In the Name of Humanity


Toward a Real and Shared Peace


We, as humans, create tools, objects, and means to improve our lives: cars that make us faster, tables that support objects, houses that provide shelter, and so on. These innovations benefit not only individuals but society as a whole. However, weapons are the exception: their sole purpose is to cause harm. Unlike all other tools, they do not foster well-being but impose power through destruction (or its threat). This triggers a reaction in which all parties feel compelled to arm themselves as much as possible, ultimately turning every other human creation into a means to sustain and reinforce a particular, institutionalized weapon, or armed unit: the state, which commonly aligns with a coalition.


Yet, in our era—when humanity is universally, simultaneously, and immediately interconnected—we finally have the opportunity to transcend this long-standing logic of the past. To do so, we must overcome the narratives and ideologies inherited from history—one largely shaped by war—that obscure the fundamental distinction between good, which benefits us, and evil, which harms us. The essence of this distinction is clear to every human being: a weapon exists solely to inflict harm. History has been shaped by narratives that justify power through violence. Sovereignty, rights, and property are not neutral concepts; they are constructs imposed by force. Consider the Donbass region: military control dictates narratives of legitimacy, whether through referendums, elections, education, or coercion. This pattern has repeated throughout history, shaping borders, governments, and identities under legal or political pretexts, all while distorting our common humanity.


However, our true identity transcends these constructs. Religious, ideological, and historical narratives lose relevance when we shift our focus to tangible objectives that promote collective well-being. Just as natural understanding and empathy are inherently human—we feel as other humans feel, but the state systematically suppresses these faculties, restricting empathy within the artificial boundaries of the nation and making us indifferent, or even hostile, to those beyond them. This is why peace resonates with humanity: we are all part of the same conflict, and we feel wounded whenever someone is harmed. This is our genuine sentiment, and therefore, conflict concerns us all and calls us to intervene for peace, as this proposal advocates.


As long as force dictates international relations, differences will continue to serve as pretexts for ongoing conflict. True freedom and lasting peace require a shift from militarization to cooperation. The war in Ukraine exemplifies this dynamic: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a symptom of a broader system in which armed power defines political discourse. Under this paradigm, “peace” is nothing more than a temporary pause before the next conflict—an interval used solely for rearmament. History shows that armistices do not resolve tensions; they merely postpone them.


A fundamentally different approach is needed—one that prioritizes humanity and is based on transparency, public discourse, and openness in agreements. At the same time, it requires setting aside disputes over rights, sovereignty, and borders, along with the narratives, ideologies, and constructs that sustain them, in order to focus on real, concrete objectives that promote universal well-being while repurposing military resources. This transformation will also foster objective, impartial human behavior and reshape our perceptions of one another. By concentrating on our actions, their true purpose, and our individual responsibilities in achieving shared goals, we naturally progress toward disarmament—since weapons are inherently harmful to all—and toward global cooperation for the common good. Peace can no longer be a mere transaction between militarized states; it must become a collective human commitment, grounded in transparency and shared responsibility, to prevent the recurrence of conflict. And so first assumed and proposed by the United Nations (if they really are).


Then, in this context, intellectuals play a crucial role in dismantling the narratives that perpetuate war. Through cross-border dialogue, they expose and isolate the particular ideologies that sustain conflict and redirect discourse toward concrete objectives of human cooperation. Simultaneously, they act as mediators between states and the public, demonstrating that peace is not merely the absence of war but the active construction of a new model of coexistence—one where power no longer derives from the imposition of weapons but from our shared interest in collaboration and collective progress.
From this perspective, the peace proposal for Ukraine is not just about resolving a conflict; it is a model for humanity’s transformation. It is an invitation to break the cycle of perpetual war and embrace a new era in which shared purpose and cooperation define our collective future. And if the UN really want to represent humanity, it has to make it its own.
Introduction
The war in Ukraine represents an open wound in the body of Humanity. Its origins stem from tensions between Ukraine’s aspirations to align with the Western sphere (EU and NATO) and Russia’s security concerns. The events of the Maidan uprising in 2014, the annexation of Crimea, and Russian support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine escalated into direct military intervention in 2022, triggering a humanitarian and geopolitical crisis of unprecedented scale. The implications of this conflict extend far beyond the region, as the potential for escalation—marked by the possible use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, bacteriological, chemical, etc.), cyberwarfare, infrastructure destruction, disruptive technologies, and hybrid warfare—poses a dire threat to the entire world. This is not merely a regional dispute but a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of our global community. The catastrophic potential of such a conflict demands a unified, global response, as it concerns the survival and well-being of all humanity. It is a wake-up call to the international community to prioritize collective security and peace over division and force.


Now, this peace proposal is founded on a simple yet profound principle: weapons and/or armies (development) are the ultimate drivers of war, as this very case clearly demonstrates. A ceasefire or armistice—often labeled as peace—is, in fact, a pause for rearmament, merely postponing the next conflict. Each side uses these pauses to secure advantages, whether through territorial positioning or strengthening military capabilities, perpetuating a horizon of confrontation caused by the inherent dynamics of independent armies, each driven by the logic of self-preservation, expansion, and improvement.

These forces, striving to strengthen themselves, inevitably come into conflict with others pursuing the same objectives. True peace can only be achieved when weapons and armies are brought under collective human oversight and redirected toward the shared interests of Humanity. Otherwise, if the UN keep serving the armed units instead of Humanity, humanity first manifestation shall be UN opposition as a tool of states’ violence.


In light of this, we propose a bold and innovative approach that transcends the traditional dynamics of victory and defeat and, instead prioritizing the common good of Humanity. This initiative does not aim to resolve disputes over rights, sovereignty, or territorial claims in the immediate term. Rather, it seeks to temporarily set aside these contentious issues to construct a framework for cooperation based on shared security, comprehensive disarmament, and global well-being.

The focus shifts from asserting, granting, or claiming rights, narratives, ideologies or figurations to just fostering open, collective efforts grounded in concrete proposals, shared objectives and public agreements for the common good. These agreements specify the roles, contributions, and tasks that each party commits to, working together as part of a shared cause. This shared cause represents the true form of peace among humans—a peace anchored in collective responsibility and cooperation. In today’s interconnected and globalized world, this approach is not only possible but necessary. Unlike in the past, when such steps were unfeasible in an isolated and fragmented world, we must now embrace this model, one that appeals to human judgment and accountability, transcending and complementing the responsibilities of states.

Current State of the Conflict

  1. Military advances: Russia has consolidated control over regions in eastern and southern Ukraine, although these territories lack international recognition.
  2. Opposing demands: Ukraine seeks security guarantees through NATO, while Russia demands the neutralization and demilitarization of Ukraine.
  3. Global risk: Military escalation and polarization between blocs threaten to further destabilize the international order.

Innovative Approach
This proposal adopts a comprehensive view of Humanity as both the subject and object of the agreement. Humanity, as a collective entity, is intertwined with all sides of the conflict and has a genuine, shared interest in ending it. Only Humanity, in its entirety, can truly empathize with the suffering of individuals—not just those directly affected by the war, but also those enduring the consequences of poverty, deprivation, and injustice. Ultimately, only Humanity possesses the moral clarity to recognize that weapons, in their very essence, are harmful. Even when they are not actively used, their mere potential to inflict harm diminishes our freedom and humanity and force us to react in an opposite way. There is only this option for humans; the alternative decision is to leave our fate to our (capacity for) mutual destruction and the precarious game of weapons, while we renounce our humanity and remain in their service.


The foundation of this innovative approach lies in the temporary suspension of issues related to rights, sovereignty, and borders—matters inherently tied to possession and the denial of others, which cannot be resolved through human reason, as reason is fundamentally concerned with ends and purposes. At their core, issues of rights, sovereignty, and borders revolve around power and force. Since these matters depend on force to define and enforce them, they cannot be addressed solely through rational discourse. Given that force is subjective and ever-changing, it cannot offer a sustainable path to resolution. Instead, we advocate for a focus on concrete, universal goals that benefit all humanity. These goals are not abstract or self-serving but are rooted in shared human aspirations that transcend any single nation or group.
These include:

  1. Immediate cessation of hostilities: Halting violence and human suffering through a verifiable and supervised ceasefire.
  2. Reconstruction of affected areas: Repairing critical infrastructure, ensuring access to housing, water, food, and medical services in areas devastated by the war.
  3. Redistribution of resources: Redirecting military expenditures toward humanitarian projects, such as eradicating hunger, ensuring access to education, and universal healthcare.
  4. International cooperation: Establishing joint programs in key areas such as food security, renewable energy, scientific research, and technological development.

PEACE PROPOSAL

  1. Cessation of Hostilities
    • Implement an immediate ceasefire, supervised by international observers designated by the UN.
    • Promote reconciliation activities among affected communities, with the participation of local leaders and humanitarian organizations.
    • Redirect the armies and resources of Russia and Ukraine toward the reconstruction of devastated areas, prioritizing critical infrastructure, housing, and essential services.
  2. Establishment of the Peace Dividend
    • Create an international fund financed by 2% of the GDP of each involved country, along with resources previously allocated to war.
    • Allocate this dividend to global humanitarian programs, prioritizing food, housing, healthcare, and education in the most affected areas.
  3. Suspension of the Arms Race
    • Impose a moratorium on the development and acquisition of weapons, with verifiable mechanisms led by international organizations.
    • Redirect military budgets toward international cooperation programs, sustainable development, and climate resilience.
  4. Creation of a Global Cooperation Framework
    • Establish multinational projects in key areas such as food security, renewable energy, scientific research, and technological development.
    • Promote the exchange of knowledge and resources among nations to address global challenges and economic inequalities.

Method and Procedure

  1. Temporary suspension of disputes: Issues of sovereignty, rights, and borders are postponed to prioritize the common good.
  2. Publicity and transparency: All agreed steps will be supervised and evaluated by the UN, with universal dissemination in all languages.
  3. Global participation: Humanity as a whole will act as the guarantor of the agreement, through the active involvement of governments, international organizations, and citizens.

ROLE OF GLOBAL INTELLECTUALS

In this transformative process, the role of intellectuals from around the world is pivotal. Their primary task is to engage in a critical examination of the cultural, religious, and ideological constructs that underpin the conflict, with the aim of ensuring that cooperation is rooted solely in concrete, tangible goals that benefit all of humanity. By approaching this task with candor and sincerity, they help strip away the layers of abstraction—such as myths, doctrines, and assumptions—that have historically been used to justify violence and division.

Critical Analysis of Ideological Constructs

Intellectuals will focus on identifying and questioning the narratives, beliefs, and ideologies that fuel divisions and perpetuate conflict. Through open dialogue and rigorous scrutiny, they will work to put in brackets these abstractions, which often serve as tools of power rather than pathways to peace. The goal is not to impose new ideologies but to free the conversation from the weight of historical and cultural baggage, allowing for a clearer focus on shared, practical objectives.

Detachment from Abstract Narratives

By fostering an environment where discussions are untethered from dogmatic or ideological constraints, intellectuals can ensure that the pursuit of peace remains grounded in reality. This involves encouraging all parties to set aside preconceived notions, myths, and symbolic attachments that do not contribute directly to the well-being of humanity. Only by doing so can we ensure that the proposed solutions are truly universal and effective.

Focusing on Concrete Objectives

The ultimate aim is to align all efforts toward specific, measurable outcomes that enhance human welfare and security. By concentrating exclusively on these concrete goals, intellectuals help create a framework for cooperation that transcends national, cultural, and ideological boundaries. This approach ensures that the agreement is built on practical considerations rather than abstract principles, making it more resilient and sustainable over time.

Mediation Between State Authorities and Citizens

As mediators, intellectuals play a vital role in bridging the gap between state actors and the broader population. They facilitate understanding by translating complex agreements into accessible terms and ensuring that the voices of ordinary citizens are heard and considered. Their ability to hold a common dialogue that achieve them to detach from partisan interests makes them uniquely suited to promote transparency and accountability throughout the process.

Promoting Genuine Human Cooperation

By focusing solely on the concrete purposes and objectives outlined in this proposal, intellectuals contribute to building a model of cooperation that prioritizes the common good above all else. This model rejects the use of force or coercion in favor of collaboration based on mutual benefit and respect for human dignity.

Guarantees of the Agreement

  1. Global commitment: Humanity as a whole will guarantee the agreement, with the participation of governments, NGOs, and citizen movements.
  2. Ongoing supervision: A permanent peace council, composed of representatives from diverse regions of the world, will assess compliance with the agreement and propose adjustments if necessary.
  3. Conditions for cooperation: Clear indicators of progress will be defined, such as the reduction of inequalities and improvements in humanitarian conditions, with periodic public reports.
  4. Transparency and International Supervision
    All agreements reached must be publicly disclosed in multiple languages to ensure global accessibility.
    A continuous monitoring system led by independent international organizations will provide regular updates available to anyone interested.
    Processes of decision-making will be broadcast live whenever possible, allowing direct observation by global citizens.

Conclusion
In the heart of every conflict lies a fundamental truth: we are all part of the same human family. The divisions that separate us—be they national, ideological, or cultural—are constructs of our own making, often imposed through systems of power and violence. Yet, it is precisely these divisions that obscure our shared humanity and lead us to inflict harm upon one another. When we witness destruction, whether in distant lands or closer to home, we feel its weight because, deep down, we recognize that the suffering of others is also our own.
This proposal for peace is not merely an attempt to resolve a single conflict; it is a call to reconnect with our innate humanity. It invites us to transcend the artificial boundaries that divide us and to acknowledge the profound interdependence that unites us as a species. We are not merely observers of war and destruction—we are participants in the systems that perpetuate them. And yet, this same realization empowers us to act. For it is within our capacity to dismantle those systems and build, instead, a world where cooperation replaces confrontation, understanding supplants fear, and the well-being of all becomes the guiding principle of our collective endeavor.

Our attachment to specific nations, identities, or ideologies can sometimes blind us to this deeper truth. But when we allow ourselves to see beyond these labels, we discover that what truly binds us is a shared desire for peace, dignity, and fulfillment. The militarized structures that dominate our societies do not reflect our natural state as humans—they distort it, repressing our innate empathy and solidarity. By rejecting these structures, we reclaim our humanity and open the door to a future free from the cycle of mutual destruction.

Thus, this is not just a proposal for peace—it is a proposal of humanity to humanity. It calls upon each of us to take responsibility for the world we create and to work together toward a common goal: liberating ourselves from the chains of violence and division. In doing so, we do not seek to impose our will on others but rather to extend a hand of fellowship, recognizing that true freedom and lasting peace can only be achieved through mutual effort and shared commitment.

Let us embrace this opportunity to return to our essential nature—to be fully human, compassionate, and connected. For in this return lies not only the end of conflict but the beginning of a new era, one in which we stand united in our diversity, bound by a shared vision of a better tomorrow.____________________________

Signed in the name of Humanity,
February 14th, 2025

Manuel Herranz Martin www.human-unity.org

[show_pintar_pie]