16th World Congress
Peace Through Health
The Search For Global Solutions:
The Way We Must Live
So That We May Survive
Ronald S. McCoy *
Global trends suggest that the human race has reached a dangerous crossroads. As members of the genus homo sapiens, we have increased our knowledge at a phenomenal rate but not our wisdom. We are floundering in a sea of crises, not always aware that our world is crumbling and the light of our humanity flickering. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were a symptom that serious, profound changes were taking place in the world. No less was the US-led military response to terrorism, born of the arrogance of power and disregard of international law.
Our insecure globalized world is shaped by politics, economics, and science, and corroded by deadly conflict, social injustice and ecological damage. Wars in the twentieth century killed more people than in the previous nineteen centuries. While resources are siphoned off to bloated annual military budgets, poverty, hunger and disease decimate populations. These are the silent weapons of mass destruction, produced by a globalized, neo-liberal market economy that succeeds in generating enormous wealth for a minority, but fails in alleviating the abject poverty of the majority. Human security is as much about overcoming these ancient foes, as it is about disarmament and the prevention of war.
When super-powerful nations are led by leaders who mislead and misrepresent the truth, when rhetoric and double standards masquerade as diplomacy, when diplomacy itself is militarized, and war is legalized and privatized, unnecessary, unjust, illegal wars ensue, as in Iraq, despite worldwide opposition to war.
When conflict is allowed to fester and become intractable in the absence of political dialogue, especially when one side is predominant and unyielding, the outcome is often metastatic political violence or terrorism.
While high-tech conventional weapons have changed the conduct, duration and outcomes of war, particularly for civilians, unconventional nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to menace civilization.
Paradoxically, while medical science continues to eliminate disease and lengthen life spans, human behavior is responsible for pandemics of disease, some of which are virtually diseases of mass destruction in slow motion.
Unsustainable economic development continues to degrade the environment, cause global warming and climate change, and threaten our ecological life support systems. Ignoring scientific responsibility and the Precautionary Principle, amoral scientists are responsible for the release of inadequately tested genetically modified organisms into the environment, which amounts to a re-seeding of the biosphere, with unpredictable consequences. This is tantamount to ecological roulette.
Although one may feel pessimistic or apprehensive about the trends in our imperfect world, experience suggests that trends can be checked and altered by transforming attitudes, reinstating old values and strengthening institutions.
An unbrave new world is emerging, foreshadowing new tribulations. A bleak forecast perhaps, but not without hope as we try to re-envision a new world order and a safer world for future generations.
Disenchantment and Revolt
There is a perception across much of the world that a powerful and firmly rooted Western hegemony is now in place and in control of the world economy. Many states and non-state groups are unwilling to accept a global polity that is dominated by a Western political, economic and military alliance. There is also evidence to show that socio-economic polarization is growing and that there is a serious lack of structure and culture for meaningful, productive dialogue between the powerful and the disempowered.
It is to be expected that more radical and extreme anti-elite social movements will develop and draw their support from people on the margins. They may have their roots in political ideologies or religious beliefs, or have ethnic, nationalist or cultural identities, or a combination of these. They may act against individuals or groups, but most commonly they are opposed to centres of power and injustice.
The Western security outlook is that anti-elite insurgencies and paramilitary actions will be a core feature in the next three or four decades, marked by unpredictable threats to Western interests, emanating mainly from defiant states (not "rogue" states) and terrorist groups. Other conflicts may stem from threats to finite strategic resources. The basic response of Western elites to these threats has essentially been a military response, one of 'keeping the violent peace,' through unending war, if necessary.
There is a deep-seated underlying assumption, almost an article of faith, that the only rational political and economic imperatives are liberal democracy and a free market economy. Anything else is considered irrational and a potential threat to peace, stability and so-called civilized values. Very little consideration is given to the view that the factors most likely to influence the development of conflict and insecurity in the coming decades are the wealth-poverty divide, environmental constraints on development, and the spread of military technologies.
The narrow and misguided assumption, that the status quo can be maintained and dissent suppressed by military means, if necessary, is not sustainable, given the vulnerabilities of advanced states to paramilitary action and asymmetric warfare, and the nature of the human spirit in rebelling against oppression and structural violence.
However, there are reasons for optimism. There is a rich intellectual and activist tradition within the Western democracies that is deeply concerned with many of the problems related to global security. By recognizing the long-term security significance of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, political wisdom might prevail and efforts made to move towards a more equitable and stable world by addressing the root causes of political violence, instead of responding to the symptoms in a knee-jerk military fashion.
Rethinking Global Security
From the earliest records of human societies, warfare has been both an organizing focus and a prime source of political motivation. War has shaped the boundaries and existence of states, determined the status of peoples, as well as destroyed their culture, economy and infrastructure. The binding power of a common threat and the impulse to control territory have led to the creation of states, the justification of governments, the conception of armies, the development of technology, the evolution of the defence industry, and the formation of mindsets and attitudes to military security.
More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, nation states still define and rationalize security in military terms. The nuclear weapon states claim that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of their security. In reality, nuclear weapons represent the ultimate threat to security.
There is therefore an urgent need to redefine security. The search for a new formula for global security is encouraged by the argument that the historical pattern of war between major states cannot continue indefinitely, not only because new high-tech weapons would carry unacceptable risks to civilian populations, but also because globalization and terrorism are altering the nature of the security problem. Diffuse violence and asymmetric warfare by sub-state groups are posing a far greater security threat than traditional forms of aggression, driving even the most unlikely states to collaborate and seek mutual protection.
The classic notion of balancing and sustaining military power needs to give way to a more refined concept of diplomacy and cooperation, where military forces would be scaled down from requirements for active military confrontation to those for defence. The doctrine of deterrence would have to be subordinated to the notion of confidence-building, peaceful resolution of conflict, dialogue and reassurance.
The evidence of history and human nature would seem to argue against such a proposition, but cooperation is as integral to the human experience as battle. Many societies are still convinced that military force provides the only reliable means of protection against willful attack. These so-called realists hold that states, by their nature, compete with one another and are prone to disagreement, and that security necessarily depends on the organized power of the nation state. The grim reality is that contemporary warfare has the potential to destroy what it sets out to save.
Countless wars have left a conviction that war is rooted in human nature and will endure indefinitely. But security paradigms are not immutable and human institutions are not immune to new ideas and change. The first step would be self-belief that change is possible, that human problems have human solutions. The abolition of human sacrifice, slavery, apartheid and the collapse of communism are examples of radical change and social transformation.
Hegemony
Security dilemmas often arise from the unpredictability of a state's intentions. Hegemonies and alliances often arise out of efforts to achieve security, whether in a nuclear or non-nuclear context. Hegemonies, benign or malign, emerge among unequal nation states, in which there is a well-defined hierarchy, maintained by an unequal distribution of resources and power. The hegemon leads because it is wealthier, technologically more advanced, and has a preponderant military force that no other state can successfully challenge. The hegemon has an interest in maintaining or enforcing an environment of peace and stability, in which it can have easy access to limited resources, such as oil. Such stability, in the long run, may come at the cost of depleting resources and suppressing dissatisfied states.
Nuclear Dangers
As the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War and undisputed hegemon, the United States must not make the mistake of exchanging the nuclear dangers of the Cold War for the nuclear dangers inherent in its new nuclear posture and its "war on terror."
In its Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion in 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict and, in particular, the principles and rules of humanitarian law," except "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of the State is at stake."
And yet, with the exception of China, the policies of the nuclear weapon states explicitly include the first use of nuclear weapons. In particular, the new nuclear doctrine of the United States expands the role of nuclear weapons beyond their core function of deterrence to their use as legitimate tactical weapons in war. When seen in the context of the "war on terror" and the National Security Strategy of pre-emption and the unilateral use of force, any war waged by the United States could escalate into a nuclear war. Crossing the nuclear threshold for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not only be morally repugnant but it could be the first step down a slippery slope.
A new triad of capabilities envisages the combination of nuclear and conventional offensive strikes with missile defences and a new nuclear weapons production complex for designing, developing, manufacturing and testing new 'usable' warheads. US plans to build a national missile defence system is seen as a prelude to weaponising outer space and achieving "full spectrum dominance" on land, air, sea and outer space. This will lead to strategic instability and a second nuclear arms race.
The stalemate in nuclear disarmament and US plans to develop new nuclear weapons (vertical proliferation) "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters" will inevitably lead to the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries (horizontal proliferation). India and Pakistan, and possibly North Korea, have already proved the accuracy of the Canberra Commission's axiom of proliferation: The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them. It also follows that the greater the proliferation, the greater the risk of nuclear war.
Beware the nuanced language of deceptive diplomacy. 'Flexible response' or 'a nuclear exchange' is nothing less than nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are weapons of total annihilation. Nuclear weapons vaporize and incinerate human beings. They are weapons of genocide and they betray our flickering humanity.
The elimination of nuclear weapons is a matter of urgency. The United States is the only country with the power to lead in that direction, but its leadership by example is missing. The United States bears a heavy burden of responsible leadership in the world. American foreign policy and military strategies, which are intensely driven by national interest, impinge heavily on the rest of the world. In an interdependent world, the security and safety of America cannot be preserved at the cost of the security and well-being of the rest of the world. It is not only unsustainable, but also unethical and unconscionable.
There is evidence that, within influential neo-conservative groups in America, there is a belief that the United States has a sacred duty to transform the world in its own image, as expressed in the imperialistic principles of the 1997 "Project for the New American Century." The new imperialism comes in the form of Pax Americana. By leading the invasion and occupation of sovereign states, in the face of worldwide opposition to war, the United States has betrayed its own values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The continuing violence and loss of life in post-war Iraq would suggest that Pax Americana is looking more like Pox Americana. This is a terrible indictment of a great nation that was once a repository of enduring values that were the strengths of the old America and its soft power.
There are no simple solutions to systemic global disorder, but perhaps the single most important breakthrough could come if there would be a change in American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. A return to multilateralism and compliance with its treaty obligations and international law would go a long way toward strengthening the United Nations and its global agenda for peace. It would also restore the soul of America, a country that has become separated from the fine ideals and values on which it was founded. This is a challenge for the American people.
Preventing Violence and War
Since the development of the modern state-system, states have claimed a monopoly in the legitimate use of force, apart from the challenging variations that stem from civil wars, wars of independence, and acts of terrorism. Clausewitz, the 19th century Prussian philosopher and military strategist, famously expressed this view with the words: War is the continuation of politics by other means. The victors of the Second World War were certainly not convinced by these words. They promptly formed the United Nations "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
The traditional view is that war is an innate defect of human nature. This is incorrect. Individual physical violence is innate, but organized violence or war is politically-driven learned behavior learned from military instruction and the teaching of wrong social values, including militant, extremist religious teachings that are used to justify violence and war, often in the name of God. One way to modify behavior would be through peace education, by changing the pattern and content of learning, transforming social values that lead to violence, challenging and repudiating the distortions of religion, and making resort to war more difficult through prevention and disarmament.
One cannot envisage a world without conflict, but one can envisage a world without war, by restoring and strengthening the UN's authority and capability for preventive diplomacy. Without a genuine commitment to prevention and peaceful resolution of conflict, the international community will continue to be plagued by war. Without an effective legal and moral challenge to the legitimacy of war, war will not end.
In the final analysis, the effectiveness of the United Nations depends on the willingness of member states to cooperate. Changes in the structure of the United Nations will not itself guarantee its effectiveness, unless member states are willing to cooperate with the United Nations and with one another.
A Global Ethic
Global governance is about creating order on the planet. The challenge of global governance is to balance the management of world affairs with the interests of all people in a sustainable future, guided by basic human values, enhanced by the richness of diversity, and shared by a global neighborhood.
While moral codes shape individual behavior and state laws constrain citizens, ethics and international law do not seem to enjoy the same acceptance in international relations, scientific research and economic activity. For physicians who believe in the sanctity of life, a natural starting point would be the Hippocratic principle, "first do no harm" a principle that could be developed into a global ethic, which could be the foundation of international relations and scientific endeavour, particularly needed at a time when the forces of militarism and economic globalization are creating a moral vacuum and when advances in science are under scrutiny.
Ethical norms governing international relations, such as they exist, need to be redefined, strengthened and applied as ground rules for the behavior of states, as opposed to what has come to be known as an autonomous "morality of states," which in practice maintains the status quo of state sovereignty and relative morality and justice.
The state of our disorderly, polarized world strongly suggests the need for a new global ethical agenda for international politics. The challenges of poverty, environmental degradation, human rights violations, rising militarism, deadly conflict and terrorism require of governments a renewed sense of global responsibility and global cohesion. This will entail a fundamental global consensus concerning binding values and standards, as well as personal ethical attitudes. Without consensus over ethics, any society will be threatened by chaos, hegemony or dictatorship.
In practice, ethical norms are often viewed as irrelevant to foreign policy, the argument being that foreign policy cannot but pursue the narrow national interest. Since states are largely governed by self-interest, there is a tendency to view moral standards as being inconvenient, if not irrelevant.
Tendencies, however, are not inevitabilities, because individual or collective choices can be made. If we agree that foreign policy is shaped by considerations and choice, then it is possible that moral values can contribute to foreign policy, either because decision-makers are persuaded of their importance or because electorates are so persuaded. Civil society therefore has an extremely important responsibility to articulate and advocate ethical values, if there is to be change.
The creation of a global ethic as a 'global social reality' will depend upon what is established, not so much upon the norms accepted by states, as upon the norms embedded in institutions and practices which represent the wider consensus of universal values.
A global ethic is neither a global ideology, nor a single unified global religion transcending all existing religions, nor a synthesis of all religions. A global ethic does not seek to replace the ethics of individual religions. It seeks to bring together what is already common to religions, in terms of human conduct and moral values, not by reducing religions to an ethical minimalism, but by representing the minimum of what the religions of the world already have in common in the ethical sphere. Such a global ethic would be secular, universal and inclusive.
Are such expectations and hopes illusory or unattainable? Are human problems beyond human solution? Despite pessimists and so-called realists, there are signs of a worldwide change in awareness about politics and governance, about economics and ecology, about world peace, disarmament and conflict resolution, and about the partnership and interdependence between men and women. From this awareness must spring a new way of thinking and acting.
Conclusion
In the past, new international orders were established after major wars by treaties and agreements the Treaty of Westphalia after the Thirty Years War, the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars, the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, and the Charter of the United Nations after the Second World War.
Unfortunately, the United Nations was undermined by the Cold War. The end of the Cold War itself was another missed opportunity to neutralise the excesses of the ideological East-West confrontation and to develop the political will and capacity to eliminate nuclear weapons. The question now is whether the "war on terror" and the American empire project will be allowed to undermine multilateralism, disarmament and international law.
International law is not only the basis of progressive international politics but also a framework for constructive, collective action. Building a coherent international order is not so much a question of framing new laws, as implementing existing ones more effectively and discarding the practices of double standards and a la carte compliance with treaties.
Effective global governance will be strengthened when national governments are committed to protecting and enhancing the lives of their citizens and when nation states discard their own narrow national interests, foster wider, common global interests, and seek global solutions for global problems.
For multilateralism to function, narrow patriotism must give way to a higher allegiance to the planet. Ubuntu is a South African term which refers to the spirit of community. Ubuntu means that we have a common humanity each one of us is tied to the other and to the environment in a closely connected planet. This single most important concept of life needs to be understood and adopted universally by all peoples. This is the way we must live so that we may survive.
Ronald S. McCoy is Co-President of IPPNW.
| 
