Presenting an alternative to state domination, Rudolph C. Ryser of the Center for World Indigenous Studies proposes instead honoring Fourth World nations. Kurds, Nagas, Papuans, Mayans and Tuaregs — once liberated from state control — could resume governing themselves without state and UN interference. Self-governance in the Fourth World, however, would require states relinquishing some of their legal, economic and military power–something they will not do without significant pressure.
While accommodating Fourth World political engagement with UN member states is preferable to violent engagement, the architecture of the UN is oriented toward state domination of indigenous nations through economic sanction and military force. Indeed, as the World Bank, NATO, and UN member states exercise this domination, Fourth World nations like Basque, Tibet, Palestine, Biafra, West Papua and Kurdistan have been forced to defend themselves.
Only a handful of Fourth World nations are member states of the UN–Samoa, Estonia and Armenia to name a few. The rest of the them, like Scotland and Catalonia, remain frustrated in their desire for self-governance. As they slowly establish their political equality with UN member states, there is a chance to reduce armed violence between states and nations.
An impediment to peace under the UN system of international law, however, is the development of NATO as an arm of state aggression against Fourth World nations under the guise of humanitarian interventions, in countries like the former Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria. Thus destabilized, these states become arenas of international violence involving tribes, institutions, markets and networks–some of whom employ economic and military terrorism.
Acting in tandem with UN-sanctioned aggresion are journalists at the Associated Press, BBC and CNN, as well as state-sponsored NGOs like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy. With aggression characterized as “humanitarian” by these embedded journalists, who often spy on behalf of NATO, critics like Centre for the Study of Interventionism provide a sobering contrast to the reflexive enthusiasm expressed by mindless consumers of military spectacle.
As Michel Chossudovsky documented in The Globalisation of Poverty, monetary attacks by UN agencies that lead to civil war illustrate that globalization is not just an economic model, but a plan of war. That war, which is by definition global, is quite simply the exercise of power by the financial sector in undermining the powers of the state (or nation) to the benefit of the free market.
The fact consumers of social media are so easily manipulated into supporting NATO aggression by fabricated myths of humanitarian intent, is testimony to the power of psywar. As reported at Wrong Kind of Green, even Amnesty International USA has been co-opted by NATO interventionists. As noted in The Politics of Naming, the pornography of violence by Western human rights organizations — that require a simple moral world of evil perpetrators and innocent victims — justifies military interventions by dismissing diplomacy and undermining power-sharing, thus escalating conflict and bloodshed.