Peace
American foreign policy has, for many decades, been largely influenced by America’s hunger for the worlds natural resources. As a nation, we consume 25% of the world resources. In exchange for the US to secure rights to valuable natural resources, we support both economically and militarily, many undemocratic governments of resource-rich nations. Often these are governments that persecute their citizens because of different racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds, steal the countries natural wealth and deprive their people of their basic human rights. In our never ending pursuit of more and cheaper raw and finished goods, we are willing to accept this oppression of other peoples even though we would never accept this situation in our own country.
Reap the positive, global consequences of consuming less.
Now, imagine a United States that lives, at least partially, within its means, using its own resources to produce the products we buy. While it is doubtful that the US would ever be able to live using only our own resources; still, for us to import much less, would keep us from relying on other, less desirable, trading partners.
As we expand our options for trading partners, we can once again economically support with our dollars, countries with responsible and reasonable democratic governments. We would also be able to create incentives for countries with poor environmental, social and political systems to change in order to trade with the US, a nation that would still be the richest country with the largest market in the world.
Our international clout would not be based on military might, but on potential economic prosperity. Instead of being viewed as an overbearing, presumptuous superpower, the US would be esteemed as a very desirable and beneficial trading partner.
Experience shows that there is always more peace when things are shared.
Additionally, with the US not consuming 25% of the world resources, there would be a lot more of these natural commodities for other people in other countries to use. Numerous benefits would arise from sharing on a global scale, including:
- Reduced scarcity of these resources.
- Reduced prices would allow poor countries and impoverished peoples access.
- Reduction in the power of dictators and religious zealots who control natural and human resources. Diminished violence associated with these finite resources.
Similar to children fighting over a favorite toy, when there is enough for everybody, there is little need to fight and much more incentive to play together. If one analyses the conflicts around the world, like Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo(diamonds) and Nigeria and the Soviet Republic of Georgia(oil), many are caused by rival groups trying to control valuable natural resources to sell to the West. Like any market based product, if demand decreases for a commodity, so does the price and the motivation to control its production.
"It is evident that many wars are fought over resources which are now becoming increasingly scarce. If we conserved our resources better, fighting over them would not then occur.so, protecting the global environment is directly related to securing peace.those of us who understand the complex concept of the environment have the burden to act. We must not tire, we must not give up, we must persist."
- Dr. Wangari Maathai - an environmentalist, a political and human rights activist, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize and the founder of the Green Belt Movement.