<nettime> on establishing a long-term truce / c.3

[brian carroll <human {AT} electronetwork.org>]

  on nuclear peace and middle-east peace policy: or,
  how to stop the war of terror and build upon peace

  on establishing a long-term truce / c.3	(cont.)

---

  a long-term truce which would end the mid-east war,
  and thus the 'war of terror', is of absolute necessity
  so as to successfully engage the ongoing issues in
  current events, from nuclear treaties to Iraqi recon-
  struction, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

  a pathway will be proposed for pursung this, which is
  to offer a basic sketch of how 'infrastructure' could be
  a realm of mutual cooperation and benefit, by which to
  someday proceed. yet the war has to end, if to build...


					*

  first, respect needs to be given to the legitimacy of a war
  and warriors who fight on behalf of protecting their own
  humanity, versus what are often legitimate grievances of
  an oppressive machinery. for years, many acknowledge
  there are real issues that can be addressed - with more
  peaceful means, such as greater public representation,
  changing .US foreign policies, and ending occupations.

  yet, if branded unthinking and dehumanized creatures,
  it is to place 'terrorists' beyond human reasoning, and
  to engage in a distortion by which the 'war of terror' is
  to turn 'warriors' of the opposing side of the mid-east
  war, at world-scale, into people beyond the realm of
  ideas, governance, -- this being the criteria which is to
  allow their differentiation from being 'freedom fighters.'

  a 'terrorist' could not reason, they would be beyond any
  reason, they would be ideologues set in their ways, that
  is, terrorism, which is a tactic used by those during war.

  a 'terrorist' would be beyond any ability of reasoning,
  and theirs is no greater purpose than that of evil, etc.

  as such, engaging peace with such terrorists (in a war
  of terror) is impossible, as they are not abel to reason.
  they are deficient in purpose, irrational, totally insane.

  -- so, unable to change course no matter the conditions,
  there would be no hope of peaceful resolution, or truce.

  whereas, it would seem, a 'warrior' who is fighting a war
  would have some reason or purpose for fighting, that is,
  for dying for a cause, and to be able to judge if there is
  an optimum approach so to achieve certain objectives.
  for maybe there are options for how to proceed, and if
  reasoning for a truce can achieve those objectives, it is
  possible that the war could end in a draw, and warriors
  would be treated with respect as warriors, not terrorists.

  that is, if the trade-off is between hundreds of billions of
  dollars and the death of tens of thousands of people, to
  further the masquerade of the 'war of terror' as a fight
  of good versus evil (or god versus the devil) to that of
  the mid-east war, at world-scale, needing to find peace,
  and those fighters, organized else networked, would be
  considered warriors as part of such a pacification. that
  is, there is a legitimate war, legitimate warriors in such
  a war, whose rules of engagement are a 'war of terror'.

  this is to seek to say that to ever seek peace within the
  'war of terror' context is futile, as 'terrorists' cannot be
  dealt with in terms of reasoning, as the ideology goes.
  though if there is a clarification, a shifting of the issues
  into the world-war of the middle-east, it is more clearly
  warriors of this larger scale with whom truce is sought.

  it would be at a scale of nations and the world scale,
  of the United Nations, in which the issues of the mid-
  east would need to be dedicated to a more balanced
  and just resolution, possibly to evolve the bureaucracy
  into a World Congress which could more readily and
  fairly address problems that are now institutionalized.

  this is to say, to recognize, a reality at the world-scale
  to the issues of the world war of the middle-east, as a
  'war of terror' which is fought on behalf of a humanity
  by warriors of diverse intentions, yet which centers on
  some basic issues which can be engaged in peaceful
  terms, through human reasoning, versus the portrayal
  that 'terrorists' are without a greater purpose or cause,
  as to why they are willing to fight, die, for their beliefs.

  thus, with respect for humans from various other points
  of view of these events, it is to seek a place in which to
  begin engaging the paradoxical condition we may share
  as human beings living on the planet earth as one people,
  yet which may cause us to kill eachother so to protect our
  own selves from eachother. the reason for this seems to
  have something to do with the nature of the machinery,
  brought about by the rise of science and technology, and
  the role of modernization and industrialization in evolving
  the conditions which challenge the practices of tradition.

  what has been proposed has been that what may have
  previously been a conflict between humans-humans, has
  now, in this newly evolved context of the 20th c., be more
  about machine-machine relations between states, and of
  machine-human relations, in which current events exist.

  this is to say, it would seem that the 'war of terror' is, in
  such a context, a fight against inhuman oppressions of
  machinery which serves some humans, against others.
  and that it is this imbalanced ecosystem which is being
  fought against, the tyranny or oppressions which may
  lock-in a certain pattern, locally, which cannot evolve as
  a result of such a scenario. it would be to consider that
  this 'war of terror' is, in essence, against the machinery
  and trying to change its behavior to stop its oppressions.
  to enable greater representation, freedoms, beyond it.

  yet oftentimes it appears that the aspect of 'terrorism'
  in which civilians are to be equated with this inhuman
  and unthinking and automatic machinery, changes the
  nature of this encounter, because the 'terrorists' may
  become like-a-machine, in battling the machinery, iron
  on iron, and by the disregard of the humanity caught in
  the middle of this conflict, likewise dehumanize people
  so as to wage war against the machinery, at their scale.

  this is not a judgement, as much as to question a basic
  aspect which is going to be requested for consideration
  so as to try to frame, as fairly and realistically, what the
  actual war is, that is being fought, and if there is may be
  a way to limit the human casualties if it is to continue, so
  that if the fight is against machinery, it is waged as such.

  this is not to moralize or try to trick or deceive or seek
  advantage to some humans over other human lives, in
  such conflict. it is to try to form a basis in shared values,
  our shared humanity, by which we may find a reason to
  pursue peace, to shared benefit, rather than our own
  destruction while this machinery proceeds uninhibited.

  the issue that would seem to be shared, universally, is
  one of 'rights'. the rights of one person not to infringe
  upon the rights of another, being foundational. this is to
  say, the human rights of one person should not in any
  way legitimate the dehumanization of another, so that
  one human may benefit at the cost of another human.

  this is to say that the rights of a human Muslim should
  not have their rights taken away by the rights of human
  Americans. nor, in this same respect, should the human
  rights of a people be taken away by a corporation or a
  government of another people. this basic human right,
  of equal rights, where human men and human women
  are equally human, would appear to be a critical issue
  in relation to world issues now at war, in many ways...
  and it would appear it could be a place for improving of
  relationships between peoples, if these rights were to be
  observed, protected, and a way of relating across views.

  for example, this is the one reason, from a .US viewpoint,
  that it was seen that invading and toppling Afghanistan's
  Taliban was legitimated, for inhuman treatment of women
  in which they are brutalized and raped and considered as
  being 'less' than men (men are twice as valued, it seems).

  this right to humanity, and the value of each human being,
  could be considered a basis for a shared morality, even, if
  it were to be a standard by which to acknowledge relations,
  and rights of people to exist, without others who take away
  their rights, and function as if an inhuman machinery, etc.

  so this is to offer an outside perspective that, in some ways,
  it may be soldiers were to fight for the humanity of others,
  of something that is their right and has been taken away,
  yet obviously things are more complicated than this view.
  it is only to say that while there are indeed problems with
  .US ideology in current events, so too, ideology everywhere.
  yet that the issues which pervade the ongoing warfare seem
  to be tied, in different ways, to similar themes, such as the
  rights of people to exist, to have their own reality, to have
  this reality represented, to have government which serves
  people and their needs, which is based in their traditions
  and cultural heritage, which values and respects their views,
  and has sovereignty in its direction and the path it pursues.

  and somehow, today, this is mixed up in a chaos of events
  that has a lot to do with machinery, and how it develops, in
  relation to the human rights, values, and morality of people,
  in that it is now a competition between people and machines.
  and machines oftentimes seem to be winning, at the cost of
  the rights of people, which become enslaved to the patterns
  by which these machines operate, make decisions, evolve.

  therefore, it is questioned as to the engaging of the issues
  of current events in traditional terms between peoples and
  ideologies, or if it may be possible to consider this in terms
  of addressing these same issues as between people and
  machines, and-or machines-and-machines, which are now
  causing people to wage war, each against the other, on their
  behalf, yet it becomes a scenario in which humanity is losing.

  if it is actually a war against machinery that is being fought,
  the real advantage would be ideas and human reasoning,
  by which people could work together to alter the course of
  the machinery so that it is serving, not enslaving, people.
  that human rights are protected, not exploited, in its growth.
  and that balance can be found, for all people, at world-scale.

  this is to propose that this is not a war between Muslims or
  Christians or Jews, as human beings, and more to do with
  the machineries that represent them, yet are also detached
  from their own people, and need to be rewired, to balance
  the circuitry and to do so together to enable mass changes.

  this has less to do with politics and violence and revolution
  than it does with due process of human reasoning, which
  if in a truce it could be facilitated, that a better option for
  addressing today's concerns might be realized by people
  who are working together, collaboratively, on the similar
  human problems, and sharing their knowledge and ideas,
  including about how to transform governance, industry, or
  transportation, at various scales, so to create conditions
  whereby which ideas could grow, organically, into a new
  pattern by which old problems are now stuck dead-ends.

  this is to say, that with the harnessing of ideas which are
  to seek a shared outcome, so as to build, that objectives
  may be achievable and agreeable through these means
  which could occur in the framework of a long-term truce.

  and that this basis for sharing might be considered as
  that of shared human values, rights, and interest. all of
  which is based upon and established by human reason.

  thus, while the 'war of terror' may be considered in terms
  of machines and humans, it is tragic in that the humanity
  seems to be lost on all sides, in its further pursuit. so too,
  with the 'world war of the mid-east,' yet so too it is here to
  be proposed that if it is the war that is being fought, that
  it too may find a basis in this same differentiation between
  the problems with the machineries, as they interact or they
  fail to interact with one another and people and their rights,
  and the humanity that is stuck in this condition, and how it
  might be to focus more on considerations in these terms.

  because, if warriors are to fight a certain war for certain
  objectives, it would be horrible if humans fought a world
  war against eachother and only the machinery benefited.

  and so the question of what greater end is the fighting and
  killing of one another, in terms of human reasoning, for it
  would seem that through extreme violence of war, it may
  not be possible to achieve certain 'ideas' which are needed
  to change the machinery so as to address real grievances.
  and that only through other methods may it be possible to
  transform the situation, as humans, versus the machinery.

  it is not a trick of thought, it is to question, in the very end,
  the result, and if war could ever do what needs to be done,
  or if ultimately it requires ideas and approaches and human
  cooperation by which to change the outcome as it stands.

  this is said with greatest respect yet open heart, somewhat
  nervously in that it is far from perfect and is meant only to
  offer another point of view of the questions that may be
  shared, as humans, in relation to such a megamachinery.

  it is to question, and not really know the outcome, yet to
  know enough that ordinary approaches are doomed to
  fail, under any circumstance, unless portrayed accurately
  enough so as to consider this proposal from the context
  in which ideas can mediate conflicts, and not warfare. of
  a great respect for the philosophy and minds of those who
  may be able to relate to some of this, yet from another view,
  and yet here there is only silence by which to imagine there
  may be a bridge by which to connect and span these sides.

						*

  if there were shadow leadership in the .US, they would
  be able to convey the remorse many citizens hold within
  them, for the criminality committed on their behalf around
  the world. it is only asked that someday that .US citizens
  be given a chance to repay this debt through good deeds,
  which has been limited because of misguided leadership.
  there will come a time when the true nature of the .US will
  once again be represented. may it soon be on the horizon.

  warriors come home (poem)
  http://mnartists.org/work.do?rid=91811
	
						*

  as human reasoning is necessary for establishing a truce,
  it would be wise for the .US to cease any ongoing targeting
  of leadership willing to seek a peaceful resolution by truce
  to ongoing conflicts, rather than make this an impossibility.
  this would be to assume a safe zone (grace) is established.


  the following proposals are requested for consideration:


1) initial:  Guantanamo & de-targeting of civilians

  the issue of human rights being universal for all people,
  in relation to machinery, could be seen applicable on all
  sides of the current conflict. where innocent people are
  dying or abused, for larger machinations to wage war.
  while this war may proceed, it is requested that it be
  considered that there be a refocus of targeting, so as
  to focus on the war machinery itself, and those more
  directly involved in its daily operation (who have made
  individual decisions to choose to support it in its activity)
  so that should hostilities be continued it would be a war
  fought against opposing war machineries. it is readily
  acknowledged this is not a fair perspective by which to
  judge actions and encounters, because of mass death
  inflicted on innocent civilians elsewhere, yet in terms of
  principles most citizens do not have a choice in these
  matters. yet, to acknowledge the inhumanity of the .US
  machinery as it exists with a rogue governance, it would
  be to have citizens and organizations and those allied in
  mass media, to focus efforts to open up and close down
  the Guantanamo prison which today exists outside of
  international law, and has stripped humans of their
  rights, to persecute the 'war of terror', by terrorist acts.
  any in the .US or .EU who believe the lies that ignoring
  these situations makes them unreal, is party to the crime.
  and it would be a test if civilians could work together to
  accomplish such a task, to show the commitment to the
  larger idea of a truce and a greater peace between us.

  (so too, with regard to humans and machinery, captives
  and hostages would seem to benefit none while they are
  to dehumanize the larger goals being fought for/against.
  and it is questioned if this is truly for a greater purpose or
  may play into the hands of the ideologues, that violence
  is without reasoning- and inhumanity is all that is gained.
  which then justifies the further waging of war machinery,
  which is a looping of the problem, bringing more violence.
  this is only written as an act of conscience, and may not
  be fair or reasonable in terms of violent conflict, yet it is
  hard to imagine how a reporter or peace activists for the
  Iraqi people, becomes ultimately sacrificed for machinery.
  it would seem machines are to gain while humanity loses.)


2) intermediate:  Iraq & Afghanistan staged withdrawals

  in relation to a wider mid-east peace initiative, based on
  a treaty structure, might the withdrawal of .US troops be
  possible to coordinate with regard to 'good deeds' so as
  to address issues in the region, as part of an agreement,
  so that ongoing crises from natural disasters in Pakistan
  could become a basis for staging the safe draw-down of
  troops, over time, and to bring their housing materials to
  remote regions, and set-up livable environments so that
  the people now freezing and starving can have a chance
  of survival, and get more international attention outside
  the boundaries of current conflicts? this is to say that, is
  it possible that the cargo containers and other housing
  could be air-dropped, along with tents or other equip-
  ment, to aid those earthquake survivors in Pakistan?
  and might such initiatives be a way of working together
  to allow safe passage and good deeds, while also to
  change the nature of the environment for departing
  troops, and possibly to pacify the ongoing hostilities
  as they begin the process of staging their withdrawal?

  other ideas along this line would be, if there is any way
  that a civil engineering corp. could be useful to keep in
  the areas, to help with establishing a future project-
  based interaction, in non-military status, e.g. USAID.
  else, if any equipment or people now in Iraq might be
  useful for aiding the cause or needs of the Palestinians
  in order to stabilize relations, so to help establish a state
  and keep things in check, in terms of good deeds, so to
  help establish a region-wide peace, based on a truce,
  in which the mid-east war is finally officially ended, and
  a new era begins across the entire middle-east region.


3) peace treaty: wider mid-east peace planning/policy

  this will be developed in the next post, of possible co-
  development role in civil engineering projects, in which
  the .US could help, as a partner or via support, to assist
  in the transformation of the region using peaceful means.


  overall, the approach to a truce could be to try to find a
  basis in a shared understanding and values, by which to
  proceed, and thus the above are suggestions based on
  this viewpoint, yet they may be limited or something else
  may be preferable to consider. it is offered as a suggestion,
  with respect to the complexities of the issues, and while not
  an expert by any means, it is sent with purity of heart, that
  the purpose of a truce would be to establish connections
  which ultimately would be more worthwhile to pursue than
  war, to achieve the shared objectives, and with respect for
  the human union we share. to give people more reasons
  to live, with and for one another, than reasons to die...


  in considering the potential of a truce, the symbol of a
  lightning bolt hitting the heart somehow came to mind,
  and it was not in the sense of a heart-attack or cardiac
  arrest, by which someone dies, and instead of a jump-
  starting of the heart, by which this spark of life brings
  the heart back to life, from otherwise deadening times.

  so too, the moral could be considered that what is it
  going to take for us to love eachother more than we
  hate eachother-- to recognize this, and how are we
  going to figure out how to navigate through all of the
  problems that exist, which continue to destroy options,
  and instead, change course and work together, with
  eachother, rather than against eachother, as humans?

  there is a certain truth to the passion and generosity of
  those in the mid-east that is unmistakable- they are of
  great heart. and it is only wished that somehow people
  could connect in these natural ways, to do things, than
  to seek through these automatic machines, diplomacy.
  without human reason, emotion, imagination, ideas,
  can the things that need to happen, actually happen.
  and what is it going to take to make human reasoning
  the way forward, in the midst of a global war machine?
  an oftentimes automatic, unthinking, dehumanization
  that develops the planet, without greater purpose? it
  would seem that it is up to us to decide, and that our
  fate is tied with our decisions-- and that in the past
  we may not have been free to choose, wisely, as to
  the best course by which to develop ourselves, ideas.
  yet today, there is a choice, between who we serve,
  our people, or only and firstly our machinery, which
  today is a cataclysmic failure, as it is now designed.

  and we have everything we need, as people, to do
  something about changes the course of its, our
  human, development. for we can design and build
  better approaches, and develop better ideas, and
  approaches, and yet it is our ideas and reasoning
  which seem to be holding us back from this potential.
  and we are in a global and endless war, for machines.
  and people who believe in these machines, firstly, if it
  is without a better choice. and so finding a better path
  is up to us to figure out, together. else, we are to fail.
  and to succumb to this lesser world view and its fate.
  where humans kill humans, and the machine grows.

  the truce that is most needed is in the human heart,
  that the plight of other peoples, one's own culpability,
  or lesser aims, and enslavement to such machinery.
  this, too, might be a war truly worth waging, on behalf
  of humanity, in which we are all on the same side, and
  can fight against our own fascist tendencies, so as to
  protect our human rights, and human responsibilities
  to serve one another, not just ourselves, firstly, only.
  and it is this war that is mainly to be fought with minds,
  to seek to hack and crack the codes and programming
  by which the machinery operates, so it may be modified,
  altered, and adjusted to better serve human populations.

  this is why, so too, efforts made in this regard are also
  fighting for the rights of all people, including Muslims,
  with regard to issues of governance and machines of
  state and peoples, that it is a shared commitment to
  find ways of improving these devices for all citizens.
  so too, efforts to interrogate the .US constitution in
  this regard is also part of this battle, as foreign policy
  cannot change nor actions of the state without going
  after the bugs in the system which are creating them.

  to reason, to hope. to the possibilty of a truce.
  and good-will toward humanity. peace.


  [cont. mid-east peace policy]



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net