A
human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part
limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts
and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of
optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of
prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be
to free ourselves from the prison by widening the circle of
compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined
by the measure and sense in which they have obtained liberation
from the self. We shall require a substantially new method of
thinking if mankind is to survive.
In the
first chapter I illustrated the personal suffering that war causes.
We must keep that always in mind: you cannot have a war without people
suffering. And it does not matter whether the suffering is on one’s
own side or the other. We are all human.
War
is illegal, except in the special circumstances where it has been
authorised by the Security Council (Chapter 7). Almost inevitably,
war involves infringements of International Humanitarian Law. Those
who initiate war can be held to account, and those actively involved
can be prosecuted for breaches of the Geneva conventions.
War is immoral by even the most basic criteria. It involves doing
to others what one would not have done to oneself. It cannot be
confined to combatants: of those killed in war in the last half
century, over 80% have been civilians.
War is liable to lead to the use of the ultimate weapon, the nuclear
bomb.
War kills.
War leads to destruction of the environment, to the displacement
of populations and often to poverty, disease and starvation.
War is a gross misuse of resources. In round figures the USA spends
around $500 billion, and the UK around $50 billion a year on defense.
Figures like this are incomprehensible, but the fact that rich countries
spend up to 25 times as much on defence as they do on overseas aid
perhaps brings it home.
War disrupts all forms of human security, trade and education, and
makes sustainable development impossible.
War can never be a satisfactory or acceptable way of settling disputes.
Modern war imposes injury on both winners and losers, and no one
gains.
The time to stop the
next war is now.
The trend is in our favour. The popular response to impending war
changed dramatically during the last century. In 1914, news of the
declaration of war was greeted by cheering crowds, patriotism and
nationalism were the dominant emotions. In 1939 it was quite different.
Premonition of a repetition of the horrors of 1914-1918 was in nearly
every heart. My mother was ill at the time and we listened to the
declaration of war in silence in her bedroom. It was no surprise
when the air raid sirens sounded a few minutes later, though it
proved to be a false alarm. When the second Iraq war was impending,
it is probable that the majority of the UK population were against
it, and vast demonstrations took place in London and many other
cities and in other countries. After the terrible costs in lives,
happiness and security in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their consequences
all over the world, it is extremely doubtful if any sane politician
could ever lead the UK into war again. But we must make sure. And
the self-interested support for one country or party within a country
by a major power can foster war while the major power stays on the
sidelines.
I should be cautious here – there are circumstances in which it
is conceivable that the use of force, sanctioned by the United Nations,
is the only option. It would have been right to send in troops to
stop the genocide in Rwanda, but at what point the infringement
of human rights, or the killing and displacement of civilians, justifies
intervention by a third party is likely always to be controversial.
Leaving that issue aside, what can be done to prevent war? In chapter
2 I suggested that politicians would not enter war without arms
and people willing to use them. We have seen that with the latter
we must include all the ancillary services that form part of the
institution of war. So far, I have said too little about politicians.
How far they are likely to consider the moral and legal aspects
of any decision they make is an open issue. The decision to go to
war depends primarily on how they, or their advisers, interpret
the situation when accurate interpretation is almost impossible.
The politicians decide whether the goals would be worth the probable
costs. That decision must be influenced by perception of the possibility
of victory, which in turn depends on resources (size of forces,
weapons, information systems) and the support from party, military
and public, as well as unreliable information on the intentions
and capabilities of the enemy. Domestic issues may be important,
and the politicians’ own careers may be at stake. A decision to
go to war will not be taken lightly, yet may be taken when leader
and advisers are exhausted by long discussion. And politicians have
a way of being convinced that their own view is the right one.
Politicians are not demigods, but fallible human beings who are
open to suggestion or dissuasion. They can be voted out and even
tyrants can be overthrown.
This is not saying that politicians are stupid, but they may not
be in possession of all the facts. Here Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) have an important role to play. They may have access to information
not available to the decision makers or, with their different background,
they may be able to interpret it differently. The Pugwash Conferences
on Science and World Affairs shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize with
its moving spirit, Sir Joseph Rotblat for facilitating many of the
Treaties that restrained either side from using nuclear weapons
during the Cold War era. The Pugwash organisation has also been
responsible for promoting peace in a number of conflict areas by
acting as a non-biased intermediary. To be effective in this way
they must avoid loose statements and maintain a reputation for absolute
integrity.
NGOs also have an important role in influencing the popular support
that politicians need. In a democracy, if leaders are to have the
will to lead their people to war and to sustain them in battle,
they must have the support of the people. The Soviet Union collapsed
in part because it lost the support of the people – crucially when
the invasion of Afghanistan failed to produce quick results, the
people saw that the war was unnecessary and peripheral to their
security. As another example, in their war with the Algerian liberation
forces the French were militarily successful but lost the popular
support necessary to keep Algeria part of France. And the USA lost
the will to fight in Vietnam as the war lost its acceptability to
the people.
By presenting the case against war or nuclear weapons in a language
that all can understand, NGOs can mobilise public opinion. Some,
like the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War focus primarily on a section of society which has relevant expertise
or experience: others, like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
and the Movement for the Abolition of War have a more general appeal.
Politicians can be influenced by popular opinion. Leaders are not
likely to go to war unless they think they can take the country
with them. But public opinion must be overt before the decision
to go to war is taken. Part of the tragedy of the Second Iraq war
was that the real demonstration of public opinion came too late.
Here NGOs can play a crucial part.
But you do not have to be part of an NGO to play a part in reducing
the probability of war. As we have seen, the institution of war
is supported in part by everyday factors, by the way individuals
behave and the language they use in their ordinary lives. These
in turn can influence the cultural climate, the norms and accepted
values and in turn can undermine the institution of war. Individuals
can influence politicians in public demonstrations or by writing
letters to their members of parliament and encouraging others to
do likewise. Politicians do not read all the letters that they get,
but they do count them. Thousands of individuals speaking with the
same voice and taking the trouble to stick a stamp on an envelope
means something.
In these ways the probability of war can be reduced and the cultural
climate changed. If the demand for weapons is reduced the military-industrial-scientific
complex will die of starvation. Politicians’ attempts to motivate
the population for war, to accept the suffering that will inevitably
be involved, by appealing to loyalties – religious, patriotic, revenge,
idealistic, and so on – will fall on deaf ears. But in the long-term
there is nothing more important than education. In 1974 UNESCO recommended
that member states should strengthen education for international
understanding and cooperation, for the establishment of social justice
and the eradication of the prejudices and misconceptions that hinder
these aims. Unhappily, Finland was virtually the only country that
took these obligations seriously. The time has come, indeed has
passed, when we must return to these goals. And not just in schools:
education for all and especially mothers so that they in turn pass
on the message. The UNESCO recommendation could more easily take
root in a globalised world where local cultures can flourish in
mutual understanding and the integrity of sovereign states is seen
as less important. We must move beyond a world ruled by threat and
force to one ruled by law and mutual understanding.
Conclusion.
This booklet started with the prediction that war would become an unacceptable
way of settling disputes. It has discussed ways in which the fulfilment
of that prediction can be accelerated. The belief that war can never
be abolished is one of the reasons why war is still with us, but I hope
that the existence of ways to accelerate the end of war has convinced
you that it can be done. When people recognise the futility of war,
it will cease to be seen as a sensible way to settle disputes. But the
abolition of war needs action. There are too many people who are against
war but do nothing about it.
Of course, everybody cannot do everything,
but everyone can do something.
The
Russell-Einstein Manifesto
Issued in London, 9 July 1955
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in
happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death,
because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings
to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.
If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you
cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.
|
|
