Pocket Gofer 12

POCKET GOFER 12

Download the Pocket Gofer 12 Here

ON THE UNITED NATIONS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

• HISTORY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
• THE PROBLEM AND ITS CAUSES
• RECOMMENDATIONS
• GETTING RIGHT DOWN TO IT
• CONCLUSION

HISTORY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

During World War II President Roosevelt envisioned a United Nations as a world policeman of awesome power.  He died shortly before the war ended in 1945.

Later that year the UN Charter that came forth from organizational meetings in San Francisco and Dumbarton Oaks de-emphasized military might in favor of diplomacy and peacekeeping.  Delegates wanted a permanent end to warfare, just as did those who formed the League of Nations right after World War I.

June 26, 1945

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Right now we can trace the thinking of delegates meeting in San Francisco.  Key words indicate: war, human rights, int’l law, better life, peace and finally, limited use of armed force and then only when ordered thru the United Nations.

And so it was.  We now embark on 75 years’ exploration aimed at answering the questions: How has the world done during those years, and what next?

We find it hard to say how many potential conflicts there are in the world today.  Judging by how many actual conflicts there are, there must be a bunch of them warming up in the bullpen.

As we saw in Pocket Gofer 11, more and more countries are acquiring or planning to acquire nuclear weapons.  It has got to the point where we essentially have three choices: dig a deep hole, crawl in and stay there forever; build bigger nukes so we can destroy every place where countries are building or storing them; or try some thing else.

On November 1, 1952 the world’s first hydrogen bomb exploded, obliterating the Pacific island on which it had been placed.  It was 500 times more powerful than the bomb that fell on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which snuffed out some 140,000 lives.

This multiplies to one bomb, 70 million deaths.  Building bigger nukes is not an option, even tho nuclear countries have been doing this anyway.

When we studied world history in school our books and teachers told us about wars and more wars.  It seemed to us that history was primarily one war after another.

Part of the reason for this impression was that back then very few people could write.  Kings hired scribes to record their conquests on the battlefield.

Early historians frequently have little else to use in writing our school books.  Nevertheless, throughout history there have been a lot of wars, and it surely seems there still are.

Even today there is nothing like a war to sell newspapers or keep us watching the news on TV or on social media.  Just make sure it takes place over there.

Such history causes us to assume that because there always have been wars there always will be.  This is conventional wisdom today.  But conventional wisdom has been around for a long time, and unless someone takes a serious shot at it now and then it, and we, will never change.

In thinking about and writing the pocket gofers we have focused on the search for truth.  Throughout history truth has locked horns with conventional wisdom.

Regrettably, it hasn’t won very often.  Furthermore, it has been well said that truth is the first casualty of war.

In spite of this, armed with truth we think we have the guts to belly up to this one, go eyeball-to-eyeball with it and make it blink.  Therefore this pocket gofer will suggest a new wisdom: world peace.

It will offer a recommendation for a key role to be filled by a new United Nations in the new world order.  By this we don’t mean elder Bush’s “new world order;” we mean a genuine NWO.

We realize that going up against the weight of this much history is no small thing.  Tough, nasty job, but someone has to do it if we are to accomplish needed change.

It is surely needed, for us and for our children.  So, friends, why not us?  Put another way, if not us, who will do this tough job?

In Pocket Gofer 11 we described an extremely important coincidence, where the world could end in nuclear war at the same time as humankind has acquired the ability to limit growth of population without war.

In this we don’t mean just artificial birth control.  It is a proven fact that educated girls have fewer babies when they are women.

Some will call it a coincidence.  Others will argue that a power upstairs is pulling strings.

Either way this is the reality, so we will gratefully accept it, understand and appreciate its implications as best we can, and move forward.  And let us become aware: There is in this a gigantic implication for the future of humankind.

In spite of a good start the Cold War effectively undermined the UN’s mission.  Tensions increased after Josef Stalin said the Soviet Union had to defend itself because there was no way for communists to peacefully participate with the “capitalist-imperialist” world.

Soviet expert George Kennan saw a country so fearful that it could not negotiate in confidence.  He argued that Stalin and his lieutenants saw the West as “evil and menacing.”  History has shown that his position was defensive until he died in 1953, and his successors at the head of government felt the same way.

Nikita Khrushchev worked for years with Stalin before he became general secretary of the communist party.  “I never once heard Stalin mention plans for attacking the West.  He was far more concerned with anti-aircraft installations around Moscow.”  We feel sure Stalin visited Dresden and saw the massive devastation the city suffered due to Allied bombs.

If his concern was defensive due to his economy being a basket case after World War II, a thinking citizen would surely wonder about the roughly $20 trillion spent on the cold war.  Might NATO, led by the pentagon, have anything to do with this gigantic fraud?

Years later President Reagan railed against the “evil empire.”  The updated version is “axis of evil.”  (President Bush took this one from World War II: the “allies” vs the “axis powers.”)

Who was/is right?  The issue smacks of beauty, in that what is evil lies in the eye of the beholder.  Selective perception (Pocket Gofers 11 and 18) smacks us once again.

In contrast to Roosevelt’s vision, the United Nation’s first secretary-general, Trygvie Lie, saw the UN as a moral, not a physical force.  His first challenge was the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.

There were Jews in Palestine then.  Altho there was some friction, they and their Muslim and Arab neighbors got along reasonably well together.

Jews believed that Britain, in charge of Palestine since WWI, owed them a homeland.  The UN voted to take part of Palestine and give it to the Jews.

Almost no Arab nations were members then, so they could not vote on this vital issue.  They naturally perceived this UN action as Europeans taking their land to reduce guilt over the Holocaust.  There followed a war that the UN could not prevent.

In 2006 an Israeli named Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.  His balanced account of the origin of “an intractable conflict” is excellent.

“Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonization and settlement in the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent national cause.  ——– suffered from an irreconcilable incongruity between its liberating message and the offensive practices it used to advance it.”

One of Ben-Ami’s conclusions: “None of the major endemic problems of the Arab and Muslim world has a military solution.  Note the irony as he moves to another conclusion.

“——– Israel was born in war and it has lived by the sword ever since.  This has given the generals and the military way of thinking, at least since the Arab Revolt in the late 1930s, a paramount role in the Jewish state and too central a function in defining both Israel’s war aims and her peace policies.”

Let’s think about this a moment.  If Ben-Ami is right we have Israel a militarized country engaged in a fight with no end because there is no military solution.

In 1948 an infant UN could not solve this conflict peaceably and with a moral approach.  Maybe since then the organization has learned how to do this.

The issue of Korea seemed to be more clear-cut at the time, but there was (and is) no opportunity for peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep.  In 1950 the army of Communist North Korea swept southward intending to make South Korea Communist thru force of arms.  (Since 2003 America has been using the same method to force a change in Iraq.  Recently it has backed off somewhat.)

Top officials in the American government felt that here was an early opportunity to halt the spread of terrible communism.  Never mind those economists who predicted the ultimate failure of communism if it were left alone; the pentagon’s war fever prevailed.

The American government rejected Lie’s proposal for a UN committee to coordinate military assistance, as warriors in this country felt that there would be too much meddling during the conflict.  This situation was properly a UN moral responsibility under its Charter, so any meddling was done by the US.

So the United Nations was shoved aside in its first real challenge. This barging in illustrates that almost from its beginning top US government officials believed that the UN was an arm of American foreign policy.

Dag Hammarskjold is considered one of the two best secretary-generals in the history of the UN.  Meisler in his book United Nations: the First Fifty Years described him as “an international civil servant of such rare sensibility —–, of such stubborn principle and exquisite tact, of such determined mysticism and wise pragmatism —–.”

The Suez Canal crisis (1956) erupted on his watch.  Career soldier Eisenhower was arguably our last good president.  In a televised speech he said, “—– we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes.”  A thinking citizen might wonder what has happened to American foreign policy since then.

Ike was one of the very few leaders whose thinking went beyond conventional wisdom.  (See Pocket Gofer 17.)  Most of the others toiled (and still toil) beneath the radar: the news media prefer to publish violence and high drama.

Ike’s attitude probably helped Hammarskjold to attain the enviable position of not having the US-dominated UN Security Council bark commands at him.  But then a plane crash killed the secretary-general.

Brian Urquhart served ably for a long time as deputy secretary-general.  “The moment a peacekeeping force starts killing people it becomes a part of the conflict it is supposed to be controlling and thus a part of the problem.”

The temptation to intervene militarily must be resisted.  Iraq and Afghanistan spring to mind.

Burma-born-and-raised U Thant was secretary-general when the Vietnam War began gathering momentum.  In April 1964 he commented: “Military methods have failed to solve the problem.

“They (the French army) did not solve it in 1954 —- and I do not see any reason why they would succeed ten years later.  As I see the problem in Southeast Asia (where he grew up), it is not essentially military, it is political; and therefore, political and diplomatic means alone, in my view, can solve it.”

But the warriors did not listen to him either, and there came 55,000 young American men back home in body bags and who knows how many others ruined for the rest of their lives.  And this statement omits mention of some two million North Korean and Chinese soldiers and innocent civilians who were killed.

A UN detachment had stood guard over an uneasy peace in Palestine since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948.  When in 1967 came the six-day war in spite of its best efforts, morale in UN headquarters hit a new low. 

The General Assembly quickly passed Resolution #242, which directs that lands be returned in exchange for peace.  To this day Israel still holds Palestinian lands captured thru force, in spite of the UN Charter forbidding land taken thru force and #242.

This grim reality lowers the image of that organization in the eyes of the world.  Recently there was some good news: the Israeli military has removed settlers from the Palestinian Gaza strip.

Under s-g Kurt Waldheim newly independent African countries sent ambassadors to the UN.  There eventually were so many that they made up a majority, so in 1971 they voted to toss Taiwan out of the organization and admit Communist China.

Later they passed a resolution that equated Zionism with racism.  Westerners were thoroly ticked, but Waldheim properly refused to condemn democratic actions.

Peru’s Javier Perez de Cuellar was an excellent s-g.  He and Urquhart put together a devastating report on the UN organization and what it had not accomplished.  Years later another report was little short of glowing.

Meisler: “—– so self-effacing as s-g that it has been hard to credit him with guiding the turn.  Don Shannon of the LA Times, —– found him a well-meaning but ineffectual diplomat, a leader who so ‘lacked any kind of forceful personality’ ——.”

Shannon might be forgiven for expecting the usual big wheel, the flamboyant and charismatic tub-thumping big cheese, at the helm.  As a journalist he had apparently been brainwashed by the high and mighty to support conventional wisdom in his writings.

But this type of personality will by definition work poorly with the egomaniacs who man the highest reaches of personal power in most country governments, especially in poor countries.  See Pocket Gofer 13. 

Perez de Cuellar was just the type who could slather it on, soothe fragile egos, earn cooperation, and get the right things done.  Shannon understood little about diplomacy.  Writing and talking about conflict and powerful personalities earns journalists kudos, prestige, more money, etc.

He is not the only one.  (Secrets of State, ebook by Barry Rubin.)

“William Attwood, a journalist and one of the energetic outsiders Kennedy appointed as ambassador in 1961 (to Guinea and, later, to Kenya) provided an excellent definition of the attitudinal problem at (Department of) State.  He found too many ‘people for whom … a satisfying week’s work consists in initialing as many reams of paper and deferring as many decisions as possible; with whom you can talk of `action` only in terms of setting up a committee, hopefully one that will spawn subcommittees.’” 

Perez de Cuellar originated the notion of closed-door meetings.  This sounds undemocratic, but it eliminated posturing in front of the cameras and got delegates down to business.  He also directed field operations toward overseeing elections, monitoring human rights violations, and disarming military units.

The mission to El Salvador was a glowing success.  Later President Cristiani said that the participation of the UN was crucial.

“The UN made it very difficult for either side to get up from the table and leave.”  Most citizens wanted peace, so anyone who walked out would lose great face.

In 1991 Perez made a special trip to meet with Saddam Hussein, where both men agreed that the Gulf Conflict was an American war and had nothing to do with the UN.  The Soviets had compiled a plan for withdrawal from Kuwait, and Saddam had approved it.

Meisler: “Bush (the elder) pre-empted any consideration of the plan by proclaiming an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to start leaving Kuwait City within 24 hours or face annihilation.”  Here was another instance of land taken by force, and again the UN was shunted aside.

Now, we must admit that elder Bush polished his macho credentials with that one.  And previously he was American ambassador to the UN!

What a miserable way to treat an organization that had stood for world peace for 45 years!  A plague on egos in high public places!

And that was not all.  “—- Cuban ambassador Ricardo Alarcon protested to reporters: ‘It’s humiliating to the Security Council.  We haven’t even met, and we have been told by the US that we have a deadline by noon tomorrow.’”

Meisler: “—– war solidified the American notion that the UN worked best when it did what the US wanted.”  Saddam would probably have approached a balanced UN with his list of mostly legitimate grievances against Kuwait.

The whole issue could then have been handled diplomatically and, as it turned out, two wars avoided.

As s-g, Boutros Boutros-Ghali took no guff from the American-dominated Security Council, and so US officials prevented him from the customary signing aboard for a second five-year term.  He was a brilliant analyst of crises.

However, there was one problem he could not get around.  US foreign policy had for years (and still does) included waiting for a hot spot to erupt into conflict before addressing the issue.

Why this total lack of concern for the killing of innocent women and children?  Friends, war is far more lucrative for politicians than is peace, and warriors and their defense contractors also love it for the same reason.  These grim facts are as true as they are tragic.

Yeah, we have heard the talk: peace on earth and all that.  But the reality is war, just as it has been thruout recorded history.  Scarcely anyone questions this conventional wisdom.

Predictably, the 1990s brought us more: Bosnia, Kosovo, Congo, Somalia, etc.  Cold War enemies had over decades loaded these countries with weapons and trained soldiers.

The resulting conflicts not only killed and maimed millions of innocents and destroyed $billions in property.  They played right into the greedy hands of the congress and the defense establishment.

The UN was originally established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”  But its five permanent members (America, Britain, France, China and Russia) spent the next 50 or so years stoking the arms race.  They shipped more weapons across boundaries than all the rest of the world combined.

In Pocket Gofer 11 we showed that weapons drive conflict and not the reverse.  Thanks in large part to the so-called BIG 5, there were about 680 international conflicts between 1945 and 1989.  (And there were hundreds of internal conflicts.)  Due to lack of resources for keeping the peace, 40 percent of these conflicts restarted after stopping.

The American government continued to torpedo UN attempts to keep peace.  Shawcross in his book Deliver Us From Evil: “Boutros-Ghali reported to the Security Council that peacekeeping was not possible unless all the parties respected the UN, its personnel, and its mandate.  None of the three Bosnian parties — Muslims, Serbs or Croats — really did so.”

Why would they?  The world’s biggest country disdained and repeatedly manipulated the organization.

As of 1995 (date of publication of Meisler’s book) can we report any significant progress?  With the Cold War over, yes we can.

“From 1988 to 1995, the number of peacekeeping missions in the field had increased from five to seventeen, the numbers of troops deployed had increased from 9,600 to 73,400, and the cost —— from $230 million to $3.6 billion a year.

Kofi Annan was the next s-g, and he was a good one even tho we disagree with the following comment (in a column by Gwynne Dyer): “The UN system is almost congenitally incapable of ordering troops under its command to shoot people, even if killing them is the only way to save the lives of far greater numbers.  The bad guys know this, and regularly take advantage of it.”

In another quote (from the Economist) Annan made several strong arguments.  “Even the costliest policy of prevention is far cheaper, in lives and in resources, than the least expensive intervention.  ———.  A recent study by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict estimated that the cost to the international community of the seven major wars in the 1990s, not including Kosovo and East Timor, was $199 billion.

“Time and again, differences are allowed to develop into disputes and disputes allowed to develop into deadly conflicts.  Time and again, warning signs are ignored and pleas for help overlooked.”

We explain the above by using just one word: money.  Kickbacks from defense contractors are always plentiful for congressmen, and defense factory jobs pay very well and so generate votes for career politicians (see Pocket Gofers 3 and 11).

The big kicker here is the pentagon spending on many of these wars.  The grim reality is taxpayer bucks be spent in destroying millions of innocent lives.  Only unthinking citizens wonder why so much of the world hates us.

Annan continued: “There are, in my view, three main reasons for the failure of prevention when prevention so clearly is possible.  First, the reluctance of one or more of the parties to a conflict to accept external intervention of any kind.

“Second, the lack of political will at the highest levels of the international community.  Third, a lack of integrated conflict-prevention strategies within the UN system and the international community.  Of all these, the will to act is the most important.”

The third one blows our mind.  Isn’t this the main purpose for the UN’s very existence?  We offer a plan for prevention; see below.

Annan shared one more important observation.  “—- costs of prevention have to be paid in the present, while its benefits lie in the distant future.  And the benefits are not tangible —— when prevention succeeds, nothing happens.  Taking such a political risk when there are few obvious rewards requires conviction and considerable vision.”

And also ability to sell this type of product to voters.  Put another way, what is needed is leadership.  See Pocket Gofer 17.

Annan completed his arguments.  “The nonviolent management of conflict is the very essence of democracy.

“In an era when more than 90% of wars take place within, not between, states, the import of this finding for conflict prevention should be obvious.”  Can a thinking citizen still call America a democracy?

Friends, this is a towering point.  We should pause a moment, to fully appreciate the potential for democracy in every country.

The kicker comes in when a dictator influenced by ego and passion has weapons handy.  Under these conditions he will always find it easier to crack heads than to crack ideas.

The Economist concluded on an upbeat: “Between 1898 and 1992 on average eight new ethnic wars began each year; today the average is two a year.  Between 1992 and 1998 the scope and intensity of armed conflict around the world declined by about a third.  The number of democratically elected governments increased by about the same proportion.”

The general trend plus the coincidence mentioned at the beginning of this pocket gofer leads us to predict the end of all wars by about 2040.  Most of the younger folks among us will be alive at that time.  Due to better health and fitness (Pocket Gofer 1) they will also be more vigorous than we are or will be at an advanced age.

It would be an economic world and a most pleasant one.  We wish we could be there to enjoy it.  As we wrote the pocket gofers over the years we came to realize that the youth and their descendents would get the most benefit.  We believe the millennials should seize the initiative.  See PG21.

The opportunity for us old folks to make a contribution is now (Pocket Gofer 6).  Let’s open the door and embrace it.  May be a while before it knocks again.

We can do this by making a pocket gofer our constant companion during our daily travels.  Free and open discussion and debate are necessary in order to get all of us organized under a banner of good government.  Then and only then would we be in a position to spread the word to the world.

HUMAN NATURE AND CONFLICT: It is human nature to get ticked off now and then.  In days not long gone by two guys in such a condition would simply duke it out.

Now there are guns everywhere, so instead of trading punches these guys will fling lead.  Instead of black eyes there are torn guts and dead bodies.

In the old days one guy might retrieve his cool, feel some remorse and come by next day to share it with his former opponent.  But it is difficult for a dead man to accept an apology.  Or a dead woman, or child.

All this is quite obvious.  What is not so obvious is that the same social forces work on groups of people: clans, tribes, even nations.  Their governments get ticked off at or afraid of one another and passions overrule reason.

Government officials are often admired when they scarcely deserve it.  This means they can influence young men who are physically strong but often lack self-discipline and mature judgment.  It is easy to persuade them to become cannon fodder.

In such situations if there are weapons handy they will be used, sooner or later.  Knowing this, if officials of one country see a neighbor building or buying weapons they will do likewise.  Patch in a couple more countries and we have started an arms race.

Conflict then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Then spilled blood, guts, widespread killing, maiming, destruction of property and billions of dollars vanishing into smoke also become self-fulfilling prophecies.  War always has been lose-lose.

The merchant is gradually replacing the warrior in international relations, but old warriors cannot (or choose not to) see this.  They exert tremendous influence over policy making in Washington.  Trade is win-win.

By definition peace can’t be forcibly imposed, especially by soldiers and weapons.  People see these and think war, not peace.  Soldiers are trained to fight, not to keep peace or even make it.

Somalia is situated on the “Horn of Africa,” which is a commercially and militarily strategic passage for shipping.  Because of this unfortunate circumstance both sides of the cold war pumped millions of tons of weapons into the poor country.

Later the predictable happened.  Clans used these weapons in blood feuds.  It soon got to the point where innocent civilians could not get enough food.

Enter elder president Bush on his white horse, and “Operation Restore Hope” got going.  Again the predictable happened; no hope was restored.

Why?  Bush thought he could make peace with soldiers.  But these guys are trained to make war, not peace.  Foreign civilian rescue workers said they felt less safe from flying bullets with American soldiers there than previously.

President Clinton and his minions believed that soldiers on television distributing food to starving children would look good (he was always trolling for votes).  But “armed humanitarian” assistance is a contradiction in terms.

Predictably, the warlords welcomed great quantities of food.  Here were opportunities to feed their fighters for free, to extort money by charging for truck passage thru roadblocks, and to raid food warehouses.

Of course, extorted money went to buy more weapons and ammunition.  Very little of the food actually reached the children.

Also of course, the American news media said nothing about this development.  As the president directed, they aired images of starving children being fed.

We suppose it’s the American way.  It did not used to be: democracy is consultation with others who are involved in making policy and law.

“—— 18 American soldiers were killed, —–.”  That is what the world saw and remembers.  What is less well known is that helicopter gunships were sent in that night and circled the area firing into houses, apparently at random, with cannons and machine guns (Economist 7/5/97).

Between 200 and 1,000 innocent Somalis were killed in the resulting massacre.  In Pocket Gofer 11 we attempt to convert the US government into a concerned world citizen.  Looks like the idea needs work.

We saw nothing in the news about Somali fighters firing American-made weapons at US soldiers, but it must have happened.  Also, we heard of no reporters who interviewed surviving family members of those killed by gunships.  We think concerned US citizens would have liked to know about these things.

So much for peacekeeping with soldiers.  We might add that “enforce peace” is also a contradiction in terms.  There are better ways to win hearts and minds.

From this we can see why NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” doesn’t make sense.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 for only one purpose: preparation and, if necessary, waging war against the Soviet Russians.

Peace is not in its charter.  However, it is a bureaucracy and we learned in Pocket Gofer 4 that a bureaucracy lives forever even when its original purpose has long since vanished.

We have before us an excellent illustration of the persistent war mentality that is typical of NATO thinking (Economist 2/15/97).  Secretary of State Madeline Albright wrote by invitation.

“At a time when much of the world enjoys relative peace, we run the risk of forgetting the decades-long work of diplomacy and institution-building that has made it possible ——.”  We find this a hard swallow when we think of the decades-long habit of American government officials sending soldiers and millions of tons of weapons abroad.

“—– but dangers remain: from Bosnia to Chechnya, —–.  From Serbia to Belarus, reminders are appearing that Europe’s democratic revolution is not complete.”  It takes but a small stretch of the imagination to generate as many dangers as needed for the purpose at hand.

“But it is NATO —– principal mechanism of American involvement in Europe, that is playing the leading role in bringing Europe together.”  A war machine is doing this?

If we enjoy relative peace (as Albright said above), then logically the European Union is the principal mechanism bringing Europe together.  This organization is based on economic and not military premises and, with admittedly rough going, it is doing the job.

NATO: “—– provided the confidence and security shattered economies needed to rebuild themselves.”  Here she referred to the devastation of World War II.

But they were rebuilt with the assistance of Marshall Plan aid, not NATO.  This argument is strengthened when we think back to what Stalin stated, above.

“Now the new NATO can do ——: vanquish old hatreds, promote integration —–.”  By its nature a military organization cannot do these things.  War and threat of war (which is always there along with soldiers and weapons) feeds new hatreds and renews old ones.  Doubters could look at the NATO operation in Afghanistan.

“—– by extending solemn security guarantees, we actually reduce the chance that our troops will again be called to fight in Europe.  —— we will gain new allies —–.”

This makes no sense, as it reaches backward to Europe’s recent 500-year history of alliances made and broken, wars fought and lost.  As for reducing the chance, two years later American pilots and crews were fighting again (Kosovo).

“Countries aspiring to membership will have to modernize their armed forces —–.”  Ah!  Madame Secretary has struck a responsive chord here.  No prize for guessing where most of the sophisticated weapons that these rookies will need will come from.

America has close to 70 percent of the world market for killing machines.  Apparently the good secretary figured this was not enough.

“It requires abandoning cold war stereotypes —–.”  Is Secretary Albright aware of what she is writing here?  Would that she was, because if this were to happen NATO would vanish.

Conflict is by nature out of control.  This is why injecting a third or fourth armed force into a war only adds fuel to an already raging wildfire.

To 2003 and an Economist (September) review of a book by Stephen Schlesinger with a title that doesn’t know when to quit: Act of Creation, The Founding of the United Nations: A Story of Super Powers, Secret Agents, Wartime Allies and Enemies and Their Quest for a Peaceful World.  (Whew!)

In 1945 America was an even more dominant power in the world than today.  Every other major economy was a basket case.

However, President Truman passed up a tempting chance to rule the world.  He authorized George Marshall to go to Europe with a plan to use US money to rebuild shattered economies.  He knew that for America to prosper it needed healthy trading partners.

The Economist wrote: “At the peak of America’s powers ——- its leaders were determined to create a multilateral institution involving as many nations as possible as a primary mechanism for ensuring American, as well as global security (our emphasis).  In his speech before the San Francisco conference, Truman was explicit about the price of doing so.

“’’We all have to recognize — no matter how great our strength — that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.’”  The contrast with the attitude of most subsequent American governments could not be more stark.  See PGs 11 and 18.

“Later many GW Bush administration officials seem to view the UN either as irrelevant or as a dangerous constraint.”  Bush: “We will build to suit.”

Any outside force, military or otherwise, has but a slim chance of solving a conflict once passions have stolen away reason.  Therefore this pocket gofer will emphasize prevention of conflict.

We see so much conflict on TV that we no longer really think about it.  But those poor people over there are just as dead as if there were no TV news.  Our government is helping this deadly process along.

THE PROBLEM AND ITS CAUSES

Our attitudes toward war have been formed thruout history.  Generals and admirals have acquired the same mentality, but they have it worse than we do as they have spent their lives in making and preparing for war.  We find it interesting to observe that journalists (rarely) writing about peace still interview these military officers.

The news media reflect these attitudes.  We are looking forward to the Age of Reason, free of war, but practically all we read and see continues to look backward at our grim history.

Wouldn’t it be easier for us to move our thinking and actions forward if we had a little help from our (presumed) friends?  The media could help to obliterate conventional wisdom and create a forum receptive to some new thinking, but only if we citizens demand it.  See our comment about the media in PG5.

An example.  A 1994 article in Time speculated that the “—–imperialist Russian bear has awakened from his post-cold war snooze.”  At the time the failed Soviet economy was on its knees; it still is.

Calling its government imperialist is surely a stretch.  But it sells newspapers and news magazines.

It also suggests a mind that is closed to new thinking.  Or one that knows what we have been programmed by the news media to expect and that needs to get something published.

New shoes for baby, perhaps.  But what kind of world is the little weasel’s parent preparing for his/her future when this blarney gets into print?

As Mikhail Gorbachev said years ago, it must be two steps forward and one step back followed by another two steps forward.  Journalists who jump all over the one step back when it occurs (as it must) while ignoring the two forward steps only act to prevent healthy attitude change.

Another example.  The Economist 1994: “—— cannot be assumed that the UN will always be the organization of first resort in any future crisis.  All the more reason, therefore, for the West to prepare itself for those occasions —— that it will want to act anyway, on its own.”

This position omits any shred of consideration for the feelings and likely reactions of the vast majority of the world’s nations, who don’t happen to belong to the exclusive club called “The West.”  We can imagine no way to enjoy peace on earth without this careful consideration.

The UN was organized to keep a peace won after a stupendous effort and incredible tragedy: World War II.  How on earth can it do this if any part of the world, the West, the East, the North, the South, the First, Second, Third or Fourth World or any other segment or nation decides on a whim to go its own way and damn the feelings of the other fellow?

The US government has been behaving in just this way for 60 years.  And does it ever show!

Let’s get real.  In a real and at least partially democratic world the West will enjoy no special privileges just because it happens to be rich.

We know money talks.  Sometimes it shouts so loudly it obliterates reason.  We also know money can talk us into a world of hurt.

To the problem.  America is still a dominant player on the world stage, but the government’s approach to international conflict is wrong.  It has been preaching human rights and at the same time exporting millions of tons of horrible weapons of mass death and destruction into unstable regions of the world.

Weapons and soldiers don’t promote human rights; they take them away.  These actions therefore undermine our government’s credibility around the world.  See PG11.

Citizens and officials of many other countries believe that our government speaks with forked tongue.  We too believe it, but we know that truth always lurks in the shadows.  We intend to finally let it see the light of day, but we’ll need some help from our friends.

We can’t pass up the opportunity for an aside.  A career politician (PG3) who concentrates on saying only what folks want to hear must speak with forked tongue.  (Think about it.)

All this makes us wonder how the USA can claim to be a world leader.  If this is leadership the world clearly needs less of it, not more (PG17).

Arms sales cannot promote stability.  There are too many arms merchants, and more are entering the market every year.

We heard about how elated were US death merchants right after Gulf war I.  They perceived that fiasco as a great marketing splash for American-made weapons as our fighting people demonstrated their technological superiority.  Some of us don’t know that TV coverage was rigged to show only bombs that hit their targets.

Congressmen will assure us that the most deadly weapons will be sold only to our friends.  There will in all cases be an ironclad understanding that none of them will be resold to Son of Saddam.

Weapons are durable goods.  A deal is cut, and years down the road the buyer’s situation changes radically.

He needs money, so he sells what he previously bought to whoever will pay the most.  Ironclad?  Baloney.

Someone recently said, “Weapons sold in amity can later be fired back in enmity.  A different way of thinking about these things is needed.”

Agreed.  This is what we are about here in PG 12 (and in PG 18; see).  Many of the weapons in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal were made in USA.  Israel has sold weapons that our government gave or sold to them to countries that we don’t trust.

How does an American soldier feel when he is dodging bullets and grenades that were made in the USA by fellow citizens?  Strange: we know of not a single journalist who has asked a soldier this question.

Durable goods include land mines, of which there are roughly 100 million buried in perhaps thousands of square miles of landscape over much of the world.  Every day innocent children are killed or have limbs blown off.  We salute Jody Williams for her long-term persistence in eliminating these scourges.

Even if our friends remain our friends, an uncertain thought at best in view of our experience with Iran and Iraq, over time Son of Saddam will find a way to get his hands on some of that high-tech destruction.  Money speaks a universal language, and it has no morals.

In March 2006 the US insisted at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Administration) that Iran not be allowed to bend the rules that its government agreed to when it signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).  At the same time Bush was helping India with its nuclear weapons programs.

International trade in nuclear technology is becoming active.  Are nuclear weapons next?

The Economist 10/2007 contrasts the traditional with the new.  “Any attempt to devise a traditional foreign policy presupposes the support of the handful of European governments who can project hard power at long distances.

“Then again, hard power is out of fashion, and not just in the EU.  An analysis of world public opinion published this week by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a new think-tank, uses the term ‘herbivorous’ to describe the kind of emerging powers whose rise is broadly welcomed around the world.”

Today the buzz word is “soft power.”  This trend is encouraging.

Maybe.  The Economist 3/2008: “Whether it is Clinton, McCain or Obama, the world will still quarrel with America’s foreign policy.

“Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama told President Vladimir Putin on Saturday that Russia’s dispatch of troops to Ukraine flouted international law.

This outmoded bilateral saber rattling will accomplish nothing except to resurrect the long-dead cold war.  Of course Putin knows he is violating international law.  He also knows that  America is just another sovereign nation and Obama is acting beyond his remit in accusing him.  This is obviously an issue for the UN to work on, not some other nation. 

“Much of the next president’s foreign policy will, rightly, continue the present one.”  We cannot believe this otherwise useful newspaper wrote and published this.

Perhaps its editors’ heads were buried in the sand when the results of a Time worldwide survey in 2003 involving hundreds of thousands of respondents showed 84% believing that the USA posed the greatest danger to world peace.  (North Korea drew 7% of responses and Iraq 8%.)

“It is peculiar how often foreigners are surprised to learn that American presidents serve American interests, not those of the world at large.”  Sir, it is in America’s best interest to enjoy the benefits to its citizens of world peace.  It is here that we find a shared common interest across the world.

MISGUIDED EFFORTS: That said, we turn to some actions that are aimed at our “something else” but haven’t had a chance to work because conventional wisdom has not yet been adequately challenged.

In the run-up to Gulf war I elder President Bush looked to the UN for assistance.  But actually all he did was feint in that direction in order to fake out a tackler.

The goal he was aiming at was national hero and a high popularity rating.  However, he lacked the money because Ron Reagan had spent it all (much of it on weapons).

Knowing this, Bush whipsawed the UN into letting him fight a war with his soldiers and other countries’ money.  We admit that this required a generous slug of chutzpah, as  America was at the time over half a billion dollars behind in paying its UN membership dues and assessments.

Most analysts and other people agree that UN-imposed sanctions probably would have got the job done without violence back in 1990-91.  Not very swift for a peace preacher, Mr. Bush.

And then came Son of Bush.  Are we losing ground in our “fight” for world peace?

Posses are the stuff of western films in the US.  These groups roamed the range 100 or more years ago, when what laws that existed could not otherwise be enforced.

We and the world have changed since then.  We need to ask whether our warriors have changed with the times.  We are asking.

The UN should not be a forum for grinding one country’s ax in defiance of others’ interests.  This is exactly what the US government was so unhappy about during the 1970s, when many small nations in the UN General Assembly passed resolutions condemning American arrogance and saber rattling.

The government got all bent out of shape and refused to pay our membership dues, and for the next 20 years or so it wore a big grouch.  We guess our government officials figured that ax grinding is okay if the ax is being ground by the world’s strongest country, but not by others.

We will provide one more example.  The American government has systematically trampled on Arab rights for decades as it continued to play the big-guy-in-the-bar for Israel.  The UN has provided a forum where this major flaw in our foreign policy might be rectified, but officials have seen fit to ignore this resource.

To be specific, UN Resolution #242 of 1967, which provides that Israel give back land taken by force in exchange for peace with Arab nations, has been steadfastly ignored by the United States.  Predictably, Palestinian frustrations brought on a second intifada.

Israel and Saddam violated about the same number of UN resolutions over the same time period.  The whiff of a double standard permeates the air.

We conclude that there are a lot of conflicts because there are a lot of weapons, and because human nature has officials of countries getting ticked off at one another, losing their cool and using them.

Paranoid (or greedy) officials have permitted the weapons industry to proliferate to the point where conflicts cannot be avoided, and yet they must be lest we all get nuked.  We have the ability to control the growth in our numbers without war.  Finally, it looks to us like prevention may be the something else that we are looking for.

US “PEACEKEEPING:” The US government has continuously mistreated the UN from shortly after its beginning in 1945.  Then the end of the cold war in 1991 inflated expectations of UN peacekeeping way beyond its capability.  Three factors weighed it down.

The first was a lack of money; the US government had long before slowed its dues payments in protest of votes in the General Assembly that it did not like.  The second was lack of experience, as the cold war had prevented nearly all peacekeeping activities.  The third was bureaucracy: for 50 years the organization had aged, and it still suffers from hardening of the arteries.

The American government makes war in the media-hyped names of justice and human rights, but the hidden and real reasons are high drama for TV and money.  It has ignored the hard, long, low-profile, and far less expensive work required to make and preserve the peace.

We hear some folks saying look at Iraq.  Surely President Bush has learned from the grisly track record noted above, and is doing it right for a change.

The kicker here is that by its definition democracy cannot be forced on a society by a foreign military power.  Iraqi citizens see little else but American soldiers and weapons every day, sent by a democratic government to cause great difficulty in simple survival.

Understandably, they are saying, “If this is democracy we want nothing to do with it.”  How else to learn about democracy?

Rather the courage to recognize reality would prevail.  After 16 and 18 years, respectively, there is victory in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.  As Ben-Ami stated above, there is no military solution.

Today the UN’s annual budget for peacekeeping finally exceeds $1 billion, while the world blows about $1 trillion a year on war and preparation for more.  As the world enters the Age of Reason, we think here is another situation that needs work.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Leo Klohr (5/1999 column) wanted to know why the US/NATO did not support the nonviolent Kosovo leader Ibrahim Rugova instead of the Kosovo Liberation Army.  We would also like to know.

“In 1999, the US spent $260 billion on military forces; $14 billion on all diplomatic services.  Almost nothing for resources useful before violence breaks out, ——-.”

Klohr listed many organizations, each with at least 10 years’ experience in nonviolent approaches to conflict.  Every living Nobel Prize laureate has signed an appeal to designate the years 2000-2010 a “decade for building a culture of nonviolence.”  The UN general assembly unanimously approved it.

The world must realize that no one can keep the peace with killing machines.  We cannot even make peace with the damn things.

All they are good for is making war, and war begets war.  This is a sad fact of human nature.

People the world over crave freedom and dignity.  The pentagon and other military forces are designed to take these values away in the name of preserving them.

We know this is a difficult insight to acquire, and it will be more difficult to sell.  But the job must be done anyway, lest the world be so flooded with weapons that no one can survive.

THE UN: We begin with a necessary resource: a high-profile United Nations.  We need some kind of world government in order to put together that something else that we mentioned back on page one.

We need to bear in mind that even tho that organization was formed 75 years ago world conditions have not permitted it to do its thing: work toward world peace through early detection of tensions and prevention of conflicts.  But today after the Cold War the UN has for the first time an opportunity to operate according to its charter.

It will not happen immediately, as in spite of its age the UN is still a rookie at peacekeeping.  We talked about how member countries could help it in this quest in another pocket gofer (11), so we will keep the faith and work with a positive result.

The UN should not be a worldwide “911” (emergency) service.  This should be obvious, as once passions rule behavior there is little any outside factor can accomplish.

Eisenhower understood the need to pause when facing a crisis in order to give reason an opportunity to enter negotiators’ thinking.  The analogy among angry individuals is slowly counting to ten twice.  As a child, GW Bush’s parents understood this.  Nevertheless, as a newly elected president he reacted after 9/11 based on emotion, and to this day politicians are still emphasizing passion without giving reason a chance.

In that case about all it can do is help refugees during the conflict and pick up the pieces afterward.  And today’s weapons are so destructive there are few pieces left to pick up.

Today the reality is that the UN is involved in something like 25 “peacekeeping” operations around the world.  Perhaps only 3-4 of these are truly peacekeeping.  The rest are peacemaking and therefore impractical, except for trying to do something for poor refugees.

“Cash Running Out for Refugee aid, UN Says,” News & Observer 9/15)

“The outpouring of sympathy and expressions of concern for the plight of hundreds of thousands who have fled the Syrian civil war to reach Europe has not translated into financial support for international humanitarian aid intended to help the refugees still in the countries that border Syria.

“—-calls for contributions —- estimated 12m Syrians displaced ——- largely unanswered.”  We think that soon those calls will be answered; a new United Nations.

Just recently we saw the rogue nation called the USA changing its 70-year attitude toward the UN.  Top officials seem eager to work thru that organization in addressing problems in North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and others.  This is good news.

The trend is catching.  (Economist 10/2015)

“After decades of ignoring the UN, China now embraces it — at least, beyond the country’s backyard.

“China used to disparage the UN.  —— repeatedly abstained from votes, ——.  Since then —— has changed profoundly.  over the past few years it has increasingly used the body as a vehicle for its international  ambitions.”  This is right on target, assuming nonviolent ambitions.

The G20 (advanced nations) in some ways functions as a mini-UN. (“Agreeing to Disagree,” Economist 9/2016) “The global economy has many ailments and few easy remedies.

“—– long list of problems, including simmering trade disputes, overstretched central banks, corporate tax avoidance and a populist backlash in several countries against globalization.”  This last is unbelievable; Econ 101 class is in session.

“Altho the G20 seems unwieldy, it also has an advantage: flexibility.  Lacking a permanent bureaucracy, it can switch emphasis annually, depending on which country is in the chair.”  We welcome yet another critique of bureaucracy.

Today the pressure is on to solve a world-wide problem, called covid-19.  Let’s determine whether such catastrophes can be predicted, perhaps with machine learning.  The Economist suggests that the world’s governments should “—— up their game.”  We think that a reformed or even a brand new UN is a better place.

The Economist 6/27/20 pgs. 7 and 64.

“On the basis of how much they found during their early work Dr. Carroll  and his colleagues made a statistical estimate that, all told, the world’s mammals and birds play host to between 700,000 and 2.6m as yet unknown species from families of viruses that have shown the potential to cause zoonotic (disease of animals communicable to man) disease in humans.”  This one raised our antennae. 

Some recent history;  “In1993 this newspaper told the world to watch the skies.  At that time, humanity’s knowledge of asteroids that might hit the earth was woefully inadequate.  Like nuclear wars and large volcanic eruptions ——-.

“Low probability, high impact events are a fact of life.

“The blazing hot corona which envelopes the sun — seen to spectacular effect during solar eclipses — intermittently throws vast sheets of charged particles out into space.  These cause the Northern and Southern lights and can mess up electric grids and communications.

REFORMING THE UN: Representatives of 50 nations signed the UN Charter in 1945.  Three quarters of today’s member nations were not independent at that time.  Clearly reform is overdue.

When Boutros-Ghali was selected secretary-general over 30 years ago there were high hopes that he would tackle the reform challenge.  He did not.

So America put its big foot down and rejected the man’s request for another term in office.  His replacement was Kofi Annan of Ghana, whose second term ended on 12/31/06.  He worked on collecting the money that the US owes.

Economist (2/1996): “Before there can be any thought of arrears paying, say the men on Capitol Hill who control their country’s purse strings, the UN must prove it has reformed itself.”  But we learned that bureaucracies cannot be reformed from within.

“—— most UN types religiously acknowledge, is essential.  For a start, the Americans and others insist that the UN’s regular budget must show zero growth —–.  —- painful 10% reduction in UN staff —–.”  This would be a poor start; see next.

“But the UN’s cobwebs are in the fabric, calling for a much more radical shake-out than anything yet proposed.  Right, said Mr. Boutros-Ghali, but so long as the financial crisis remains unsolved ‘all other efforts to cut back, reform or restructure cannot possibly succeed.’

“Financial —– is essential for radical restructuring: even —– getting rid of the worst of the human dead wood, is impossible if there is no money to pay people off.  And until member countries —– pay the money they owe, there will never be enough for deep reform.”

The boss of a private company would simply cut costs.  Why the need to pay people off who have drawn their salaries while contributing next to nothing?

The US has a point (for a change).  Putting money into a stale and bloated bureaucracy and expecting it to reform from within is futile.  A force from outside the organization is the only way that would work.

Mr. Annan did bite off a couple of pieces.  But then a part of the bureaucracy took him on, and he backed off.

We harbor mixed emotions.  Here is a 75-year-old bureaucracy.

We have learned how these organizations think and function, so we have serious second thoughts about pouring more money into them.  PGs 2, 7, and 10 offer comments: the money only enables the outfit to continue doing the bad and wasteful things that it has been doing previously.

Serious reform is big bad news for timeservers.  Injecting more money only strengthens resistance to sweeping reform, and deeply entrenched bureaucrats are masters at fighting real change.

Conventional wisdom within the UN demands that reform must be gradual.  We should expect nothing else coming from within any bureaucracy.

The gradual approach also gives bureaucrats time to organize resistance to any meaningful changes.  Combine time with additional money, and reformers are whipped before they begin.  One reformer: “A big bang solution is the only way anything fundamental will happen.”

Several years ago Ted Turner offered to give $1billion to the UN just as soon as it reformed itself.  To date we know of none of this money has actually been donated.

Resistance within is coming from the South: read the small and poor countries, which make up a big majority in the UN.  Any internal effort at reform would concentrate on political issues rather than on economic ones.  This would involve turf held most dear to small-country bureaucrats.

There is such deep disgust with the American government that any attempt at reform that is perceived as coming from our country would be furiously resisted.  This feeling has been caused by both previous bullying and failure to pay dues of around $1.5 billion.

Several years ago Mr. Annan generated a broad reform package.  Ted Turner made a major contribution toward back dues owed to the UN by the US.

In 2005 the congress approved a new package of reforms, and Ambassador John Bolton suggested modifications in the Annan plan.  (He also won cancellation of a previous General Assembly resolution that equated Zionism to racism, and not by threatening to withhold dues.)

But the US plan again threatens to withhold dues unless the reforms are installed.  We have learned from experience with this tactic that the result is widespread resentment of the bully among other national governments.

A third barrier lies in members’ unhappiness with the composition of the Security Council.  The arrangement of five permanent and veto-wielding members and 10 temporary members was reasonable in 1945, but surely the world has changed much since.

But there are two kickers here.  As above, one is a fossilized bureaucracy.

Because the permanent five (US, Russia, Britain, France, and China) operate at the pinnacle of power the other lies in human nature: personal power seeking and holding.  There are simply far too many backsides being covered (PG13).

In 2003 a task force consisting of capable folks from several nations addressed this sticky wicket.  It recommended a council of 24 members, including: 1) the existing five with veto; 2) a second tier of 7-8 elected on a regional basis for renewable terms of 4-5 years; and 3) a third tier of rotating regional members elected as today for non-renewable terms of two years.

Four countries want permanent seats: Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil.  They propose that the existing 15-member council be expanded to 25 to accommodate them.

Enter the usual kicker: politics.  Each candidate has one or more fierce opponents.  For example, America is ticked off at Germany after it weighed in against the Iraq war.

As if keeping the peace in the field were not enough, in September 2005 the Volcker committee report detailed huge corruption within the Security Council as it supervised the Iraq oil-for-food program before Iraq War II.  The committee reinforced the urgency of reform.

A fourth barrier refers to the different amounts of dues assessments.  Several fairly wealthy countries escape lightly.  Mr. Bolton got the US obligation reduced from 25 percent.

After much thought we conclude that the best and only way to attain our objective, an effective UN, is to scrap the present organization and begin over with a new charter.  Observers have learned a lot during the past 3/4-century; therefore they could compile a better charter.  (We recommend the same for our country, see PG21.)

Note that we specified observers above, not officials.  To do the job right a completely new staff is necessary, as old hands would tend to continue with old methods.

ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER: We think there is a definite need to ignore political pressures and concentrate on peacekeeping.  Otherwise people will go on thinking the organization is ineffective.

The Economist 2/1996: “Odd, really: governments instruct that UN do a certain job, fail to give it the money needed, and yet conclude that it is the UN that is at fault, not themselves.”

Peacekeeping should consist of having people on the ground wherever there is tension between groups within or among nations that could escalate into conflict.  These people should not be armed, as this just increases tensions.  They should provide an impartial and reassuring presence while negotiations proceed.

They should be trained in diplomacy, mediation, and specifically in ability to work with local people.  They should be trained listeners, so potential fighters whose hearts are in the iron grip of passion can blow off steam and thus regain their reason.

People act on their perceptions.  Applied to international relations, this means that a renegade dictator like North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un must perceive the UN as a diplomatically powerful deterrent whenever he thinks about doing something bad.

Saddam Hussein in 1990 had several legitimate grievances against his small neighbor, Kuwait.  But he saw a poorly managed UN dominated by the West.

He apparently did not think a reasonable diplomatic solution to these grievances was available by working through that organization.  This was the same outfit that took Arab lands thru force and established Israel.

Note the emphasis on diplomacy.  The UN should not be in the war business, as violence only generates more violence.

Doubters can note how police in many American inner cities often handle it, and what happens as a result: police are perceived as an enemy.  Without corrective action the situation will deteriorate to open conflict.  George Floyd springs to mind.

Although we lack hard evidence, we believe that when organized thru the UN world opinion would weigh heavily any Son of Saddam’s plans.  Even today Kim Jong-Un has no friends as China slowly abandons a sinking ship.

By bringing pressure with respect to human rights the UN would win a lot of friends away from potential combatants.  This would also act to deter a dictator from misbehaving.  See the essay on “Futility of War.”

A new development lies in the ability to sue foreign dictators in American courts.  This is extremely  important when a dictator has rigged his country’s judiciary in his favor.  Venezuela is a current example. 

In the past,American assets owned by renegade foreign dictators have been seized.  Today even Swiss bankers are cooperating with investigators.  Combine these actions with lawsuits and there may be emerging here a real deterrent.

Dinah Shelton is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame: “These cases are very important for the victims.  They establish a record of their suffering, and of the crimes of their abusers.”

In PG11 we referred to a world criminal court.  This would definitely be preferable to bringing lawsuits in American courts, for an obvious reason.  What if the accused abuser is a US soldier or government official?

While American courts are far from perfect, there is a reason for using them.  In many poor countries the judicial system is either corrupt or so slow that it is impractical to obtain justice.

We note that factions in Cambodia and Lebanon both fought each other for about 15 years or more before they were ready to quit.  Similar in cases of Ethiopia, Vietnam (France and US), Nicaragua, El Salvador.

In Guatemala it was 36 years of terror and misery.  In Sudan even longer, and still going on.

There was untold human suffering, especially among old folks, women, and children.  This suggests that Afghanistan will keep festering for a while longer, and that a gram of prevention may be worth more than a kilogram of cure (1,000 grams; the world generally uses the metric system).

Moderately successful UN peacekeeping operations include Cyprus, Namibia, Mozambique, El Salvador, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and Angola.  But the news media know that blood and gore sells, so we hear little about these.

AN INTERNATIONAL COURT: Another deterrent is being formed.  This is a world criminal court that would pass judgment and hand down penalties for crimes against humanity.  These would include genocide (mass murder), torture (Abu Ghraib, maybe?), terrorism, drug trafficking, and other international crimes.

This looks encouraging to us, although we can’t help but take note of a glaring oversight: international trafficking in weapons of mass death and destruction.  Eliminate this murderous business and confiscate and destroy existing stockpiles.

Then watch the frequency of the rest of the crimes listed drop like stones.  See PG18.

We admit that during a conflict it’s hard to catch this type of criminal.  But he would know that sooner or later the conflict will be over, and eventually we will have him.  Detectives today may still be hunting down World War II criminals.

With the weight of the world behind the Court’s verdict, where would he run to?  This realization would cause him to think that maybe starting a rumble isn’t worth the risk.

In 1993 the UN set up the International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands.  In 2002 this criminal court became the first permanent war crimes tribunal.  At first America fought establishment of the ICC, but just recently the administration has changed its stance.

The ICC issued warrants for the arrests of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.  These men were charged in 1995 with war crimes and crimes against humanity for their roles in the massacre at Srebrenica in Bosnia.  Karadzic was since caught, and we believe Mladic is still at large.

The European Union has notified Bosnia that it will not consider that country for admission to the EU until Mladic is handed over for trial.  He can run but he cannot hide, at least indefinitely.

The active seeking of justice got started in 2002.  A special court was organized in Freetown, Sierra Leone that convicted and sentenced three war criminals.

Liberia’s Charles Taylor stood trial in The Hague.  There are moves to try the alleged assassins of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister.

In Cambodia the long-awaited trials of surviving members of the Khmer Rouge that killed something like 2 million citizens got underway in early 2009.  In Senegal a former dictator of Chad — Hissene Habre — is being tried in a special court.

Uganda asked the ICC to indict three surviving leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army.  The court has also indicted Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan in connection with genocide in Darfur.  He is the first sitting head of state to be indicted.

Two Congolese warlords await trial in The Hague.  Warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba of the Central African Republic is also in The Hague.  As of January 2009 there is much discussion about Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, a possible suspect in crimes against humanity.  He was recently removed from power.

War criminals must be having serious second thoughts.  Killing with impunity looks like becoming passe’.

The American government must change its stripes.  It should begin behaving like a good citizen of the world instead of a globocop who whips around the world kicking butt.

The GW Bush administration indeed misbehaved: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the torture memos, indefinite detention without trial, extraordinary rendition, warrantless eavesdropping, and secret CIA prisons overseas.  However, just before he left office there were signs that strong international pressure is having a beneficial impact on the Texas war monger.

A June 2006 Pew Research poll found that less than a third of the people in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey had a favorable view of the US.  Those interviewed thought that the Iraq war was a worse problem than Iran’s suspected nuclear plans.

These are Muslim countries.  We wonder how many American military bases exist on the soil of mainly Muslim nations.  We need not wonder how many Muslim military bases exist on US soil while imposing Muslim culture on us.

Shortly after the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011 (News & Observer [NY Times] 6/2013):

“The use of firearms is becoming more common on all sides.  Secular activists who once chanted, ‘peaceful, peaceful,’ now joke darkly about the inevitability of violence: ‘Peaceful is dead.'”  What a shame.

The News and Observer followed 8/2013):  “In Rare Interview, Egyptian General Criticizes US,”

“—— General Abdel Fatah al-Sissi,—–.—– widely considered the most powerful man in Egypt, ——-.

“Sissi’s comments are a measure of how thoroly the Obama administration has alienated both sides in a polarized Egypt, all while trying to remain neutral.

“Sissi spoke on the same day that —- Kerry made the administration’s most supportive comments to date, saying that Egypt’s army was ‘restoring democracy.'”  Er, would you run this one past us once again?  An army, “restoring” what has arguably never existed in Egypt?

All this does is create resentment and hatred among those who should be our friends, and the desire for revenge.  We note that there is an intent to bring to trial former American secretary of defense Rumsfeld for human rights abuses that he authorized at Abu Ghraib prison.

We are pleased to note an encouraging trend that was begun by Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish Islamic scholar (News & Observer 5/2008).  “—— an entirely different version of Islam.  —– moderate and flexible, comfortably coexisting with the West while remaining distinct from it.

“Like Muslim Peace Corps volunteers, they promote this approach in schools, which are now established in more than 80 countries, Muslim and Christian.”

In 3/2010 Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Cameroon and Congo while accompanied by 140 Turkish businessmen.  Cameroon’s Islamic Cleric Mbombo Ibrahim Moubarak: “Turkey must reclaim its mantle as leader of the Islamic world.”

He likes Gulen’s version of Islam.  It subscribes to western-style democracy and free markets.  Is America passing up a golden opportunity here?  Actually, Mr. Gulen is in exile here in America.  A recent failed coup attempt in Turkey how has a dictator in charge who is fighting Gulenists.  This is not good.

ECONOMIC RESTRAINTS: Sanctions against a misbehaving country have better potential than many authorities believe.  The usual argument is that they are ineffective.

The record is mixed at best, for a couple of reasons.  One is lack of experience in their application, and another is lack of perception that it is the UN representing true world opinion that is applying them.  A third is related to the second: countries are not cooperating fully in enforcement.

They didn’t work in Haiti and Iraq, nor have they in Cuba, goes the argument.  But in all three instances the perception was the US government as the heavy, not the UN.

In spite of this perception these countries are stumbling along.  None is making bad trouble for any other country (although we freely admit that dictators’ treatment of their own citizens could stand improvement).  Libya recently responded to sanctions in a positive manner.

The point of international sanctions is not to remove a dictator from power as to make it hard for him to cause difficulties elsewhere.  If a country under a dictatorship wants democracy, the UN may have a diplomatic role in this.  Food for thought and discussion here.

TRANSITION: The year 1989 started a serious of bloodless revolutions.  Several formerly communist countries are still in the process of converting to (what officials understand is) democracy.  This was not going well.  Populists and nationalists  were in power.

Forward to 2016.(“League of Nationalists,” Economist 11/2016)

“All around the world, nationalists are gaining ground.  Why?

We have the answer.  The new social media are very good at organizing and uniting kindred spirits.  Each thinking citizen is finding millions of the same, being joined by a similar hatred of top-down govt.  Word has spread rapidly, so today those millions are becoming billions as more people start thinking.  This malaise has been dogging ordinary citizens since civilization began, but now, for the first time in history, everyone knows that nearly everyone knows it.  The result is a force that knows no bounds.  PG4 explains why these citizens accept top-down government policies.

Historically, bloodless revolutions have practically never happened.  (Or, we haven’t heard of them.)  This fact should stimulating serious thinking about a New World Order dawning.

The big issue here is whether to punish those responsible for human rights violations under the previous regime, where they possibly violated no laws that existed during the relevant time period.  Or, should the new regime forgive and forget?

We heard a former battered wife say, “I can forgive, but I can’t forget.”  The forgivers recognize the difficulty in prosecuting effectively under these conditions.

However, those whose family members were tortured, killed or “disappeared” generally cannot forgive.  Their consciences and morality demand an accounting.  Furthermore, prompt and appropriate punishment will act as a deterrent on future government officials who contemplate violations of basic human rights.

South Africa may be the best example of all.  The regime before 1994 was vicious in its maltreatment of the Black majority of citizens.

The new democratic government created a truth commission.  While its actions have surely been far from perfect, there is widespread satisfaction with its delicate function, considering the nature and size of the challenge it faced.

Perhaps the most effective element in the commission’s approach to the challenge has been encouraging victims and family members to appear before the commission and unburden themselves through talk.  This may be the only way such people can put the past behind them.

Bringing forth past oppressions also invites the public to judge their current officials by a higher standard.  This will encourage them to build a better government on a continuing basis.  Minister Benjamin tutu and Nelson Mandela were the heroes in this.

Unfortunately they were succeeded by the criminal Jacob Zuma, who plundered the nation for decades.  Today he is gone and awaits punishment.

NEW WORLD ORDER: The first opportunity to create a New World Order occurred on elder President Bush’s watch.  He blew it.  He blew it because he was a warrior, had close ties to Big Oil and hence Big Bucks, and he lacked vision.

We dare to have a go at creating a real NWO because we are convinced we can outdo George in “the vision thing” (not all that difficult).  Also, we are not warriors, and thus far Big Oil has opted to ignore us (Big Bucks too.  Actually we are Quakers.).

Our NWO would have true leaders and not politicians running things.  These people would be in the peace business like Eisenhower.

They would realize and appreciate the towering truth of human nature that says you cannot make peace by preparing for war.  They would recognize and accept the reality that there can be no such thing as a balance of military power.

Leaders in the UN would be hypersensitive to advance predictors of conflict, such as a significant difference between ethnic and political borders, recent conflict which could generate more of same (revenge), outside powers interested in stirring up trouble for whatever reasons, poverty, oppressive government, and overpopulation.  Thru experience they would develop reliable means of measuring the extent and intensity of these predictors, how they interact, and the outlook for greater intensity.

They would make a priority list of areas of tension and update it frequently in light of new information.  Inputs to this list might include a cell phone call from a far corner of the earth, bounced off a satellite.

These human and other resources would have the weight of world opinion supporting them in their efforts.  Instead of war rooms in country governments there would be peace rooms.  Instead of “defense” or war departments there would be Departments of Peace and Goodwill.

It is important that many of the human resources be drawn from the locality of the potential conflict, and that they be selected with utmost care.  These folks know the territory (PG2).

If listened to they can prevent many unpleasant and even violent surprises.  Just like nature, every part of this world is uniquely different from every other.  Recognition of this critical fact is vital to success.

We recall that China’s former top leader Mao Zedong won the Great Proletarian Revolution against staggering odds because he recruited the peasants as his friends and allies.  Even though he screwed up later he recognized the value of seeking the assistance of those who know the territory.

The British diplomat Robert Cooper wrote an essay reported in the Economist 12/20/97.  He suggested that a balance of power existed in Europe from 1648 to 1871 when Germany was unified and thus became too big for other country alliances to contain.  We don’t think 220+ years of nearly constant war can be described as a balance.

Mr. Cooper argued that NATO “—– is not so much a war machine as — by virtue of its openness — a massive confidence-building measure.”  We cannot see how accumulation of tons of weapons and training of thousands of soldiers builds confidence in peace.

The ordinary European citizen apparently agrees.  “—– problems for European governments: how do they persuade their unbelligerent voters, most of whom want to believe that warfare is passé, to pay for, and sometimes use, an effective fighting force?”

Here we see the collective wisdom of the young masses gradually prevailing over the conventional wisdom of the old warhorses.  These ordinary folks know their history; they have had enough of war.

EU government officials have been very bashful about donating soldiers to a peace-keeping mission in Lebanon after the 2006 war with Israel.  The EU was originally organized in 1950 as an economic body.

Countries that fought one another for around 500 years in the past are working together today to build peaceful economic institutions.  Young EU citizens have had enough of strife.  They are pressuring their public officials to leave peacekeeping to the UN.

We think this is an excellent development.  We write for the young.

It is very important for our leaders and diplomats in the United Nations to think and work well ahead in time.  Prevention is paramount because the “cure” is horrendous.

We also need to bear in mind that the NWO will take time to build.  In this era of sound bites and instant results we must discipline ourselves and plan for the long term. 

We think this short-term sacrifice will be worth the restraint.  We know our children and grandchildren will be grateful.

TOLERANCE: Our NWO would actively sell and emphasize tolerance.  The Lord said, “Love thy neighbor.”  We think this is a good thought, although not very easy to translate into action when our neighbor is shooting at us.

The Lord also suggested that revenge is God’s privilege, not ours.  Somewhere between love and hate lies tolerance.  As realists we would go for this while still holding out hope for better.

A better education system would greatly help.  See PG10 for details.

This is one area where we in America have generally done it right.  This fact helps to qualify us for leadership in the NWO.

True, we do have some ethnic intolerance and tensions, but we don’t believe in nor do we practice mass “ethnic cleansing” with guns.  We don’t approve of the actions of Hitler or Pol Pot.  And we have in the USA a far greater number and variety of ethnic groups than either of these characters had.

Our heritage is one of democracy and acceptance of those who look and think differently as human beings.  We believe that basic human rights are unalienable.  Today in America we need to renew our appreciation of democratic values (and twist Trump’s arm until he comes around).

We know we don’t have to look and think like others in order to accept them.  We can work with them in companies, charities, churches, civic and government organizations, athletic teams, clubs, and other groups.  All can come together in the interest of good government.

Our NWO leaders must learn how to sell tolerance to everyone.  It has tremendous potential for prevention of interethnic and international strife.  The long list of grisly outcomes in its absence is a strong selling point.

A person tends to become tolerant after some education.  Specifically, he/she learns about himself and learns to like himself (self-esteem).  Then it is much easier to reach out in friendship to others of different color, politics, race or belief

We hope tolerance guides officials in these countries: .(Economist 8/4/2018):

“As the American-led, rules-based world order apparently fragments, coalitions of the like-minded are forming to help reinforce it.”  We agree that it is worth saving.  Only look what it accomplished beginning right after WWII. 

Another major selling point is that violence diverts scarce resources away from economic development.  This means continuing poverty and misery, quite apart from the carnage caused by war.

Still another is democracy.  A common interest in good government can unite people of vastly different backgrounds and viewpoints.  See PG6.

With tolerance citizens could concentrate on economic growth.  Foreign investors would come in with their job-creating activities.  They would perceive a healthy and stable investment environment where they could get a good return on their investments with reasonable risk.

People would go to work and earn money.  Living standards would rise.  Poverty would eventually become a relatively minor issue.

While far from perfect we in the US understand tolerance as well as anyone.  This is an area where we citizens could seize the initiative and lead others in the UN.  That organization should establish facilities for continuing education in this vital subject.

PG10 shows that educated people feel comfortable with themselves.  Therefore they feel comfortable in reaching out to others whose appearance, habits and thinking are very different.  A common interest in good government unites all.

We note that our government today discourages tolerance as it encourages one group of citizens to acquire unearned special privileges over others.  This is sleazy politicking, it is unconstitutional, it is corrupt, and we don’t like it.  See PG7.

Building a NWO is looking forward as we work and congratulating ourselves as we complete steps along the way.  This activity binds us together in a shared interest in good government everywhere.  PG4 advocates bottom-up government, where citizens govern themselves.

 Security Council permanent members Russia and China have long voted against intervention in a nation’s internal affairs.  Both have internal dissension and don’t want any intervention within their own borders.

So a recent decision came as quite a surprise (Economist 3/5/2011): “—- the UN Security Council unanimously (our emphasis) agreed ——– to tell the prosecutor of the ICC to probe the Libyan crisis.”  Apparently both Russia and China thought that Qaddafi had gone too far.  (This applies especially to China, which gunned down its own people in Tian ‘Anmen Square in 1989.)

With little experience in world history we must speculate.  But we see no reason why we can’t work toward good world government just as we actively seek the same within a nation.

Without something exciting to look forward to, each of us tends to look backward at our widely different ethnic heritages.  This activity tends to fragment us, to split us apart.  Good government is something we can all look forward to.

Compassion moves beyond tolerance.  The following moving story comes from the pen of a nun.  (We digress but slightly.)

“When the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko was a child, he witnessed German war prisoners being marched through Moscow.  Twenty million Russians had died at the hands of the Germans.

“The streets brimmed with angry bystanders, mostly Russian women who had lost a father, husband, or son in the war.  Soviet police could hardly hold them back as they waited for the prisoners.

“Yevtushenko wrote, ‘All at once the German solders appeared: thin, unshaven, wearing dirty blood-stained bandages, hobbling on crutches or leaning on the shoulders of their comrades; the soldiers walked with their heads down.  The crowd became dead silent …..

“‘Then an elderly woman pushed her way through the police line … from inside her coat she unwrapped a crust of black bread and pushed it awkwardly into the pocket of a soldier.  Suddenly from every side women came running toward the soldiers, pushing into their hands bread, cigarettes, whatever they had.'”

The American government would have us citizens believe thru its media hype that we occupy the moral high ground in any issue that crops up.  Therefore there is no need for any of this on our part.

Or, —- hmm.  Just a minute, please.

This may be other things that Russians have to teach us.  We need only give them the opportunity.  Perhaps in a NWO …..

The late Pope John Paul II’s encyclical is called “Fides et Ratio,” or “Faith and Reason.”  He believed that these two can and should work together in the pursuit of truth.  We like it like that.

GETTING RIGHT DOWN TO IT

Let’s get into a typical sequence of steps that the UN might take to prevent a conflict.  We realize that the number, emphasis, and timing of these steps would vary with the situation.  We also acknowledge that experience will bring about changes that we cannot anticipate at present.

First, here is an idea that would act to minimize the need for the sequence below.  The UN should push for every member nation to pass a law that requires a genuine referendum among citizens to authorize any type of armed conflict being planned by its government.  They should also authorize production or acquisition of any weapons.

The reason for this is that today people don’t decide to go to war; government officials do.  These cats know they will not be called upon to do the fighting, killing, and dying, or pay for it.  This makes the decision whether to engage in conflict much easier.

Second, diplomacy plods.  It often goes unrecognized, and it makes few headlines.  These factors combine to do little for its image in a world of sound bites, political intrigue, and high drama.

This is not to underestimate its importance, just as we should avoid underestimating the importance of the parent who stays home with small children (PG9).  We also recognize the trash collector who comes by every week rain or shine.  A job need not be glitzy to be important.

Jean Monnet was the original inspiration behind the formation of the European Union, back about 1950.  He said the first task of diplomacy was to get the negotiators on one side of the table and the problem on the other.

Diplomacy is prevention.  We should recognize and reward competence in it, instead of putting fat cats with deep pockets into choice foreign jobs in diplomacy after they have greased politicians’ palms.

We first heard about this sleazy practice back in the 1950s when we read a book called The Ugly American.  We are shocked to learn that 70 years later it is still business as usual.

Experienced and competent career diplomats interested in top jobs can hardly be motivated so long as this continues.  Morale has to suffer, and the effectiveness of the job along with it.

Today’s national diplomat always has an ax to grind.  For any potential conflict or even difference of opinion, he/she quite understandably negotiates in favor of the country that delivers his paycheck.

A UN diplomat carries with him/her a different mandate, which can and should be unbiased with respect to the issue being negotiated.  When compiling a specific crisis prevention team the UN should select personnel who have little or no personal, financial or patriotic interest in the outcome. 

Members of the team should be schooled in self-respect.  Many top officials in poor countries are egotistical, so slather it on, just like s-g Perez de Cuellar.

The Economist 10/2016) seems encouraged with the next guy.

“Antonio Guterres, who will succeed Ban Ki-moon at the year’s end, has been welcomed across the global board.”  That, friends, says a lot.

“—– string of straw polls among the 15 countries ——- security council, ——–.  But in the sixth and final straw poll, the five permanent members ——–, each having the power to block any candidate ———.  ————.  ——- superpowers had all agreed to embrace him.”  This has to feel good.

“—– he understands the inner workings of the vast and cumbersome UN bureaucracy.  He is multilingual and articulate.  Moreover, he is universally considered decent and able, pragmatic and principled, affable but steely.  He knows how to communicate to the world and knock powerful heads together.

Here is one to challenge his mix of talents: a huge mass tragedy. (Economist 10/2017)

‘——— Rohingya is the latest atrocity the UN has failed to stop.

“The Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s army, is chiefly responsible for the ethnic cleansing.  —–.

“But the UN is at fault, too.  Despite having 19 agencies in Myanmar, and several offices and plenty of staff in Rakhine state, it has failed to stop the catastrophe or warn of its coming.

TO THE STEPS:

1. Diplomacy first.  Today’s foreign diplomatic corps generally sticks around the capital city, because most governments are top-down and so that is where the main action is.  However, this also means a separation from the grassroots and possible ignorance of trouble brewing out there.

The UN team would be spread far and wide, along with political power.  Members would be plugged into the culture, and would utilize local folks who know the territory as resources.  They would keep channels of communication open, and their ears to the ground.  An America without a pentagon could provide trained peaceniks.  (Career politicians need not apply.)

Today the government is dealing with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China  and several potential enemies such as Yemen.  Practically all current thinking about these nations involves using or at least emphasizing military threats or actions.  This geostrategic line of thought not only operates on the wrong side of history (We have argued that citizens in several if not most advanced countries have had it with war).  It also works the wrong side of the unavoidable trade-off between economic and military strength.  Put similarly, economic strength is win-win, while war is lose-lose.  As of today, the US has been at continuing war for 19 years (three presidents) and counting.

Therefore a first warning of potential trouble may come from the countryside in to the central government.  In a majority of instances the problem would be nipped right then and there thru a process of discussions and debate.  If not,

2. Trained international mediators.  If operating free of political bias these people could accomplish a lot.  If caught early enough they could stop many potential trouble spots at this early stage, because their actions would be guided by reason.  Failing in this,

3. Arbitration panels where awards are backed by the force of law.  Disputing nations or groups would select some members of the panel and agree to abide by the resulting award after each has presented its case.

4. Economic sanctions if arbitration is refused or fails.  The UN would impose limited economic sanctions after a vote in the general assembly and after appropriate advance warning.  Potential antagonists would be notified that mediators and arbitrators are standing by if they think they can help.

5. Full economic sanctions and an arms embargo (if necessary; see PGs 11 and 18).  These would also be by vote and advance notice.

By this point the disputing parties would feel isolated.  World pressure would build for a peaceful solution.

They would hesitate before going to war.  This would provide the vital opportunity for reason to guide negotiations.

6. Total trade embargo.  The vote would by now be nearly unanimous.

7. Total blockade, of water, land, and air passages.  Isolate the combatants.  With every neighboring country cooperating through the UN this could be done.

Several large areas of land would be selected in various parts of the world.  These would be some distance away from densely populated places and would be leased from the country where situated.  Refugee camps would be established on these areas.

Reasonable comfort would be provided for stays of up to two or three years, and provision for ethnic needs would be set up (churches, etc).  Resource people experienced or trained in the appropriate culture would be available.

Whenever a situation gets to step four or five a contingency plan should be prepared.  This would cover evacuation of noncombatants willing to go to a refugee camp.

Persuasion will emphasize the consequences for those who decide to stay.  If step seven should fail, all will be ready.

Grisly as this sounds, we are only being real.  The combatants who remain are then free to fight it out until there is no one left standing, they run out of ammunition or they have simply had enough.

Once the plan described above is in place and functioning well there should be extremely few instances that go the full route to conflict.  Even the camps may no longer be needed after, say, 2040.  By that time a worldwide search would find not a single nuclear weapon.

After a few examples of what happens in the event of conflict in spite of all attempts to prevent it potential antagonists will think twice or three times before allowing things to get out of control.  World opinion will weigh in through the UN, so this will be the logical outcome in practically all cases.

The refugees would not just sit there waiting until folly has run its course.  They would be busy planning for a democratic government to be installed after they return to their homeland.  Plans for the institutions needed to govern effectively under a democracy can and should be compiled at this time, not later.

Refugees could plan for whatever type of government they want.  If they want democracy UN resources would be made available to assist in planning and implementation.  If they want something else, support would be given in accordance with voting among UN members.

We suggest this because the record is quite clear: even half-baked democracies are far less likely to go to war than are countries with any other type of government.  This applies as well to internal conflict as to the international variety.  By following this suggestion the UN will minimize its future conflict prevention workload.

The bottom-up approach to planning is best, because people support what they help to create.  In other words, practice democracy while preparing for it (PG4).

End of plan for a NWO that emphasizes prevention of conflict.  We dare to suggest that this, friends, is the way to keep peace (or make it without violence if diplomacy fails).

Over what time period would these steps be taken?  We don’t know; it would vary a lot.  Let’s say around 3-10 years.

As we put the pocket gofers to work for us we need not go to such elaborate precautions to avoid conflict.  We need only keep our cool and avoid any violence or even risk of same as we proceed to install the first good government we have had in at least 60 years.

After a conflict the UN should provide follow-on resources.  These would consist of people skilled in building democracy out of the nearly nothing that would remain after a long fight.  (A blank political slate on the ground could be an advantage.)

This assistance would respond to requests only, as the people will want to have the satisfaction of doing it themselves.  However, foreign investors and non-government aid agencies may want to see use of some outside resources before they loosen their purse strings.

We again think back to our history books.  In the 17th and 18th centuries our ancestors worked effectively with very little and built a democracy.  Therefore we know it can be done, so we could help the UN in this effort (provided that our government’s stripes have changed).

In making this observation we recognize and intend to take nothing away from the Amer-Indian cultures who were here before us.  Their democracies were probably better than ours, but without written historical records this determination is difficult to make.

Nevertheless, we may find helpful resources among these peoples.  Peace pipes can be utilized for many other purposes besides smoking.

CONCLUSION

We will get enough of us to belly up to the military monster and go eyeball-to-eyeball.  We will stare him down.

Any high-ranking coward can start a war.  To step forward united in the cause of peace takes real courage.

On this vital subject we have a glowing example that could well have been inspired by Gandhi.  His name is Preah Maha Ghosananda (Economist 3/24/07): “——– ‘the Gandhi of Cambodia,’ died on March 12th, aged 78.  From his obit:

“Where he walked was often remote, but it was neither safe nor quiet.  ——- along narrow paths that threaded thru the jungle forests of central Cambodia.  Care was necessary, for the ground had been sown with landmines up to the edge of the trails.

“Behind him, chanting to the beat of a drum, would stream 200-300 laymen, monks and nuns, walking across Cambodia for peace.

“Shells screamed over the walkers, and firefights broke out around them.  Some were killed.  The more timid ran home, but Ghosananda had chosen his routes deliberately to pass thru areas of conflict.

“‘We must find the courage to leave our temples,’ Ghosananda insisted, ‘and enter the suffering-filled temples of human experience.’  Soldiers laid down their arms and knelt by the side of the road.  Villagers brought water to be blessed, ———.”

We will watch the weight of millenniums of history fall through the floor.  Then we will actively participate in helping to create conditions where we and other peoples of the world can develop economies free of the massive carnage that always accompanies today’s armed conflict.

This pocket gofer has referred to the horrors of violence.  PGs 11 and 18 elaborate.  Having new insights into these we will move forward peacefully as we work through the new UN to build a world free of violence.

We firmly believe that the new organization’s headquarters should not be in NY City.  A  much better location would be in some remote area not in America with comparably spartan accommodations, which would favor dedicated delegates over relatively posh New York.  Fewer distractions this way and longer duration before the outfit becomes bureaucratized.

We wonder if at some time not far in the future we might peek into a foreign diplomat’s hip pocket and find a translated copy of this pocket gofer.  Or, we might make a contribution (PG6) toward world peace by putting one there.

We will watch people’s living standards improve.  Our children will do the same.

A towering challenge?  We can bet our bippy.  But, no pain no gain.

Are we up for it?  Our children, grandchildren, and generations as yet unborn surely hope so.  Their prayers will join with ours.

…………..PUBLIUS II

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO, DISCUSS, CRITICIZE, AND ACT ON:

PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE U.S.A.

PG 11 – ON THE U.S. AS A WORLD CITIZEN

PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION