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)