By Pavel Kollar
But these facts of the world, which expose the inhumanity of this world are products of just that international order which is proposed to be respected in coming years. This international order, which was established in last few decades, brought several new institutions as solutions for problems of that time and for foreseen able future, under the supposition that the lack of these institutions in previous period was the cause of the problems that were considered as problems of that time. But if this system continues to produce some undesired effects then there must be another cause in play.
Arms by themselves will not kill until they are not activated by humans. But who are these armed humans who kill civilians? They are members of organized groups, official or inofficial ones, tending to be officially recognized. In Bosnian war, the most civilians were killed by different militia groups(what is the same as police). In WWII the most mass executions of civilians(the so-called retaliation executions, what is the same as genocide) were accomplished by police with or without assistance of militaries. Who were the executors in holocaust camps? Then isn’t it near the conclusion that if you want to achieve the ban of arms of all kind then at first you must abandon the institutions who are using these arms. Security yes but not such as it is today, based on police and military. Can better communication be a replacement for police and military?
Somebody can come with opposite argument that polices and states are not dangerous until they are not in conflict with each other or with its own citizens. Why there are conflicts? Your argument is that the causes of almost all recent conflicts were ethnical, cultural and religious differences within existing states. But why there are such differences in frame of one “national” state? What is wrong, the ethnicities(based on different religions and culture) or the “national” states? Is “national state” a reality or a big lie? Almost every such state consists of more ethnical groups, majority having usually more rights and more advantages than minorities. Then isn’t it so that the existing organization of “state” is the cause of conflicts? But this organization is legalized by international law and is not so easily adaptable to concrete circumstances.
Why are there different ethinicities, cultures and religions? They are different ways of existence and thinking of human individuals in their environment. So they should be considered as given. Can these different “entities” be a cause of conflicts? Possible yes of small conflicts but not of type of conflicts that are dealt in this article. They will become cause of conflicts if steered by authorities that are in conflict with each other or with oneself. And this is also the cause why these different ethnicities are so scattered and not neatly grouped in perfect squares on the surface of the earth. They fled because they were chased by different authorities or were captured by different authorities. So, the cause of conflicts is in authorities not in differences that are immanent to individuals.
Why there are authorities? The explanation is that these authorities are necessary because the communication between individuals in large groups is imperfect. God was created by human to make communication in the group easier. Today, this communication via God seems to be a source of many obstacles. In combination with new means of communication today it became a source of misunderstandings more than help to better understanding. Hailing of God became a purpose for itself instead to be that for what it was created. It became the mean of monopolization and colonization of souls of individuals by big churches in competitive race to each other. The church leaders became generals on battlefields completing not only to politicians but also to militaries and polices. Was Aiatolach Homeiny a church leader or a politician? And how much is Saddam Hussein a politician or a religious leader? Or Arafat?
I do not know why for ex. Albanian peoples living in Serbia trust much more to their authorities than to serb authorities. There are also opposite examples that people are fleeing from own authorities and looking for refuge under other authorities. But the first case is more usual, the second is considered as exception. It seems that the people of common origin are a group, and so have common authority. Wrong with this is, that according this rule some people have right on own institutions, another not, because they are living several kilometres farther in the space. Oaktree grows in Europe and in America, but it will be ever considered as of the common origin. But not so the human individual if on the territory controlled by other authority. Overnight nobody will make Serb from one Albanian. National minorities are usually under the suspect of disloyalty. But no one authority is suspect if keeps national minorities as hostages, war-prisoners or similar. Isn’t it high time to give up the cheating visual effect from drawing border lines on a sheet of paper that calls a map and see the problem in all its dimensions?
How this system functions today? Leaders are selected according morality and personal features and as a result of every selection the best are on the top, all other behind them. And these leaders are leading and creating institutions and events. But even today, from time to time, happens that the newspapers report about the “unhuman world” even in Europe. I think this “unhuman world” speaks by itself that the present international system looks to be too authoritarian and inflexible to deal with many of those problems cited in your article.
I think the intention of new diplomacy should be just to integrate efforts that will enable changes in international law and in relations between different institutions. In such a new legal environment and with many new institutions that will reflect the present standpoints much better than the old one, then it will be possible to find adequate solutions for most of these problems.