ROW Episode 41

In this episode we ask why peace seems so elusive and explore the suggestion that it could simply be that we are misdiagnosing the causes of conflict and also applying ineffectual remedies.

Episode Transcript

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.
In this episode, we ask whypeace seems so elusive and
explore the suggestion that itcould simply be that we are

(00:31):
misdiagnosing the causes ofconflict and also applying
ineffectual remedies.
Tonight, I propose that weexplore a theme, the theme of
peace.
Why does it appear to be soelusive?
We know that our world is in amess, we don't need to belabor
that point, but why after somany centuries of war and

(00:55):
conflict does peace seem soelusive?
A few months ago, I met a womanwho told me that her husband had
started suffering from jointpain.
He went to a doctor and thedoctor diagnosed him as having
rheumatoid arthritis and put himon a biologic.
As some of you may know,biologics are very strong

(01:15):
medications with some prettysevere and serious side effects.
Soon this poor gentleman beganto deteriorate rapidly and was
unable to walk, felt very tiredand awful.
So eventually they went andsought a second opinion.
They went to anotherrheumatologist who, after a very
deliberate examination, said,"Isee no evidence that you have

(01:37):
rheumatoid arthritis.
You've been misdiagnosed." Andit turns out that the biologic
that had been given to him bythe first doctor was based on a
misdiagnosis and was causing, asa side effect, some neuropathy
and other side effects that weremaking him unable to move and
walk.
He was immediately taken off thebiologic, and while it arrested

(01:59):
further deterioration anddevelopment of the neuropathy,
he couldn't reverse the damagethat had already been done to
his nerves.
Now, it turns out that a deeperunderstanding and examination
diagnosis of his originalcondition would have unveiled
the fact that indeed, all thathad happened was that another

(02:21):
medication that he was on forblood pressure was causing him
joint pain.
And a mere adjustment to thatoriginal blood pressure
medication would have solvedthis problem.
But this poor man now has tolive with partial neuropathy and
and a whole series of cascadingside effects.
As I listened to this lady, itoccurred to me to wonder whether

(02:45):
we are making the same mistakein our world.
That as we try to resolve ourchallenges in a quest for peace,
that we're actuallymisdiagnosing the problem.
And beyond that maybe even if weoccasionally diagnose things
correctly, the remedies thatwe're applying are not the

(03:06):
proper remedies.
That's the theme that I want toexplore with you tonight.
Are we misdiagnosing theproblem?
Are we using remedies thateither have worked in the past,
but no longer work becausecircumstances have changed and
humanity's changed, or applyingremedies that never worked in

(03:27):
the past, but we're stillinsanely trying desperately to
apply them in the hope that theresult will be different, which
Einstein described as thedefinition of insanity, trying
the same thing over and overagain, expecting different
results.
Or worse, applying remedies thatactually exacerbate the problem
and make humanity sicker.

(03:49):
Let's look at an example of atypical diagnosis that we've
been making.
We tell ourselves that we, aspeoples, whether we're groups
based on race, nationality,ethnicity, religion, whatever
group we tend to identify withmost closely, we tell ourselves
that we as members of that groupcannot meet our legitimate needs

(04:13):
or fix our particularchallenges, or feel safe, except
by gaining complete andexclusive control over the
destinies of our group.
And that we can't trust others,those who are outside these
groups.
And that we therefore need tolook out for ourselves, people,

(04:35):
nations, political parties,races, ethnicities first, even
if it's at the cost of anothergroup.
Now, what's interesting is thatwhen you dig a little deeper,
this is a conclusion I'vearrived at, and I'd be curious,
please do put your comments ineither to the YouTube channel or

(04:55):
here on Facebook.
I believe that the reason wehave arrived at this erroneous
diagnosis is because of twolongstanding weaknesses that we
have as a human society.
The first weakness is this habitof nationalism, and the second

(05:17):
is basically, a crisis ofidentity.
We'll explore these a littlefurther, but both of these root
causes are grounded essentiallyand are spawned by deep rooted
prejudices that are corrosive tothe fabric of society.
Let's start with the idea of afragmented sense of identity.

(05:41):
We seem as a human race to be inthe grips of what some have
called a crisis of identity thatstems from prejudices, racial
prejudices, prejudices based onsex, religion, education, class,
wealth, ethnicity, nationality.
And all of these prejudices arereally corrosive poisons that

(06:02):
are eating away at the fabric ofour society.
What they do is they lead to asplintering of us into divergent
interest groups, which in turnweaken further our society.
We need to overcome this crisisof identity and figure out who
we are.
For without it, we seem to fallinto these endless permutations

(06:25):
of us and them.
The weakness of nationalismcomes about because we feel like
we have to go things alone, wehave to be self dependent, and
in fact we can't trust anyoneelse.
And we will do whatever we canto guarantee our well being,
particularly as a nation, evenif it's at the expense of other

(06:49):
nations.
Now, the consequence of the,this old diagnosis that is
rooted in nationalism and acrisis of identity is that we
have come up with a solution, aremedy that we have been
following for a very long time.
Unfortunately, that remedy isvery destructive, and that

(07:11):
remedy is that of fragmentation.

This is how the story goes (07:14):
we tend to break up into smaller
and smaller groupings, thinkingif we just hunker down into our
little groupings, if I just havemy own nation or my own
territory for my race orethnicity, or if all the members
of my religion could congregatesomewhere, we could just look

(07:34):
out for ourselves and let therest of the world take care of
themselves.
The question that I would poseis, Let's look at those who've
done this sort of thing and askourselves how well has it
worked?
Because if a remedy has beentried, especially repeatedly, we
want to see whether the remedyhas actually been effective or

(07:57):
not.
Here are some suggestions forquestions to ask ourselves.
Let's look at the country ofSouth Sudan, which broke off
from Sudan itself.
The question is, after a numberof years of having achieved
independence and fragmented theoriginal nation, so now we have

(08:17):
two nations, are the people ofSouth Sudan actually now happy?
Are they free of conflict?
Are they better off economicallyand otherwise?
Reports this year, 2023,indicate that two thirds of the
population, in other words, 7.
7 million people, will facesevere food insecurity and the

(08:40):
worst hunger crisis the countryhas ever faced.
In that sense, in terms of foodsecurity, they're worse off than
they have ever been in the past.
This food insecurity has twomain drivers.
One is ongoing conflict, soconflict is not ended.
And this conflict is ethnicbased, so it's this crisis of
identity that has spurred it andhas led to the displacement of

(09:04):
large numbers of people who livein displacement camps.
The other factor of the foodinsecurity is climate change
that buffets these poor folksbetween droughts that stop them
from eating food and floods thatflood their fields and destroy
their crops and their harvests.
So it would seem from all thereports that, despite this quest

(09:29):
to take control of their owndestiny by splitting off and
splintering off from Sudan, theSouth Sudanese are not any
better, in fact are in worsecondition than they were before.
Let me look at another country.
Let's look at Eritrea, which isan African country that broke
off from Ethiopia.
It started as a selfdetermination movement to free

(09:51):
the Eritreans from initiallycolonial rule and then the rule
of Ethiopia as a sovereignty.
And yet the Center for Strategicand International Studies now
reports that in Eritrea there isa complete closure of political
space.
There's economic decline,international sanctions, and

(10:14):
isolation.
And it now ranks near the bottomof the global assessments
regarding human rights,religious freedoms, a free media
and democracy.
So apparently if these reportsare to be believed--and I have
no reason to doubt them--Eritrea is not faring very well,

(10:35):
despite, again, an attempt totake control over its own
destiny.
Let's go to Europe and look atBrexit, this painful separation
and divorce of the UnitedKingdom from the EU.
All reports indicate thatBritain has not only not fared
better, which was the promise ofBrexit, but is now worse off.

(10:58):
It has the lowest growth rate ofthe G7 countries and the IMF,
the International Monetary Fund,forecasts that it will be the
only G7 economy to shrink thisyear in 2023.
Consumer prices are inordinatelyhigh, trade has suffered a
tremendous blow, and businessinvestment, on which they relied

(11:19):
so heavily, is 31 percent lowerthan pre referendum levels.
Remember, the referendum toleave the EU happened in 2016.
So by all indications, Britainis faring a lot worse, having
left the European Union, havingfragmented and withdrawn itself.

(11:40):
Despite the fact that thisparticular remedy of
fragmentation, in response tothe diagnosis, that I termed a
misdiagnosis, appears not tohave delivered the well being
and security that people seek,we continue to see others
clamoring for it.
So in Spain, we have theCatalans who've been agitating

(12:02):
to separate.
Folks in the north of Italy havebeen agitating to separate from
the rest of Italy, and we've gotthese movements in many parts of
the world.
Sometimes I think if we take itto its logical conclusion, human
beings are very adept at findingsmaller and smaller groupings
with which they identify inorder to make themselves feel

(12:23):
better or in this mistakenbelief that they can improve
their lot, they think we willbecome the elites and we'll just
take care of ourselves and tohell with the rest of the world.
And the logical conclusion isthat we will try to reverse this
trend that we've been on forhundreds of years, which is ever
widening circles of integration,moving from loyalty to family,

(12:46):
to clan, to city state, tonation, and now really to the
world is the next logical step.
The other key point to note hereabout why fragmentation does not
work as a remedy is that Itignores the reality of the world
we live in, a reality that saysthat we have become so

(13:07):
interconnected andinterdependent as peoples and
nations that we've become like asingle human body.
And we're sticking our heads inthe sand wanting to ignore it.
I mean, a truth is a truth.
We can't help ourselves.
And beyond that, most of ourmost dire problems, in fact, our
existential problems likeclimate change and the threat of

(13:30):
nuclear war, are harder toresolve when we splinter apart.
We actually need collectivesolutions to these collective
problems.
Here's the question.
What if we were to attempt afresh diagnosis of what's
actually going on?
So the fresh diagnosis isexactly what I alluded to and

(13:53):
mentioned a second ago, we livein a world in which we're
inextricably linked andinterconnected.
And the best way for anypeoples, grouping, nations to
guarantee their well being andtheir security and to ensure
that this organ of the body isin peak health is to ensure that
the entire body is in peakhealth.

(14:16):
We have to think about the goodof the collective whole.
And by doing that, we willensure the good of the parts.
In order to do that, we need todeepen our unity and behave in
accordance with, adjustourselves to the reality that we
are one.
We can no longer go it alone asnations.

(14:37):
We all heavily rely on eachother.
The problem is not that we needto be more autonomous or more
independent of each other, butrather that we need to learn to
exercise our muscles ofcollaboration, have more
cooperation, and dare I say it,have deeper integration.

(14:58):
Evidences of this truth that weare one is all around us.
The war in Ukraine, and we'vecovered this in previous
episodes, has shown us that eventhough this was technically a
regional conflict, it hasspawned global crises.
A global food crisis, a globalenergy crisis, global inflation

(15:21):
crisis, and has increased thedanger of nuclear war to the
highest it's been since 1962.
Unfortunately, people in ourworld are not talking about
this.
It is one of those threats thatlooms over our heads, and God
forbid, if we were tounwittingly and out of ignorance

(15:43):
slip into a nuclear war,humanity would be devastated.
And when you see that happens inconjunction with climate change,
it really doesn't bear thinkingabout.
It's an absolute disaster.
We are interconnected in so manyways.
I saw a report a couple of daysago.
It says the United States hasjust realized, as it's trying to

(16:04):
rely increasingly on nuclearfuel as a transitional fuel to
get itself out of the use offossil fuels and as it
transitions to green energy, itrecognizes that 20 percent of
its nuclear fuel to fuel itsnuclear submarines and so on,
comes from ultimately Russia, inindirect ways, but the source is

(16:26):
Russia.
And that now it is seeking toestablish independence.
What are all nations going todo?
Is every nation going to growits own crops, manufacture
everything it needs, have itsown minerals for all the things
it needs, including makingbatteries and electric vehicles?

(16:48):
We don't all have access tomines of lithium and copper and
so on.
It's just untenable.
I was reading another articletoday that said that Israeli
farmers don't know what to do.
They're in tears because theyrely so much on foreign workers
to work on their farms.
There were 30,000 workers whocame from Thailand who had been

(17:10):
working in Israel before thislast war broke out on October
7th and 9,000 folks from Gaza.
So 39,000 people are missing.
And most of their folks arereservists and are now fighting
on various fronts.
So the farmers say, what are wegoing to do?
We're not going to be able tosustain these farms.

(17:32):
Really understanding theinterconnection between human
beings at all levels issomething that keeps hitting us
in the face, and we need toactually accept it.
Now, we do need to acknowledgesomething.
We have tried over the course ofthe last century to attempt to

(17:52):
come up with solutions,institutional solutions
particularly, that integratehumanity further so that it can
tackle its global challenges.
Each of these attempts has takenus one step forward in the
direction of attaining peace inthe world.
That's really been theoverarching goal, but we have

(18:14):
failed to take the ultimatesteps, the decisive steps to
achieve a lasting peace.
When we look at these threeattempts, we'll see a pattern.
Each has been marked by a crisisthat has gotten so bad that it
has then spawned a constructivereaction.
We have the First World War atthe beginning of the 20th

(18:35):
century that was basically theFirst World War that we all
suffered.
And it brought about so muchsuffering, death, and
destruction, and we created thisinstitution called the League of
Nations.
The idea being that it wouldensure that this kind of war
never broke out again.
Clearly, the League had manyweaknesses.

(18:56):
I'm not going to get into them,but we can have a conversation
about what those were that thenled to a Second World War, which
was even worse than the first.
Again, after the Second WorldWar we created the United
Nations, a second attempt atcreating a global institution
with a mandate to, amongst otherthings, maintain and restore

(19:19):
peace in the world.
And we also built internationaleconomic institutions, and we
made tremendous strides in thefield of human rights and the
development of internationallaw.
Then we came to the Cold War,the third crisis that resulted
as a result of the hostility,entrenched hostility between two

(19:39):
blocs.
After the Cold War ended, wethought there was a spirit of
cooperation, collaboration, anintention for nations to work
together, resulting ultimatelyin the Millennium Summit with a
thousand civil society membersgathered in New York City and a
commitment to the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

(19:59):
And yet, despite all thoseefforts, we've now been
backsliding.
So this road towards peace hasbeen very uneven.
Four steps forward, three stepsback.
It's been very painful.
Although there is an overarchingtrend towards peace, frankly,
right now, it's not surprisingthat most people can't see it.

(20:20):
But we've stopped short of totalintegration at every turn.
So here we are now, in absolutecrisis around the world, with
all these conflicts breakingout, with climate change, with
all these global challenges.
It's clear that we now have awindow, a fourth window of
opportunity.
Because these challenges areincreasing in number, frequency,

(20:43):
and intensity, which are despitethe intense suffering that
they're causing, which arereally unfortunate and have come
about only as a result of poorchoices that we've made, they do
also have the side effect ofstirring our conscience, causing
us to be disillusioned on alarge scale and therefore

(21:05):
demanding a radicalreconceptualization in how
society is structured.
We see this in all the protests,starting with the Black Lives
Movement protests that spreadaround the world.
Now we see protests for peaceand some people of goodwill
trying to get their leaders tofigure out ways in which we can

(21:26):
establish a long term peace foreverybody.
The three attempts have taughtus some lessons, but it's time
now for a new remedy.
And so we offered the newdiagnosis, and now here's the
new remedy that I want topropose here.
And this is really the crux, oneof the two cruxes of today's

(21:49):
podcast.
It is now time to take the leapand choose to apply the
principles of federalism thatunderlie some nations' systems
of government, like Switzerland,Germany, and the United States,
and apply them at the globallevel.
What do I mean by this?
Imagine if all independentnations and groups were to come

(22:11):
together by common consent andintegrate and unite to form a
central global government whoseauthority is strictly limited to
addressing common and collectiveproblems that cannot be solved
except by the generality of thenations of the world.
And that also has the capacityto pass international laws that

(22:35):
are binding on all nations.
Meanwhile, nation states wouldcontinue to exist, and in fact,
they would retain most of theirpowers.
They would continue to shoulderresponsibility for addressing
all the problems closer to home,with which they have most
familiarity.
Indeed, they serve a criticalfunction as distinct,

(22:56):
identifiable entitiesresponsible for the welfare and
protection of their people andaccountable to them and to the
international community for anyfailure to discharge that
responsibility.
Now, the kinds of problems thatone envisions that this global,
central government would beresponsible for are things like

(23:18):
how to reduce global warming,how to mitigate the effects of
climate change, how to stem onceand for all the proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
These are things that no onenation or group of nations can
do alone.
Everybody has to act together.
How to oversee the destructionof these weapons of mass
destruction.
How to manage critical globalresources like energy resources,

(23:40):
critical minerals that allnations need, water and food to
ensure their equitabledistribution.
Everything else would remain inthe hands of national
governments or states or localcouncils as appropriate.
Now, it's also important fornation states to exercise power
in most domains to avoid thedangers of excessive

(24:02):
centralization while alsoencouraging and maintaining
diversity within the context ofa unified federation of states.
The federation would have alegislature elected by all the
peoples of the world, so itwould have a democratic
legitimacy, an executive, astanding force, which we'll talk

(24:22):
about probably a little morenext time.
And one of the huge sidebenefits of taking this step
towards a unified federalsystem, is that in areas where
people have been fighting overland for centuries, it will no
longer matter in whose handsthis land is, because they will

(24:44):
know that their voices are allrepresented in the central
government, that they will havea say, that they will be dealt
with in accordance with globalrules that are applied in
accordance with a set of globalethics that include the
principle of fairness andjustice that have all been
agreed to in advance, includingby them.

(25:06):
And they trust that these ruleswill be applied even handedly.
So imagine what the world wouldbe like if Ukraine and Russia,
and Israel and Palestinianterritories become units of a
world federal system.
After the Second World War,Chancellor Adenauer of Germany
famously said, that aftercenturies of fighting between

(25:30):
the Germans and the French overpieces of land between France
and Germany that were rich incoal, particularly the Saar
lands, S A R they had foughtnumerous wars over this.
He said, now we don't care inwhose hands this piece of land
is, because we know the coalthat's extracted is in the hands

(25:50):
of a supranational institution,the European Coal and Steel
Community, that is ensuring orwill ensure equitable
distribution and access to thisat reasonable prices to all of
us.
And indeed, that's whathappened.
That problem that had been sucha trigger for conflict for so
many years, and the Germans andthe French used to talk about

(26:14):
each other in their literatureas, We hate each other> we drink
the hate of each other with ourmother's milk.
We will never be at peace witheach other." And yet,
practically overnight, all ofthat disappeared once a system
was put in place.
So the only answer to thedestabilizing forces that
threaten the world is thecreation of a global order that

(26:35):
unifies nations with the assentof all of humanity.
We need to make this leap intomaturity from this period of
turbulent adolescence that we'rein as the world community.
Fortunately, we know how to dothis.
We have examples.
We can look at the histories ofthe United States and how it
became a federation, and Germanyand Switzerland and glean

lessons (26:57):
what worked, what didn't work.
And take these principles offederalism,--please don't
mistake me, I don't mean lookingat the governments of the United
States, Germany and orSwitzerland, because they're all
severely flawed-- but theprinciples of federalism that
underpin them, that's what weneed to do.

(27:17):
The famous 20th centuryhistorian Arnold Toynbee
predicted that we would do thisas a human race when faced with
an existential threat.
I would submit that we arealready there now and it's time
to break this old habit of notwanting to unify into a global
unified federation.

(27:37):
Even The Economist magazine in2011 put out an article with an
image of a pole with a signgoing in two directions--and
this was for the EU-- that Itwould either self destruct or it
had to move towards a superstate, an EU super state.
But then the folks who wrote thearticle railed against it and
said, surely there's anotherway.

(27:59):
There isn't, and we're payingthe price, and the EU's paying
the price for not havingdeepened its integration, taken
the next step.
However, this next step is notpossible without the unreserved
acceptance of the oneness ofhumanity.
It has to be the starting pointfor all leaders and nations for

(28:20):
reordering the world.
It is only then that all nationswill be willing to subordinate
their lesser loyalties to thebest interests of a unified
humanity, just as the members ofthe European Coal and Steel
Community were willing to do.
An allied principle that mustalso be applied is the principle
of justice or equitable dealingwith people.

(28:43):
Justice is really the only basisfor peace and the permanent
foundation, the only viablepermanent foundation for peace.
These two principles of onenessand justice need to be made the
operational and dominatingprinciples of international
lives or else we will continueto breed lives of resentment and

(29:05):
despair with catastrophicresults.
We are already seeing evidenceof this in the clamor of human
beings around the world forpeace and justice, whether we
saw it in Hong Kong or Myanmaror in Sudan, in countries around
the world with respect to theMiddle East, with respect to

(29:26):
anti Black institutional racism,and on and on.
These are just examples,smatterings of examples.
Enough is enough.
Now, we need to not justapproach things from an
institutional level and createmechanisms that are grounded in
ethical principles like theoneness of nations and peoples

(29:49):
and justice, but we also need toapproach it from the individual
level.
We need to also deal with thefragmented identity crisis,
right?
The only answer to that is forus to create as human beings and
embrace a vision of our sharedidentity and common purpose.

(30:09):
This is absolutely key.
Without it, we fall into thesecompeting ideologies and power
struggles that are just mentalconstructs.
They're just literally figmentsof our imaginations.
Without such a vision, the rivalconceptions and primacy of a
particular people are peddled tothe exclusion of the trust that

(30:34):
humanity is on a common journeyin which all are protagonists.
We are all going the same place.
We all want the same things.
We're all animated by the samespirit.
We are all human.
We have the same fears.

(30:54):
We have the same desires.
We're all created noble anddignified and deserve lives of
dignity.
Until we realize this we're notgoing to live in the kind of
peaceful world we want.
I want to end this presentationwith a quote that I usually turn
to when I want to elevate my ownheart and spirit and my

(31:18):
thinking, because with all thenews around us, it's very easy
to sink into despair or anger,and those are negative
sentiments that we have to avoidat all costs because they
paralyze us and they blind us tobeing able to elevate ourselves
and see our interconnectednessand our humanity and to come up

(31:40):
with solutions that are actuallyviable and constructive as
opposed to destructive.
This is from a larger quote fromone of the greatest peacemakers
of the 20th century, AbbasEfendi, and here's what he said,
"I want you to look at everyhuman being and say to yourself,
you are a letter from my belovedand I must love you because of

(32:03):
the beloved who wrote you.
The letter may be torn, it maybe blurred, but because the
beloved wrote the letter, Youmust love it." If that's not
uplifting and elevating, I don'tknow what is.
If we could only just see thehumanity in each other.

(32:23):
If you are interested in furtherinformation, particularly about
the institutional mechanisms andethical principles to take us to
the next step in achievingpeace, I would commend to you
this book Building a WorldFederation, The Key to Resolving
our Global Crises, that you canget either in digital form or In

(32:44):
paperback on Amazon, whereveryou are in the world.
This is what it looks like, andit's small.
So it's easy and quick to read.
And if you like it, please shareit with others because I've had
good feedback.
People find it inspiring and saythat it contains tangible
solutions that people canunderstand, and it's

(33:05):
particularly popular amongst theyounger folks.
If you teach any classes, pleasefeel free to use it or share it
with friends and neighbors.
If there are comments, again,please feel to stick them in the
comments at the bottom of theYouTube channel.
I look forward to seeing youvery soon.
Take care.
Bye bye.

(33:26):
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
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.