„Nobody likes war, but…“

I often hear this statement when I explain the idea of Vetowar to people.  It typically continues like „… but sometimes it is necessary / unavoidable / the lesser evil / a moral duty… etc“.

There are several problems with this statement.  First of all: even the first part is, unfortunately, wrong.  There are people who like war.  There are people who profit from war – big time!  These can be people who own major parts of „defense companies“, like Lockhead Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rheinmetall, etc.  Typically, these people would not want to go to war themselves, but are happy to reap in huge benefits.  In this category, there are also politicians who try to sharpen there profile as hardliners.  And then there are people who glorify war for various reasons: nationalistic, religious, heroic delusion.  Those might be happy and excited to go to war themselves.

So the statement is an oversimplification.  When pointed out to people, they typically correct it to „Ok, almost nobody likes war, but…“. 

But that makes a big difference!  We have to acknowledge that some people like war, but they are, in almost all cases, a small minority.  This begs the question, why we let a small minority of people drive countries and societies into war against other ones. There is an evident direct contradiction to democratic principles.  Apparently something goes wrong how war decisions are made, even in relatively democratic societies.  What is that?

At Vetowar, we believe that there is a substantial flaw in the way war decisions are made, even in democratic societies, in the sense that ordinary people really have nothing to say in war decisions.  Once in power, those in power can essentially do what they want, and the people have no way to stop them.  And that is exactly what needs to change.  It is just not acceptable any longer that a handful of people wage war on the rest of us.  Period!

The second misunderstanding is that Vetowar will stop any military action even in cases where people think it really is justified in the unfortunately imperfect world we live in, where aggressors do exist that assault other countries.  While one might debate whether such situations would actually not be avoided when the right to veto war was established world wide, the point is that Vetowar is foremost about the way war decisions are made, not whether one or another war is justified.  The idea is to let the majority of people decide that, once confronted with the desire of that small minority of people who push for war. Once the governments, parliaments, rulers or dictators have decided that they want to start a war, or even just a „special military operation…“ in another country.  Then the people shall have the right to question that decision and call for a referendum.  If a majority thinks the cause is just, and going to war with that other country is justified, so be it. Hopefully those people will learn something from the experience, whereas now, when things go wrong – well, we send the government to hell in the next election, if any. So it is likely that not all war will disappear by people´s legally established right for a referendum on a war decision.  After all, there are also all those civil wars, where no army is sent abroad, but the army is used against the own population.  Or some armed groups pick a fight.  But it is also likely that, everything else equal, a country who has the right for a popular veto established will be less likely to go war with another one, and also be perceived as less threatening than one that does not – and hence be less likely to be attacked.