The Ideological Poverty of the Peacemakers

If the activity of any contemporary peacemaking organization is analyzed carefully, the low efficiency of its efforts both from a political and from a military point of view is evident immediately.  While the leaders of the religious or ethnic enclaves who are at odds with each other, fully armed with the mythological history of the origin of their nations, fervently call for revenge for spilled blood, brilliantly using and advocating a nationalistic ideology, for today's peacemaker there is little to oppose it.

     Any NATO or UN forces that perform such a function are obliged to consider sovereignty as a supreme value and non-interference in internal affairs as a condition that goes without saying of their activity.  Therefore, the political efforts of the numerous intermediaries at peace talks in fact do not have brilliant and convincing arguments in even one conflict: they are the bearers of that very same ethnically oriented ideology. All the appeals of modern peacemakers are similar to the inarticulate muttering about "non-usage" or "arguments at the negotiating table."

       It gets ridiculous. The Hague Court in trying Milosevic ended up being a most complex political farce when the ideologically helpless court, deprived of any kind of clear-cut criteria for the assessment of the crime of nationalism, was forced feverishly to seek out the difficult to demonstrate the facts regarding excess of power and genocide.

   A supranational ideology proposes another approach. Evaluating any conflict situation in the world, we should examine the peacemaking role as the prevention of the violence of religious and ethnic forces over the supranational population.  At the same time, the interests of the supra-nationalists should be placed higher than any national values - sovereignty, independence, traditions, religions, and so on. Notice that the religiously ethnic nuts of both sides instantly will be found on one side of the barricade, and the normal people -- on the other. And we will know precisely who is who. We will have a precise weapon - HOW to establish peace, and we will have the correct ethical evaluation standards of what is taking place.

  The question may arise, what kinds of people are supranational?  For example, children. A child, still having not been fed the history myth lie, cannot determine "friend" and "foe." He can in no way declare his faith and identification. It makes no sense for him to hate someone. He is not stained by nationalism.

  Any society consists of an overwhelming percentage of people, who value peace and life higher than religious and ethnic values or names. Such people can keep their own [feelings] to themselves, not playing up their own inner reference points. Such people can compromise, they can come together. They of their own essence are supra-nationals, and we should support them in particular.

    Let's look at, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, using new approaches. The positions of the confrontation's participants are easily and clearly defined, according to the new criterion of "bad" and "good." Sharon and Arafat are typical leaders of a religious and ethnic ideology. It is difficult to say what harms the peace process more, Arafat's religious terrorist activity or Sharon's religious power policy, but one thing is clear - they think exclusively within a narrowly nationalistic framework, placing their local values above all the rest. In this way, they, and essentially, their power apparatus, daily place the life not only of their followers in danger, but also of those people who in no way are to blame, and who are outside the politics and ideology, people of the supranational.

  The following facts strike one in the analysis of the Middle Eastern conflict

   - an incredible surge of politicized monies for both sides.  In particular, this money supports the swollen religious and political apparatus of the war's participants, feeding the conflict. Our peacemaking proposal: immediately cease any monetary aid to Israel and Palestine. Neither Arafat nor Sharon should receive anything while the conflict is at a violent stage.

  - The deep participation of religious forces in the state apparatus of both sides.  The church in Israel - the Rabanut is not separate from the state, and at the same time there exist the many devices of the military rabbis with an extensive network of corresponding propaganda. The Rabanut's budget is equal to the expenses for the country's defense, and its activity is extremely reactionary.

     In Palestine, all of the military groups have a religious and feudal organization, with a strikingly territorial feature and in fact without a unified center. A large part of these groups' income arrives from abroad, part is stripped from the local business under the religious notion of the struggle, and part is obtained by criminal business, in addition to the justification of the religious stuffing. 

Our peacemaking proposal: 

      In Israel: strive for the separation of the Rabanut from the state and the bringing about of the country's laws, if nothing else, to correspond with the standards of a multinational state, where every nation or religion is equitable.

    In Palestine:  strive for the disarmament of the armed gang formations and the separation of the state structures which are springing up from any religious slant.

      As is seen from this example, peacemaking activity, supported by a base of ideas, can be much more forceful and concrete than the existing futile movements between nationalistic politicians, who per se in no way want to give in for the sake of peace.

     The murder of a real peacemaker, Israeli Prime-Minister Yitzhak Rabin, several years ago plainly showed the true aim of the opposition, when his death was welcomed openly by the religious fanatics of both sides. We must say clearly how we assess such activity. We have to build or attract a power apparatus that would be afraid of the nationalist of all stripes. Even the simple existence of political and military force which defends the non-ideological majority and unambiguously assesses ethno-religious fanaticism can significantly restrain the ardor of the pro-national politicians and lead to a decrease of the tension of local conflicts.

  Life compels the power formations of developed countries to be moved de-facto in this direction - for example, NATO. Uniting only developed countries, ready for unity, and being a military organization, NATO introduces an element of stability in the modern world. In particular therefore, the peacemaker role of this alliance is significantly greater than the United Nations, where the diversity of interests of the countries is huge, which makes this form of union useless, although NATO also has serious problems. Composed in accordance with a nation-state principle, this union cannot function normally because of the pressure and priority of national interests over supranational.

       The emergence of NATO from obedience to states and the creation of NATO by election, or of a similar structure, on other principles is the keenest need of the present.   A global function, entrusted to NATO, cannot be accomplished well in the existing mosaic state structure of this union's organization. NATO's power should grow and exceed considerably the power of any individual country.

Our peace-making proposal: 

    Struggle for the earliest reorganization of NATO's functions "for countries" into a function "over countries," toward which matters in principle also are going gradually.  This will lead to a violent formation of supranational interests. This will lead to unification.

In conclusion, there remains only to add that everything listed is not so difficult to do as it seems. It is difficult to imagine a tall building while looking at a vacant lot, but this doesn't mean that it is impossible to build one. One needs just to believe that we will do it. One has to escape from ideological poverty.

Vlad Melamed, 2002