“That is where being an historian is helpful, Ranjit. It gives one a long memory. While the public may forget what a politician promised last week, and a politician may forget what he said to get elected, a historian remembers what happened a generation ago, a century ago, a civilization ago. We remember what worked and what did not. We often disagree on the explanations, but we remember the outcomes.
“The Pax Romana worked for two hundred years. The League of Nations did not. The United Nations has had the support of the United States this time, so it has lasted longer, but it still works no better than the League of Nations. We are no closer to a peaceful world, to a true cooperation among nations. And the collapse of the standoff between the Communist world and the free world—by the collapse of the Communist empire and the rise of regional fanaticism—has merely made the world safe for conventional regional wars again. This alone would be cause enough to take drastic action.
“But the threat from these local conflicts is more dangerous than the threat of global war precisely because they are local, driven by local passions, multiplied in location after location all over the earth. The global balance of power was formerly much more manageable because it was global.
“And now we have the black market trade in nuclear technology to worry about. We know that Pakistan has sold technology related to its nuclear weapons. We know that Turkey has purchased nuclear weapons. We know Korea was outfitting Syria with nuclear technology until the Israelis took care of that. We know European suppliers, playing the morality game with us over Iraq, yet ever mindful of profit and loss, supplied Iran with ultracentrifuges for nuclear fuel enrichment. So Iran got added to the nuclear fraternity. The problem grows and grows like a weed that will not die. Saudi Arabia and Syria are back on track to acquire their own nuclear weapons to counter the Iranian threat. And on and on. Where will it stop? You tell me, Mr. Secretary-General. What can the United Nations do about such things?”
Lal raised his hand impatiently, interrupting. “General Slaider, forgive me, but I am not here to debate with you. I am waiting patiently for you to explain just why I am here. I accept that you are intent, for your own good reasons, on continuing to violate every convention of civil and international law and relations. Now what do you want of me?”
“Well-said, Ranjit. I am getting to that. The United Nations can do nothing about such threats to world order and stability that I just enumerated because the myth of international cooperation is just thata myth. Cooperation extends only to taking . . . taking whatever benefits accrue to membership in the UN. But not to relinquishing any autonomous sovereign rights. Every nation reserves and has reserved the right to act with complete autonomy once the path of their self-interest is determined. The Soviet Union into Hungary. China into Tibet. Iraq into Kuwait. America into Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel into Lebanon, Russian into Ukraine.”
Lal was about to interrupt. Slaider stopped him. “Yes, I know. The Security Council has become a more and more effective coercive tool. From it’s first tentative stand in stopping the Arab-Israeli war following the partition of Palestine, to its stand in Korea, to its stand in Kuwait and Iraq it has moved to more and more aggressive compulsion. So a precedent has been set and a trend established. That trend needs to push to its natural conclusiona true world government.”
Lal was stunnedagainby this rogue general who seemed to have no end of surprises for him. He was stunned into silence.
“This may shock you, coming from a military manthat I would be proposing such an infringement of our national sovereignty. There are powerful forces within the United States, just as with every other country that will resist with every resource they can muster such a break from the traditional autonomy of nations. The idea of a world government isI recognize full wellanathema to every nation on earth. But that is the old thinking. When President Bush the first, at the turn of the millennium, said we were entering a new world order, he did not realize how true his words are. Technology has driven us to a new realityone we can no longer manage with the old management tools of international intrigue and self-interest.
“The three areas of technology that offer the greatest hope and the greatest threat are the corruption of earth’s atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, the spread of nuclear weapons technology, and the manipulation of energy resources for profit and political intimidation by Middle East countries, by Russia, and by Central and South American oil and natural gas producers. Any one of these areas of instability can produce global disorder. Combined with the uncontrolled growth of world population, the three technological threats represent a relentless slow boil that will destroy us all. You all avert your eyes or invent a different clock that ticks at random intervals of your own delusion. But we are all threatened nevertheless with the greatest challenge to world stability since the idea of nationhood made its first tentative thrusts in the plains of Asia. The idea of nationhood, of national pride and identity has been a curse to mankind ever since. How many deaths due to war have occurred, how much material and equipment wasted in the mad bloodletting of nations? How does it stop?
“The greatest problem with the United Nations is that there is insufficient incentive to create a true federation of nations, a true world government. Nations, as nations, will not give up real powers to a worldwide central authoritynot readily anyway. The reasons for this are without endtribalism, national pride, perceived economic self-interestI could go on and on. To expect the nations of the world to embrace a central world government with strong coercive options is an impossible pipe dream. I know that.
“The United Nations as it is presently constituted, I say again, has passed its prime, has lost its relevance. How do we move on? The League of Nations was born from the ashes of World War I. The present United Nations rose from the ashes of World War II. The next incarnation of a world body must not rise from the ashes of World War III.
“So here is the dilemma. The world is facing ticking time bombs with nuclear weapons proliferation, with environment-degrading energy policies, with runaway population growth. These ticking bombs willI say will, not mighteventually lead to more and more catastrophic worldwide disorder and instability. We are facing death and destruction on a massive scale the equal of either World War, but slowly, slowly, so we can blather and posture and make promises and treaties no nation intends actually to honor or keep.
“The United Nations has become an articulate expositor of the problems. You write reports and explain that the problem here and the problem there is bad governance. This is a surprisingly frank and cogent explanation of the world’s problems. Bad governance! How many times does this phrase appear in your many surprisingly fine reports on population growth, on extreme poverty, on climate change, on famine, on the expansion of deserts, on human rights abuses, on weapons purchases, on the destruction of indigenous cultures? Shall I go on?
“Bad governance. Where do you go from there with your UN? You are as much a part of the problem as you are not a part of the solution. How is it that there so much bad governance in the world? Let me tell you how. A band of barely literate rebels, thugs, really, in every sense of the word, and more often than not, psychopathic and sadistic killers, gain control of a country by force of arms and terror and the United Nations recognizes those people as the legal rulers of that country because how they gained control and what they do with it is an internal matter, one the UN intentionally avoids judging. So whoever answers the phone when the United Nations calls is the legally recognized authority in that country. Do you see what this ancient and accepted method of granting legitimacy does? It perpetuates bad governance. It promotes legitimacy where legitimacy to anyone but a diplomat would seem insane.
“In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since 1948, how many repressive and murderous regimes have there been and how many of them were or are members of the United Nations? I will tell you, Mr. Secretary-General. All of them.
It defies common sense. But to the diplomatic community, well . . . you have no problem with this. The rules do no allow it even to be a problem. This is institutionalized insanity.
“On the other hand, we have a potential solution in the form of the United States’ solid laser technology combined with the discoveries of Dr. Arthur J. Cranshaw’s controlled microfusion technology and the transformation to a hydrogen-energy economy. We have only to envisionboldly envisionwhat new possibilities these new technologies open to us.
“This is my vision, Mr. Secretary-General. This is what I am proposing to youa world government with teeth. The central authority would gain clearly defined jurisdictions, and within those jurisdictions it would have the power to enforce, not merely advise, cajole, or persuade. It would need to be able to punish severely so that compliance with the central authority is assured.
“Of course, no member nation of the United Nations today will see their self-interest being served by relinquishing their sovereign control to such a world government. It seems an impossible dream to you, I’m surebut one in your heart of hearts you yearn for. No need to deny it. I know there are times you must have wished for such powers.
“And what prevents the member nations from adopting such a world government? What prevents the central authority from being established? It is not a difficult question. The United States faced it at its own inception. Rome faced it. The Soviet Communists faced it. Every federation faces it. Given man’s nature and the unwillingness to give up what he already possesses, what drove these people to embrace federation? Three things. Interesting, is it not, Ranjit, how important things come in threes?
First and foremost is the need for an overwhelming motivation for obedience to the central authority, giving no option but compliance to the federation members. Historically this obedience has been obtained by the central authority having the power to destroy rebels by force of arms. Bluntly put, by controlling the most killing power. Right now, through this window of opportunity, there is a better way that I will show yousoon.
“Secondly, I know from history that military might is not enough to preserve an unsuccessful federation. The advantages of confederation must last not for the few years of an immediate crisis or for the life of a charismatic leader, but for generations, for the foreseeable future. Again, I will show you howsoon.
“Circumstances have conspired to make our present time, this moment, propitious for creating such a federation.
“On the one hand, in the United States, we have man’s most successful, longest-functioning federation. It is a perfect model for a new world federation, a new central world authority modeled after the United States Constitution. It can readily be adapted to a world government.
“On the other hand, in the development of laser-fusion energy and the hydrogen-energy economy it ushers in, we have the continuing advantage to the federation members of inexhaustible energy provided virtually freeyes, compared to the current cost of fuelbased on need and to be withheld for cause. There is the inescapable incentive for membership and withholding that energy is the inescapable motivation for obedience.
“Finally, Ranjit, there must be a common threat perceived as more dangerous than the loss of autonomy required in order to meet the threat. Again this has been persuasive in the past when there was the common threat of an oppressive colonial power or hostile and violent neighbors, or some other threat perceived as warlike and in military terms. In me you see that common threat. America’s democracy threatened by a military dictatorship, America’s worldwide network of military bases in open military conflict. Impounding half the world’s gold supplies. It all makes me a pretty bad apple internationally, wouldn’t you say?
“So at this moment in history you have the last ingredient necessary for a successful federation. With the actions I am taking, removing the UN from our soil, withdrawing from the organization—did I mention that? No more US dollars to run the operation. That just about does it. Yes, I think that will do.”
Lal got up from his chair. “No, General Slaider, this is too much.” He began to pace near the desk, making nervous, busy gestures with his hands as he searched for the flaw in what Slaider was telling him, the key to a compromise.
“What are you saying—excuse me, General—that this conspiracy, this chaos and ruin?—you see, I don’t understand—this is all somehow to strengthen the United Nations by challenging us to destroy you? You have arranged for all these things to happen and now you are proposing that the United Nations become a sovereign world government in order to defeat you?”
“You’re getting warm. But I don’t expect the United Nations to defeat me. Or to do anything. What I expect the United Nations to do is to die. This, in fact, is my goal. America is angry now. It thinks you are the representative of an ineffective, subversive, fifth column on our shores—of an organization that supports our enemies, hides them, protects them, allows them sanctuary while they work their will against us. And, well, let’s face it. Of course they are mostly right. Except these foreigners violating the hospitality of our shores work their destructive wills against each other and against themselves as much as against us, knowing no limit to their hatred and destructive delusions, and so they are the enemy of order and justice. Internationally, we have regressed to the nineteenth century, Mr. Secretary-General. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Lal ignored the general’s question as merely rhetorical and said nothing.
“So, America for the moment is with me. And the moment will last long enough to accomplish my goals of cleaning America’s shores of you and uniting the world against an out-of-control United States. And the power vacuum I have created in the world will either be filled by the United States, by default, if you are weak and do not rise to the challenge, or the vacuum can be filled by a new world alliance, a new federation of nations under a different sovereign central authority and new governing principles that I will get to later with you. That’s where it gets sticky. That’s where I need you. It all depends on how bold you are prepared to be. Whether you can do what needs to be done or whether you will let scruples and the tug of past failures get in your way?”
General Slaider leaned forward on his desk, focusing his attention on Lal.
“There are moments when the forces of history are poised in unstable equilibrium, where huge forces are resting against each other in a weird, unexpected, giant cancellation of thrusts. Except that one bold person, knowing where to push, can suddenly push just there, at that one spot, you see, and the whole structure doesn’t just come tumbling down helter-skelter. It slides controllably in the direction of the push. Like a controlled building implosion, don’t you see. It works because the thrust has been directed judiciously, not accidentally. But timing is everything.
“You see, we’re not yet at one of those moments of unstable equilibrium. We’re near it. I’ve seen to that. And soon I’ll have the whole world with horns so locked no one will dare sneeze for fear that everything will come crashing down. And the world will be immobilized. I know politicians and diplomats very well. I’ve made something of a study of you. You will take the most clear-cut case of larceny and talk it to death rather than take decisive action. Yes, I’m betting I can tie up the whole world with demands and concessions and retractions. You name it. I will use every trick and the rest of the world will try to split the differencethe principal diplomatic ploy, don’t you agree, after endless discussion and recrimination? And everything will just start to slide into the toilet because you won’t know what to do about currency exchange with me holding all this gold. Or about funding the UN. Or about the US bases overseas. Or about sovereignty over those bases. Or about what punitive actions to take against the United States. Or how the United States might retaliate against your actions. We are still the largest economy in the world. Don’t forget that. Or even about how to function without the United States. It will be utter chaos.”
“But to what end, General? To what end i
s all this chaos?”
“To what end? Haven’t I been telling you? Don’t disappoint me now, Lal. To the end of moving mankind away from its reliance on old thinking, old institutions, old solutions. They don’t work anymore. None of them. You see, the world is no longer capable of being managed by any of the rules developed over the millennia that more or less worked clumsily, disastrously even, but tolerably, up to now. Just as more and more the theological solutions that were created ten thousand years ago in the cave and in the desert and on the mountain top are no longer relevant to a modern world. Just as we now know the origin of thunder and earthquakes and comets and the movement of the planets and the limitations of man’s place in the universe, just so are we learning, and learning the hard way, that old solutions for surviving in community, in the big city as it were, are no longer relevant, much less adequate.
“Unfortunately, we have lost the means and the incentive for radical social invention. Communism was the last significant attempt, but it failed miserably because it simply didn’t deliver the goods. It was a radical invention, all right. It just didn’t work. They had the right idea though, that something radically different was needed. But it must work. So that becomes the problem. How do you find a radically new system that will work? Bear with me for a little thought-excursion and you will learn at least that there is a method to my . . . well, for the sake of discussion, let’s call it madness.
“Actually, laser fusion helped me crystallize my thinking. As the claims of AJC Fusion were confirmed, I did quite a bit of reading to refresh myself on the basic physics of the process. And in my reading, I was reacquainted with the important emphasis physicists place on reference frames. Laws of nature are not universal and absolute. They are strongly dependent on the reference frame to which we apply them. The concept is best illuminated by a comparison between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativistic mechanics. Bear with me. I promise you that this will lead somewhere that will help you understand.
On Deception Watch Page 39