June 3, 2025 • 27 mins
Our world is unraveling at an accelerating pace. War and conflict are spreading like contagion, ravaging the face of the earth. Our efforts to stop the contagion have hitherto been ineffectual as we reach for the same outworn playbooks over and over again. And yet, we can and must act quickly to stop the contagion and the heartrending suffering it brings. It is time to understand and shed the habits that have held us back and take bold new steps and try new paths we have never considered before. Join me as we explore once such path together.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sovaida (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
Welcome to this episode with me,your host, Sovaida Maani.
Today I hope to cover with youan idea about how we might stem
(00:35):
the path of war that we're on,the scourge of war, the tide of
war by pursuing a new path thatwe have never pursued before, by
trying something innovative,something new that requires a
lot of courage.
Before I dive in, I wanted tolet you all know that these
(00:57):
podcasts, the Reimagining OurWorld Series is now available on
all your audio podcastplatforms, in addition to being
available on the CPGG YouTubechannel.
So it just makes it easier foryou all to listen to these
podcasts.
We're now at episode 49, whichis quite exciting given that I
(01:18):
started this initiative in thefirst year of COVID.
Seems like an eternity ago now.
All right, I wanted to start byoffering you an insight that I
gleaned from reading some reallyinteresting material from a
gentleman by the name of SeanAker, who was a Harvard
(01:40):
researcher in positivepsychology.
You may have heard of him.
He conducted the most popularcourse on Harvard's campus, on
happiness.
He's got some very interestingmaterials that he has gleaned
himself as a result of his manyyears of research.
And there was one thing that Iwanted to hone in on, because I
(02:03):
thought we might think about howwe could leverage it and apply
it to tackling one of thebiggest scourges of our time,
which is war and conflict.
Let's start by looking at thekernel of the idea offered by
Sean Aker.
He says that in times of crisisand adversity, our kneejerk
(02:26):
response is to do one of twothings.
The first thing we tend to do isto repeat the same dysfunctional
behavior that got us intotrouble in the first place.
He calls this the first path.
Our second knee-jerk behavior insimilar circumstances, i.e., in
response to crisis andadversity, is to take a few
(02:48):
steps back to undo a lot of theprogress that we've made to
unravel the achievements that wehave made.
In other words, we regress.
He calls this the second path.
Now he suggests that instead offalling into the trap of
pursuing the first path or thesecond path, what we should
(03:13):
really be doing is using themomentum of failure.
So as we are spiraling down,failing, use that momentum to
catapult ourselves in a newdirection, what he calls the
third direction, or the thirdpath, which is essentially a
direction that we have neverconsidered before.
(03:35):
It's really important, somethingwe've never considered before.
What we tend to do is we takeall things we've done and we
tweak them here and we tweakthem there and a little
modification or maybe we takeaway a couple of things and we
try again.
And this approach to tacklingglobal problems, especially the
(03:57):
problem of war, simply has notworked.
In other words, what he'ssuggesting is that we use crises
and the downward spiral offailure as a catalyst for
creative thinking and bold newaction.
Now to doing this involves amindset, creating a new mindset.
(04:20):
Which means that we've gotta bewilling to view failure, not as
failure--"Woe is us! We failed,"but as a"Yippie! This is an
opportunity for growth.
What can we do differently toreally grow?" It also involves a
second habit of thought, andthat is to be boldly creative.
(04:42):
As Albert Einstein famouslysaid,"We cannot solve our
problems with the same thinkingwe used when we created them."
So we've gotta adopt an entirelynew way of thinking.
As somebody said, it's not evena question of thinking outside
the box.
We've gotta get rid of the boxaltogether, the whole concept of
(05:03):
the box.
The outcome when we do this isthat tests, that come to all of
us in life, either in ourindividual lives or societally
as a collective whole, can beturned from stumbling blocks
into stepping stones towards abetter future.
And this is the key thing tohold onto.
This is the key idea, becausehonestly, when we're failing, we
(05:29):
tend to feel helpless andhopeless.
And when we feel those things,we stop believing that a
solution even exists.
And so we don't bother lookingfor it.
So this is a key component,believing that something is
possible, believing that a morepeaceful and secure world is
(05:50):
possible.
Now, I was racking my brainsthinking about what example
could I come up with, or let metest Mr.
Aker's proposition out.
So what illustration can I comeup with that demonstrates the
truth of what he's asserting interms of the first path and
second path and third path?
(06:12):
And the example I landed on wasthat of Brexit.
So if you'll indulge me for asecond, I want to share with you
my thoughts here.
After Britain's painful divorcefrom the EU, we saw each of
these three paths play out.
Let's look at the first path,which was repeating the same
(06:33):
behavior.
Some countries in the EU wantedto continue the same policies
and patterns that had alienatedBritain from the EU instead of
undertaking reform in an attemptto reel Britain back in.
So that was the first path.
(06:53):
Regarding the second path, therewere certain countries, like
Poland, who were calling forsteps to reclaim greater
autonomy for EU member states,giving them more freedom from
Brussels over their internalaffairs.
By doing so, they would beundoing the hard won progress in
(07:15):
the direction of deeper Europeanintegration.
The European project has reallybeen a drive, if you step back
and zoom out, it's been a driveto towards deeper European
integration-- which by the way,was consonant with the vision of
its founding father, Jean Monet,whose brainchild it was-- that
(07:40):
links would be created in anever increasing chain of
integration in the EuropeanUnion, leading eventually in his
mind and so he hoped to aEuropean Federation along the
lines of the United States ofAmerica.
So a United States of Europe.
So what about the third path inthe context of Brexit?
(08:03):
This is what is so fascinating.
During the whole saga of Brexit,there were calls heard for a
third path to be pursued towardcollective growth, marked by
deeper integration.
One of the places we saw andheard this call was in the
(08:24):
groundbreaking report producedby the then French and German
foreign ministers, Jean- MarcAyrault and Frank Walter
Steinmeyer.
In this report, theyacknowledged the following-- I
find it really interesting--that Europe was in the crucible
of a severe test from which theywere confident it would emerge
(08:47):
stronger than ever.
So just this ability toconceptualize what an entire
group of nations, association ofNations is going through, a
confederation,as being in thecrucible of a test I found
really interesting.
They then went on to say thatthey viewed the crisis caused by
(09:07):
Brexit as an opportunity.
So there we are, opportunity forgrowth, an opportunity to
develop common answers to theircommon challenges.
Consequently, they called forcloser cooperation on matters
relating to defense, securityand intelligence sharing, the
(09:28):
joint patrolling of externalborders, a common migration and
asylum policy.
These were all issues that hadbeen critical to Britain's
decision to withdraw from theEuropean Union.
They also called forharmonization of corporation tax
and other financial reforms.
(09:49):
In fact, they were so positivein their outlook that they went
as far as to confidently predictthat the countries of the EU
would move further to towardpolitical integration in union.
In other words, furthering thedirection of Jean Monet's
original vision for it.
We all know the story.
Britain ultimately opted toleave in 2020, and yet the
(10:13):
remaining 27 members of theunion still have the option of
working toward a more deeplyintegrated EU, which they're
being forced to do by dint ofcircumstance, especially the war
in Ukraine.
And they need to do this byreforming certain key areas.
There is always the possibilitythat if such reforms were to
(10:37):
take place, Britain might atsome point wish to rejoin a
stronger, better EU sometime inthe future.
One can hope.
Now, why is all this relevant?
It's all relevant to aparticularly grim challenge that
the global community is facingand has been facing for a number
(10:59):
of years, and which is justdeepening.
The trouble of war and conflict,which is like a contagion that
is rippling through the world.
It's a conflagration, and thefires are getting worse and
worse.
A lot of people are dying.
A lot of people are sufferingunnecessarily, and so we need to
(11:21):
put our thinking caps on andcome up with some effective
solutions.
So I was thinking that we couldtake Sean Aker's insights about
our knee-jerk reactions andapply them in this arena and see
what we come up with.
But first we need to be aware ofwhat we're doing.
(11:41):
So let's look at what we'redoing in this context, viewed
through the prism of Aker'sanalysis.
As the world rapidly unravelsaround us, and as the storm
clouds of war and carnage coverthis ever widening swathe of
humanity, we see that feelingsof insecurity and fear have
(12:02):
gripped us in all continents,Africa, Asia, the Americas,
Europe, et cetera.
Now let's look at our knee-jerkresponses-- the first path.
We have indeed reached andcontinue to reach for the tried
and true solution of amassinggreater quantities of arms: more
(12:24):
arms for Ukraine, more arms forRussia, more for all the NATO
countries, more for Taiwan, morefor China, more for the United
States, more for countries inAfrica, and on and on it goes
This behavior is self-defeatingand self-destructive, because
(12:46):
the more arms we amass, thegreater the chance that we will
use them either deliberately orby accident.
We've been down this road beforeso many times, and especially in
the lead up to the First WorldWar and the Second World War.
We see what happens when there'sthis global mobilization of arms
(13:08):
and troops, and the machinery ofwar gets rolling.
Inevitably, it is going to beused.
Nowhere is this more apparentand dangerous than in the
acquisition of capabilities tobuild nuclear facilities that
can be easily diverted fromproviding civilian nuclear
(13:30):
energy to military use, thebuilding of atomic bombs.
And indeed an increasing numberof countries is seeking ways to
acquire nuclear knowhow andacquire their own nuclear
facilities in which they canenrich uranium or extract
plutonium, both of which areessential ingredients for
(13:51):
building an atom bomb.
Now let's look at the secondpath, the path of regress, not
doing the same, but undoinggains and progress made.
We're starting to see a reallydangerous trend of withdrawal
from international humanitariandisarmament treaties to be more
(14:14):
specific.
In March of this year, 2025, astatement was made by the Baltic
States, Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, and Finland, and
Poland have expressed a similardesire to withdraw from the
Ottawa Treaty on landmines thathas been ratified by a hundred
(14:38):
and sixty four countries andcame into force in 1999.
Now, while countries are allowedto withdraw from this treaty, so
long as they give six monthsnotice, and as long as they're
not already involved in armedconflict, this is a very
dangerous precedent.
In addition, Lithuania has alsoalready withdrawn from the
(15:01):
convention on cluster munitions,to which the other Baltic states
are not signatories, and Polandhas now also said it's
considering withdrawing from thesame treaty.
Cluster munitions and landminesare extremely destructive.
Cluster munitions can be droppedfrom aircraft or fired from
(15:21):
artillery.
They explode midair and theyscatter bomblets over a very
wide area.
Many fail to detonate andeffectively act as landmines
that can be detonated many yearsdown the road.
The people who suffer the mostfrom both landmines and cluster
(15:42):
munitions are civilians,especially women and children
who are out in the fields orchildren who are out playing.
They come across one of thesethings and it explodes and they
lose their limbs or faces andheads, and so on.
It's very gruesome, which is whythe world decided on
humanitarian grounds to createthese conventions to ban both
(16:07):
landmines and cluster munitions.
Now, here's the interestingpart.
These countries who have stateda desire to withdraw or have
already withdrawn from one orother, these two treaties say
that they do this with a heavyheart, but that they don't see
another way.
(16:28):
That statement they don't seeanother way is critical and it
jibes perfectly with Sean Aker'sstatement that in the second
path, when we regress, we getmyopic.
Fear grips us when we're in thethroes of a crisis.
We don't see other solutions.
We become very narrowly focusedand the only way we can see is
(16:52):
to undo some of the progresswe've made, which is not the
best way to go, to put itmildly.
So these countries cite theescalating tensions with Russia
and the growing securityconcerns along NATO's Eastern
border, all of which areentirely understandable.
They feel the need to reassess,therefore, their defense
(17:12):
strategies in order to give themmore flexibility and freedom to
respond more effectively to thepotential military threats.
And in fact, Lavia was bluntenough to say that having
observed the war in Ukraine,they've seen that in Ukraine,
the use by Ukraine of antipersonnel landmines when
(17:33):
combined with other weaponry andmines has been effective in
increasing the strength of thedefense forces by delaying the
advance of the Russian military.
So this is their analysis,right?
"We need to do whatever ittakes." And the other principle
that we've covered at length inone of these episodes, the false
(17:56):
premise that the ends alwaysjustify the means, as opposed to
what we propose as analternative, that the means must
always be as worthy as the ends.
So here you have a stark exampleof how that is playing out real
time, even as we speak.
Now, if there's any doubt thatthis is a regression, the
(18:18):
European Commission didn't wantto castigate these nations or
criticize them, but they didnote that since 2023-- so this
is 2025 and the announcement wasmade in March 2025-- so over the
last two years, it hascontributed over 174 million
euros to humanitarian mineaction, including 97 million
(18:43):
euros, specifically from mineclearance.
Honestly, think of the crazinessof this.
On the one hand, we are spendingan enormous amount of money to
clear mines because we recognizehow destructive and dangerous
they are.
And on the other hand, we arewithdrawing from the mine
(19:03):
conventions and the clustermunition convention on the
ground that we want to have thefreedom and flexibility to put
down landmines and use clustermunitions.
It just honestly makes no sense.
It's like somebody setting ahouse on fire, then getting the
fire brigade in to put theflames out and then immediately
lighting the next match, anddoing this over and over again.
(19:24):
It truly is in some sense apicture of insanity.
This is insane behavior and atthe very least what we can agree
that it is behavior that doesnot make much sense.
Surely there's got to be abetter way.
Now, I did say that it'sunderstandable that these
nations have a lot of fear, andit truly is understandable.
(19:47):
It's also understandable in thesense that we have a system in
which not everybody abides bythe same rules.
So we know that Russia, forinstance, has used both cluster
munitions and landmines in itsconflict with Ukraine.
So surely the answer isn't thento make it a free for all and go
(20:09):
back to the primitive days whenanybody can use any means to
wreak havoc and destruction andto win a conflict or a war.
There's got to be a better waythat is more consonant with
humanity's increasing progresstowards maturity, collective
maturity (20:27):
by creating a system that applies even-handedly to
everyone, in which there arerules that allow for enforcement
of the provisions that everybodyagrees to.
Otherwise, right now we have asituation where this action by a
few upstanding countries cansend a negative signal to other
(20:50):
countries who are also in armedconflict that adhering to these
conventions isn't really thatimportant, and we don't really
need to continue doing this, sowe too will withdraw from the
treaty.
And then where are we?
So what is the potential thirdpath, which is really the crux
of this presentation and whatwe're driving towards.
(21:15):
There is another way.
It is the only untried and yet,I believe, viable solution to
ensuring that all nationseverywhere feel secure, which is
what they all claim that they'reseeking, and they can therefore
(21:37):
stop wasting their preciousresources, be they financial or
human resources, human bodiesbasically on feeding the machine
of war.
This third path was originallysuggested in the second part of
the 19th century by a Persiannobleman.
He made this proposal beforehumanity had even gone through
(22:01):
and experienced a world war.
He articulated the need fornations to come together and
enter into a bindinginternational covenant, in which
they would do several things.
The first was that they wouldlimit the amount of arms that
each would have to the amountnecessary to preserve order
(22:24):
within their borders.
Then all the excess arms wouldbe destroyed.
And we can talk about how thiscould be unpacked.
In fact, we've talked about thisin other sessions, that it would
need to be done underinternational supervision to
ensure that all nations werehonest brokers and complied with
their commitments under thetreaty and who that
(22:47):
international body is.
We also have had conversationsabout, so if you go back through
the episodes and their headings,you will see what they are.
Then there would be a universalagreement on a principle of
collective security.
In other words, that if onenation party to this agreement,
and it's universal agreements,so all nations need to be party
(23:09):
or at least a good majority,that if one nation were to flout
the provisions of thisagreement, all the nations would
unitedly arise to bring it toheal, because they would not
allow one nation to disrupt thepeace of the world.
So it's like acting quickly.
When you have a cancerdiagnosis, you don't wait for
(23:29):
those cancerous cells toproliferate.
You immediately step in and,surgically if you can, remove
those cells and then go in ifnecessary, and zap the rest with
pretty harsh chemicals becausethe life of the entire body, and
in this case, the wellbeing ofhumanity is at stake.
(23:51):
There was also a proposal bythis nobleman for the creation
of a permanent internationalpolice force composed of forces
from all nations of the worldwho would also contribute
armaments and so on, accordingto an agreement that was
obviously depending on theircapacities and so on.
(24:13):
The decisions about when and howto use this force would be made
collectively through a globallegislature that would be
representative of all thecountries and peoples of the
world.
So this idea of collectiveaction: collective agreement,
first of all, on what the rulesare.
Collective action through acollective mechanism of an
(24:36):
international standing force orpermanent police force.
And the decision making is alsomade by a body that collectively
represents all the peoples ofthe world.
In other words, individualnations no longer have the right
to use force.
This is really interesting.
So in short, the ingredients weneed, I believe that the key
(24:58):
ingredients we need in order topursue avidly a third path,
including the third pathproposed here of this global
system of collective security,is to have a vision born of
creativity, coupled with thebelief that arriving at the
(25:18):
vision is possible.
And thirdly, the courage to takea new path that has never been
taken before.
This is what I call the successformula.
Frankly, the alternative isuntenable.
The only true question is howmuch more are we willing to
(25:41):
suffer and make other peoplesuffer before we take the
opportunity of exercising ourfree will to bring about
constructive changes that leadto peace.
Now if these are ideas thatresonate with you and you'd like
to learn more and to have afurther infusion of hope, I
(26:03):
would invite you to pick up acopy of The Alchemy of Peace
which essentially will give youmany more reasons to hope that
building a better world ispossible.
It's available on Amazon,wherever you are in the world,
both in digital form andpaperback.
(26:23):
All right thank you for beinghere today and please engage
with this material by putting inyour comments on the YouTube
channel.
And also remember that you canlisten to this podcast in audio
form as you go for a walk orwalk around your home doing
(26:45):
chores, and hopefully it willinspire and uplift you.
Bye-bye.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite
(27:06):
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
Welcome to this episode with me,your host, Sovaida Maani.
Today I hope to cover with youan idea about how we might stem
(00:35):
the path of war that we're on,the scourge of war, the tide of
war by pursuing a new path thatwe have never pursued before, by
trying something innovative,something new that requires a
lot of courage.
Before I dive in, I wanted tolet you all know that these
(00:57):
podcasts, the Reimagining OurWorld Series is now available on
all your audio podcastplatforms, in addition to being
available on the CPGG YouTubechannel.
So it just makes it easier foryou all to listen to these
podcasts.
We're now at episode 49, whichis quite exciting given that I
(01:18):
started this initiative in thefirst year of COVID.
Seems like an eternity ago now.
All right, I wanted to start byoffering you an insight that I
gleaned from reading some reallyinteresting material from a
gentleman by the name of SeanAker, who was a Harvard
(01:40):
researcher in positivepsychology.
You may have heard of him.
He conducted the most popularcourse on Harvard's campus, on
happiness.
He's got some very interestingmaterials that he has gleaned
himself as a result of his manyyears of research.
And there was one thing that Iwanted to hone in on, because I
(02:03):
thought we might think about howwe could leverage it and apply
it to tackling one of thebiggest scourges of our time,
which is war and conflict.
Let's start by looking at thekernel of the idea offered by
Sean Aker.
He says that in times of crisisand adversity, our kneejerk
(02:26):
response is to do one of twothings.
The first thing we tend to do isto repeat the same dysfunctional
behavior that got us intotrouble in the first place.
He calls this the first path.
Our second knee-jerk behavior insimilar circumstances, i.e., in
response to crisis andadversity, is to take a few
(02:48):
steps back to undo a lot of theprogress that we've made to
unravel the achievements that wehave made.
In other words, we regress.
He calls this the second path.
Now he suggests that instead offalling into the trap of
pursuing the first path or thesecond path, what we should
(03:13):
really be doing is using themomentum of failure.
So as we are spiraling down,failing, use that momentum to
catapult ourselves in a newdirection, what he calls the
third direction, or the thirdpath, which is essentially a
direction that we have neverconsidered before.
(03:35):
It's really important, somethingwe've never considered before.
What we tend to do is we takeall things we've done and we
tweak them here and we tweakthem there and a little
modification or maybe we takeaway a couple of things and we
try again.
And this approach to tacklingglobal problems, especially the
(03:57):
problem of war, simply has notworked.
In other words, what he'ssuggesting is that we use crises
and the downward spiral offailure as a catalyst for
creative thinking and bold newaction.
Now to doing this involves amindset, creating a new mindset.
(04:20):
Which means that we've gotta bewilling to view failure, not as
failure--"Woe is us! We failed,"but as a"Yippie! This is an
opportunity for growth.
What can we do differently toreally grow?" It also involves a
second habit of thought, andthat is to be boldly creative.
(04:42):
As Albert Einstein famouslysaid,"We cannot solve our
problems with the same thinkingwe used when we created them."
So we've gotta adopt an entirelynew way of thinking.
As somebody said, it's not evena question of thinking outside
the box.
We've gotta get rid of the boxaltogether, the whole concept of
(05:03):
the box.
The outcome when we do this isthat tests, that come to all of
us in life, either in ourindividual lives or societally
as a collective whole, can beturned from stumbling blocks
into stepping stones towards abetter future.
And this is the key thing tohold onto.
This is the key idea, becausehonestly, when we're failing, we
(05:29):
tend to feel helpless andhopeless.
And when we feel those things,we stop believing that a
solution even exists.
And so we don't bother lookingfor it.
So this is a key component,believing that something is
possible, believing that a morepeaceful and secure world is
(05:50):
possible.
Now, I was racking my brainsthinking about what example
could I come up with, or let metest Mr.
Aker's proposition out.
So what illustration can I comeup with that demonstrates the
truth of what he's asserting interms of the first path and
second path and third path?
(06:12):
And the example I landed on wasthat of Brexit.
So if you'll indulge me for asecond, I want to share with you
my thoughts here.
After Britain's painful divorcefrom the EU, we saw each of
these three paths play out.
Let's look at the first path,which was repeating the same
(06:33):
behavior.
Some countries in the EU wantedto continue the same policies
and patterns that had alienatedBritain from the EU instead of
undertaking reform in an attemptto reel Britain back in.
So that was the first path.
(06:53):
Regarding the second path, therewere certain countries, like
Poland, who were calling forsteps to reclaim greater
autonomy for EU member states,giving them more freedom from
Brussels over their internalaffairs.
By doing so, they would beundoing the hard won progress in
(07:15):
the direction of deeper Europeanintegration.
The European project has reallybeen a drive, if you step back
and zoom out, it's been a driveto towards deeper European
integration-- which by the way,was consonant with the vision of
its founding father, Jean Monet,whose brainchild it was-- that
(07:40):
links would be created in anever increasing chain of
integration in the EuropeanUnion, leading eventually in his
mind and so he hoped to aEuropean Federation along the
lines of the United States ofAmerica.
So a United States of Europe.
So what about the third path inthe context of Brexit?
(08:03):
This is what is so fascinating.
During the whole saga of Brexit,there were calls heard for a
third path to be pursued towardcollective growth, marked by
deeper integration.
One of the places we saw andheard this call was in the
(08:24):
groundbreaking report producedby the then French and German
foreign ministers, Jean- MarcAyrault and Frank Walter
Steinmeyer.
In this report, theyacknowledged the following-- I
find it really interesting--that Europe was in the crucible
of a severe test from which theywere confident it would emerge
(08:47):
stronger than ever.
So just this ability toconceptualize what an entire
group of nations, association ofNations is going through, a
confederation,as being in thecrucible of a test I found
really interesting.
They then went on to say thatthey viewed the crisis caused by
(09:07):
Brexit as an opportunity.
So there we are, opportunity forgrowth, an opportunity to
develop common answers to theircommon challenges.
Consequently, they called forcloser cooperation on matters
relating to defense, securityand intelligence sharing, the
(09:28):
joint patrolling of externalborders, a common migration and
asylum policy.
These were all issues that hadbeen critical to Britain's
decision to withdraw from theEuropean Union.
They also called forharmonization of corporation tax
and other financial reforms.
(09:49):
In fact, they were so positivein their outlook that they went
as far as to confidently predictthat the countries of the EU
would move further to towardpolitical integration in union.
In other words, furthering thedirection of Jean Monet's
original vision for it.
We all know the story.
Britain ultimately opted toleave in 2020, and yet the
(10:13):
remaining 27 members of theunion still have the option of
working toward a more deeplyintegrated EU, which they're
being forced to do by dint ofcircumstance, especially the war
in Ukraine.
And they need to do this byreforming certain key areas.
There is always the possibilitythat if such reforms were to
(10:37):
take place, Britain might atsome point wish to rejoin a
stronger, better EU sometime inthe future.
One can hope.
Now, why is all this relevant?
It's all relevant to aparticularly grim challenge that
the global community is facingand has been facing for a number
(10:59):
of years, and which is justdeepening.
The trouble of war and conflict,which is like a contagion that
is rippling through the world.
It's a conflagration, and thefires are getting worse and
worse.
A lot of people are dying.
A lot of people are sufferingunnecessarily, and so we need to
(11:21):
put our thinking caps on andcome up with some effective
solutions.
So I was thinking that we couldtake Sean Aker's insights about
our knee-jerk reactions andapply them in this arena and see
what we come up with.
But first we need to be aware ofwhat we're doing.
(11:41):
So let's look at what we'redoing in this context, viewed
through the prism of Aker'sanalysis.
As the world rapidly unravelsaround us, and as the storm
clouds of war and carnage coverthis ever widening swathe of
humanity, we see that feelingsof insecurity and fear have
(12:02):
gripped us in all continents,Africa, Asia, the Americas,
Europe, et cetera.
Now let's look at our knee-jerkresponses-- the first path.
We have indeed reached andcontinue to reach for the tried
and true solution of amassinggreater quantities of arms: more
(12:24):
arms for Ukraine, more arms forRussia, more for all the NATO
countries, more for Taiwan, morefor China, more for the United
States, more for countries inAfrica, and on and on it goes
This behavior is self-defeatingand self-destructive, because
(12:46):
the more arms we amass, thegreater the chance that we will
use them either deliberately orby accident.
We've been down this road beforeso many times, and especially in
the lead up to the First WorldWar and the Second World War.
We see what happens when there'sthis global mobilization of arms
(13:08):
and troops, and the machinery ofwar gets rolling.
Inevitably, it is going to beused.
Nowhere is this more apparentand dangerous than in the
acquisition of capabilities tobuild nuclear facilities that
can be easily diverted fromproviding civilian nuclear
(13:30):
energy to military use, thebuilding of atomic bombs.
And indeed an increasing numberof countries is seeking ways to
acquire nuclear knowhow andacquire their own nuclear
facilities in which they canenrich uranium or extract
plutonium, both of which areessential ingredients for
(13:51):
building an atom bomb.
Now let's look at the secondpath, the path of regress, not
doing the same, but undoinggains and progress made.
We're starting to see a reallydangerous trend of withdrawal
from international humanitariandisarmament treaties to be more
(14:14):
specific.
In March of this year, 2025, astatement was made by the Baltic
States, Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, and Finland, and
Poland have expressed a similardesire to withdraw from the
Ottawa Treaty on landmines thathas been ratified by a hundred
(14:38):
and sixty four countries andcame into force in 1999.
Now, while countries are allowedto withdraw from this treaty, so
long as they give six monthsnotice, and as long as they're
not already involved in armedconflict, this is a very
dangerous precedent.
In addition, Lithuania has alsoalready withdrawn from the
(15:01):
convention on cluster munitions,to which the other Baltic states
are not signatories, and Polandhas now also said it's
considering withdrawing from thesame treaty.
Cluster munitions and landminesare extremely destructive.
Cluster munitions can be droppedfrom aircraft or fired from
(15:21):
artillery.
They explode midair and theyscatter bomblets over a very
wide area.
Many fail to detonate andeffectively act as landmines
that can be detonated many yearsdown the road.
The people who suffer the mostfrom both landmines and cluster
(15:42):
munitions are civilians,especially women and children
who are out in the fields orchildren who are out playing.
They come across one of thesethings and it explodes and they
lose their limbs or faces andheads, and so on.
It's very gruesome, which is whythe world decided on
humanitarian grounds to createthese conventions to ban both
(16:07):
landmines and cluster munitions.
Now, here's the interestingpart.
These countries who have stateda desire to withdraw or have
already withdrawn from one orother, these two treaties say
that they do this with a heavyheart, but that they don't see
another way.
(16:28):
That statement they don't seeanother way is critical and it
jibes perfectly with Sean Aker'sstatement that in the second
path, when we regress, we getmyopic.
Fear grips us when we're in thethroes of a crisis.
We don't see other solutions.
We become very narrowly focusedand the only way we can see is
(16:52):
to undo some of the progresswe've made, which is not the
best way to go, to put itmildly.
So these countries cite theescalating tensions with Russia
and the growing securityconcerns along NATO's Eastern
border, all of which areentirely understandable.
They feel the need to reassess,therefore, their defense
(17:12):
strategies in order to give themmore flexibility and freedom to
respond more effectively to thepotential military threats.
And in fact, Lavia was bluntenough to say that having
observed the war in Ukraine,they've seen that in Ukraine,
the use by Ukraine of antipersonnel landmines when
(17:33):
combined with other weaponry andmines has been effective in
increasing the strength of thedefense forces by delaying the
advance of the Russian military.
So this is their analysis,right?
"We need to do whatever ittakes." And the other principle
that we've covered at length inone of these episodes, the false
(17:56):
premise that the ends alwaysjustify the means, as opposed to
what we propose as analternative, that the means must
always be as worthy as the ends.
So here you have a stark exampleof how that is playing out real
time, even as we speak.
Now, if there's any doubt thatthis is a regression, the
(18:18):
European Commission didn't wantto castigate these nations or
criticize them, but they didnote that since 2023-- so this
is 2025 and the announcement wasmade in March 2025-- so over the
last two years, it hascontributed over 174 million
euros to humanitarian mineaction, including 97 million
(18:43):
euros, specifically from mineclearance.
Honestly, think of the crazinessof this.
On the one hand, we are spendingan enormous amount of money to
clear mines because we recognizehow destructive and dangerous
they are.
And on the other hand, we arewithdrawing from the mine
(19:03):
conventions and the clustermunition convention on the
ground that we want to have thefreedom and flexibility to put
down landmines and use clustermunitions.
It just honestly makes no sense.
It's like somebody setting ahouse on fire, then getting the
fire brigade in to put theflames out and then immediately
lighting the next match, anddoing this over and over again.
(19:24):
It truly is in some sense apicture of insanity.
This is insane behavior and atthe very least what we can agree
that it is behavior that doesnot make much sense.
Surely there's got to be abetter way.
Now, I did say that it'sunderstandable that these
nations have a lot of fear, andit truly is understandable.
(19:47):
It's also understandable in thesense that we have a system in
which not everybody abides bythe same rules.
So we know that Russia, forinstance, has used both cluster
munitions and landmines in itsconflict with Ukraine.
So surely the answer isn't thento make it a free for all and go
(20:09):
back to the primitive days whenanybody can use any means to
wreak havoc and destruction andto win a conflict or a war.
There's got to be a better waythat is more consonant with
humanity's increasing progresstowards maturity, collective
maturity (20:27):
by creating a system that applies even-handedly to
everyone, in which there arerules that allow for enforcement
of the provisions that everybodyagrees to.
Otherwise, right now we have asituation where this action by a
few upstanding countries cansend a negative signal to other
(20:50):
countries who are also in armedconflict that adhering to these
conventions isn't really thatimportant, and we don't really
need to continue doing this, sowe too will withdraw from the
treaty.
And then where are we?
So what is the potential thirdpath, which is really the crux
of this presentation and whatwe're driving towards.
(21:15):
There is another way.
It is the only untried and yet,I believe, viable solution to
ensuring that all nationseverywhere feel secure, which is
what they all claim that they'reseeking, and they can therefore
(21:37):
stop wasting their preciousresources, be they financial or
human resources, human bodiesbasically on feeding the machine
of war.
This third path was originallysuggested in the second part of
the 19th century by a Persiannobleman.
He made this proposal beforehumanity had even gone through
(22:01):
and experienced a world war.
He articulated the need fornations to come together and
enter into a bindinginternational covenant, in which
they would do several things.
The first was that they wouldlimit the amount of arms that
each would have to the amountnecessary to preserve order
(22:24):
within their borders.
Then all the excess arms wouldbe destroyed.
And we can talk about how thiscould be unpacked.
In fact, we've talked about thisin other sessions, that it would
need to be done underinternational supervision to
ensure that all nations werehonest brokers and complied with
their commitments under thetreaty and who that
(22:47):
international body is.
We also have had conversationsabout, so if you go back through
the episodes and their headings,you will see what they are.
Then there would be a universalagreement on a principle of
collective security.
In other words, that if onenation party to this agreement,
and it's universal agreements,so all nations need to be party
(23:09):
or at least a good majority,that if one nation were to flout
the provisions of thisagreement, all the nations would
unitedly arise to bring it toheal, because they would not
allow one nation to disrupt thepeace of the world.
So it's like acting quickly.
When you have a cancerdiagnosis, you don't wait for
(23:29):
those cancerous cells toproliferate.
You immediately step in and,surgically if you can, remove
those cells and then go in ifnecessary, and zap the rest with
pretty harsh chemicals becausethe life of the entire body, and
in this case, the wellbeing ofhumanity is at stake.
(23:51):
There was also a proposal bythis nobleman for the creation
of a permanent internationalpolice force composed of forces
from all nations of the worldwho would also contribute
armaments and so on, accordingto an agreement that was
obviously depending on theircapacities and so on.
(24:13):
The decisions about when and howto use this force would be made
collectively through a globallegislature that would be
representative of all thecountries and peoples of the
world.
So this idea of collectiveaction: collective agreement,
first of all, on what the rulesare.
Collective action through acollective mechanism of an
(24:36):
international standing force orpermanent police force.
And the decision making is alsomade by a body that collectively
represents all the peoples ofthe world.
In other words, individualnations no longer have the right
to use force.
This is really interesting.
So in short, the ingredients weneed, I believe that the key
(24:58):
ingredients we need in order topursue avidly a third path,
including the third pathproposed here of this global
system of collective security,is to have a vision born of
creativity, coupled with thebelief that arriving at the
(25:18):
vision is possible.
And thirdly, the courage to takea new path that has never been
taken before.
This is what I call the successformula.
Frankly, the alternative isuntenable.
The only true question is howmuch more are we willing to
(25:41):
suffer and make other peoplesuffer before we take the
opportunity of exercising ourfree will to bring about
constructive changes that leadto peace.
Now if these are ideas thatresonate with you and you'd like
to learn more and to have afurther infusion of hope, I
(26:03):
would invite you to pick up acopy of The Alchemy of Peace
which essentially will give youmany more reasons to hope that
building a better world ispossible.
It's available on Amazon,wherever you are in the world,
both in digital form andpaperback.
(26:23):
All right thank you for beinghere today and please engage
with this material by putting inyour comments on the YouTube
channel.
And also remember that you canlisten to this podcast in audio
form as you go for a walk orwalk around your home doing
(26:45):
chores, and hopefully it willinspire and uplift you.
Bye-bye.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite
(27:06):
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com