How do we curb the lust for power?

Was Putin justified in invading Ukraine? The answer must be no. There are two reasons. Despite the history of Russian involvement in Ukraine, and the validity of some of his reasons for the invasion, Vladimir Putin is nevertheless only exhibiting the same drive to extend his power that has been evidenced by dictators for millennia. This lust for power has been the cause behind most of the world's wars over its history.

The second reason is that war, any war, but most of all any war that involved the killing of civilians, is contrary to the deepest moral prohibitions that we have developed over the centuries. Unfortunately, we, the human race, have not developed adequate mechanisms for ensuring that these moral prohibitions are observed.

Approaches to preventing war, including this war, are the prime reasons behind this opinion piece. The drive for power has been the curse of the human race for centuries. Malcolm Turnbull in his book 'A Bigger Picture' termed it an 'aphrodisiac' when describing his toppling from the Prime Ministership by Scott Morrison. But the impact is much more severe than the ouster of one Australian Prime Minister.

If you trace the wars over history, and ascertain the causes behind them, as this opinion writer has done, by far the greatest percentage was caused by one leader of a country, and the people supporting him, wishing to expand their power, usually over people in adjacent countries. Even the wars of religion, which have killed millions, were struggles for the dominance of one religion over another.

Julius Caesar, followed by many emperors of Rome, was not the first dictator who killed millions in his quest for power. There were many before him - Alexander, who despite his attempt to conquer his then world, we call The Great, was another. And many since. Genghis Khan and his sons were responsible for the death of millions throughout China and across to modern-day Iran. Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe. For an unknown reason, the French glorify Napoleon, burying him in Les Invalides, a tomb venerated by Parisians, and a well-visited tourist site. He is much revered, despite being responsible for thousands of deaths. His role in the Haitian Revolution and decision to reinstate slavery in France's overseas colonies also question why he is so admired by the French.

Hitler is an obvious comparison to Putin, but Stalin and Mao, also power-hungry dictators, killed far more than did Hitler.

So why can't we stop these struggles for power? We can. The world created a United Nations precisely for this purpose. The Charter of the UN is clear "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the UN seek solutions to conflict.

But the United Nations has been noticeably unsuccessful at this task. There are many examples where the United Nations has failed to implement its peace keeping charter. Nagorno-Karabakh is one example. Syria is another. Azerbaijan is a third.

The UN has also been notably unsuccessful at preventing dictatorships. And preventing military coups. Or even at ensuring fair elections. There are many dictators. Freedom House tells us that there are 50 dictatorships in the world (19 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 in the Middle East and North Africa, 8 in Asia-Pacific, 7 in Eurasia, 3 in the Americas and 1 in Europe).

It may be because the governments of this world are unwilling to give the United Nations too much power. They are wary of creating a world government. The five superpowers at the Security Council (China, Russia, France, United States, United Kingdom) would lose their veto of " substantive " issues.

One step that the world could take, then, is a stronger and more active United Nations. First step is removal of that veto power. If Australia started that movement, it would be a major step forward in the struggle for world peace. It would not be a world government, but it is conceivable that the UN may be able to create a world policeman. A United Nations policing force, assigned the sole task of preventing world conflicts. And ensuring fair elections. Countries would regularly assign policing troops to the extent that they were able.

Russia vetoed the UN Security Council resolution that demanded that Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops.

Eleven of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained. India is in a difficult strategic position with Russia, which is a massive arms supplier and provides military equipment like missile defence systems crucial for deterrence against China and Pakistan. Additional to considerations on these abstentions is that after a video link-up with Xi, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz the Chinese Foreign Ministry backed a push for peace talks and bemoaned the outbreak of war.

The world policeman would have a limited number of tasks. To stop wars, ensure elections at reasonable intervals, that the elections were not rigged, and to police commitments to international agreements. The world would be a safer and happier place with an effective world policeman.

Another failure is that the human race has not developed a universal moral theory. Philosophers have been arguing for centuries, with the result that there are perhaps 15 or 20 moral theories on how we should behave towards each other. An example is Immanuel Kant who developed a categorical imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it (your action) should become a universal law." Many moral philosophers describe themselves as followers of Kant. Yet he has given an imprimatur to the multitude of differing opinions we see circulating the world (on Covid 19 masks and vaccinations, even on the invasion of the Ukraine for example).

Yet there is one universal guideline. Expressed as the Dali Lama's quote 'Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them'. It is stated with same meaning by many thinkers over the centuries. This basic moral obligation was set out by King Solomon about 1000 BC in the Book of Proverbs in Proverb 3.27and Proverb 3.29, repeated by Jesus Christ in The Parable of the Good Samaritan and to a large extent, in The Sermon on the Mount.

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote similar thoughts about 60 BC in On Living and Dying Well. A few modern moral philosophers have also endorsed this guideline. John Stuart Mill, Thomas Beauchamp and James Childress, Bernard Gert, William Frankena in particular. It is the moral guideline underpinning the major advances in the human condition, over the centuries: the abolition of serfdom, of slavery, the ending of foot binding, stopping the imprisonment or even the execution of homosexuals, together with the introduction of social welfare programs – sickness, old age and unemployment benefits, are all aimed at relieving a harm.

It is unlikely that Vladimir Putin would have observed this guideline

Should NATO Institute a no-fly zone over the Ukraine? Or better still, the United Nations? The reason for the current NATO refusal is the risk of starting World War III. Or a nuclear conflagration. Russia's nuclear arsenal is reportedly capable of striking almost anywhere on the planet. The answer of this opinion writer is yes, United Nations involvement in the war, and the active prevention of Putin's aggression, is a necessity. Russia would veto the UN decision, but even if the veto is overridden, the risk is worth taking. The west could threaten retaliation against the Kremlin, Or Putin's country retreat, Putin would not use his nuclear weapons in face of a world-wide response. It would be the end of his power in Russia. The UN need not risk nuclear war, however. It could promote a plebiscite in Ukraine. Do they want to be part of Russia? It is obvious that the vote would be no. If the breakaway regions voted yes, they could go to Russia.

Russian leaders have repeatedly raised the prospect of a nuclear response should the United States or its NATO partners intervene in the war. Vladimir Putin concluded his announcement of war in Ukraine by warning that "anyone who tries to interfere with us … must know that Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you have never before experienced in your history." This opinion piece believes that Putin would not risk alienation of his own people in the face of a UN supervised plebiscite on Ukrainian wishes. At an extreme he would not take the risk of a nuclear retaliation by NATO or the United Nations

China might present a problem. Xi Jinping recently had himself elected for life. It is indubitably a dictatorship, one that squashes numbers of its citizens (Uighurs, Tibetans) and plays heavily in foreign trade and in the South China Sea. It is the world's second largest power and also has veto power in the Security Council. Ending that veto power is a start. The alliance of South East Asian Nations on China, The Quad, eventually spreading across the nations of this world, may convince Xi that he does not have world support. Second, the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions have the concept of Ahimsa: 'Respect for all living things and avoidance of violence toward others.' is the non-Western endorsement of the moral guideline. World adoption may convince Xi and his people that further expansion of his megalomaniacal ambitions is not in his country's best interests.