World Philosophy Conference

The sovereign states have an organization to which all of them can belong, but it can act only if all of them agree. The organization, moreover, has no standing forces of its own, no monetary system to serve the states, and is nearly bankrupt. Financial relations among the states are chaotic, with some of the states suffering severe hardships as the values of their currencies plummet. Many of the states are deeply in debt. Some states are putting up tariff barriers. Each state maintains its own armed forces. Boundary and other disputes may cause them to be used. Among the various states, there are profound political, economic, and sociological differences. (Adapted from Global Report No. 23 p.1)

This description could fit the U.S. in 1787 or the world in 1987. The U.S has now solved its interstate security problems. I live in Southern California, originally a semi-arid region which developed when water became available. Water is vital to the economic viability of the area. The Colorado River historically has been a valuable source of some of that water. Now Arizona is stealing Southern California's Colorado River water. Genuine conflict exists over a valuable natural resource, one of the typical types of conflict which have provoked wars between states. California has a nuclear monopoly among the states (its University operates both of the nuclear weapons labs), California could confidently defeat Arizona and take the water even without resort to nuclear weapons, but such a course of action is considered unthinkable--so ridiculous as to be amusing. In fact, aren't you smiling a bit to yourself as you read this? Would that nuclear war were considered to be as unthinkable--comical, instead of threatening. The Federal Government constitutes, in part, an Interstate Security System which resolves such disputes and which has successfully prevented war from erupting between the States for more than a century. The Rule of Law rather than Military Might now prevails.

Much can be done to reduce the risk of nuclear omnicide: We can understand the class nature of nuclear weapons; We can understand the reasons capitalism clings to nuclear weapons to resist the course of history; Theoretically, we could develop a democracy in which leaders could be elected who would simply abolish the weapons!--something which could be more easily accomplished were the first two elements accomplished. But enough of fantasy!

Of course, nuclear weapons can be used for other purposes than for the defense of capitalism. As a matter of fact, when considering the Middle East, and the thrust for a "Muslim bomb", it has been suggested that the next use of nuclear weapons will be against infidels, perhaps against infidels who do not believe in the stock market.

Assaults against current U.S. government nuclear war policy have been launched by "long-term enlightened self-interest", Trilateral elements in capitalism, led by former U.S. Secretary of "Defense" McNamara and his "gang of four". Their arguments are narrowly technologically rationalist--they oppose nuclear bombs because they are not really weapons, that is, they have little military utility. (McNamara, in a bit of hyperbole, claims that they have "no military use whatsoever".) For one thing, political deterrence is too great. (We know in retrospect that fear of political repercussions deterred nuclear war against Viet Nam.) One of our tasks is to maintain political deterrence at a high level. These Trilateralists (also known as "Eastern Seaboard Aristocrats" vs. "Sunbelt Nouveau Riche", or "Yankees" vs. "Cowboys", or "Prussians" vs. "Traders") recognize that the greatest threat to them is not "the spectre of communism", but the anti-communist crusade, which has led to such military adventures as World War II, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam War, all of which weakened capitalism and increased internal contradictions (like Japan, Inc.). They argue, correctly I think, that successful imperialism must be economically successful. Not only cannot debt accumulate indefinitely, nor huge trade and budget deficits caused by militarism be long sustained, but the immiseration and impoverisation of the peoples in the poor parts of the capitalist world are the primary threat to the security of the system. This debate is occurring within the ranks of the capitalists. In the U.S. we are given the short term "practical" option ("the evil of two lessers") of siding with the Trilateralists (or "liberals") in supporting more successful imperialism and more efficient (perhaps even reasonably humane) capitalism. The media, universities and institutions are kept under such tight ideological control that democracy is not feasible, at least not in the short term. However, a flanking approach is available which has greater political potential. (The class argument is here given short shrift in order to return to the generic approach in which the class character of the problem is ignored.)

An International Security System.

A newsletter entitled International Security News Clipping Service is devoted exclusively to weaponry (including arms control, disarmament, military tactics and strategy) and U.S./USSR relations. I would say that, despite its title, the newsletter dotes on insecurity, as does the peace movement. There is little attention paid to the development of what Gorbachev calls an "International Security System". We have for too long been preoccupied with damage limitation--resisting even more egregious weapons and ever more escalation. It is time to take the initiative to establish a security system which would make weapons unnecessary for defense, useless for aggression, and even more counterproductive economically and politically than in many respects they already have become. They would essentially become irrelevant. If an International Security System comparable to the U.S. interstate security system existed, nations would worry about disarming adversaries as much as Arizona worries about disarming California. As an International Security System becomes established, disarmament becomes easier--and less important. Arms control and disarmament are stop gap measures which nonetheless are currently critically important because of the lack of a security system. If an adequate security system is not established, weaponry could be an eternal (or terminal) problem. Were all weapons to magically disappear, in the absence of a security system they would soon be replaced. The establishment of an effective International Security System is a huge task, but the only real obstacle to its accomplishment is lack of will. An enormous number of good ideas is already available.

It is commonly recognized that peace will remain fragile without justice, especially economic and social justice. Injustice, including contradictory concepts of justice, is a major cause of conflict. Since justice is subjective, it is necessary to develop a collective conscience of humanity and an institution to implement it. Insofar as possible, conflict should be reduced. Residual irreducible conflict should be subject to further resolution through tested techniques of mediation, arbitration, ajudication, and legislation, but institutional mechanisms need to be much more developed.

The Federalist Maxim states: "Decisions should be made as locally as feasible." As a subscriber to the Federalist Maxim I would say that the U.S. Federal Government is in many respects overly centralized, but the management of the world is not. Not only the problem of international security, but many other areas of concern--pollution, ecological effects, development, depletion of non-renewable resources, development, space management, communications, navigation, etc. are matters which transcend national boundaries. The UN is the obvious and preeminent institution to address these problems.

Philosophy has been described as the meticulous restatement of the obvious. All of the aforementioned is probably obvious as well. It is only the preoccupation of the peace movement with weaponry which induces me to restate the obvious.

The focus on security is not to minimize the risk of nuclear omnicide or the destructiveness of warfare in general, actual and potential. These are critical contemporary problems which require some amelioration by short term fixes--arms control and disarmament negotiations, treaties, and conventions; detente, exchange programs, economic conversion studies, etc., but I wish to focus upon adequate, long term resolution of the problems. I use the plural advisedly, because of the interrelated nature of the problem of avoiding war and achieving security, which then defines the broad outline of the character of an adequate security system.

The Role of the UN.

Let us consider the deficiencies in the UN which detract from its ability to operate as an effective security system:

1. It has structural deformations in both the Security Council and the General Assembly which limit legitimacy.

2. It needs direct, dependable, and adequate sources of revenue.

3. It needs substantially greater legislative power.

4. It needs greater judicial power with binding decisions and expanded jurisdiction, including a UN Human Rights Court and a UN Court of Criminal Justice..

5. It needs greater enforcement capability, including a Prosecutor's Office.

6. It needs greater management responsibilities through its agencies.

Opportunities for building from the ground up occur only after cataclysms. Even then, the UN Security Council was modeled after Yalta, and inherited much from the League of Nations, like the International Court of Justice. Let us restrict consideration to those measures which seem to have some immediate prospect of achievability, given an substantial effort. The Security Council is essentially a victors club from World War II. Minor reforms could help internationalize it: All major nations could be admitted as permanent members; Less than unanimous concurrence among permanent members could be accepted for decisions. I would not give such reforms high priority despite their desirability. If a substantial security system is built, the Security Council will (despite its title) become, like weapons themselves, less relevant and less important--perhaps ultimately vestigial--akin to the House of Lords in Britain.

The General Assembly suffers from the obverse structural malady--the one nation-one vote system, a relection of national sovereignty, has an extraordinarily wider range in populations and economic power than in the U.S. Senate. Demography (if not democracy) suggests voting strength proportional to population. Practical politics indicates voting strength proportional to power. A triadic voting system combining national sovereignty, demography, and power according to a formula would remedy this legitimations problem, but this is not as severe a problem as it appears, except for efforts to delegitimize the UN by emphasizing this defect. Large, powerful, wealthy states extend their influence beyond their solitary votes. In addition, given the character of recent U.S. governments, it is risky to subject the UN Charter to revision. Retrogression could result.

The NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have their own legitimization problems in addition to their lack of organization. Much could be done for them to come to represent the aspirations of the peoples of the world, especially of the "wretched of the earth", in contrast to the governments of the world represented in the UN, but this is a complicated issue upon which I won't dwell now.

Proposals for strengthening the UN can be considered as a matrix of modest, politically practical, immediate steps as components of comprehensive long term plans. The Preliminary Proposals, the Final Statement and the Conclusions and Recommendations of the J.D. Bernal World Scientific Conference on Security and Disarmament contain a long list of these proposals. They are appended. As an example, allow me to focus on one area which involves a complex of interrelated proposals, and which has some urgency--space.

Philosophically, it is deemed desirable to work toward a concept of a family of humanity in which the earth is a common heritage of humanity. More modestly, parts of the earth might be declared common heritages of humanity much as electromagnetic and air space are formally public domain in the U.S. Some limited progress has been made in the Law of the Sea(bed) which could be extended. Antarctica has been carved up like a pie, but perhaps not irreversibly. Severance taxes on non-renewable resources are a possibility. Space holds the most promise. There is no immediate hope of declaring space a common heritage, but a step in that direction could be taken by the establishment of a UN Space Agency. Politically, the most feasible route seems to be to have the Security Council establish and operate it. Rather than each nation operating its own surveillance satellites, the UN Space Agency would monitor military operations and compliance with arms control treaties and conventions to the benefit of the security of all nations. Meteorological services, communications, surveys of forests, deserts, crops, and geology could be provided, and could constitute a direct source of revenue. Communications facilities could be used to help implement the New International Information Order as well as to assist in Technology Transfer to help achieve economic justice. Public domain knowledge and technology could be broadcast worldwide. As a common heritage, not only weapons, but military operations could be proscribed, and ultimately prohibited in space.

This is only a small sample of immediate modest and politically practicable steps (given substantial effort) which could gradually help develop an International Security System. It is hoped that preoccupation with weaponry will not be so consuming as to prohibit progress in developing security.

The UN is the obvious institution to address matters of global concern, including security. In order to provide security the UN needs to be strengthened considerably. It needs direct, substantial, and reliable sources of revenue. It needs stronger judicial powers. Conflict is not going to disappear from the world, nor is history going to remain static. Societies are going to evolve and make transitions. the process can be made less tragic and less painful with some rules for conflict. A UN Human Rights Court could provide some protection of individuals from their governments. The proposal of a UN Criminal Court with a Prosecutor's Office could be revived. The UN needs greater enforcement capability. A prospective International Security System must accommodate the plurality, essentially a duality (capitalist vs. democratic) of economic systems in the world, which would remain in dynamic competition. A rigid inflexibility cannot be imposed. Change, hopefully progress, is inevitable. However, the rules of competition and change embodied in the International Security System would render warfare and militarism useless as tools in the competition, and would render the world a safer, less tragic place.

Return to Home Page