LET'S ABOLISH WAR

Ronald J. Glossop

I. Introduction.
A. For at least the past two months the attention of the world has
been focused on the issue of whether a war would take place in Iraq.
B. The focus was on the question, Should the U.S. launch a
preemptive military attack or not? War or no war? The only
alternative to war which received much attention was whether the U.N.
inspectors should be given more time to investigate to discover
whether Iraq had hidden weapons of mass destruction.
C. Another possible way of dealing with Saddam Hussein and his
tryrannical regime with its gross violations of human rights was
hardly mentioned: Why not have the U.N. Security Council establish a
tribunal to investigate these crimes as had been done for crimes
committed in the former Yugoslavia? That tribunal investigated and
exposed the crimes of Milosevic and others. As a result of
international efforts, including those of the United States,
Milosevic and some others are being prosecuted by the international
tribunal in The Hague in the Netherlands.
D. In 1991 and again in 1997-98 the United States Congress
overwhelmingly adopted legislation recommending to the administration
that such a tribunal be established by the U.N., and another similar
resolution was introduced in Congress just last February. Why didn't
the executive branch follow up on this legislative action? I'm not
privy to behind-the-scenes discussions at the higher levels of our
government, but I strongly suspect that the idea of such a tribunal
was nixed because of the danger that such a tribunal would have
wanted to examine the role of U.S. officials in assisting Saddam
Hussein to get some equipment he needed to carry out the poison gas
attacks against the Iranians as well as the Kurds in Iraq. Remember
that in the 1980s, this country was very concerned about the new
revolutionary Islamic government in Iran and was assisting Saddam in
his war against that country.
E. But that point is a small part of the topic I want to focus on
today. The war in Iraq raised public concern about this particular
war, but not much about the issue of war in general. That is my
concern. Why do we continue to have wars? What could and should be
done to abolish them?
F. The SARS epidemic has made us very aware that the problem of
disease is still very much with us. At the same time the war in Iraq
should wake us up to the fact that the problem of war, which should
be regarded as a disease of society, is still very much with us.
G. We cannot wait until there is a particular war or a threat of a
particular war. We need to think about the problem of war and deal
with it in advance rather than waiting until there are very few or no
alternatives left.
H. The notion of abolishing all war is likely to be regarded as
utopian as the idea of abolishing all disease, though I believe that
dealing with groups of humans is a bit less difficult than dealing
with bacteria and viruses. But even if we cannot totally abolish
absolutely all wars, we must at least address ourselves to
drastically reducing the likelihood of war, just as we seek to
decrease the likelihood of epidemics.
I. One important way in which the war problem is like the disease
problem is that focusing on how terrible the consequences are or
describing the misery in dramatic detail may make good news stories
and may develop a great deal of public anxiety about the gravity of
the problem, but that kind of reporting and emoting does not help at
all to solve the problem. Reporters and artists can arouse pity and
concern, but their focus on horrible consequences can in fact
distract us from the more mundane and useful tasks of exploring the
causes and implementing preventive measures.

II. In dealing with any problem, the first step is to clarify
exactly what the problem is that needs to be solved.
A. As we deal with the problem of war, however, we must keep in mind
that it is not only peace which is desired but also freedom and
justice. Peace is good but it is not the only social good. We are
looking for a way of getting peace that does not sacrifice freedom
and justice.
B. So what exactly is war, this thing that we would like to
eliminate? I think that there are four important elements of war
which we need to be aware of. Furthermore, if we keep these elements
in mind we can avoid some common mistakes about the nature of war and
the war problem.
C. Here is the key definition of exactly what war is: War is (1)
large-scale violent conflict (2) between organized groups (3) which
are seeking political power (that is, they already are governments or
they are groups seeking to become or take over a government) (4) over
some territory.
1. Note that not all conflict is war. This is one major
misunderstanding which people have about war. When I say that one of
my aims is to abolish war, I often get the response, "But you will
never be able to get rid of all conflict." My response is, "Who said
anything about getting rid of all conflict. I'm not opposed to all
conflict. In fact, I believe that conflict is often an important
step in making progress, whether in our thinking or in our behavior."
But here is one big mistake people make in thinking about war. They
believe that all conflict is war, but war is only that kind of
conflict which becomes large-scale violence. We don't need to get
rid of all conflict. We need to focus rather on how to manage
conflict so that it does not grow into large-scale violent conflict.
2. Note next that war is group vs. group and NOT individual vs. individual.
a. This fact is one reason that war is so immoral. People aim to
kill or harm one another not because of anything about that
individual but simply because that person belongs to "the enemy
group." Whether we are talking about war between country and country
or between religion and religion or between race and race or between
rich and poor, the tragedy is that individuals are not being judged
or treated according to what they personally have done. All other
personal qualities are viewed as irrelevant, and people are attacked
just because they are members of that other group.
b. This fact also is overlooked by people who believe that the best
way to overcome war is to get individuals to commit themselves to a
nonviolent life-style. In war violence is committed mainly out of
motivations of patriotism and obedience to superiors, not because of
a desire to deliberately injure some particular person. Why did the
atom bomb get dropped on Hiroshima? Did those in the plane feel some
desire to do violence to the particular individuals living in that
Japanese city? Not at all. They did it out of loyalty to their
country and a desire to do their duty to help their own country win
the war.
c. Certainly, it is possible that some persons would refuse to
participate in any kind of war because of their adoption of the
principle of nonviolence. But what would happen if a large number of
persons in one group refused to participate in war while those in
another group are ready to follow the orders of their leaders to use
violence? It is not difficult to see who would win such a war. If
it were generally agreed that conflicts between groups were not going
to be decided by violence, then individuals committed to nonviolence
would not be a liability to a group. But that is to say that if war
could first be eliminated as a way of working out group conflict,
then individuals who refuse to participate in war would no longer be
a liability to their group. Note, however, that the elimination of
war must come first, not the commitment to a nonviolent lifestyle.
3. Third, note that the aim of warfare is the gaining of political
power, that is the right to make and enforce laws and policies for
the larger group.
a. Wars can be fought internationally (one country against another
country) or intranationally (between opposing groups within a
country). The issue to be decided is, Who will make the laws and
policies for the whole society within some territory? Consider World
War II and Iraq as international wars and then the wars in Bosnia and
Kosovo as examples of intranational wars.
b. Why a democratic political system is THE alternative to war:
take the definition of "war" and replace the word "violent" with the
word "nonviolent." Something (what is it?) is (a) large-scale
nonviolent conflict (b) between organized groups (c) which are
seeking political power (d) over some territory. That seems to be a
pretty good definition of politics within a democratic society.
Different groups want to make the laws and policy, and they fight it
out by means of a nonviolent election rather than a violent war.
They use "ballots" instead of "bullets" to determine who will have
political power until the next election. Obviously the election must
be by secret ballot and voters must have the opportunity to be
informed about what they are voting for.
c. Consider the abortion issue in this country as a beautiful
illustration of how democratic political and judicial contests can
replace the violence of war.
d. Having democratic political and judicial processes in order to
resolve out policy conflicts also means that freedom and justice are
preserved.
4. Fourth, note that there is always some territory which is to be
governed by that government.
a. Consider how the Basques in Spain or the Chechnyans in Russia or
the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey want their own territory to govern
rather than being part of some country where they are a minority.
b. In some cases the territory to be governed is actually broader
than the national boundaries of one country. For example, during the
days of the British Empire, the government in London governed or
controlled much more than the territory of what is now the United
Kingdom. The residents in the colonies did not get to vote for their
governors or the policies to be followed.
c. Similarly, today the government of the United States governs or
controls much more than the territory of the United States through
its behind-the-scenes control of international organizations such as
the U.N., the O.A.S., N.A.T.O., W.T.O., and so on. The residents of
the other countries do not get to vote for the American leaders who
will determine their fate.
d. The Earth as a totality constitutes a natural border of the
territory to be governed, and when the Earth is governed by a single
global government that maintains peace among the nations, the
location of the national boundaries will be less important.
Countries will no longer need to be so big in order to protect
themselves militarily from other countries.

III. A complicated and enduring problem like war will require a
multi-faceted program of action. I believe that many different
things need to be done to diminish the likelihood of war. These
proposed solutions are tied to various views on what causes war.
Nevertheless we can classify all of them into four general kinds of
actions that will be required to make war less likely.
A. Change the attitudes of individuals: We need to become more
skeptical and tolerant, better informed about social issues and
different ideologies, less ready to use violence to resolve conflict,
and more ready to subordinate nationalism/patriotism to
globalism/humatriotism and world citizenship.
1. There is a strong link between nationalism and language .
Thus one way to counteract the influence of nationalism is for
everyone, especially children throughout the world, to learn other
languages.
2. But just learning other national languages may just produce
bi-nationalism or tri-nationalism. Everyone needs to learn the world
language Esperanto in order to become part of the whole-world
Esperanto community. The world language Esperanto is crucial not
just for communicating with the rest of the world but also for
developing a sense of belonging to the global community.
3. Whoever wishes to be a world citizen, to be a member of a
truly planetary community, has a major obligation to learn the world
language Esperanto. And that includes our children and grandchildren.
B. Change the structure of national governments: Within all the
countries of the world we need to develop democracies in order to
peacefully control domestic conflict and also to reduce the readiness
to use violence against others.
1. This is the proclaimed policy of the government
of the United States, but in reality our country has seemed more
interested in advancing capitalism and the welfare of U.S.-based
corporations than political democracy. This was obvious in Vietnam
and Chile, for example, where we vigorously opposed popularly
supported leaders because they were sympathetic to socialism.
2. Current trends within this country are causing some to
wonder about the capacity of a democratic political system to
withstand economic manipulation.
C. Change the policies of national governments: Rely less on force
and threat of force and more on diplomatic negotiation, third party
mediation, and views of outsiders plus instituting and relying on
international institutions for conflict resolution and collective
problem solving (using the U.N. system and other international
organizations).
1. But it must be noted that diplomatic negotiation differs
from politics because it is usually carried out with the threat of
force in the background; thus the use of diplomacy can encourage
militarism rather than bringing it under control.
2. Our present administration seems to be pursuing the very
different strategy of peace through overwhelming intimidating
military power. Such a policy may produce peace in the short term
but risks creating an international system where nothing matters in
international relations except military power.
D. Change from an international system where war and threats of
war are primary to an international system where conflicts are worked
out by political and judicial means as occurs within many countries.
We need democratic institutions and individual judicial
accountability at the global level.
1. It is important to hold individuals accountable in order to
stop wars, even though wars are fought between group and group. The
problem is the way in which aggressive individual leaders manage to
get the whole society involved in wars against other societies.
2. An important factor generating a readiness to fight wars
is a situation where a small group of leaders commits atrocities
against another group but is never brought to justice. The
consequence is a perception that the wronged parties must conduct a
war against the whole larger group rather than just the leaders.
3. The permanent International Criminal Court is a giant step
forward in bringing such tyrannical national leaders to justice,
though at the beginning its jurisdiction will be limited to war
crimes, crimes against humanity, & genocide. Sadly, our present
administration opposes this international tribunal, but it is now
beginning to operate anyway and will soon demonstrate its value.
4. This country needs to move from championing a "Pax
Americana" based on superior U.S. economic and military power to
promoting a democratic world federation based on extending our values
and principles to the global level.
5. Does everyone in the world need to become an American before they
can participate even minimally in the decision-making for the global
society? We should rather extend our ideals and political system to
the global level.

V. Will we ever have a democratic world federation?
A. Yes, for sure, eventually. In fact, we virtually already
have a world government (called the government of the U.S.A.), but
only people in this country get to vote for the leaders and the
policies to be implemented, and sometimes their votes don't get
counted correctly.
B. We need to shift from thinking about what will happen
(predictive mode) to thinking about what should happen (prescriptive
mode). Let us focus on what should happen and then exert all our
effort, working with other like-minded persons, to make it happen.