by Harold S. BIDMEAD
The best strategy is one that aims at a single easily recognizable objective, the attainment of which will ensure the success of the entire campaign. All else is tactics.
The enemies of a peaceful world order are the worshippers of the false god of national sovereignty, the idol with feet of clay. They seek merely to patch up the UN and the EU so that both will remain mere leagues of nations, united only in name but not in reality.
To counter their machiavellian schemes, peace lovers need to unite under a common banner if we are to achieve a new world order based on peacefully enforceable democratic law.
These last four words contain the key, the common denominator that will unite us all, leaving us free to follow the tactics of the particular (and peculiar) programs of our own organizations or personal proclivities.
Such strategic unity is absolutely essential if our individual tactics are to succeed. Especially at the present time, when revision of both the UN Charter and the Maastricht treaty complex is on the diplomatic agenda, such unity should be the first priority of every mundialist individual and organization. (By "mundialist" is meant a democrat who is benevolently concerned with the world as whole, as a global village.)
Accordingly, any proposed new international order must comprise a system (no matter how limited initially in geographical extent) of peacefully enforceable democratic law; all other proposals should be rejected until this requirement is met.
A triumph for the principle of peacefully enforceable law in the interpopular sphere could be claimed by every mundialist organization as a victory for a most (if not the most) important plank on its policy platform. This applies both to UN and EU revision, both topical this year. Both the patient and impatient will recognize it as a step in the right direction. Advocates of international government will recognize that law requires a government to enforce it.
Democrats will recognize that such law must rest on a democratic legislature if it is to remain peacefully enforceable.
Pacifists will be pleased that the law is peacefully enforceable; so will the disarmament enthusiasts. This would make war unnecessary and therefore unlikely to occur.
Even the anarchists, of whom there are many (both declared and crypto) must recognize that an interpopular government would reduce the total "amount" of government (and of taxation) in the world, if only by reason of its pacifying effect. Thus the world would be moved closer to the anarchist ideal when men and women become saints and no longer need any kind of government whatsoever except their own consciences.
Law cannot be enforced without violence unless it acts directly on the individual.
Thus the victory would please the federalists, who also realize that interpopular law cannot be expected to come into existence unless it is explicitly restricted to interpopular affairs.
The prospect of some such law being made applicable to the environment and to population policy would please the ecologists.
Even those who would be satisfied with merely patching up the "United" Nations would agree that peacefully enforceable law (if practicable under such a league system) would be an improvement on the status quo, whereby warlike sanctions punish the poor, weak and innocent rather than the guilty.
***