I have realized, with some pain that the World is not going to follow the path of sanity and restraint. Albert Einstein once said, “I do not know with what kinds of weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.” This was said by the great scientist about 80 years ago and implied devastation so complete as to necessitate a start of civilization from scratch after the third world war. Obviously, he was concerned at the mindless proliferation of nuclear war-heads. The world was then divided into the Western world and the Soviet block and the ill-famed ‘cold-war’ was at its peak. Since then, the nuclear arms race has seen many new players emerge regularly, with nuclear weapons capability having 1000 times more megatons than the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombs.
Small local issues which have the potential to escalate into a full-fledged war are festering across the globe. Any one issue can ignite the tinder-box of doom. Einstein will therefore be proved wrong as it is likely that there will be no fourth world-war at all. Mankind may not survive the massive annihilation which will be unleashed from these bombs in the third war itself.
This incidentally, is not an attempt at pontificating on the ills of war and violence. I am well aware of the immediate instinctive reaction of readers to switch off and read something else, at the slightest hint of a tedious sermon on this topic. I am also aware of the volumes written on this subject by eminent personalities in politics, social work and religion. In comparison, I am a distinct nobody. To re-emphasize, I am not going to preach non-violence - a topic which has been chewed upon and regurgitated endlessly.
So what is the purpose of the present effort?
Let us view it from another perspective. We have many well read, intelligent and articulate people amongst us who openly advocate a stronger and dominating role for United States of America in geo-politics. They seem to suggest that the President of USA should be a feared man – who should not talk of peace. Heaping unbridled criticism on his office, they justify their view point by saying that unless Mr. Barak Obama adopts a stance akin to the classic Wild West cowboy, guns blazing from a hip-draw, stubble growth on his chin and the characteristic red bandana fluttering in the wind, the upstarts of the planet will not learn to keep in line.
Why does USA not carpet bomb a few inconvenient rouge states out of existence? What prevents the President to ‘teach them a lesson’ and eliminate the scourge of terrorism afflicting the world? It is his soft and spineless stand which has emboldened these nation-states into belligerence threatening to challenge the authority of this world policeman – they aver.
Whether there is merit in this averment or not is beside the point. Similar expectation may well have been from any other powerful nation’s president or prime minister. And now I come to my focus: What are we trying to achieve by this rabid diatribe? Are we not overlooking the obvious self-destruct that this argument guarantees?
My main argument is, whether we really need to have a dominating world-power which would seek to enforce ‘discipline’ as per its (subjective) considerations? Is USA the only repository of wisdom, blessed with divine authority for carrying out its writ in the world community? What is wrong with China as an alternative? Or, Russia for that matter? The present incumbent in the oval office is perhaps making genuine efforts at reconciling divergent interests and talks of peace from a position of strength. Advocating peace does not necessarily mean bowing to terrorist’s agenda or of cowardice. On the contrary, it means that the US is willing to let bygones be bygones and looks forward to an era of mutual trust, co-existence and yes, Peace! A courageous stand I would say.
Polarization in the world, whether between two opposing forms of government or between two religions, prepares the theatre for head-on confrontation. If we look at the planet Earth as a spaceship with finite resources for its crew, the rate at which we are consuming the same is sure to deplete its stocks sooner than later. Locking up valuable resources in Bombs and armaments only accelerates this process.
In a reputed science magazine viz. ‘Science Today,’ I remember having read long time ago, that the entire world’s energy requirement can be met by putting into geo-stationary orbits, a few solar batteries, which can catch the Sun’s heat and beam it back to terrestrial receivers as electricity. The project was then estimated to cost an amount equivalent to the defense budgets of all nations. Add to this a benefit that it would be absolutely non-polluting. But as with other similar ideas which have been tested in prototypes – the world has ignored it.
What is stressed here is not the environmental issue and neither the short-term greed of vested interests – exemplified by a similar unconcern towards encouraging alternate fuels for powering automobiles. It is a matter of record that technology exists today for making use of water to run a car but is not allowed to replace the petrol driven internal combustion engines. Massive investments in Automobile factories all over the world will become redundant which politicians and owners of these factories do not wish to jeopardize. I wish, on the contrary, to stress on the imperative of completely forgetting the Nation concept and think of the world as one single community. If Europe has been able to unify – to some extent at least – what prevents the rest of the world from following this example?
A World Government, a Common law and Equitable resource sharing – are these ideals only utopian? Our intelligence is capable of handling the logistics when it is free from negatives like espionage, war and subterfuge. Let us give it a try, we have everything to loose otherwise. That is my belief.
Sanjeev Bhakay
No comments:
Post a Comment