A Presumption Against Intervention

11 Feb

(Prefatory Note: The post below is a revised and modified version of my chapter in David Held & Kyle McNally, eds., Intervention in the 21st Century [online by Durham, UK: published by Smashwords for Global Policy Journal, 2015]




A Presumption Against Intervention



            Participating in the intervention debates that have raged periodically ever since the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, and of course earlier in less contested settings, I have been struck by the defining encounter between those who are dogmatically opposed to intervention per se and those who rarely confront a call for intervention that they do not feel persuaded by, limiting any doubts as to matters of feasibility and strategic interest. The traditional focus of policy discussion proceeds on the assumption that it is about forcible intervention by governmental actors to coerce some kind of change in a foreign sovereign state. Those in favor usually rely, at least in part, on a rationale that such an undertaking is necessary and desirable as it would rescue a captive people from a regime responsible for massive crimes against humanity or genocide, or operate as counter intervention (currently the controversy over intervening in the Ukraine to offset and discourage alleged Russian intervention) or as in relation to ISIS where the stated objective of the American led coalition is to destroy or defeat a non-political actor that is exercising governmental control over territory in portions of Iraq and Syria.


  1. Systemic Developments


            Four developments over the course of the last half-century are radically reshaping the debate on the viability and advisability of forcible intervention as a diplomatic option. The first, and most important, is the collapse of European colonialism, which has often motivated the West, and especially the United States, to assert its goalsf and protect their interests by way of intervention in what were formerly colonies or states whose sovereignty was curtailed by hegemonic authority. A feature of this post-colonial global setting is that the intervening state, if Western, will tend to justify its actions by setting forth an altruistic and self-justifying argument with strong moralizing overtones. Related to this matter of motivation on the side of the intervener is the prospect of effective and persevering national resistance creating formidable obstacles to succeeding with an intervention even with the benefit of military dominance. The combination of motivation and anticipated resistance helps explain why so few major interventions have been viewed as successful. One notable continuity linking colonial memories to post-colonial realities is the invariable geographical location of the intervening political actor in the West and that of the target society being in the non-West.


            The second development is the rise of human rights as a dimension of world order and a central feature of the foreign policy rationalizations relied upon by liberal democracies, which in a globalizing world makes boundaries seem less inhibiting from the perspective of international law for a prospective intervener. The implicit major premise of the human rights framework is an affirmation of species solidarity. This means that responsibilities for the wellbeing of others extends beyond the boundaries of one’s own state, and reaches to the most remote parts of the planet. In other words, intervention is supposedly undertaken mainly for the sake of securing the rights of others, and territorial ambitions and the quest for economic benefits are denied. The 21st century intervener claims a purity of intentions, but the configuration of interventions and non-interventions is far more ambiguous, and is more convincingly explained by strategic priorities than by the protection of human rights, especially given the cartography of intervention as situating the locus of intervention in the Global South while identifying the intervening political actors as invariably from the West.


            The third development is the increased reliance on military technologies that reduce sharply the casualties of the intervener while shifting the burdens of death and devastation to the target society. This reflects thin political support that accompanies subjecting citizens of Western countries to risks of dying, especially for undertakings that are justified as ‘humanitarian’ rather than ‘strategic.’ This discourse of justification places a premium on weaponry and tactics that minimize the likelihood of casualties even at the cost of battlefield effectiveness. The Kosovo intervention under NATO auspices in 1999 was expressive of this new war fighting paradigm, with the military campaign consisting exclusively of air attacks from fairly high altitudes that increased the casualties on the ground but spared the intervening side altogether from experiencing combat deaths or injuries. A similar pattern was present in Libya in 2013 employing NATO airpower to tip the internal balance of forces in favor of an anti-regime uprising without casualties, the new paradigm being dubbed ‘zero casualty wars.’


            The fourth development is the acceptance of the validity of a positive international law rule prohibiting forcible intervention by a sovereign state regardless of justifying circumstances. The only exceptions to this prohibition involve a use of force that can be justified as self-defense against a prior armed attack or an intervention that has been authorized by a Security Council decision. Since controversial interventions tend to involve non-defensive or aggressive uses of force that have been neither authorized by UN procedures nor can be convincingly categorized as instances of self-defense as defined in international law. The result of this pattern of ‘lawlessness’ in recent decades has been an erosion of respect for international law and the UN Charter as constraining the behavior of major sovereign states, and especially the United States in relation to the core norm of the UN Charter (Article 2(4)) regarding recourse to force. The authority of international law in these settings has also been undermined by the extent to which the most pronounced forms of conflict are no longer be territorially circumscribed and involving normal sovereign states as principal antagonists. The most important adversaries in the present world order setting are the United States as a global, non-territorial state and various non-state political networks and formations (such as Al Qaeda and affiliates, and Isis and affiliates).


  1. Assessing the Debate


            Participants in debates about a prospective intervention are influenced by a variety of considerations that shape their assessments. The pro-interventionists frame their public arguments mainly or exclusively by reference to humanitarian concerns, insisting that when a state severely abuses its own people it inflicts harm on the whole world, and that intervention should follow regardless of its country of origin or its mix of governmental motivations. Ideally, such an intervention should be mandated by the United Nations so as to comply with international law, but if political obstacles prevent such a green light from being obtained, intervention should go ahead anyway if seen as likely to be effective in ending such patterns of severe abuse. Such so-called liberal hawks as Samantha Power, Michael Ignatieff, Susan Rice, and Anne-Marie Slaughter are illustrative North American exponents of interventionary diplomacy, but there are Europeans who take similar positions. One characteristic of the pro-interventionists is their unquestioning good faith in maintaining the claim that interventions are genuinely about helping vulnerable or suffering people, and not about protecting access to oil reserves or ensuring market access. Another feature of such lines of advocacy is its rather blind confidence that if military superiority is brought to bear it can be translated into desired forms of political outcome at acceptable costs in blood and treasure. This confidence in military solutions overlooks the record of repeated failure associated with interventionary diplomacy in the period since 1945, especially in relation to large-scale interventions that generate a strong nationalistic resistance.


            The anti-interventionists approach these policy issues differently. They look below the surface of humanitarian rationalizations for the use of force to discern what they believe to be the real motives. They are quick to distrust and dismiss humanitarian explanations for intervention, and search for the presence of strategic interests as revealing the true explanation of a proposed intervention. Most anti-interventionists are extremely suspicious of the justifications given by the pro-interventionists, especially government officials and think tank experts, and skeptical about the claims that positive results will be achieved even if the question of strategic interests is put to one side. Such skeptics, often self-identifying as leftists or progressives, are likely to refer to the failures of past interventions such as Vietnam, or more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan, as cautionary reminders of how often interventions failed from a policy perspective in the period since the end of World War II. They also oppose the tendency of those advocating intervention to ignore the past, seeking to devote their primary attention to questions of feasibility, thereby ignoring the notoriously bad track record of intervention. Since 1945, few of these Western interventions have reached the goals set by their advocates, especially if the target country has a population of over three million and mobilizes a national resistance movement. For anti-interventionists, such as Noam Chomsky, nearly every intervention that is politically endorsed by the West is a poorly disguised example of ‘military humanism,’ and should be viewed as unacceptable. From this perspective, one cost of such interventions is to weaken international law and the UN, as well as respect for sovereign rights. Such a selective use of force imposes the stigma of ‘double standards’ and hypocrisy on the practice of intervention. Chomsky, for instance, asks rhetorically why intervention was undertaken in Kosovo but not on behalf of the large Kurdish minority in Turkey who in the same time period were enduring a cruel counterinsurgency campaign conducted by the Turkish government.


            The pro-interventionist tends to stress the moral responsibilities of the United States as a global leader and intervening liberal democracy. In contrast, the anti-interventionist generally dismisses such moral claims as a cover story for the pursuit of strategic interests in a post-colonial world order where the rules of the game are the same, or similar, but the language of justification has changed to make it more acceptable to rely upon ethical rationalizations when seeking to legitimize the use of international force. It is no longer permissible or prudent to admit selfish national motivations, and for this reason a humanitarian and human rights discourse has become fashionable, but it has also obscured the true wellsprings of policy. Anti-interventionists are sometimes so beholden to their suspicions about the maneuvers of the powerful that they can be oblivious to the depth and reality of suffering or the severity of abuse being endured by a people entrapped in genocidal circumstances. Such dogmatic anti-interventionism rejects on principle practical pleas to rescue entrapped and victimized peoples even in situations of genuine emergency. They are so distrustful of authorizing uses of force by those few political actors that possess long distance force projection capabilities and accompanying political will that they refuse to consider the context or weigh the pros and cons of the particular case.


Five Sets of Conclusion


            Against such a background of antagonistic views about interventionary diplomacy, I would support several general propositions in seeking to develop an approach that was not ideologically predetermined and sensitive to context, yet overall leans toward the adoption of an anti-interventionist position:

            –assess the pros and cons relating to a given situation, including taking due account of the radical uncertainty that arises from unknown and unknowable aspects of the national context and an inability to assess accurately the risks associated with a prospect of national resistance to intervention; such considerations on balance in most situations uphold policies reflective of the presumption against intervention;

            –such a presumption can be only overcome by solid evidence suggesting that a true humanitarian emergency exists, that the persons and communities facing a dire threat can be rescued by a proposed scale of intervention that is effective without encroaching upon rights of self-determination, and to the extent possible, that the intervening political actor receives authorization from the UN Security Council;

            –in situations of exceptional danger to a civilian population as posed by a genocidal campaign the presumption can be put aside even without UNSC authorization, provided there exists a regional consensus supportive of intervention of the character as existed in the Middle East in reaction to Iraq’s occupation and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 and in Europe in relation to Kosovo in 1999; the quality of the regional consensus is inescapably a matter of interpretation, although formal endorsement of or opposition to a proposed intervention by a constituted regional organization deserves serious respect in the absence of clear signals at the global level from the UN Security Council;

            –such a presumption deserves deference if the intervention seems contrary to the wishes of the people engaged in a struggle or if the intervention will tip the internal balance in civil strife contra popular will and the dynamics of self-determination or if it is likely to give rise to proxy wars of regional and global scope as has been the tragic fate of Syria since 2011;

            –it may be possible and desirable to support nonviolent initiatives shaped and carried out by civil society actors. In such circumstances, the presumption against intervention should remain in the background, yet relevant to the avoidance of militarizing the conflict. Even then it is important that civil society actors are independent of government influence and not vehicles for an intrusion upon unresolved civil strife. It is also relevant that there exists convincing evidence of a humanitarian crisis and a realization that the territorial government is incapable of acting protectively or is guilty of crimes against humanity; a strong precedent for such intervention from below was exemplified by the global anti-apartheid campaign that exerted major pressures on South Africa in the early 1990; a more controversial example is the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement currently challenging certain Israeli policies and practices involving Israel’s unlawful settlements, continued occupation of Palestine, and overall interference with Palestinian rights under international law.


            These five propositions are rough guidelines for reaching a contextual assessment in relation to any debate proposing a specific intervention or civic action aimed at achieving change in a foreign state. By its nature, there is an imprecision associated with such a framework, but it is an alternative to the sort of doctrinaire approach that has been so common in the polarized public debates about intervention during the past 20 years. Relying on these guidelines I opposed the 2003 intervention in Iraq because of the absence of either a Security Council authorization, an existing humanitarian emergency, and the likely prospect of sustained national resistance. In relation to Libya in 2013, I favored a limited humanitarian intervention to protect the civilian population of the city of Benghazi because there was a UN authorization and a genuine humanitarian emergency, but strongly opposed the NATO enlargement of the mandate to encompass a regime-changing mission. Syria has been the most daunting of challenges as there has existed for several years a severe humanitarian emergency, but there is neither a global nor regional consensus supportive of military intervention. Worse than this, the Syria strife has been greatly intensified by become the scene of multiple interventions by political actors from the Middle East and beyond. Additionally, the uncertainty factors depicted in the first guideline have made it impossible to have sufficient confidence that any foreign military intervention in Syria would not intensify the violence and work against achieving a sustainable peace based on inclusive governance respectful of the human right of all inhabitants. The complexities of the dynamics of self-determination makes it often impossible to reach any kind of clarity with respect to proposed initiatives by external actors. It is important to recall that self-determination remains the most significant anti-intervention norm in a post-colonial global setting, and is so often marginalized in debates for or against intervention. This neglect of the relevance of self-determination has often deepened the tragic plight of state-building in the aftermath of political independence.


25 Responses to “A Presumption Against Intervention”

  1. Giftoftruth February 11, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

    Reblogged this on Giftoftruth United.

  2. Dr Dayan Jayatilleka February 11, 2015 at 11:24 pm #

    Dear Richard, as always you discuss the issue at hand with a rare, near-unique combination of objectivity, knowledge and passion. I wish to supplement the valuable discussion by making two points. Firstly, for those of my generation there was and is a fire-break between intervention and internationalism, which I fail to observe in the new generation of thinkers and activists– except, significantly, in Latin America and South Africa. For my generation, internationalism meant solidarity and even active intervention against the dominant global power or aggressor. Thus we applauded Che in the Congo and Bolivia, and the Cubans in Angola, and of course the memory of the International brigades in Spain, while opposing US interventionism. Intervention was often on the side of national sovereignty, e.g. Cuba in Angola.Today, internationalist solidarity often means support for intervention precisely by the dominant global power or Anglo-American bloc, and against national sovereignty. Which brings me to my second point. What is the unit of analysis? Is it the country? The people– and if so people? Those of say, an ethnic or religious minority or of the majority of citizens? Whose views do we take into account and why? warmest regards, Dayan

    • Gene Schulman February 12, 2015 at 8:47 am #

      Some very interesting points made here, Doctor. They confirm my own positions against intervention. I can’t remember any instance in my life that intervention was committed altruistically. It is always committed with expectation of gain by the superior power. Chomsky is correct, and Richard is right to quote him.

    • Richard Falk February 12, 2015 at 11:46 am #

      Dayan: As usual, your responses to my piece are both generous & illuminating. I find particularly valuable the distinction
      between intervention and internationalism, and the shifting nature of the latter. Also the second point on the unit of analyze,
      I find no satisfactory or comprehensive answer. In the end we are left with the semi-copout of ‘it depends on the context.’ I believe
      the colonial legacy of distorting the contours of established political communities bears heavy responsibility–either the kind of
      reallocation of territorial rights as in Africa and Middle East (Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916) or the kind of divide rule tactics of
      the British that produced partition or accentuated ethnic conflicts. Hope you are fine. Warmest greetings, Richard

  3. truthaholics February 12, 2015 at 2:29 am #

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics.

  4. Arif Dirlik February 12, 2015 at 8:45 am #

    Dear Richard, We might add that even in the interventions in the “South,” the intervention is usually against weaker states and not powerful ones such as the PRC–not to mention friendly dictators! In other words, the issue of power. Arif

    • Richard Falk February 12, 2015 at 11:40 am #

      Thanks, Arif, for this clarification and elaboration. It is that interface between power and grand strategy
      that maps where intervention occurs and where it doesn’t. With warm greetings, Richard

  5. rehmat1 February 12, 2015 at 10:15 am #

    Most of the “intervention players” are creation of terrorists states like the United States and Israel to destabilize the Muslim world (ISIS/ISIL) or punish those nations which support Iran, Syria or Hizbullah (Russia/China).

    In June 2014, Netanyahu in his first comment on ISIS victory in Iraq, said that Washington should stay out of the Iraqi conflict – and let the Sunni militants defeat the Shia-dominated government of prime minister al-Maliki and break-up Iraq. “This will weaken Iranian influence in the Arab region,” said Netanyahu during his address at Tel Aviv University’s INSS think-tank.


    On May 6, 2014, the deputy head of Dnipropetrovsk, B. Filatov and Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoyski announced a plan to build a New Zion: Promised Land in the Zionist liberated Ukraine. Kolomoyski’s fellow Jewish oligarch Petro Poroshenko is the current president of Ukraine.

    The radical Zionist Chabad Jewish sect in the United States wants its community to move to Ukraine, their original Khazarian homeland.


  6. Jerry "Peacemaker" February 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

    Albert Einstein’s last written words were about “supra-national security” being the only real road to peace. Einstein was talking about a world military/police force. He thought that no leaders will propose the concept because “it would be tantamount to political suicide”. Einstein’s idea, when one imagines a world police force planned into reality, would feature “police stations” around the world, made up of officers from every nation, and creation of a reality on Earth absent enemies but left only with criminals.

    The Elders (www.theelders.org), founded by among others Nelson Mandela, has just released their proposal for United Nations reforms. Perhaps adding Mr. Einstein’s “supra-national security” reform to their excellent suggestions would result in a global situation making the pro-interventionist / anti-interventionist debate a great deal simpler and less stressful. The main benefit of an established global police/military, where men and women from every nation and region serve and protect together, is the end of “us versus them” thinking and the beginning of “only us”. In other words, there would no longer be any enemy.

    George Seldes’ book “The Great Thoughts” / page 120 / Einstein’s last written words, April 1955; quoted by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden in “Einstein on Peace”:
    “Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the courage of supra-national security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide”.

    • Kata Fisher February 12, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

      A note:

      Einstein’s “supra-national security” is in one spirit with Nuclear weaponry development. It’s “Nay” of that what is going on now? but very, very wrong crime against humanity?

      I do not believe that he was a valid human essence of mind for most of his life — if at all he was.

      His approach would only work / become valid if ABUSERS / with criminals are converted (from their evil nature / evil mind in approach) and be “men and women from every nation and region serve and protect together.”

      You already have that — but it is insufficient in earthly power.

      The Spirit that is not in the world will not remain in the world while is send into the all world (in order to sustain) and work according to God’s Plan and purpose. Church will never — and yet alway will tell you what that is — when is accomplished?

      It is not of earthly substance / power or any “time” that is administered to the man-kind. God’s time is not our time — his time is eternal — while we without Spirit of God are not.

      Power to abusers with criminals against humanity, now it is.

      It is us and them, since the day of Pentecost in upper room.

      Peace-makers may or may not follow — that is up to them.

      Whenever you have something establishing in the worlds – you may or may not have “Kingdom of God” tell you what is going on?

      Things that were / are fulfilled will not always be visible and Church-valid will not always will to be interpreting it.

      Church Charismatic says: “do and establish whatever.” That really makes no difference to the eternal purpose.

      Restrainer is here and here he is also taken out. (It is and it is not) in terms to the natural world.

      From Church-Charismatic perspective things are always simple as drinking of a glass or two of wine. What’s happening in the world is and it is not relevant to the Church in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

      • rehmat1 February 12, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

        Einstein is very relevant to the illegal creation of the Zionist entity. He was anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish nationalism.


      • Kata Fisher February 13, 2015 at 9:12 am #

        Dear rehmat:

        Nationalism is not always wrong. When is wrong and when is not wrong– that is a vast subject.

        In simple terms we say “enjoy nationalism and your way in any way you like, and do not allow anything else to your nationalism ( minority to correct you or sustain you) — then until you completely fall apart…and even after that so that your “nationalism” becomes eating your own flesh…”

        These things happen before to the nations — and they will happen again.

        I was reflecting on this “Bosnian Nationalism” for a while:


        In Bosnia — Roma people are our prophets and Judea that was send to us… but no, the wicked will say, “No, no, no – they are gypsies and they can’t even try to attempt to rule us.”

        That how evil people can get and are — they hate minorities that is there (in any land) for the reason to sustain them against their evil ways.

        About Israel:

        The creation of the “state” was illegal. It “was” ‘illegal.

        Shifts took place. What was illegal then “on the ground” is not illegal now on the ground. However, the “state” definition for Israel remains illegal definition for Holy Land. Just as Jordan and Egypt Landmark is illegal within the Holy Land.

        For this reason, you have illegal issues concerning the “state” Land. Which in natural and Spiritual reality is the Land reserved fro “Israel-exiled” in Holy Land.

        Israel-exiled (is spiritual and natural).

        In two fact-points: 1) is the people under Faith of the Book that was passed on (Old Testament) 2) and “historical land-grabs and rapes” by other people religions / tribes: Muslim, Christians and other religions.

        “State” (Israel, as Holy Land ) is in progress of development based on Spiritual Laws.

        The word “state” can be removed at any time from Israel’s constitution — just as Israel has to ask for Landmarks of Holy Land to be given back under Spiritual authority of Old Testament. — from Arabic Islam, who has received the legitimate landmarks on the territory of Holy Land. from induced illegal activity from Satanic Church(s) / illegitimate people-Kingdom(s).

        Creation of the “state” in Israel was a consequence because what else could be claimed back? The Landmark of Holy Land that Egypt and Jordan just had to have under Islam?

        I tell you the truth that every Arab on the territory of Holy Land is under the Law of the Church and under the Law of Old Testament because Landmark of Holy Land is in Spiritual authority of descendant (s) of King David who are in the Church-Catholic/Charismatic, under the Law of the Spirit.

        Church Charismatic does not care what Israeli/Jews, Americans or Arabs anywhere think along with other general public — that is just public/general opinion toward/against Holy Land lay-people that non-lay people (who are not Charismatic and ordained) have dificulty to keep safe.

        The Church will hand down only Spiritual things because it is impossible to Church to do anything else. The Church will allow however for any wishful thinking along with desserts that come along with it.

        Concerning Arabs in the Middle East:

        Palestinian can have Jordan; they can have “Palestine state” they can have “Egypt” in any condition — they can do whatever, and under whatever spiritual authority, along with Saudi and other Kings…

        If they want to correct the evil that is in the mids of them — they can be ordained by the Church-Charismatic. Otherwise, they can have whatever they want with undiscerned Islamic texts and undiscerned actions with illegitimate Churches.

        When someone abuses / mishandles any part of Holy Land Landmark (within the Land or the Landmarks itself) they will bring sword and destruction upon them-self and everyone in question will be under the sword and will be spiritually excommunicated, as well.

        That what is written down by Prophets of God and preserved and passed down by the Prophets and Church-Charismatic (Holy Scripture) Old Testament and New Testament that was given by Jesus Christ and them written down by the Church-Charismatic is not manipulated / changed without consequences that are irrevocable for those who have sinned, unless they are Baptised in Spirit of God — along with their offspring.

        We all can play self-righteous and put all manners that are in the world and still remain whitewash stone that just reeks fully of decay of the rotten flesh and blood.

        When comes to the condition of Israel, it is either all the way in according to the Holy Land Landmark — or all the way out.

        All the way out just can’t happen because you just can’t kick out people of Faith that belong to exiled Israel in Holy Land.

        All the way in can’t happen because legitimate Church along with Arabs stole the Landmark of Holy Land — prior to the time that Jews demanded to establish anything possible in Holy Land.

        Let’s not be silly but think of reality possible and not possible — and why these things are so with diligent attention.

        Satanic seals and blasphemy of God’s Sprit in humans works just as “Satan-incarnate”, and they turn everything upside down for their benifit. That is fine, and very good in appearance, as well. Church Charismatic says, “Enjoy it.”

        Until Spirit of God in offspring of David turns everything up-side-down and stripped them off (in Spiritual and natural).

        Self-defense apart from God’s help is applicable.

        When you are in Spirit — what self-defense do you need?

        Holy Land Landmark will be under authority of God’s Spirit and descendants of King David in Church-Charismatic or will be under the sword.

        There is nothing else to be said about these things from Spiritual perspective.

      • Jerry "Peacemaker" February 14, 2015 at 3:25 pm #

        With all due respect, one finds it hard to understand the assertion that Einstein’s ideas about peace made him pro-nuclear weapons development. Could you elaborate on the suggestion that Einstein was not a valid human essence of mind? You assert that a world police force made up of men and women from every nation already exists, but where are the Earth-wide police agencies consisting of Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indians, South Africans, Israelis, Syrians, Saudis, Argentines, French, Brits, Swedes and so forth working, eating etc. together?

        “God’s time is not our time — his time is eternal — while we without Spirit of God are not.”
        Would you believe that a global law enforcement agency where all races, nationalities, lands, and countries’ men and women serve and protect would contribute greatly in both decreasing distrust, and increasing cooperation and mutual understanding between, peoples everywhere on Earth? And would not those results move humanity closer to unity, oneness and peace – in a literal sense, universal acceptance, receiving of the Spirit of God?

        With apologies for unfamiliarity of Church-Charismatic, spiritual traditions on Earth are varied and many, and unfortunately philosophical differences between them result in violence and war, certainly a movement away from the Spirit of God. Perhaps the largest genocide in history, the one carried out against America’s Native American ancestors, featured priests with a bible in one hand and a musket in the other. The bible they carried advised them to “love one another as I have loved you”, while the musket was used in actions directly opposed to that greatest of all spiritual advice.

        “From Church-Charismatic perspective things are always simple as drinking of a glass or two of wine. What’s happening in the world is and it is not relevant to the Church in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”

        With all respect, and with absolutely no interest in anything but beneficial and constructive debate, all spiritual traditions are valid, the paths to God are many, and each can be perceived a facet on the diamond of humanity’s oneness.

        The website http://www.sacred-texts.org, Kata, is one you may find of interest.


      • Kata Fisher February 14, 2015 at 3:45 pm #


        I read this — and I understand your argument. I will get back to you on this as soon as I get back — I am on my way out.

      • Kata Fisher February 15, 2015 at 4:55 pm #


        You write:

        “With all due respect, one finds it hard to understand the assertion that Einstein’s ideas about peace made him pro-nuclear weapons development.”

        I look at spiritual realities in manifestation, and argue very little apart from facts based on spiritual realities.

        It is possible for humans to witness to the destructive evils, based on their helthy conscience/ moral law — why that did not take place when progression of nuclear weapon development took place?

        It was legal to develop such things. Who made it legal?

        Concerning Einstein: “special theory of relativity” was not his idea – it was the development of prior ideas? It could be both.

        – for better or for worse in the earth?

        In simple terms, it is said to be: “do that what is desired in hell – do that, and you will be in practice / manifestation of hell on the earth.”

        Likewise, “Do what is not desired in hell.”


        For example, “just war doctrine” was argued and developed by “heretic/s” (hysterically) within the Church-Catholic and outside of the Church-Catholic. Those heretics were considered to be the greatest theologians in the history of the Church — while they were totally outside the Church’s authentic traditions, and even practice. Theology is not authentic tradition of the Church / first generation of Christianity annuls “Theology” and classifies it as heretical, in fact — especially, contemporarily Theology is exceedingly evil church -practice.

        You can compare / categories what Einstein did to that what many others did before and after him – historically, and within different fields..

        I would say that they were somewhat very psychotic and / or in “satanic seal” or blasphemy of God’s Sprit.

        Alternatively, they were demonized by counterfeit-charismatic-church and her disorder or in another hand were defiled with “evil spirits” trough different “illegitimate relationships” / sexual morality (adultery) and / defiling (with) women outside a legitimate marriage.

        I would say that Einstein was somewhat psychotic under prophetic anointing. He may have gotten touch of charismatic church disorder, and satanic oppressions that took place in Germany, primarily.

        A lot took place prior to WWI and WWII concerning charismatic disorders in Europe, and US — and Nazi-symbols were worshiped by main – stream population / Christianity, and it was art in practice proper to WWII. Even in Israel there were many art-prints on architectural items.

        Psychiatry /Psychology, like science (and much development of it) was an activity of “satanic seal” and “blasphemy of God’s Sprit” (seal of sin) in the manifestation. (In elaboration, as well).

        I said that Church already exists.

        You are writing: ”You assert that a world police force made up of men and women from every nation already exists, but where are the Earth -wide police agencies consisting of Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indians, South Africans, Israelis, Syrians, Saudis, Argentines, French, Brits, Swedes and so forth working, eating etc. together?”

        I have asserted nothing.

        I said that Church Baptized in Spirit of God, already exists – and does not discriminate based on illegitimate grounds — but serves (and certainly does not police) as illegitimate activity of lawless states do. This was rather more made content-accurate then what you understood.

        What other argument was that “police force made up of men and women from every nation already exists” — the practices of UN – members (illegal state /s policing practices)?

        You write: “Would you believe that a global law enforcement agency where all races, nationalities, lands, and countries’ men and women serve and protect would contribute greatly in both decreasing distrust, and increasing cooperation and mutual understanding between, peoples everywhere on Earth?”

        I know what is established (Church Law / Canon Law) and by what it was established (Spirit of God) and I know on what base was established (Special Revelation / Old and New Testament with continues guidance of God’s Spirt even to this day) and I know who has authority to handle the interpretation, application and implementation of the Church Law: (juridic person/s that is not “natural person/human” itself).

        International Law is Partial / in Partiality then it is, and it takes pleasures in its partiality. Church can’t apply any partiality, in practice — only Church-Law. Civil Laws are not and also are irrelevant to Church under the Law of the Spirit.

        You write: “And would, not those results move humanity closer to unity, oneness, and peace – in a literal sense, universal acceptance, receiving of the Spirit of God?”

        Receiving Spirit of God — but by what means and what God or “god/s”?

        I know that human activity in / of “satanic seal” and/ or “blasphemy of God’s Sprit” (seal of sin) in manifestation can not be annulled / eradicated without Baptism in Spirit of God.

        Regardless if secular in manifestation or religious in manifestation; however, secular manifestation of activity in / of “satanic seal” and/ or “blasphemy of God’s Sprit” (seal of sin) in ultimately consequence of religious activity in / of “satanic seal” and/ or “blasphemy of God’s Sprit” — then generations after in manifestation, secular.

        Human condition is under common Grace, but also is under judgment by the Law of the Spirit.

        There are so many theories and false beliefs, including scientific progress that is just plain satanic, in nature. Can you observe it, as manifested? I doubt.

        Baptism in Spirit of God does not happen to the sects and religions in disorderly practices – even charismatic-disorderly practices. There were different manifestation of glossolalia (that were demonic, in fact, even before Jesus Christ of Nazareth and before Church was established by the outport of God’s Spirit). So, there was glossolalia- demonic — but was not not any part of the manifestation of God’s Spirit and Laws Spirtual.

        I understand nature of sects and cults, as well as nature of Faith’s that are under Natural Revelation — and are yet in no witness to Special Revelation – but do not recognize “Special Revelation” as path, itself — that was given by only YAHW-God who created all humanity. Still, under Natural Revelation recogniseing Special Revelation is more then possible for human mind.

        Baptism in Spirit of God certainly does not happen to “Christianity under Theology”. (Contemporarily- church that is spiritual excommunicated and is apart from valid sanctifying sacraments).

        You write: “With apologies for unfamiliarity of Church-Charismatic, spiritual traditions on Earth are varied and many, and unfortunately philosophical differences between them result in violence and war, certainly a movement away from the Spirit of God”

        In fact, if you are not familiar with Church-Charismatic – you are not familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ.

        I can show you manifestation of valid Church-Charismatic under the Laws of the Spirt. If you will, I can do that — if you are not familiar with it.

        In fact, if you are not familiar with Church-Charismatic – you may be familiar with satanic churches in charismatic disorder and churches under Theology. Theology, in essence, is not “authentic” Church tradition in practice. It is somewhat “heretical” implementation of tradition, within the Church/es – all together.

        Specific order of the Church is that one who is authorized to interpret /teach the Gospel and Baptize is the same Baptism that Jesus Christ baptized those who were in upper-room and streets of Jerusalem — would be in fact the one who is commissioned by Spirit of God trough Jesus Christ — this commission does not take place without Baptism of God’s Spirit in the Church, at all. (But, I will not play ignorant that so-called Christianity and their churches are spiritual excommunicated for centuries, even more than a thousand year and are continuing to be.

        Genocides were not works of “authentic Church” or accomplishment according to its worships – but “satanic churches” that were / are given over to Satan, along with other humanity under Natural Revelation / Law that is and can be given over to Satan.

        Authentic Church has nothing to with evil such as that, in practice.

        However, Church will warn of it.

        You write: “With all respect, and with absolutely no interest in anything but beneficial and constructive debate, all spiritual traditions are valid, the paths to God are many, and each can be perceived a facet on the diamond of humanity’s oneness.”

        First – all pats do NOT lead to God. Why? That is exactly what Special Revelation has reviled — that what was passed by the Prophets of God, and was preserved and passed on by the line of the prophets.

        However, God has allowed free will to mankind, and with that for all all spiritual traditions to be valid for humans God has allowed to be — for those who have established their spiritual ways and spiritual traditions, apart from Special Revelation (Old and New Testament).

        Freedom of Religion is greatly desired and allowed, and it must be because that which excuses one can condemn another. (Both is valid for humanity).

        If one’s conscience is not seared, but fulfill that what Law dictates — just by the merits of the moral laws that are inscribed on human spirit — that human is in valid spiritual way and tradition, apart from “Special Revelation.”

        The conscience can condemn or excuse on, in fact. It will not “save one from judgment of God” – but it will excuse you from evil-doing (in practice).

        If human conscience is not seared, and gives witnesses to that which is good — then it should also practice that which is good, and no evil. Otherwise, the conscience is seared and not in valid human essence — so that only evil is applied in practice.

        Here – you can observe this, and you can know, in fact, just by moral law that those practices are not of God nor spirit of God. Here, demonizing of people (satanic seals) takes place:

        Hope for Peace.

      • Jerry "Peacemaker" February 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm #

        Somehow my suggestion to consider Einstein’s idea that a world military/police force was the only way to peace has gone off on a tangent about spiritual charlatans taking advantage of gullible people to make money. It would be interesting to hear what leaders of Church-Charismatic think of a world military/police. If you could ask them to comment/share their views, I would be very interested in hearing their response.

        In the meantime, what have the Church-Charismatic leaders specifically proposed for bringing about a more peaceful world?

      • Kata Fisher February 16, 2015 at 1:00 pm #


        Churches sweep their order and crimes under the carpet, at any opportunity – just as all other that are unrighteous in their ways.

        Fr. Carlo Maria Vigano has done a great deal of good will concerning change along with Pope Benedict.


        They have proposed to clean up the Church-Catholic-Charismatic from evil traditions of sin that nonordained priesthood / lay-people implemented over centuries if not more the thousand of years.

        However, what has to change has to change in appropriate way and time.

        I would not trust anyone (concerning wellbeing ob global humanity and global human interest) but Fr. Carlo Maria Vigano when comes to the appointing to go about Church issues and world – change issues (concerning any change / implementations on behave of humanity).

        Implementing things that Elderly’s are suggesting should not take place without nuncios who are Charismatic and are mature in understanding of human condition, systematically, according to Special and Natural Revelation, and also both civil and eccalistical Laws.

        Pope Francis is irrelevant based on his background — He is Jesuit order and not necessarily in oversight of the juridic implementation in Church and world.

        I would not confuse his role as Church-leader to the “World-leadership” of the Church, which is entrusted to the juridic person, primarily — and along with Pope as representative of the Church.

        “Can. 120 §1. A juridic person is perpetual by its nature; nevertheless, it is extinguished if it is legitimately suppressed by competent authority or has ceased to act for a hundred years. A private juridic person, furthermore, is extinguished if the association is dissolved according to the norm of its statutes or if, in the judgment of competent authority, the foundation has ceased to exist according to the norm of its statutes.”


        The Canon Law of the Church with authorised / and official juridic person/s (specific priesthood order / under the order of Melchizedek – representing order of Melchizedek ) and this order is sufficient to proofread for human error. Grave harm can be imposed upon humans without full and systematic understanding of realities that are bestowed upon humans.

        Fr. Carlo Maria Vigano is equipped and qualified with others that he know can be trusted – to appoint / (select) as valid juridic persons who can oversee what others want to implement over humanity (spiritual and natural).

        I am assurance that there are at least one congregations Protestant-Catholic Charismatic-Church under the Law’s of the Church that are valid, and also can be asked to participate.

        However, the Gospel places great importance on celibate order of priesthood – that is nowhere to be found, except in Catholic-priesthood order.

        However, there are some excellent anointing and Gifts-Spiritual within Protestant-Chatolic Church, and these priest/pastors should be part of oversight.

        I hope this is helpful.

      • Jerry "Peacemaker" February 16, 2015 at 11:36 pm #

        Can you share any wise suggestions/quotes/words from Fr. Vigano on possible solutions to bring about peace on Earth?
        Thanks, again.

      • Kata Fisher February 17, 2015 at 10:00 am #


        In the Scripture it is written that the seed is the Word of God.

        Likewise, it is written that “One” went out sowing to sow.

        Why? Because some harvest is expected? All of the Harvest.

        For what reason? –

        just because some seed fell there where they could not grow…..

        We read that in the Gospel (Matthew ch. 13).

        I hope this is helpful.

  7. ray032 February 12, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    Concerning Syria, “there is neither a global nor regional consensus supportive of military intervention” but “become the scene of multiple interventions by political actors from the Middle East and beyond.”

    Propaganda keeps on telling the people the “severe humanitarian emergency” in Syria is a “Civil War.” This is so far from the Truth and Reality. but people love living with their delusions

    With the CIA, Russia, Mossad, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and other players involved, this is a mini World War III/Armageddon in development.

    From my Spiritual perspective, what I see happening in Syria Today is the Revelation, in real Life and Current Time, in this material world, the 2600 year old ancient prophecy:
    The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap………………………………………………. Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
    The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
    Isaiah 17

    What we have here is a Failure to Communicate

    • ray032 February 12, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

      February 27, 2012

      • rehmat1 February 12, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

        Syria has been an “Israel Project” from the very beginning. The Washington Post reported in August 2013 that the push for war in Syria is becoming a Jewish-American/Israel lobby effort. And they’re right. Jews comprise just 2% of population, but yet account for 23% percent of America’s pro-war congressmen. At least 11 of 48 congressman strongly in favor of military action are Jewish,


    • ray032 February 14, 2015 at 3:19 am #

      Saturday, 6am

      An article in Today’s Jerusalem Post essentially confirms my observation what is happening in Syria is not a “Civil” War, but a World War in development.
      ‘Behind the Lines: Hezbollah, Iran, Syria join forces near Golan ‘buffer zone’

      “The war in the south is fought between a “government” side, which includes a very high presence of Hezbollah and Iranian personnel; and a “rebel” side, whose components have significant links to neighboring – and Western – governments.

      The absence of Islamic State does not mean the southern rebels constitute only the moderate, non-Islamist fighters long sought after by supporters of the Syrian opposition; rather, they are a mixed bag.

      The “Southern Front,” led by Bashar al-Zoubi – a former senior officer in the Syrian army who defected to the rebels early in the war – is the last powerful gathering of non-Islamist fighters on the rebel side in Syria today.

      But the Salafi “Islamic Front,” which supports the establishment of a state based on Shari’a, is also active in these areas – as is Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian franchise of al-Qaida.

      The contours of a complex web of support structures for the rebels in the south, involving agencies of a variety of both regional and Western governments, may be discerned. The existence of an operations room in Amman bringing together representatives of 14 countries to coordinate assistance to the southern rebels has been reported by a variety of regional media sources; among the countries represented are the US, France, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

      Rebel units within the Southern Front vetted by the US have been the recipients of sophisticated weapons systems, including BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles.”

      It can only be the CIA in control of the operations room in Jordan co-ordinating the activities of >14< Nations against the Syrian government, and Assad is still frustrating them!

      If all of that is not bad enough, this is the latest article posted to my Blog yesterday:
      'War Over Ukraine – Prelude to WWIII/Armageddon?'

  8. Beau Oolayforos February 22, 2015 at 3:42 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,
    Washington’s birthday seems a good time to reflect on his farewell address, and to regret anew the policymakers who have taken a diametrically opposite course from the earnest advice of a founding father. If Washington’s counsel is now held to be antiquated and obsolete, perhaps our thoroughly modern chronic interventionists have a similar attitude toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Have we not noticed tendencies in that regard?


  1. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » A Presumption against Intervention - February 16, 2015

    […] Go to Original – richardfalk.wordpress.com […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: