Saturday, October 6, 2012

Collective Security Treaty

Collective Security, Genocide, and Human Rights Agreement: All of the people listening here today have contributed in some way in trying to end a terrible war. The war is not over and the world is not safe. It is not the end, it is perhaps, the beginning of the end. We do not live in a world where the future is already decided, the future depends on what you do today. There may be a thousand permutations of possibility leading to the future for ourselves and our children. A myriad of doors are open and the ones that we walk through today determine the future. What all people everywhere are faced with is a cascade of events that have led us to a turning point of epic proportions. Our actions are now magnified wherein small decisions made or not made now can set in motion a cascade of events, that lead to larger and larger outcomes, for both good or bad. The actions of free individuals working together now can have a greater impact on future events than at anytime in living memory. Utopian views of humanity or Utopian views of the future are unrealistic and destined to fail, but without a concerted effort for a brighter and safer tomorrow, events may lead to a default world that is undesirable and perhaps worse than can currently be imagined. The basic idea is to begin a conversation about what kind of world we want to live in, and to take bold measures to make it happen. Social engineering can be just and successful if the measures to be taken are part of a consensus that is mutually beneficial and arrived at with agreement by 70% or more of national and international populations. Only initiatives that make sense and are attractive to the man on the street will work. Likewise if Utopian views of humanity are taken as fact and unrealistic expectations are institutionalized then terrible things may occur. Having said this it is inescapable that the future will arrive, but it is up to us to strive to make it one that we can live with. The future belongs to those who plan for it. The Battle for Hegemony: For hundreds of years there has been a battle between nations for supremacy. For Centuries Spain, France and England were contending, with Spain supreme in the beginning, then France had the upper hand, and finally England emerged as the leading world power in the 1800's. In the 20th Century England was devastated after the two world wars as were the other colonial powers. America and the Soviet Union began their long struggle for supremacy known as the Cold War. The US basically won when the USSR went broke and the US became the lone world super power. Very rapidly, economic reversals and military stalemates in small wars may have brought the political class in the US up against the hard reality that the age of empires was passing away or had already passed. This idea of a post empirical world is not universally held but certain facts can not longer be ignored. The US has the most powerful military technology and presently has no immediate rivals for military supremacy. However, one nation with less than 5% of the world population cannot sustain military and economic hegemony for very long if at all. America began as the original anti-colonial nation which defeated the world's greatest super power in a guerilla war two hundred and thirty years ago. The people of the US have historically had no taste for foreign intrigue and empire but the political and financial elites have had a hard time saying no to foreign conquest for the sake of wealth, power, and the usual motivations that drive men to want more than they can put into their mouths at one time. The people of the US have historically seen the role of US military might as the world policeman, protecting freedom from tyranny and protecting the weak from the strong. If along the way the resources and wealth of nations fell at the feet of domestic industry then it was only a happy accident. Foreign intervention was either driven by our role as a protector of the weak or less admirable motives, suffice it to say, stuff happened along the way. America was not entirely without self interest, but in a world without a robust US, the last 100 years might have been disastrous for western civilization, and the human rights the world holds so dear. The US and USSR were armed with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that neither side dared to use, or a world wide conflagration would result. Instead the two great powers faced off through proxy wars in dozens of small countries, starting revolutions, counter revolutions, and civil wars that raged for generations. The entire Third World became a battlefield of one sort or another. The human toll of the post colonial era may have added up to one hundred million deaths by the end of the contest. It would have been better not to have fought the dozens of small wars by proxy but the battle was a battle for world domination at whatever cost. Had this desperate battle, between men who would stop at nothing to win, have been lost, then Europe and much of the globe would have stagnated for generations. Anyone who has ever traveled to a "workers paradise" in the Communist era would agree. The US was not without fault or censure for errors of action and omission but on the whole the American Century has been a very positive outcome for humanity. The present state of affairs in economic and military affairs is becoming more precarious and unstable. What is wanting today is a smooth transition to a new paradigm because nature abhors a vacuum. President Woodrow Wilson was an academic who saw the necessity of the League of Nations and the necessity of transitioning from a Colonial world to one where the emerging nations would at least have a say in their own destiny. The American idealist proposed his fourteen points to the world and the man on the street agreed, but their leaders lived in a world of real politic. The Colonial powers clung to a stubborn peace that caused famine among the enemy and the continued subjugation of those peoples deemed too inferior to manage their own affairs. The Colonial powers poured more money into their foreign holdings than they collected, but a powerful minority did reap the benefits, and foreign possessions were integral to how these nations saw themselves, as great powers on the world stage. Wilson tried to instigate a just peace, join the League of Nations, and slowly transition to a post Colonial period...but he failed. If Wilson's vision of a just peace, a fully functional League of Nations, and the gradual, step wise end of Colonial subjugation had been realized, then the 20th Century would have looked quite different. The continuation of the Great War might not have happened, the League might have worked better, and the Colonial wars of liberation would have been unnecessary. In total the two great wars cost more than 75 million lives and the wars in the second half of the century probably cost about 100 million lives. The record of treasure expended is not so clear, but must be accounted for as well. It is conceivable that WWII would not have occurred, and the small wars of Third World nationalism would not have happened, or at least they would not have cost more blood and treasure than WWI and WWII combined...which they eventually did. One could argue that all could not have gone so smoothly and that nations and humanity would have found something else to fight about, and all that may be true...But lancing the boil of WWII and Vietnam, and a host of other small wars could not have been a bad thing. Had Wilson succeeded in translating his vision, universal peace would probably not have broken out over the next 100 years, but they would have had to try harder to find another reason to kill each other off by the hundreds of millions. The 20th Century is a history written in blood and the 21st Century is staring us in the face. What is advocated here is, like President Wilson, we propose our version of the 14 Points and rally around the cause of peace built upon a new paradigm. First, we must avoid Utopian views of Mankind and the urge to form a one world government. People and nations desire independence of outside control, and a single world state could easily become a dictatorship. The main enemies of peace are the leaders of nations who make decisions to attack their neighbors, their own populations, and to build new weapons of mass destruction for these purposes. The central idea is to affect the mental calculus of national leaders and dissuade them from making these kinds of decisions for personal or national advantage. Rules must be agreed upon that will stop the strong from taking over the weak. Minority populations within countries must be protected from elimination actions such as ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide. Finally, the world wide arms race in nuclear and conventional weapons must be ended. The manner of formation and interpretation of these rules shall be a world court, a judicial body to interpret and order enforcement of the basic rules. The means of enforcement of this collective security must be real and as such must be a military force comprised of member nations capable of robust military action to enforce the judgments of the court. Without enforcement power all rules and laws are just words and pieces of paper. It is not the first time this kind of idea has been tried, and if it fails it will not be the first time either. If we succeed then the wealth of nations may be spent upon science and human health and well being, other than weapons of greater and greater destructive power. If we should fail, well then at least when Humanity sits among scattered areas of nuclear waste lands in 100 years, millions or even billions have died, and the earth lies in shambles, we can have the satisfaction of calling from the grave, "I told you so". All joking aside, and in all sincerity we must try for the smooth transition that failed 100 years ago and we must succeed. Failure is not an option because WWI fought with nuclear weapons represents a disaster for Humanity so profound, it can scarcely be contemplated. 100 Ritual Schools of Thought Contend: The concept of a multipolar world made up of many nations that are regional powers and who hold aspirations for global leadership appears to be the new reality. Already in the new century one sees China and India as emerging rivals while China aids Pakistan to build nuclear weapons in an alliance against India. Brazil, Turkey, and other emergent powers are contemplating acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. This new dynamic recalls the situation in Europe exactly 100 years ago when many nations held such aspirations and they formed interlocking alliances predicated on the concept of mutual defense. Stated simplistically, when one nation attacked another the entire set of alliances drew all nations into a cataclysmic war that destroyed everything that had come before. The US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman and this is probably no longer desirable anyway. It can be proven that war is the natural state of humanity merely because that is what has always occurred. It is self evident that in the whole history of civilization there has only been a brief period of peace. Every new invention produced by the hand of man has first been turned not into a plow but into a sword. It is foolish to attempt to argue otherwise. When one looks at nature herself one sees conflict and the bloody struggle for survival dictated by the law of the jungle, the law of tooth and claw. Having noted this fact who could argue otherwise. Nature, if one peers deeper, does not in fact show us a bloody massacre at every turn. The males of the species, name any of them, battle for the position of dominance and the right to mate and sire offspring, but they contest in a ritual manner and when the loser is vanquished it is not to the grave, but merely to a lower rank within the group of males. Nature in her wisdom has decided that the males should contest with intensity and bravado, but not to the point of death or to mass slaughter. Such an outcome would be biologically wasteful, unwise, and self defeating. This rule holds as true for the common wild turkey as it does for the majestic lion. To contest until there is a slaughter en mass has been left to humans alone. Man is not the animal that laughs, he is the animal that makes war. Even though nature has frowned upon the idea, man has seen fit to institutionalize war and hold it high. It has always been with us and so it may always be with us until such time that the world is destroyed. There is no other conclusion in the age of nuclear weapons and even more devious and terrible inventions lurking on the horizon, and just beneath the surface. The world wide arms race is the never ending contest to invent such powerful weapons that no one would dare think to start a war. The problem is they always do start a war. Weapons labs and scientists with unlimited funds and time are driving us toward the day of the doomsday weapon and that day is closer than you think. Perhaps if war were a ritualized endeavor that was a contest between elites, like the lords and knights of old, or a contest within certain parameters that constrained the slaughter while settling the dispute, then war might not consume the world entire. One suspects that such a new ritual could only hold for a finite period of time before the advantage of maximum force dictated someone must cheat and begin again where we had recently left off. Thousands of years ago men chose kings but they were not the kings that we know today. The ancient kings were chosen as temporary totem figures, men who reflected the forces of nature. When drought hit the land sympathetic magic dictated that the king be bathed five times a day and be made to drink water prodigiously to appease nature and bring back the life giving rain. If a deluge of rain swamped their crops they behaved the opposite. The king was forbidden to bathe and allowed only enough water to sustain life itself. In short the king was a conduit to the powers of the universe, but he was like a totem doll, not a supreme ruler. If the drought continued they might eventually banish him or drown their king as a sacrifice to stave off starvation for the whole of the people. Eventually the king would be sacrificed, regardless of his utility, as a means of placating an angry and vengeful God. The original kings were allowed license for only a brief time and then sacrificed. It was bargaining with nature, plain and simple. If we give you this man's life then you might spare the whole of the people the terrible fate of disease and starvation for one more year. This use of a ritual king continued until one year a king who was more clever and fortunate than his predecessors decided that he, the king, should appoint another to be sacrificed in his place. He walked among the people and chose a perfect child, divine in origin, or so he said, to go in his place. The king remained in his seat of temporary power year after year while others went in his stead. In this way the ritual to appease the Gods was twisted into the form of king we recognize today. The king is merely a ritual sacrifice who outsmarted us all. Perhaps it was time for centralized leadership and this was an advantage to the people that before had not been necessary. Suffice it to say that ritual has been tried before and it would only last until the advantage to cheat was too great not just for one man but for many ambitious men. Now we are brought back to the face of the present dilemma. If no ritual form of war will hold then what hope is there for a world soon to be groaning under the weight of ten billion souls, all packed into nations armed with weapons of mass destruction for which there is no defense. These overpopulated nations armed with aspirations and nuclear weapons will seek to turn the wrath of a hungry, thirsty, and angry people outward towards foreign enemies. Nations go to war with each other for many reasons, because they have been historical enemies, enmity between leaders, economic advantage, fear of being attacked, fear of their own people, dreams of epic conquest and eternal glory by their leaders, in short, ego. These and a host of other reasons often find their root in the leaders themselves. The nation state makes war when the leader or leaders decide to go to war. It is not a traffic accident, it is a voluntary choice. In addition to wars across national borders there are internal power struggles that become civil wars along the lines of ideology, race, religion, class, or more often a mixture. In addition to full fledged war there are the crimes against internal populations such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the widespread torture and assassination of political enemies that most despots and dictators by definition engage in. In fact it is likely that nearly half of all nations take aim at domestic enemies whom they arrest, torture, and murder at will. Today the internal bloodletting exceeds the external and is the future defacto mode of the modern state. The rise of technological power mirrors the rise of rulers who kill all their internal enemies and potential enemies before most of the targets even realize that they are potential enemies. The 21st Century is about to invent the unbreakable technological dictatorship foreseen by George Orwell and Aldus Huxley, and it must be stopped. These must all be addressed in a coherent manner that is not Utopian but in a manner that dissuades, reduces, and finally abolishes these actions of mass murder. It is probable that these internal conflicts and activities may consume more lives than all the external wars in the next Century. In all these calamities named above there is a leadership and a group of people who are invested economically in the decisions to go to war or to commit mass murder. The rules of the road should address their calculations about why they wage war and kill, and seek to influence this calculation to make such actions less likely to yield the results they seek, profit and power. The despot must know that war and hit lists of domestic enemies will instead add up to hardship and imprisonment and death. The goal is to identify the enemies of humanity as those leaders and leaderships who war and kill and to separate them from their base population and their co-conspirators. To cut them out of the herd and to bind and neutralize them. This standard method and eventual fate of criminal leadership will make the calculations of future leaders more certain that the path of war, mass murder, and political torture and assassination leads nowhere. First there have to be rules and mechanisms to enforce those rules. Second there have to be examples of those leaders and their cohorts who crossed the line and have paid the ultimate price. It is very likely that a few small wars against criminal regimes will be necessary to make the point that executive criminality is futility. At the risk of echoing Orwell, a few small wars will lead to peace...if we're lucky. To avoid large conflicts one must start at the bottom, the smallest nations and the most criminal of leaders. It will be argued that this is merely the tyranny of large nations over small states and some or many of the larger nations are guilty of the same crimes. The answer to that is yes, it is picking on the small nations, small nations run by tyrants who are bleeding their own people dry until they wither into skeletons and blow away. Do not feel sorry for these men. The method is to begin at the art of the possible and perfect this art of tyrant sanctioning and destruction and nation building upon a small canvas. Picasso did not start with Guernica. Yes, many of the larger nations leaders are guilty of the same crimes, but how many firing squads can a man attend before he gives up murder. There are 200 nations and if several nations a year are regularly divested of their despotic and violent tormentors, then in one or two generations even some of the biggest bullies on the block will think twice, or even thrice. That hesitation is exactly what our goal should be, and in the end, in twenty years, or forty years, the rules of the road will become enshrined in the minds, if not the hearts of men. The quickest path to failure is to be too ambitious too soon. Be content with freeing the captive populations of small nations and like the business specialist who buys failing companies, reforms them by cutting the waste, promoting the good, and sharing the wealth borne of hard labor, so too might nations within a generation or less feed their own people, educate the children of the poor along with the children of the rich, and cease to spill blood to decide the questions that elections are made to answer. Choose the places where success is easiest, at the bottom, and move forward from there. If this sounds Utopian then one must be forced to admit the following. Without new rules in place to guide the international community, hundreds of millions of people will be murdered in conflicts both internal and external. This means mostly civilians who will be killed by the military of foreign governments and by their own government. (The majority of war dead are civilians) War has not gone out of fashion in the 21st Century and the crimes of the last Century will be repeated. A WWI type scenario fought with nuclear weapons seems more and more likely every day. The United States and the West will be left to clean up the insurmountable mess, that is if they survive. The peace will be finite and more nuclear exchanges will follow the first. Should the current great powers emerge as victors they will be destroyed financially, politically, and spiritually. Their time of relevance will have passed. Out of the numerous genocide type events since 1945, none of them have been prevented even after the signing of enough agreements against genocide to wall paper a house. The United Nations was meant to save us from this fate of genocide and aggressive war, but it has so far failed. One reason the UN has failed is that it represents the rights of nation states above those of individuals, and in the age of the coming technological dictatorship the rights of individuals are more in jeopardy than ever before. World Court and International Bill of Rights: Clearly a different plan is needed. A new international convention on war, genocide, and human rights is in order. A collective military force composed of divisions from member nations should be created that will periodically practice together and is robust enough to defeat a determined foe. In short, the collective whole must be, generally speaking, greater than any one of it's parts. The mandate for the use of this new collective armed force is to guarantee the existing borders of member states ONLY. This means that if Iraq invades Kuwait the international force is required by treaty to use force to expel the hostile force and return the borders to their previous location. This mandate alone, enforcing previously agreed upon borders, is the sole mission of the collective armed force and these ground forces may not be used for any other reason. Great care should be taken not to allow the world to be split into opposing camps over this international limited use of force. The net result should eventually be a seventy (70) nation army prepared to defend the border security and border integrity of all member nations. This organization will preclude the necessity of any one nation being the international peace keeper for the entire world. It will fill the void left by the US, and in practice will protect the weak nations from being absorbed by the strong ones. Nations with large standing armies eventually through mutual agreement shift to a home defense posture in the absence of the need to project large forces over great distances with a fully functional international force. This process will take place by mutual agreements to reduce gross military budgets by 5% a year for five years, followed by a few years of consolidation and verification and then continuation of the same process. This type of environment will not be easy to establish, but if the largest military in the world follows through then the momentum and convention will be established. What is being argued for is not unilateral disarmament, which was tried in the 1920's and when Japan and Germany rearmed openly without hindrance the war began again. Economic self interest and assertive populations must demand adherence from their leaders. There must be a mechanism for dealing with those who cheat that make this advantage unattractive. Let us sidestep the disarmament enforcement issue for a moment and acknowledge that preserving borders is very much akin to fighting the last war. Open war across borders may not be the biggest problem in the next Century. Definitions: Genocide and elimination type events wherein heads of state mass murder their own citizens are more easily addressed. The international community will place a multimillion dollar bounty, dead or alive, on the head of a national leader who uses genocide and mass murder as an instrument of state power. Government ministers and generals may have multimillion dollar bounties as well. A special fund and special international court will be established for this purpose. The court will use and build upon the Nuremburg Code and definitions to determine when these definitions apply to national leaders and their functionaries. The definitions will be expanded to protect domestic political opponents from elimination actions as well as internal populations such as indigenous people and minorities. Any head of state who engages in such actions against their own citizens is an enemy of humanity and will be treated as such. Member nations will be required to detain all suspect criminals and curtail all related economic activity. Those who follow the rules and economically isolate the foe will receive just compensation from the member states. Military force along the lines of the air campaign used in Yugoslavia may be used to actively stop an ongoing genocide by attacking the hostile military force or it's proxy. The limitation about using the full military might of member nations should remain in place to avoid splitting up the alliance and over reaching by the court. Potential criminal heads of state will make the political calculation that genocide and elimination actions such as ethnic cleansing are not going to pay off if they face the certainty of economic sanction, limited military force, and eventual prosecution by the international court, or arrest and even assassination by their own people. An international bill of rights will enshrine the rights of all people to basic human rights including the rights of free speech and the right to assemble for the peaceful redress of grievances and other peaceful political activity and any head of state who violates those rights or allows their government to violate these rights individually or in a gross systematic manner such as unlawful imprisonment, torture, or murder of their citizens is subject to prosecution by the special court. The provisions for political rights lead to the use of court action against the government leaders but not limited military actions unless the sheer scale of repression crosses the clear lines the court sets for genocide, elimination actions, and related crimes. Limited military actions against an ongoing genocide, elimination action, or related event will be at the discretion of the world court and only arrived at with due deliberation and caution. Since the definitions of genocide and elimination actions are often flexible and seem to be applied to all manner of crimes, it may be necessary to put an arbitrary number upon the deed. Initially it is better not to act and preserve the unity of the members than to act when the lines are not clearly crossed. Much will depend upon the wisdom and independent nature of the court. These international conventions will protect small nations, vulnerable minority populations, and political activists from destruction by the power of state leaders who wish to use force and mass murder against their weaker neighbors and internal political opponents. The international military force will probably have to demonstrate their resolve to use force to enforce existing borders, but after these first few military actions have taken place and been successful in their limited mandate it will be clear to future aggressors that violating international borders and invading neighbor countries is a road that leads nowhere. Likewise once the aggressive use of limited military force has been used to stop genocide, elimination actions, ethnic cleansing, and the criminal heads of state and government ministers have been turned into the international court during economic hardship for the reward and arrested or assassinated by their own people, then future potential genocides will be avoided. Mediation by the court of persistent conflicts and border disputes will ideally diffuse potential future conflicts. How I Learned to Hate the Bomb: Nuclear disarmament will preclude a large scale exchange triggered by events similar to those of WWI. The collective security paradigm will come about in stages. First, Nations will join the international force by certifying their borders with their neighbors, then supplying a division(s), depending on their population. Nations will agree to defend international borders without exception, and in principle, to begin mutual defense spending reductions in future years, and eventual mutual nuclear disarmament. Member nations agree to contribute to the mutual defense and abide by the decisions of the World Court. Second, Mediation of existing military conflicts and border disputes will go before the special court and will be decided there under binding arbitration rules. Third, Signatory nations will agree in the future to fund and staff the special court with nine internationally recognized jurists and to fund bounties placed upon criminal heads of state judged to be enemies of humanity. They will agree to arrest all such persons within their borders and exclude economic ties with such persons and their dependents or agents. They will support limited military attacks such as air campaigns to stop genocide when called upon by the special court and supply the mutual defense forces to do so. There is no mandate for the military overthrow or invasion of a nation, rather they will exist to protect existing borders, enforce economic blockades, arrest criminal leaders, and in the extreme cases when necessary to use air power to slow or stop a genocide or related action. The ultimate target of military force and economic embargo must be the criminal leadership, and wholesale invasion of a nation does not fit this paradigm. If an extreme case is at hand then a unanimous vote by all member nations will authorize invasion of a nation but only as a last resort. The members must remain united or a split will form that will set off a new chain of events that the conventions seek to avoid, and a new arms race. Fourth, Nations will agree to honor the international bill of rights to protect lawful speech and lawful political activity within their own borders. Nations will release all persons designated as political prisoners, and in return all past violations of human rights MAY be waved by the special court by mutual agreement. Fifth, nuclear disarmament will take place in stages once all major nuclear nations join. Nations with many thousands of weapons will reduce to two hundred total. Nations with hundreds will reduce to ten, and the rest will reduce to one only. The next step is to place the nuclear fuel supply under international control, from mining to enrichment and fuel production, to decommissioning and waste storage and disposal. The new international consortium will be in charge of all future construction and operation of nuclear power. An international corps will be charged with design and operation of all nuclear power plants of a standardized design and be charged with securing all nuclear materials. The international corps will take the form of a government and private industry consortium with shares held by construction firms and governments. After the new entity is operational the nuclear nations will eliminate all existing stocks save the two largest, which will be dismantled and placed under international control until the devices expire due to natural deterioration (40-50yrs). If any nation manages to break the treaty and begins building nuclear weapons the treaty nations at the direction of the court may reassemble the remaining nuclear devices and use them if necessary to stop the emergent nuclear threat. All member nations will allow weapons inspections in all instances and in all locations. Finally, All nations who wish to may agree to the first four of these aspects of mutual law but any nation that wishes to remain within the mutual security agreement MUST agree to ALL FIVE of these aspects within TEN (10) YEARS time from the start of membership. Member nations are not bound to protect non-member nations from invasion but they are bound to support the provisions dealing with genocide and related crimes. Home Defense: These agreements will not change the world overnight, but when entered into in combination with economic development programs the synergy of economic and military cooperation will create advantages for members that other nations and their citizen populations will find desirable. It is estimated that the Cold War spending on weapons cost the US an amount of money equal to all the collective contents of the US except for the value of the land itself. Current defense and intelligence spending in the US amounts to nearly half of every dollar spent by the government. The planned reductions in defense spending world wide will be translated into non-defense spending on the new humanitarian and scientific initiative. By agreement the first five years will see defense spending cut by 25%. It is then advisable to begin to slowly transform armed forces into home defense style forces designed to engage in defensive action with the exception of those units designated for mutual defense. Nations may require military training for all citizens who reach legal age, but the investment of state funds in large scale weapons systems for home defense will be discouraged and ultimately prohibited. Expensive weapons systems necessary for collective defense will be designated and developed by mutual consent of member states. Those national leaders who cheat will be identified and sanctioned by the world court and suffer economic sanction and if necessary legal sanction of their leaders. One aspect of the scientific and humanitarian initiative is the drive to increase the health, longevity, education, and internal stability of national populations in developing nations to near parity with those of the developed world. It is necessary to have a mechanism for the people of failed states to exert their collective will to participate, even in environments controlled by hostile corrupt leadership. Hostile and corrupt leadership depend upon control of state or privately owned communications to manufacture consent for war and other aggressive actions. It will be necessary to put into place a world wide wireless broadband internet to void control of state communications that historically have been used to motivate populations towards war and genocide. Such an all encompassing communications medium will break the hold of propaganda programs that depend upon exclusive control of the message about matters as weighty as war and peace. An open source wireless broadband that requires only a modem and CRT screen to participate in the global discussion and marketplace will break the back of state controlled propaganda that often drive people to make war and participate in elimination actions. The free and open flow of information helps create a global consensus and fosters trade with regions historically outside of world trade. Plebiscite: The international community (instructed by the court) may hold a vote within any nation with a life expectancy in the bottom 50% of nations by agreement, or if not allowed to by a hostile government, then by electronic means such as by cell phone or wireless broad band with a majority (50%) of the population of age participating in the vote. If 70% of the people voting (out of at least 50% of the citizens) vote to participate in the new initiative then a mechanism for making that state a ward of the international community should be set into motion and the existing government hierarchy and ruling elite should be peacefully persuaded with monetary inducements and potential sanctions to allow a caretaker government to be appointed by the international community and the nation building program with clear numerical goals of a known methodology and duration be set in motion. The world court may employ an ambassador for this purpose and the development contract must be very specific about goals and time tables. The contract may evolve with a national consensus on targets for life expectancy, standard of living, population targets, ecological conservation, and agricultural and industrial development goals. The ambassador will submit example contracts for discussion and consensus by the entire population that evolves into a consensus contract ratified by at least 70% of the people. Any nation with a life expectancy that is 80% of the world average is immune from such an externally supplied plebiscite but may hold such a vote internally if they so desire. Smaller dysfunctional nations are the logical choice for such peaceful intervention and any nation with a population over 100 million is also immune from external plebiscite. It is probable that collective security and the new initiative will take a few generations to reach a tipping point, that is if the errors can be ironed out and enough momentum gained that the ultimate goals of peace and prosperity appear to be attainable. Choosing the first battles and the first national projects carefully will allow time to grow the staff and expertise necessary to succeed over the long term. Choosing the nine international jurists from among member nations is the most important step. It will be done by mutual agreement and those established judges from stable independent judiciaries will be submitted by their peers and those with the most votes will be chosen to form the first body. The basis for voting for jurists will be the written judicial decisions of the jurists during their careers. Since the developed nations will be supplying the expertise and resources these nations will choose the first court body based upon the size of their contribution to the new initiative. Decisions of the nine member court will be made by a majority vote. Choosing corrupt or incompetent judges will mean the court is fated to fail, while the choice of wise, cautious, and fair personalities will mean domestic peace and tranquility. After 20 years the court may expand the number of judges by two every ten years if it so desires. The number of judges shall not exceed 21. The new jurists and replacements will be chosen universally among the member states from a list submitted by the community of jurists, with very small member states with populations below ten million will have one vote each. Nations with populations up to one hundred million will have two votes and nations with over one hundred million will have three votes. Nations with over three hundred million souls will have four votes. Bribes paid to influence the vote will disqualify the nation involved from participation for ten years time. Judges serve for life and may be removed by a unanimous vote of their peers on the court or by a three fourths majority (75%) vote of member states. All deliberations, opinions, and votes will be made public in writing within a reasonable period of their completion. Rash and unwise rulings or unjust use of military force will result in a breakdown of the international force and refusal of member nations to participate. Human Constructs Fail: Evil men will still rule nations but their actions will be constrained by the possible consequences of judgments by the court of violations of law such as waging aggressive war, and being the recipients of personal legal sanction, economic penalty, and limited military action. It is certain that member nations will be tested from time to time. People act in their own self interest so it is only when leaders and citizens believe that these cooperative agreements and joint projects pay dividends to them personally will they be enthusiastic signatories to these agreements and initiatives. All human constructs are artificial and thus prone to failure, but if the use of force is made in a limited and conservative manner on a case by case basis and is neither too ambitious in application nor too hesitant as to be perceived as ineffective, then these agreements will over time have the desired effect of greater international peace and prosperity without creating a world super state, while preserving the rights of individuals and individual nations to self rule and self determination. The basic political unit of expression and action is the individual and not the state. The desired function of the world court is to harmonize and pacify relations between nation states and mediate conflicts. The court will ideally protect the rights of vulnerable individuals from the abuse of state power by national leaders. The potential targets of legal action by the court are the criminal leaders and leadership of nations. Dictators by definition engage in the violation of human rights and will gradually be made less viable in a new political environment created by the court. Captive populations will vote for freedom and humanitarian aid. Free and fair elections potentially provide a continuous change in leadership according to the wish of the people and make armed revolt and civil war unnecessary. The use of state power to subjugate the individual and by extension subjugate entire national populations and enslave or murder them has become more easy with the increasing power of technology in the 21st Century. A mechanism to curtail this power and stop hundreds of millions of innocent civilians from being murdered for political and economic gain is necessary. It is hoped that the crimes of the previous hundred years will not be repeated and that an international court will be able to stabilize and harmonize the world community without creating divisions among member nations or creating an all powerful world government that could itself be used as a means of political, military, and economic subjugation. The use of legal sanction, limited force, and plebiscite have the potential to slowly transform the family of nations in terms of their economic, social, and political development. The creation of a collective defense paradigm and the end of the world wide arms race make it possible to displace military spending as the driving economic and political force among nations. The first ten years will witness the rise of collective security, a world court, international control of nuclear energy, nuclear weapons reductions, and the beginning of a humanitarian and scientific initiative on the path to end disease and hunger, and to preserve the planetary ecology. Over time the character of these institutions may change for the worst. Should the future treaty mechanisms and relations between treaty nations become so toxic and dysfunctional that the court and conventions no longer work to the benefit of the people of many nations, then there should be a means by which the treaty may be dissolved by mutual consent of the majority (75%) and reformed along lines that are mutually advantageous to the majority of parties. One More Thing: The glaring problem of instigating new governments in developing countries runs head long into the previous paradigm. International debt was engineered as a means of controlling developing nations and trading their mineral wealth for payment on the interest of debts that were created by giving loans of incredible size to dictators in the 70's and 80's that were never meant to be paid back. Instead of controlling the world with occupation armies and colonial possessions held in military bondage, developed nations used eternal debt as a means of forever holding subject nations in a kind of perpetual slavery through debt. The mineral wealth of these nations was extracted by installing a friendly regime and giving them enormous bribes in exchange for exclusive rights for looting the mineral wealth of the nation. The debtor nations could never hope to pay back the principle and in effect used their renewable and nonrenewable resources in trade to pay the interest. Whenever they were in danger of defaulting the IMF would step in and give them a loan in return for tightening their belts, which is a euphemism for starving their children and elderly. The vested interests who hold the debt of the developing nations as well as the multinational defense contractors represent a vested interest of very wealthy and powerful interests who will have to be in effect bought off in order to move forward. In addition the international mining interests who have a huge stake in the nonrenewable resources of developing countries will also have to be given a consideration for their existing contracts and considerable investments in foreign operations. It is possible to coerce the defense contractors by giving them contracts on a cost plus basis to switch to development contracts to build a public health infrastructure and agricultural infrastructure and other trappings of nation building. The international mining interests must be given assurances that their existing contracts in developing nations will not be voided and that they will have access to these resources for the foreseeable future. If any attempt is made to run the defense contractors out of business or to cut off the mining interests from their access to the resources of developing nations it is highly doubtful that the humanitarian and scientific initiative will succeed, or even be allowed to be put into place. The defense main contractors (12) and their subcontractors will probably accept a development package for individual nations on the basis of cost plus 15%. Mining corporations have had a much better deal and they will probably have to be given an exclusive right for decades to mine the natural resources of a given country they have sunk costs into in exchange for a smaller yearly return on their investment. These kinds of bargains will be necessary to avoid political battles that cannot be won with entrenched interests. The important thing is to secure the long term peace and prosperity for developing and developed nations. The equitable division and management of renewable resources will also be a part of any contract between the international community and developing nations. The area near the equator holds 50% of all known species of plants, animals, insects, etc and these should be preserved by direct transfer payments of 15 billion a year or some similar sum. This large sum will secure the forests that function as the lungs of the planet and the biodiversity of the majority of all known life forms. Renewable resources such as timber, wild game, and fishing rights will be managed in order to maximize the yearly harvest into perpetuity. This means resources will be managed to last forever and to allow people to harvest the optimum amount per year without depletion of the resource. These quotas will be determined by biologists and will take into account the need to maximize wild life diversity as well. In other words fishing interests will take the maximum possible without destroying the resource or the wild life who share the resource. Example: Cod harvests might be optimal at 15% of the yearly population, or 5 million tons, taking into account the 2 million tons eaten by other species. Thus the cod populations do not decline radically from year to year and fishermen and other species are all in a state of equilibrium. It is human nature to harvest a nonrenewable resource until it collapses or goes extinct and this can no longer be allowed to proceed unchecked. Optimizing resources and sharing them in an equitable manner will be adjudicated by the court or it's designated representatives who are experts in the field. The nations who share the harvests or the nation that harvests resources within it's borders will ratify the targets and methods of harvesting. Disputes between nations or within national borders may be brought before the court. Those who break the agreements are liable to sanctions both economic and criminal before the court. 10/4/12 Marshall Gregory Thomas

No comments:

Post a Comment