Wednesday, October 24, 2007
A non-violent brigade under the command of a legally constituted world body, such as the United Nations, could be authorized to enforce legal policy decisions of world governing institutions. To use the examples given, we can imagine some kind of non-violent brigade entering a country to inform people of a world-wide ban on genital mutilation, and use some method to enforce that ban.
Likewise, a non-violent brigade could be used to pressure a country to stop polluting.
These uses of strategic non-violence would not be defeating the purpose of non-violence replacing warfare. They would in fact be strengthening that purpose.
For example, suppose a branch of the United Nations decided that female genital mutilation should be banned from the world. Suppose some nation is recalcitrant and refuses to accept this ban. The world-wide military should not be used to invade or threaten such a country, to force them to stop genital mutilation. This would defeat the aim of ending warfare. Other forms of pressure, such as sanctions or shaming, should be used for enforcing policy decisions.
Another example might be one country causing pollution that is harming a neighboring country. The offending nation is likely to be breaking international laws. This should be a matter for an international court, not an army. The court will need to have authority to impose punishments, but not military action.
It is extremely important to spell out in specifically what situations a worldwide military is allowed to intervene, and those situations should be limited to stopping warfare or military repression of civil rights and democracy.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Maybe one way is to spread out the power in a hierarchy of checks and balances.
For example, each major region, such as Africa or South Asia, could have a peace-enforcing military responsible for that region. Sub-regions could also have their military forces. At a higher level, a world-wide force could either reinforce a regional military, or prevent it from turning into a force for repression.
Who would decide when a worldwide military would go into action? What laws and what criteria would be used to make these decisions?
How could we prevent a worldwide military from ruling the world? What if the leadership became corrupted? What checks and balances could be in place to ensure that a military meant to protect us from warfare would instead enslave the world?
Who is already thinking about these questions? What websites and books should we study? What organizations should we join to further this goal?