Many proposals have come over the years from the peace movement; but when we focus only on long-range, fundamental proposals, and omit the partial measures and oppositions to single weapons and particular wars, we find that there are basically two proposed models; one is world federal government and the other is principled nonviolence.

The proponents of these two alternatives to the present war system have not always been on friendly terms with each other. The pacifist wing of the peace movement saw world government as still using violence (i.e. enforcing world law against international criminals, U.N. peacekeeping forces using weapons even if rarely). The internationalist wing of the peace movement saw nonviolence as offering no answers to the problem of deliberate evil-doers. This leaves us wondering if the two approaches could be combined so as to complement each other; perhaps they could fill each other’s gaps while retaining their good features.

Taken to extremes, each approach has definite drawbacks. At its worst, the world government proposals are too centralizing (even if federal structure is postulated). They make Hobbesian assumptions about human nature: just as individuals need a government to prevent them from mutual killing and stealing, so nations do likewise. The world federalist analysis sees the inter-nation system as “in a state of nature”, making repeated warfare inevitable. Yet the Hobbesian assumption about human nature may not be quite true though elements of it can be observed. The Hobbesian solution is adopted, namely giving the government (Leviathan) a monopoly of violence. Some schemes suggest that nuclear weapons should be transferred to the world government, not dismantled; while the individual nations are disarmed. This begs the question of tyranny – what if those centralized weapons of mass destruction are used to terrorize everybody into obeying a tyrant? The words “deterrence” and “terror” both come from the same root. The world government model at its worst is also too state-oriented ignoring other actors on the world stage – people’s organizations, churches, multinational corporations etc.

The nonviolence movement at its worst also has drawbacks. It tends to be anarchist, as does the Green movement. While “small” may be “beautiful”, global problems still require global solutions. Radioactive contamination (e.g. from the Chernobyl accident) acid rain, and global warming do not respect national borders, or even the borders of bio-regions. The movement’s model of human nature tends to be in the “noble savage” tradition (of Rousseau); people would get along just fine if governments left them alone. If this belief becomes a rigid doctrine, it is probably false. Human nature is likely to be somewhere between the conceptions of Hobbes and Rousseau. The prohibition of violence is sometimes too extreme; a pilot gone crazy and about to bomb the Soviet Union and trigger nuclear war should not be shot down, according to this absolutist view. Also, avoidance of verbal and psychological violence as well as physical violence would leave us almost unable to communicate in conflict situations. No manipulation or coercion? This seems equally unrealistic; we all do it all the time, though usually without physical violence. Moreover, in practice the nonviolent movement also manipulates and coerces other, it does not always use the “love your enemy” model. While the world-government movement is too state-oriented, the nonviolence movement is too individual-oriented. Again, a happy balance seems to be called for.

What has been said above is summarized in a comparison table below:

We must remember that the drawbacks of the world federalist and nonviolent peace movements sketched above deliberately concentrated on the extreme forms of each doctrine, not the much milder, less dogmatic positions usually put forward by their proponents in practice. These milder positions in the real world can be much more easily reconciled with each other than the extremes could. They would also have fewer disadvantages, the rough edges being removed, so to speak.

The convergence of the best aspects of both approaches could follow the principles outlined below.

1. To avoid both too much and too little centralization, the suggestions is (a) to use the principle of subsidiarity (problems should be solved at the lowest level at which there are no significant external effects (see H. Newcombe 1), and (b) to aim at constructing a multi-level world, going from the individual to neighbourhood government to municipal to provincial to national to continental to global government, in six steps from person to planet (see H. Newcombe 2)
2. Human nature should be initially trusted, or given the benefit of the doubt; but means must exist to deal with cases where this basic trust is proved to be unjustified. We spontaneously do this (those of us who are neither paranoid nor gullible); social life depends mainly on mutual trust, not on the police, but the police must be there as a backup in case it is needed.
3. Nations should be disarmed down to police levels – i.e. conventional as well as nuclear, chemical, and biological disarmament. The world government should have only a lightly armed World Police Force, certainly no weapons of mass destruction.
4. To attain a dynamic peace defined as a world order in which conflicts are resolved justly, non-violently, and creatively, all social units must be taken into account, individuals, states, the world government, and all stages and structures in between and across national borders; as well as multinational corporations, non-state actors, and non-governmental organizations.

These four points correspond to the four aspects summarized in the Table. But something additional must also be stated, about the complementarity of the world government and non violence approaches.

1. In normal operation, conflicts will be resolved through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, adjudication, voting in elections and referenda etc. (See H. Newcombe 3) However, if this fails, or if the world government shows signs of becoming unjust or oppressive, citizens would have the right to organize for extra-legal nonviolent direct action. Moreover in order to keep this option well-furbished and ready, citizens should be trained in the effective use of nonviolent methods. However civil disobedience of this type should be used rarely, only as a last resort.

Would such a convergence of peace models be acceptable to most of the peace movement? It has a good chance of being so. The larger question of acceptability to the general public and the leaders can be answered only by experience. Let us give it a chance.

Notes:

1. H. Newcombe, “Subsidiarity, Canadian World Federalist.
2. H. Newcombe, “Design for a Better World”, Univ. Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1983.
3. H. Newcombe, “Conflict Resolution in the Light of Peace Research”, unpublished paper.