[p2p-research] Alternative peer alliance form (was Re: Road to Polario: The Coming Russian-American Alliance)

Tue Sep 15 04:44:13 CEST 2009

hi larry,

thanks for this, a little too busy to say anything myself right now,

Michel

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:26 AM, larry taub <elitov at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Dear Michel, and Paul,
> I finally got around to reading carefully and thoroughly Paul D. Fernhout's
> fascinating and important essay about peer-to-peer security alliances, aka
> mutual attack pacts, that you (Michel) sent me, which still appears below in
> the thread.
>
> Paul, I think your idea is absolutely brilliant, and the way to go. I have
> not seen it anywhere else, and I hope you are able to make the idea more
> widely known, especially to upper echelons.
>
> (That is not impossible: the idea of mine that appeared in an article in
> Asia Times about 4 years ago, about a Far-Eastern Alliance [Confucio], was
> widely discussed by Japanese, Korean, and Chinese politicians and diplomats,
> and may have even influenced the newly-elected prime minister of Japan, to
> judge from statements he has made. Let me know if you want the link to this
> article, for any reason.)
>
> Your idea could save the world. I couldn't find any flaw in it, except,
> maybe, the possibility that the majority of the members of a mutual attack
> pact might at some point bully a single member that decides that its
> interests no longer coincide with those of the majority. But I haven't
> thought that possible flaw through thoroughly, and, such pacts may be
> designed, by their very nature, to prevent such a situation from occurring.
>
> I do agree that a mutual attack pact is probably better than EU-type or
> ASEAN-type unions like Polario or Confucio, but please note that I am not
> promoting such unions per se. I write about the US, Canada, and Russia
> organizing a Polario Union because,
>
> (1) I think it is likely to occur, so I am "predicting" it, so to speak,
>
> (2) Given the current world situation, which is full of the clear and
> present dangers I mention in my essay, Polario would be the right policy for
> the present moment, and relatively easy for the US and Russia to start
> working on right away, and
>
> (3) A Polario-type union goes with the present Age. One reason that
> EU-Polario-ASEAN-Confucio-type unions are easier to implement at the moment,
> and which explains why they have become "fashionable" during the present
> Worker Age, is that their purpose is not military (they are not really
> mutual defense pacts), but economic. (The Worker Age, like the previous
> Merchant Age, is an economically-centered age.) Their main purpose is to tie
> nations together economically. Militarily, for example, the EU is useless.
> If the European countries have to act together militarily, they don't use
> the EU, they use NATO. A pact which starts off by, for example, bringing
> Singapore, the Netherlands, and Estonia together at the beginning stage
> doesn't come from the need and motivation of the three countries to
> integrate economically.
>
> However, Paul, another reason why I think your idea is important, urgent,
> and should be promoted as much and as soon as possible, starting now, is
> because within 20-30 years the Worker Age will be petering out, and the
> world will go deeper into the following Spiritual-Religious Age (which has
> already started), and I am coming around to the idea that the mutual attack
> pact is suitable for that age, and will definitely be the way countries and
> peoples will approach things as that age progresses, i.e., your idea will
> become more familiar and put into practice.
>
> There are already indications along these lines. The EU, for instance, and
> I guess ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) too, already have
> features that resemble what you are talking about in your peer-to-peer
> security alliance concept. In order for a European country to join the EU,
> it has to follow certain internal moral, civil, cultural, political,
> economic, financial, and a whole bunch of other standards that the Union
> adheres to and requires. This is one reason why Turkey is having such a hard
> time getting into the EU, and why it is now trying hard to improve its
> relations with its Kurdish population and to normalize its relations with
> neighboring Armenia.
>
> So I wish you much success in promoting your idea, and I will try to spread
> it around as well.
>
> Finally, I want to apologize for using the terms Merchant, Worker, and
> Spiritual-Religious Age, which you are probably not familiar with because
> you haven't read my book or any of the summaries of its key ideas that
> Michel has put on the p2p website. But you probably get the idea anyway.
>
> Let's do it,
>
> Larry
>
> Jerusalem, Israel
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:49:32 +0700
> Subject: Fwd: [p2p-research] Alternative peer alliance form (was Re: Road
> to Polario: The Coming Russian-American Alliance)
> From: michelsub2004 at gmail.com
> To: p2presearch at listcultures.org
> CC: elitov at hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Paul D. Fernhout* <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com>
> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Alternative peer alliance form (was Re: Road to
> Polario: The Coming Russian-American Alliance)
> To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>
>
> The larger novel shows a series of alternative societies.
>
> That specific story shows determined non-violent opposition to exploitation
> of a social network.
>
> Though, personally, I can see there a tension between an inclusive gift
> economy and an exclusive peer barter network an outlined there, so it's not
> necessarily an ideal as much as something to think about.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
>
>
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> why is this story important? should I add it to
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Fiction ?
>
>
> Related section of a 1951 sci-fi story:
>  "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell
>
> http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/and_then_there_were_none.html
> """
>  Matt came up with a cloth over one arm. ‘I’m serving no Antigands.’
>  ‘You served me last time,’ Harrison reminded.
>  ‘That may be. I didn’t know you were off that ship. But I know now.’ He
> flicked the cloth across one corner of the table, brushing away imaginary
> crumbs. ‘No Antigands served by me.’
>  ‘Is there any other place where we might get a meal?’
>  ‘Not unless somebody will let you plant an ob on them. They won’t do that
> if they know who you are but there’s a chance they might make the same
> mistake as I did.’ Another flick across the corner.
>  ‘I don’t make them twice.’
>  ‘You’re making one right now.’ announced Gleed, his voice hard and edgy.
> He nudged Harrison. ‘Watch this.’ His hand came out of a side pocket
> holding
> a tiny gun. Pointing it at Matt’s middle, he said, ‘Ordinarily I could get
> into trouble for this, if those on the ship were in the mood to make
> trouble. But they aren’t. They’re more than tired of you two-legged mules.’
> He motioned with the weapon.
>  ‘So start walking and fetch us two full plates.’
>  ‘I won’t,’ said Matt, firming his lips and ignoring the gun. Gleed thumbed
> the safety-catch which moved with an audible click. ‘It’s touchy now. It’d
> go off at a sneeze. Get moving.’
>  ‘I won’t,’ said Matt.
>  With unconcealed disgust, Gleed shoved the weapon back into his pocket. ‘I
> was only kidding you. It isn’t loaded.’
>  ‘Wouldn’t have made the slightest difference if it had been,’ Matt
> assured. ‘I serve no Antigands and that is that.’
>  ‘What if I’d lost control of myself and blown several large holes in you?’
>  ‘How could I have served you then?’ asked Matt. ‘A dead person is of no
> use to anyone. It’s time You Antigands learned a little logic.’ With which
> parting shot he meandered off.
>  ‘He’s got something there,’ offered Harrison, patently depressed. ‘What
> can you do with a corpse? Nothing whatever. A body is in nobody’s power.’
>  ‘Oh, I don’t know. A couple of stiffs lying around might sharpen the
> others. They’d become really eager.’
>  ‘You’re thinking of them in Terran terms,’ Harrison said. ‘It’s a mistake.
> They are not Terrans no matter where they came from originally. They are
> Gands.’
>  ‘Well, just what are Gands supposed to be?’
>  ‘I don’t know. It’s a safe bet they’re some kind of fanatics. Terra
> exported one-track-minders by the millions around the time of the Great
> Explosion. Look at that crazy crowd on Hygeia, for instance.’ ...
> """
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>
>  Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> by Lawrence Taub
>
> Russia, the US, Canada, and Scandinavia – All Under One Roof, the North
>
> Pole
>
> The year is 2020 and the unthinkable has happened -- the US and Russia,
> together with Canada, several USSR successor states, and the Nordic
> countries, have announced the formation of Polario, a political and
>
> economic
>
> union along the lines of the European Union.  Economic, security, and
>
> mutual
>
> confrontation issues, as well as the rise of Europa and Confucio (the
>
> East
>
> Asian Union), have finally forced the hands of the two ex-superpowers.
>
>  An
>
> economic-political union together with the other countries around the
>
> North
>
> Pole has seemed the only way to solve their problems “permanently“.
>
> When I was in a high school social studies class, the causes of World War I
> were explained:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
> """
> World War I (abbreviated as WW-I, WWI, or WW1), also known as the First
> World War, the Great War, and the War to End All Wars, was a global
> military
> conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in
> two opposing alliances: the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance.[2] Over
> 70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in
> history.[3] The main combatants descended into a state of total war,
> pumping
> their entire scientific and industrial capabilities into the war effort.
> Over 15 million people were killed, making it one of the deadliest
> conflicts
> in history. The immediate or proximate cause of war was the assassination
> on
> 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the
> Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist.
> Austria-Hungary's resulting demands against the Kingdom of Serbia activated
> a sequence of alliances. Within weeks the major European powers were at
> war;
> their global empires meant that the conflict soon spread worldwide.
> """
>
> That "activation of a sequence" of alliances was the key bit, where all the
> alliances were of the form, "if you attack anyone in the alliance, everyone
> in the alliance will attack you back". So, two tiny countries have a tiny
> border dispute or tiny trade dispute, and soon the whole world then is
> fighting each other. From a global systems perspective, this is a very
> stupid way to organize military alliances. That form of alliance is
> designed
> to *amplify* conflict with positive feedback, not damp down conflict with
> negative feedback.
>
> Now, I thought about that, and I am still proud to say I came up with this
> idea then as an alternative sitting in social studies class (and no doubt
> someone else has had it, but I have not seen it yet, but I have not thought
> about it in years or looked for a parallel).
>
> Here is the key idea: a peer-to-peer security alliance should be of a
> different form than a mutual defense pact against outsiders. It should be
> more like a mutual attack pact against insiders, where if anyone in the
> alliance attacks another peer in the alliance (or violates an agreed on
> boundary in some way), then the *entire* rest of the alliance agrees takes
> action against the peer violating the boundary or doing the aggressive
> thing. This alliance says nothing about what the alliance will do if
> threatened from outside. It is purely a set of rules about normative peer
> behavior inside the alliance.
>
> So, imagine we start this peer-to-peer alliance of countries with the
> Netherlands and Singapore, at opposite ends of the world (although both
> concerned about trade). In order to form it, both need to agree to some
> basic code of international conduct, as well as formalize their borders
> with
> respect to each other, and resolve any current trade disputes. Then, say,
> Estonia decides to join. It to must agree with the previous border claims
> of
> the Netherlands and Singapore with respect to itself (and other economic
> regulations as well as rules for amending the alliance charter, and so on).
> Alternatively, in the process of joining, Estonia needs to get the
> Netherlands and Singapore to alter aspects of the alliance including
> borders
> in a way that all the countries in the alliance can agree on (so, agreement
> is 100% consensus within the alliance on the changes or the new country can
> not join).
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
>
> Now, you may ask, what is the point of the Netherlands, Singapore, and
> Estonia agreeing to not attack each other (like they would even dream of
> that) and to adhere to some generally recognized international laws they
> are
> likely already following? What would be the point in the Netherlands and
> Singapore agreeing that Estonia could step in to stop a very unlikely
> military conflict between the two, Estonia likely having few troops and few
> ships and little chance of accomplishing anything by itself beyond some
> talk? The value begins to grow as more countries join. So, with more and
> more countries, there would be increasing value in the agreement to allow
> the other countries in a growing alliance to step in and stop conflicts
> which any country initiates against other peer countries in the alliance.
> As
> times goes by, Venezuela might join, and then Canada, and then joining this
> alliance might be the sensible thing to do because it will be a new
> organization setting standards and promoting good things across the peer
> network. Eventually, a country will want to join who has a border dispute
> or
> economic dispute with another country already in the alliance (say, if
> Russia wants to join and Japan has already joined, and they dispute
> ownership of some islands). In order to join this alliance, the countries
> involved will need to work out their dispute. There may eventually be an
> enormous incentive to join this organization, so, say the value of joining
> may be bigger than the value of some few islands that are disputed, and
> there would be a big incentive to bring in even more countries to assure
> global mutual security by those in the alliance, so, there is a big
> incentive by all peers to resolve these conflicts before they lead to war,
> even if significant concessions needed to be made. Eventually, there might
> be a situation where there are a few big holdouts, like the USA, if it
> can't
> agree with everyone else's border claims or figure out a way to resolve it.
> But there might be enormous internal political pressure on those last
> holdouts to joint to support world peace. It would at least be pretty
> obvious at that point what countries were not willing to get along with
> their peers.
>
> Eventually, this alliance might replace the United Nations. Alternatively,
> this alliance forming process might actually be done through the United
> Nations as a series of new treaties with new governing structures. Note,
> this is *not* the same as world government. This is a set of rules for how
> peers should behave towards each other. And it is also, ideally, a
> framework
> for solving conflicts before they reach the point of economic war or
> physical war (given economic war and physical war are often interrelated
> with one causing the other).
>
> Note the big difference of this form of alliance than the conventional
> form, including this new "Polario" idea. There is no reason for a set of
> two
> big blocks which might end up attacking each other. There is the potential
> for this one alliance to spread globally and define the norms under which
> peers (countries) interact with each other under the terms of the alliance.
> I'm not sure what would happen if two such alliances started to form, but
> ideally, they would negotiate at least a common denominator for borders and
> trade rules and then merge. But even if two alliances could not agree, they
> would still not pose any threat to each other, because there is nothing in
> the alliance about how to interact with those outside the alliance. So, two
> alliances could even overlap. There could even be different alliances for
> diferent things (borders versus trade regulations, for example). I'm not
> sure, as I think about it, what all the implications would be of lots of
> overlapping peer-to-peer alliances of this form?
>
> Would this work politically? It entails countries essentially agreeing to
> be attacked militarily or economically by peers if they violate certain
> norms they previously agreed to, or at least, peers agreeing to be
> attackers
> or enforcers, to step in and stop disputes and enforce boundaries. It is a
> sort of global anti-bullying pact among peers.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
>
> So, would this be seen by nations considering joining as essentially giving
> up some of their sovereignty? Well, I don't know. But it is an alternative
> way to look at the notions of peer alliances. And it is a way to build a
> stronger community that has consensus about some international norms for
> peer behavior at a national level as well as some teeth to the enforcement
> of those norms as a community.
>
> No doubt someone would want to simulate this before trying it to see if it
> has any obvious failure modes unique to it, like in Model United Nations
> exercises.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_United_Nations
>
> I'm not even sure there would have to be a violent military aspect to the
> agreement. It might be good enough for peers to just say that if a peer
> transgresses a certain norm or boundary, they would slow or stop their
> trade
> with that peer (or reduce their internet bandwidth to that country),
> essentially as a form of "shunning" (which is non-violent, but still
> disruptive).
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
> There would then need to be some way to compensate individual businesses
> for economic losses. And the bigger alliance agreement would then perhaps
> take precedence over contracts between individual businesses across
> borders.
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure what the best enforcement strategy for agreed on peer
> norms would be in such an alliance. No doubt people would explore that.
>
> Related section of a 1951 sci-fi story:
>  "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell
>
>
> http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/and_then_there_were_none.html
> """
>  Matt came up with a cloth over one arm. ‘I’m serving no Antigands.’
>  ‘You served me last time,’ Harrison reminded.
>  ‘That may be. I didn’t know you were off that ship. But I know now.’ He
> flicked the cloth across one corner of the table, brushing away imaginary
> crumbs. ‘No Antigands served by me.’
>  ‘Is there any other place where we might get a meal?’
>  ‘Not unless somebody will let you plant an ob on them. They won’t do that
> if they know who you are but there’s a chance they might make the same
> mistake as I did.’ Another flick across the corner.
>  ‘I don’t make them twice.’
>  ‘You’re making one right now.’ announced Gleed, his voice hard and edgy.
> He nudged Harrison. ‘Watch this.’ His hand came out of a side pocket
> holding
> a tiny gun. Pointing it at Matt’s middle, he said, ‘Ordinarily I could get
> into trouble for this, if those on the ship were in the mood to make
> trouble. But they aren’t. They’re more than tired of you two-legged mules.’
> He motioned with the weapon.
>  ‘So start walking and fetch us two full plates.’
>  ‘I won’t,’ said Matt, firming his lips and ignoring the gun. Gleed
> thumbed the safety-catch which moved with an audible click. ‘It’s touchy
> now. It’d go off at a sneeze. Get moving.’
>  ‘I won’t,’ said Matt.
>  With unconcealed disgust, Gleed shoved the weapon back into his pocket.
> ‘I was only kidding you. It isn’t loaded.’
>  ‘Wouldn’t have made the slightest difference if it had been,’ Matt
> assured. ‘I serve no Antigands and that is that.’
>  ‘What if I’d lost control of myself and blown several large holes in
> you?’
>  ‘How could I have served you then?’ asked Matt. ‘A dead person is of no
> use to anyone. It’s time You Antigands learned a little logic.’ With which
> parting shot he meandered off.
>  ‘He’s got something there,’ offered Harrison, patently depressed. ‘What
> can you do with a corpse? Nothing whatever. A body is in nobody’s power.’
>  ‘Oh, I don’t know. A couple of stiffs lying around might sharpen the
> others. They’d become really eager.’
>  ‘You’re thinking of them in Terran terms,’ Harrison said. ‘It’s a
> mistake. They are not Terrans no matter where they came from originally.
> They are Gands.’
>  ‘Well, just what are Gands supposed to be?’
>  ‘I don’t know. It’s a safe bet they’re some kind of fanatics. Terra
> exported one-track-minders by the millions around the time of the Great
> Explosion. Look at that crazy crowd on Hygeia, for instance.’ ...
> """
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
> ------------------------------
> Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.<http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photos-share.aspx?tab=1>
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090915/0b4ed3b4/attachment-0001.html>