The world now is more connected than ever. It has become as smaller environment with many people. Warfare and conflict can spread rapidly between continents. Instead of a pathway to stability world powers seek geopolitical competition. The need for an international peace movement has become more pivotal as a means to counter mass global conflict. Humanity's survival could be at risk with the expansion of war zones across nation-states. The world population has the ability to aid in its own extinction with a constant increase of international disputes. Other factors are motivators for acts of aggression. The growing power of xenophobia, racism, and aggressive nationalism exacerbate various global situations. The military industrial complex and the arms trade explain what there is an economic investment in war. World leaders have a political need for permanent warfare. War can act as a unifying force, enemy nations can be a scapegoat for political or social problems, and there comes a level of prestige to the victor nation. Brutal conquests thought to be a relic of the past, just happen differently in the contemporary era. Justifications such as democracy promotion, human rights, or the concept of responsibility to protect are designed to enable western countries to invade African, Asian, and Latin American nations. The simple narrative is that this is liberation from rouge regimes, that abuse their people. The intent is for the UK, US, France, and Germany to have influence in the former colonies that they once possessed. The countries that feel the impact of neo-colonial imperialism resist for a period, but this has dire consequences. The wars may end in defeat or long term damage to the countries rebelling against the imposed world order. This shift to using violence and coercion is an attempt to stop the rise of a mulipolar world political order. China and Russia are subjects of many US and EU discussions on security. If too much reckless behavior is done the world could fall into another as catastrophic as World War I and World War II. The only logical solution to prevent such risks is to have an international peace movement. With enough pressure, such a movement can stop smaller conflicts and prevent a larger global conflagration.
Diplomacy and skilled foreign relations were intended to maintain peace. However, it is being used to ensure that world power competition continues. The shifting alliances are for the sake of military pacts. NATO gradually has become more than about the security of Europe. During the 20th century the alliance was a practical one to counter the Soviet Union in post -World War II Europe. Instead it is attempting to ensure that western nations maintain predominance and prevent the rise of a multipolar system. NATO has been involved various conflicts from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. This is technically military aggression disguised as humanitarian intervention and democracy promotion. An international peace movement must counter this false narrative that world opinion has adopted. The praxis of foreign relations and diplomacy must be changed to ensure new conflicts are not created or merge with preexisting ones. The international peace movement must become more involved with the United Nations. For too long major powers have been shielded from the same rules and regulations of the UN Charter. The United States or Israel would never face sanctions for their military actions in the Middle East. International law must be equally applied to all nations, not a select few. The nations that are classified as rogue states such as Iran or North Korea are demonized as threats, but their military strength is no where near the level of the US, UK, Germany, France, or Italy. Presenting an existential threat that is imagined is designed to keep the military industrial complex relevant to foreign policy planning. War has essential become a tool of foreign policy with nations contemplating how to intervene either directly or indirectly. Part of the international peace movement is to separate warfare from foreign policy planning. If this is not done there is a chance of a possible conflict between the US-EU block and the Russia-China alliance.
The international peace movement must reject the concept of just war and armies . The concept of just war is that it is designed to save people and prevent atrocities. Normally, this is one power dominating a weaker state. If out right conquest can not be achieved, then indirect influence can be established. Venezuela and Bolivia are subject to US influence, which they reject yet the threat of violence is used. Russia has since 2014 gained an abnormal amount of influence in Ukraine. The US frames its own inference as a means of protecting Ukraine, when it is only interested in its own geopolitical objectives. Every country on Earth has an armed force for its alleged protection. Some nations are more than capable of defending themselves, but rationalize aggression and violence as national security. The majority of countries do not want peace. The very fact that armies exist demonstrate that humanity has a long and violent history. For all the advancement in civilization and technology humankind has not figured out a way to live as neighbors. When this perspective is presented, there is a logical reason to have armies disbanded. Banning armed forces would be impossible considering warfare has been a constant presence in human history. The arms trade, military industrial complex, and the political establishment have too much investment in perpetual confrontation. The only strategy to counter such powerful forces would be to resist the draft and selective service. It would require that every person of military service age to repudiate calls to serve. The only legitimate circumstance to arm one's self is to resist oppression. That is justified when a political system or state seeking to control and repress its citizens. The abolition of armies should be a policy. As long as every nation has a military there will never be peace.
The threat of another mass global conflict has never disappeared. The end of the Cold War gave the world a false sense of security. Instead the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China could be moving toward direct military engagement. All over the world these powers of both Europe and Asia are competing with one another both economically and politically. The Middle East and Africa have become areas of proxy wars in which the opposing powers are arming multiple belligerents in smaller conflicts. It is possible that smaller disputes can escalate into much larger conflicts. The international peace movement must counter world powers attempts to initiate or conduct global war. The public has long convinced itself that leaders do not want war, but policies and actions demonstrate otherwise. War has been used to spread neocolonial imperialism under the context of human rights protection or democratization. The ulterior motive is to gain control of certain natural resources before other world powers do. The international peace movement must stop this behavior, before a possible cataclysmic event occurs. The last two global wars in the 20th century had major repercussions, many which still effect the state of world politics. World War I started due to European colonial imperialism, rival alliance systems, and large power competition. The result of that conflict cause the collapse of the German, Russian, and Ottoman Empire. The economic and political instability that followed gave birth to fascism as an alternative to disorder. World War II stared due the the fascist political movement,aggressive nationalism, and a more militarist imperial ideology. Events such as these could easily happen again. Global war may be a greater possibility with the most powerful nations attempting to impose a governance system on various countries or experimenting with nation building projects. The 2003 Iraq War was an example of using war to advance a geopolitical agenda and making nation building a form of foreign policy. The response was that other nations were going to arm themselves to counter possible aggression for western powers. Internal instability is used by world powers a pretext for invasion. An international peace movement can prevent global conflict, before it reaches a dire level. World leaders have so far not been able or willing to end wars.
War can destroy society and civilization. The combination of bombing and the damage from armed forces on the ground can devastate infrastructure and habitability of a nation. The humanitarian crisis is not just the war itself, but the tragedy that come afterward. Homelessness, poverty, and refugees looking for safety are the results of long term military action. Society cannot be functional without a certain level of development, economic activity, and an active citizenry. The foundation of society are the communities that work and contribute to its daily operation. Without the individuals, families, and groups that constitute a nation, society does not exist. Certain conditions are required to prevent a country from falling into being a failed state. Economic prosperity, limited violence, rule of law, freedom, and equality are the elements that keep society strong. When these elements are not present and some major geopolitical crisis occurs society can collapse. Even the victorious nations in war face a number of public challenges. The issue of integrating combat soldiers back into civilian life becomes more difficult. The mental and physical health decline of former soldiers becomes more evident to a population who begins to question the motivation for war. The victor nation may become more divided over the politics and policies of the government. Division may become so great, the reconciliation and collaboration may not be possible among various political groups. Society becomes so fragmented, a country cannot not be whole. The nation that is defeated in war either remains in a feeble condition or under occupation from the victor. Society cannot exist under the conditions of intense combat.
Civilization itself is under threat from military aggression. While many like to think that conflicts on other continents do not effect them, this notion is incorrect. Multiple governments could be making alliances with other nations interfering with regional war zones. Obligations under treaties of security may force numerous countries to go to war with one another. A cross continental conflict could be fought on the land, air, or at sea. Few areas would be safe if such a mass global conflict were to emerge. Technology has aided the rise of more powerful weapons. The earliest weapons were clubs, which the gave way to daggers. Swords and spears become more widespread. Guns and artillery radically changed war making warfare more lethal. As time passed war became more mechanized with planes and tanks. The invention of nuclear weapons made it possible that humanity could be capable of its own destruction. So far,nuclear war has not been fought. However, there may be some in leadership positions who have the desire or at least contemplated using them. The US, China, Russia, UK , France, Germany, Pakistan, India, and Israel possess nuclear weapons. These countries have complicated relations with one another and there is no guarantee that if war was declared nuclear weapons would be excluded. A nuclear war could annihilate cities and cause a rapid decline in public health conditions. Instead of making more treaties to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons completely some nations chose to pursue an arms race. The US withdraw from the INF Treaty signals a change in 30 years of nuclear weapons policy. The world has not been freed from the prospect of a nuclear exchange. A total global war would be so destructive not only would civilization end, humanity would not survive. An international peace movement could effectively preserve society and civilization for the forces that promote belligerence.
Human life must be protected and under war this is not feasible. Civilians will ultimately be victims of murder and rape during war. The Geneva Convention states the legal conduct of armies during war and that the attack on civilians constitutes war crimes. Nations that win wars or that are too powerful to punish are not subjected to international law. Less powerful countries are reprimanded more so in comparison. Despite this obvious double standard, responsibility to protect has been invoked to either bully or subjugate nations of the global south. The wars to either save and protect people from rouge states causes more collateral damage. Warfare has never resulted in the protection of human life. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Seniors could be too ill to flee a war zone and conditions may be so poor that immediate medical attention is not possible. Children are dependent on adults for their survival. Parents cannot protect their children under the extreme and predictable war zone environment. There are instances in which children are used as instruments of war. The use of child soldiers has been documented in Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. Robbed of their childhoods, they are forced to fight and be a part of armed groups or the military. This violation of children's basic rights goes either unnoticed or is not give enough exposure to the international public. Educating the world about this practice will help advance the international peace movement. Also researching causality figures can help change public opinion. Having such data available may appeal to the ethical standards of a population, that was formally manipulated into supporting war. By the time soldier deaths mount, it is already too late to resist the war policy of a government. This is the most cogent argument for developing a long lasting international peace movement. The loss of human life is too great a risk to wage war on any level.
The growing problem of xenophobic nativist nationalism enables confrontation. Dehumanization makes it easier to for people to murder various ethnic or racial groups. Nations justify violence by demonizing other countries as threats or being barbaric. Racism and hate are powerful motivators that get populations to inflict damage upon one another. Ethnic conflicts in Rwanda, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, and Myanmar demonstrate how lethal ethnic hatreds can be. The Holocaust and Armenian genocide are horrid reminders of humanity's more malevolent tendencies. Such behavior must be countered to ensure the control of war and violence. Aggressive nationalism must be expunged if there is to be a world of stability. As long as there are nations who believe that it is their right to dominate the world, global security is not possible. Aggression comes in the form of democracy promotion, nation building, and regime change. The smaller and by comparison militarily weaker authoritarian states become targets not due to their human rights abuses rather their natural resources. A disproportionate number of African, Asian, and Latin American states have faced attack or interference from European countries and the US. The EU and the US feel as if they have a right to intervene in these countries viewing them as lesser beings. Arrogance, racism, and prejudice have come with a price. The system of permanent warfare has created the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen. Millions have fled the Middle East and Africa as a result of western military action. There needs to be a change in racial attitudes and the conduct between nations. The international peace movement must not only stop war, but also counter xenophobic nativist nationalism and racist ideology. Such political beliefs make it easier for the justification of aggressive war. The focus should be on fighting ideologies that seek to undermine freedom, equality and human rights.
A long lasting international peace movement can be a means of preventing mass global conflict, loss of human life, the deterioration of society, and regional instability. A movement of such a scale cannot be temporary, but a permanent fixture. The environmentalist movement has become an international force bringing attention to the growing problems of climate change. However, there exists no such momentum for a peace movement. Many times they emerge and disappear depending on the length of armed combat. When wars are either won or lost the peace movements vanish. Activism against war must continue, because war planning never stops. NATO, the Pentagon, the EU, and various military think tanks constantly formulate policies for armed combat. Certain countries are targeted for either harassment or regime change in the distant future. There are few organizations involved in an establishment of peace or conflict resolution. The United Nations should be a platform to ensure peace and diplomatic negotiation. Yet, there are cases in which it is a culprit in promoting warfare. UN Resolution 1973 and the Gulf War were questionable acts. Peacekeeping missions can also draw scrutiny. National sovereignty can be violated with a UN peace keeping force attempting to impose order and stability. Few western nations provide troops to UN peacekeeping forces, instead the majority come from African, Asian, or Latin American countries. The model of ensuring peace has not reduced warfare in various areas of the globe. The inadequacy of peace initiatives of the UN become more apparent when examining the war in Yemen, the instability of South Sudan, and the challenges in the DRC. An international peace movement will have to involve multiple organizations from across the world to ensure practical resolution of ongoing conflicts. The complete disappearance of war may not be a political possibility. So much of human history has been driven by combat, that it almost seems natural behavior. What could be done is gradual commitment to reducing wars and containing conflicts . An international peace movement is required to ensure that humankind has a future.
Diplomacy and skilled foreign relations were intended to maintain peace. However, it is being used to ensure that world power competition continues. The shifting alliances are for the sake of military pacts. NATO gradually has become more than about the security of Europe. During the 20th century the alliance was a practical one to counter the Soviet Union in post -World War II Europe. Instead it is attempting to ensure that western nations maintain predominance and prevent the rise of a multipolar system. NATO has been involved various conflicts from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. This is technically military aggression disguised as humanitarian intervention and democracy promotion. An international peace movement must counter this false narrative that world opinion has adopted. The praxis of foreign relations and diplomacy must be changed to ensure new conflicts are not created or merge with preexisting ones. The international peace movement must become more involved with the United Nations. For too long major powers have been shielded from the same rules and regulations of the UN Charter. The United States or Israel would never face sanctions for their military actions in the Middle East. International law must be equally applied to all nations, not a select few. The nations that are classified as rogue states such as Iran or North Korea are demonized as threats, but their military strength is no where near the level of the US, UK, Germany, France, or Italy. Presenting an existential threat that is imagined is designed to keep the military industrial complex relevant to foreign policy planning. War has essential become a tool of foreign policy with nations contemplating how to intervene either directly or indirectly. Part of the international peace movement is to separate warfare from foreign policy planning. If this is not done there is a chance of a possible conflict between the US-EU block and the Russia-China alliance.
The international peace movement must reject the concept of just war and armies . The concept of just war is that it is designed to save people and prevent atrocities. Normally, this is one power dominating a weaker state. If out right conquest can not be achieved, then indirect influence can be established. Venezuela and Bolivia are subject to US influence, which they reject yet the threat of violence is used. Russia has since 2014 gained an abnormal amount of influence in Ukraine. The US frames its own inference as a means of protecting Ukraine, when it is only interested in its own geopolitical objectives. Every country on Earth has an armed force for its alleged protection. Some nations are more than capable of defending themselves, but rationalize aggression and violence as national security. The majority of countries do not want peace. The very fact that armies exist demonstrate that humanity has a long and violent history. For all the advancement in civilization and technology humankind has not figured out a way to live as neighbors. When this perspective is presented, there is a logical reason to have armies disbanded. Banning armed forces would be impossible considering warfare has been a constant presence in human history. The arms trade, military industrial complex, and the political establishment have too much investment in perpetual confrontation. The only strategy to counter such powerful forces would be to resist the draft and selective service. It would require that every person of military service age to repudiate calls to serve. The only legitimate circumstance to arm one's self is to resist oppression. That is justified when a political system or state seeking to control and repress its citizens. The abolition of armies should be a policy. As long as every nation has a military there will never be peace.
The threat of another mass global conflict has never disappeared. The end of the Cold War gave the world a false sense of security. Instead the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China could be moving toward direct military engagement. All over the world these powers of both Europe and Asia are competing with one another both economically and politically. The Middle East and Africa have become areas of proxy wars in which the opposing powers are arming multiple belligerents in smaller conflicts. It is possible that smaller disputes can escalate into much larger conflicts. The international peace movement must counter world powers attempts to initiate or conduct global war. The public has long convinced itself that leaders do not want war, but policies and actions demonstrate otherwise. War has been used to spread neocolonial imperialism under the context of human rights protection or democratization. The ulterior motive is to gain control of certain natural resources before other world powers do. The international peace movement must stop this behavior, before a possible cataclysmic event occurs. The last two global wars in the 20th century had major repercussions, many which still effect the state of world politics. World War I started due to European colonial imperialism, rival alliance systems, and large power competition. The result of that conflict cause the collapse of the German, Russian, and Ottoman Empire. The economic and political instability that followed gave birth to fascism as an alternative to disorder. World War II stared due the the fascist political movement,aggressive nationalism, and a more militarist imperial ideology. Events such as these could easily happen again. Global war may be a greater possibility with the most powerful nations attempting to impose a governance system on various countries or experimenting with nation building projects. The 2003 Iraq War was an example of using war to advance a geopolitical agenda and making nation building a form of foreign policy. The response was that other nations were going to arm themselves to counter possible aggression for western powers. Internal instability is used by world powers a pretext for invasion. An international peace movement can prevent global conflict, before it reaches a dire level. World leaders have so far not been able or willing to end wars.
War can destroy society and civilization. The combination of bombing and the damage from armed forces on the ground can devastate infrastructure and habitability of a nation. The humanitarian crisis is not just the war itself, but the tragedy that come afterward. Homelessness, poverty, and refugees looking for safety are the results of long term military action. Society cannot be functional without a certain level of development, economic activity, and an active citizenry. The foundation of society are the communities that work and contribute to its daily operation. Without the individuals, families, and groups that constitute a nation, society does not exist. Certain conditions are required to prevent a country from falling into being a failed state. Economic prosperity, limited violence, rule of law, freedom, and equality are the elements that keep society strong. When these elements are not present and some major geopolitical crisis occurs society can collapse. Even the victorious nations in war face a number of public challenges. The issue of integrating combat soldiers back into civilian life becomes more difficult. The mental and physical health decline of former soldiers becomes more evident to a population who begins to question the motivation for war. The victor nation may become more divided over the politics and policies of the government. Division may become so great, the reconciliation and collaboration may not be possible among various political groups. Society becomes so fragmented, a country cannot not be whole. The nation that is defeated in war either remains in a feeble condition or under occupation from the victor. Society cannot exist under the conditions of intense combat.
Civilization itself is under threat from military aggression. While many like to think that conflicts on other continents do not effect them, this notion is incorrect. Multiple governments could be making alliances with other nations interfering with regional war zones. Obligations under treaties of security may force numerous countries to go to war with one another. A cross continental conflict could be fought on the land, air, or at sea. Few areas would be safe if such a mass global conflict were to emerge. Technology has aided the rise of more powerful weapons. The earliest weapons were clubs, which the gave way to daggers. Swords and spears become more widespread. Guns and artillery radically changed war making warfare more lethal. As time passed war became more mechanized with planes and tanks. The invention of nuclear weapons made it possible that humanity could be capable of its own destruction. So far,nuclear war has not been fought. However, there may be some in leadership positions who have the desire or at least contemplated using them. The US, China, Russia, UK , France, Germany, Pakistan, India, and Israel possess nuclear weapons. These countries have complicated relations with one another and there is no guarantee that if war was declared nuclear weapons would be excluded. A nuclear war could annihilate cities and cause a rapid decline in public health conditions. Instead of making more treaties to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons completely some nations chose to pursue an arms race. The US withdraw from the INF Treaty signals a change in 30 years of nuclear weapons policy. The world has not been freed from the prospect of a nuclear exchange. A total global war would be so destructive not only would civilization end, humanity would not survive. An international peace movement could effectively preserve society and civilization for the forces that promote belligerence.
Human life must be protected and under war this is not feasible. Civilians will ultimately be victims of murder and rape during war. The Geneva Convention states the legal conduct of armies during war and that the attack on civilians constitutes war crimes. Nations that win wars or that are too powerful to punish are not subjected to international law. Less powerful countries are reprimanded more so in comparison. Despite this obvious double standard, responsibility to protect has been invoked to either bully or subjugate nations of the global south. The wars to either save and protect people from rouge states causes more collateral damage. Warfare has never resulted in the protection of human life. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable. Seniors could be too ill to flee a war zone and conditions may be so poor that immediate medical attention is not possible. Children are dependent on adults for their survival. Parents cannot protect their children under the extreme and predictable war zone environment. There are instances in which children are used as instruments of war. The use of child soldiers has been documented in Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. Robbed of their childhoods, they are forced to fight and be a part of armed groups or the military. This violation of children's basic rights goes either unnoticed or is not give enough exposure to the international public. Educating the world about this practice will help advance the international peace movement. Also researching causality figures can help change public opinion. Having such data available may appeal to the ethical standards of a population, that was formally manipulated into supporting war. By the time soldier deaths mount, it is already too late to resist the war policy of a government. This is the most cogent argument for developing a long lasting international peace movement. The loss of human life is too great a risk to wage war on any level.
The growing problem of xenophobic nativist nationalism enables confrontation. Dehumanization makes it easier to for people to murder various ethnic or racial groups. Nations justify violence by demonizing other countries as threats or being barbaric. Racism and hate are powerful motivators that get populations to inflict damage upon one another. Ethnic conflicts in Rwanda, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, and Myanmar demonstrate how lethal ethnic hatreds can be. The Holocaust and Armenian genocide are horrid reminders of humanity's more malevolent tendencies. Such behavior must be countered to ensure the control of war and violence. Aggressive nationalism must be expunged if there is to be a world of stability. As long as there are nations who believe that it is their right to dominate the world, global security is not possible. Aggression comes in the form of democracy promotion, nation building, and regime change. The smaller and by comparison militarily weaker authoritarian states become targets not due to their human rights abuses rather their natural resources. A disproportionate number of African, Asian, and Latin American states have faced attack or interference from European countries and the US. The EU and the US feel as if they have a right to intervene in these countries viewing them as lesser beings. Arrogance, racism, and prejudice have come with a price. The system of permanent warfare has created the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen. Millions have fled the Middle East and Africa as a result of western military action. There needs to be a change in racial attitudes and the conduct between nations. The international peace movement must not only stop war, but also counter xenophobic nativist nationalism and racist ideology. Such political beliefs make it easier for the justification of aggressive war. The focus should be on fighting ideologies that seek to undermine freedom, equality and human rights.
A long lasting international peace movement can be a means of preventing mass global conflict, loss of human life, the deterioration of society, and regional instability. A movement of such a scale cannot be temporary, but a permanent fixture. The environmentalist movement has become an international force bringing attention to the growing problems of climate change. However, there exists no such momentum for a peace movement. Many times they emerge and disappear depending on the length of armed combat. When wars are either won or lost the peace movements vanish. Activism against war must continue, because war planning never stops. NATO, the Pentagon, the EU, and various military think tanks constantly formulate policies for armed combat. Certain countries are targeted for either harassment or regime change in the distant future. There are few organizations involved in an establishment of peace or conflict resolution. The United Nations should be a platform to ensure peace and diplomatic negotiation. Yet, there are cases in which it is a culprit in promoting warfare. UN Resolution 1973 and the Gulf War were questionable acts. Peacekeeping missions can also draw scrutiny. National sovereignty can be violated with a UN peace keeping force attempting to impose order and stability. Few western nations provide troops to UN peacekeeping forces, instead the majority come from African, Asian, or Latin American countries. The model of ensuring peace has not reduced warfare in various areas of the globe. The inadequacy of peace initiatives of the UN become more apparent when examining the war in Yemen, the instability of South Sudan, and the challenges in the DRC. An international peace movement will have to involve multiple organizations from across the world to ensure practical resolution of ongoing conflicts. The complete disappearance of war may not be a political possibility. So much of human history has been driven by combat, that it almost seems natural behavior. What could be done is gradual commitment to reducing wars and containing conflicts . An international peace movement is required to ensure that humankind has a future.
No comments:
Post a Comment