Notes on PROUT policy on intervention
Sohail InayatullahProut supports intervention in sovereign nation states by a duly created worldbody. It rejects intervention by particular nation-states, even broad basedcoalitions. This is largely as the self-interests of nation-states (geo-politicalcontrol, resource and ideology control) go against the self-interests of the planet.Ideologically, Prout rejects the UN as such a world body, as the UN isfoundations are based on inequitable world order. Moreover, eligibility into the UNis based on acquiring national status, thus leaving out social movements,cooperatives, and individuals.Ideologically Prout rejects identity politics particularly religious politics, includingthe hindu variety ( eg, BJP genocide in Gujrat), of the Islamic variety (terrorismglobally and in Kashmir) of the Christian Vatican (the feudal politics of theVatican) and of the Jewish variety (Zionism).However, to remove imbalances, Prout supports social movements that attemptto redress the exploitation of language (communities being brutalized for speaking their native tongue or being denied equal opportunity), religion(suppressing a people based on their religion), gender and other identities.However, these movements should not and cannot be allowed to become thenew oppressors, that is, upon gaining state or other types of power, using their own language or religion or … as a political weapon. Prout sees all identity ashistorically and social constructed – the only “true” identity is spiritual.Prout asserts that any long lasting to solution to current problems must be mutli-layered. This means:1. the creation of economic democracy, focused on cooperatives2. the creation of an expanded identity, moving away from nation, religion andethnicity toward a politics of earth identity3. an environmental ethic, seeing nature as a living resource for all and “herself.”4. a gender ethics, focused on gender partnershipIn the current war in Iraq, Prout rejects usa intervention. However, it supports thenotion of intervention against states that consistently violate basics human andnature rights (eg, India in Gujrat, Pakistan in Kashmir, Israel/Palestine in eachother, Iraq towards its citizens and Iran, Zimbabwe against its citizens, to beginwith). While the best solution is local people removing dictators, when that isimpossible, or when local leaders violate global law, world action is needed.
Leave a Comment