A Simple Action That Can Bring World Peace Now - Proposal For Discussion

[althecat]

Hi DU... the following is for discussion.. it was submitted as a reader opinion to Scoop and has clearly been thoroughly considered.. how says DU?

Al
Scoop.co.nz

*************

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0408/S00071.htm
A Simple Action That Can Bring World Peace Now

A Simple Action That Can Bring A Lasting World Peace Now

By Anonymous

In recent times many of us have been in despair at the state of International relations, almost at the point of giving up hope.

We feel this way because we see no action that is simple and effective enough that offers real hope of ending the madness all around us - the madness of global wars that we have been living through for the past hundred years.

But what if there were a simple solution?

There is a simple solution – the passage of a simple resolution in the United Nations' General Assembly called - "Two-Percent-And-No-First-Strike".

The resolution would be a resolution on membership requirement.

Once adopted, no member nation in the United Nations would be allowed to use more than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for its military budget, nor to use weapons of mass destruction on a first-strike basis.

Any nation that wanted to allocate more than 2% would be required to give the excess to the United Nations to form a permanent international peace keeping force controlled by the the General Assembly.

Because it is a membership requirement, the UN Security Council, according to the UN bylaw, can not claim jurisdiction and thus will not be able to veto it. Any member nation can introduce this resolution at the General Assembly floor to be voted upon.

Because it is so simple, it needs no debate, thus no delay.

Because over half of the member nations already are compliant, it could win easy passage.

Because every nation's security and sovereignty will be enhanced, even guaranteed, by this initiative, it will subject the few nations who do oppose it to pressure of public opinion - the new "Other Superpower" that came into being when the UN denied legality of the war against Iraq in 2003.

The resolution is fair because every nation has the same percentage limit.

It will not cause practical hardship because even the most militarized nation today can meet its existing personnel payroll with a 2% budget.

It is not unnatural because no nation is asked, nor required, to destroy any of the weapons it already has.

It is effective in the short term because no nation can wage a war within a 2% GDP military budget.

It is effective in the long term because over $500 billion will be saved every year from destructive uses.

Its instant result will be that all invading troops will have to be withdrawn right away.

For the third world nations, it will offer the first chance that they can pursue their own peace without outside interference.

For the first world nations, it will offer the first chance that true democracy can be practiced.

For the world, it will offer both the people and the planet the first chance to heal since the end of WWII.

Had the United Nations adopted exactly this same membership requirement at its inception in 1946, we would have had a world in peace since then, as the Preembles of the United Nations so powerfully prayed then:

" WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith .... have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

Without this simple membership requirement, the United Nations was rendered powerless to prevent wars by the powerful nations. And now, with the continuous crisis of war, humanity has lost hope for peace.

Recently the world's 8 most industrialized nations, after their most secretive meeting in June, 2004, announced their intention to form a permanent international peace keeping force without the companion pledge of no first strike.

They also declared that they re-define the Middle East to include North Africa, the only other region of proven oil fields.

These actions both serve to prove the importance of the proposed 2% initiative, and the placement of a permanent international peace keeping force under the control of all the nations instead of just the 8 strongest economic nations.

If democracy is good for national governance on the principle of one person one vote, how is democracy not good for world governance.

The passage of the "Two-Percent-And-No-First-Strike" initiative is easy, but the real work begins afterwards: To ensure that our own respective governments will abide by it.

The good thing is that our work will then be done within a simple and enforceable legal framework. But even more critically, it will be done with hope in our hearts because everyone can understand such a simple solution.

ENDS

- edited to change title and add discussion

[Spiffarino]

1. Love the idea, but...

...somebody will cheat. All you have to do is look at most any treaty and you will find somebody cheated, is cheating, or is trying to figure out a way to cheat.

It's human nature - or I should say, the nature of some humans - to want to dominate others and take away their toys. We have to change ourselves first.

[althecat]

3. True enough.. plus of course the real villains of the peace will oppose

it for some time... but it would be a step in the right direction.

It also strikes me that it would put the shoes on the correct feet... at present here in NZ the political debate around defence is often characterised by a debate over when NZ will get its defence spending up to 2% of GDP.... this will make what the RW have criticised for so long a virtue.

[CaTeacher]

2. This is wonderful! I wish that

this were part of the Democratic platform. We should be pushing this idea as hard as we can. If people would buy into this--we could actually see peace in our time! This is big stuff!

[yellowjacket]

4. You think that the debate on this would be quick and easy?

Nothing the UN does is done quickly and easy and free of debate. How would this proposal deal with military action from non-state combatants. That seems to be the way the world is heading. Would the UN take action against, say, Al Qaeda or the Tamil Tigers if they spend more than 2% of their GDP? If not, how would they be stopped?

[althecat]

5. Yes.. the UN would be responsible for that.... plus big nations

...could presumably spend 2% of their GDP on combatting terror. And there is no restriction on homeland defence spending. The real intention of a proposal like this however is to eliminate reasons behind terror in the first place. If we are no longer busy spending all our resources on killing one another we can probably spend a fair bit on helping oen another.

For E.G. how far would the $300 billion spent on invading and occupying Iraq have gone in global development terms? How much goodwill could that have purchased?

[burrowowl]

6. Well a hugh majority of the

Nations would have to vote for it to override the U$ veto.
Good idea, but weapon corporations will be hell to deal with.
Just saw Corporation. Highly recommend, I'm going to get the DVD.
But do read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Kevin Philips' Wealth and Democracy.

[Indiana_Dem]

7. I'm not into globalization.

No offense. I just don't want the U.N. to control our country. Call me an isolationist if you have to. Also, as stated above, someone will always cheat. Most of those countries in the U.N. are not true democracies anyway, they're dictatorships. I would not like a group of dictatorship-type countries mandating what each country can and can't do. There has already been corruption at the U.N. of late. I also don't want foreign U.N. troops in the U.S. as I would rather have our own guarding us if need be. The U.N. is good for what they are currently doing such as humanitarian needs, etc., but not military decisions for all countries.

[undergroundpanther]

9. Well

The UN controlling us.. hmmm..
Well I dunno.. How good is America at picking ethical,sane,quality "leaders"?
America has lost it's "moral authority" because it has become too favoring of bully morality.
As long as we as a nation suckup to bullies and business bullies and elect these charismatic conduct disordered creeps to positions of power I'd dare to say
Americans by THIER ACTIONS thier choices(not thier words because talk is always cheep)are begging to give up the responsibility of having to choose a leader that will work well with others,not be a con man, and show personal integrity and ethical courage and empathy.
Until we stop seeking strongman leaders and look to traits like intellegence,commpassion sensitivity and moral backbone we will let the ambitious elect leaders that reflect the character of the bullies in America instead of the people who feel disgusted by the bullies.

Unless the United states (the president on down to the citizens) learns personally how to get along with others,and demands it's "leadership" to cooperate,negotiate and really lead with integrity and not just the appearance of it,I think other nations can teach us a thing or two about how to be better as a nation. If we are too arrogant to listen to others it will cost us.


Tell me,what do you expect from a world of nations threatened by a sociopathic hyperpower to do about the ambitions of the hyper arrogant leaders the ignorant people elect?? Should otyher nations just Roll over to our belligerance ,our weapons threats and be dominated by America and become slave states to the corporate parasites running the show??.THe United States human rights record sucks as bad as other rouge nations,including China....

Some nations that are unlike ours in character.. actually strive to help thier people become more empowered ,want them to live well and be healthy.These nations are not afraid of cooperation and they are not terrified of giving a little to get some..America isn't like these other nations,Amerricans call these nations"communist" and they are not they just give more to thier citizens than America does.America will do these basic measures(like nationalized healthcare) for citizens only if the "leaders" are threatened by revolt,An emergency forces them,or if it lines some power monger business bullies pocket or gets the"leader"and his lackeys reelected.
America's leaders have no ethics they can't be trusted.
Yet we have a horrible weapon arsenal,which means our "leadership" is dangerous,Bush seeks to build a world empire and that makes us, a threat to the world.
Maybe it would be a good thing for the US to lose some military and corporate power to dominate,and maybe it would be good if we were to be made to be responsible to the world like they are to us,and not be a bully and get our way all the time..A limit like this proposal would make the world safer and by proxy we would be safer and the"leaders"in power who are too ambitious and agressive ,whom we refuse to leash with civil disobedience ,law,and free speech or media for ourselves will be leashed by the UN than.The Un can do our job we fail to do ,and they'll do it even if the American people become bigoted,apathetic,ignorant, uninvolved,and lose thier own sense of empathy or ethics for the rest of the world.

What a proposal like this says to me is American citizens are failing to make thier leaders be held accountable to themselves,to the laws,to the ethics,so of course if we don't rein them in they won't be accountable to the world either...If the UN makes the US,accountable it will be because we haven't..

[Indiana_Dem]

10. Whew! A person of many words!

Don't get me wrong. I've been reading some Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson which clearly have opened my eyes. I'm not an advocate of the neocon agenda or support their imperial endeavors.

My fear of the U.N. is of the same nature that I'm afraid of the imperialism of which our country has been heading for a long time. Right now, aside from the Patriot Act, we as a people of a country have more power than those in other countries. I don't want to loose our Consitutional rights to U.N. rule either.

My only hope is that more people get involved and steer our country in a new direction of hope. If this doesn't happen, your scenario will probably become a reality but it will come with a lot of sacrificing of our rights just as well as if imperialism were to thrive. We didn't get this way overnight and it will take just as long to get ourselves out if we have the gumption to do it. It may be too late by now, I fear.

In either direction, it looks ugly to me.

edited for typos

[undergroundpanther]

8. I like it

Simple enuff..

But...
How to implement it?
We got bullies in charge of many nations including the United states,
Bush would simply be stubborn pout and refuse to participate his lackeys will go to other nations to bully,smear, bribe and intimidate them to get other nations to change their votes to shoot down this measure. No bully wants to be limited in their aggressions and ambitions..
Any nations with Paranoid ,ambitious, greedy,emotionally dead brutes like Bush 'leading them'will not 'agree' to limiting their own grabbing of other nations weaker or not as aggressive.And they will cite the greedy grabbing of the other bullies they fear as their excuse for keeping the military first strike crap going.I think "leaders" fear the peoples and the peoples are manipulated by "leaders" to fear each other when it comes to international relationships. .Nations with "leaders"like ours who abuse people by proxy (in wars or with money or in other ways )they won't easily stop their sick rationalized theft of other countries resources or the abuses until they are somehow "topped" or beaten into submission(deposed from power) or restricted and confined and made powerless."Leaders"like Bush will just switch directions in their ambitions into other sectors of society they can dominate and use to feel 'power'and they still will act out their horrific illness in whatever freedoms and loopholes society has that they can take advantage of..

We need to get all bullies, abusers, the greedy,recklessly ambitious and narcissists and the people with conduct disorders OUT OF POSITIONS of POWER because they are not to be trusted and they lack the emotional capacity to form real morality,they present a convincing mask of sanity and use charm and the appearance of decisive'strength to fool people into trusting them.TV is the perfect impersonal but personal 'feeling'medium for their mind and P.R. games to work through...Most people have not met the "leaders" making laws that impact their lives personally,their trust is abbreviated and TV creates an illusion of trustworthiness when it isn't deserved.

Bullies whether they are bratty middle schoolers,or crazy world leader wannabes refuse to live and let live,Differentness,notions of equality and human rights not to be abused or manipulated, other people's happiness and creativity scare the hell outta these pathetic but charismatic people who because they are so insecure and emotionally disconnected will strive to make everyone be like they are or else..

Narcissists like Bush cannot just be one president among many presidents in an equal balance of mutually cooperative power.Oh No, they got to be ON TOP in the spotlight,they will not just be a power among powers they gotta be the HYPERPOWER...Thier huge ego,their selective blindness,and overweening ambitious arrogance because of their conduct disorders will prevents them from tolerating peace.

Bullies cannot tolerate a community of equal people cooperating for peace and they will avoid the ethical and emotional responsibilities peacefulness requires of a person's personal and interpersonal social conduct.
Sociopaths refuse to develop empathy... so they can kill and steal without remorse and lie or rationalize it as "right actions" to anyone that is not well versed in the way manipulation and psy ops works on people's emotions fear and ignorance.

Until more non-sociopath ,non conduct disordered ,non abuser people can figure out how to not put their trust into "strong" "leaders" and when they are able refuse to listen to these charismatic people with conduct disorders, who look normal on the outside ...but still are conduct disordered and have serious personality flaws.When more people understand why abusers of power cannot be trusted with any position of responsibility or power in any society,peace will elude us .
Everything is a band aid until humanity learns to not be so manipulatable and so bullied,and picks saner,more honest, healthier more responsible and emotionally intact 'leaders'and refuse to let the 'leaders' do as they want to do with the power we give them,and give them no room for secrecy..for corruption to gain control.

[althecat]

14. The idea is to isolate the bullies i.e. the USA

+ the beauty of the idea is that it cannot be vetoed as it comes from the General assembly.

While the US cannot be expected to aquiesce to this quickly a couple of presidential cycles might help it grow on people.

Thanks for all the feedback... your serious consideration is greatly appreciated.

al

[Zan_of_Texas]

11. Brilliant. And, impossible.

Right now, BushCo has done everything it can to weaken the UN as it is. BushCo has unsigned treaties and dissed our allies.

If the other countries got a serious effort to do this proposal (which I think is wonderful), BushCo (after doing surveillance and bribery and posturing and bullying of the UN delegates), if the proposal passed, would simply withdraw from the UN. Right wingers would be just as glad to do that. It would make it real clear that it's us against the world.

Military expenditures wag the dog in terms of the US federal budget. Huge, unimaginable amounts are wasted, or lost, or involved in semi-bribery or the real thing.

A few items that don't get much play in our corporate media:

<> The US miliary has 725 bases in 132 countries.

<> The US has a total of 1,389,000 men and women on active duty. Payroll for these uniformed personnel is nearly $80 billion a year.

<> The US spends 37% of all the money spent anywhere in the globe on military.

<> The US is the world's largest arms seller, responsible for 47 percent of all munitions transfers between 1996 and 2000.

<> The US has 8,820 nuclear bombs, plus 10,000 in storage, AND the government has authorized expenditure of an additional $20 billion for nuclear weapons.

Source for statistics: The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson

[opihimoimoi]

12. I love it...currently we spending about 12 % of GNP on "Defense"

I could see why the MIL IND COMPLX would have a hissy fit.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. A Pollyanna of an idea...

and impossible to put into action without a way of enforcing it. As others have noted, someone will cheat and get away with it.

The only way to true world peace seems to be by killing everybody.

[althecat]

15. enforcement comes gradually via compliance....

meanwhile the measure can become international law, and therefore a guiding principle immediately. I think you can be safely confident that the USA will remain the world's most biggest cheater on this scheme for the foreseeable future. They have they biggest Military Industrial Complex to wind down...

al

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. General Assembly?

The politics inside the GA is scary to start with. Having anything more powerful to them than resolutions is downright scary. Something like 2/3rds of the GA is made up of dictators.

[althecat]

18. And who is responsible for that?

[althecat]

17. kick.... some more opinions are more than welcome

[enki23]

19. i've got one that would actually work

let's get all the people of the world to move to texas, and detonate the worlds entire nuclear arsenal at our feet. then, at least, there will be no more human strife.

and right now, i'd vote in favor.