An End to war with a World Government

The writer at seventy-five.

Yep, I held my own camera out at arm's length.   And, unfortunately, the camera doesn't lie.   Now if you look below, you'll see how I used to look thirty-five years ago.
Yep, I held my own camera out at arm's length. And, unfortunately, the camera doesn't lie. Now if you look below, you'll see how I used to look thirty-five years ago.

Here's an essay I wrote back around 1975 or so.

Welcome to An End to War - and wouldn't we all welcome it!...except maybe those who have shares in the Armaments Industries. We might not welcome a World Government though.

Here’s an essay I wrote in pencil on foolscap paper a good thirty-five years ago. I came across it just recently and thought it worth publishing. It shows how little things have changed over nearly four decades.

“Peace in our time” British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain’s words - but is it possible? Nothing much has changed in our attitudes towards one another. There are the same old animosities between nations, between religions, between neighbors. Will events ever change? With the advent of our modern technologies such as the Internet and the World Wide Web, and with our massive ‘Global Mind’ contributing, we are now better placed to bring about worldwide peace than ever before. This essay depicts the writer’s views as they were written in mid 1970s. In retrospect, they remain pretty well unchanged.

World Government – it’s inevitable. We will get the government we deserve.

It is obvious to those who have considered the matter that we humans all inhabit this one tiny planet: our Earth. Moreover, that on considering those great issues all humankind face. such as world ecology, demography, indeed survival, this Earth must either have world-wide cooperation among its populace on a voluntary basis, or a central and all-powerful totalitarian world government. Eventually we must have one or the other. We all of us know which of these sounds the better. Big Power dominating our lives – few want this. So how can we get cooperation?

The Writer at about forty years of age.

There will always be differences of opinion.

It should be remembered that we humans are political animals. Always have been. Even Neolithic men and women discussed those issues which concerned the family or tribe as a whole. It must also be remembered that there has always been differences of opinion – argument. And whilst we are anything other than perfect beings, there probably always will be. Total agreement is rarely achieved on any aspect of life. But effective discussion must, from time to time be reached, and if not agreed to by all, must be at least agreed by the majority. And those not agreeing must abide by the majority’s decision.

Those in power generally oppose change.

The great religious leaders have tried, and with a fair amount of success, to get the majority of people to cooperate on a voluntary basis. They’ve admonished us to “love one another.” Unfortunately their attempts to do this have always been thwarted by certain individuals – generally those in power. As there is always ‘someone’ in power, it seems the answer must be to encourage those who are in power to cooperate with the rest of us. This to be done them by finding out what the majority of the people in the world want, and then cooperating in helping them to achieve it. The powerful must genuinely want to help the weak. But they won’t do it unless it is in their interest to do so.

Chilean? Argentian? Not sure. It was a naval cadet traing ship.

I worked right near the main international jetty in Auckland in 1971-72 and saw many a ship berth.  This one visited whilst I was there.
I worked right near the main international jetty in Auckland in 1971-72 and saw many a ship berth. This one visited whilst I was there.

People demand the right to live the way they want to live.

Now, what the majority of the people of the world want is wide-ranging. But a few things become clear straight away. The majority demand the right to live. Secondly, they demand the right to live how they want to live. And so long as this does not impinge on the way other people want to live, I can see nothing wrong with it. But let us examine for a moment this ‘right to live.’

To enable a man or woman to live they must have the basic necessities of life: food, clothing and shelter. To enable life to seem worthwhile, he or she must have reasonably good health (i.e. at least the absence of suffering) and a feeling that his or her life is worthwhile.

I do not intend going any further at this stage other than to say this:

At the moment, many people in the world do not have adequate food, clothing and shelter. To provide these things to everyone should be the powerful’s first material goal.

Down Town Auckland 1971

The tall building with the building site this side of it is on the corner of the cities main street, which cannot be seen.  It runs away to the right.
The tall building with the building site this side of it is on the corner of the cities main street, which cannot be seen. It runs away to the right.

worldwide cooperation and government.

There are at this time serious conflicting opinions on how this can be done. The Capitalist Ideal is ranged against the Communist Ideal, for example. However, if those in real power in both of these camps concentrated on getting the job done, instead of arguing between themselves how best it can be done, we could have a world free from most material wants within a very short period. But back to the issues of world-wide cooperation and government.

We already have the machinery in place for that government

We already have the machinery for world government. I refer, of course, to the United Nations Organization and its ancillary agencies such as GATT, WHO, UNESCO, ICAO, et cetera. That it isn’t a true world government we are all aware. It lacks the power to be a true world government. However, it needs to be realized that the only reason it lacks the real power of being an effective world government is because each and every nation, big and small, be it Communist or Capitalist or Middle-of-the-Road, refuses to relinquish one iota of its own power. This, of course, means the powerful in those nations.

Ship in the background is the Ocean Monarch.

In 1971-73 you could park your car in Aucklands main street to go to the movies.  Populaton of the city wa around 600,000.   Oh, and no traffic jams.
In 1971-73 you could park your car in Aucklands main street to go to the movies. Populaton of the city wa around 600,000. Oh, and no traffic jams.

When are we going to beat those swords into ploughshares?

Why is this so? The answers are manifold, but really it boils down to only one thing, fear, causing lack of trust. “If I don’t have money, power, prestige and an armed force under my control to ensure I keep these things, I’m vunerable,” think the power-brokers. And so we’ve been stuck since the beginnings of civilization with the status quo.

It is now time to change all that.

Are there ways to alleviate the fear and lessen the distrust? There are indeed.

If you were walking down a city street and saw a man carrying a sub-machine gun in his hands, you’d feel a little uneasy to say the least. If you, too, had a loaded machine gun, you might just feel a little safer. But what if neither of you had a gun?

The answer then, is disarmament. But it goes further. Disarmament of the organizations that use arms. Abolition of the armed forces –worldwide!

How may this be done?

Taking away public support, i.e. YOUR support is the way to go

The answer is by taking away the support of these organizations. Government won’t do it. Big Business won't do it. But people in the street can. Persuade men and women to feel ashamed to belong to, or support today’s armies, navies, air forces or armament industries. Convince them, as Buddha tried to so long ago, that there is work that adds to the overall happiness of the world; “right livelihood,” and that which does the opposite. With no fresh volunteer recruits, for the armed forces those in authority may advocate compulsory military conscription. But if the majority of people are against conscription amd simply refuse to go, governments will eventually yield. They would have to.

Queen's Street, Auckland in 1971

If no one joined an army, navy or airforce, or any military organisation, wars of any magnitude would cease

Undermine armaments manufacture at the very grass roots level by not subscribing to them in any way. Encourage people to believe that even participating in the manufacture of war materials is anathema. Eradicate the desire to participate in the manufacture of armaments with biting satire and humor. Make people feel embarrassed, indeed, ashamed, to work for a defense bureau or ministry. It’s only fear which keeps these organizations going, anyway. Until the fear is gone the wars – small and big - will continue.

Once the world is free of the threat of war there will be such an increase in the contribution towards making this world a better place that within a few short years we will wonder how the hell we could have been so stupid as to consider warfare as the answer to anything. When that happens – and one day it will have to – we will have left a universal Childhood state behind and made a giant stride towards real Human Adulthood.

An end to war ? Only if WE make it so.

More by this Author


No comments yet.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working