It is 3 years since the events of the 9/11 have triggered off what became known as "The War on Terror".
While the avowed aim of this war was to put an end to "terrorism" and "to make the world a safer place", neither of these objectives have been achieved, or can be seen close to being achieved.
The killings of Americans in Iraq have become as regular as trading on a stock exchange, with regular announcement of the current figures. The only difference being that while the Stock Exchange figures go up and down, the American death-toll is moving only in one direction. As at the day of this writing it has just moved over the "symbolic" 1,000 mark.
In other parts of the world the bloodshed of the War on Terror continues unabated with occasional "spectacular splashes". The Israelis are still being blown up, and the Palestinians are still being regularly "culled" by the Israelis. In Chechnya a pro-Russian president was blown up, and a school siege by Chechens in Beslan ended up with deaths of hundreds, and the funerals and mournings are still going on as at the time of this writing. And now another bomb in Indonesia near the Australian embassy.
And some of the consequences of the War on Terror are not those that War on Terror warriors had hoped for. As for example, group conversions of Korean military units to Islam.
So how are the "World Leaders" intending to continue with their War on Terror, which so far has done nothing the "World Leaders" had hoped for, except spreading more violence around the world. How are they intending to perform their duty of protecting person and property in their own countries and around the world?
G.W. Bush still stakes his "political fortune" on his War on Terror, which worked for him so well at the initial stages of that war. But the American public is no longer as solidly behind him as they were just after the 9/11. As the Iraq war has proved to be no cake-walk, and the American body count steadily growing, more and more Americans are questioning the wisdom of that war, especially as all the arguments in support of that war have proved to be wrong, and "the moral high ground" which the proponents of that war sought to claim, has turned out to be "the depth of moral degradation" as revealed by the tortures of Abu Graib.
Following the Beslan massacre, President Putin, has assumed an even tougher stance than he had before. So one can expect only more bloodshed in Chechnya, Russia and around the world.
So, when will the War on Terror be won by the Americans?
It took some 58,000 American deaths in Vietnam and some 13 years before the Americans "won" their war and left Vietnam for good. So, counting by the number of deaths at the rate of 1,000 a year, the Americans could stay in Iraq some 50 years, or, counting by the number of years, another 12 years. This is the number of lives, and length of time that it took the Americans to come to the conclusion that enough is enough.
Will the Americans prove wiser this time?
But the reasons for all this chaos and bloodshed is not in the "policies of the US government", nor in the "policies of the Russians", and not even in the reactions to these policies by the victims of theses "policies" - the "terrorists". The reason for all this chaos and bloodshed becomes clear if we examine the "institution of the nation-state".
The "institution of the nation-state" has grown out of tribes or smaller nations being joined into a larger entity. But this larger entity is still "tribal" in the sense that the highest overriding principle governing that state is the interest of the tribe [the Nation]. All "outsiders" are seen from the point of view of their "usefulness" to the tribe [the Nation] - they are either "enemies", or "allies" against other tribes, or (and always at the back of the mind) a possible target for attack with the aim of plunder, rape, enslavement, and increase of the territorial boundaries of the tribe. The "National Interest" is seen as the highest of all interests and justifying anything.
Very few conflicts, if any at all, around the world have been truly "religious". They have always been "political": tribal, racial, class, etc. Some of them were fought under religious banners. But religion in such cases was just an ethnic group differenciator, just a way of distinguishing "us" from "them". "They are different from us, so they are our enemies".
It was always the case of "right or wrong my tribe, my country". And this has always been and still is the main source of wars and terrorism (that is wars by non-nation-states).
The problem with the "institution of the nation-state" is that the nation state does not provide peaceful means of resolution of conflicts between nation states or non-nation-state-groups. And this leads to wars and terrorism.
This problem is obvious, and the emergence of the UN, and of supra-national entities like the European Union are attempts to resolve this problem. But, just as the inter-tribal "conflicts" of the past could only be resolved by yielding by the tribes of their "tribal sovereignty" to a "super-tribal" entity of the nation-state, the "inter-national" conflicts can be resolved only by the nation-states yielding their "national-sovereignty" to a supra-national entity of "world government", which will play the same role in respect of the nation-states as the nation-states played in respect of the constituent tribes.
In fact all the present "ethnic" conflicts are due to attempts by nation-states to impose their rule on tribes or smaller nations which refuse to submit to their rule. And the cause of this is that the nation-state is not an impartial ruler over an area of governance, but is "political", that is representative of some group at the expense of some other group.
The question arises: "What philosophy, religion or ideology would the World Government use to provide means of distinguishing between right and wrong, true and false?".
Should it adopt one of the current ideologies of one of the existing nation-states?
If so, then which one?
Should it be the current American nationalism, which sees its "values" as the ones that should guide the world today and be imposed on the rest of the world?
Or should it adopt a version of "democratic socialism" tempered with Thatcherite "monetarism", prevalent in Europe?
Or should it adopt some form of Christianity, because some "westerners" see it as "lesser evil", compared to Islam (as they believe it to be), and which they see as "evil"?
Or should it adopt the personal "religion" of a "national leader", like "Blairism", "Putinism" or "Bushism"?
While any of the proponents of the above "religions" could advance many (and probably endless) arguments why "their" religion should be imposed on the rest of the world, it is clear that no "national", or even "regional" ideology can form the basis of the philosophy of World Government. Such philosophy must be truly supra-national, impartial, and objective.
But, until the "World Leaders" adopt this philosophy and abandon their "isms", chaos and violence will continue to be a permanent part of human existence.
But Tony Blair started talking about the need to play by the rules.
Is this the first tiny spec of light at the end of the seemingly infinite tunnel?