A Proposal to Boycott the 3 Most Aggressive Nations

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

International boycotts are not by nations against nations but by individual consumers and businesses against the products and services from individual nations. Unlike international sanctions, which are by governments against the persons, products, and services from particular countries, international boycotts aren’t produced by laws, but instead by individual persons. Whereas international sanctions are illegal unless in accord with the procedures that are specified by the U.N., no international boycott can be either illegal or legal — they are instead personal decisions, and reflect personal values, which everyone has a right to exercise. So: this proposal is for individuals to make their own judgments about what the world’s 3 most aggressive nations are, and to implement those personal judgments in their own decisions and actions. It’s entirely personal, and private, unless done by a corporation (in which case it’s done in the way that the corporation establishes its policies).

I am proposing that it be done against the three most aggressive nations, instead of some other number, because I personally believe that almost all of the aggressions ever since 1945 have been and are now being done by three countries, and that the worst of those countries has done more than half of all aggressions at least ever since 1990 (over a hundred aggressions). But anyone can choose a different number of countries to target with one’s boycotts. Different people might choose different countries to target, and thus different brands and corporations, depending upon the individual’s beliefs, and some of those beliefs might be false, but each person has a right to be wrong, even though, on a matter such as this, every person has also an obligation to be right.

The reason why I am proposing this is that neither the U.N. nor any other body is, in actual fact, capable of making these decisions on a social level; political power gets in the way, on a social level; and, so, it would be best for each individual, on one’s own, to think about this matter, and to make one’s own personal decisions about it, as everyone has a personal right to do.

Furthermore: I believe that if growing numbers of people discuss this matter with one-another, then it might evolve into a social movement, which could ultimately become increasingly impactful on a social level, and it might even become more constructively impactful than is anything else that is being done on a social (including political) level, about reducing the amount of national aggressions, especially on an international level. This is particularly important because the world’s most aggressive nation has perpetrated more invasions, and more illegal sanctions, and more coups, and more subversions, and slaughtered more people, and destroyed more lives, and created more destruction, than all of the world’s other nations together have done since 1945. And no U.N., nor any other international authority, has yet prosecuted it in any way for having done any of those ghastly international crimes, from which billions of people have suffered and are suffering. (It has been done with complete impunity.)

After all: political power has always blocked the U.N. or any of its agencies, from even defining international “aggression”; and, for example, the different types of international aggressions can include not only military invasions, but also international coups, and international sanctions (especially illegal ones), and international subversions; so that any of those forms of aggression might require from the attacked country a response, which won’t be “aggression” because it will instead be responding to aggression; that response will, in fact, be defense, instead of offense; it will be justified as protecting the defender’s national security, protecting the right of a people to defend their own rights, instead of being any form of aggression at all. Every nation’s top right is the right of self-defense. So: when thinking about which three (or any other number of) nations are the world’s most aggressive, one must first think clearly and correctly about the meaning of the term “aggression.” Inevitably, one’s own values will come into play here. For example: some people have supremacist values, which start from an assumption of superior and inferior individuals and superior and inferior rights, but other people have equalitarian values, which make no supremacist personal assumptions. Similarly, some individuals believe in dictatorship, while other individuals believe in democracy. Everyone has the right to one’s beliefs, but no one has the right to impose those beliefs upon anyone else. And by making decisions about boycotting a nation, one is not imposing one’s beliefs upon anyone else, but is instead exercising one’s right to have the values that one has. Everyone has that right. And there is nothing coercive about exercising it. This proposal is instead about reducing international aggression, and doing it by one individual at a time.

The final point here is that in order to determine what the three most aggressive nations are, a count of the number of aggressions that each country has perpetrated is required, and this will necessitate one’s determining which specific Governmental actions were “aggressive”; and this, in turn, requires determining which specific Governmental actions (invasion, coup, subversion, or illegal international sanction) started a war, because ONLY the START of a war constitutes an “aggression”; no RESPONSE to that aggression by any DEFENDING nation does. Furthermore, even a nation’s RESPONSE to an aggression can constitute a war-crime, because, for example, if a response to an aggression happens to be to perpetrate a genocide against a people or nation in response to an aggression which had been perpetrated against those people or that nation which now is perpetrating that genocide against that nation or people (the aggressor), then that would be a separate and distinct war-crime, of genocide, irrespective of which side in that conflict is the one that is guilty of the war-crime of aggression. So: this proposal to boycott the three most aggressive nations concerns ONLY aggressive nations, and does NOT pertain to OTHER international war-crimes (such as genocide), which might separately be considered for a possible boycott. The reason why AGGRESSION is the focus here is that it is the international war-crime that CAUSES wars, STARTS wars. This is therefore a proposal to reduce the number of wars.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.