Collective Security Treaty
May the author of all creation smile down upon our humble human race and allow that the destiny of men remains their own, and that the light of human consciousness will not be extinguished, nor allow us to shy from the never ending battle for human intellectual and spiritual freedom. Beginnings are delicate times, and this moment in history is so very rare, so let us proceed with caution, humility, and determination to see the new world emerge from the old.
The current system of international relations is a free for all of every man for himself. Without imposing rules of the road, it is certain that like the last Century, this one will be a story written in blood. What is advocated is a new international agreement on the rules of the road for nations and a means of enforcing those rules. Nonviolent civil disobedience is the tool of the hour for people to join together across all boundaries and demand change from the status quo. We are living in a very special time in history, and it is our duty as human beings to fulfill a personal responsibility in this time of trial. We are living on borrowed time and it is clear that the world must change. With this in mind I am advocating four goals, among which are a treaty for a world court to enforce the peace of the world and an international military force to enforce the rules of the road. The treaty includes nuclear disarmament and other key elements, central to continued human health and happiness.
The creation of the nation state led to a system of competition between nations, leading in turn to constant conflict. The concepts of Humanity and Democracy are not necessarily in the interest of the nation state, and not part of the new order of nation states that began over 350 years ago. The concept of territorial integrity and individual human rights are not respected, nations interfere in each other’s internal affairs, violate their territorial integrity, and violate the basic human rights of their own citizens historically with impunity. It is a matter of survival for us to change this state of affairs for the better. The concept of a balance of power as a means of keeping the peace among nations historically fails. What we are facing in the future is a WWI scenario where a host of alliances draw nations into an unintentional war fought with nuclear weapons. In the age of state sponsored terrorism and WMD, the peace of the world demands international rules of the road that constrain the worst excesses of nation states in their relations among each other and their citizens. The international conscience must be able to assert itself to defend individual human rights and end systematic criminality such as waging aggressive war, and genocide.
The US has the most powerful military technology and presently has no immediate rivals for military supremacy. Having said this, it is clear the US can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman and this is probably no longer desirable anyway. One nation with 4% of the world population cannot sustain military superiority throughout the world indefinitely. America began as the original anti-colonial nation which defeated the world’s greatest super power in a guerilla war over two hundred years ago. The people of the US have historically had no taste for foreign intrigue and empire. Before WWII the US did not maintain a large standing army. The people of the US have historically seen the role of US military might as the world’s policeman, protecting freedom from tyranny and protecting the weak from the strong. Foreign intervention was either driven by our role as a protector of the weak, or from less admirable motives. America was not entirely without self-interest, but in a world without a robust US, the last 100 years might have been disastrous for Civilization, and the human rights the world holds so dear.
The present state of economic and military affairs is in a transition stage. The world balance of power is shifting and becoming more precarious and unstable. What is wanting today is a smooth transition to a new paradigm because nature abhors a vacuum. The US cannot leave the dominant position without creating chaos, unless something else takes up the role of defender of freedom against tyranny. Unilateral disarmament is not being advocated here. US leadership and vision can transcend military supremacy and become enshrined through a new means of world peace and tranquility. A new Marshall Plan will be the basis for passifying the restive regions of the world. Collective security agreements will project force and keep the peace by creating an international police force. Developed nations will augment the top down peace enforcement with a bottom up strategy of humanitarian and scientific initiatives to improve the quality of life with health and education. The world will gradually become a less chaotic place in an evolutionary manner. It is fair and logical to ask the question, why not just continue to use military superiority to guarantee national security? Why fix what’s not broken. The window of clear military superiority is narrowing and will continue to do so. The continued arms race will result in a host of potential bad outcomes, some catastrophic. The worst will eventually happen unless we use a different strategy. Should the arms race continue, then humanity will all but destroy itself. Humanity must change or die. We will lead them on the path.
The main enemies of peace are the leaders of nations who make decisions to attack their neighbors, their own populations, and build weapons of mass destruction for these purposes. The central idea behind keeping the peace is to affect the mental calculus of national leaders and dissuade them from making these kinds of decisions for personal or national advantage. Rules must be agreed upon that will stop the strong from taking over the weak. Minority populations within countries must be protected from elimination actions such as ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide. In addition, the world wide arms race in nuclear and conventional weapons must end. The manner of interpretation of these rules shall be a world court, a judicial body to interpret and order enforcement of the rules. The means of enforcement of this collective security must be real and as such must be a military force comprised of a patchwork of member nations capable of robust military action to enforce the judgments of the court. Without enforcement power all rules and laws are just words and pieces of paper. If we succeed then catastrophic wars will be avoided and the wealth of nations may go to science and human health and education rather than huge armies and weapons of greater and greater destructive power. If we adapt and change then the light of world consciousness will not go out.
100 Ritual Schools of Thought Contend: The concept of a multipolar world made up of many nations who hold aspirations for global and regional leadership appears to be the new reality. Already in the new century one sees China and India as emerging rivals while China aids Pakistan to build nuclear weapons in an alliance against India. Brazil, Turkey, and other emergent powers are contemplating acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East may set off nuclear programs in many of these emergent nations. This new dynamic recalls the Warring States Period in Chinese history, or the situation in Europe exactly 100 years ago when many nations held such aspirations and they formed interlocking alliances predicated on the concept of mutual defense and a balance of power. Stated simplistically, when one small nation attacked another, the entire set of alliances drew all nations into a cataclysmic war that destroyed everything that had come before.
It is self-evident that in the whole history of civilization there have only been a few brief periods of world peace. War has always been with us and so it may always be with us until such time that the world is destroyed. There is no other conclusion in the age of nuclear weapons and even more terrible inventions lurking on the horizon. The worldwide arms race is the never ending contest to invent such powerful weapons that no one would dare think to start a war. But someone always does. Weapons labs and scientists with unlimited funds are driving us towards a doomsday weapon, and maybe that day is closer than you think. Please recall that nuclear weapons were invented in secret and used before the world knew of their existence.
The nation state makes war when the leadership decides to go to war. It is not a traffic accident, it is a voluntary choice. In addition to wars across borders there are internal power struggles that become civil wars along the lines of ideology, race, religion, or more often a mixture. In addition to full-fledged war there are the crimes against internal populations such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the widespread torture and assassination of political enemies that most despots and dictators by definition engage in. In fact it is likely that nearly half of all nations take aim at domestic enemies whom they arrest, torture, and murder at will. The internal bloodletting can exceed the external and is perhaps the future defacto mode of the modern state, one that preys upon its own people.
In all these calamities there is a leadership and a group of people who are invested economically in the decisions to go to war or to murder. The rules of the road should address their calculations about why they war and kill and to influence this calculation to make such actions less likely to yield the results they seek, profit and power, and instead add up to hardship and imprisonment and death. The concept of the treaty is to identify the enemies of humanity as those leaders who war and kill and to separate them from their base population and their co-conspirators, and to cut them out of the herd and to bind and neutralize them. This standard method and eventual fate of criminal leadership will make the calculations of future leaders more certain that the path of war, mass murder, torture and assassination leads nowhere. First there have to be rules and mechanisms to enforce those rules, and second there have to be examples of those leaders and their cohorts who crossed the line and paid the ultimate price to make the point that war and genocide are futile. There are 200 nations and if nations are regularly divested of their tormentors then in one generation, even some of the biggest bullies on the block will think twice. That hesitation is exactly what our goal should be. In twenty years the rules of the road will become enshrined in the minds, if not the hearts of men. The quickest path to failure is to be too ambitious too soon. Choose the places where success is easiest, at the bottom, and move forward from there. If this sounds Utopian then one must be forced to admit the following.
Without new rules in place to guide the international community hundreds of millions of people will be murdered in conflicts both internal and external, that is, civilians who will be killed by the military of foreign governments in war and by their own government. (The majority of war dead are civilians.) War has not gone out of fashion in the 21st Century and the crimes of the last Century will be repeated. A WWI type scenario fought with nuclear weapons seems more and more likely every day. The United States and the West will be left to clean up the insurmountable mess, that is if they survive. The peace will be finite and more nuclear exchanges will follow the first. Should the current great powers emerge as victors they will be destroyed financially, politically, and spiritually. Their time of major relevance will have passed, much like the era of Colonial powers after WWII.
There have been numerous genocide type events since 1945. These were supposed to have been prevented, but were not, even after the signing of enough agreements against genocide to wall paper a house. The United Nations was meant to save us from this fate but it has so far failed to achieve complete success. One reason the UN has failed is that it represents primarily the rights of sovereign nations above those of individual human beings. It is now more necessary than ever to defend individual human rights, because in the age of incredible technological tools used in tandem with dictatorship, the rights of individuals are more in jeopardy than ever before. The eventuality of a terrorist nuclear attack is another reason to motivate peace loving nations to do away with nuclear weapons. If the weapons exist, they will be used at some point by non-state actors in an attempt to destroy the West.
World Court and International Bill of Rights: Clearly a different plan is needed. A new international convention on war, genocide, and human rights is in order. A collective military force composed of divisions from member nations should be created that will periodically practice together and is robust enough to defeat a determined foe. In short, the collective whole must be, generally speaking, greater than any single one of its parts. The mandate for the use of this new collective armed force is to guarantee the existing borders of member states ONLY. This means that if Iraq invades Kuwait the international force is required by treaty to use force to expel the invader and return the borders to their previous location. This mandate alone, enforcing previously agreed upon borders, is the sole mission of the collective armed force and these ground forces may not be used for any other reason. The net result should eventually be a seventy (70) nation army prepared to defend the border security and border integrity of all member nations. This organization will preclude the necessity of any one nation being the international peace keeper for the entire world. It will fill the void left by the US, and will protect the weak nations from being absorbed by the strong ones. It may be that preserving borders is very much akin to fighting the last war. Open war across borders may not be the biggest problem in the new Century.
Definitions: Genocide and elimination type events wherein heads of state mass murder their own citizens will be addressed. The international community will place a multimillion dollar bounty on a national leader who uses genocide and mass murder as an instrument of state power. Government ministers and generals may have multimillion dollar bounties as well. A special fund will be established for this purpose. The court action will protect domestic political opponents from torture/assassination as well as internal populations such as indigenous people and minorities. Any head of state who engages in such actions against their own citizens is an enemy of humanity and will be treated as such. Member nations will be required to detain all suspect criminals and curtail all related economic activity. Those who follow the rules and economically isolate the foe will receive just compensation from the member states. Military force along the lines of an air campaign may be used to actively stop an ongoing genocide by attacking the hostile military force or its proxy. The limitation about using the full military might of member nations should remain in place to avoid splitting up the alliance and over reaching by the court.
Potential criminal heads of state will make the political calculation that genocide and elimination actions such as ethnic cleansing are not going to pay off if they face the certainty of economic sanction, limited military force, and eventual prosecution by the international court or arrest and even assassination by their own people. These rules will only begin to be enforced broadly in about the tenth year of the agreement to spare existing national leaders of member nations the harsh glare of laws they mutually agree to. There is an implicit understanding that the current leaders who sign will probably not feel sanction for past transgression. The international defense force will practice regularly and will function as an international emergency assistance force during natural disasters. All member states receive immediate massive humanitarian aid during earth quakes, hurricanes, and similar events. The force may aid non-member states at the discretion of the world court. It is expected that the international defense force and the world court will gradually make the world less chaotic, and open up a space for defense spending reductions and gradual nuclear disarmament. Since 1945 Japan has been under the US security umbrella which has allowed them to do without a large standing army or nuclear weapons.
How I Learned to Hate the Bomb: Nuclear disarmament will preclude a large scale exchange triggered by events similar to those of WWI. The collective security paradigm will come about in stages.
First, Nations will join the international force by certifying their borders with their neighbors, then supplying a division (battalion, regiment), depending on their population. Nations will agree to defend international borders (members) without exception, and to begin mutual defense spending reductions in future years, and eventual mutual nuclear disarmament. Member nations agree to contribute to the mutual defense and abide by the decisions of the World Court. Second, Mediation of existing military conflicts and border disputes will go before the special court and will be decided there under binding arbitration rules. Third, Signatory nations will agree in the future to fund and staff the special court with nine internationally recognized jurists and to fund bounties placed upon criminal heads of state judged to be enemies of humanity. They will agree to arrest all such persons within their borders and exclude economic ties with such persons and their dependents or agents. They will support limited military attacks such as air campaigns to stop genocide when called upon by the special court and supply the mutual defense forces to do so. There is no mandate for the military overthrow or invasion of a nation, rather they will exist to protect existing borders, enforce economic blockades, arrest criminal leaders, and in the extreme cases when necessary to use air power to slow or stop a genocide or related action. The ultimate target of military and economic force must be the criminal leadership and wholesale invasion of a nation does not fit this paradigm. If an extreme case is at hand a unanimous vote by all member nations will authorize invasion of a nation but only as a last resort. The members must remain united or a split will form that will set off a new chain of events and a new arms race. It must be remembered that were the arms race to continue, life as we know it will eventually come to an end. Fourth, nations will agree to honor the international bill of rights to protect lawful speech and lawful political activity within their own borders. Nations will release all persons designated as political prisoners, and in return all past violations of human rights MAY be waived by the special court by mutual agreement. Fifth, nuclear disarmament will take place in stages once all major nuclear nations join. Nations with many thousands of weapons will reduce to two thousand total. Nations with hundreds will reduce to one hundred, and the rest will reduce to one only. The next step several years later will take place when the nuclear fuel supply has substantially come under international control, from mining to enrichment to fuel production and all future construction and operation of civilian nuclear power. An international corps will be charged with design and operation of all nuclear power plants of a standardized design and be charged with securing all nuclear materials. The international corps will take the form of a government and private industry consortium with shares held by construction firms and governments. Then nuclear nations will reduce by a factor of ten their weapons so that two nations have two hundred devices each and a few others have ten. The third phase eliminates all existing stocks save the two largest, which will be dismantled and placed under international control until the devices expire due to natural deterioration (40-50 years). If any nation manages to break the treaty and begins building nuclear weapons the treaty nations at the direction of the court may reassemble the remaining nuclear devices and use them if necessary to stop the emergent nuclear threat. All member nations will allow weapons inspections in all instances in all locations. Member nations are not bound to protect non-member nations from invasion but they are bound to support the provisions dealing with genocide and related crimes. Member nations are only bound to reduce defense spending after ten years, and only in concert with the verifiable defense cuts of the other treaty nations. No member state shall be forced to disarm unilaterally. A terrorist nuclear attack is an eventuality. This unavoidable fact should motivate nations to do away with nuclear weapons. If the weapons exist, they will be used on people.
The Role of the new Marshall Plan and the World Court: An important component to creating a safer world is the New Marshall Plan, a humanitarian initiative to control hunger and disease, and a scientific initiative to study and preserve the planetary ecology. One aspect of the new Marshall Plan is the drive to increase the health, longevity, education, (and political stability) in developing nations to near parity with those of the developed world.
It is necessary to have a mechanism for the people of failed states to exert their collective will to participate, even in environments controlled by hostile corrupt leadership. Hostile and corrupt leadership depend upon control of state or privately owned communications to manufacture consent for war and other aggressive actions. It will be necessary to put in place a worldwide wireless broadband internet to void message control by state communications that historically have been used to motivate populations towards war and genocide. Such an all-encompassing communications medium can break the hold of propaganda programs that depend upon exclusive control of the message about matters as weighty as war and peace. The communications technology will reinforce and assist other aspects of the new Marshall Plan such as education and commerce.
Plebiscite: If 70% of the people voting choose to participate in the New Marshall Plan then a mechanism for making that state a ward of the international community should be set into motion and the existing government ruling elite should be peacefully persuaded with monetary inducements and potential sanctions to allow a caretaker government to be appointed by the international community and the nation building program with clear numerical goals of a known methodology and duration be set in motion. The world court may employ an ambassador for this purpose (born in country) and the development contract must be very specific about goals and time tables. The contract may evolve with a national consensus on targets for life expectancy, standard of living, population targets, ecological conservation, and agricultural and industrial development goals. The ambassador will submit example contracts for discussion and consensus by the entire population that evolves into a consensus contract ratified by at least 70% of the people voting. For example, Zimbabwe might vote to accept a medium package of assistance that offers 100 hospitals and clinics, 100 bridges and roads, 500 schools, 10,000 scholarships and universal free education K-12. In return they agree to reforestation and 70% of lands not to be developed and a planned 10% decline in population over 20 years, as well as the eventual reduction or disbanding of the army. After 7-10 years when the program ends, life expectancy jumps to 80% of that of the developed world and the standard of living is doubled. Smaller developing nations will see positive examples and join the nation building program and collective security agreement to protect them from stronger neighbors and do away with the need for a large standing army. This process begins with the smallest nations in optimal circumstances and progresses to larger nations, slowly making the world a safer, less militaristic place over time.
This may seem like a rather roundabout means of avoiding a clash of civilizations or nuclear war, but the present alternative of assassinating enemy leadership with remote drones only embitters the enemy, much like aerial bombing of cities in WWII only served to steel the determination of the target civilian population. Fortress America is a strategy that has involved us in multiple wars and extreme financial expense without achieving the results we desire. Gradual nuclear disarmament and nation building done outside of war zones is a much less expensive and more effective means of guaranteeing long term safety. It is probable that collective security and the new Marshall Plan will take a decade or more to reach a tipping point.
Choosing the nine international jurists from among member nations is the most important step. It will be done by mutual agreement. The basis for voting will be the written judicial decisions of the jurists during their careers. Written decisions that garner the most votes will be chosen to form the first body. Since the treaty nations will be supplying the expertise and resources, these nations will choose the first court body based upon the size of their population and their contribution to the New Marshall Plan. Decisions of the nine member court will be made by a majority vote. Choosing corrupt or incompetent judges will mean the court is fated to fail, while the choice of wise, cautious, and fair personalities will mean domestic peace and tranquility. Over reach by the court will mean that member states refuse to allow their military forces to take part. To this end the force contributions must be funded at the national level to ensure decentralized control. The court will evolve; it will grow in size and change in composition to reflect the new member states. The first ten years will witness the rise of collective security, a world court, and international control of nuclear energy, nuclear weapons reductions, and the beginning of a humanitarian and scientific initiative on the path to control disease and hunger, and preserve the planetary ecology. It must be remembered that the first ten years are a trust building exercise.
The new Marshall Plan: Equitable division and management of renewable resources according to the new Marshall Plan will also be a part of any contract between the international community and developing nations. The area near the equator holds 50% of all known species of plants, animals, insects, etc. and these should be preserved by direct transfer payments ($15-30 billion) once a year. This will secure the forests that function as the lungs of the planet and most known life forms. Renewable resources such as timber, wild game, and fishing rights will be managed in order to maximize the yearly harvest into perpetuity. This means resources will be managed to last forever and to allow people to harvest the optimum amount per year. These quotas will be determined by biologists and will take into account the need to maximize wild life diversity as well. In other words fishing interests will take the maximum possible without destroying the resource or the wild life that share the resource. Example: Cod harvests might be optimal at 15% of the yearly population, or 5 million tons, taking into account the 2 million tons eaten by other species. Thus cod populations do not decline radically from year to year and other species are all in a state of equilibrium. It is human nature to harvest a renewable resource until it collapses or goes extinct and this can no longer be allowed to proceed unchecked. Optimizing resources and sharing them in an equitable manner will be adjudicated by the court or its designated representatives who are experts in the field. The nations who share harvests or the nation that harvests resources within its borders will ratify the targets and methods of harvesting. Disputes between nations or within national borders may be brought before the court. Those who break the agreements are liable to sanctions both economic and criminal before the court. It is with great humility and faith in the common purpose, the common good of peace and prosperity that we set forth the four goals. These include a ban on the new EMW, reform of our political system, the collective security treaty, and a new Marshall Plan. Let us place our faith and hope in the certain knowledge that God loves us and readily helps those who help themselves. Marshall Gregory Thomas 7/21/12