When one comes to the conclusion that one knows a good idea of how the global security situation should be addressed, one must consider whether publishing it will achieve anything other than that people will consider him a fool with a salvation complex. I have the thick skin, thanks, among other things, to earlier correspondence on Czech politics; but I did not continue until my friends invited me to do so. The topic also needed to be thought out and discussed. For this, I founded and registered a small association, the 'Global Cooperation Association', also as an attempt to raise awareness of the solution; of course, this solution depends on the support of many people around the world, especially those choosing the appropriate politicians.
I have summarized the main ideas here on the Intention page. The main difficulty is to overcome the attitude that the others are enemies; I look at the causes on the "In general" page.
There are experiences from previous decades with negotiations between the poles: President Mitterrand */ was invited by the ruling representatives of the Czechoslovak communists and they admitted his condition that he meet with the opposition - dissidents. The thing is worth following because it can help improve trust between those poles; so that the military balance mainly fulfills the role of a fence between the gardens of good neighbors. But the interpretation of Mitterrand's visit - as a harbinger of the fall of the then socialist regime, from all of us opponents of the regime - is also warning: the other side cannot accept such a purpose in principle. It is the two political leaders of the poles who should arrange such visits and follow-ups of controversial approaches for the affected populations. The follow-up examinations should be researched by teams of experts, to which both representatives agree, so that both have confidence in their results. At the same time, they should agree in advance to what extent the audited party will allow these auditors to speak publicly in their territory; that is, whether they will only test on the basis of stimuli coming from the other pole and turn to the persons with whom the other side will contact; with the fact that at the same time the two pole Leaders will take good care of the effective future protection of those informing witnesses and their wider families. Such protection of many individual people is possible with today's technology (mobiles with biometric login elements, direct connection to the other pole satellites). However, both leaders must commit to this protection, even if the researchers look for informants themselves; this would be more technically/organizationally difficult as the family of any person who would alert the researchers would need to be protected. (There are many bad experiences with a very bad system like Hitler's National Socialism - 'Nazism' in this regard - such research was just a cruel absurd theater. Negotiating with such a system is only appeasement, that is, unnecessary tolerance towards its crimes.)
The level of this research, and at the same time of the protection, is the most difficult test of the political abilities of the two leading politicians, incl. the technical skills of their teams. (And, in my opinion, this is a clear indication that such attempts at a long-term, dignified peace by several parties will be lost in advance.) I am citing the attitude towards the Uyghurs in China and the treatment of Kurds by a NATO member state as examples of such necessary research. This current level of technology makes it possible to monitor the fate of many specific people. This two-pole negotiations provide the necessary clarity and unambiguity of decision-making. This described best information is intended to convincingly show the world that it will not be appeasement (this was the first objection of a qualified person). I am convinced that this thing is worth humanity for trying to find two such extremely competent people! It is this experiment that will show whether their moral responsibility at first will lead to an improvement in mutual trust and, thus, will strengthen their responsibility, both political and legal. In this role, I can imagine people like President Wilson or President of Czechoslovakia Tomáš G. Masaryk. From living high-ranking people of the other pole, it seems to me that President Xi Jinping and President Putin would now be able to succeed as a good leader of this pole for the benefit of all mankind.
In that competition/cooperation of world systems, however, it is necessary that they aim to follow, as far as possible, similar rules and ethics as the two parties in the parliaments of the great Euro-American democracies. From my point of view, the more centralized pole should, in particular, explicitly avoid a suspicion of abuse of its centralization in science - its corruption by deliberately bringing political context into the evaluation of scientists. For example, it should be one of the things that are explicitly forbidden to members of the Chinese Communist Party and effectively negatively evaluated in the social credit system for all its citizens. An important task of the two representatives is to negotiate and control compliance with the conditions for mutual trading and to negotiate the related scope of such trading. It is necessary to convince the other pole that neither the "export of democracy" nor the "export of communism" will in the foreseeable future lead to the acquisition of decisive economic dominance and to a possible attempt to extreme disturb that balance - by an attempt to dominate the system worldwide. It is also easier to control that thing with a more regulated system - by abandoning that explicit intention. Both poles would have to prove the matter on an ongoing basis with their practical actions. These are the things that I speak of as 'goodwill' in that intention, and on which the success of the attempt, namely the increase of trust between those systems with the gradual correction of their mistakes, is fully dependent.
At the same time, the aspect of climate care is also important - it is necessary to prevent attempts to take advantage of short-term (decades) economic advantage even to gain the decisive economic advantage. This is another thing for which the poles should have joint expert teams, in the results of which both leaders have sufficient confidence: Practically all of our civilization took place between ice ages and who knows, if after those hundreds or thousands of years it will not be best to try preventing the following ice age - to take advantage of global warming. However, this requires a long-term responsible approach of all mankind, and it is this discussed twopolar arrangement that could set it up.
Our attempt to vote in the small 'Global Cooperation Association' showed that the agreement of general people on a particular solution is well possible, see the result of our first such vote in the minutes of the General Meeting on 29.11.17.
It would be nice to arouse the interest of other people in what they can do for all people on Earth, through Masaryk's 'small work'. This is the only way to overcome the widespread opinion that nothing can be done! According to President Masaryk, the public debate of people of good will and their agreement on fundamental matters is the basis of a functioning European-American democracy; this should not be a problem in our more open pole. And the survival of humanity is in the interest of all, including the other pole.
As a quite good for entering the world debate we have seen the solution concerned in the Theme for World Leaders, because we cannot imagine a negative answer from any of the politicians. So the answers themselves may solve the situation for the near future; and to give a clear signal to all people in the world that just the two existing poles can solve the key problem of global security. In our opinion, the query is clear enough to show to the people in those superpowers what people they should choose as leaders; in order to get an opportunity to survive and not have to hopelessly in despair trying to use underground shelters. This means to choose practical humanists like presidents Wilson and Masaryk.
We were neutral between the poles of world politics according to the statutes of the attempt: we published membership numbers and revenues by country. Those categories expressed the state's relationship to NATO and to the SCO, i.e. also to the USA and to China and Russia.
The major objective of our attempt to organize and of these my subsequent sites is to spread awareness that a solution sufficiently compensating for the interests of the world's most powerful forces does exist and that the military balance of the two poles can be adequately checked by peaceful means at the nowadays cost of arms; therefore the solution depends mainly on two top politicians to make a positive agreement on it. That military balance should act as a fence between the gardens of two neighbors. We noted which states and which institutions were interested in not agreeing of the two. Who, for example, devised to organize and who did the affair with a hole in a Russian spacecraft, so transparently aimed at bursting of the US and Russian parts of the crew of the international space station? Perhaps I do not need to repeat who had an initiative to propagate it.
Now the mentioned 'Global Cooperation Association' can end its activities, see the History: these pages are established, safe and the relevant discussion can take place in world forums and directly by corresponding with me, see here
Ideas from other People; and therefore does not have to be burdened with formal expenses, e.g. for a mandatory administrative seat. I provide information about the Association here for inspiration to those who will continue in such efforts.
RNDr. Tomáš Pečený
*/ I recommend using machine translation referenced pages. In my experience, Google Translate already provides fairly understandable basic information from such texts.