Human Elimination of Mechanical Disaster

Is it not so that the longer we wait to ban nuclear weapons the more dangerous becomes the threat of nuclear weapons use? The danger we know increases through appropriation by terrorist groups and through proliferation, but even more so through inaction. It is clear that the forces working in the world are not going to wait for us or be stalled as their speed is increasing every day. We did not plan or anticipate the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon or the movements towards democracy in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. These events are not our accomplishments but the results of movements, subtle and unseen, that enter the equation without our notice or better without our being fully conscious of their existence.

If we assume a globalizing and uniting movement (with or without our conscious and willing participation), we immediately see the examples. The European Union, WTO, peacekeeping, globalization, democratization, internet are positive examples. Terrorism, climate change and disasters are the negative examples of an unifying world.

We can also observe it from the point of view of the evolution of violence. We started with killing in hunting and fighting for survival and evolved to fight for domination. In the next stage we evolved to the strategy of competition. We note that the previous stages did not disappear with the movement to the next level or stage. We are now at a point of a true paradigm shift as Jasgit has been writing. The next step in the evolution of violence is into the stage of cooperation where for the first time the success of one side is no loss for the other side. Cooperation or collaboration is a strategy and method where both sides win and create more than the sum of the parts.

Cooperation in the EU has led to the European Army.[1] It is not unimaginable that the European Army will evolve to include even the cooperation of Russia and the countries around the Mediterranean sea. An effective African Army is in the process of being organized. India and China are making attempts to collaborate in trade issues, etc. The world is uniting through trade, economic unification and making war obsolete.

We can hasten and enforce this movement of worldwide unification by joining that movement in the field of defense and security. The rational and inevitable outcome in the evolution of violence is the end of violence in so many of its forms. The physical symbol of the global end of violence will be a World (Peace) Army.

Very few people in the world believe a World (Peace) Army is even a remote possibility. But when we look closely, it is a rational outcome. In our realm of elimination of nuclear weapons and WMD it is a plausible solution. Without a World Army to control them might be a very long shot. We all agree that a further development of nuclear weapons is not sensible nor practical, but our arguments lack strength. [2] A World Army is the most powerful signal and instrument to show that we the world is totally serious about the end of use of violence against human beings. So even when we think that a World Army does not belong to the world of possibilities, it carries a merit that should force us to take the option seriously. If we agree that it is a practical solution to the threat of nuclear weapons and WMD, we have to enquire in possible scenarios that can bring it about.

One of the factors that will hasten the process is the emerging individual. The USA became the leader of the world because the Americans are more individualistic than any other people. This process of individualizing is accelerated through the internet. As the previous century was one of the common man, this century will be the century of the (empowered) individual. In society we are seeing that power is diversifying, moving from centralized points to uncentralized power. The power now invested and in the hands of governments, companies will gradually move to the individual, under pressure of that same individual. We see the emergence of ‘socially responsible and sustainable’ entrepreneurship, where companies have to make public their policies and intentions with respect to the environment, human rights, health and wellbeing. A comprehensive standardization will make comparisons and gradation possible. The same can be extended to ‘socially responsible and sustainable’ politics, where politicians and parties can be graded and indexed by result and accomplishment (which will also be a counterforce to short-term politics). Public pressure can be a constructive mechanism to improve the performance of companies and governments.

For the public to take up the cause of World Peace it needs a guiding light and a representation. If we look at the polls of who we trust Science comes out at the top. Science represents truthfulness and sincerity of purpose. And is this not what we need: truthfulness and sincerity in politics? Is not one of the causes of the present problem of terrorism the perceived lack of sincerity in the victims? We are still using power politics to further our cause, but this strategy is counter productive as it can only provoke the opposing party. What provocation can result in is shown in Robert McNamara’s article where Fidel Castro was prepared to act resulting in the sure total destruction of his island.

A simple and effective strategy is based on sincerity as sincerity cannot provoke, nor can it be opposed. It takes away one of the causes of terrorism and it will reinforce trust in our societies. And trust we need for limitless economic growth.

And then we come to the questions. Is WAAS not the right institute to promote the cause of World Peace? Is WAAS prepared to be the pioneer, the instrument to present a strategy of sincerity and truthfulness to the World Powers?

[1] Not many people might be aware that the Dutch do not have a national army anymore. Our army has virtually merged with the German army, said Rob de Wijk in New Delhi.

[2] Especially now that the USA is not favoring the inclusion of other countries in the UN Security Council, it is actually giving those countries incentives to develop more power to force the issue in their favor at a later stage.