Global Harmony Initiative (GHI)

We believe there is no prosperous, improving, or continuous future for humanity in which war or other forms of violent conflict are still thinkable at a large scale. This has become obvious with the advent of nuclear weapons - with our technology advancing, all conflicts become much more destructive, and all destruction much more complete.

While our SGEARS organization is dedicated to foreseeing and preventing how advancing technology can endanger us unwittingly, GHI’s ultimate aim is to prevent ourselves from endangering our own survival and prosperity on purpose. At the same time, however, we do not wish to sacrifice political sovereignty and freedom for security.

To that end, GHI’s current proposals are as follows:

1) United Nations Reform

Firstly, there should be an ongoing comprehensive debate among all kinds of people from all over the world about what the main planetary unification-type institution should be like or what it should or shouldn’t be doing. From our forward-looking perspective, the current United Nations is merely an evolutionary step in that direction, much like the previous attempt was, the League of Nations.

Secondly, the main issue with the current United Nations that needs to be addressed appears to be the Security Council veto. Since the security council includes three of the world’s greatest political and military powers, the U.S., China, and Russia, it is virtually certain that any proposed UN action to stop any conflict of larger geopolitical consequence will be blocked by at least one of these parties.

The main cause of this issue is that this arrangement had originated in a very different geopolitical situation than the one in which we currently find ourselves. Right after WWII, the Security Council member states were mostly aligned. Since then, however, their interests have been drifting apart. What’s more, new major powers have been emerging lately, like India or Brazil, with no seat on the council.

From our point of view, giving more states the same veto power would only make the problem of inaction worse, so that is not what we advise. Instead, we propose that the institute of the selective veto power is cancelled. If the majority of all countries on the planet vote for a particular resolution, the resolution should take effect. If the planet isn’t run like a democracy, then it is a military dictatorship.

At the same time, we recognize that the element of hard power cannot be ignored. If the majority vote cannot be enforced against a rogue state because the rogue state is a major military superpower, it may still have some value as a political message, but it’s not much more than that. The three main ways to discourage a powerful actor from going rogue are trade, sanctions, and deterrence.

If the UN is to be effective at all, it needs to be able to either offer sufficient positive incentives to all state actors to motivate them to cooperate rather than use force, or to offer enough disincentives to make use of force not worth it. In terms of offering positive incentives, our OUSP and GPIB organizations provide guidance on improving everyone’s living standards and funding large-scale projects globally.

In terms of providing sufficient deterrence, the UN would either have to have its own transnational or supra-national military, which seems difficult to accomplish and has its own dangers, or the real vote would actually break down on the basis of how much military power backs any given resolution. We believe this is a realistic next-step arrangement that’s strictly better than the current veto-based approach.

In combination with the purely democratic element - simple majority vote of all countries still being required as well - the resolutions would have both legitimacy and enforcement capability. In addition to the political message, a quantifiable amount of military power would be backing the resolution, which would become effective beyond a specific threshold in the case of any particular conflict.

In effect, we believe we’re already seeing this type of arrangement taking form in practice. In the case of the Russian invasion into Ukraine, the Russian veto didn’t prevent an alliance of countries backed by a similarly powerful military capability from sanctioning Russia or sending military aid or volunteer fighters to Ukraine. If the UN simply formalizes this type of process, more conflicts could be mitigated.

The only wildcard in this type of arrangement are nuclear threats, making any action taken against a nuclear power more complicated. For this reason, we support general nuclear disarmament worldwide and a ban on all weapons of mass destruction, certainly above the civilization-ending threshold. However, it does appear that nuclear threats are likely to be bluffs if the stakes aren’t existential.

Which should never be an issue with UN actions, as its aim isn’t to destroy or take over countries, or in other words, threatening their continued existence. UN’s goal is, or should be, to maintain peace or, in the extreme, defend civilians and territorial integrity of sovereign states. From the perspective of the UN, it would be a victory if Russia simply stopped attacking Ukraine and started negotiating instead.

This means that more effective, clear communication is another thing that the UN should aim to achieve. The increasing global awareness of atrocities, realized thanks to the internet, may have actually been the main factor lately in increasing popular opposition to conflicts all over the democratic world, regardless of which country does them - a perceived enemy like Russia, or a perceived ally like Israel.

The UN could certainly do more to communicate what the threats to global peace are to the global public, and which actions need to be taken to address those threats. With enough public support or opposition, even great military powers can be swayed, not to mention that the effectiveness of sanctions or military support does also depend on how individuals choose to vote or spend their money.

Ultimately, we believe that the more the people of Earth will think of themselves as one people, the more it will be feasible to achieve something resembling world peace. The more the UN only looks like a small group of self-interested powerful states caring about themselves, the more conflict and suffering there will be on the planet. Put simply, whenever people somewhere are in danger, the UN must acknowledge it for what it is and then do something effective to help them.

To that end, the value of all human life must be seen as equal by the UN everywhere in the world. Each individual country or culture may have its own human life value “exchange rate”, as the Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef so darkly, but accurately put it, but the UN must not act in such a fashion. There must be no part of the world that is ever sacrificed for the benefit of a different part of the world, even if the sacrificed part is smaller. Exploitation and oppression breed conflict.

For example, if a people, any people, are the target of a genocide or something that a reasonable person would argue is approaching genocide by an overwhelmingly more powerful group, then:

a) The killing should be condemned, opposed, and minimized by all available means as soon as possible and for as long as necessary to make it cease.

b) After the killing ceases, the guilty party should be sued for appropriate reparations.

c) Following the historical examples of Israel and Germany, the reparations must not however be done in a way that invites future conflict, such as by giving the offended people a land that’s already occupied by a different group of people who would be displaced, or by economically destroying the offending people to a point of further radicalization.

Contrary to most arguments in partisan national or corporate media, none of this is in any way morally or pragmatically complicated. Making any people suffer is bad, equally. The more of it there is, the worse it is, but any amount is bad enough, certainly on the scale of nations. If one only cares for their own interest and thus harms others, one creates enemies, and thus goes against their best interest. The UN or a similar organization should try to help everyone act in their best interest.

2) Global Defense Alliance

To better address the issues of hard power, deterrence, and global resolution and peace enforcement, we propose that a NATO-like defensive military alliance backed by the authority of the UN is created which would safeguard all of the people of Earth who are interested in maintaining peace. With that said, some important definitions are in order, as some specifics of our proposal are unconventional.

First, let’s analyze the meaning of the concept of a defensive military alliance, and how this concept relates to the real-world example of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. At the most simple and straightforward level, a defensive alliance exists not to start fights, but to end fights. In this view, a defensive alliance doesn’t have to only stay within its own territory, it can launch interventions.

The main historical example of a NATO’s arguably humanitarian intervention was its role in the Yugoslav wars, particularly how it bombed Serbia to stop its actions that, regardless of any propaganda or diverging legal opinions, a reasonable person could argue were genocidal. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine is in progress, however, even this intervention is now often painted as a war crime in media.

As we have already stated, all human suffering is equally bad, or at least that seems to be the only reasonable position that a planetary organization charged with maintaining peace can hold. This means that as cold and disheartening as it is, we have to consider the calculus of human casualties. For comparison, let’s take the counter-example of the Rwandan genocide where no intervention took place.

In 1991, Yugoslavia had roughly 24 million people. The following Yugoslav wars resulted in about 140,000 casualties total. The NATO bombing caused around 1500 casualties, of which 1000 were combatants and 500 civilians. In 1994 before the genocide, Rwanda had over 7 million people. The casualties were around 800,000 people. The comparison may not be perfect, but it illustrates what we must count.

One can always question the real extent of the causal influence of any military intervention on the outcome of a conflict, or the true comparability of any two countries or conflicts, but a safe assumption is that the effect of an intervention should be non-zero, as well as greater than the effect of no intervention. It appears that in such extreme situations, a lesser evil is the best achievable outcome.

That is of course no consolation to any well-meaning soldiers who cause collateral damage or have to kill anyone in the first place, or to the specific victims and their families, but taking no action tends to help the people with the worst intentions, resulting in greater harm. What’s important is that the intentions and tactics of any humanitarian military intervention are fully humanitarian - a sight yet unseen.

Arguably, even the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia did include some actual war crimes, or in simple terms, targeted deaths of civilians that would qualify in legal terms as at least manslaughter. No UN-sanctioned military forces should ever purposely target civilians. It should go without saying, but unfortunately has to be said, that the “good guys” also do no raping, pillaging, or medieval sieges.

However, to avoid any type of both-sides-are-equally-bad logical fallacy, it is essential to carefully distinguish degrees of criminality or aggressiveness of any military force or operation. For example, let’s compare examples across alliances:

• NATO didn’t start the Yugoslav wars, or any war. A provocation of Russia is arguable, but on an indirect, non-offensive level.

• NATO didn’t invade Yugoslavia or intend to capture any territory.

• NATO as an alliance doesn’t militarily intervene in countries for reasons other than to stop their offensive military actions or acts of genocide.

• New countries tend to join NATO voluntarily with the only intention to ensure their own territorial defense. NATO doesn’t create puppet states.

• Russia did start the Ukraine war.

• Russia did invade Ukrainian territory with the intent to capture it.

• Russia’s long-term goal is to install a puppet government in Ukraine, as well as to restore its imperial sphere of influence, by force, if necessary.

• Israel didn’t start the war, but it did provoke it by long-term oppression.

• Israel has already been taking over Palestinian territory for a long time.

• Israel’s acceptable levels of collateral damage, or of targeting civilians, are greater than Russia’s and Serbia’s, let alone U.S.’s or NATO’s.

• The U.S. does start and provoke wars, but it also aims to end them, with an imminent return to neutral isolationism being a real possibility.

• The U.S. typically doesn’t invade countries to take over their territory, but it can do so for resources or to install a puppet regime.

• The U.S. does sometimes intervene to stop acts of genocide, and it doesn’t do them purposely in modern times, but it can also let them happen for reasons of political convenience.

As these examples demonstrate, there is no exact equivalence between different actors involved in recent conflicts. A simple determination who’s the absolute good guys and the absolute bad guys also cannot be made. But at the same time, there is no justification for moral relativism. Each actor could clearly be acting more morally or more constructively toward ensuring world peace in one or more areas.

In simple, unambiguous terms, world peace is threatened whenever countries:

• Start or provoke wars, particularly for reasons of territorial conquest, ethnic cleansing, resource capture, or pragmatic self-serving regime change.

• Fail to oppose aggressors and war crimes.

• Target civilians or otherwise maximize collateral damage.

Conversely, world peace is bolstered when countries:

• Band together voluntarily to passively deter aggressors.

• Intervene to put an end to wars of aggression and war crimes.

• Do everything in their power to minimize collateral damage.

Once again, contrary to what any or all propaganda would have us believe, none of this is complicated. Every self-interested government in the history of our world was surely at least tempted to pretend that they or their allies did nothing wrong while their opponents were doing everything wrong. We must learn to ignore such obviously false claims of all self-interested actors and all military propaganda.

This is where the more unconventional part of our proposal comes in - the appeal to all people of Earth who support world peace and their inclusion in the alliance. Typically, military alliances exist between nation states. This is probably related to why the current name of our planetary unification organization is “United Nations”. We believe classical nationhood to be an outdated, or at least aging, paradigm.

Among themselves, nation states exist in a state of anarchy, and while they are comprised of human beings, the nation states, much like corporations, aren’t human beings. This is why they cannot actually have humane relations between each other. Constructs like United States or Russia don’t have any human empathy, or intrinsic ethics. The importance of peace isn’t felt by them.

It is felt by most human beings. A nation will never be fighting for peace because it believes peace to be a good thing in itself. Even in democracies, nations tend to be represented by governments that only vaguely reflect the aggregated sentiments of the population. More likely, any military action’s true motive will be a psychopathic desire of a leader for greater personal enrichment or self-aggrandizement.

As long as governments aren’t actually responsive to the genuine will of the people in real time, which during a conflict tends to be to stop the conflict as quickly and humanely as possible, the people should be allowed to volunteer themselves and participate in peacekeeping efforts anywhere in the world, regardless of their nationality or citizenship status. To an extent, it’s only a question of formalization.

Already, informal international volunteer legions are a real thing that was seen in the Ukraine conflict, which are roughly equivalent to the established concept of voluntary foreign legions that some democratic militaries have employed, from Czechoslovakia to France. A military force comprised of fighters and companies whose overriding allegiance is only to the ending of conflicts, stopping of atrocities, and minimization of collateral damage may be the best counter to aggression.

The second unconventional part of our proposal is our conception of an ideal future military, or what “global defense” should actually mean. On the most abstract level, defending people means protecting people who are in physical danger from harm. This danger can be caused by military actions of aggressors, but it can also have a wide variety of other causes, ranging from crime to natural disasters.

Historically, national militaries have often been employed to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, while the designated UN peacekeepers (the “blue helmets”) are being deployed to protect civilians as part of various humanitarian efforts. These are exactly the kinds of efforts that a force like GDA should emphasize above normal military activities, but it’s only a start. The only existing reference for a truly humanitarian armada is the Starfleet from Star Trek, and it does much more.

For starters, a Starfleet-like military would be formed around a robust engineering and science corps. During peacetime, which should be most of the time, it would be looking for ways in which it can improve global infrastructure with the emphasis on increasing safety, resilience, and preparedness. It would try to prevent or mitigate global threats like pandemics or geological, cosmic, or climate disasters.

It would specifically develop defensive weapons systems, including mainly armor, shielding, support drones, construction, repair, and maintenance technologies, and all kinds of countermeasures, with the aim to outpace and counter aggressive military research into weapons that aim to maximize destruction, inflict cruelty, or project power. It’s still a military, so it will need to be equipped to fight and inflict damage if necessary, but the difference in design philosophy makes a difference.

Such a military could also assist in large-scale police actions to thwart organized international crime, focus in part on space exploration and the setting up of defensive and civilian space infrastructure, bolster global supply chains by protecting global shipping, and still more. Sadly, there is no shortage of people all around the world currently living under preventable or mitigatable threats of harm. Where nations fail to address problems or cause them, GDA should intervene.

As long as the planet as a whole in some sort of democratic process decides that a particular intervention is warranted and passes a resolution enabling it, GDA would then have the authority to be the first responders. Hopefully not the only responders, but it should be robust enough as an organization to be able to address most problems by itself, without any additional help being needed.

Of course, this is a hypothetical future situation. In the near term, a sufficient first step would be to formalize the process of backing UN resolutions with a military alliance sufficient to enforce the actions in the resolution. The forming or formalization of some sort of international volunteer peacekeeping legion could be the next step toward a truly effective military alliance dedicated to world peace.

GHI Charter

This charter represents the founding principles and guidelines for the Global Harmony Initiative. By adhering to these principles, GHI seeks to create a world where peace, understanding, and cooperation thrive, inspiring individuals and communities to work together towards a harmonious global society.

Title I. Name and Purpose

Article 1. The name of this organization shall be the Global Harmony Initiative (GHI).

Article 2. The purpose of GHI is to actively work toward the achievement of world peace through fostering understanding, cooperation, and unity among nations, communities, and individuals.

Title II. Goals and Objectives

Article 3. Promoting Dialogue: GHI shall facilitate open and inclusive generative dialogues among diverse stakeholders to address conflicts, promote mutual understanding, and seek peaceful resolutions.

Article 4. Advocacy and Education: GHI shall raise awareness about the importance of peace, advocating for peaceful solutions and providing educational programs that promote conflict resolution, empathy, and intercultural understanding.

Article 5. Community Building: GHI shall establish and support initiatives that promote community engagement, social cohesion, and collaboration, encouraging individuals to come together and create positive change.

Article 6. Sustainable Development: GHI shall actively contribute to sustainable development by supporting initiatives that address socio-economic inequalities, promote environmental stewardship, and ensure the equitable distribution of resources.

Article 7. Peacebuilding Research: GHI shall foster research and knowledge sharing to understand the root causes of conflicts, identify effective peacebuilding strategies, and contribute to evidence-based policies and practices.

Article 8. Partnerships: GHI shall collaborate with governments, organizations, and individuals committed to peace, forging strategic partnerships to leverage collective efforts towards achieving the organization's goals.

Title III. Organizational Structure

Article 9. Board of Directors: GHI shall be governed by a Board of Directors responsible for providing strategic direction, overseeing operations, and ensuring accountability. Initially, the Directors shall be the founding members of GHI. After the organization grows to have more regional chapters than there are founding Directors on the Board, new Directors or their replacements going forward will be democratically elected by a General Assembly of all GHI members, making the number of Directors on the Board match the total number of chapters. Board Director election rules will be specified in a dedicated document when needed.

Article 10. Executive Director: The Executive Director, appointed by the Board, shall oversee the day-to-day activities, implement the organization's mission, and manage its resources.

Article 11. Regional Chapters: GHI shall establish regional chapters worldwide to foster local engagement, adapt initiatives to specific contexts, and ensure inclusive participation.

Title IV. Funding

Article 12. GHI shall rely on diverse funding sources, including donations, grants, and partnerships with philanthropic organizations, governments, and the private sector.

Article 13. Financial transparency shall be a fundamental principle, with annual reports and audits conducted to ensure accountability and responsible resource management.

Title V. Membership

Article 14. GHI shall offer membership to individuals, organizations, and institutions that share its vision and mission, providing opportunities for engagement, collaboration, and participation in GHI's activities.

Article 15. Members shall uphold the principles of non-violence, inclusivity, and respect for human rights.

Title VI. Amendments

Article 16. This charter may be amended by a majority vote of the Board of Directors, provided notice of proposed changes has been given to all members.

Title VII. Dissolution

Article 17. In the event of dissolution, any remaining assets shall be distributed to organizations dedicated to peacebuilding and humanitarian causes, as determined by the Board of Directors.