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

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.

2021 No More War

No More War.

“Civilized people talk”.   How we talk is important.  We must be sensitive to non-violent communication.

The human project is clearly to live in peace together and share and protect the land.   God is not a real estate agent.

We must face the problem of violence and war and suffering, and not by causing any further suffering or death.

We must find balance between prudent security and building peace and harmony.

2020 A historic national opportunity for advancement of Peace

Dear friends. I would like to propose a significant policy and political opportunity for all nations towards the advancement of both domestic and international peace and stability. This could have global impact and certainly enhance the position of nations as true proponent of peace in the national and global community.

There is currently an international initiative, that has been underway for some years to table a UN resolution entitled Establishment of Ministries or Departments and other National Infrastructures for Peace. The resolution, is intended to by presented to the UN General Assembly in the UN fall sitting in September 2021. Currently the resolution will be presented by H.E. UN Ambassador Rodrigo A. Carazo and the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations. We suggest there is a significant opportunity for nations to lead or join or be involved in the development and presentation of this resolution.

This resolution could be historic, as it represents a coherent approach to developing institutions of peace and cultures of peace that can be a preventative and credible, and act a critical precursor to the use of military intervention to address conflict. Armed intervention in response to conflict must truly be a last resort.

The involvement of your country in this resolution could be a significant opportunity to advance international and domestic peace.

In the cause of advancing domestic and international peace and stability, we solicit your support in advocating for the advancement of this resolution by your government

2020 Code of Conduct for Community Racial Harmony

A moment spent in hatred of others is a moment of love and happiness lost forever.

 Most dictionary definitions of racism lack moral content.  For our purposes, perhaps a working definition of racism is as the superior belief by some, that other groups of people are inferior corresponding to physical appearance or ethnicity, and thus are treated with prejudice or discrimination and less deserving of equality, respect, dignity, and basic human rights.

Racism is a particularly divisive and destructive form of human behaviour.  It comes with its own karma.  Karma is often reflected in the kind of person one becomes, which in this case is certainly not conducive to good mental and physical health.    It can be systemic, or individual.   Systemic can be seen as the causes, conditions and mimetic structures that enable racist behaviours and create victimization. The literature is endless. The question is finding practical simple approaches to build racial harmony, and respond to racism in our daily lives.  This may involve such as:

• Building racial harmony. The acceptance of social norms, values and expectations.  Living such values and practices.  The principle of harmony within the self and harmony between the self and others.
• Confronting racism. Being aware of wrongdoing or misbehaviours, and taking action, both as an individual and as a community. Being listened to, taken seriously and being supported.  Silence is complicity.

Building racial harmony

Racial harmony is not to be taken for granted and requires a constant response of vigilance and practice.  The need for a healthy meta approach around racial groups is important. This means communities of peace, a sense of everyone feeling welcome, feeling safe, job opportunities, equal access to health care and education.   This means clear behavioural expectations from everyone.  Racial harmony begins within the self, before it can be possible between the self and others.

Building Racial harmony within.  This is about building racial harmony in the self.

• Initially, the need is for all persons know themselves, and to be aware and attentive to the mimetic structures around them that influence and condition their values, beliefs and behaviours. This is the first step to making free and unconditioned choices that reflect compassion and care.   We must all reflect on what influences our beliefs and actions regarding people of color.
• Resolve to live the basic peace and ethical practices regarding racial harmony.
• Resolve to be an honest and compassionate person, be grateful for the blessings you have, and wish them for others.
• Commit to the ethics and values of racial awareness, non violence, respect and gratitude.

Building Racial harmony between.  This is about building racial harmony in the community and between others:

• The number one expectation for building racial harmony is the use of non violent communication. (NVC)
• Be aware of the racial climate in such as the workplaces or community life and resolve to contribute to a good and harmonious racial climate.
• Talk to the next generation about racism, about what is harmful and that they have good choices when they live with or encounter racial diversity.
• This is to assert and practice, racial inclusiveness, racial dialogue, equality and respect in your life, workplace and the community social life.
• Everyone can set an example of leadership in racial harmony.

Confronting Racism.

In the self and others, beware “the sword of righteousness” that can lead to rage and violence.  We need both consensus and resolve in confronting racism.

Racist Indicators:  We all know what is wrong and harmful.  Perhaps an approach of indicators and responses is helpful in early stages of social awareness and change.

Individual behavioural indicators. Some of the most harmful indicators are:

• The use of language that is disrespectful or the use of racial slurs.
• Behaviour that involves outright violence, intimidation, discrimination, or reprisals.
• Behaviour that reflects inequality, preferential treatment, unfair advantage, lack of privilege enjoyed by others
• Social isolation, either in the workplace or community, a general a lack of insider access or participation to what is going on, that involves or concerns them.
• The misuse of power. Racism means prejudice with power, either in work relationships, or from the police or authorities.

Systemic or institutional indicators.

• The existence of institutional policies or rules or norms opportunities, that are exclusionary, or racist, whether intentional or not.
• The existence of an inter-racial climate or atmosphere of racial tension or animosity.
• The existence of toxic or violent mimetic structures, (mimicking values and beliefs to survive or belong), and which are passed from generation to generation.

Indicators in disadvantaged groups or victims.

• The existence of conditions of poverty, economic, health care, or educational disadvantage within racial groups.
• The existence of adverse effects on well being and mental health, conditions of fear and trauma, in racial groups.

Responding to Racism 

• You have a responsibility to act whether you are a victim or witness.
• See something. Feel something.  Say something.  Do something.  Consider your safety.  Talk to someone you trust.
• Recall the “facing wrongdoing” practices, the disclosure and reprisal protection measures.
• If you elect to seek social change, recall the practices of non violence activism.
• In terms of toxic mimetic structures, advocate awareness, the first step to finding ways to break cycles of violence.

Community Principles for Racial Harmony

You have a duty to contribute to both confronting racism and building racial harmony in the community.  The following principles may be useful.

• We are a community that accepts that our moral worth is how we treat the most disadvantaged, vulnerable, suffering and marginalized amongst us. This includes minorities, and the racial and ethnic groups we have.
• We are a community that will not accept racist behaviour, and have clear expectations and laws against racism.
• We are a community that actively supports and celebrates racial diversity and equality.
• We are a community that actively values dignity for all, that enables self respect, and where all can live well in the company of others.

Code of conduct for Racial Harmony

Four Directions

1. Racism is not acceptable!
2. See something, say something!
3. Practice Non violent communication!!
4. Dignity, equality and respect for all!

 

Annex.  The racial climate

The racial climate is the reality of the harmony, blessing, or animosity, or violence that exists in the self in their lives, workplaces and community. Everyone must be sensitive to the racial climate for that defines expectations, reality and behaviours.  It is not a goal but a response to everyday life and a resolve to wake up every day and not refuse to do what one can do.

Similar to the ethics climate is can be defined in terms of language space and violence.  Language that is non violent, but that the words racial harmony and racism are in common usage especially by leaders and when concerns are expressed, they are taken seriously and listened to.  Space is the natural creation of making immediate room to discuss such matters in a respectful manner, that practices NVC, and has a bias and shared intention to solve the issues with respect, compassion, justice and care for each other.

 

Reference.  Paul Maillet Center for Ethics and Peace Services.  Basic Peace Practices Guide

2020 UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) Endorsement

The proposal for a standing UNEPS is fully endorsed and long past due.  The reflexive use of the laws of armed intervention, begs the creation of serious non-violent alternatives to make such intervention a truly last resort to conflict.  However, such an emergency capacity, to be successful, needs to be situated within a larger institutional UN capacity of peace building, peace making and peace keeping, and within a firm codification of peace operations as a strict precursor to the use of military intervention.  More is needed than what may be essentially a reactive response to pre conflict, during conflict of post conflict situations.   Negative peace, the cessation of violent conflict, must go in hand with positive peace, the building of well-being and harmonious co-existence.  This is a good start.