens are kept in fear. (I am not so naïve as to assume that cowardice and courage are opposites. In fact, I would argue that many of the ‘brave’ are too afraid to perceive and judge themselves as cowardly. Nor do I think that it is possible, or even desirable, for people to shed themselves of any and all forms of fear. I, for one, choose to place my fear of witnessing my contemporaries cause irreparable harm to this planet over and above any other fears that I have. In other words, it is not the state of being afraid that is reprehensible, but placing the wrong priorities on one’s fears…)
Not many cowards have enough courage (or wisdom) to recognize and admit their fears. And the vast majority of humankind, shameful cowards that they are, should not be expected to quietly accept the verdicts of those who are foolish enough to speak the truth about them. Then again, as destructive as their fury may be, how else can cowards account for the fact that religious leaders changed their doctrines to allow for the dictates of rulers (many of whom had no claim to piety), or how millions of people of the same faith continued to pray to the same deity/deities, and fight against their neighbors who did the same, and bury their dead in the same way, both sides praying for retribution and victory?.. It seems hard to deny that many people are so afraid of their states that they go against the requirements of their own religion, thereby sacrificing what they ‘believe’ to be their eternal lives in ‘the other world’, and cooperate with what they recognize as the evil that their states do.
It is true that, very often, citizens are forced to make a choice between the evil that their state (or local ‘warlord’) does and the evil that their ‘enemy’ does or might do. Therefore, it would be simplistic to suggest that wiser and braver choices are available to the cowards of the world at all times. We have to admit that even the most powerful states are not powerful enough to abolish the present system of international antagonism that they inherited. Even a large alliance of the most powerful nations from all continents may not suffice to change the system itself.
In an age when so-called superpower states (which have nuclear technology and weaponry, among other assets) are not safe from nuclear threat from small terrorist groups, few ideologues can dismiss the need for supranational collaboration to attain global security. Some of those who accept the moral obligation to come up with bold proposals, however, may go much further than any adherent of the nation-state system can tolerate. For my part, I would welcome help and support of any kind from nation-states in the direction of achieving global security.
One does not need to be an adherent to Realpolitik ideology or a ‘bizarre’ religious cult to accept that there are many evil people on this planet who are bent on destroying innocent lives, and almost oblivious to the long-term consequences of their actions. Even though there is no shortage of people who advertise a general cure to ‘educate’ or ‘humanize’ such evil people (some of whom are still insisting that their formulas from hundreds of years ago deserve more chance), there remain too many people who have not received, or have not responded to, such panaceas. Instead of adhering to ideas of the ultimate ‘goodness’ of human nature even as we witness the slaughter of millions, I suggest that we should be prepared to neutralize or kill anyone and everyone who poses a serious threat to innocent human lives and to our environment. This is only one step toward true readiness to accept responsibility for the creation and maintenance of global peace.
Rather than settling for the role of being ‘the conscience’ of our respective nation-states, inviting our leaders and conationals to higher moral principles than they seem to have, we should clearly and unequivocally dissociate ourselves from any national, religious, ethnic, political, etc. ties, and step forward to accept our role as custodians of life on this planet. In doing so, we will be assuming responsibilities that no pre-nuclear generation had even conceived. The pace of ‘rat race’ that international antagonism requires (not to mention our private greed, social pressures, etc.) may already pose too much demand on our time and energy. Then again, without mustering the courage and determination to assume such additional responsibilities, we may have no hope of serious reduction in our ‘rat race’…
We may find ourselves surrounded by people who think that ‘defense’ is the one thing that states are good at; they may even think that states are supremely competent at this task. Some may advertise this as a ‘piece of wisdom’ that they had just discovered for themselves. We have no choice but to try to convince them that far greater success can and should be attained through global collaboration.
I argue that the kind of global collaboration that is needed will have to utilize some of the people, tools, ‘intelligence’, and perhaps even some strategies of existing nation-states. However, in order to be effective and sustainable, an ‘alternative defense system’ will have to be different in many ways.
1) First, we need to distance ourselves from any short-term or long-term commitment to the interests of existing nation-states (or classes, religious groups, etc.). Instead of seeking to gain or maintain strategic advantage, we should seek to establish a global security system that protects all innocent human beings from human aggressors (as far as organized aggression is concerned) and natural disasters that human beings can predict. I realize that this is contrary to the values that may have been instilled in us. Then again, what was good enough for our ancestors cannot be good enough for those of us who want to improve on their record. It seems that, even for those whose faith demands charity, compassion, selflessness, and so on, one of the commandments that people actually live by is: “Steal from your neighbors (and, if need be, just kill them) to feed your family and loved ones.” When it comes to foreign relations, any unilateral aid or concession to weaker states is generally viewed as betraying, or at least jeopardizing ‘national interests’. I fully acknowledge the prevalence of these values through the practices of states with different religions and/or ideologies. Nevertheless, I step forward (as someone who sees himself as a relatively privileged person with much that he can afford to give away) and argue that we should complement our dedication to global security with a dedication to achieve a global redistribution of wealth and some other resources (such as education; health care; transportation; access to clean water, energy, transportation, decent habitats; etc.).
Many argue that no system of peace would be sustainable where there remains a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Some may also point out that a clear dedication to redistribution of wealth is the only way that the more powerful nations can expect satisfactory collaboration from poorer countries. While I cannot take anything away from such arguments, I prefer to argue for global redistribution of resources on moral grounds. After all, as focused as I am on peace, I recognize my obligation to embrace many other goals at the same time.
2) Our alternative defense system should aim not at ‘peace through strength’, but at general and complete disarmament; we need to destroy all nuclear weapons, all nuclear plants, and get rid of nuclear technology; we need to close down educational and research facilities that spread nuclear know-how; we need to destroy all other weapons of mass destruction, and all weapons that can be used against civilian populations. In fact, we should aim to destroy all firearms that cannot be programmed with humane safety measures. In other words, whatever supranational global security forces we may end up maintaining should continue to disarm itself, even after it remains the largest body of law-enforcement on the globe.
3) We should adhere to a much stricter sense of professional and moral responsibility and accountability than was ever exercised by armies before. We should allow for much better scrutiny by watchdog institutions, create a ‘civilian’ legal body whose authority we accept and enforce on the armed forces. With security forces that can recruit new members from any place on earth, and in a political climate where, hopefully, there will be far less need for armed forces, there should be no tolerance for those who consider themselves above the law, and/or abuse their powers.
4) The global security forces need to be permanently stationed on all continents and in the most populated regions of each continent. They should be required to participate in several large civilian projects such as general preparedness for natural disasters and crises (such as earthquakes, floods, extreme weather conditions, fires, food and water shortages, etc.). They should strive to lower their response time to emergencies and increase their efficiency in meeting their goals. Their nonemergency work should aim at various preventive programs that reduce threats to civilians. Some such work should include literacy programs for children, youth, and adults; general educational programs that cover matters of health and hygiene; building of civilian infrastructure; distribution of clean water and food; and the like. Additionally, the security forces should work to increase the mobility of the civilian populations that are threatened either by violence or by forces of nature.
5) The global security forces should be ruled not by persons or groups of people, but by principles and ideas. The principles should be clearly laid down in advance, and ideas (as to the implementation of the principles) should be ‘open to the public’. Instead of trying to create a uniformity of policies, the supranational global security forces should try different ideas in ‘pilot projects’, and try to determine which ideas work better under which circumstances.
6) We should seek to establish and/or work with religious, charitable, and voluntary organizations, etc., that try to intermediate in conflicts in specific regions or all around the globe. Where the groups that threaten public safety give indications of abiding by certain religious, ethical, or other codes some of which are shared by the defenders of peace (concerned citizens and the security forces), we should welcome the ‘diplomatic’ efforts of groups that are respected by the conflicting sides.
It is necessary and possible to go into more detail, and enumerate more principles. But, at present, I leave the list open-ended, reemphasizing 1) a deeper sense of moral accountability; 2) dedication to the cause of eliminating nuclear technology and all organized threat to civilian life; 3) an admission of fallibility and an openness to ‘progress’/better ideas; and 4) a lack of interest in maintaining the power of individuals or groups, and a preparedness of the armed forces to shrink in size.
For those who remain loyal to their nation-states, the above ideals and promises may have little attraction. Many will also consider it treason to take from the presently-rich and give to the presently-poor (both within and among nation-states). Some of the horror that the idea of global redistribution of wealth spreads in some people’s minds can be dispelled by another radical proposal: A global reduction of human population through birth control. Egalitarianism does not have to mean pauperism. Instead of declaring ourselves successful after a more just dividing of the pie, we should accept an obligation to increase the pie. We should not hesitate to enforce on the unwilling whatever feasible ideas we may have for such an increase. We should also remain open to criticism and alternatives offered by others.
The principles underlying our commitment to reduce the global human population are not limited to a desire to reduce the resistance to the global redistribution of wealth. I, for one, advocate a blanket prohibition of human births for at least 40 years. With a proposal like that, I am aware that far greater resistance can be expected from rich and poor alike. Pleasant or not, this is a pill that our generation may have to swallow for the future of humankind and of the many species that we threaten with extinction. (I clarify the details of this radical proposal elsewhere, and list the many possible justifications for it. Here, I can only acknowledge that the devil will have to lie in the details…)
In our quest to eliminate the threat to the very existence of our species (created by some of the most reprehensible members of our species), we should not be oblivious to the threat that we will continue to pose on other species. While we may (and perhaps should) continue to hold our species dearer than others, we should demand that all humans accept boundaries to their interests. After all, much of our richness (much of the ‘pie’ that we divide) is created by other species. More of them (especially plants) and fewer of us means more pie for us humans (and more pie left for them).
To be continued.
This short document was written for a proposed appearance in a one-hour radio program (one that was expected to be open to some listener phone calls). The producer of the program that asked me to ‘write something’ was opposed to some of the post-9/11 security measures implemented and contemplated in the U.S. The ideas expressed here are obviously half-baked. I had written, in far greater detail, several chapters that relate to global security as part of my unfinished manuscripts for “On the Threshold of …”. The limitations of this document and the relatively informal style may or may not be excused, but they need to be understood in this context.
Anseynol
December 2001
(Posted this file on 2 Apr. 2007)
Anseynol -- The first Laruuni
My chosen name is Anseynol.
http://laruunash.blogspot.com/
was my first blog site. I did not intend it to be a site where I keep adding things on a regular basis. It still serves as an announcement.
On this blog site, I will try to write on diverse topics that relate mostly to current issues.
http://laruunash.blogspot.com/
was my first blog site. I did not intend it to be a site where I keep adding things on a regular basis. It still serves as an announcement.
On this blog site, I will try to write on diverse topics that relate mostly to current issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)