Friday, July 24, 2009

Peaceful Diplomatic Foreign Policy

This blog is basically a rough draft of ideas I have for an essay about having an Army of Peace, various other changes to American Foreign Policy....


This article does not necessarily have to include anything about removing U.S. military from other countries (although you could say that this could be a possible future advantage to creating an effective Army of Peace—or I could say that it would be the goal which the Army of Peace would allow us to strive towards). Propose the Army of Peace as an organization alongside the military. The American people will be able to use discretion as to whether they send the Army of Peace or the military to other countries.

I feel we should remove all U.S. military bases (as well as military personnel, and also U.S. business –but that is another story) from other countries and practice peaceful means of negotiation in all matters of foreign policy.

Cite Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus, and others for the moral basis of practicing nonviolent resistance as a means for change.

One consequence of absolving military intervention would be that it would eliminate one of the main reasons that Terrorists attack the U.S.—because we have our troops in their countries.

One of the many arguments against the abandonment of all military bases around the world is that we have a duty to protect helpless nations from invading countries. But I believe peaceful, diplomatic intervention would be just as or more effective than military intervention for several reasons. So why would peaceful, diplomatic interventions work when one country is invading another? Because it is not the citizens of the invading country that is corrupt, but the leaders. The vast majority of the citizens of any country favor peace over war. It is primarily the corrupted leaders who are advocates of military aggression (but there are also those citizens in favor of war because of the propaganda produced by corrupt leaders, but this is why education is important). A peaceful diplomatic action by the U.S. would involve sending people into the country to rally the citizens to resist the evil acts of their leaders. We could encourage people not to support the government and instead of spending our money on military means we could spend it on humanitarian aid to those who actively took part in the resistance. We could also send humanitarian aid to those being invaded.

One advantage of peaceful intervention over military intervention it does not encourage the violent backlashes that military intervention encourages. Peaceful intervention would not cause the same kind of violent backlash that military intervention causes. Fighting evil with evil only creates more evil.

The same could be done in countries seen as a threat to the U.S. Trained U.S. peace soldiers would enter those countries and educate the people about the situation and encourage them to resist military action against the U.S. by their own government.

We could create an Army of Peace. If the government wouldn’t fund it.. private donors would (although it would be ideal that the government fund it). People could be educated about effective means of nonviolent resistance and be educated about the political situations involved in the countries in which they would be deployed. Funds of the Army of Peace would go to not only training the soldiers and modest wage for the soldiers but it would also go to providing humanitarian aid (in the form of food and medicine) for the citizens of countries who become actively engaged in the resistance movement, as well as humanitarian aid in the form of food, medicine, shelter, and clothing for the countries being invaded. The army of peace would be responsible for all of the actions that I have described previously.

I propose that the United States government discuss the possibility of setting up funding such an operation, at least on a short term scale of 5 to 10 years. In areas where military intervention is considered the Army of Peace should have the opportunity to enter the countries first. The effort should be wholeheartedly backed by the U.S. government and the Army of Peace should be supported financially as the military would. If the Army of Peace failed to yield any improvements in the region then it would be up to the United States people whether military action would then be taken in the situation. The Army of Peace should not be abandoned if the first attempt is a failure. This is a learning process and the Army of Peace should be given every opportunity to thrive. If there are several failed attempts at peace then it would be up to the citizens of the United States whether the Army of Peace should be disbanded and a return to a primarily military-based mode of foreign intervention be embraced.

We would encourage the citizens of invading countries to actively resist their government by not taking part in the military or the economy of their country. The citizens could live solely off the humanitarian aid of the Army of Peace and would not be required to work for their wages. We should also make a record of those actively resisting so that we can give financial support to them in case the peace movement is defeated and the people no longer have jobs (although we should maybe ignore this—we shouldn’t prepare for loss, but only for success.) Perhaps we should just focus on making sure those who participated in the peace movements have financial support after peace has been declared (we definitely have to do this).

Members of the army of peace and citizens of resistance should know that they must be prepared to die just as a soldier would.

The army of peace will not be mass demonstrating in the cities… they must encourage the citizens to mass demonstrate themselves. Mass execution is a possibility. But it unlikely that soldiers will be able to murder so many of their own countrymen… and after many mass executions people will begin to wake up.. The army of peace will be less involved in the act of resistance (unless encouraged to do so by the citizens), but mostly involved in the act of education, support, and aid… there should be mass education, and underground support systems so that citizens can live without supporting their countries economy… but we must also encourage the citizens to actively protest those members of government who could bring about the change.

The army of peace should encourage the citizens of the country to do all of the resisting. The army of peace will be largely undercover unless they feel the need to actively participate in the resistance.

No comments: