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."
WHEREAS:
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.