WAR, KASHMIR AND WORLD GOVERNMENT
This is in response to articles those speak 'war as the solution to Kashmir problem'.
It is quite unfortunate that after witnessing two world wars people all over the world are holding 'war' as an option for solving 'international problems'. The result of such approach: heavy expenditure on arms, countless secret defense pacts among countries, and thousands scientists minds engaged in laboratories in devising ammunitions which can kill the humanity more effectively. There is a competition among countries in all fronts of conventional and unconventional weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological etc.
I strongly feel with this scenario of 'competitive security' nothing short of World Government can convert the world a 'no war zone'. A political structure at world level is required to transform this 'competitive sovereignty' to 'cooperative sovereignty'. Inside a country boundaries of states are altered without a bullet being fired. But unfortunately in international level the minimum this cannot be thought of without a full-fledged war. We must realize that this is happening because we don't have a political structure of equivalent strength at world level.
World War I led to League of Nations, World War II led to UN and both of these organizations started as a group of nations emerged victorious in the world wars, the former being more defective than the latter as the partial policies of the former led to the second world war itself. The UN's political wing is successful in solving many minor international disputes, but it is not powerful enough (or we can say power is not shared properly) to stop aggression by major International powers. So I agree "India talking about 'permanent seat' or 'expansion of security council'" is better than "India keeping mum" as 'such demands' dilute the unjust grip of power by handful nations. But at the same time we must realize the 'prime force' behind such move 'is not globe in mind attitude' but the country’s own interests to take more share in already unjust system. And this is true for all countries. And this is not the way to reform. Through world government it is meant a complete revamping of political structure of UN as in the present structure no country is capable of think beyond its boundary, beyond its interests.
We may churn our mind for issues like 'final solution to Kashmir', But the better approach is always to find 'final solutions to Kashmir like problems'. Today we may solve Kashmir through a full fledged war with Pak, but what if we face a similar checkmate position with China tomorrow, what if a fresh boundary dispute pops up with Bangladesh, can we have wars again??? In this process, who is going to get benifit?? somebody like Mr. Quattrocchi... And who is going to suffer?? some innocent civilian of some unknown village... may be not of Kashmir, but some other part of India or World.
We must note this 'dose of peace' has to be given maximum to the Americans, followed by the British, and of course Indians too come somewhere down the list. For terrorists, I feel they don't need this dose of peace rather they need action, but action done in proper manner. Taking the case of Talibans, even under present scenario, the better idea could have been instead of US and British doing the needful, UN as the world body could have taken responsibility of this military action. Then this action would have looked truly global. Instead of American troops, it should have been UN troops to look it politically correct. It is high time to lay down precise International laws for terrorism (so that a head of state can not call this 'freedom struggle') and 'how to counter' and 'who to counter' it (so that 'Governments sending delegates to countries to create world opinion' can be avoided) and more importantly the overall concept becomes country independent. Can't we think, instead of 'shouting/pleading at international deaf ears that we have proof of Pakistani involvement in terrorist acts', the better could have been we have something parallel to Supreme Court in world level in which Pakistan's involvement could have been easily proved and corrective actions (if use of force, use of such under the banner of world government) could have been taken long since.
We all know that American civil war (1861-65) resulted into 'second constitution’, which shifted the primary locus of sovereignty to national government, which was earlier with the state governments. Thereafter citizens became Americans first, Virginians or New Yorkers second. Indian constituent assembly was wise enough to adopt this concept from the beginning itself. This simple, but important provision on the constitution is capable of avoiding lot of chaos in future. The above case shows how 'political solutions' exist for issues, which can later evolve as 'potential military problem'. For realizing ‘world government for world peace’ we don’t need anymore war, rather we need 'globe in mind' leaders and quick learners and, we as people and country be matured enough to compromise a bit on our immediate narrow objective. I would appeal the think tank to find time out of 'causing Hiroshima here and there' and start looking sincerely on the issue of world political structure. Though it looks utopian at the first instant, honest thought and effort in this direction will make world government the most practical and feasible idea for maintaining 'global peace order'. I also do hope that the 'concept of democracy' will be soon widened to include 'concept of no to war' to make 'the show of muscle power on battle grounds' a thing of past.
'Since wars begin in the minds of men,' so runs the historic UNESCO Preamble, 'It is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.'
- Cooperative Sovereignty
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/hippu/30/