Global violence: causes and solution perspectives Part 2

BY ERROL A. GIBBS

Part 2 is a brief exploration of global violence — causes and solution perspectives. The preceding narrative is not a comparative analysis of violent and non-violent nations, or an attempt to quantify or define the prevalence of violence up through the ages. From premodern, modern, to the postmodern era, the scourge of violence threatens the survival of the human species.

Global leaders decide the nature of survival, life, and death of humanity by the position they hold. They write the laws and implement them — justly or unjustly. Some leaders hold ideological views that conflict with the aspirations of their citizens. They suppress dissent by their citizens — often violently. World leaders are thus inspired to form collations against them in further violent confrontations, as innocent citizens fall victim to another level of bloodshed.

Many would contend that some amount of violence is essential to preserve the sovereignty and sanctity of human life. Nevertheless, the concern of this writer is for the unbridled violence that peoples and nations commit against each other. A breakdown in communication between nations, “races,” religions, and cultures, more importantly, greed for excessive wealth and power, and the resultant causes of disfranchisement and poverty fueling further violence.

Global leaders also establish the “rules of engagement” regarding the rights and wrongs of war. They strive to avoid liability — underpinned by a “moral alibi” fostered by a new language of modern warfare referred to as “collateral damage.” The euphemism attempts to desensitize humankind to violence. Lamentably, terrorists of all stripes follow the same lead, but without regard to the “collateral harm,” they cause to innocent by-standers in their sectarian wars.

“The total world military expenditure rose to $1,686 billion in 2016, an increase of 0.4 per cent in real terms from 2015, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (Stockholm, 24 April 2017).”

 The economic impact of all this violence reached $14.8 trillion in 2017 according to the [Institute for Economics and Peace] IEP report, equivalent to 12.4% of global GDP, or nearly $2,000 per person.” Notwithstanding, Steven Pinker, Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author sweeping 2011 work —The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined, Steven Pinker makes the audacious claim, “today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence.”  

 Will Koehrsen, Data Scientist at Cortex Intel, Data Science Communicator responds: “Has Global Violence Declined?  A Look at the Data. Are we really living in the most peaceful time in human history? It all depends on how you measure: Reality Project Episode 2.” (https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-a-look-at-the-data-5af708f47fba).

A measurable decline in violence is not inherently a decline in the violent nature of human beings, which is a more useful statistic. Instead, it may be the suppression of violence at a massive cost to the world economy — deficit-financed. The “big question” is, “How to avoid the carnage of innocent lives, non-combatants, the elderly, mothers, fathers, and children that have been taken-for-granted over the centuries?  Do global leaders care?

Solution perspectives:

Solution perspective #1. Western nations should follow the creed of their constitutions founded on Western Christian religious principles. “Every ruling authority that exists has been established by God” (Roman 13:1–2). Human governments are accountable to God and can only function effectively under God’s mandate according to His derived authority.

Solution perspective #2. World leaders need to embrace the “oneness” of humanity, founded in the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (Adopted by the General Conference of ©UNESCO at its twentieth session Paris, November 1978), Article 1, p. 11.). It will begin the process to breakdown the dividing walls of race, religion, colour, culture, and superior and inferior races that are responsible for global violence.

Solution perspective #3. The United Nations (UN) and every governing body that desire a non-violent world should institute a new mandate of 50% of the voting members to non-political, non-state sponsored membership. More importantly, change the name of the UN to Nations United Against Violence as an Imperative of World Peace (NUAVIWP).

Solution perspective #4. The UN should remove the phrase “collateral damage” from the world’s military vocabulary and elevate the sanctity of human life to the highest obligation of human existence. Likewise, eliminate any proposition that seems to imply the “end justifies the means” as an ideological military strategy.

Solution perspective #5. Elevate the sanction of wars to the last resort, unless innocent human lives are factually in imminent peril. Establish open lines of leader-to-leader communications, knowing that leaders are responsible and accountable to a higher moral authority. Understand that the war is not the right strategy for achieving peace in the twenty-first century, but justice — war makes peace inevitable and cost-prohibitive.

The daring of these five macro-level solution perspectives is to help enable global leaders to understand better the intrinsic link between the global ecosystem and the ecosystem of local communities. Furthermore, to inspire them to engineer human ecosystems at each level of society to foster a more stable world — politically, ethically, educationally, lawfully, socially, and economically.