An Active Peace Policy
INSPIRATIONAL, 20 Jul 2015
Dietrich Fischer – TRANSCEND Media Service
In the nuclear age, we can no longer afford to wait until war breaks out and then react with military force. We must pursue an active peace policy that seeks to avoid or resolve conflicts long before they lead to war.
It is instructive to contrast our national security policies with the far more sensible measures we have taken to improve traffic safety:
– We observe certain rules, such as stopping at red lights.
– We drive more carefully than the law requires, so that even if others make mistakes, we do not immediately have an accident.
– We learn to drive and must pass a test before obtaining a license.
– We build safe roads, with fences along cliffs, etc.
These four principles improve everyone’s safety on the road, not just our own safety at the expense of others. What would a national security policy using analogous principles look like?
First, we would adhere consistently to international law. When the Reagan administration mined Nicaragua’s harbors in violation of international law, this undermined the United States’ ability to bring cases before the World Court. Some argue that adhering to international law would restrict a country’s sovereignty and freedom. But only by adhering to certain mutually beneficial norms can we gain better control over our destiny. Clearly, traffic laws restrict our freedom to drive zigzag, but give us the more important freedom to reach our destination safely and on time.
Second, we should avoid provocative behavior. Calling other nations “evil” does not help, even if no law prohibits this. If we arrive at an intersection with a bicycle and see a heavy truck arriving at high speed, it is in our interest to wait, even if we have the right of way. Caution is in our own interest. A noteworthy tombstone inscription says: “May he rest in peace. He had the right of way.”
Third, it is ironic that anyone must pass a driving test before being allowed to drive a car, but before taking control of the nuclear arsenal, all a President has to do is to pledge to adhere to the constitution. Would we issue a driver’s license to anyone based on a pledge to drive safely? Of course, being elected is a kind of test, but more a test of popularity than actual competence. Imagine a group of air travelers choosing the most popular among them to be their pilot. This could be a prescription for disaster. Like controlling an airplane, defusing international conflicts is a skill that can be taught and learned. Good will alone is not enough. We would not even allow our own mother to perform open heart surgery on us, even though there is now doubt that she has the best intentions.
Finally, we should cooperate with other nations to avoid ecological catastrophes, combat hunger and disease, end the arms race. This improves our common security, not just one country’s security at the expense of others.
Let us compare such a security policy with the national security policies currently applied or debated.
Extended nuclear deterrence threatens the first use of nuclear weapons against a conventional attack. This is as if we loaded our car with dynamite, wired to explode on impact, to kill anyone hitting us (and ourselves too). This should certainly deter anyone from colliding with us intentionally. But we might also be hit accidentally.
Proponents of the “nuclear war fighting” doctrine advocate destroying the nuclear forces of an opponent before he can use them, if war appears imminent. That would be like mounting a machine gun on our car, threatening to kill anyone who drove dangerously close to us. That would of course invite others to get an even bigger machine gun and if in doubt, kill us before we could kill them.
Star wars is not the answer either. Relying on defense against nuclear weapons would be like driving over a cliff wearing a safety belt. Even worse, it would entrust the fate of the earth into an extremely complex technical system, which could go wrong catastrophically. The tragedies of Bhopal, the Challenger and Chernobyl have warned us.
Some argue that these are the only realistic alternatives, because nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. We have not disinvented cannibalism either, but we abhor it. Why can’t we develop an equal abhorrence against incinerating our planet?
_________________________________
Dietrich Fischer, born in 1941 in Münsingen, Switzerland, got a Licentiate in Mathematics from the University of Bern 1968 and his Ph.D. in Computer Science from New York University 1976. 1986-88 he was a MacArthur Fellow in International Peace and Security at Princeton University. He has taught mathematics, computer science, economics and peace studies at various universities and been a consultant to the United Nations.
Excerpted from Dietrich Fischer’s Stories to Inspire You – TRANSCEND University Press-TUP.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 20 Jul 2015.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: An Active Peace Policy, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.