The Ultimate Peace Candidate

I am the ultimate peace candidate running for U.S. President in 2012.

QUESTIONS:  Should the U.S. military have any future role in Asian affairs? Should that role include keeping countries like Japan under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella?

ANSWERS: No, to both questions.

My Basic Platform

I want to make clear my position regarding the proper role of U.S. military and nuclear forces. Regarding Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and Australia: Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States furnish either nuclear protection or military intervention on their behalf. This list of countries is by no means complete nor limited to Asian nations.

In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from South Korea, with no forces to be maintained in any other country except for the nominal, mostly ceremonial purpose of protecting our embassies. My policy would include total withdrawal from NATO and would also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of anti-terrorist suppression and training of local forces.

Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

What about possible Chinese designs on Taiwan?

Suppose, for example, mainland China were to "send" troops to Taiwan. Many would call this an invasion, though Chinese officials would think of it as an exercise of their sovereignty over a wayward province. [NOTE: They could send troops to Myanmar right now, which (believe me) President Obama would do (and could do) nothing to oppose.]

What would I do as Commander in Chief? I wouldn't do anything.

That's right, you heard me: "I wouldn't do anything." Furthermore, I wouldn't even ask Congress for a declaration of war. I would urge against it by saying:

QUOTE:

A Congressional declaration of war is one thing. My decision to withhold US forces from participating in that war - which I can do solely and legally on my own authority as Commander in Chief - is something else entirely. If Congress passes such a declaration, knowing that I will not act on it, Congress better be ready to impeach me. By the way, I would not resist such an impeachment and would welcome a speedy trial and conviction by the Senate followed by my rapid removal from office.

However, keep this in mind: My vice president, who will replace me, will not be under the same contractual obligations as I am. My written contract with America's voters will keep us out of war. But my running mate won't be similarly restrained. Be very sure: if Congress were to declare war, that war is what it really wants. For my running mate will be fully prepared to discharge her duties.

Of course, these words of warning apply not only to Congress, but to any foreign nation which would engage in aggressive behavior.

:UNQUOTE.

My observations of Asian possibilities

Once I become president, I will immediately withdraw all U.S. forces from their foreign bases. What will this mean, in terms of the balance of power in Asia? Simply that Asian countries (including Australia) will have to work out their own security arrangements. China's neighbors could form an alliance, promising that all would come to the aid of any nation which China might move against.

In addition, these nations might reach out to distant nations to further strengthen such an alliance.

China might not have any aggressive intentions. Perhaps it might conclude that it's wisest to be a good neighbor, allowing its economy to become increasingly interlinked with others'.

As things stand now, China has relatively few operational nuclear weapons (having 180, compared to 2,468 US and 4,650 Russian). Once the US nuclear umbrella is removed, which I as Commander in Chief can do without Congressional permission, Japan might well decide it's time to go nuclear (assuming it hasn't already done so, secretly!). South Korea as well - being wealthy enough - might follow suit. India might also decide to increase its stockpile.

Even now, that entire region is witnessing increasing levels of militarization. Why? Same reasons as always: Fear of the neighbors and having wealth to protect.

"The Danger"

"The Danger" is that nations the world over will seek to align themselves with other nations in a never-ending search for mutual security. "The Danger" - expressed in another way - is simply this: Continued reliance on national sovereignty.

Of course, the United States, Russia, and the European Union are comfortable with "The Danger" since they've profited quite handsomely from it. What they don't want is the emergence of yet another competing power center - though there's not much they can do about China. They will accept China, but they will draw a line in the sand against the emergence of a Middle Eastern (read “Islamic”) Union of States or a United States of Africa.

The sense among the current power elites is that there are too many players chasing diminishing resources. Imagine a United States of Africa powerful enough to deny the White Man (or the Yellow) cheap access to its mineral resources. Imagine an Islamic Union (which could conceivably embrace all of Africa, not just the sizable Islamic part), which might decide to stop selling oil to the West - instead diverting it to their own industrial base (should they ever decide to develop one).

Those kinds of fears lead to this kind of thinking:

"If there were only a way to eliminate (say) 90% of the world's population in a surgical and controlled manner, the stressors which challenge established power would be vastly reduced. In fact, instead of the competition, inflation, and reliance on debt which threaten our dominance, we could have deflation (all of the world's goods divided among the survivors). Such a scenario would redefine what it means to be prosperous, globally speaking."

People who think like that are liable to start planning like this:

"War with conventional or nuclear weapons is too risky, since it might spiral out of control. The best way to proceed is by means of inducing a pandemic, after we've figured out how to immunize the really important people. The "chosen" could be protected, after this holocaust, by private armies like Blackwater USA."

My strong suspicion is that the interlinked global elites have been engaged for decades in the research necessary to develop the ideal biological agent, disperse it, and protect themselves.

The way out: CSR (Cross-Sectional Representation)

I have invented a system of governance which can work on a global scale, which can eliminate national boundaries and cut-throat competitions. Basing the world's politics on cross-sectioning is the only way to stop the reign of terror which will become a lot worse and a lot sooner than any of us can possibly imagine.

My challenge will be to convince "the people" and the power elites that there is a better way. To the first group I direct this question: "How much longer are you going to let petty, cowardly, unimaginative men control your destiny?" To the second group, this question: "Do you really think you can get away with mass murder?"

Elsewhere on my blog, I’ve mentioned CSR. Briefly, I will now describe how this new system could work in (say) the European Union, which I consider an ideal, showcase candidate. In fact, the EU might decide that CSR should become the core principle of its long-desired Constitution.

The European Union has 500 million citizens, of which I’ll assume (for the sake of argument) that half are eligible to vote. I’m proposing that each eligible EU voter (all 250 million) be randomly assigned to one of 250 Cross-Sections, each comprising 1 million voters. Each Cross-Section would elect one Legislator, who would then meet with his counterparts in Congress. This Congress would pass all laws, and fill all vacancies in all EU courts (of every type of jurisdiction) – further having the power to overturn (by legislative action) any particular decision of its choosing by any particular court.

The beauty of this system lies in defining the loyalty of each individual legislator. For instance, the elected representative from Cross-Section #175 would be most strongly motivated to pass laws widely perceived to be in the best interests of the EU as a whole. He could not afford to indulge in local favoritism – for instance, voting in favor of laws weighted in favor of Bavarians at the expense of Catalonians. He’d be thinking: “Since my constituents could live anywhere within the EU, I can only consider legislation favorable to the average EU citizen.”

Of course, this type of thinking assumes that the residents of the EU will be sufficiently motivated to conclude: The interests of the EU far outweigh any local prejudices or protectionist concerns.

If Cross-Sectional Representation can flourish in the EU, which is still attracting applicants for membership, it can perhaps be expanded into a world-wide legislative system. I know there are those who fear a so-called New World Order (aka One World Government). But those fears should be better directed at runaway and unaccountable national sovereignties or, worse yet, webs of transnational elites which operate comfortably by playing off one state against another. CSR is the only system that can eliminate the advantages of those nations and those elites.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“World peace can only be realized by opposing the power of imperial nations and ambitious elites. And only Cross-Sectional Representation can do this” – Steve.