Is pacifism really an option in our 21st century reality? Will nonaligned nations be able to protect their neutrality against unilateral state actors in the next possible world war? Any sensible human loathes potential for global war, but if history is any indication of the present it is complacency & appeasement of unilateral state actors hardly averts war. Events deteriorate from bad to worse almost overnight considering jingoistic appetites for geopolitical power are characteristically insatiable in nature. However, the question remains: in the event of World War 3, is an uncompromising commitment to pacifism turned official state policy truly moral & ethically viable when tasked with defending human rights? Should a reformed United Nations renounce absolute pacifism as an alternative to war? The British Broadcasting Corporation’s Guide to Ethics identified 4 different variations of pacifism as: absolute, conditional, selective, & active. Absolute pacifism is the most extreme in the sense that all forms of violence are renounced even to the point of denying foreign intervention to prevent crimes against humanity such as genocide in war ravaged nations.
Is it ethical to remain neutral out of loyalty to some super-philosophy espousing pacifism using passive moral justifications when the telltale signs of genocide are written on the wall much like the Rwandan Genocide of 1994? Conditional pacifism accepts the call to defend, deter, & deny the feasibility of war to belligerent unilateral state actors while rejecting the validity of militarism. In theory, a conditional pacifist can accept the need for a “world self-defense force” to intervene wherever & whenever military conflict occurs provided a Reformed United Nations can provide the necessary supranational mechanisms for direct military intervention in areas of conflict. Selective pacifism may accept the need for national defense using traditional militaries while exercising zero tolerance for weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear ordinances. For example, a nation can dispatch peacekeepers to monitor & police conflict zones such as borderlands recognized as potential flashpoints for future conflict while serving as an active signatory of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Finally, active pacifism allows for participation in conflict strictly under the condition of humanitarian action during war. Rather than soldiering on the battlefield as a combatant, an active pacifist would opt to serve in some ancillary capacity such as field paramedic or culinary specialist when serving in the military. One form of pacifism may seem more extreme than another when entertaining varying theoretical results of each classification, but the question is: as a supranational body, was the originative foundation of the United Nations designed with pacifism in mind? In a world consumed by geopolitical multipolar realities, strict adherences to pacifism as the suggested state policy of nations goads bullish unilateralists to pursue their expansionist geopolitical objectives with virtual impunity. Chauvinists are cynics at heart. They dismiss world peace as passive illusions. A chauvinist’s peace is first & foremost conditional, it is a one-dimensional peace only on their terms. The “chauvinist’s history book” describes world peace as something attributable to the glory of the nation. In essence, the nation makes world peace possible for the benefit of mankind.
It should therefore be unsurprising why chauvinists turned unilateral state actors forge peace through genocide, but where do such realities turned vexed nuances leave a Reformed United Nations? A world self-defense force organized by a Reformed United Nations can be structured to preserve the neutrality of nations in the event of World War 3. It would be tasked with protecting the territorial waters, airspace, & territorial integrity of each nation abstaining from fighting. A world self-defense force would also function as an impartial statistical authority dedicated to documenting casualties, calculating collateral damage, & securing international zones from belligerents. In addition, a world self-defense force would be tasked with airlifting humanitarian supplies to civilian populations directly affected by war in the territory of each belligerent nation to the fullest extent possible without exasperating conflict. In essence, a world self-defense force would be a Reformed United Nation’s answer to World War Three.
A world self-defense force would exemplify an “assertive pacifism” dedicated to maintaining peace wherever & whenever possible in the midst of the next possible world war, but reconciling bureaucratic conflicts of interest with the Security Council as the world’s first supranational military force will prove the most challenging considering world powers engaged in World War 3 would promptly recall their commitments. Perhaps a Reformed United Nations would replace the current United Nations where the Security Council is permanently disbanded in favor of a World Self-Defense Force tasked with restoring & preserving world peace?