Ukraine is a consequence of all government failures

 Daniel Franco, a life-long pacifist, has rightfully admitted that sometimes we need to fight to protect our loved ones.  And the world now needs to assist Ukraine in defending its people.  It’s time to use our thorns. 

 

Mr. Franco makes multiple valid points in this blog Roses. – MOBILIZED: What's Next is Now!.   “War is not the answer” is number one. Unfortunately, he missed the opportunity to offer an alternative to preventing and ending all wars.   It’s called the “Rule of Law”.  Demanding peace, democracy, or even freedom will not suffice without the foundation of justice.  Oddly, every media source I’ve read or listened to since Russia started its mobilization of troops and blitz into Ukraine has not mentioned this obvious solution. Why?

 

When people or nations have differences, those differences will either be solved by words or violence.  When words don’t work...violence is inevitable.  Thus if the words don’t result in liberty and justice for all, violence will follow.  It should be obvious that we have a global governance system today that rarely resolves differences because it lacks the essential elements to do so.  And the option of war remains.

 

Since the end of World War II the US has repeatedly experienced Franco’s point that ‘war is not the answer’.  He rightfully mentioned four times we’ve used it...and didn’t win.  

 

But Mr. Franco misunderstands the purpose behind the creation of the UN.  It was intended to avoid another war.   But he states “we founded the United Nations and wrote the UN Charter, which specifically demands action in defense of basic democracy and human rights.”

 

That is tragically false.  He, like most of humanity, persistently fails to understand that the UN Charter is a rose without thorns.  It was never empowered to take “action in defense” of human rights or any form of democracy.   It is an undemocratic institution that only offered a talkfest. A forum where nations using flowery words might be able to talk things out.   But clearly hidden in the words of the UN Charter is the fact that its only enforceable mission is the protection of each nation’s sovereignty. 

 

Most of humanity has lived blindly over the past 8 decades without this flawed assumption that protecting national sovereignty would protect human rights.  Given the varied interests of over 200 governments - each prioritized to maintain power – none ever will.

 

To engineer a global governance system that works sustainably for all, its systems and structures must be based on fundamental principles (self-evident truths).  And the use of words that mean the same thing to everyone it will govern.    Like math and science, its governance words must mean the same and achieve the same results in every nation, religion, culture, and tribe.  Let’s start with two words. Freedom and security.   

 

Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet “Common Sense” wrote, "Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security.”  Feb. 14, 1776.

One fact most freedom lovers don’t know is that collectively our nation’s founding fathers used the word ‘virtue’ more than freedom.  It was clear to them that without virtuous people, their freedoms would be lost.  This is lethally unclear to too many freedom lovers today.

Next, we must understand that there are words and phrases that are useless or damaging.  Like “peace through strength”.  Russia may be stronger than Ukraine but there will be no peace.  More important is the inherently dangerous phrase “National Sovereignty.”   

The word ‘national’ is clear.  But the word ‘sovereignty’ has been coopted.  Together these words have cemented into place a system of government that was invented over 400 years ago at the Treaty of Westphalia.   A time when the consequences of globalization were not so obvious.

Originally, sovereignty came from God.  And regardless of any nation’s definition of it, it remains the possession of each individual to determine how their life will be lived.   Back then groups could agree to live under a certain flag and within a certain boundary -or be killed or enslaved. 

This worked for periods of time but never lasted. And the evolution of weaponry always altered the borders and allegiances that were intended to keep a group safe.

 

Since then, globalization has been on steroids. And the global movement of people, ethnic groups, religions, money, material resources, technology, pollution, non-human species, and pathogens have made political lines on any map a dysfunctional illusion.

An illusion based on a word that exists only in the human mind as a concept. And on paper as an ideal.  But this concept we know as ‘independence’ exists nowhere on earth - or in the known universe.   

 

It’s ironic that the most functional blueprint for engineering a sustainable form of global governance is titled “the Declaration of Independence”.  Within its first paragraph, it offers two fundamental principles (or self-evident law sets) that should have been applied in the writing of the US Constitution.  It offered “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”. 

Abiding by these two law sets our nation’s founding fathers could have avoided a civil war.  A war between states that killed more Americans in four years than all the wars that our nation fought in since then, combined!  But their Constitution insisted on putting states’ rights superior to human rights. That’s what the UN system does today -- repeating this fundamental flaw.  And making matters globally worse, our Constitution enforces this flaw by insisting that the rights of nation-states (national sovereignty) and corporations are more important than protecting human rights or our environment.  

Until ‘we the people” of Ukraine, the US, Russia, and the world, reverse this simple engineering flaw our species will continue to face two existential earthly threats.

I used to think the greatest threat would be the collapse of our planet’s life support system – that thin biofilm covering our goldilocks planet.  We simply can no longer persist in violating the Laws of Nature. 

Now I believe our greatest threat is related to war.  It is the evolution of weaponry.  Our sciences: nuclear, biology, chemistry, cyber, nano, robotics...has yielded unprecedented killing capacity at affordable prices globally.  Even conventional civilian technologies like cars, trucks, passenger planes, or cruise ships loaded with fuel oil, and fertilizer can yield WMD capacity anywhere in the world relatively quickly - undreamed of 400 years ago.

And unless every religious or spiritual soul adheres to the laws of Nature’s God - and practices the Gold Rule - the hearts and minds of people anywhere will continue to use and abuse any and every technology available to them.  This will only persist until AI evolves.  Then it will decide we are worth keeping and hold every individual accountable, or remove us from the planet.

 

We must decide quickly between the ‘rule of law’ and the ‘law of force’.  

 

The “Rule of Law” can be most effective if clearly defined to include three fundamental elements. First, the laws must be made and enforced by a democratic process.  But that’s not enough. Second. The laws must be applied equally to all.  Regardless of nationality, religion, sex, or ethnicity.  Last. The laws must be protective of a certain set of inalienable rights.  Rights everyone has. Wise souls after the creation of the UN did give us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a guild.   The best we can do if we are not going to engineer a global Rule of Law is to invest money in achieving it.   

 

Since 2015 the UN has offered humanity 17 Sustainable Development Goals targeted for the year 2030.  It is a comprehensive list intended to address the root causes of most of our government’s failings.

Sanctions on Russia may cripple its economic capacity to continue its domination of Ukrainians.  But there are also other trillions now locked in offshore accounts by other kleptocrats, oligarchs, crime cartels, violent extremists groups, and filthy rich capitalists – that could be used to achieve these 17 goals holistically.

I’m guessing Daniel Franco would approve of either of these pacifist approaches to maximizing human freedom and security sustainably.  And I’m hoping he will fight for either or both. 

FYI: An old friend and employer called me this evening.  He’s a conservative Christian who walks his talk in supporting Israel and protecting the Jewish people for 40 years.  We have always been at odds regarding my insistence on strengthening the UN to protect everyone and our environment.   Tonight he called to admit he was wrong.  He said “national sovereignty cannot protect anyone”.   We agreed that Putin maybe God’s way of sending us this message yet again...to the world.  Until we all walk the talk of the Good Samaritan, Armageddon may be in our future.