ENDING WAR
An American historian, Will Durant, writing with his wife
Ariel, tells us that there have been only 268 of the past 3,421 years free of
war. [The Lessons of History, 1968],
World War I resulted in 10 million deaths; World War II in
55 million. The United Nations recently reported that there are more than 35
major ongoing conflicts in the world today, and that there have been more than
250 major wars since World War II. Rabbi
Jonathon Sacks in Not in My Name –notes
the ongoing conflict between the three Abrahamic religions – Islam, Judaism and
Christianity, also that the bible is filled with violence. Modern scholars view the account of Cain
killing Abel in Genesis occurring at the beginnings of agricultural civilization;
not the beginnings of man, but it is indicative from our earliest of times, of
man’s propensity to violence. The story
may also be based on a Sumerian story representing the conflict between nomadic
shepherds and settled farmers.
War has been a disaster that we have inflicted on ourselves
since the beginnings of recorded history. It is still on-going. The
unbelievable destruction of the cities in Syria that we see on our TVs has
resulted in over a quarter of a million Syrians killed, and over one million
injured. 4.8 million Syrians have been forced to leave the country, and 6.5
million are internally displaced.
How do we stop these horrors?
First, if we are going to prevent war, we need to ascertain
its causes. This book puts forward two
theories – one is powerful leaders wishing to conquer people or territory (Napoleon,
Hitler, Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc.); and the second is our belief systems
(The Crusades, the wars of religion). In both systems, the support of the people
of the belligerent country is necessary.
The book will explore the reasons why we do that
Determining the
cause of war, however, is not a simple task. If we look, for example, at World
War I, the centenary just past, we find several speculative causes: the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne,
in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914; the multiplicity of interlocking treaties – there
were close to a dozen- forcing one country to come to the aid of another if
attacked. Other theories were the Schlieffen plan: Germany’s Chief of Staff,
Alfred von Schlieffen, produced his first plan in 1905: to defeat France
quickly, forcing it to surrender before Russia was able to mobilize her armed
forces. It involved invading neutral Belgium. Even Britain is blamed for WWI,
on two counts. One is if Britain had not declared war on Germany, a local
dispute involving Austria-Hungary and Serbia would have stayed in that part of
the world. France of course, would have
been conquered. The second is that Britain waited too long to guarantee Belgium
neutrality. If it had made the commitment openly and early, Germany would not
have taken the risk of invading a neutral country. There are many other
possible reasons. A BBC news/magazine
has 10 interpretations on the causes behind WWI.
Our belief is that it was Germany’s invasion of Belgium
that started the killing war, and the great bloodlettings of the Somme and
Verdun. This is the powerful leader theory at work; the leaders being mainly
Kaiser Wilhelm II with his angry, autocratic personality, his belief in the
clairvoyance of all crowned heads, along with his Prussian militaristic army
command.
The current Syrian
crisis is a conflict in belief systems. Sunni vs Shia.
In chapter 1 we document the multitude of theories that
historians have dreamed up about the causes of war. This chapter only causes us
to be aware that the thesis of the book – that war is primarily caused by
aggressive power-hungry leaders wishing to acquire more power or territory –
does not have universal support.
Chapter 2 traces all wars, in this case 149 wars (LIKELY
CHANGE NUMBER WHEN RESEARCH IS FINISHED), from the very beginning, in an
attempt to provide some support to this thesis. We divide the causes of
war into five categories
1. Power = a war fought for territory &/or
power
2. Religion = Wars of religion. Although the
crusades are uncertain
3. Civil
War = A war within one country.
although those that are clearly fought to gain power have been labelled a such
4. Justified
= Wars for freedom or righting a wrong,
(although wars to rid the country of a conquering are labelled power as the original cause was a
conquest for power ).
5. Justified/Power = Wars to rid the country of a conqueror are so labelled as the original cause was a
conquest for power ).
6. ???? =
Unsure of reason
NOTE that this research is
half finished, So far, some 65% of wars fit the territory or power theory
This conclusion is evidenced in China by Mencius,
372 BC -
289 BC, the most incisive of the followers
of Confucius, often described as the "Second Sage.[1]
Mencius said, 'May I hear from
you what it is that you greatly desire?' The king laughed and did not speak.
Mencius resumed, 'Are you led to desire it, because you have not enough of rich
and sweet food for your mouth? Or because you have not enough of light and warm
clothing for your body? Or because you have not enough of beautifully coloured
objects to delight your eyes? Or because you have not voices and tones enough
to please your ears? Or because you have not enough of attendants and
favourites to stand before you and receive your orders? Your Majesty's various
officers are sufficient to supply you with those things. How can your Majesty
be led to entertain such a desire on account of them?' 'No,' said the king; 'my
desire is not on account of them.' Mencius added, 'Then, what your Majesty
greatly desires may be known. You wish to enlarge your territories, to have
Ch'in and Ch'û wait at your court, to rule the Middle Kingdom, and to attract
to you the barbarous tribes that surround it. But doing what you do to seek for
what you desire is like climbing a tree to seek for fish.'
The finding
is that a majority of wars were started by leaders wanting more power. An
interesting and inexplicable aspect of this finding is that these wars have, in
the main, been supported by the populace of the country starting the war. This
issue raises a number of questions, the main one of which is why. Why do people
support wars in which their country is clearly wrong? Why do they support the
voices of authority in their country?
Chapter 3 endeavours to answer this question.
How do we stop war is the topic of Chapter 4. Bertrand Russell,
a pacifist, has given us his answers: The minimum prerequisites for peace are a
single government of the world with a monopoly of police power, a general
diffusion of wealth so that no nation has a special cause for envy, a low birth
rate throughout the world, and an atmosphere in which individual initiative in
science art and play can thrive.
Chapter 4 explores the possibilities for ending war through
two methods. One is ending war by strengthening the existing policing powers of
the United Nations. The second is controlling the manufacture and selling of
armaments
It is very unlikely that we will ever see a single world
government. Very few countries would
give up their independence for one world government. There are already many on
the conservative side of politics who advocate smaller government, not larger
government. In addition, moral philosophers advocate a multiplicity of
conflicting ethical theories. One theory, that of Immanuel Kant, reads: ’Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it
should become a universal law’, gives an imprimatur for people on either side
of a conflict to advocate that their viewpoint should be the universal law.
But there is one possibility where we might get agreement -
a universal policeman. Such a policeman would be a body within the United
Nations, able to act independently, but within prescribed conditions. Currently, the UN relies on donor countries
for staffing its peace-keepers, describing itself as the only fire brigade that
has to borrow its fire engine before it can put out a fire. With the proposed changes,
at least some Blue Helmets would be in under the direct and immediate responsibility
of the United Nations. So what would be the prescribed conditions? One obvious
condition would be that an invasion of one country by another would trigger a
UN response.
A second would be internal insurrection. How would these
conditions have operated in recent wars? The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2
August 1990 had long been anticipated. The two countries had been at
loggerheads for some years, over the pricing of oil and slant drilling by
Kuwait into Iraqi reserves. Saddam Hussain also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir
was a highly unpopular figure in Kuwait. The possibility of war was
anticipated. The US ambassador, aware of
the massing of troops on the border, had questioned the Iraq High Command. UN
intervention at that stage would likely have prevented what subsequently turned
out to be a disastrous intervention by the Coalition of the Willing. Of the 48 countries on the Willing list,
three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia
and Poland), in addition to the United States.
The invasion of Iraq took place in Mar 19, 2003. The morality of this invasion,
complicated by the issue of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, has long been disputed.
The then United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said in September 2004
that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the
war] was illegal."
It could readily be argued, however, that if the UN had
learned of Saddam Hussein’s troop movements, and had moved its Blue Helmets in
to protect Kuwait, the 1990 invasion and its disastrous consequences would never
have occurred. The UN possibly would not have needed even to move troops. A
statement that it would deploy its Blue Helmets in order to prevent a war would
have been enough to deter Iraq. Or any similar aggressor.
Would the United Nations have become aware of Saddam
Hussein’s invasion plans early enough to have taken action? That is another factor that needs to be considered. Since 1994 over 70 countries world-wide have
introduced whistleblowing laws designed to protect people who speak out against
actual or possible wrongdoing. Blowing the whistle has proven very effective in
stopping immorality at the highest levels of government. Richard Nixon was forced to resign due to the
revelations of a whistleblower on what came to be the Watergate scandal. The
recent Panama papers exposure of Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who resigned as
Prime Minister of Iceland after the revelations, along with numerous other high-ranking
officials using tax havens is further evidence of the power of encouraging public
exposures. The Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif resigned as prime
minister of Pakistan in July 2017 following a unanimous decision by the
country's Supreme Court to disqualify him from office following the 2015 Panama
Papers dump after a probe into his family's wealth.
We can now say with some confidence, that if a country is
about to do some wrong, that somebody with knowledge of that proposed
wrongdoing will be in a position to expose it.
Whether for reasons of maintaining world peace, or even a desire to stop
another person in the same administration from acting unethically, somebody can
speak out. If we offer that person total immunity, substantial compensation,
and a new life, some will speak out
The world is now developing a tool that can bring about a
more peaceful world.
Such a tool will not always work. But if we look at beginnings
of World War II, it seems unlikely that any in the German High Command would have
exposed the military intentions of Adolf Hitler. However, as noted below, some did attempt. If the United Nations had been in existence,
and had announced that it would send its Blue Helmets to keep peace in the
Sudetenland, Hitler would realise his aggression would put him in confrontation
with the whole world. He would likely have backed off. Chamberlain’s Munich visit in 1938 would have
been necessary. The world would not have gone to war.
General Hans Oster, deputy head of the Abwehr, and other prominent
figures within the German military, opposed the regime for its behaviour that
was threatening to bring Germany into a war. He and a few who agreed with him planned,
in 1938, to storm the Reich Chancellery and overthrow Hitler. Neville
Chamberlain’s concession of strategic areas of Czechoslovakia to Hitler destroyed
any chance of the plot succeeding, as Hitler was now seen positively in Germany.
With a world policeman, however they need only have appealed to the United
Nations.
After the failed 1944 July Plot on Hitler's life, the
Gestapo seized the diaries of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr,
in which Oster's long term anti-Nazi activities were revealed. In April 1945,
Oster was hanged with Canaris and Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Flossenbürg
concentration camp.
Rudolf Hess provides another example. Once the appointed
deputy to the Führer, Hess, in essence, was the Nazi’s second in command. On 10
May 1941, he decided to fly a Messerschmitt Bf 110, by himself, to Scotland to
meet the Duke of Hamilton and to open peace talks between the English and the
Germans. Hess knew Hitler was about to launch operation Barbarossa – the
invasion of Russia, which he believed was a mistake. Hess did not act early
enough to prevent the war, but he does provide evidence that there are people
on the war-mongering side who are willing to speak out.
The position of all liberal countries is quite clear. We
should support the United Nations unreservedly. And launch a campaign, across all
supporting countries, to establish a world policeman in the United Nations.
The second approach is stopping the arms race .It is
incomprehensible that private businesses, supposedly controlled by the many
governments of this world, are building and selling arms This part of the book
will propose a moratorium on arms manufacture , and the establishment of a
peace movement to gather international support.
The third approach is enlisting the support of the peace institutes.
If each institute in the weapons producing countries was to mobilise its
influence to con
Between the three approaches, the UN policing for peace, and a
moratorium on the manufacture of weapons, mobilised by the supporters of the
peace institutes, we can stop war.
Comments
Post a Comment