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 accomplishments and fundamental goods that have been created during peace are set back or destroyed. Equally importantly, opportunities for further advancements toward creating stable, just, nurturing, peaceful communities are stymied. Because of human naure, 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 Nine 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 Nine 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 against breakers of the peace agreement—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 and importantly, 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 (for example, sanctions). The aggrieved player strikes back when the agreement is breached. This is the equivalent of stopping short of all-out violence/war. Additionally, when the aggressor/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. The game lasts longer--i.e., is stable. 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. Perceiving the clear logic of the success of using cooperation and not violence in a game can help skeptics understand why, in reality, nonviolence and cooperation in using nonviolence succeeds in avoiding destruction of both parties in a war, or destruction of a social relationship. A relationship can remain stable. Social stability is fostered.
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 to win it ALL. 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 cooperative 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 against breakers of the peace agreement—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 and importantly, 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 (for example, sanctions). The aggrieved player strikes back when the agreement is breached. This is the equivalent of stopping short of all-out violence/war. Additionally, when the aggressor/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. The game lasts longer--i.e., is stable. 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. Perceiving the clear logic of the success of using cooperation and not violence in a game can help skeptics understand why, in reality, nonviolence and cooperation in using nonviolence succeeds in avoiding destruction of both parties in a war, or destruction of a social relationship. A relationship can remain stable. Social stability is fostered.
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 to win it ALL. 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 cooperative 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 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 many 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--fundamentally, all-male governing. 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: e.g., chieftainship, kingship, dictatorship, all-male oligarchies, tyrannies. 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 in the public sphere globally is the historical consequence of patriarchal all-male social priorities and maneuvering.
How does human male biology repeatedly get 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. (“Biological Differences Between Men and Women with Respect to Aggression") (see also Hand 2018). This primary motivator of human male biology is the urge to be the dominator (controller) in a social relationship rather than the dominated. 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, eventually some men, rarely women, will resist and then defy being controlled. Or a charismatic and determined man or a group of men decide that they should be the ones doing the controlling, not the submitting. Absent a strong ethos of cooperation and nonviolence in the society, at some point there comes rebellion, resort to win-lose mentality, and win-lose forms of conflict resolution. Or in order to be the ones to dominate, one man (a megalomaniac) leading a group of others may decide that to acquire sufficient power to be the top dog/s in their world, it’s necessary to take resources from others outside their community. They may start a war to acquire those resources.
In our most prominent 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 boiling 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 many 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--fundamentally, all-male governing. 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: e.g., chieftainship, kingship, dictatorship, all-male oligarchies, tyrannies. 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 in the public sphere globally is the historical consequence of patriarchal all-male social priorities and maneuvering.
How does human male biology repeatedly get 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. (“Biological Differences Between Men and Women with Respect to Aggression") (see also Hand 2018). This primary motivator of human male biology is the urge to be the dominator (controller) in a social relationship rather than the dominated. 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, eventually some men, rarely women, will resist and then defy being controlled. Or a charismatic and determined man or a group of men decide that they should be the ones doing the controlling, not the submitting. Absent a strong ethos of cooperation and nonviolence in the society, at some point there comes rebellion, resort to win-lose mentality, and win-lose forms of conflict resolution. Or in order to be the ones to dominate, one man (a megalomaniac) leading a group of others may decide that to acquire sufficient power to be the top dog/s in their world, it’s necessary to take resources from others outside their community. They may start a war to acquire those resources.
In our most prominent 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 boiling nutrient soup that feeds future conflict. Violence breeds violence.
Outlawing preemptive war, one means to promote security and order
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 before beginning killing. 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 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, many believe that the administration expected that 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 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, many believe that the administration expected that 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. Russia's even stronger attack on Ukraine in 2022 was begun, according to the Russian President, because Ukraine was threatening Russia, an argument so patently untrue as to be risible. This unprovoked attack on the Russian neighbor evoked an even stronger retaliation of sanctioning by the free-world community, and sadly, the use of physical force. The need to contain Russian aggression, it was now decided, could only be achieved by physical force, thus the need to support Ukrainians taking up arms. A full-fledged war between two nations, the first since the end of WW II, ensued. The practice of preemptive war, claiming one's nation is being threatened, 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. Russia's even stronger attack on Ukraine in 2022 was begun, according to the Russian President, because Ukraine was threatening Russia, an argument so patently untrue as to be risible. This unprovoked attack on the Russian neighbor evoked an even stronger retaliation of sanctioning by the free-world community, and sadly, the use of physical force. The need to contain Russian aggression, it was now decided, could only be achieved by physical force, thus the need to support Ukrainians taking up arms. A full-fledged war between two nations, the first since the end of WW II, ensued. The practice of preemptive war, claiming one's nation is being threatened, 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, maintain, or extend 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 and effective retaliation—against determined renegades. Perhaps all actors were pretty much expected to find the idea of peaceful stability a sufficient motivation for voluntary 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 peace-enforcing mechanism. And game theory teaches that immediate response/retaliation with sufficient force, ideally short of physical violence when possible, is the most compelling, successful move to maintain a peace system’s stability.
A slower reaction—for example, sanctioning an offender long after the offense—is not 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, or they can be circumvented if other bad actors support the aggressor. For example, not all nations joined in the sanctioning Russia.
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. 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 aggressors. Further blatant infractions by Russia, for example invading NATO nations Latvia or Estonia, could readily trigger a massive 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, maintain, or extend 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 and effective retaliation—against determined renegades. Perhaps all actors were pretty much expected to find the idea of peaceful stability a sufficient motivation for voluntary 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 peace-enforcing mechanism. And game theory teaches that immediate response/retaliation with sufficient force, ideally short of physical violence when possible, is the most compelling, successful move to maintain a peace system’s stability.
A slower reaction—for example, sanctioning an offender long after the offense—is not 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, or they can be circumvented if other bad actors support the aggressor. For example, not all nations joined in the sanctioning Russia.
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. 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 aggressors. Further blatant infractions by Russia, for example invading NATO nations Latvia or Estonia, could readily trigger a massive war that would engulf many members of the global community.
R2P and enforcing global security and order
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.
Constructing a Global Peace
A window of opportunity to do so
Global peace 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 themselves 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 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 was alarming in 2016 that the world’s most wealthy nation and greatest consumer of energy, the United States, withdrew from the agreement. Even then, other signing nations agreed to hold fast. In 2020, the new US President rejoined. 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's not a little alarming that many knowledgeable experts worry that it is already too little and too late. The effects are already evident in increased numbers of or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires and the rapid melting of glaciers and ice caps.
Allies 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 essential to meeting the challenge of climate change, and is also 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 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 was alarming in 2016 that the world’s most wealthy nation and greatest consumer of energy, the United States, withdrew from the agreement. Even then, other signing nations agreed to hold fast. In 2020, the new US President rejoined. 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's not a little alarming that many knowledgeable experts worry that it is already too little and too late. The effects are already evident in increased numbers of or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires and the rapid melting of glaciers and ice caps.
Allies 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 essential to meeting the challenge of climate change, and is also a cornerstone of a campaign to abolish war. We can hope that this window of opportunity to end war has not closed.
Characteristics of peace systems - What we've learned
A global peace system (GPS) would provide a secure and orderly space within which to fashion an enduring warless future.
Here are three relevant facts about peace systems:
In a 2012 Science paper “Life Without War,” Douglas Fry proposed establishment of a global peace system as did Robert Irwin in his 1989 book, Building a Peace System. We don't have to start at ground zero to figure out what it would take to build and sustain one. What the ingredients are. What such a sustainable system would look like.
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 (Fry 2012).
He then presents findings comparing in some detail the shared characteristics of three peace systems on different continents:
Below is a summary of his findings. A blog essay (List of Blog Posts), listed at the bottom of a series of blog posts by Judith Hand, also covers this subject.
Although people within some peace systems avoid all war, Fry points out that the people of these three societies did engage in armed conflicts with people outside of their union. The people in these alliances aren't 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:
Overarching social identity - Notably, several of these traits overlap with or are embraced by AFWW cornerstones. For example, 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 developed by the different systems to achieve this goal are unique to each setting. (See also cornerstone “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 such things as ceremonial unions, fictive and genuine intermarriage that establishes a sense of kinship, economic partnerships, and personal friendships. Creating and supporting such ties is essential (See “Foster Connectedness” and “Shift Our Economies.”)
Interdependence - In Fry’s paper he refers primarily to economic interdependence and its power to promote cooperation, such factors as trade or a shared currency. 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 create interdependence. (See cornerstone “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.” Upper Xingu tribes, for example, shun the warrior role. 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 peace system was to bring peace to the region. (See also: “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”) For the EU, actualization of the values of social equality, human rights, and respect for the law serve as the EU’s moral vallues 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 shared 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 ending war campaign would be wise to stress that a shared goal of the peace 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 life without war is to be won and maintained, there must also be, as Fry points out, a way to manage the many 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 to the Supreme Court. Rule of law. Anything that would damage respect for courts or weaken them is a threat to peace witin a peace system.
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 “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….” We need to begin by embracing the goal (see “Embrace the Goal”)
The Importance of Women and Young Men - 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's 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 significant 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 (see Hand 2003, 2014, 2018). Women have had the vote for barely one hundred years. As of the first writing of this esay in 2006, women did not hold positions of significant power in the overwhelming number of the world’s governing bodies. As of this 2023 update of this essay, a case can be made that a critical mass of powerful and influential women around the globe now exists that in partnership with likeminded men is sufficient to, at last, make a campaign to end war a genuine possibility.
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 “Empower 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. It is a matter of wil. 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.
Here are three relevant facts about peace systems:
- They function to prevent war between members of the alliance.
- They don’t just happen by accident; they must be constructed, and require attention to their maintenance.
- They have existed and do exist. They are not beyond our capabilities.
In a 2012 Science paper “Life Without War,” Douglas Fry proposed establishment of a global peace system as did Robert Irwin in his 1989 book, Building a Peace System. We don't have to start at ground zero to figure out what it would take to build and sustain one. What the ingredients are. What such a sustainable system would look like.
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 (Fry 2012).
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.
Below is a summary of his findings. A blog essay (List of Blog Posts), listed at the bottom of a series of blog posts by Judith Hand, also covers this subject.
Although people within some peace systems avoid all war, Fry points out that the people of these three societies did engage in armed conflicts with people outside of their union. The people in these alliances aren't 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.
Overarching social identity - Notably, several of these traits overlap with or are embraced by AFWW cornerstones. For example, 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 developed by the different systems to achieve this goal are unique to each setting. (See also cornerstone “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 such things as ceremonial unions, fictive and genuine intermarriage that establishes a sense of kinship, economic partnerships, and personal friendships. Creating and supporting such ties is essential (See “Foster Connectedness” and “Shift Our Economies.”)
Interdependence - In Fry’s paper he refers primarily to economic interdependence and its power to promote cooperation, such factors as trade or a shared currency. 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 create interdependence. (See cornerstone “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.” Upper Xingu tribes, for example, shun the warrior role. 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 peace system was to bring peace to the region. (See also: “Promote Nonviolent Conflict Resolution.”) For the EU, actualization of the values of social equality, human rights, and respect for the law serve as the EU’s moral vallues 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 shared 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 ending war campaign would be wise to stress that a shared goal of the peace 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 life without war is to be won and maintained, there must also be, as Fry points out, a way to manage the many 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 to the Supreme Court. Rule of law. Anything that would damage respect for courts or weaken them is a threat to peace witin a peace system.
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 “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….” We need to begin by embracing the goal (see “Embrace the Goal”)
The Importance of Women and Young Men - 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's 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 significant 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 (see Hand 2003, 2014, 2018). Women have had the vote for barely one hundred years. As of the first writing of this esay in 2006, women did not hold positions of significant power in the overwhelming number of the world’s governing bodies. As of this 2023 update of this essay, a case can be made that a critical mass of powerful and influential women around the globe now exists that in partnership with likeminded men is sufficient to, at last, make a campaign to end war a genuine possibility.
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 “Empower 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. It is a matter of wil. 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. His book (Shifferd 2011) and YouTube video Evolution of a Global Peace System provide details (Shifferd 2011, 2012). The highly recommended video explains 26 recent developments that show the trend toward global unity that can bring peace. These include Supranational Parliamentary Systems, Emergence of Peace Activism, Nonviolent Conflict Training, Spread of Peace Research and Education, Decline in Prestige of War, Human Rights Principle Recognized, Rise in Environmentalism, and Trend toward Peace Oriented Religion.
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 for our posterity a global peace system that could endure.
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 historically 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 liberal democracies at some level. There is a notable exception. In 2022 Russia, invaded Ukraine for the second time, and it's worth noting that Russia is an illiberal democracy at kindest, a patriarchal all-male oligarchy or dictatorship in reality. One AFWW cornerstone, Spread Liberal Democracy, explores why spreading Liberal Democracy, with its respect for human rights, is fundamental if a global peace is to endure the stresses of time.
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. The expensive financial challenge to all nations to deal with massive climate changes certainly provides practical motivation to act; better to spend money and human resources on meeting those challenges rather than planning, executing, and cleaning up after war. We can hope that it will not take some massive global catastrophe like a WW III to give us the motivation to, at last, act. Perhaps only to find that we have acted too late.
The many accomplishments, efforts, and actions already occurring globally and described by historian Kent Shifferd are too numerous to review here. His book (Shifferd 2011) and YouTube video Evolution of a Global Peace System provide details (Shifferd 2011, 2012). The highly recommended video explains 26 recent developments that show the trend toward global unity that can bring peace. These include Supranational Parliamentary Systems, Emergence of Peace Activism, Nonviolent Conflict Training, Spread of Peace Research and Education, Decline in Prestige of War, Human Rights Principle Recognized, Rise in Environmentalism, and Trend toward Peace Oriented Religion.
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 for our posterity a global peace system that could endure.
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 historically 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 liberal democracies at some level. There is a notable exception. In 2022 Russia, invaded Ukraine for the second time, and it's worth noting that Russia is an illiberal democracy at kindest, a patriarchal all-male oligarchy or dictatorship in reality. One AFWW cornerstone, Spread Liberal Democracy, explores why spreading Liberal Democracy, with its respect for human rights, is fundamental if a global peace is to endure the stresses of time.
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. The expensive financial challenge to all nations to deal with massive climate changes certainly provides practical motivation to act; better to spend money and human resources on meeting those challenges rather than planning, executing, and cleaning up after war. We can hope that it will not take some massive global catastrophe like a WW III to give us the motivation to, at last, act. Perhaps only to find that we have acted too late.
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. 2014. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing.
Hand, Judith L. 2018. War and Sex and Human Destiny. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing. This book is available as a
FREE download at http://www.jhand.com.
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. 2014. Shift: The Beginning of War, The Ending of War. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing.
Hand, Judith L. 2018. War and Sex and Human Destiny. San Diego, California: Questpath Publishing. This book is available as a
FREE download at http://www.jhand.com.
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.