ALTERNATIVES TO WAR

Conflict Management Approach or Method:

WAR

VIOLENCE

Conflict Management Approach or Method: 

ECO-HUMANOMICS

NONVIOLENCE

Viewpoint:

Interconnected synergistic systems

v    Traditional method of dealing with conflicts involving people and a problem is to " eliminate" people - called War.

v     The use of Armed Forces is a response to failed "diplomatic" policies. It demonstrated an inability to understand and constructively manage conflicts.      

v     The use of violence is a reactive response to symptoms of unaddressed "Root Causes."

v     Ecological-Humanitarian-Economic method of dealing with conflict situations is to acknowledge the basic rights of people and eliminate problems - called Nonviolence/Peacemaking.

v     The use of Nonviolence requires early identification of conflict situations - i.e. "Root Causes" of violence so that relationships can be developed, and effective / constructive alternatives to violence can be developed.
v    The use of nonviolent strategies is a proactive removal and prevention of “Root Causes.”

v    We are semi-conscious of our actions and their impact on the independent web of life - we are capable of learning more - we are capable of becoming more conscious

v   Our global population is not sustainable with our daily harvest of solar energy - we are surviving by rapidly consuming our one-time reserve of non-renewable fossil fuel (e.g. to manufacture fertilizer that increases our yield for food production; to rapidly transport products and people around the planet.)

Note: until recently, "beasts of burden" and sailing ships were used for this purpose - both utilized forms of renewable solar energy.

v  In addition to our daily supply of sun light, we have been given a finite amount of non-renewable easy-to-use energy. If we use this one time reserve appropriately, we may be able to buy time for the development of new energy sources. Our sun demonstrates daily there a possibility of converting mass to vast amounts of energy. E=mc2 reminds us it is theoretically possible to develop alternative energy sources. Fortunately, nature has not yet allowed us to gain insight into harnessing technologies such as fusion, anti-matter, etc. In our current mental state, it's just as well - we would probably use the knowledge to blow something or someone up rather than use to sustain ourselves peacefully.

Technology has already made war obsolete. If we can learn to mange our conflicts nonviolently - without the need for high energy weapons of mass destruction, then it would be appropriate to learn how to harness these other energy sources.

ENERGY

v     War and a strong military will need to be called upon more and more often in the future to support a growing US demand for oil.            

v     Conflict, shortages and war await the World’s future because the Earth can not produce enough oil or natural resources for developing countries to live the American life style.       

v     The US and the developed world have two choices War or Change from our dependence on oil.                                                 

v     Create a ten year "moon shot" type program to make the US (and other developed countries) over fifty percent (and developing countries over twenty percent) fossil fuel and nuclear energy free.    

v     The alternative is a solar/hydrogen energy economy with advanced design public rail/transport systems, broad use of bicycles and a comprehensive reuse-recycle economy.
             
v     Alternatives to war are alternatives in energy generation.                                

v     Food energy is a universal requirement for all organisms that make up the interdependent web of life. There is a natural synergism that allows this complex system to function, to grow, to evolve. Plant life appears to be unique in that it relies primarily on a source of inorganic material, solar energy and water to create new forms of energy. Animal life appears one step removed from solar energy and must utilize organic forms of energy (other life forms, (e.g. plant, animal) and water (plus some inorganic materials as suppliments on occassion) to exist.

But herein lies a basic human conflict - there is no question that the human system requires organic energy (other forms of life) . We humans were not created to run directly off of sunlight as our plant relatives can do. So given the fact that we must "harvest" other life forms, which life forms are appropriate for us to injest as energy? How do we "respect" plant life and still eat it? Must our source of organic energy come from only plant life?

Interestly, this fundamental issue is viewed differently around the world - yet we do not for some reason have a perpetual war between the meateaters and vegas. Why not? Somehow, we have learned how to manage that fundamental conflict without violence. So if we can manage something so basic to our existence, we should be able to deal with lesser issues. There is hope.

TERRORISM

v     War will lead more individuals in the Middle East and elsewhere into seeing terrorism as an appropriate response. 

v     The best cure for terrorism and the breeding grounds of terrorism is food, shelter, education, recognition, dignity, equality and sustainable economic development

v     The more terrorism and the more the U.S. responds by military force, ignoring the root cause, the more the cycle of violence will continue as between Israel and the Palestinians. 

v     We must stop our double standard of supporting suppressive regimes and ignoring the extreme poverty and injustices which prevail throughout the Mid-East and Third World if we expect to stop the spread & growth of terrorism and hatred for the US.

v     A war against terrorism is not a war that can be won on the battlefield because there is no battlefield.

IRAQ

v     An invasion will make it easier, not harder, for al Qaeda to recruit terrorists, resulting in more hatred and determination by terrorists, old and new, to attack US and other Western citizens where they are most vulnerable.                   

v     If Saddam Hussein is a War Criminal and a threat to the world, this dispute should be taken to the International Court of Justice, charging Saddam Hussein in an established International Criminal Court.

v     The perception of the United States as a superpower that perceives itself as above International law will be enhanced. 

v     An invasion will weaken our effectiveness as a world leader.  The US will be setting the example that it is acceptable to use preemptive strikes to solve conflicts. 

v     Wars and acts of terrorism precipitated by an Iraq invasion could last for decades in an endless cycle of hatred and revenge.

For more reasons Why We Should Not Invade Iraq, see Dallas Peace Center
or send E-mail mailto:admin@dallaspeacecenter.org

ISRAEL-PALESTINE

For more on Israel-Palestine Peace Alternatives see http://www.icahd.org/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=1, by Diane Perlman, PhD

            FOREIGN POLICY

v     Centered on establishing and maintaining Western economic and strategic gain.   

v     US foreign policy must help create a more inclusive future for all people in all countries.                

v     US policies must adhere to and respect International Law, and end the double standards that have contributed to the extreme inequalities in much of the Arab and Third World.          

v     What is the connection between the attacks and US foreign policy?  How often does US foreign policy reflect and how often is it in contradiction to the values of democracy, justice and freedom?   And how important is it whether we practice what we preach?

            INTERNATIONAL LAW

v    The US should take the lead in forging a new Rich-Poor compact.  It’s chief elements would include:

• expanding economic assistance to the poor,
• developing new sources of energy and food production,
• improving family planning, access to health care throughout the 3^rd world, and
• making the United Nations a strong, effective instrument for preventing and stopping conflict.           

SECURITY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - utilization of human and natural resources

v     Advanced war technology gives the developing world capacities to do great damage to the modern world, raising the risks and effects of the growing inequality. 

v     The have-nots will be able to do much more than in the past to express their resentment about being left behind.

v     45% of the world lives on less than $2 a day.

v     Richest 1/5 of world consumes 86% of all goods and services.

v     Poorest 1/5 are left with just over 1%. 

v     Peace and prosperity are unlikely under such conditions.                                      

CIA report for 2000. 

v     Groups feeling left behind (by widening inequality) will foster political, ethnic, ideological and religious extremism along with the violence that often accompanies it.

This information was compiled by Mike Donahue (2/2003).    Please contact Mr. Donahue to endorse this document and support Eco-Humanomics policies vs. War.   

Information in "purple" text was added by Reviewer 1: Milt Hetrick