2023 Common Security as an Alternative to Nuclear Deterrence

2 August 2023

The fact that Nuclear Deterrence is such a concern is the horrific outcomes if deterrence fails, and if there is nothing in place to step in to prevent a nuclear exchange.

The emergence of discussion on Common Security, as one such alternative, has much to seriously consider.  This may have merit if robust enough, strongly embedded in international law, ratified by nations, and with a global will to implement, ie to intervene in war and armed conflict emergencies that arise.  Perhaps the notion of one global family engenders global responses.

Common Security begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)    

10 December 1948 (General Assembly Resolution A/217 ).

• Article 3    Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

This can imply that everyone has a duty to ensure “security of person” to everyone else.   Security of person needs security of the nation, and eventually by global security.  The latter being endangered by nuclear weapons and even conventional war.  The words deterrence and intervention then arise. 

Perhaps we need explore some unanswered questions concerning some discussions for a doctrine of Global Common Security.  One such question, “How can any deterrence deal with violence and killing in the moment?”  Security must mean more than just preventative, or diplomatic, or mediation measures, or conflict resolution measures, or justice systems and the courts afterwards.  Courts and justice are of no consolation to those with destroyed homes and communities, with the death of loved ones, horrific wounds, suffering and trauma.  Far too late.

Discussion often speaks more to common “conflict prevention, mediation and justice” than it does to actual physical security.  Certainly, there is much that happens after the cessation of hostilities, or can happen beforehand; but when the killing happens, the word security does not happen.   This has little value following the occurrence of a nuclear war. 

In law, we grant the right of self defence.  Nations currently engage in conventional deterrence or nuclear deterrence to protect themselves; which in turn relies on balance or superiority.  Most nations cannot afford this.  The alternative seems to be to assert, provide, and guarantee rights of security for everyone by the collective global community.  This is the vision to work towards.

So National Security must mean Global Common Security in which all nations will be required to act, without veto, and at least at the onset of hostilities against any nation; after which the courts and international justice systems can be engaged.

An analogy is a police force with constabulary duties to intervene, stop harm, apprehend, and turn over to courts.  The police have a duty to protect in the moment, with the use of force if necessary, not afterwards. 

If Common Security is to be serious, and a counterweight to nuclear security, then all elements of the conflict spectrum need attention and guarantors.  This may involve interlocking doctrines such as:

A Global security doctrine of obligation

That the global community has an obligation to:

• Be present in serious conflict.
• Adopt a posture of impartiality between parties in conflict.
• Bring values of non-violence and peace-making.
• Bring communication, diplomatic, education, and mediation skills.
• Bring justice and reconciliation measures.

A global security doctrine of conflict intervention

This is a doctrine to intervene in a complete sense, and would encompass all conflict stages.

Pre conflict.   A duty to prevent, involving diplomacy and mediation in risk situations, and wider attention to building cultures and ministries of peace.

During conflict.  An overriding global duty to intervene, in the moment, if hostilities occur, in a constabulary role, as a minimum stopping the violence and killing, using force if necessary, and protecting all parties and civilians.

• In active conflict zones this may extend to a global duty to provide for safe havens, refugee support, humanitarian aid, relentless diplomacy, mediation and protection forces.

Post conflict.  A duty for accountability, to provide for reconciliation, and justice in courts (ICC, ICJ).  This extends to:

• A duty of care for victims,
• A duty for rebuilding infrastructures, livelihood, economies, and governance. 

A Global common security doctrine of peace operations

That the global community establish in international law a strong veto-proof precursor to the laws of armed conflict. 

Preamble. Regarding the laws of armed conflict and ”just war” tradition, we believe that the ethic of care has equal weight, to the ethic of justice in conflict situations.  We believe in the responsibility to protect.  We believe in primacy of non-violence, human rights, and the care of others.

Regarding that the Laws of Armed conflict generally define the right to resort to force, and the limits to the employment of force;

• Just cause: Defense against armed attack, prevention of significant harm, and significant threats to international peace.
• Right authority:  Legitimate political authority with ability to control force and cease its use.
• Right intention:  Just cause, not intimidation, vengeance, domination, hatred, coercion.
• Proportionality of ends: Good achieved greater than harm done.  Limits force levels.
• Last resort: Other political means exhausted.
• Reasonable hope of success:
• Aim of peace, stability, security.
• Proportionality of means: Limits weapons, combatants.  Prohibits torture, unnecessary harm.
• Non-combatant immunity and protection: POWs and civilians. To be spared harm and accorded protection.

It is therefore resolved:  That the laws of peace operations be codified as a strict mandated precursor to any military intervention or the use of the laws of armed conflict.

That laws of peace operations be codified as a strict obligation for dealing with conflict in pre-conflict stages, conflict stages, and post conflict stages by the international community, states or transnational parties with circumstance that have the potential for violence. Such laws should prioritize in order:

• Stop or prevent violence or killing as a first priority.
• Care for the victims and refugees.
• Create safe spaces for peace talks or diplomacy.
• Strengthen or rebuild governance at all levels.
• Make efforts to create safe, healthy, and socially responsible communities.
• Reconstruction of economies and infrastructure.
• Enable truth, reconciliation, and justice activity.

This essentially turns just war theory upside down.

A global common security doctrine of deterrence.  

The global community must offer the role of guarantor, and that it be seen to be effective, in all conventional wars, to have any chance regarding decreasing chances of nuclear war or threats of nuclear war.

The hope would be that a robust Global Common Security would negate the need to possess nuclear weapons as deterrence; and make the TPNW and NPT something of a reality. The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was negotiated with the purpose of strengthening the largely unimplemented disarmament pillar of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). 

We already have much peace prevention and operations capacity and laws in place now, and await an awareness for greater coordination, cooperation, global will and courage.   This is not perfect with many grey areas, but a start.

We can only build a better world together.  All of us together.

In peace

Paul  

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired 

Accredited Peace Professional CPSCCanada 

2023 It is past time to get serious about peace in the Ukraine

It is time to get serious about peace in the Ukraine.  Enough of this torrent of blame, anger, even hate, and accusations in all directions.  You can take sides and be a party to the conflict, or you can be a peacemaker.  There is a difference.  The peacemaker adopts an approach of being present in the conflict, being impartial and talks to all sides, brings values of non violence and compassion, and has communication skills that include non violent communication (Marshall Rosenberg).  The peace maker is not looking to crush anybody.

Civilized people talk.  One cannot “pound stakes in the ground and call it negotiation”, however just or right they think they are.

Different things happen in different phases of conflict; pre conflict, during conflict and post conflict.  This means peace building, peace making and peace keeping as appropriate.. 

Our challenge is now peacemaking and facing intractable questions.  This  is usually approached through the consideration of meta questions, that collectively build to dealing with the intractable ones.  This could mean, establishing a permanent architecture of “peace tables” or “humanitarian tables” that involve parties and provide movement “without prejudice to rights or claims” in specific areas. We have already had successful talks on grain exports.  One can envision “Tables” perhaps dealing with  pauses for such as, refugee support, medical aid,  humanitarian aid, prisoner exchanges, maybe on provision of civilian safe havens, nuclear plant protection, planting or harvesting crops, a space for relentless diplomacy, and  perhaps for temporary ceasefires getting longer and longer. They can be sponsored by any acceptable brokers to involved parties, such as the UN, China, USA, Russia, Ukraine, or willing neutral soft power countries.  We need to do, what we can do, to build peace, and not refuse to do what we can.    All this can be a precursor for more substantial talks when conditions arise, such as for permanent peace accords, cease fires, security guarantors, peacekeepers, justice, and claims.    

Crushing Russia sows the seeds for future conflict. Overwhelming EU or NATO militarization is not a condition for security for Russia.  I realize pain and suffering is beyond tragic, but peace at its very core means first stopping the violence and caring for the victims.  Not easy. But there is no war in history that has not ended in some way or other. 

War is not the answer.  If you want peace then work at it.

Good luck to us

Paul Maillet

Retired Colonel (Canadian Armed Forces)

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC) Civilian Peace Services Canada

2023 Ukraine and Russia – Peace is inevitable

There is no war in history that has not ended in some way or other.  The question is when?  And with what outcomes or consequences? Some have lasted decades, with countless dead, suffering and trauma.   This is not victory.  At this stage in the war, barriers for peace talks are formidable.   Conditions for peace talks less likely at the moment.  But something is always possible.

Civilized people talk.  One cannot “pound stakes in the ground and call it negotiation”, however “just “ they think they are.  Second, is the importance of the language on non violent communication (NVC).  Involved parties at peace talks have to restrain themselves from the avalanche of emotion, accusations, blame and threats.  These are not helpful. 

Lastly, is the “skill in questions” construct.  Dealing with the intractable questions, is usually approached through the consideration of meta questions, that collectively build to dealing with the intractable one.  This could mean, establishing a permanent architecture of “peace tables” or “humanitarian tables” that involve parties and provide movement “without prejudice to rights or claims” in specific areas. We have already had successful talks on grain exports.  One can envision  “Tables” perhaps dealing with  pauses for such as, refugee support, medical aid,  humanitarian aid, prisoner exchanges, maybe on provision of civilian safe havens, nuclear plant protection, planting or harvesting crops, a space for relentless diplomacy, and  perhaps for temporary ceasefires getting longer and longer. They can be sponsored by any acceptable brokers to involved parties, such as the UN, China, USA, Russia, Ukraine, or willing neutral soft power countries.  We need to do, what we can do, to build peace, and not refuse.    All this can be a precursor for more substantial talks when conditions arise, such as for permanent peace accords, cease fires, security guarantors, peacekeepers, justice and claims.    

If you want a victor’s justice, and define victory as crushing Russia, there is karma attached to that.  And far too much death and generational trauma.   This is not victory.  This is not peacemaking. Peace will come but at what cost?

No matter what, in time, Russia and Ukraine will still have to live next to each other.  The question is “how then can they live well in the company of each other.” How then can they each enjoy respect, security, and prosperity.   Ultimately, it seems that Ukraine desires to survive and possibly with a secure future in the EU.  Russia needs to feel secure next to the EU, a powerful neighbor.  An overwhelming EU or massive NATO militarization is not a condition for security for Russia.

To begin, the media and politicians have to talk relentlessly about peace-making instead of  war.  Stop this parade of Generals in the media.  We need to start somewhere.

In peace

Paul

2023 The Canadian F35 decision is regrettable

As a former air force Colonel and former CF18 engineering fleet manager, I am writing to express my deep disappointment for the F35 announcement to select the F35 for the Air Force.  I do understand that the ministerial task is to bring the political and public context to military affairs; but certainly not to be subordinate to everything powerful military interests demand.

 I will state for the record that we will very very much regret the day we made this decision.  We are buying a fighter, the type of which, even the Ukraine war will rarely commit to the close battlefield due to the growing overwhelming sophistication of air defenses.  Drones and missiles are the current and future to the close ground attack mission.  This is what the F35 was designed for.  Throwing an F35 into such a dense battle space is suicide.

 What you have bought is the most expensive squadron of the USAF in history.  In can only be effective as part of a US war.   The Canadian Air Force in its air war structure could not use a fraction of the sensor fusion capabilities of the aircraft.  We cannot afford even a fraction of the surrounding space based and US battle management structure and support capacities, needed around this aircraft.  We can do sovereignty surveillance and control with a far far less expensive fighter

 And as an Engineer, I believe we are buying an aircraft with serious outstanding deficiencies and with a horrendously complex computer backbone, which may never be reconciled to anyone’s satisfaction.  We will simply get the latest Block upgrade with many ongoing upgrades to pay for.  This is a money drain that will go down in history.  It is like buying a car that is not fully designed or in which the salesman has the gall to state that we will not initially get what they bid on and we are paying for, if we ever do.

 As I said before this aircraft is designed only to kill people and destroy infrastructure.  What did we learn from our participation in Libya and Iraq?  We have killed civilians which although we claimed was unintentional, but it was 100% foreseeable. Public opinion was very clear on this.  No more.

Is 2.1 trillion dollars of military expenditure in 2022 not enough to feel secure.  Where NATO spends more than 3 times the budgets of China and Russia combined.   Is that not enough?

 What we could do for peace with 70 billion dollars?  Killing capacities are  never good for the Canadian economy.  There are no words.

 I had hoped for so much more.

 Paul

Colonel Retired

2022 Thinking through Canada’s response to the Ukraine War

Dear Minister of National Defence Anand;
As a military veteran, I read with interest your recent announcement regarding Ukraine, that Canada “ will teach a flexible curriculum focused on individual skills required for frontline combat, including weapons handling, battlefield first aid, fieldcraft, patrol tactics and the Law of Armed Conflict”, according to McLeans Magazine.

Presumably a short course, and given that they will go up against a professional and well armed army, the casualty rates will be very high, so will numbers of horrifically wounded, a high incidence of PTSD, and the inevitable high suicide rates.  Mostly you are sending these trainees to die or be traumatized.  Are you teaching trauma resiliency, how to face killing and horrific traumatic events? How to face the mental scars and suffering that will be present for the rest of their lives?  Canada does not even seriously teach this to its own soldiers.   

Are you ready to take responsibility for what you are enabling?   Karma is not so much consequences, but of the person you are becoming, and what this will do to your mental health and wellbeing.  As the saying goes “In war, here are no unwounded soldiers”.  This includes the leadership, and will forever be part of your mental health, whether you like it or not.  Ask LGen (ret) Dallaire.

Please think this through.  Ask yourself.  How will Canada’s involvement here lead to peace or non violence?  How does this respect the Prime Ministers direction that “Canada is back” to the business of “international peace and stability?”  And finally, “is there another way?”  What does the world really need from Canada in this war?

Is there a way for Canada out of this mess?  There are enough countries enabling the war with arms and training, but who is visibly enabling peace making and peace building?  Who builds safe havens?  Who leads on humanitarian aid?  Refugee support?  Relentless diplomacy for peace talks?  Who is present and impartial and talks to all parties?  Who uses non-violent communication techniques that gives peace a chance? Canada can do so much more and can really make a difference with a little bit of courage.

What defines the best of what it means to be Canadian?  Is there any other answer other than peace making?

Sincere regards;

Paul Maillet
Retired Colonel (Canadian Armed Forces)

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC)

2022 Solving Ukraine – Solving Peace.

Dear friends in peace:

Again, in 2022, the world faces a new war. Again, the world is at another inflection point of history.  Again, we face choices of sowing seeds for more war in the future, or for making a better future for our children.

We continually face historic inflection points, but we lose more opportunities for peace, than are taken for building lasting peace.  We failed Germany after WWI and sowed the seeds for WWII.  After WWII we chose peace, and Germany and Japan became healthy democracies and world class economies.  After the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991, we failed Russia, and embarked on NATO expansion, sowing the seeds for what followed. 

The following decades were defined by power without accountability.  This involved superpowers and others acting with impunity, conducting military operations without justifiable or problematic provocation under international law.    The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in trillions spent, about 7000 US war dead in Iraq, 2400 war dead in Afghanistan, approximately 30,000 suicides, and countless civilian casualties, estimated around 200,000.  Libya and Syria exploded into war with more carnage.  Russia followed suit with incursions into Chechnya in 1994 and 1999, then into Georgia in 2008, and now Ukraine in 2022.  In less that a month, Russian war dead already exceeds US war dead in Afghanistan and Iraq over 20 years.    China reneged on democracy in Hong Kong.  China ‘s growing military power threatens Taiwan and the Asia Pacific. The list is endless.  The misuse of power underlines all these behaviours.  

Certainly, a nation has the right to resist invasion and violence, and the global community has a ‘responsibility to protect’ as a human obligation.  But war takes on a life of its own.  Nuclear weapons are a dark shadow over everything in the Ukraine conflict.   The military aspect of the Ukraine war will resolve itself either through exhaustion, surrender (which is unlikely), one side prevails, Russia withdraws, or a negotiated ceasefire, a peace treaty, or a grinding endless stalemate.  The outcome is uncertain.  What is not uncertain is the suffering, trauma and death, that will scar generations.

So, when the Ukraine post conflict stages arise, and it will, we begin yet again.  We will make choices that will sow seeds for future conflict or future peace.  There will be an outcry for justice.    The ethic of care for victims and reconstruction will be generational and hugely expensive.  We will rebuild Ukraine and face the question of deciding what to do about Russia and its place in the global community.  The road to reconciliation and justice will be long.  But, we will deal with this.  Hopefully, this not a wake-up call for further militarization, but a wake-up call for building credible global and national infrastructures for peace to prevent or mitigate future conflicts.  Already there is a political cry for increasing defence expenditures.

At this infection point, positive solutions always exist and are available.  It is always a question of political will and values.   In considering overarching global solutions, two alternatives stand out:

• Reorient the world view regarding international law to regarding “just peace” interventions and operations, as a strict precursor to “just war” interventions. Adopt a world view that identifies and faces conflict and peace as a collective obligation to act, and in a manner that prioritizes non-violence and human security. (See annex A)

• Reorient the world view towards building new infrastructures for peace (I4P) and cultures of peace as a priority.  The world must invest at least half as much in peace and peace education as it does in militarization.  This means strong global and national peace institutions (See annex B) and effective peace architectures.  (See Annexe C)

Whatever the choices are after this war, there is “karma” attached to them.  They will be who we are.  They will again define the future for generations to come.  Choose peace.

Paul Maillet

Accredited Peace Professional (CPSC)

pmaillet@magma.ca

FOLLOWING BELOW

Annex A.  A Resolution for ‘Just peace’ Intervention before ‘Just war’ Interventions

Annex B.  A Resolution for Establishment of Infrastructures for Peace (I4P)

Annex C.  A Resolution for Peace Architectures

2022 Open Letter to Minister of Defence on F35 Selection

Dear Minister Anand;

As a former air force colonel and former CF18 fleet engineering life cycle manager, I am writing to express my deep disappointment for the recent F35 announcement to select the F35 as the next fighter for the Air Force.

Not only was this an election promise broken, but a fundamental departure from Canadian government direction for contributing to international peace and stability.  The statement by the PM that “we are back” rings very hollow today.

I am sure you understand that this aircraft has only one purpose and that is to kill people or destroy infrastructure.  It is, or will be, a nuclear weapon capable, air-to-air and air- to-ground attack aircraft optimized to war fighting.  This contributes solely to war.    It is a horrific weapon, the type of which has been used in the past decades in bombing missions in cities, and the cause of terrible suffering and civilian deaths.   Just look at the suffering and death occurring in Ukraine today from bombing. 

NATO spends more than 10 times annually in military capabilities than does Russia.  How much is enough?  What is this outcry for more defence expenditures in the face of this?  Where are our military brigades dedicated, trained and resourced to creating safe havens, humanitarian aid delivery and protection, ceasefire monitoring?   I was so hopeful for your tenure as defence minister as an independent voice and willing to stand up to the military establishment and their endless push for more money, and the lobbying of special interests.  The wish list is bottomless.  I do not see this in you today.   Just say no. Find another way. Canadian defence requirements for an aircraft capable of policing Canadian airspace and national sovereignty can be easily met by a far less expensive and less complex aircraft.

It is very clear that we cannot afford the F35.   This is the most expensive US weapons project in their military history, and will consume our defence budget in its mid life years. 

The F35 requires a very complex and unaffordable military battle management infrastructure reaching into space, to realize its capabilities, and we will be wholly dependent on US military infrastructure for this.  We will be just another squadron or two of the US Air Force and as such dependent on its foreign policy and military predispositions to conflict responses.  The life cycle costs will be astronomical, easily exceeding $40 billion; and outstanding technical deficiencies will plague the aircraft, and defence budget, for decades.

I have been involved in aircraft procurement during my career and know how selection is dependent on the statement of requirement (SOR).  The SOR, which can be skewed in any direction needs civilian oversight;  for example, the weight given to stealth, which is a very very perishable quality in todays climate of accelerating technical advancement and can give a bidding advantage to the F35.  Not to mention the competing and emerging capacities of drones.

I do not see how this aircraft can, in any way, win on cost, and certainly not on independent Canadian performance and operational needs.  The F35 has massively excessive capabilities to our needs.  It is like buying a high end Ferrari just to go for groceries.  

If we believe in contributing to international peace and stability, the money is far better spent elsewhere.  I implore you to rethink what you are doing, and please listen to a wider group of experts in the field.  There is no future in war.

Good luck Minister. This is your legacy.   Please make Canada proud of you.  Today we feel diminished.

Yours sincerely;

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired.

2022 Ukraine and the victims of wars in the last decades

There are no words.

2021 Canadian Federal election and question about National Defence

A question to ask your federal candidates, given government policy direction regarding a return to “international peace and stability” for National Defence.  

Regarding international peace and stability, what would you do to create, or permanently re-organize, a preponderance of major DND units regarding missions, equipment, training, funding and resources; to provide permanent standby, and deployed operational capacities to respond to climate disasters, pandemics, and international conflict from a peace operations perspective?

In my view, this is the future greatest good, the most reliable funding source, and the greatest source of public support, for DND sustainability in the next decades.  Everything else will be a  huge struggle and an incrementally losing battle for DND.  Delay is the deadliest form of denial.

Good luck to us all

2021 The Fall of Afghanistan

It is not that credible voices were not out there with warnings and alternatives, it is that decision makers and the military leadership were only listening to what they wanted to hear.  They wanted war and validation. 

As a retired Colonel, I wrote to the Canadian Manley Commission on Afghanistan in 2007 about the unwinnable nature of this war from a military perspective.   I was published by the Canadian Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies.  Ideas that never got serious attention.   We did not learn history, that insurgents can defeat superpowers in long grinding wars of attrition using guerilla tactics and a strategy of becoming “ formless”  (Lao Tzu).  Vietnam.  We never seem to learn, that military force as the dominant element of foreign policy, how ever well intentioned, is endless death and suffering.    How many times before we learn that one cannot kill one’s way to any measure of “victory”?

So what now? Billions and billions of dollars of weapons finding their way to the Taliban?  A disbanded 300,000-person government army possibly with weapons, and although fragmented, is something for the Taliban to worry about.     If so inclined, it is now them who can become “formless”, and weapons and logistics suppliers will be easy to find.

The Taliban now have a country that has seen two decades of freedom, technology, cell phones, music, internet, theatre, women’s education and rights, and some beginnings of democracy, albeit very corrupt. This will be a problem for the Taliban.  A brain drain will be a problem.  Running a country of 39 million, bigger than Canada, with only some 70,000 Taliban, would give me pause.  I think there are Taliban dreams of 1999, but the reality is that the country is different now.  The people may not be so cooperative this time around.    I have a nagging suspicion that things will be different and compromises may be necessary.  We will see.  How different will be the question?  The Taliban now have to govern and they are out in the light. The war may be easier than the governing for them.  They need to face the pandemic and climate change.  What of women holding jobs throughout society, in hospitals, as judges, in business, government services?   This is not 1999 anymore.  The problems they face will be huge and maybe insurmountable without international help.

So, what role the global community?  What will Russia and China do?   Russia was burned badly in their last incursion into Afghanistan.  China wants this country for their silk road, but at what cost?

What of the west in all this?  The uncomfortable truth.  In the anger of 911, the US started this war, with NATO coming on board.  Outcomes were trillions of dollars spent, the countless dead, suffering and traumatized.  We deposed the Taliban.  The US invaded Iraq.  More dead and suffering.   Bin Laden was hunted down almost as a footnote to the wars.   Perhaps the question is of accepting responsibility for our actions.  Telling the truth.  Making restitution.  Apology.  This trauma will last for generations. We unleashed this horror and humanity is diminished.  We owe them.  History will not judge us well.

What did we learn?   Once again that war is the worst response to conflict imaginable.  It is a response that reflects the worst of human existence.  The death of innocent people with super power weapons, though perhaps unintended, is 100% foreseeable, and as such a crime against humanity.  For military intervention to be a last resort we need viable other “resorts” as a strict precursor to the laws of armed conflict.  We need peace ministries capable of non-violent peace building, peace making, and peace keeping.  We need Ministries of Peace that advise governments.  Ministries that advocate impartiality, presence, non violence and with diplomatic and mediation skills.  We need Peace Operations that talk to all sides.  That build safe havens.  That protect populations. That provide humanitarian aid.  As the adage goes, we need to “give peace a chance” before warfighting.  The core mandates of military establishments should be first of peace operations, and not warfighting, as a reflex response to conflict and foreign policy. 

The peace and stability of the world should be seen as necessary for the peace and stability of any individual country.  The question for us all, is how to contribute to this?  We need a new era of peace operations and peace institutions.

Good luck to us all.