Provide Security and Order |
|
Security and Order Are Essential to the Work of Ending War
Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear—kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor—with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. - General Douglas MacArthur
We will always need policemen, peacekeepers, and peacemakers to provide security and order within nations and globally. We will always need our military men. But we can keep peace without waging war. - Judith Hand, Author of Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace, Questpath Publishing, 2003
We will always need policemen, peacekeepers, and peacemakers to provide security and order within nations and globally. We will always need our military men. But we can keep peace without waging war. - Judith Hand, Author of Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace, Questpath Publishing, 2003
A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain. - Anatole France
Introduction
When a nation or people engage in the rampant disorder of war, internal or external, a great many of the accomplishments and fundamental goods that have been created during a period of peace are set back or destroyed. Equally importantly, opportunities for further advancements toward creating stable, just, nurturing and peaceful communities are stymied. Into any foreseeable future, we will always need policemen, peacekeepers, and peacemakers to provide security and order within and between nations.
All 9 AFWW cornerstones of an enduring global peace are briefly summed up in the essay “Summary of the 9 AFWW Cornerstones.” They are works in progress: empowering women, enlisting young men, fostering connectedness, promoting nonviolent conflict resolution, shifting our economies, and spreading liberal democracy. None of these many cornerstone efforts can be developed to their full potential if the global community is repeatedly convulsed by a myriad of small wars, and certainly not if it stumbles or rushes into a world war. Thus “Provide Security and Order” is an AFWW cornerstone because security and order within and between societies creates the social space wherein maximum forward positive progress can be accomplished.
A simplified exploration of a relatively recent field of study called Game Theory, presented below, will clarify why violence always begets violence, and why the tools we use to provide security and order must be nonviolent ones to the maximum extent possible: e.g., mediation, arbitration, negotiation, compromise, adjudication, and agreed upon submission to the rule of law.
All 9 AFWW cornerstones of an enduring global peace are briefly summed up in the essay “Summary of the 9 AFWW Cornerstones.” They are works in progress: empowering women, enlisting young men, fostering connectedness, promoting nonviolent conflict resolution, shifting our economies, and spreading liberal democracy. None of these many cornerstone efforts can be developed to their full potential if the global community is repeatedly convulsed by a myriad of small wars, and certainly not if it stumbles or rushes into a world war. Thus “Provide Security and Order” is an AFWW cornerstone because security and order within and between societies creates the social space wherein maximum forward positive progress can be accomplished.
A simplified exploration of a relatively recent field of study called Game Theory, presented below, will clarify why violence always begets violence, and why the tools we use to provide security and order must be nonviolent ones to the maximum extent possible: e.g., mediation, arbitration, negotiation, compromise, adjudication, and agreed upon submission to the rule of law.
Why Use Nonviolent Methods to Provide Security and Order
Game Theory
Because of its essential simplicity, with distracting elements of real-world life removed, Game Theory clarifies the power and utility of resolving conflicts nonviolently. It studies the outcomes of different methods of conflict resolution in stripped down essence. In doing so it reveals the conditions for maintaining a stable relationship over time, and what kinds of moves avoid major losses or collapse.
It does this by playing out various strategies and outcomes in games of war or competition, for example, comparing strategies used by “Hawks” vs. “Doves.” (e.g., Axelrod 1984) The results achieved while playing the games show how nonviolent approaches—using the tools of diplomacy (negotiation, mediation, compromise) or more aggressively, using a variety of sanctions—these produce solutions more inclined to endure and thereby foster stability rather than destruction.
Consider games played repeatedly by the same individuals or entities where players remember and evaluate the results of each interaction, good and bad. In general this is what humans do. We interact with the same persons or entities over and over, and we have very long memories of the outcomes of those interactions.
In such “repetitive games with memory,” the winning strategy that creates stability over time, rather than burnout, collapse, or destruction, turns out to be win-win resolution choices by both players. They make moves that are not intended to wipe out the opponent, moves that seem “fair” as opposed to “unfair.” The players generally choose somewhat cooperative, non-deadly moves (we both win something, win-win) rather than war moves (winner-takes-all, win-lose).
Additionally, the most enduring repetitive games have two elements that accommodate human nature: retaliation (punishment) and forgiveness.
Say that one player makes a non-cooperative, “win/lose” move in any round of the game, an “unfair” I-intend-to-win-and-make-you-lose type of move, which over time is intended to result in a win/lose outcome. The opponent immediately retaliates with a move that inflicts some kind of punishment, which costs the other player something, but not everything. This is the equivalent of stopping short of violence/war. Additionally, when the non-cooperative opponent decides to switch back to playing “fair,” that is playing cooperatively in a win-win mode, the aggrieved player immediately forgives and also returns to “fair” cooperative moves at points of conflict. These games have been called “Tit-for-Tat with Forgiveness.”
The numbers and kinds of games studied by game theorists are actually extensive, and not essential to describe here. The bottom line is, however, that even if an aggressive lapse elicits immediate retaliation followed at some point by a chastened opponent’s return to cooperative behavior, which, in turn, elicits forgiveness, both players are using win-win choices, and the game lasts longer. No one player gets everything, but both get enough to continue the game. And, most relevantly to playing games of real-world war, major loss/destruction is avoided.
When one or both players are choosing overwhelmingly win-lose strategies, the game (the war, the relationship) ends, usually very quickly. Perceiving the clear logic of the success of using cooperation and not violence in a game can help skeptics understand why, in reality, nonviolence succeeds in avoiding destruction and termination of the game (destruction of both parties in a war, or destruction of a social relationship).
Psychologists and political scientists have made major contributions that allow us to understand what allows opponents in real-world situations to feel emotionally that they have won what they need and can live with rather than resort to fighting. Mutually agreed-upon compromises that both sides consider fair, when enforced, foster social stability. (Ury 1999) Citizens move past their conflicts to enjoy both security and order.
Full understanding of the power and success of using nonviolent conflict resolution is crucial, enabling global citizens to uncompromisingly demand that their leaders use nonviolent tools, and that they themselves uncompromisingly refuse to participate in a war when leaders are inclined to start one.
It does this by playing out various strategies and outcomes in games of war or competition, for example, comparing strategies used by “Hawks” vs. “Doves.” (e.g., Axelrod 1984) The results achieved while playing the games show how nonviolent approaches—using the tools of diplomacy (negotiation, mediation, compromise) or more aggressively, using a variety of sanctions—these produce solutions more inclined to endure and thereby foster stability rather than destruction.
Consider games played repeatedly by the same individuals or entities where players remember and evaluate the results of each interaction, good and bad. In general this is what humans do. We interact with the same persons or entities over and over, and we have very long memories of the outcomes of those interactions.
In such “repetitive games with memory,” the winning strategy that creates stability over time, rather than burnout, collapse, or destruction, turns out to be win-win resolution choices by both players. They make moves that are not intended to wipe out the opponent, moves that seem “fair” as opposed to “unfair.” The players generally choose somewhat cooperative, non-deadly moves (we both win something, win-win) rather than war moves (winner-takes-all, win-lose).
Additionally, the most enduring repetitive games have two elements that accommodate human nature: retaliation (punishment) and forgiveness.
Say that one player makes a non-cooperative, “win/lose” move in any round of the game, an “unfair” I-intend-to-win-and-make-you-lose type of move, which over time is intended to result in a win/lose outcome. The opponent immediately retaliates with a move that inflicts some kind of punishment, which costs the other player something, but not everything. This is the equivalent of stopping short of violence/war. Additionally, when the non-cooperative opponent decides to switch back to playing “fair,” that is playing cooperatively in a win-win mode, the aggrieved player immediately forgives and also returns to “fair” cooperative moves at points of conflict. These games have been called “Tit-for-Tat with Forgiveness.”
The numbers and kinds of games studied by game theorists are actually extensive, and not essential to describe here. The bottom line is, however, that even if an aggressive lapse elicits immediate retaliation followed at some point by a chastened opponent’s return to cooperative behavior, which, in turn, elicits forgiveness, both players are using win-win choices, and the game lasts longer. No one player gets everything, but both get enough to continue the game. And, most relevantly to playing games of real-world war, major loss/destruction is avoided.
When one or both players are choosing overwhelmingly win-lose strategies, the game (the war, the relationship) ends, usually very quickly. Perceiving the clear logic of the success of using cooperation and not violence in a game can help skeptics understand why, in reality, nonviolence succeeds in avoiding destruction and termination of the game (destruction of both parties in a war, or destruction of a social relationship).
Psychologists and political scientists have made major contributions that allow us to understand what allows opponents in real-world situations to feel emotionally that they have won what they need and can live with rather than resort to fighting. Mutually agreed-upon compromises that both sides consider fair, when enforced, foster social stability. (Ury 1999) Citizens move past their conflicts to enjoy both security and order.
Full understanding of the power and success of using nonviolent conflict resolution is crucial, enabling global citizens to uncompromisingly demand that their leaders use nonviolent tools, and that they themselves uncompromisingly refuse to participate in a war when leaders are inclined to start one.
Patriarchy, repeated cycles of war, and liberal democracy
A simple but critical question immediately arises. If using nonviolent, win-win cooperation options is less destructive and provides for stability and order over time, to say nothing of avoiding all the killing of war, why hasn’t the entire world community long since settled upon the unwavering use of nonviolent conflict resolution? Why is history a story of repeatedly building up only to tear down?
The answer is that nonviolent approaches, while they can clearly be used by men, are not always the ones favored by men. And most relevantly, they are not the ones favored by all men who happen to be leaders. And human history, particularly with respect to war, is fundamentally a product of patriarchy. With the exception of a rare occurrence of a Queen, until as recently as one hundred years ago men have been setting the rules for group-level conflict resolution throughout recorded history.
Human societies have constructed various kinds of patriarchies, defined as all-male governing: e.g., chieftainship, kingship, dictatorship, all-male oligarchy, tyranny. Women in patriarchies may have power in the domestic sphere, but (by definition) have never wielded significant power in the public sphere. What we now see around us globally in the public sphere is the historical consequence of all-male social priorities and maneuvering.
And human male biology repeatedly gets in the way of peace. Unless specific social constraints are in place—customs, laws, even punishment (retaliation) for breaking the laws—human male biology generally tends to predispose men to approach conflicts in ways motivated by striving for dominance—I win/you lose. (“Differences between Men and Women with Respect to Physical Aggression,” Hand 2018).
A primary motivator of human male biology is the urge to be the dominator (controller) in a social relationship rather than the dominated. And to dominate others requires that you have means to control them. A clever ruler or government can use a variety of nonviolent tools to control (dominate) citizens through pacification, at least for a time. The leaders of Rome famously used “bread and circuses” to keep the citizens happy. Today, China provides a rapidly rising standard of living, busily building a middle class that is satisfied/pacified and willing, at least for now, to live as considerably less than free agents.
But human nature being what it is, some (particularly men) will resist being controlled, if not at once, then eventually. Or a charismatic and determined man or a group of men will emerge who decide that they should be the ones doing the controlling, not the submitting. Absent an ethos of nonviolence in the society, at some point there comes rebellion within and resort to win-lose mentality and win-lose forms of conflict resolution. Or in order to be the ones to dominate, one man or group of men may decide that to acquire sufficient power to be the top dog/s, it’s necessary to take resources from others outside their community. They may start a war.
In dominant patriarchal societies, history repeatedly documents their paths to domination through physical violence and armed combat, robbing their citizens of any sense of security and inflicting social disorder. Only when one or both sides are exhausted because neither can win outright do they sit down to mediation or negotiation. The results foment anger and resentment in many if not all of the losers, not acceptance, and certainly not satisfaction. Anger and resentment become the nutrient soup that feeds future conflict. Violence breeds violence.
The answer is that nonviolent approaches, while they can clearly be used by men, are not always the ones favored by men. And most relevantly, they are not the ones favored by all men who happen to be leaders. And human history, particularly with respect to war, is fundamentally a product of patriarchy. With the exception of a rare occurrence of a Queen, until as recently as one hundred years ago men have been setting the rules for group-level conflict resolution throughout recorded history.
Human societies have constructed various kinds of patriarchies, defined as all-male governing: e.g., chieftainship, kingship, dictatorship, all-male oligarchy, tyranny. Women in patriarchies may have power in the domestic sphere, but (by definition) have never wielded significant power in the public sphere. What we now see around us globally in the public sphere is the historical consequence of all-male social priorities and maneuvering.
And human male biology repeatedly gets in the way of peace. Unless specific social constraints are in place—customs, laws, even punishment (retaliation) for breaking the laws—human male biology generally tends to predispose men to approach conflicts in ways motivated by striving for dominance—I win/you lose. (“Differences between Men and Women with Respect to Physical Aggression,” Hand 2018).
A primary motivator of human male biology is the urge to be the dominator (controller) in a social relationship rather than the dominated. And to dominate others requires that you have means to control them. A clever ruler or government can use a variety of nonviolent tools to control (dominate) citizens through pacification, at least for a time. The leaders of Rome famously used “bread and circuses” to keep the citizens happy. Today, China provides a rapidly rising standard of living, busily building a middle class that is satisfied/pacified and willing, at least for now, to live as considerably less than free agents.
But human nature being what it is, some (particularly men) will resist being controlled, if not at once, then eventually. Or a charismatic and determined man or a group of men will emerge who decide that they should be the ones doing the controlling, not the submitting. Absent an ethos of nonviolence in the society, at some point there comes rebellion within and resort to win-lose mentality and win-lose forms of conflict resolution. Or in order to be the ones to dominate, one man or group of men may decide that to acquire sufficient power to be the top dog/s, it’s necessary to take resources from others outside their community. They may start a war.
In dominant patriarchal societies, history repeatedly documents their paths to domination through physical violence and armed combat, robbing their citizens of any sense of security and inflicting social disorder. Only when one or both sides are exhausted because neither can win outright do they sit down to mediation or negotiation. The results foment anger and resentment in many if not all of the losers, not acceptance, and certainly not satisfaction. Anger and resentment become the nutrient soup that feeds future conflict. Violence breeds violence.
Outlawing preemptive war
In 2003, without having been attacked, the world’s only superpower, the United States, joined by a few willing allies, launched a preemptive war against the country of Iraq. Attacking before having been attacked—a definition of preemptive war—was contrary to America’s values and America’s history. It’s obviously contrary to the principle of using some form of nonviolent conflict resolution to sort out differences. It was a grave historical mistake.
That nation’s founding fathers and every subsequent American administration until that time took the non-confrontational (cooperative) position that the United States would not go to war unless attacked. It would use nonviolent means to resolve differences and would only “retaliate” with violent means if attacked. It didn’t always live up to that enlightened standard, but was consistently guided by it.
Subsequent to this invasion of Iraq it was proved that the American administration had justified their use of preemptive violence to the US Congress, the US public, and the global community based on deception: it concocted lies of an imminent existential threat against the US by Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction. Fabrication of a dire threat is a common ploy of a leader or leadership that for any reason wants to use a war to further some goal that benefits members of the leadership. (In the case of Iraq, the administration believed an expedient invasion would yield control over Iraq’s oil resources.)
Here is one of history’s greatest quotations to that effect:
That nation’s founding fathers and every subsequent American administration until that time took the non-confrontational (cooperative) position that the United States would not go to war unless attacked. It would use nonviolent means to resolve differences and would only “retaliate” with violent means if attacked. It didn’t always live up to that enlightened standard, but was consistently guided by it.
Subsequent to this invasion of Iraq it was proved that the American administration had justified their use of preemptive violence to the US Congress, the US public, and the global community based on deception: it concocted lies of an imminent existential threat against the US by Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction. Fabrication of a dire threat is a common ploy of a leader or leadership that for any reason wants to use a war to further some goal that benefits members of the leadership. (In the case of Iraq, the administration believed an expedient invasion would yield control over Iraq’s oil resources.)
Here is one of history’s greatest quotations to that effect:
Naturally, the common people don’t want war….[But]…. voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Goering, during the Nuremberg trial
Adopting the principle of preemptive attack (in Game Theory terms, switching from cooperation to noncooperation/win-lose) creates resentments that last for generations as is now the case in the Middle East. The world is filled with and cursed by numerous ancient rivalries. Launching a war preemptively whenever a leader simply claims that an enemy is contemplating aggression against his people is a recipe for a nightmarish future of endless invasions and retaliations. Multiply that scenario by a thousand if all nations felt entitled to adopt such a hawkish policy.
This is one reason why Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine in 2014 evoked a strong global retaliation. Russia was sanctioned by many members of the United Nations because their action was and is a clear, direct threat to global stability and the international social order established post-WW II. The practice of preemptive war is antithetical to creating a global community where citizens enjoy both security and order and is rightly outlawed by the United Nations.
This is one reason why Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine in 2014 evoked a strong global retaliation. Russia was sanctioned by many members of the United Nations because their action was and is a clear, direct threat to global stability and the international social order established post-WW II. The practice of preemptive war is antithetical to creating a global community where citizens enjoy both security and order and is rightly outlawed by the United Nations.
Providing Security and Order Between Nations
Sanctions and the founding mandate of the United Nations - How, then, do we provide security and order for the benefit of the world’s nations and people? Most obviously, we can simply urge people to practice what we already know about the methods and successes of nonviolent conflict resolution—choosing win-win outcomes.
Present brutal reality is, however, that there are many countries led by men perfectly willing to use force to overturn the social order to achieve or maintain their dominance, internally or between nations.
Providing a forum for using the numerous nonviolent conflict resolution techniques was the founding rationale for the United Nations, the mandate of which was to bring about and maintain a world at peace. It was, and is, a herculean effort. Unfortunately, the founding guideline agreement did not provide adequate means of enforcement—i.e., means for immediate retaliation—against determined renegades. Perhaps all actors were pretty much expected to find the idea of peaceful stability a sufficient motivation for good behavior, i.e., cooperatively using only win-win resolutions. If so, not surprisingly given human nature, that turned out to be an unrealistic expectation, a naive hope.
The UN has peacekeeping forces. If opponents have agreed to a truce or peace treaty, UN Peacekeepers can be put in place to ensure that agreements are being kept. But the UN does not have a standing military charged with immediate armed reaction against any entity that violates the peace. There is no effective agreed upon police force. And game theory teaches that immediate response/retaliation with sufficient force, ideally short of physical violence, is the most compelling, successful move to maintain a system’s stability.
A slower reaction—for example, sanctioning an offender long after the offense—is not as likely to be effective. A variety of sanctions (nonviolent “retaliations” of Game Theory), like those currently in place against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, are now the main tool deployed to contain bad actors. A major difficulty is that often it takes considerable time to put them in place.
Additionally, the sanctions may not be sufficiently punishing to cause the offender to retreat or stand down if the advantage to be gained by persisting outweighs the punishment inflicted by the sanctions. Moreover, it can be hard or impossible to prevent other bad actors from finding ways to get around the sanctions. That said, sanctions, even if delayed, are better than allowing an unfair player to entirely get away with a destabilizing move.
If/when sanctions fail and the aggressor still refuses to return to cooperation rather than aggression, a show of physical military force that is poised and willing to act will continue to be required to contain them. Further blatant infractions by Russia, for example invading Latvia or Estonia, could readily trigger a war that would engulf many members of the global community.
Present brutal reality is, however, that there are many countries led by men perfectly willing to use force to overturn the social order to achieve or maintain their dominance, internally or between nations.
Providing a forum for using the numerous nonviolent conflict resolution techniques was the founding rationale for the United Nations, the mandate of which was to bring about and maintain a world at peace. It was, and is, a herculean effort. Unfortunately, the founding guideline agreement did not provide adequate means of enforcement—i.e., means for immediate retaliation—against determined renegades. Perhaps all actors were pretty much expected to find the idea of peaceful stability a sufficient motivation for good behavior, i.e., cooperatively using only win-win resolutions. If so, not surprisingly given human nature, that turned out to be an unrealistic expectation, a naive hope.
The UN has peacekeeping forces. If opponents have agreed to a truce or peace treaty, UN Peacekeepers can be put in place to ensure that agreements are being kept. But the UN does not have a standing military charged with immediate armed reaction against any entity that violates the peace. There is no effective agreed upon police force. And game theory teaches that immediate response/retaliation with sufficient force, ideally short of physical violence, is the most compelling, successful move to maintain a system’s stability.
A slower reaction—for example, sanctioning an offender long after the offense—is not as likely to be effective. A variety of sanctions (nonviolent “retaliations” of Game Theory), like those currently in place against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, are now the main tool deployed to contain bad actors. A major difficulty is that often it takes considerable time to put them in place.
Additionally, the sanctions may not be sufficiently punishing to cause the offender to retreat or stand down if the advantage to be gained by persisting outweighs the punishment inflicted by the sanctions. Moreover, it can be hard or impossible to prevent other bad actors from finding ways to get around the sanctions. That said, sanctions, even if delayed, are better than allowing an unfair player to entirely get away with a destabilizing move.
If/when sanctions fail and the aggressor still refuses to return to cooperation rather than aggression, a show of physical military force that is poised and willing to act will continue to be required to contain them. Further blatant infractions by Russia, for example invading Latvia or Estonia, could readily trigger a war that would engulf many members of the global community.
R2P and enforcing global peace
For the reasons above, a strong case can be made that in order to secure a global peace, the United Nations should have the authority for peace-enforcement, an ability that can be mobilized quickly, as opposed to being restricted to peacekeeping after fighting has ceased. Former U.S. Senator Gary Hart described a United Nations with armed and well-trained offensive troops that are able to put down fighting anywhere. (Hart 2004)
In 2009 the United Nations took a step toward swiftly enforcing global security by adopting Resolution R2P, the “Resolution to Protect.” The founding UN Charter essentially said that whatever governments did within their borders was no one else’s business. As a consequence, intra-state wars and violence by the powerful against their own country’s less-powerful elements are allowed free rein.
The problem this leads to from the perspective of the global community is that evils carried out within one country often now, in this very connected world, spill over to create problems elsewhere. The “Resolution to Protect” now charges the global community with the responsibility to intervene, militarily if necessary, in a country’s internal affairs in specific situations: where there is ongoing genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing.
We are one world, one community on one small planet. To avoid being drawn into wars that have the potential to spread beyond one country’s borders we need to make peace-enforcement a united and swift action. A global peace system will need to have a shared police force, recognized as legitimate by all members of the peace alliance. Creating one would be an important challenge for the designers of a global peace treaty.
In 2009 the United Nations took a step toward swiftly enforcing global security by adopting Resolution R2P, the “Resolution to Protect.” The founding UN Charter essentially said that whatever governments did within their borders was no one else’s business. As a consequence, intra-state wars and violence by the powerful against their own country’s less-powerful elements are allowed free rein.
The problem this leads to from the perspective of the global community is that evils carried out within one country often now, in this very connected world, spill over to create problems elsewhere. The “Resolution to Protect” now charges the global community with the responsibility to intervene, militarily if necessary, in a country’s internal affairs in specific situations: where there is ongoing genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing.
We are one world, one community on one small planet. To avoid being drawn into wars that have the potential to spread beyond one country’s borders we need to make peace-enforcement a united and swift action. A global peace system will need to have a shared police force, recognized as legitimate by all members of the peace alliance. Creating one would be an important challenge for the designers of a global peace treaty.
Security and Order and Constructing a Global Peace
A window of opportunity
Global peace, if we are ever to have such a thing, will clearly not descend upon us by happy accident. Determined people, revolutionary visionaries, will have to actively construct it. And they will need to be backed up by strength. The source of that strength will come, almost by necessity, from communities that are not being drastically riven by civil disorder.
The construction of the government and constitution of the United States came after the war with Britain was over. The forging of the European Union came after WW II, not during the fighting.
Must a great disaster befall the global community before we are sufficiently motivated to create a global peace? Will it take a WW III, so that in the aftermath of massive destruction and death, the global community, while licking its wounds, decides as the Europeans did after WW II that perhaps there could be a better way? We have sufficient order now to give us the time to act. Will we take advantage of this time of relative global stability or squander this “window of opportunity?”
Arguably, the onrushing multiple disasters from global climate change already devastating lives and communities could serve as a point of unity around which all nations could rally. We could decide it would be best to make a global peace so that as many resources as we can muster can be diverted instead: (1) to the enormous climate mitigation efforts that will increasingly be required, and (2) to all of the AFWW cornerstone efforts, which are essential underpinnings of a permanent global peace.
The truly historic coming together in 2015 to create the Paris Climate Agreement is a powerful sign of hope. It is alarming at this writing that the world’s most wealthy nation and greatest consumer of energy, the United States, has withdrawn from the agreement. Nevertheless, all other signing nations so far have agreed to hold fast. There is a clear understanding by informed global citizens that given quick action with unity we still have a chance to blunt the worst effects of the warming, and that failing to unite and act invites existential disaster. It is not a little alarming that many knowledgeable experts worry that it is already too little and too late.
Allied entities seeking to achieve a global peace will likewise have to act in unity and from a position of relative strength and security. Thus it is that “Provide Security and Order,” both between and within nations, is a cornerstone of a campaign to abolish war. We can hope that this window of opportunity to end war has not closed.
The construction of the government and constitution of the United States came after the war with Britain was over. The forging of the European Union came after WW II, not during the fighting.
Must a great disaster befall the global community before we are sufficiently motivated to create a global peace? Will it take a WW III, so that in the aftermath of massive destruction and death, the global community, while licking its wounds, decides as the Europeans did after WW II that perhaps there could be a better way? We have sufficient order now to give us the time to act. Will we take advantage of this time of relative global stability or squander this “window of opportunity?”
Arguably, the onrushing multiple disasters from global climate change already devastating lives and communities could serve as a point of unity around which all nations could rally. We could decide it would be best to make a global peace so that as many resources as we can muster can be diverted instead: (1) to the enormous climate mitigation efforts that will increasingly be required, and (2) to all of the AFWW cornerstone efforts, which are essential underpinnings of a permanent global peace.
The truly historic coming together in 2015 to create the Paris Climate Agreement is a powerful sign of hope. It is alarming at this writing that the world’s most wealthy nation and greatest consumer of energy, the United States, has withdrawn from the agreement. Nevertheless, all other signing nations so far have agreed to hold fast. There is a clear understanding by informed global citizens that given quick action with unity we still have a chance to blunt the worst effects of the warming, and that failing to unite and act invites existential disaster. It is not a little alarming that many knowledgeable experts worry that it is already too little and too late.
Allied entities seeking to achieve a global peace will likewise have to act in unity and from a position of relative strength and security. Thus it is that “Provide Security and Order,” both between and within nations, is a cornerstone of a campaign to abolish war. We can hope that this window of opportunity to end war has not closed.
A global peace system (GPS)
A global peace system would provide a secure and orderly space within which to fashion an enduring warless future. Here are three relevant facts about peace systems:
Fry defines peace systems as “groups of neighboring societies that do not make war on each other (and sometimes not with outsiders either).” He notes that they exist in various parts of the planet, and he provides names and geographic locations of thirty-three. One table lists 7 characteristics of 3 active and 2 passive peace systems, indicating in each system which characteristics are present, absent, or weakly present.
He then presents findings comparing in some detail the shared characteristics of three peace systems on different continents:
People within some peace systems renounce all war, but Fry points out that the people of these three societies did engage in armed conflicts with people outside of their union. The people in none of these alliances are saints or born pacifists. Within their union, however, they developed attitudes and institutions that allowed them to live in peace. His comparison leads Fry to suggest six essentials of a successful peace system:
Notably, several of these traits overlap with or are embraced by AFWW cornerstones. In his discussion of “Overarching Social Identity” he takes on the question of the “us-versus-them” mentality that can foster conflicts and willingness to use violence against the “other.” He describes the methods used by his three peace systems to “expand the us” to encompass a sense of common identity. The methods are unique to each setting. (See “Foster Connectedness”)
Interconnections among subgroups - Addressing subgroup interactions or “intergroup ties,” Fry points out that intergroup bonds of friendship, kinship, and economic ties discourage violence. He describes how, in order to create such ties, peace systems use or foster ceremonial unions, fictive and genuine intermarriage that establishes a sense of kinship, economic partnerships, and personal friendships. (Also see “Foster Connectedness” and “Shift Our Economies.”)
Interdependence - In Fry’s paper he refers primarily to economic interdependence and its power to promote cooperation. It includes, however, engaging in cooperation for any kinds of beneficial reasons. For example, in the dry desert of Western Australia, in lean times territorial groups reciprocally allow other groups access to water and food within their territory, because a time will come when the donors may be the needy ones. Peace systems also tend to specialize in production of particularly desirable trade goods, economic exchanges that create interdependence. (See also: “Shift Our Economies.”)
Non-warring values- Fry points out the obvious fact that some value orientations are more conducive to peace than others, and that peace systems live by “non-warring values.” In the Upper Xingu tribes, for example, the warrior role is shunned. They have a saying, “Peace is moral; war is not.” Fry describes the means by which the Iroquois Confederation enshrined peace-promoting values. An explicitly stated goal of the founding of the European Union was to bring peace to the region. (See also: “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”)
In the case of the EU, he describes how actualization of the values of social equality, human rights, and respect for the law serve as the EU’s moral compass. (see “Spread Liberal Democracy,” and “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution”)
Symbolism and Ceremonies that Reinforce Peace- Citing participation of all the Upper Xingu tribes in ceremonies to mourn the deaths of deceased chiefs and inaugurate new ones, Fry illustrates a need for rites that affirm social values. Joint ceremonies help unify the tribes, again helping to create a sense of common identity and unity. (see “Foster Connectedness”) The Iroquois League utilized a powerful symbol of unity and peace, the Tree of Peace. The tree’s white roots represented the desire for peace to spread beyond the confederacy. An eagle perched on top of the tree was a reminder that the tribes must remain vigilant to any threats to peace; the Iroquois clearly understood that a peace system requires work to maintain it.
Considering history and human nature, a smart campaign to end war would be wise to stress that a shared goal of the peace they make is to create safe, secure, and healthy places for all children. This is because caring for children is a fundamental, deeply ingrained, evolved value all humans share; it would thus be a powerful shared goal around which to build unity. It would likewise be wise to create an appropriate, unifying symbol to represent the desire to forge and maintain the peace, and to invent ceremonies to regularly celebrate creation of the peace and to honor the “heroes” who worked to make it a reality.
Superordinate Institutions for Conflict Management - If a life without war is to be won and maintained, there must also be, as Fry points out, a way to manage the many different conflicts between groups. One means would be to create higher levels of governance to facilitate the varied processes involved. He describes the Council of Chiefs of the Iroquois Confederacy, which served as a kind of Supreme Court, the final arbiter of conflicts. He describes higher levels of governance created by the EU, such as the European Court of Justice. The formation of the United States from thirteen separate colonies created higher levels of governance whereby people with differences do not take up weapons and battle it out; they take their case to the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Rule of law.
For the global community, the United Nations is perhaps best positioned for creating superordinate institutions required to undergird a global peace system. The International Court of Justice is a step we have already taken in that direction. The ICJ is struggling to remain relevant, but in the context of a global peace treaty and peace system, it or a similar body would be essential. (Kent Shifferd 2011, 2012; also this AFWW cornerstone and “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”)
Fry concludes that creating a peace system for the entire planet would involve many synergistic elements, “including the transformative vision that a new peace-based global system is in fact possible….” (see “Embrace the Goal”)
Unfortunately, Fry’s analysis does not address two AFWW cornerstones: “Empower Women” and “Enlist Young Men.” First, the challenge of making young, restless males part of the solution—making them supporters of building and maintaining the peace system—is arguably the least appreciated element of fashioning a future without war. I believe it is seldom mentioned since the general assumption is that we will never actually end war; therefore, thinking about the specific problem of what to do with young men as part of the process of ending war or what to do with them when war is absent has no seeming relevance.
Fry also doesn’t acknowledge the importance of empowering women. The issue of how women relate to peace and social stability is only now finding a way into the global consciousness. Women have had the vote for barely one hundred years. They still do not hold positions of significant power in the overwhelming number of the world’s governing bodies.
Iroquois lore says that their original peace confederacy was established by two men and a woman named Jigonhsasee. It is noteworthy that women were powerful and influential in the Iroquois Confederacy, and the Iroquois peace lasted over 300 years.
Men were the founders of the European Union but women vote and have meaningful influence within the current European Union. (see “Empowering Women”)
In summary, we have actual examples and models of peace systems to learn from, and their existence encourages us to know that establishing a peace system is not beyond our capabilities. Notably, it does not require that any or all members of a society become pacifists, only that they embrace the worth of maintaining peace and commit to supporting the system.
- They function to prevent war between members of the alliance.
- They don’t just happen by accident; they must be constructed.
- They have existed and do exist. They are not beyond our capabilities.
Fry defines peace systems as “groups of neighboring societies that do not make war on each other (and sometimes not with outsiders either).” He notes that they exist in various parts of the planet, and he provides names and geographic locations of thirty-three. One table lists 7 characteristics of 3 active and 2 passive peace systems, indicating in each system which characteristics are present, absent, or weakly present.
He then presents findings comparing in some detail the shared characteristics of three peace systems on different continents:
- ten tribes of the Upper Xingu River basin of Brazil,
- the Iroquois Confederacy of upper New York State, and
- the European Union.
People within some peace systems renounce all war, but Fry points out that the people of these three societies did engage in armed conflicts with people outside of their union. The people in none of these alliances are saints or born pacifists. Within their union, however, they developed attitudes and institutions that allowed them to live in peace. His comparison leads Fry to suggest six essentials of a successful peace system:
- An overarching social identity.
- Interconnections among subgroups.
- Interdependence.
- Non-warring values.
- Symbolism and ceremonies that reinforce peace.
- Superordinate institutions for conflict management.
Notably, several of these traits overlap with or are embraced by AFWW cornerstones. In his discussion of “Overarching Social Identity” he takes on the question of the “us-versus-them” mentality that can foster conflicts and willingness to use violence against the “other.” He describes the methods used by his three peace systems to “expand the us” to encompass a sense of common identity. The methods are unique to each setting. (See “Foster Connectedness”)
Interconnections among subgroups - Addressing subgroup interactions or “intergroup ties,” Fry points out that intergroup bonds of friendship, kinship, and economic ties discourage violence. He describes how, in order to create such ties, peace systems use or foster ceremonial unions, fictive and genuine intermarriage that establishes a sense of kinship, economic partnerships, and personal friendships. (Also see “Foster Connectedness” and “Shift Our Economies.”)
Interdependence - In Fry’s paper he refers primarily to economic interdependence and its power to promote cooperation. It includes, however, engaging in cooperation for any kinds of beneficial reasons. For example, in the dry desert of Western Australia, in lean times territorial groups reciprocally allow other groups access to water and food within their territory, because a time will come when the donors may be the needy ones. Peace systems also tend to specialize in production of particularly desirable trade goods, economic exchanges that create interdependence. (See also: “Shift Our Economies.”)
Non-warring values- Fry points out the obvious fact that some value orientations are more conducive to peace than others, and that peace systems live by “non-warring values.” In the Upper Xingu tribes, for example, the warrior role is shunned. They have a saying, “Peace is moral; war is not.” Fry describes the means by which the Iroquois Confederation enshrined peace-promoting values. An explicitly stated goal of the founding of the European Union was to bring peace to the region. (See also: “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”)
In the case of the EU, he describes how actualization of the values of social equality, human rights, and respect for the law serve as the EU’s moral compass. (see “Spread Liberal Democracy,” and “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution”)
Symbolism and Ceremonies that Reinforce Peace- Citing participation of all the Upper Xingu tribes in ceremonies to mourn the deaths of deceased chiefs and inaugurate new ones, Fry illustrates a need for rites that affirm social values. Joint ceremonies help unify the tribes, again helping to create a sense of common identity and unity. (see “Foster Connectedness”) The Iroquois League utilized a powerful symbol of unity and peace, the Tree of Peace. The tree’s white roots represented the desire for peace to spread beyond the confederacy. An eagle perched on top of the tree was a reminder that the tribes must remain vigilant to any threats to peace; the Iroquois clearly understood that a peace system requires work to maintain it.
Considering history and human nature, a smart campaign to end war would be wise to stress that a shared goal of the peace they make is to create safe, secure, and healthy places for all children. This is because caring for children is a fundamental, deeply ingrained, evolved value all humans share; it would thus be a powerful shared goal around which to build unity. It would likewise be wise to create an appropriate, unifying symbol to represent the desire to forge and maintain the peace, and to invent ceremonies to regularly celebrate creation of the peace and to honor the “heroes” who worked to make it a reality.
Superordinate Institutions for Conflict Management - If a life without war is to be won and maintained, there must also be, as Fry points out, a way to manage the many different conflicts between groups. One means would be to create higher levels of governance to facilitate the varied processes involved. He describes the Council of Chiefs of the Iroquois Confederacy, which served as a kind of Supreme Court, the final arbiter of conflicts. He describes higher levels of governance created by the EU, such as the European Court of Justice. The formation of the United States from thirteen separate colonies created higher levels of governance whereby people with differences do not take up weapons and battle it out; they take their case to the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. Rule of law.
For the global community, the United Nations is perhaps best positioned for creating superordinate institutions required to undergird a global peace system. The International Court of Justice is a step we have already taken in that direction. The ICJ is struggling to remain relevant, but in the context of a global peace treaty and peace system, it or a similar body would be essential. (Kent Shifferd 2011, 2012; also this AFWW cornerstone and “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”)
Fry concludes that creating a peace system for the entire planet would involve many synergistic elements, “including the transformative vision that a new peace-based global system is in fact possible….” (see “Embrace the Goal”)
Unfortunately, Fry’s analysis does not address two AFWW cornerstones: “Empower Women” and “Enlist Young Men.” First, the challenge of making young, restless males part of the solution—making them supporters of building and maintaining the peace system—is arguably the least appreciated element of fashioning a future without war. I believe it is seldom mentioned since the general assumption is that we will never actually end war; therefore, thinking about the specific problem of what to do with young men as part of the process of ending war or what to do with them when war is absent has no seeming relevance.
Fry also doesn’t acknowledge the importance of empowering women. The issue of how women relate to peace and social stability is only now finding a way into the global consciousness. Women have had the vote for barely one hundred years. They still do not hold positions of significant power in the overwhelming number of the world’s governing bodies.
Iroquois lore says that their original peace confederacy was established by two men and a woman named Jigonhsasee. It is noteworthy that women were powerful and influential in the Iroquois Confederacy, and the Iroquois peace lasted over 300 years.
Men were the founders of the European Union but women vote and have meaningful influence within the current European Union. (see “Empowering Women”)
In summary, we have actual examples and models of peace systems to learn from, and their existence encourages us to know that establishing a peace system is not beyond our capabilities. Notably, it does not require that any or all members of a society become pacifists, only that they embrace the worth of maintaining peace and commit to supporting the system.
How Close Is the Global Community to Creating a Peace System?
The answer is: close!
The many accomplishments, efforts, and actions already occurring globally and described by historian Kent Shifferd are too numerous to review here. The table below lists them by name. His book and YouTube video provide details (Shifferd 2011, 2012).
What all of these accomplishments indicate is that we live at a historical moment of opportunity when all nations could commit to launching a final push to fashion an enduring global peace system (GPS).
Despite news coverage that makes armed conflicts seem so prevalent, wars between nations are already at an all-time low. As of this writing, none of the nations of South or North America are at war with each other. Wars between the nations of the European Union, which were numerous, have been halted by the establishment of the EU peace system. It has been noted that almost all of these countries at peace with each other are democracies at some level.
While Russia seems eager to expand its influence using military force and has already done so in some of its neighboring nations and still creates great apprehension in others, the NATO alliance has, thus far, kept Russian inclinations at least in partial check.
To conclude, providing security and order is critical to establishing both space and resources that will allow us to actually fashion and maintain a more peaceful, just, and yes, environmentally sustainable future without war. We have the knowledge of what is required for success. We are living in a period of sufficient social stability to allow the opportunity to succeed. We can hope that it will not take some massive global catastrophe like a WW III to give us the necessary motivation to, at last, act.
The many accomplishments, efforts, and actions already occurring globally and described by historian Kent Shifferd are too numerous to review here. The table below lists them by name. His book and YouTube video provide details (Shifferd 2011, 2012).
What all of these accomplishments indicate is that we live at a historical moment of opportunity when all nations could commit to launching a final push to fashion an enduring global peace system (GPS).
Despite news coverage that makes armed conflicts seem so prevalent, wars between nations are already at an all-time low. As of this writing, none of the nations of South or North America are at war with each other. Wars between the nations of the European Union, which were numerous, have been halted by the establishment of the EU peace system. It has been noted that almost all of these countries at peace with each other are democracies at some level.
While Russia seems eager to expand its influence using military force and has already done so in some of its neighboring nations and still creates great apprehension in others, the NATO alliance has, thus far, kept Russian inclinations at least in partial check.
To conclude, providing security and order is critical to establishing both space and resources that will allow us to actually fashion and maintain a more peaceful, just, and yes, environmentally sustainable future without war. We have the knowledge of what is required for success. We are living in a period of sufficient social stability to allow the opportunity to succeed. We can hope that it will not take some massive global catastrophe like a WW III to give us the necessary motivation to, at last, act.
Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth—that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible.
Max Weber
Max Weber
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Fry, Douglas P. 2012. “Life Without War.” Science 336: 879-884.
Hand, Judith L. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing. This book is available as a
FREE download at http://www.jhand.com.
Hand, Judith L. 2018. War and Sex and Human Destiny. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing.
Shifferd, K. (2011). From War to Peace: A Guide to the Next Hundred Years. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Shifferd, K. (2012). Evolution of a global peace system. Available on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1HMRAZNQd8.
(Accessed 29 May 2017).
Ury, William. 1999. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. New York: Viking.
Fry, Douglas P. 2012. “Life Without War.” Science 336: 879-884.
Hand, Judith L. 2003. Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing. This book is available as a
FREE download at http://www.jhand.com.
Hand, Judith L. 2018. War and Sex and Human Destiny. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing.
Shifferd, K. (2011). From War to Peace: A Guide to the Next Hundred Years. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Shifferd, K. (2012). Evolution of a global peace system. Available on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1HMRAZNQd8.
(Accessed 29 May 2017).
Ury, William. 1999. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. New York: Viking.