"The Law of the Jungle" Resuscitated

The law of the jungle has become the hallmark of our new age. It is the age of terror, peacelessness, and war without justification by international law. Although wealth has been flowing from the South to the North in the last few hundred years, and having impoverished the South, the fig leaf rational law of international trade and transaction used to be in order. However, in this new age, the fig leaf is removed and humanity is faced with two naked monsters, namely, Neo-Nazi and "Neo-Con", the former being white racist in Western Europe, and the latter the dwellers of the White House in Washington, DC. Their disregard of human rights, international law, and intergovernmental treaties would embarrass even the most shameless dictators in history.

In the US, a Texas man "with no brain" has become President who was not elected by the people, but "anointed" by seven Supreme Court Judges who had been appointed to the office by his father when the latter was President. In order to "accomplish" what Papa-President had started, the Son-President used the rhetoric of war against terrorism, punishment of terrorist supporting "rogue" state, elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and democratization of Iraq. Did he ever think if a "democratized" Saudi Arabia, a "democratized" Kuwait, or a "democratized" Qatar? Did his aides ever think these monarchies would be much more malleable for the US ambition after democratization?

In Japan, where the Constitution, the supreme national law, prohibits the existence of "land, sea, and air forces as well as other war potential", a remarkable constitution dedicated to non-violent pacifism or conscientious objection on a state level, the Parliament overrides it and enacts a new bylaw which allows sending military forces overseas, notably to Iraq. Diplomatic pressure from the US is obvious, but an anachronostic nationalism encouraged by the ruling coalition parties cannot be ignored. If neither President of the US nor Prime Minster of Japan, leaders of two major nations, do not adhere to international laws or domestic laws, how can we denounce borderless paramilitary or non-state actors for their violence?

Danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Bush/Blair war in Iraq was supported by some people primarily because they were genuinely concerned with weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had allegedly produced and hidden in the bunker of the Presidential Palace or elsewhere in Iraq. As of the beginning of November 2003, half a year after the Iraqi occupation by Bush/Blair forces had started, no WMD has been discovered. The rational Bush/Blair and their accomplice used was the genuine fear of nuclear weapons whose super destructive power had long been advocated world-wide by the anti-nuclear weapons movement. In particular, many hibakusha in Hiroshima have been actively engaged in making people, domestic and international, aware of a cosmic danger of nuclear weapons, "a flying Auschwitz." For Them peace movement means movement against nuclear weapons and nothing else.

Therefore, we, peace activists, pay a special attention to the two resolution in the First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is expected that nations will vote today (Monday, November 3) on these two very important resolutions proposed by the New Agenda Coalition. The first NAC resolution (A/C.1/58/L.40), entitled Towards A Nuclear Weapon Free World: A New Agenda, is based on the Final Document of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, where all parties to the NPT unanimously agreed to advance the nuclear disarmament agenda by means of 13 practical steps. The second NAC resolutions (A/C.1/58/L.39), entitled reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons, specifically tackles the issue of tactical (that is, sub-strategic) nuclear weapons.

NAC consists of a group of seven nations: Argentina, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden.

These resolutions are very important in the contemporary international situation because, first, they address an extremely dangerous policy of the US strategists to give nuclear weapons a new role and, second, they give a warning against proliferation of nuclear weapons illustrated by North Korea which has declared its withdrawal against from the NPT, and third, they demand an earliest and complete abolition of nuclear weapons on the basis of multi-national negotiations of the NPT. We consider the commitment of the NAC delineated in those two resolutions plays an important role toward the NPT Review Conference schedules in 2005.

As a new board member of the PARC (Pacific-Asia Research Center which is a corporate member of APRC), I have an impression that our Japanese group, PARC, has been dealing with world's as well as domestic socio-economic problems, but it has rarely dealt with problems of nuclear weapons, militarization, and weapon's transfer. Coming from Hiroshima, and self-representing Nagasaki as well, I am keenly aware of my role to warn you and the world in general that nuclear weapons, militarization, and weapon's transfer are just as serious as socio-economic problems and they have to be addressed as such. In particular, an international consensus that five permanent member states of the UN's Security Council are legally allowed to possess nuclear weapons, or uncritical attitude towards holding a military weapon's trade fair have to be delegitimatized or anathematized. Those inhumane weapons and merchants of death have no role international politics whatsoever.

Today, it has become a commonplace to consider the US the most dangerous nuclear "rogue state" of the world. Even The New York Times insinuated what is just said. Certainly, proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has to be stopped. For, the less nuclear weapon states are in the world, the less the likeness of nuclear war. That is also the raison d'etre of the NPT and the world has accepted it as an important international treaty. The Bush Administration has utilized the consensus and justified its illegal attack on Iraq.

Today, no other nation but the US which has developed, produced, and accumulated the most dangerous and inhumane weapons of mass destruction whether they are nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. In quantity and in quality, weaponry of army, navy and air forces as well as Marine Corps which the US has manufactured and deployed worldwide under the rubric of the "Stockpile Stewardship" even after the end of the Cold War has acquired "Global Reach" and exceeds a combined battalion of some 20 powerful military powers like Russia, China, India, Japan, and the major NATO countries like Germany, France, and the UK. Not only land, sea, and sky are filled with American tanks, warships, and airplanes, but also outer space is filled with American satellite and laser beam weapons capable of fighting Star Wars.

As dogs are given artificial bones to chew, the world is given North Korea, Iran, and Libya to scrutinize whether they have developed WMD. However, unless the powerful nations like the US and others abandon WMD, smaller and weaker nations will not abandon the right of self-defense even depending on WMD as India has clarified its position at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva several years ago. The world may reluctantly accept temporary double-standards, but not for ever.

War and "Peacelessness"

In general, due to economic recession a social unrest is increasing all over the world. Euphemism has become a commonplace in Japan where dismissal or firing is called "restructuring". A permanent employment, which used to be the cornerstone of the Japanese employment system, has now become a historical episode and young workers are increasingly offered only part-time jobs which do not guarantee their futures. A mood of resignation looms large in society and people are driven into ethno-centered, inward-looking jingoism.

This is an age of doubt-standards. It means the same laws are applied differently depending on who you are. If you are rich and strong, or protected by them, you do not have to obey the laws. But, if you are poor and weak, and in particular, of you are recalcitrant or naughty to the government, you will severely be punished. You may be expelled from your own country where you are the boss.

An Indian peace researcher Professor Sugata Dasgupta once said, what characterizes developing countries is neither war nor poverty. It is "peacelessness". Life remains a curse even after civil wars have ended. Unless not only wars and violent conflicts but also starvation and poverty disappear, we are far from being peaceful.

Irene, the goddess of peace, will be ashamed if faced by such statement. For the strong and rich peace means no war and in particular no nuclear war. Thus, some of you know well, Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace researcher, has conceptualized the "peacelessness" and called war and terrorism direct violence, and starvation and poverty structural violence.

However, the world has begun to suffer from a different kind of "peacelessness" after 9/11th. Some say it started already in the 1990s. What happened after the end of the Cold War was the demise of communism which advocated egalitarianism as its ideal. Intrusion of "free" market capitalism has become universal. During the days gone-by, capitalist nations emulated socialist nations in the area of education, medicine, and social welfare for fear for Domino phenomenon of communist expansion. The fear has vaporized after the end of the Cold War. Social Darwinism, the most pernicious philosophy that the West had ever produces in order to justify the rule of the strong, has resuscitated where naked principle of struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest, and the law of jungle prevail. History has seen its outburst in their colonialism, slavery, racism, fascism, and naked capitalism. A new Social Darwinism, unleashed after the demise of socialism in 1990s, is characterized by three major directions; first, the so-called restructuring of economy in major capitalist countries, second, control of energy resources, and third, global and special militarization. In each of these directions, the strong will take hold of the weak.

The trauma of the 9/11th tragedy has made it possible for the USA to wage reckless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In face of the unique superpower which even a combined forces of the rest of the world cannot defeat, smaller nations have no opinions but to obey or resist the USA. The UN which would sometimes function as a sanctuary for smaller nations has abandoned its role. The military and economic strength of the world's hegemon holds the world as its will. It is natural and understandable for leaders of smaller nations to ponder that nuclear weapons can be the military equalizer. The American logic of power helps the WMD to proliferate indeed.

For several years in mid-1990s such a prominent US politician as the former Secretary of State Robert McNamara and the retired General George Lee Butler embraced a theory of non-nuclear defense and the public opinion had it also that the US would be much safer if there were no nuclear weapons at all in the world. Their rational was the overwhelming supremacy of conventional defense capability of the US military forces. Their idea of non-nuclear defense coincided with the principle of NPT and was dramatically changed

Under the "Nuclear Posture Review" the Neo-Cons have returned to a fundamentalist nuclear strategy. There is now a progress in developing mini-nukes and a professed plan to resume underground nuclear tests which have not been conducted since 1993.

Obviously, policy makers of the US and other industrialized nations think that the stronger their military power, the more effective they can control developing nations where political, economical, and social discrepancies demand a radical and fundamental transformation. Globalization in terms of market economy, monetary transactions, communication, and trade advanced by the US does not improve the situation in developing nations, but rather aggravates it.

Unless the unjust global system of economy and trade is squarely addressed and fundamentally revamped, globalization would only accelerate an escalation of conflicts between the "haves" and "have-nots". It is unfortunate that political leaders of the elite nations cannot share the view due to their myopic perspective and understanding of "national interest".

To put it differently, peace and security of developed nations can be achieved only if root causes of conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots" are properly dealt with and radically "minimized" if not completely eradicated. "Liddism", which means attempts to keep the lid on problems "without addressing the core reasons for dissent", will not work and eventually lead the world onto an eruption of "global intifada". Attempts to solve conflicts by enhanced military power failed in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and especially in Palestine.

Demoralizing situations persist in developing countries where frustrated young people see themselves as marginalized and with diminishing prospects. They are like a pile of explosives. In the past it was considered to be a ripe socio-economic situation for a violent political revolution. However, neither "successful revolution" nor political independence in many parts of the world in the last century produced what had been promised. People realized that something was wrong with the international system in which political experiments were not allowed even for ten years or so to male socio-economic progress for a successful revolution. Instead, they were always interfered, sanctioned, "contained", suppressed and fatally damaged by major capitalist states for their vested interest. The tragedy of the late President Allende of Chile 30 years ago whom General Pinochet murdered with the help of CIA should be sufficient to illustrate the issue in point. The coup, incidentally, took place also on September 11th.

One of the questions posed here is who can break the vicious circle of war, terrorism, and "peacelessness" which has been aggravated by the run-away Leviathan, the USA. It can neither be the American government nor the Japanese as both are trapped in a narrow nationalism: in the US a jingoistic nationalism stemming from the trauma of 9/11th and in Japan a similarly narrow nationalism stemming from abduction of many Japanese citizens by the North Korean agents.

In the world today, there are two paradigms which reflect military, political, and socio-economic situations. The one is the "liddism" mentioned above which tries to put the lid on insecurity and hold an unjust and unstable status quo under control by "violent but legal" means, in anticipation of creating "a violent peace" as it were. The other is an attempt to create a new and just world order in which all efforts are concentrated on solving root causes of unrest, namely, war, terrorism, and "peacelessness" without using violent means, namely, "peace by peaceful means".

It can be done only through a solidarity movement of the world citizens not excluding many enlightened American citizens. An ancient Greek philosopher said, "It is not carpenter but the residents who can tell if the house is good or bad". Therefore, we are standing at a critical crossroads of bringing the world into a peaceful and harmonious community of the global citizens or an incessant occurrence of violence and endless war.

Such an effort should not be dismissed as idealism as there are very many signs of alternative social movements.

"Indeed, one of the more hopeful features of the post-11 September analysis, understandably much more outside of the United Stated, was concern to address root causes of political violence instead of concentrating on control of the symptoms. In the final analysis, it is a matter of choice, and the next decade is likely to prove pivotal in determining the degree of international instability that could prevail for much of the new century. The early effects of 11 September suggest a hardening of the role paradigm, but there is every chance that it may become possible to further analysis and demonstrate the futility of that approach. The responsibility for those in a position to do so, whether activists, academics, politicians or many others, is considerable."

| More...