There is a solution to the problem of war. That solution is for nations to give up part of their sovereignty when they have disputes with other nations and accept the judgments of an international legal system. If all nations were to accept the authority of international courts in their disputes with other nations, and provide for the enforcement of international law, then war would be abolished. Why don't nations do this

There is a price to the achievement of peace. That price is the giving up of some foolish ideas. The idea that nations can provide protection for their citizens in the nuclear age is a foolish idea. The idea that nations can settle conflicts by themselves without an international authority is a foolish idea. The sovereignty of nations in international affairs is another foolish idea. When you consider that all these ideas are false anyway, the price of peace is not very great.

 

THE IDEA THAT NATIONS CAN PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS

 

The purpose of national governments, according to Locke, Hobbes, and many others, is to protect citizens; yet modern military strategy is based on exposing citizens to danger. The balance of terror, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is really a gigantic system of hostages. The actual exchanging of hostages is not neccesary because Americans and Russians are within the grasp of each other. Both governments tacitly agree, by pursuing the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, to expose their populations to their adversaries. It is paradoxical that nation states which base their justification on the need to protect their citizens expose their citizens to the possibility of annihilation.

If we forget about nationality for a moment and think in terms of people and governments, one could say that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union are endangering the citizens of both countries. On one side you have people who want to be left alone to lead their lives, and on the other side you have governments building armaments that make people less secure. The people on both sides would be better off if there were no governments "protecting" them.

There are more paradoxes in the notion that nation states can protect citizens in the nuclear age. It is paradoxical to speak of national defense when there is no defense against atomic weapons. Defense means the ability to ward off an attack by an enemy. No one believes that it is possible to ward off a nuclear attack once one is launched against one's country, so it simply does not make sense to speak of national defense in the nuclear age. The best that the military planners hope for is deterrence. Their theory is that if they have enough weapons to destroy the other side, the other side will be deterred from attacking.

The policy of deterrence has guided military policy for the forty years--since the start of the atomic age. President Ronald Reagan called it into question with his proposal for a "Strategic Defense Initiative," better known as "Star Wars." Basically, that program is an attempt to provide a real defense for the United States by having devices that would intercept any incoming missiles. The problem with Star Wars is that there is no reason to think that it would work or that we could afford the billions-- perhaps trillions of dollars it would require. The Star Wars program would definitely start a new arms race and make the Soviet Union fear a first strike because it would appear that the United States was preparing to survive a nuclear war. Because of the fear of a first strike, a fear compounded by development of the Stealth bomber that flies below radar, decision making would become quicker and more dependent upon computers. Worse still, Star Wars assumes that the problem of security is a technical one, when in fact it is a social and political problem.

Nations can only provide security for their citizens by accepting an international authority to settle their disputes with other nations. If nations are to perform their most basic function, then they should pursue policies that enhance the security of their citizens. Since security cannot be provided at the national level, governments should pursue security by transcending nationality. The only way that governments can perform their function of providing security is by transcending themselves and working to strengthen an international authority.

THE IDEA THAT NATIONS CAN SETTLE THEIR DISPUTES BY THEMSELVES

 

The idea that one nation has the right to decide the just settlement of a dispute that it has with another nation is ludicrous. As a party to conflict it cannot be objective, so it can have no pretense of justice in its actions. Furthermore, any conflict in the world can potentially affect every other nation, so the claim of one nation to settle conflicts its way without involving the international community cannot be accepted by any nation. In the interest of peace, every nation must give up its claim to be judge, jury, and executioner in its conflicts with other nations.

 

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

 

The only sovereignty that nations have to give up for there to be peace is sovereignty in international affairs.Nations such as the United States and the Soviet Union would have to give up their claim to the right to determine the future of other countries such as Vietnam and El Salvador, Poland and Afghanistan. Nations would still maintain the right to do as they liked within their own territory, and thus they would keep their national sovereignty. But they would have to give up their perogative to act as international sovereigns.

Talk of world government only confuses the essential issues. It is not a prerequisite of peace that there be a world government that replaces national governments. National governments can continue as they are now in every respect but one: disputes between nations would have to be brought before an international authority.

The motto for peace should be "bring international disputes before an international authority." Disputes within nations can be settled on the national level, just as local disputes can be settled on a local level. But disputes between nations must be settled on an international level.

LOOKING BACK ON THE WORLD TODAY

 

If the world survives into the twenty-first century and people look back on human history, they will see a development from tribal units to clans, to communities, to nations and, finally, to an international community. They will be puzzled at why we hesitated so long--almost too long--at the nation state level. When they view our history and learn that we did not even have nation-states until a few hundred years ago, they will be puzzled at our obstinancy--all the more puzzled after reading of all the sorrow that nations and their wars have caused humanity. The growth beyond the nation- state level will seem to them a natural step, as natural as were the steps from family to clan, and from clan to community. All these previous steps will appear as preparation for the forming of a global community.