Dear friend,
Whoever you are, regardless of your background, position, economic status, or place in the world, I want to begin by emphasizing that any reasonable objection to this peace proposal is welcome. Even more so, any contribution to its improvement is most highly valued. This is, at its core, only a draft open for discussion, based on the understanding that we all share an interest in humanity’s peace, harmony, and concord.
I firmly believe that peace is possible now and that it depends on all of us working together for the common good rather than harming one another. It is evident that non-cooperation and exclusive decision-making inevitably lead to confrontation because, whether we like it or not, we are interdependent. In order to cooperate, it is essential to share a common purpose, as well as the means and methods to achieve it. Only then can each individual assess the proposal and freely choose to support it, rather than being coerced into anything against their will.
After more than 40 years of studying visions of peace from both Western and Eastern cultures, I have identified key obstacles to achieving peace. In the East, Mozi recognized early on that free and voluntary cooperation for the common good is, in fact, the essence of peace. However, he also understood that this alone is insufficient to achieve it—particularly because we must transition from a state of war to one of peace. An additional key condition is required: universality and simultaneity (both encapsulated in the Chinese term Jian – 兼). These conditions exist today in our interconnected world, where information flows instantly and reaches every corner of the planet.
In Western thought, two pivotal moments stand out in the pursuit of peace: classical cosmopolitanism and the 18th-century peace projects, culminating in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Kant’s project is particularly relevant because it stipulates that all states forming a Peace Confederation must be republics. According to Kant, a republic is based on the freedom and equality of all citizens. However, he warns that a republic should not be confused with democracy, as democracy is also a form of despotism since it imposes the will of some over others, even if that will belongs to the majority. Furthermore, in a democracy, people elect their leaders, as it is required to delegate their will to these leaders, who then manage common affairs privately instead of submitting them to public discussion—a key distinction of a true republic. Kant highlights publicity as a fundamental condition for peace:
“All actions affecting the rights of other human beings are unjust if their maxim is not compatible with publicity.”
In other words, political actions must be transparent and subject to public scrutiny in order to be legitimate.
This defining feature of Kant’s peace proposal—the requirement that all states in the Peace Confederation be republics—has its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s critique of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre’s plan for a Confederation of States for Peace. Rousseau argued that perpetual peace is an illusion as long as governments prioritize their own interests over the common good. According to him, only a popular revolution could achieve peace, but such a revolution would likely cause more harm than good. He famously stated that despotism and war are two sides of the same coin:
“Despotism and war are twin evils; one feeds the other. Princes wage war to strengthen their power, and despotic power is justified by the need for war.”
Rousseau believed that despotism—the imposition of one will over another—whether in the hierarchical structure of the military or the state, exists because societies must defend themselves against other equally hierarchical and unequal groups. He observed that once an unequal (hierarchical) society is established, it forces all others to organize in the same way in order to avoid being absorbed by the first.
The reason for this is simple: the purpose of war is harm, and that purpose cannot be made public. Without transparency regarding intent and objectives, there can be no freedom of choice—hence, despotism is necessary for war. Conversely, peace is based on freedom and equality; therefore, its promotion is the responsibility of all individuals, rather than just politicians, whose role, as we have seen, is fundamentally tied to managing war.
Today, however, thanks to global interconnectedness, we have the opportunity to promote this Peace Proposal universally and simultaneously—without the need for any revolution. We can lay the foundation for a global human republic, guided by the common good, where all decisions that impact others must be made publicly.
All human beings inherently understand that evil consists in causing harm, while good is about creating benefit. When the goal is a shared benefit, we enter a rational framework that fosters understanding and cooperation. When the purpose is clear, the necessary conditions logically follow, eliminating the need for coercion or despotism.
The responsibility now falls on each of us. Peace depends on sharing this proposal for UN reform with others—including, ultimately, political leaders, who, like everyone else, have interest in peace. Only together, through transparency and cooperation, can we build a future where peace becomes a global reality.
UN REFORM PROPOSAL – 1. From the author
