Peace Movement Needs Alternative to War (8/16/05)
by Dean Hartwell
Recently, we have seen the efforts of Cindy Sheehan to get an audience with President Bush to discuss her opposition to the war in Iraq. The President should answer her question as to what noble cause her son died for in Iraq.
But her story is missing something. Yes, we need to dream of a world where war no longer exists. But we also need to present an alternative to war.
I thought about this idea when I read the book One World Democracy: A Progressive Vision for Enforceable Law (Origin Press, 2005). Written by Jerry Tetalman and Byron Belitsos, it describes a solution to many of the world’s problems, such as war, poverty and disease.
The solution is a world governing body equipped to enforce decisions made by judges and elected representatives picked by people around the world.
Imagine the abolition of war. The authors suggest that the nations of planet Earth would no longer have a military with which to start wars. Instead, the nations would be like what states are now in the United States. If, say, Colorado now gets into a dispute with Arizona, the federal court system settles the dispute. A world government would have a similar judicial system to handle disputes between nations.
How would this system work against a tyrant like Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait in 1990? A global police force, comprised of all nations, would be dispatched by a world executive council to apprehend and arrest Hussein and his closest advisors. The judicial system mentioned above would try them in a court of law which would give them the rights of attorneys, presentation of witnesses and cross-examination, etc. In short, the persons responsible and not innocent civilians would be punished.
And what about the terrorists who allegedly attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? In much the same way, the global police force would pursue Osama bin Laden and his associates to arrest them and turn them over for prosecution. This judicial system would enforce the rights of individuals over nations.
The global system suggested by Tetalman and Belitsos could solve other problems as well. For instance, since nations would no longer be spending obscene sums of money on weapons and war, money would be saved to fight problems such as poverty and disease. The authors suggest expansion of the US’s Peace Corps for the former so as to teach people “how to fish” instead of just giving them money or food. They recommend more intensive education on prevention of AIDS and other disease around the world.
Of course, world government has its critics.
Some people fear that giving up national sovereignty to an international organization will lead to an influence of foreigners over laws, cultures and our culture. But world government will mean there will be no foreigners. And individual nations in the new government will still have control over local laws.
Other people, particularly those in the United States, complain that their nation will lose leverage of enforcing their will upon other nations if they have to give up nuclear weapons. But the United States is the only nation ever to have used these weapons. Also, the new government would control all nuclear weapons so that no one would ever need them.
Still others complain that there would be an influx of people moving from overpopulated areas (like India, for example) to other areas of the world and take away jobs from the people in their new area. But the world government would address the problems of overpopulation and hunger, among other things, in places like India, thus inducing people to stay there.
Like Cindy Sheehan, we have every right to protest what we believe is wrong. But without presenting an alternative to those in power, we will go nowhere. If you want a real alternative to the problems we face in this world, this book is for you.