After a long and exhausting arms race, the planned and bureaucratic economy
of the Soviet Union is collapsing from the strains of a peace-time war economy
sooner than the capitalistic system of the United States,
although the U.S. economy also seems to be staggering under the burdens
of the most powerful military establishment ever.
Now that Communism is crumbling in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
people are declaring that the Cold War is over;
something called a “new world order” is being mentioned frequently.
What is this new world order?
Who is establishing it?
and what are its principles?
For those who have ignored the oppressiveness of United States policy
toward the Central American region in the 1980s, particularly in
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, and Panama,
the recent crisis in Iraq and Kuwait is exposing what the United States,
as led by President Bush, has in mind for a new world order.
Although the US President has stated that he wants a
“new world order based on the rule of law,”
the actions of the United States in using military conflict as a means of attempting
to solve a dispute between two small countries, Iraq and Kuwait, show that
the US and its allies have decided to take the law into their own hands.
The result is a destructive war in which the United States, Britain, France,
and Saudi Arabia can show off the advanced technology of their latest war toys
as a lesson to any other countries who may consider challenging the “new world order”
emanating from Washington, while Japan, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and other oil-rich gulf states throw in money from their treasuries in order to
keep the oil flowing to the 20% of the world population
which is using 80% of the world’s natural resources.
Anyone who knows anything about the history of the human species
realizes that such power politics and resulting wars are neither new
nor do they result in a stable world order.
Yet the opportunity is present, because of the end of the Cold War,
for a truly new world order based on justice which
could establish a relatively peaceful world community.
I will describe how we could bring about world peace through a nonviolent system of justice,
and at the same time I will analyze why the current trends are not leading to peace.
Although perfect peace will never be found in the mutability of the physical world,
nevertheless there are political principles of government which can and do provide methods
by which societies can learn how to solve their major problems
without recourse to the massive violence of war.
The principles that work best for our time are democratic decision-making,
equality before the law, freedom of communication and beliefs,
constitutional limitations on sovereignty and powers,
and nonviolent methods of conflict resolution.
The perversions that lead to war and human suffering are the opposites of these,
namely: thwarting public will and welfare by strong leaders,
unfair treatment of human beings by favoring some and discriminating against others,
lack of access to media for those with dissident ideas and intolerance for other beliefs,
unbridled claims of sovereignty particularly by powerful nations and by military juntas,
and use of violence or the threat of violence instead of
more patient methods for finding fair solutions to human problems.
It is hypocrisy to think that war can lead to order, because it should be obvious
to everyone that war causes chaos, death, and destruction,
not to mention resentment and desires for revenge.
War does not prove who is right, but only who is left at the end of the carnage.
War is based on the brutal idea that might can make right,
that whoever is stronger is somehow better.
Just because there are more people and technological resources on one side
does not give them the right to push the other side around.
Some of the behavior in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis has been
rather childish and tragically immature.
Just because Iraq was wrong in taking over Kuwait by military force does not mean
that the United States and its allies are right in destroying Iraq
if it refuses to give up its unjust claim.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Leaders calling each other nasty names do not help the diplomatic atmosphere either.
The top leaders were not even able to talk with each other directly before the war began
because of their childish bickering about a meeting time.
The essential questions are: How could this atrocity have been prevented?
and how can we prevent such atrocities in the future?
First of all, Saddam Hussein never would have had such military might
if it had not have been for the western nations
(especially the Soviet Union, United States, France and Germany)
supplying him with large amounts of weapons and
sophisticated technologies for his war with Iran.
These worldwide “merchants of death” have been compounding human problems
with their profit-making weapons businesses on an ever increasing and immense scale.
The entire level of armaments in the world needs to be drastically reduced,
and the sale or transfer of weapons from one nation to another must eventually be banned.
If we are to truly have the “rule of law” in the world,
then we need to develop legal and effective world institutions to decide what those laws are,
determine who is violating them, and find intelligent means to enforce them.
The United Nations is an attempt to develop this process.
However, when compared to any effective government it is woefully lacking in
not being democratically elected, having neither a true legislature
nor a compulsory judicial system nor effective methods to execute its decisions.
Although the United States did go to the Security Council of the United Nations
to bolster its position in world opinion in regard to this crisis,
this council of fifteen is dominated by the five victorious powers of the last world war,
namely the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China,
the same nations which coincidentally are the major
nuclear-weapons powers in the world today.
The danger is that in the “new world order” these powerful and rich nations
of the north will continue to dominate and exploit the poor nations of the south.
The opportunity is that if these nations could agree on disarmament
and a truly just world order,
they would have the power to lead the world in this positive direction.
President Bush has threatened Saddam Hussein with war crimes tribunals
after the war which Bush started.
Somehow this “Alice in Wonderland” justice whereby the execution of punishment
precedes the trial leaves out the normal judicial process.
Is President Bush willing to face the world court for his invasion of Panama
and for his massive bombing and killing in this war with Iraq?
The United States has already been convicted of violating
international law in its contra war against Nicaragua.
President Bush has stated that in this war the United States
would not fight “with one hand tied behind its back,”
as he supposes it had done in Vietnam.
Surely this is a perverted lesson to draw from a war in which Lyndon Johnson and
Richard Nixon each presided over more explosives being used by the US in Indochina
than the total of all armaments in World War II and which resulted in the killing
of approximately two million Vietnamese people.
Is Mr. Bush implying that the other hand is hiding a nuclear weapon behind his back?
As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait in early August, they should have been charged
with crimes against peace according to the Nuremberg Principles and with other crimes
under international law in the World Court of Justice.
Because of the crisis the case could have been expedited
and a decision rendered in an objective manner.
Then the world authority could have justifiably decided
what actions might be necessary according to international law.
Unfortunately the UN Security Resolution 678 was pushed through
by the United States and Britain, acquiesced to by France, the Soviet Union and China,
and vaguely gave justification to use force to get Iraq out of Kuwait;
it was used by the US as an excuse to launch an all-out conventional war against Iraq.
Do the United States and its allies have the right to arrogate to themselves
the task of being the world’s police force?
By a few votes the United States Congress gave its rubber-stamp approval for a war
with Iraq which had already been prepared and essentially committed to by sending
four hundred thousands troops and huge amounts of equipment and weapons to that region.
Yet President Bush had the arrogance to say that even if Congress had not given its permission,
he would have gone to war anyway in direct violation of the US Constitution.
How is this different from a military dictatorship,
since the President is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces?
The nonviolent method of economic sanctions against Iraq was having a large effect
on that society, and there are other nonviolent methods by which a world authority
using neutral people trained in nonviolence could intervene to solve the dispute
and restore Kuwait to its people.
But the US and its allies are not even fighting Iraq for the sake of democracy,
since their stated aim is merely to restore the Kuwait government,
which is a royal family controlling a sizeable portion of the world’s oil supply.
So who is ruling this new world order heralded by President Bush
at the close of the Cold War?
Is it the United States?
Is it President Bush?
Is it the five big nuclear powers?
Does the world want to be ruled by an order forced upon them
by overwhelming military power?
What is the real source of this power and influence?
How democratic is the United States today when politicians are elected
based on which ones can gain the largest campaign contributions?
How sovereign is the United States Government when it is now so dependent
on borrowing well over two hundred billion dollars per year and owing
that much and more each year in interest?
Is capitalism claiming victory in the Cold War
and now imposing its will on a world swimming in debt?
Look what has happened to the third world since it
borrowed so much money in the 1970s.
Has their standard of living improved anywhere near as much
as technological improvements should have allowed?
Where has the extra wealth from the
green revolution in agriculture and the computer age gone?
The capitalists loaned money to the capitalist class in these countries to play with,
and now that they aren’t able to pay it back, austerity is forced on every segment
of these societies except the rich so that the high interest
from these loans can be paid back to these capitalists.
Even the United States now has a larger trade debt
than the third-world countries combined;
yet this is small compared to the national debt of the US Government
which is fast approaching four trillion dollars.
The capitalists have also played the same game with the banking system in the United States
so that everyone in the society has to pay up to the wealthy
who expect to make more money from their money rather than from work.
Yet while so many are suffering from malnutrition, poor health care, inadequate housing,
lack of employment and education, the world is spending
more than a trillion dollars a year on armaments of destruction.
For whose protection and benefit?
Why have the United States and the Soviet Union been continually putting off
and delaying even arms control, not to mention actual disarmament?
Is the “peace dividend” being blown up in Iraq and Kuwait?
How long will we let the spokespersons and tools of the wealthy plunder and kill?
When will the intelligent people of the world
demand disarmament and a democratic system of world justice?
How long will it take before we learn how to use the most effective and ethically valid
methods of nonviolence so well demonstrated and taught by Jesus, Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, and others, and which have been so effectively used in Eastern Europe
and the republics of the Soviet Union to bring about democracy and peaceful reform?
Even China was on the verge of democratic reform by nonviolent methods
before it was squelched by an authoritarian regime;
the potential is still there waiting for its opportunity.
Do we want a world of wars and intimidation through violent threats
so that the wealth of the rich can be protected while
the world’s resources are exploited, and the environment is polluted?
If not, then we must work together to bring about a more fair and just world order
by means of the powerful and effective methods of nonviolence
based on love for all, communication of the truth, faith in human ability to solve problems
without reducing ourselves to brutes, and the courage to speak and act
for the best interests of everyone, not just the few.
How can we do this?
First of all we need to realize that it is possible,
and that each of us can play a part in making it happen.
We can criticize the stupidity of war and violence,
and we can educate ourselves and each other
on the ways of nonviolence to achieve goals we all want.
In the United States we could work to elect people who will lead this nation
away from war and militarism and toward a nonviolent world order
based on the principles of justice and good government on a world scale.
The US being in the most powerful position of influence
will have the greatest effect for good or ill.
We can lead the world to disarmament by making agreements with the Soviet Union
to end nuclear weapons testing, to dismantle nuclear weapons systems
and then conventional forces under careful inspection by international teams.
Once the two former superpowers take the first few steps, we will be able
to get every nation in the world to go along by the use of nonviolent sanctions if necessary.
If the most powerful nations in the world are willing to give up their military power,
surely we can get the other nations to agree to what is in their interest
if it is a just world order.
Eventually we can call a world constitutional convention in order to draw up
a carefully constructed document for a democratic federal world government
which will limit powers of nations to use force outside their borders
but allow them to retain the powers of self-government within their borders.
Human rights and the environment of all can be protected,
while democracy and local autonomy can be encouraged in all parts of the world.
The new world constitution will need to be ratified by every country.
Disarmament may begin before the world government is completely instituted,
but world authorities will be helpful in completing that process and necessary
to make sure that no one is allowed to make nuclear-weapons materials
nor dangerous armaments of any kind.
With modern technology and worldwide inspection
any attempts to violate this should be caught at small and early stages.
The methods of terrorism will fail when people have the courage to stand up to them
without the need to threaten or use violence in return.
In this climactic world struggle between those who use violence
and those who won’t, there may be some casualties and deaths
caused by those who use violence, but these will be less
than in other wars of escalating violence.
The violence will be reduced because even the violent ones will not feel
as forced or justified in using violence against those who are nonviolent.
We each must decide where our loyalties are and how we wish to devote our lives.
I suggest that we consider withdrawing our support from any government
when it uses the methods of violence.
The eagle is not only the symbol of the United States,
but it has also been a symbol of warlike Germany and the Roman Empire.
The dove is a symbol of peace and the Holy Spirit, a reality transcendent
of the Christian religion which speaks the truth to each of us from within our souls.
The Holy Spirit is the whole Spirit which gives life and love
to all regardless of their race, culture, or nationality.
Let us then be true to the spirit of peace and love by loving all unconditionally
and by working for peace and justice in peaceful ways.
The nonviolent way is not submissive or weak, but with courage
we can refuse to accept injustice or violence.
By working in intelligent ways, rather than by brute force,
we can be much more effective in bringing about justice for all
and human freedom and rights of self-determination.
Force is naturally the opposite of freedom because
it forcibly attempts to remove someone’s freedom.
To struggle for true freedom we need to renounce violence,
for to use violence for the sake of freedom is selfish, arrogant, and hypocritical.
Freedom comes from choices and increased awareness,
from tolerance and respect for the rights of others.
Violence is born out of fear and insecurity in human relations.
The courageous struggle for right without violence using intelligent communication,
while cowards hide behind weapons of destruction in separation and ignorance.
To allow our taxes to be used for war is a violation of our freedom and rights,
making us slaves of our government.
We can liberate ourselves from that slavery by renouncing the use of violence,
by refusing to support and cooperate with such a government,
and finally by exercising our inalienable right to change that government.
Even though we have come to the brink of nuclear war
and the annihilation of the human species on this planet,
I believe that we can and will establish a world of relative peace and justice
by means of disarmament and democratic world government
based on the principles of love and nonviolence taught
by the spiritually enlightened of all ages.
The question is only how long it will take and how much suffering has to occur
before we learn and before enough of us
take the actions necessary to reform and save our world.
For those who are of the Christian faith, this is the way of the cross or the Christ action:
to heal, understand, love, feed and clothe the poor, to stand up to arrogant authority,
and be willing to suffer rather than fight back with violence.
To those of other faiths or philosophies the action is the same:
we act for the good of all humanity in order to create a better world;
it is up to us to do this, because a God outside of us is not going to interfere in human affairs.
We do not have to submit to the stupidity and horrors of war.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY.
When conditions in the world change, political leaders do not always
make the appropriate adjustments in their policies.
Since nuclear weapons are by far the most destructive and dangerous “toys” or tools of war
ever developed, it is of grave importance to the future well-being of the human race
to re-evaluate their purposes and functions in the light of the revolutionary changes
which have been occurring and continue to unfold in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
To briefly review the history of nuclear weapons and the rationale for developing them,
we find that the first atomic bomb research was conducted to counter the threat of
Nazi Germany and the possibility that they might explode a bomb.
After the Second World War was ended in Europe, two atomic bombs were used
by the United States against Japan to bring about a swift conclusion to the war in Asia.
After World War II there was no successful plan to eliminate nuclear weapons,
and in 1949 the Soviet Union began to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
From that time nuclear weapons were considered essential to the western powers
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in order to deter the Soviet Union
from invading western Europe or from expanding its Communist empire elsewhere.
Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968,
efforts have been made to limit the number of nations with a nuclear-weapon capability.
Article six of that treaty also calls for the nations with nuclear weapons
“to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation
of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,
and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament
under strict and effective international control.”
The obvious question that arises now, which the politicians seem to be ignoring, is:
Do we still need nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union from invading western Europe
or from expanding a Communist empire?
That the answer is no should be obvious from the changes that have occurred
since Mikhail Gorbachev has instituted and allowed the processes of openness and
democratization to occur in the Soviet Union to a great extent
and in particular in the nations of eastern Europe.
Since the startling changes of late 1989 the nations of the Warsaw Pact,
set up as an opponent to NATO, have each become independent from Soviet domination,
and in fact the Warsaw Pact has been recently dissolved altogether.
The idea of the Soviet Union invading western Europe now presupposes that
it would first have to reconquer eastern Europe.
It should be apparent to people that this is very unlikely.
Even more significant is how the policy of perestroika is changing the Soviet Union
from a Communist system toward one which embraces the workings of a free market system.
Furthermore with all its domestic economic problems the Soviet Union has not only
stopped promoting aggression toward revolutionary Communism in other countries,
it has even cut back support for its socialist allies such as Vietnam and Cuba.
Thus the fear that Marxist-Leninist revolution sponsored by the Soviet Union
will take over the world or any significant part of it is now hardly credible,
when the Soviet Union itself is moving so rapidly away from Marxist-Leninist Communism.
Now in the light of these changes I suggest that we ask ourselves very seriously
the question whether we and the rest of the human race will be better off
with the nuclear threat still in place, or whether the people of the United States,
the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world will all be better off
if we eliminate and dismantle all of these horrendous weapons.
The Soviet Union still has a massive nuclear arsenal in place,
and with the splintering and possible disintegration of its empire and possibly even
of its union of fifteen republics, into whose hands are these genocidal weapons
going to fall, if we allow them to continue to exist armed and ready to launch?
Gorbachev himself could be overthrown, and in the resulting chaos
it is very difficult to predict what kind of leaders will be thrown into power.
Do we want such leaders, whether of the Soviet Union as a whole or of its various states,
to have control over these massive weapons systems?
Wouldn’t we all be safer and more secure if the United States could agree
with the Soviet Union to eliminate all the nuclear weapons in the world?
In fact in 1986 Gorbachev made such a proposal to eliminate all nuclear weapons
by the year 2000, and a similar proposal made again at the Iceland summit was even
considered by President Reagan, though it was rejected,
because the United States was not willing to give up development of the
Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars).
Now with the Soviet Union clearly pulling out of eastern Europe,
isn’t it time to reconsider this?
The western countries with eastern Europe essentially on its side, not to mention
the meager support still remaining for Communism in the Soviet Union,
could quite easily deter and defend against any possible
conventional threat from the Soviet Union, which seems so unlikely now as to be absurd.
Surely the United States along with England, France, and now a united Germany
in NATO have ample forces to counter any non-nuclear threat coming from the east
or anywhere else for that matter.
No one has ever seriously argued that the nuclear arsenals are necessary in order
to intimidate other non-nuclear countries.
The recent Iraq war indicates the overwhelming military superiority the NATO nations
have over other countries without using any nuclear threats.
(Reducing conventional forces and arms sales in the world
is another issue and beyond the scope of this article.)
The long delays and reduced goals of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START)
have shown that either the leaders of the United States or of the Soviet Union
have been dragging their feet about even making these modest reductions
in the massively overbloated nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers.
The goal of 50% reductions has been lowered to 30%,
and the treaty has been delayed supposedly over wrangling about verification procedures.
Both superpowers still have all these weapons now without verification.
Why can’t we find a formula for the gradual reduction of all these weapons
with United Nations supervision and eventually with cooperation of
all the other nuclear nations such as England, France, China, India, Israel, etc.?
The economies of both the United States and the Soviet Union would be relieved
of the great burden of producing and deploying these obsolete weapons,
which pays millions of people salaries but provides nothing useful for either economy.
Some of these same millions of people could be paid to dismantle and clean up
the weapons and their paraphernalia, while others could be paid to do constructive work
needed by both societies, bringing about significant improvements in the quality of life.
Both superpowers are probably spending in excess of one hundred billion dollars
per year to maintain and advance these weapons which are not only obsolete if useless,
but threatening to the very survival of the human race if used.
How long will it take for the American people to wake up to the fact
that the threat of Communism has greatly diminished, but the nuclear threat,
which was intended to counter the Communist threat, is still a grave problem and,
with the disintegration of Soviet stability, perhaps even a more dangerous one,
unless we work to eliminate these horrendous weapons from the face of God’s earth?
What some politicians seem to believe:
* Superior military force can establish a New World Order.
* The United States can go to war with few casualties.
* Expensive advanced weapon technology pays off.
* The American people will support U.S. warmaking.
* The “Vietnam syndrome” is dead.
* War is an acceptable means of settling disputes.
* The United States has the right to police the world.
* The United Nations sanctions and supports U.S. war-making.
* Wealthy nations pay for U.S. wars.
* U.S. media is easily manipulated for propaganda.
* The peace movement is only a fringe of little effect.
* When the President pushes for war, Congress follows.
* Warmaking makes the President more popular.
* Celebrating military victories makes people feel good.
* The numbers of foreign dead are virtually ignored.
* Massive bombing of civilian support structures is tolerated.
* Undemocratic regimes favorable to the U.S. are protected.
* Western powers maintain control of major oil sources.
* A large military establishment is to be promoted.
What the Iraq war should teach us:
* War causes chaos and stimulates more violence.
* War disrupts lives and psychologically harms the killers.
* Arms sales to Iraq created a dangerous monster.
* American militarism is a sickness pervading most of society.
* Lessons of the Vietnam genocide still haven’t been learned.
* War makes things worse and does not establish justice.
* The U.S. has no right to arrogate police power to itself.
* The U.N. should not sanction the use of force by nations.
* The U.S. military should not be the world’s mercenaries.
* The media need more voices of dissent and critical thinking.
* The peace movement needs more organization and support.
* To avoid fascism, Congress must stand up to the President.
* Instead of celebrating, we should mourn death and destruction.
* Over 100,000 people have been killed needlessly.
* Bombing causes misery and is barbaric.
* Superwealthy monarchies do not justify war.
* Oil and its wealth need to be more justly distributed.
* Arms sales must be prohibited, and worldwide disarmament should be planned
and carried out with international safeguards.
* The military should be converted to the use of nonviolent methods of conflict resolution,
trained in communication and education skills
as well as how to give appropriate assistance to civilian needs.
* The United Nations should be revised or replaced by a more democratic
and more effective system of world law, so that international conflicts can be settled
by a judicial process and be made effective by nonviolent intervention
if necessary and alleviated by humanitarian services where needed.