During such an extended draw-down period, the possibility of still more wars would of course persist--perhaps even one that poses the risk of an atomic attack on the American homeland. It can be hoped that, in such a circumstance, the end-of-war movement will have progressed sufficiently to help pressure the government to at least forgo waging a particular war. Even if that result is achieved, however, activists in the movement must not forget that stopping a war at hand is not the same as a willingness and commitment to abolish all war as a matter of principle. That end, championed by World Beyond War, should be the goal of everyone who detests war, since, until it is achieved, the military state will persist and the potential for more wars will remain.
Four Activist Campaigns To Help Break Down Militarism and the Ready Recourse to War
In the "We Have To End War" segment of War No More: the Case for Abolition, Swanson makes clear that it will take more than rallies, demonstrations, and teach-ins to move the American government from its ready acceptance of war to a willing commitment to its abolition. With an eye to that end, he proposes four strategies that could make the government's recourse to war considerably less easy and defensible.
1) Redirect War-Related Prosecutions from War Criminals to War Makers
Swanson argues that, if we continue to pursue prosecution only of war criminals, and not of the government officials who lead us illegally into war, the successors of those officials will simply continue with business as usual, even in the face of a demonstrably growing public disaffection with war. Unfortunately, Swanson points out, prosecuting U.S. officials for illegal war-making is made extremely difficult by the fact that most Americans still accept uncritically the government's decision to make war on any nation or group it defines as an "enemy." In consequence, no member of Congress who wants to retain public favor will vote to impeach the American "Commander in Chief" for criminal war-making, even though the very act of taking the country to war without the consent of Congress is already a breach of Constitutional law.
In hindsight, Swanson concedes that the failure of Congress to impeach President George W. Bush for his criminal invasion of Iraq has for now pretty much precluded impeachment of his successors. He nevertheless defends the view that impeachment should be rehabilitated as a deterrent to illegal war-making, since he believes the president is inevitably so corrupted by his now unchallenged power to make war that any reasoned appeal to desist is bound to fall on deaf ears. Moreover, he says, it can be expected that once any president is impeached for taking the country illegally into war, his successors will be far less inclined to take a similar chance.
2) We Need to Outlaw War, Not Simply "Ban" It
In Swanson's view, simply "banning" bad actions by people in power has proved ineffectual throughout history. For example, we don't need any new laws to "ban" torture, since it is already illegal under a number of statutes. What we do need are enforceable laws to prosecute torturers. We also need to get beyond attempts to "ban" war. The U.N. nominally does that already, but exceptions for "defensive" or "U.N.-authorized" wars are continually exploited to justify aggressive wars.
What the world needs, Swanson believes, is a reformed or new United Nations that prohibits all wars absolutely, whether blatantly aggressive, purely defensive, or considered a "just war" by its perpetrators. He stresses the point, however, that the capacity of the U.N. or any similar institution to enforce an outright abolition of war can only be accomplished if internal bodies like the present Security Council are excluded. The right to enforce the outlawing of war might well be endangered by the presence of an executive body in which any of a handful of powerful states can in its own imagined self-interest veto demands by the rest of the world to support such enforcement.
3) Should We Reconsider the Kellogg-Briand Pact?
Besides the U.N., Swanson apparently also sees the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact as a possible existing foundation on which to base and implement a finished international agreement to abolish war. The Kellogg-Briand Pact to outlaw war, signed onto by 80 countries, remains in legal force to this day, but has been totally ignored since the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The pact condemns recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and binds the signatories to renounce war as an instrument of policy in their relations with one another. It also requires that the signatories agree to settle all disputes or conflicts that may arise among them--of whatever nature or origin--by peaceful means only. The pact was to be fully implemented in three steps: 1) to ban war and stigmatize it; 2) to establish accepted laws for international relations; and 3) to create courts with the power to settle international disputes. Regrettably, only the first of the three steps was ever taken, in 1928, with the treaty taking effect in 1929. With the creation of the pact, some wars were avoided and ended, but armament and hostility broadly continued. Since the Kellogg-Briand Pact remains statutorily in effect, it might be said that the present U.N. charter provision banning war in effect simply "seconds" it.
4) We Need a Global Rescue Plan, Not War, To Combat Terrorism
Today, at least for the United States, going to war largely means conducting bombing and drone strikes to destroy terrorist fighters, encampments, and facilities. But, as Swanson sees it, stopping hydra-headed terrorism and its continued growth around the world means doing a number of "big things" that address its root causes.
In Swanson's view, a "Global Marshall Plan" would provide a primary platform both for ending world poverty and diminishing the appeal of terrorism, which serves as a recourse for many young men afflicted by the despair bred by poverty and the denial of normal self-development. Moreover, Swanson notes, America has more than enough money to fund such a plan. It lies in the current annual expenditure of $1.2 trillion on preparation for war, and the $1 trillion in taxes we are not now, but should be, collecting from billionaires and corporations.
Recognizing that the Global Marshall Plan is a "big thing" in the World Beyond War agenda, Swanson puts the case for it in these simple terms: Would you rather help end child hunger in the world or continue the now 16-year-old war in Afghanistan? It would cost $30 billion a year to end hunger around the world, but over a $100 billion to fund U.S. troops for another year in Afghanistan. It would cost only an additional $11 billion a year to provide the world with clean water. But today, by contrast, we're spending $20 billion a year on one useless weapons system that the military doesn't even want.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
