Nov 242010
 

World peace is a notion that often finds itself at the top of many a wishlist, if such a list could be granted any chance of actually happening. It is a common meme and admirable for its perceived pan-altruism. On a tipping balance of better world / worse world, all out peace must inevitably be better than all out war.

Of course, some would disagree. Annoyingly, uppermost amongst them are the ones who actually have a chance of making it happen. To many, wars are good. They are an opportunity for some world leaders to show other world leaders who is leading a “better” country; machismo on a horribly grand scale. Leaders who win wars also become more adored by their countryfolk; sadly, even in democracies.

Unfortunately, it is true that war does have benefits. Compare the technology available prior to the preparations of WW2 with those available afterwards, including the rocket technology that would evolve into Apollo missions to the moon. Another benefit is the depopulation of an ever-overcrowded world. Imagine this immensely populous world along with every life (and the descendants) of those killed during WW2. And, of course, the leading classes are always keen on sending their nation’s poorest into harm’s way, whilst keeping their own children in safe-keeping. So add the dampening of unemployment figures into the pro list of war’s pros and cons.

If, however, we can assume that there are more humane ways of controlling unemployment figures, or managing population figures and their impact upon depleting resources, and that a marginal lessening of technological progress isn’t too high a price for the loss of so many lives… is the ideal of world peace an achievable ideal?

I would argue that it is.

If you’ve ever watched news reports, where UN forces have sat by, their embarrasment thinly masked under their blue berets whilst one militia or the next has destroyed another region of the world, you might appreciate my suggestion that UN forces should be more forceful. Rather than peace-keeping troops, why not use them as an actual world army?

Every country in the world should abolish their armies, their troops being subjugated into the remit of the UN. Their purpose, then, would be to establish themselves in regions where force is the only available option. In one swift step, we could eradicate warfare between countries. Any country which refuses to adhere to this would find themselves at conflict with the rest of the world; a move which even the most machismo-ridden leader would think twice about contemplating.

Nuclear arms would be removed, naturally, and arms manufacturers would either be scrapped or have the UN as their only client. Any nation which then souped-up their police force to act as a national deterrent on their populace would also risk facing the wrath of intervention by the UN.

At the moment, the world already has a global police force which finds a way of policing nations based on their own desires. As such, the USA is (to coin a phrase) a bent cop. When you have a bent cop, you’ll have people who ignore them or actively fight against them. They also rather hate them. With the UN acting as a global police force, the world would have a straight cop – even if the USA provided much of the military hardware and troops. If they acted under the auspices of (an improved version of) the UN, their motives for intervention would be as beyond reproach as any such ideal could be.

Terrorism would, naturally, still be an issue. Much of today’s terrorism is done in the name of Islam, supposedly fuelled against a modern Crusade against their faith. This is, in no small part, fuelled by the West’s uneven treatment of the Middle East – particularly when it comes to Israel and Palestine. With the USA’s pro-Israel/anti-Palestine stance taken out of the equation, Israel would find itself in need of furthering its global situation by being a better neighbour. This could best be established by the dismantlement of all illegal occupying settlements and a firm two-state situation of Israel and Palestine. Jerusalem could be assigned as an independent state (rather like the Vatican City) so that neither country could try and claim it as their capital. In Jerusalem, under a tri-party governance of Jews, Muslims and Christians, it could be safeguarded as a neutral place of worship for all three religions.

Assuming that they wouldn’t buy the argument that all three religions are founded upon the same mythological deity – that doesn’t exist, so can’t care which of the three ways they decide to worship it.

The abolition of all world religions would certainly hasten a world that knew true peace but, sadly, people tend to cling on to their superstitions and, well, it’s always nice to think that life never comes to an absolute end… so long as you don’t expect an afterlife where you’re rewarded for your martyrdom.

World peace is, then, a possibility. With no country-on-country conflict and a drastic lessening of the motivations for terroristic extremes, we would only need to look at how we treat each other in order to bring true peace about. For that, we’d need to embrace the NDC.