Dear Peter:
You have made many points, I hesitate to say good points because I disagree
with some of them. Without going through all your comments, I would like to
keep this at a general brainstorming rather than a nitpicking exercise.
War exists. For many reasons - all of them justifiable to someone at
sometime at someplace. War in all it's manifestations is the negation of
the highest human ideals of family, community, safety, security and
humaness. It destroys property, lives, environment, hope and sanity. At
the end of the day, all wars end, so one might reasonably ask, if it is
going to end anyway, why not stop before it begins.
Reasons for war are many, but in most cases, there is oneindividual or
several holding some particular political power, or control of a resource,
or hereditary rights, who by using their position create the conditions by
which the rest of a citizenery are convinced - or forced into military
service and who do the actual fighting.
The obvious place of intervention is against the one or few. Not against
the military and citizenery in massive armed conflict. So what system,
organization, methodology can be imagined that would provide intervention
before we get to the state of armies and violence. I have postulated a
"police force" which you seem to negate as having within it vices that are
as bad or evil as war. I disagree.
For the sake of exploration, what other means than law and police might we
choose. Perhaps the religions of the world should submit a panel that looks
at various countries and their leadership and brings the full weight of
spiritual morality against a leader who is creating the conditions of war -
but then what, if there is no force to enforce that validation.
Perhaps, a Universal Agency which has the rights to meet with and dialog
with any ruler and challenge their assumptions and bring into the light of
public scrutiny their pathologys or in some cases legitimate reasons and the
weight of public opinion can be brought to bear on their thoughts and plans.
Perhaps a singular law against violence similar to the one in the Ten
Commandments - Thou shalt not kill, should be used as justification for
abeyance or removal from office of any leader so accused and found guilty.
Perhaps, wars should be settled by champions, ie David and Goliath contests
or by teams as it appears the Mayans did. Certainly more civilized than
modern war.
In the past many wars were caused by races, such as the Mongols or the Huns
or the Vikings, literally appearing from nowhere, determined to conquer. Or
by religous crusades whether Christian or Muslim. But now, we live in a
Global Village, short of an invasion from outer space, the communications of
the 20th Century eliminates those kinds of surprises.
Many wars were territorial, but all the territories of the world are now
filled, in fact even overpopulated by any reasonable standard. Would the
world allow territorial expansionist wars - I think not. Iran tried it, we
wouldn't let it, Serbia and Croatia tried it and we finally decreed that
genocide and ethnic cleansing for territorial expansion is no longer
acceptable.
Of course, the elimination of war would cause the greatest depression in
economic history - all those soldiers and military suppliers would have to
shed workers like crazy which would probably collapse our economic system.
But the irony of an economic system that can only exist by preparing for
war, fighting wars and recuperating from wars, from any objective viewpoint
has to indicate a mass psychological dysfunction.
Well, those are some of my thoughts
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
----------
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Marks)
>To: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: short article on pop. & devel.
>Date: Fri, Jul 16, 1999, 5:01 PM
>
> Thomas,
>
>> Given the carnage of war - the wasted use of resources - the brutalities of
>> ethnic cleansing, torture, concentration camps, I am willing to entertain
>> any suggestions except the one you postulate which is fear of change.
>
> We agree on the undesirability of the techniques and artifacts of war [we
> probably agree on many other things]. We just happen to disagree on the
> desirability of one particular tactic - an international police force - for
> eliminating them.
>
>> If we get to the point where we let slogans rule our lives, I prefer Jesus's
-
>> Love thy neightbour as you love yourself.
>
> Regardless of either of our preferences, I am convinced that Lord Acton's
> has (for good or bad) withstood the test of time better than most others.
>
>> Think of the ol west and the lawless frontier town with it's bully's,
>> drunkeness, gambling and prostitution. You elect a marshal - or appoint and
>> their job is to arrest and present a case for the court in which a judge
>> makes a decision as to whether a law has been broken.
>
> But these elected marshals have become the police forces that, among other
> things, forcibly break up seemingly legal strikes and political
> demonstrations, and generally ensure that the wealthy and powerful stay
> that way (or, usually, become more so).
>
>> What's so different about an international police force?
>
> That's exactly my point.
>
>> Milosovec breaks the international law - the police force is sent in to
apprehend him,
>> if his military tries to prevent this, the whole international community
>> contributes forces to overcome, challenge or face down the local military.
>> The bad guy is arrested, a case is prepared, a judge decides. War is
>> hopefully averted. If not, the war is created by the person charged trying
>> to evade arrest and the full force of the resources of the world are used to
>> enforce the laws of the world.
>
> Look back a little further than Kosovo, and you'll see that those police
> would have been continuously busy _and_ continually having to choose sides.
> What determines how they choose? What _should_ have happened in South
> Africa (during apartheid years)? What should have happened in Guatemala,
> Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, when the U.S. was supporting one not very
> civilized side in some "internal" dispute? Heck, what should have happened
> in the U.S. between Reconstruction and the civil rights movement?
>
>> Of course, in the ol frontier town, the brothel owner, the saloon keeper,
>> the bully rancher boss, did not want the law, but each of them individually
>> became less powerful against the resources of the community and when
>> necessary, vigilantes or a posse - acting as a citizens militia might have
>> to be invoked.
>
> We've been watching different movies. In mine (possibly unreleased) the
> brothel owner, saloon keeper, rancher boss, and monopoly shopkeeper (i.e.,
> the more successful local businessmen) hired the marshal.
>
>> To continue to allow government leaders to borrow a country into financial
>> servitude while loading up their Swiss bank accounts, or to tyranize a
>> portion of their citizenry must be considered a violation of the rights of
>> citizens and those who do this must be held accountable. Once it is
>> stopped, then we will wonder why it was not done sooner.
>
> I think an international police would exacerbate precisely this. Isn't one
> of the main uses of police and courts to enforce contracts (including,
> specifically, debt collection, however distasteful the debt)?
>
> Speaking of "fear of change", it's not that I hate or fear the police, but
> I do see one valid view of their societal function as precisely that of
> discouraging change (i.e., enforcing existing law under existing
> interpretation within existing power relationships). Here's the really
> frightening thought (and not one that I would embrace easily): it may be
> that actual war is typically a _necessary_ step to effect significant
> political change! Although I think the vast majority of people reject
> "might makes right" as a moral principle, unfortunately not all of the
> mighty do.
>
> P-)
> --
> ___o - o Peter Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> _-\_<, - _\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072
> (*)/ (*) - (*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks
> ------------------------------
> If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
>
> PS: And anyway, if the US won't pay its UN dues when it doesn't like
> something the UN does (or doesn't do), how is this IPF going to happen?
>
