FORCE FOR LIFE: A FRAMEWORK FOR SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Tampa, Fl - May 22, 2009,
Article written by Charles Carlos Wheeler,

The most demoralizing threat to any country is the destabilizing influence of terrorism, and its unlawful coercive intimidating force. The most de-humanizing factor people experience in a country beset by terrorism is the unbridled fear of the unlawful use of that force to threaten the extermination of any country’s existence by radical partisan elements within or outside of its borders.

Force, at a more basic level is divided as a force unto life and a force unto death, and devoid of the forces of theology, ideology, or philosophy the force of biology concludes a premium of life over death. The force of annihilation exerted against the force for life creates a push and pull natural of all life and death struggles and when terrorism leads the charge for death anywhere and everywhere, the “Force for Life” can build a framework where there is a shared understanding and definition of terrorism and where we can begin an exchange of ideas and open a channel of communication that prevents death and our wholesale extermination.

Force for Life can become the framework for where living secure, healthy, and prosperous lives in congruence with our environment, our societies, and cultures is based on our mutual existence. Force for Life requires us to exist and prosper, and to live out a natural course of life, and in living that natural course of life we discover a present necessity to establish an equilibrium that involves interdependence for co-existing to achieve the self-preservation, self-determination and autonomy innate to the Force for Life.

The framework for security in the Middle East and hence the world begins with accepting the premise of the Force for Life; here the world community agrees to the eradication of terrorism everywhere and anywhere. Where the world community also agrees on a Consensus of Nations of 12 signatory countries, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iraq to chartering a Military Tribunal on Terrorism similar to the “Tribunal” at Nuremburg, “…for the just and prompt trial and punishment of…” major world terrorists, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda and the Taliban got their start, to be known as the Kandahar Tribunal. Furthermore as part of the reconstruction of Afghanistan a construction of a super maximum prison for the detaining and imprisonment of convicted terrorists will be built.

Under the Consensus of Nations, a Kandahar Treatise for Security would be drafted to establish first a viable security for the region, to promote the common good, to establish social stability, and to secure, self-governing states of Lebanon and Palestine.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations recognizes the new nations of Lebanon and Palestine, but will also provides significant assistance, in the promotion, of regional security, to weaker states.

Whereas, Lebanon establishes its current borders, and Palestine and Israel sign a 50/50 compromise forming a the parallel that starts at the Jordan Border and passes through Jericho following highway 1 as it extends to the Armistice of Agreement Line of 1949 just north of Jerusalem.

Whereas, the new Palestine State would inhabit all the lands north of that demarcation ceding and vacating the southern cities to Israel and thereby requiring Israel to halt, vacate all Israeli settlements in the new Palestine state.

Whereas, requiring the new Palestine state to halt, vacate all Palestinian settlements south of the new southern border of the Palestine state.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would raise the capital, and resources necessary from the world community, to facilitate the move and repatriation of people and lands between Israel and the new nation of Palestinian.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would establish a binding, equitable “Treatise on Water” by establishing equitable rates and agreed distribution of water resources between regional signatory countries of the Consensus of Nations.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would halt the proliferation of Nuclear Arms and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East Region, and plan for a progressive timetable for the elimination and dismantling of existing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, Asia and around the world.

Whereas, the Consensus of Nations would use the structure of the “Treatise on Water” to further review, enhance, and facilitate trade between member nations, and the world at a specific time and date.