2015: LOVE - NOT WAR

Let's get started

Welcome to the John Garrett Jones Website

 

 It is not a human right to be able to wage war.

 In fact the war which began a century ago deprived  16 million human beings of their most basic right, the right to life. Another 21 million were wounded, many of them incapacitated for life,

What did this war, which was supposed to be "the war to end war", actually achieve? Its most awful legacy was WW2. That war ended under the mushroom cloud which continues to overshadow us. Yet we still continue to play our war games as if the cloud were not there. We are playing with something much deadlier than fire.

Let us not forget that the war against Iraq launched jointly by Bush and Blair  was meant to defend us against weapons of mass destruction which proved not to exist. It was supposed to be retaliation for the outrage of 9/11 - with which Iraq had not been involved. It was an act of pure aggression which has done untold harm. There were many dark incidents during that war which cast a lasting slur on the pillars of freedom and democracy. It now emerges that the CIA has countenanced acts of torture, even murder, in many other arenas as well.

These are things done in our name. They are things which we ordinary citizens have actually funded though our taxes. Are we happy to let them continue to happen?

How can wars be permanently prevented?

Wars happen because nations or federations are each allowed to have their own armies. Wars will only cease to happen when this is no longer the case. If anyone knows of any other way of preventing wars, it would be interesting to hear about it.

It will be argued that nations need those armies in order to defend themselves from outside attack. This argument is ludicrous when we observe the power games in which many leading politicians are currently indulging, thanks to the vast arsenals which we taxpayers have so generously gifted to them. These power games certainly inflate their already gigantic egos but do nothing whatever to make their countries or the planet safer.

Security and Defence can only be secured internationally, never by heavily armed and often fiercely hostile nations. We have the United Nations Organisation; why don't we use it?

In fact, since its inception in 1945, the UN has been prevented from doing what it was primarily set up to do because it allowed each of the permanent members of the Security Council the right of veto, which effectively prevented the UN from taking any firm action whenever one of those  five saw such action as a threat to its own interests. We were thus back to square one and the whole concept of a "united nations organisation" became a tired joke.

If we are serious about ridding the planet of the scourge of war, this situation obviously needs to change.

Only ordinary people like you and me can make this change happen.

If we leave it to the politicians, change will not happen because they are locked into party political contests to win their next elections, based mainly on domestic issues. Working to bring about a new international order is rarely on their map.

It is different with the generals  and military personnel who have had first-hand experience of the realities of modern armed conflict. They are deeply concerned about returned soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder who    are often driven to suicide, also all the civilians who have been wounded or bereaved or driven from their homes. They have been trained not to reason why, be content simply to do or die, but very many of them regard this as sheer irresponsibility and welcome the opportunity to rethink their role.

This process of rethinking is a prime responsibility for all of us. Here is some food for thought - and action: 

OUR GENERAL PREDICAMENT

As a result of the recent collapse of the global economy, most governments around the world are still  crippled by debt, having had to borrow so heavily they continue to add huge amounts of interest to their loan repayments. They have been forced to make savage cuts in their budgets which impact most on those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Contrast with this the fact that global spending on arms worldwide grew 5.9% in 2009 to reach a staggering total of $1.500,000,000,000 [=$1.5 trillion]. Sheer economic necessity has forced sales down in subsequent years but spending under this head is still shamefully huge.

As if this were not grim enough, recent record-breaking climatic catastrophes have made our global predicament more acute than it has ever been. What the forecasters call 'extreme weather events' are now regular happenings.

Governments around the world keep saying they must cut back on all unnecessary expenditure. Harsh necessity has even forced them to reduce their 'defence' budgets - but they refuse to recognise that ALL arms expenditure is not only non-essential but is actually deleterious. The military hardware the wealthy nations spend a mint of money developing,  manufacturing and marketing will either never be used (in which case it will rot into obsolescence and need to be replaced at still greater cost) or, even worse, it WILL be used, thus adding to the horrendous toll of death and destruction for which we humans, throughout our history, have been responsible, never more horribly than in the last century, the age of mass education and scientific enlightenment - and two world wars culminating in nuclear mass destruction.

As a result, we are now trapped in a global economy in which "defence" budgets play a huge role. We have become so used to this that we take it for granted as one of the unalterable facts of life - just as we did with slavery until Wilberforce and company jolted us into a realisation of the enormity of what our blindness was costing the millions of human beings sacrificed. In this case it is the future of our entire planet which is at stake

Underlying our complacency is a conspiracy we mostly prefer to remain ignorant about. Wendela de Vries,  one of Europe's foremost peace campaigners, puts it like this: "War profiteering is one of the main pillars that support war. The military-industrial complex has a long record of pushing for the development of a war industry and of battlefields to test its products. War profiteering has many forms and a wide range of impacts. The most notorious forms ... are the arms industry and the arms trade, ... companies involved in war “reconstruction”, companies to which military functions are outsourced, financial institutions backing warfare, companies profiting from the extraction of resources in conflict areas and many more." [de Vries, email to the ENAAT group, 28 June 2011]

If national politicians were prepared to change this, they would have to find alternative employment for millions of people, so this is a task they find it very convenient to shelve, particularly at a time when 'defence' seems the biggest and most stable element in their vulnerable national budgets.

An even more significant factor is that politicians used to having enormous military strike-power at their behest would feel somewhat castrated if deprived of it!

But isn't it unbelievably cynical to make millions of people earn their livings by dealing out death for others? What sort of livelihood is this?

The simple truth is that our tribal ideas about 'security' and 'defence' are a relic of the past. The only way in which we can have a world without war is by jointly setting up a strong global authority which will have sole command of all armed force, none of which will be used except to rid the world of illegally held arms and to protect the  human rights of every citizen. In times of emergency this force would be a rapid and efficient means of aiding stricken populations; this would simply be a big enhancement of what is already happening.

A SUGGESTED UN INITIATIVE:

If delegates to the UN are in favour of putting an end to even the possibility of war - and why should they not be? - they should jointly propose that every political party in every country be invited to join an international league of anti-war parties, committed to setting up, as a high priority:

[1] A global force which will be the sole legitimate owner of military weapons and the sole commander of all existing military force. This force will be the executive arm of the United Nations Organisation, empowered to act in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[2] This force will replace the existing UN peacekeeping force as it will no longer be necessary to stand between opposing armies.

[3] This force will exist solely to maintain peace, to remove all illegitimately held weaponry, and to react quickly to all reported human rights abuses. It will also be responsible for preventing the researching, manufacturing and marketing of new weapons.

[4] This force will be commanded by a multi-national global authority but will have local subsidiary centres scattered across the globe.

[5] This force will be recruited and trained in its new tasks by globally administered colleges spread across the globe.

[6] This force will be monitored by an independent multi-national body to check for any abuses of its power, which will be promptly and impartially dealt with.

[7] National governments will no longer be permitted to act militarily outside their own borders. Internal disputes, requests for realignment of borders and all other contentious issues will have to be brought before a UN body set up to deal with these in a fair and open manner.

Of course the UN will need to work out the detail.  Such an international league could enable voters throughout the world to have the unprecedented opportunity of voting for a war-free world.

If this seems to be asking for too much to happen too quickly, we need to remember that the clock ticks very fast these days and the rate of change compounds with every minute.  The longer we delay, the bigger the task ahead becomes.

"The question is not one of "surrendering" national sovereignty. The problem is not negative and does not involve giving something up we already have. The problem is positive, creating something we lack, but imperatively need: the extension of law and order into another field of human association which heretofore has remained unregulated and in anarchy.[ Emery Reves, The Anatomy of Peace]

In 1945, when The Anatomy of Peace was first published, I, a 16 year-old schoolboy, devoured it with great enthusiasm. The power brokers thought they knew better than Reves. They created the United Nations with a Security Council having, as its permanent members, the main powers who had defeated Hitler. These core members each had the power to veto proposals they disliked. Post-war euphoria beguiled them into thinking the nations which had jointly defeated Hitler could safely be trusted to safeguard the peace.

What idiots they were! In no time the former allies were at each other's throats and we had a cold war. The resulting nuclear arms race still threatens to be our undoing. If it prevented WW3 - just - it did nothing to prevent the disgusting trade in arms which, ever since, has fuelled endless little wars, which have slaughtered endless little people. It has also empowered tyrants, terrorists, pirates and other undesirables.

Turning the UN into a genuinely apolitical global authority is obviously going to be a massive task which involves a huge shift in our thinking. It will only happen if there is an irresistible surge of grass-roots conviction right across the globe; it cannot be imposed from above. Old style patriotism (which was often simply tribalism writ large) needs to give place to a fervent globalism, a real love of the planet without the health and support of which none of us can survive for a minute.

Isn't it ironic that we inhabit the only planet in the whole of the known cosmos which is favourable to life, yet we, the pinnacle of life's achievement to date, are far the biggest threat to life on our planet in the whole of its history?

A relentless drive to save and enhance our planet provides the only banner under which every man jack of us can proudly march. If our national armies can be handed over to global control, all legal military forces prevented from engaging in warfare but dedicated to peacekeeping and the protecting of the inalienable rights of every human being, won't that be something?

It is worth noticing that NATO signatories account for 70% of all current arms expenditure worldwide. NATO wields formidable force which is currently deployed under joint US-European command. It needs to be set free from partisan political control, made part of a GLOBAL SECURITY FORCE, bound by unswerving allegiance to the universal declaration of human rights and enlarged to include big players like Russia, China, and India and the rapidly rising powers in South America and Africa:  there should be no absentees.

Of course there are serious disputes between nations and groups within or across nations, many of very long standing. A show of military force is never going to resolve these. Mutual respect for the charter of human rights,  the confidence nobody is going to be steamrollered, coupled with neutral arbitration and a mutual determination to look forward rather than backward will be the main requirements. Problem-solving can take all the time it needs to take once there is no longer any risk of resorting to arms.

BASIC INSTINCTS

Sigmund Freud, in almost his last published work, wrote:

"After long doubts and vacillations we have decided to assume the existence of only two basic instincts, Eros and the destructive instinct ...the aim of the first of these basic instincts is to establish ever greater unities and to preserve them thus - in short, to bind together; the aim of the second, on the contrary, is to undo connections and so destroy things" [Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psychoanalysis, Hogarth/Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1949, pp5f.]

The ethos we have cultivated over recent centuries has done a great deal to devalue love and creativity whilst glorifying hatred and destruction. Look at the way our Western tradition (amongst others) has viewed maleness: men who fight are heroes - "real men"; men who love each other warmly and physically are pathetic - "queers".

Freud often used the Greek word for death (thanatos) to denote the destructive instinct. As we all know, thanatos is unstoppable; it comes to all of us sooner or later. The last thing we need is all the war games and nuclear warheads which threaten to give thanatos the final victory. Here is a quote from a novel first published in the year I was born - 85 years ago - and still one of the most important ever written. The writer, after three years of fighting, is wounded and living with horrendous casualties all round him:

Everything must have been fraudulent and pointless if thousands of years of civilization weren’t even able to prevent this river of blood, couldn’t stop these torture chambers existing in their hundreds of thousands. Only a military hospital can really show you what war is.          I am young. I am twenty years of age; but I know nothing of life except despair, death, fear, and the combination of completely mindless superficiality with an abyss of suffering. I see people being driven against one another, and silently, uncomprehendingly, foolishly, obediently and innocently killing one another. I see the best brains in the world inventing weapons and words to make the whole process that much more sophisticated and long-lasting…….For years our occupation has been killing - that was the first experience we had. Our knowledge of life is limited to death. What will happen afterwards? And what can possibly become of us? [All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque, p.180 in Vintage Future Classics English Translation of 1929 German edn]

Our creativity, our love, our constant striving to improve our lot, are an unending struggle against the pull of the primal chaos. We may be tempted to ask if it is worth trying to fight the tide. It might seem simpler just to go with the flow and eat, drink and be merry. But this is not an option if we mean it when we say we love our children. We have reached the crucial moment for decision in the whole history of our species. If we persist in making wrong choices, we shall very soon have reached the point of no return. We have created a huge machine with our technology and ingenuity but at present the machine has no competent driver; unless it gets one in a hurry, the machine will surely run amok.

SEX

This website advocates not only the renunciation of war but also the positive affirmation of our bisexuality, since this is the best possible antidote to violence. It was again Freud who insisted that the basic constitution of every human individual is bisexual. In spite of this, bisexuality is often regarded as a problem area, more of a liability than an asset. In fact, an informed, responsible approach to this central issue of our sexuality may well be the most hopeful pointer to the future for our species since it will enable men to become much keener to love one another than to disembowel each other. It would also provide the most creative way of curbing population growth. David Attenborough has recently noted that the global population has increased threefold in his lifetime. As he quietly observes, the planet is finite and simply cannot support ever-growing armies of humans. World population reached 7 billion during 2011; this represents a 40% growth over the past 20 years. We need to do some hard thinking about how to harness our sexual energy, most of which is surplus to reproductive requirements, in order to enrich human life and human relationships without presenting the planet with more people than it can support. -

If you would like to access my Coming Clean about Bisexuality: a male perspective, you can do so simply by keying in to your browser the first four words of the title. Click on the top entry and you should be taken straight to the book. You can freely copy and paste the book to a word processing document on your own computer if desired.

Visitors from Holland will find a Dutch translation of Coming Clean about Bisexuality at http://www.bikring.nl This also can be freely downloaded.

INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES

Music, like sex, is also an international language because it does not depend on words but does arise from something deeply implanted in all human beings. Hence music can achieve what few other things can. It is astounding how people reared in one musical culture can become so proficient in the music of an entirely different culture as to become world-renowned instrumentalists or vocalists in the new medium.

Sport and athletics comprise another international language since balls (I am thinking now of the leather ones!) and swimming pools know no linguistic barriers. Bodies around the world yearn to do the same things - hence great international festivals like the Olympics.

Maths is yet another international language since numbers behave the same wherever you happen to live. Much the same is true of all the sciences since they use terms and tables which are international in scope and are dealing with universal phenomena.

Painting and sculpture, dance and the appreciation of natural beauty are untroubled by language.

Even religion, that cauldron of fierce enmities, once it gets free of words, has elements within it which speak to all of us.

Is it not time we began to feel terribly ashamed for the way we have abused our human intelligence and to realise at last our enormous potential for corporately creating an exciting and sustainable future for our children and for the animals which could and should inhabit their world?

You will find a short biography of JGJ at: 

BIOGRAPHY

I an always glad to have feedback; you can email me at:

jngjones@msn.com

 

web
analytics