The publication of The Peacemaker gave Paul the
opportunity to start influencing the American public. The newspaper
became a forum for new ideas. It also helped to create a network of
supporters. Gradually the message -- the need to abolish war --
started to permeate the nation.
Paul himself had to become more outgoing than he was before. Until the publication of The Peacebuilder he preferred intellectual activities. But now he realized that he will have to become a communicator, if he wanted his message to be heard. Since many of the needed tasks required assistance or expenditures, he had to start a campaign of fund raising as well. Although somewhat shy by nature, he gradually became more outgoing. Still, he had to spend most of his time developing the new program for national and world revival that he visualized.
The magnitude of the problems to be corrected required a very substantial effort even to initiate the new ideas proposed. Fortunately, the world situation was becoming favorable for generating new approaches to old problems.
The Soviet Union, our principal adversary on the international scene, finally recognized the need for, and the importance of, new thinking about national security. They could have greatly improved their economy and society, by saving much of the trillions they spent for military purposes during the post-World War II period, and through additional economic development. Instead, they created a shaky economy with many social problems and restless nationalities. They were more than willing to engage in mutually beneficial reductions in defense expenditures.
The American public also became uncertain and anxious about its own problems, and its economic and political standing in the world. More and more people realized the connection between the economic decline of America and the cost of the arms race. Public opinion surveys disclosed much concern about the budget and trade deficits, and the need to address our economic and social problems.
It was obvious to Paul that a new National Agenda had to be developed, as a comprehensive package of solutions to national and world problems. But there was some negative reaction that he had to overcome to his ideas. A common reaction was: How can we help the world, when we do not have enough resources for our own needs? His answer was quite simple: Can we afford not to? It was not too difficult to persuade the skeptics that America, collectively as a nation, had tremendous, and in many cases unique resources.
The United States had a rich agricultural base, giving us the capacity not only to feed our own people, but also to export huge quantities of agricultural products. Although unwise policies weakened the family farm, we remained the world largest exporter of corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton.
When it came to material resources, America was equally richly endowed. There was an abundant base of energy-bearing raw materials, including nonliquid and synthetic energy sources that became increasingly important. In addition, a substantial base of non-energy raw materials also was available. There was a 300 years supply of coal and large reserves of oil shale, natural gas, uranium and methane. Huge quantities of metals and minerals included copper, phosphate ores, zinc, manganese, lithium, iron, lead, and many others.
The nation's industrial plant, while not fully modern, was very extensive and diversified. American technology still led in many areas or had the potential for reviving -- computers and electronic equipment, other types of high technology, heavy construction machinery, aircraft and parts, automobiles and others. The average industrial productivity was still the highest in the world.
An extensive communications and transportation infrastructure was in existence. Eighteen thousand cities, towns and other communities (spread over 3.6 million square miles) were linked by the world's most extensive networks. Although the system partly decayed due to financial neglect (particularly its bridges and roads), the system included such unused potentials as underutilized railroads and excess air transportation capacity. The system included the least expensive phone service in the world. And new technologies were making communications even cheaper and faster.
America's human and intellectual resources, -- and the educational system that develops them -- were perhaps even more substantial. Although allowed to fall a victim of neglect in many places, our educational institutions still lead the world in numbers of students and graduates. We had a skilled labor force that could be upgraded by the right programs. Equally encouraging was the rising position -- in numbers and importance -- of women in business, computer sciences and other important areas.
Moral values provided the impetus to apply our material and human resources to effective purposes and actions. Once again, the spiritual resources of America were formidable. Over a hundred million Americans worshipped in the hundreds of thousands of churches, synagogues and other religious edifices across the land. In America the wisdom of the Founding Fathers ensured the separation of church and state. Unlike in Europe, the churches in America were able to maintain their moral authority. By persuading their congregations in the direction of righteousness, both moral reform and the restoration of moral values to the management of our national affairs became possible. The public increasingly demanded a high standard among our political leaders. There was a strong yearning to use the moral leadership of America in our dealings with the rest of the world. And there was wide recognition that a moral revival was needed to support the sacrifices we had to make to restore our lost sense of community.
Paul realized that even the most extensive resources were not sufficient, without the right management and methods to apply them. His background in systems development and futures studies methods gave him the confidence to do the tasks needed. He was ready to use the different methods well developed by experts in the various disciplines. He proposed to use these in combination, each reinforcing the other.
Systems Approach. The inventory of our formidable resources showed that we do have the capabilities to solve our problems. However, resources alone were not enough. We still needed the right kinds of leadership and management -- on the highest political level -- to achieve our goals for national renewal and true national security. With the appropriate presidential leadership, it became feasible to use the vast intellectual resources of America and our allies to develop the combination of programs and policies needed to overcome our problems. The techniques of developing and implementing large-scale systems (of organizations and activities) provided the means for accomplishing this difficult task.
Forecasting and Foresight. Both government and business organizations conducted extensive work in scanning, recording, interpreting and forecasting trends in the economy, society and environment. By using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to the understanding of complex issues and by considering the potential effects of major decisions, we could select the best solutions to our problems.
Policy Analysis. The field of policy analysis deals with the study of the nature, causes and effects of alternative public policies for dealing with specific social problems. Because of the interdisciplinary approach used, the methods and techniques are very applicable in evaluating and selecting optimum alternatives among government policies and programs. Considerable expertise existed in the form of educational institutions, policy analysis scholars, and studies of all types of social problems and remedial policies. These resources could be readily adapted to the allocation of scarce resources to maximize benefits.
Systems Development is the process of (1) collecting, organizing and evaluating information about existing and proposed systems; (2) using this knowledge to create new systems or to improve the operation of existing ones; and (3) designing and implementing such new or improved systems.
The U.S. Constitution is probably the most successful example of a system for government. It was developed within a relatively short time, yet with careful consideration given to the need to provide governing institutions on a continental scale, and to allow the appropriate use and control of power. The success of the Constitution gave Paul the necessary encouragement that a similar complex system for world peace could be developed.
Systems Prototyping is a method used in developing complex systems for which all the characteristics and conditions are not known. After some preliminary analysis a small model of the system is constructed and subjected to real-life operation on a small scale. Any problems discovered during actual operation can be fixed without causing major damage. Gradually the system can be evolved and enlarged until it becomes fully operational. Paul believed that his method would be very appropriate for developing systems for addressing our national and world problems. The extensive use of pilot projects and model programs would minimize risks and costs.
Obviously the resources and methods for a system to abolish war were on hand. But Paul still had to put his ideas into the context of the human species. The complexities of human societies and institutions, the numerous religious and other philosophies had to be resolved. Paul developed some guidelines to help him in this effort. Some of these were very obvious -- yet these principles were almost contemptuously disregarded by government, business and other leaders.
The tragic history of this century all too often demonstrated what could happen if we did not curb national, racial, religious or class hatreds. Still the arms race and general militarization of the world continued. These almost suicidal activities imperiled our existence. It led to mismanagement on a planetary scale and caused a steady worsening of our economic, social and environmental problems.
Paul realized, and continuously persuaded others, that the survival of humanity demanded adherence to a few simple truths:
* The Foundations of Our Existence
The ultimate drive behind our efforts is the promotion of human survival. We are the descendants of countless generations, and our posterity can extend into the future for endless generations. Human survival rests on two basic, yet often forgotten facts:
We Are One Species -- Homo Sapiens
Scientific discoveries confirmed the common origin of mankind. The brotherhood of man is not a myth -- it is a biological reality.
There Is Only One Human Habitat -- The Planet Earth
Earth is an interconnected, self-sustaining yet fragile ecosystem.
Our wasteful use of our planet's soil, plant and animal life, and the
pollution of the water and the air threaten our future existence. As
the dominant life form, we have a special obligation to preserve and
protect the system of life that we inherited.
* Enmity vs. Amity
From time immemorial, the interrelationships among human communities have been conditioned by a dual behavioral code of`amity -- love or liking of members of own family, tribe or nation, and enmity -- dislike or even hatred of those who are not. The principle of amity vs. enmity persists, for it favors the preservation and evolution of human groups. But carried to an excess or misused, the principle of enmity can become a negative, counter-survival force.
* The Drive for Power
Governments are the greatest misusers of the amity vs. enmity principle. Ruling elites often use enmity -- racial, national, religious, class, etc. -- to gain and retain power. In the long run, especially in the nuclear age, the force of amity must prevail, to ensure our survival.
There is now an overwhelming need for amity among nations, religions and other human groups. As our capabilities toward destruction multiply, our inclination toward enmity must decrease and be replaced by amity. The existence of the human race is at peril, unless new, countervailing social inventions and innovations are developed to strengthen the forces of amity. Tribal cultures advocating war must be replaced by a world culture of human unity.
Although both moral and realistic reasons argued for the abolition of war, Paul knew that it will not be a simple mission. Certainly abolishing organized warfare was to be a task far more difficult than abolishing slavery was. Although slavery had only limited economic benefits -- there were only 350,000 slave holders in the United States out of a population of 31 million -- still decades of struggle were necessary to bring about its end. In contrast, historically war had a high survival value to the victorious groups. For Americans, the War for Independence paved the road from powerless colonies to superpower status. The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War each gained additional territory and power. To a considerable extent war and militarism was ingrained in the American culture, myths and beliefs. The military-industrial complex also gained substantial short-term benefits from war preparation. And finally, the nation was faced frequently with genuine military threats, caused by the misguided policies of our opponents.
Here again Paul planned to succeed by following several principles. Dismantling organized warfare will have to be a gradual process. We must give much thought to the invention of new social institutions and practices. The world peace system must be carefully designed, so that true national security is not endangered. The use of prototypes, in the form of policy initiatives, can be used to minimize risks. As trust among the superpowers and other militarized nations develops, the more dangerous weapon systems can be eliminated. Phasing in the new social institutions and practices can take place as we move from war to peace, in foreign relations, in the economy and in the social evolution of the human race.
Fortunately, America's institutions were so sound and flexible that no major upheavals were needed to effect the needed, gradual changes. The system for world peace and national revival proposed did not require great moral crusades, charismatic leaders, radical restructuring of society, constitutional amendments and the like. We needed only a reasonable amount of foresight and prevention plus good, competent political management. The only novelty was that the citizens -- and therefore ultimate rulers -- of the Republic, had to demand that our political leaders take the actions mandatory for national survival and prosperity.
Paul next developed the program to start the process of moral reform that was to lead to the abolition of war. He called this program "Warless World 2000." It was intended from the start to be a millenarian movement. The approach of the 21st century was to be the spur to make the movement viable very quickly. He proposed three phases for the campaign, to include objectives for the short, medium and the long term.
The long-term (8-10 year) objectives of the campaign were: eliminate nuclear, biological, chemical and conventional weapons from all national arsenals by the Year 2000; and develop new social inventions and institutions to replace war and militarism. Simultaneously, economic, political and social development programs should be put in place, to reduce the worst of human suffering and deprivation. Massive, world-wide efforts should be instituted to halt and reverse global environmental deterioration.
The medium-term (4-7 year) objectives of the campaign were: (1) halt the production of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) world-wide; (2) start the substantial reduction of conventional weaponry and capabilities; (3) start new programs of Third World debt reductions, economic development and democratization; and (4) initiate major efforts of environmental preservation.
The short-term (1-3 year) objectives were: (1) create an organizational infrastructure to start the Warless World 2000 campaign; (2) press for immediate initiatives to reduce military budgets and the world arms trade; (3) begin economic conversion projects; and (4) initiate a public education and persuasion campaign to abolish war.
Because the abolition of war was linked with the general need for moral revival, Paul planned to involve heavily the religious leadership of America. In each of the needed tasks America's religious leadership -- and the congregations they led -- had a major role. The religious leaders were able to inspire, exhort and support the actions and activities needed for peace with justice. They also had the capability to gain the respectful attention of most the institutions and organizations of our society. And religious organizations possessed the human resources, communications networks, facilities, publications and access to the media needed to propagate the message of world peace for human survival.
Fairly quickly Paul initiated several of the programs that were needed. He started up an organization called Concerned Citizens Against War. This was to become the general coordinating unit for the Warless World 2000 campaign. He also prepared and made available for adoption by other organizations a "War Abolition Resolution."
Statesmen of the United States of America formerly brought great credit to our nation by their efforts to end war through the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations.
Now the application of science to military weapons jeopardizes the continuity of life on earth.
Now the international arms trade inhibits peaceful conflict resolution, threatens the security of many nations and hampers the growth of democratic institutions.
Now annual world-wide military expenditures approach one trillion dollars and divert resources from essential human needs.
Now fear and distrust generated by militarism preclude the amicable cooperation necessary to resolve global environmental problems.
Now we have learned that violence is not inherent in humans.
Now we have learned that nonviolent action has a demonstrated capability to resolve significant human problems without resort to violence.
Now is the time for the United States of America to resume a leadership role in abolishing war.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the institution of war shall be abolished world-wide while there is still time; and
That the United States of America resume a leadership role in the movement to abolish war and implement measures of common security and demilitarization.
The end of the Cold War and the relative
decline of Soviet military power proves the futility of the massive
and ultimately unproductive arms race. The two superpowers have
weakened their economies, with very little to show for their efforts.
It would be definitely advantageous to both the United States and the
Soviet Union to move toward the reduction, and ultimately the
abolition of armaments. Many of the countries in the Third World also
wasted huge sums of money on the military, at the expense of the
well-being of their people. They, too, would benefit from the
lessening burden of military expenditures.
We need a framework and guideline within which our military system can evolve in the direction of the abolition of war. We must accept the fact that our existing military policies, which rely on traditional principles of creating maximum destruction, are ultimately harmful for national survival. A transition to more flexible and less violent methods is needed to dismantle organized warfare as a viable social institution. By adopting a foreign policy based on moral principles -- a United States Grand Moral Strategy -- we can move away from the use of violence toward peaceful resolutions of conflicts. Under the Principle of Mutual Advantage, more and more countries would cooperate with us to develop their economies and societies.
Military history teaches us that there has been a steady increase in the lethality of armaments and capacity for waging war. In fact, this very increase in the killing power of weapons is what finally moving us in the direction of abolishing war.
We can turn this lesson to good advantage in our quest for peace. The waging of war required the steady escalation of military capability. The waging of peace will require a de-escalation of our capacity for destruction. Accordingly, we should set up a New Model Military System, which includes our existing military capacities, and other components that facilitate the abolition of war. We may look at these components as a set of steps leading from massive destructive capabilities to the absence of war and violence.
The New Model Military System
Under the present concepts of national security there is a nearly total differentiation between deploying extreme destructive capability against real or perceived enemies (e.g., the Soviet Union) and the absence of the use of force toward such friendly nations as Canada. This type of military strategy invites a similar response on the part of adversaries, and thus initiates and continues the arms race. In contrast, the national security component under a Grand Moral Strategy will start a process of de-escalating the use of violence, matching levels of threats and opportunities for peace. Special incentives (economic aid, for example) will be provided to those countries that work with us in abolishing war. Sufficient deterrents will be available against militaristic governments that continue to rely on force and violence in their quest for power.
The New Model Military System is to consist of four components:
The Lethal Forces will be
essentially a continuation of the existing defense establishment of
the United States. However, as relations with presently hostile
nations improve when the Grand Moral Strategy will become
operational, major arms reduction agreements will be reached. The
resulting reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons will cause a
shrinkage of the Lethal Force, with resources gradually shifting to
the Non-Lethal Forces components of the New Model
Military System, and to world social and economic development.
This new approach to defense will initiate a process, whereby, with the implementation of the U.S. Grand Moral Strategy, a more just and prosperous world will emerge, and the social institutions of organized violence and warfare can be abolished gradually.
A more detailed discussion of the major components follows:
Strategic and Offensive Forces. The military forces capable of long-range, offensive operations, still retaining a maximum capability for destruction and projecting force world-wide. However, with the reduction of tensions with the Soviet Union major cuts can be made to our nuclear armaments, and air, naval and ground forces. The savings resulting from these cuts can be used to develop the other components of the New Model Military System. A portion of the savings can be used to increase development aid and other incentives to countries willing to cooperate with us.
Territorial Defense Force. A reorganization of existing military forces to defensive operations, by changes in strategy, tactics and the employment of short-range, primarily defensive weapons, in place of the more threatening long-range armaments. For example, short-range interceptor fighter planes would replace inter-continental bombers. The National Guard also will have an important role.
Territorial defense will have two benefits: (1) it will reassure potential opponents that we do not have aggressive intentions toward them; (2) it will provide a feeling of security to those of our fellow citizens who may fear that our peace initiatives will encourage an attack on American territory.
Non-Lethal Force. This component of the New Model Military System will develop new tactics, weapons and organizational units, designed to minimize the loss of human life during military-type operations. Together with the Peace Force, it will form the nation's non-violent peace-oriented defense component.
The increased lethality and destructive capabilities of both nuclear and conventional weaponry make war less and less useful as a means of resolving conflict among nations and cultural groups. Meanwhile, the total avoidance of force is still utopian, since conditions for a warless world are not yet reachable. However, it is possible to begin a movement toward the reduction of extreme violence. The Non-Lethal Force will be a major step in this direction, as a war-making organization with military personnel and discipline, but with a conscious mission of reaching limited military objectives with defensive and non-lethal tactics and armaments.
A major rethinking of military tactics and considerable research and development into new "weapons" will be required before a Non-Lethal Force will be practical enough to serve as a serious component of national defense.
The following ideas may be considered:
a. Commando training and tactics that would attack an opponent's supply lines, economy, transportation infrastructure and other war making physical targets, so that human casualties are avoided.
b. Non-lethal, temporary disability causing chemical weapons.
c. Electronic jamming and other means of interfering with an adversary's communications.
d. Non-lethal weapons, such as: guns shooting tranquilizers or anesthetic bullets; sound or light causing temporary disorientation.
The development and manning of the Non-Lethal Force will provide opportunities for employing military and defense industry personnel. The same ingenuity employed now to develop more effective killing weapons will undoubtedly create effective non-lethal instruments for non-destructive violence. A portion of the "peace dividend" can be used to finance the research needed.
Peace Force. The non-violent, unarmed component of the new defense establishment, which will rely on persuasion, conciliation and other peaceful methods for accomplishing its mission. Operating under military discipline and organization, the Peace Force will rely on moral force and appeals to common human values in stopping international and intra-cultural conflict. Only after the exhaustion of these appeals will reliance be placed on the other components of the New Model Military System. The principles and methods of conflict resolution show promise in implementing this concept.
The ultimate purpose of the Grand Moral Strategy is the abolition of war and militarism. However, this goal is not achievable immediately, and peacekeeping efforts will be required for the foreseeable future. The Peace Force is useful in setting an example on how a non-violent future may emerge through the detection, mediation and conciliation of violence-threatening situations.
Operation of the Peace Force
The Peace Force will accomplish its mission of managing and controlling threatened and actual conflict as follows:
Organization. Recruiting to the Peace Force will be highly selective, both physically and intellectually. Reasonable military discipline will be in effect, but with only a minimum of hierarchy and ranks. A course of basic training will weed out unsatisfactory recruits. This will be followed by attendance at a Peace Academy, where an extensive program of peace studies, peacebuilding and peacekeeping techniques will be provided. Strong efforts will be made to maintain a multi-racial and multi-ethnic organization, so that successful conflict resolution can be undertaken throughout the world. Scientists and engineers will design and develop the techniques, equipment and operating methods of the Peace Force.
Activities. The Peace Force will model its operations on the Peace Brigades, initiated by Gandhi, and actually operational in India during the '60s. Mediation, observation, investigation, monitoring of truce lines, voluntary disarming of factions and armed groups, reconciliation efforts among warring communities and post-violence relief work will be included among its activities. Finally, and most importantly, because of its moral stature, the Peace Force will be able to monitor compliance with arms control agreements. The moral authority and economic resources of the United States will facilitate the campaigns of the Peace Force, with callback, if needed, on the Non-Lethal Force. However, the Peace Force typically will be deployed in situations where there is a good probability that its efforts will be successful.
The World Peace Force Network. Eventually other nations also will raise national Peace Forces. A network of Peace Forces will emerge among the nations that agree to the abolition of war, and meet such criteria of political development as adherence to human rights principles. This World Peace Force Network will facilitate gradual reduction, and eventual elimination of nuclear and conventional forces as the principles of the abolition of war will be accepted.