2006 12 Peace

Peace

When I was a very young boy, world peace seemed so easy. If only “those people” wouldn’t fight, I could help the oppressed people of the world and “they” would love me. The pictures of war in Life magazine, screamed “help”. I wondered if the photographer did something about the squalor and deplorable plight of people portrayed in the photos instead of just snapping the picture and leaving? It was unthinkable that someone could see the misery of war and just walk away from it.

Then it happened. In the fourth grade I got into an argument with a classmate. We decided to solve the problem on the corner after school. I was a bit bigger and stronger than he. I prevailed easily. At the time, victory felt so good. I really whipped him with my fists until he gave up and stopped fighting. I don’t remember his name. I don’t remember why we fought. I do remember feeling very superior. I had power over him. Days later I realized that our fight was so stupid and that I had lost the dominance I had gained with my fists. We simply avoided each other. Perhaps he respected me enough to keep his distance. I suspect he actually hated me for being a bully.

Projecting that personal incident into the world, if I, as a fourth grader, cannot get along with a classmate, how is it possible for millions of married people to live decades in peace—or for communities to resolve to care for each other—or for nations to always agree? Self interest is very powerful. Even between two people, there will be differences of opinion. In communities, there are different ways to build a park. Within a nation, there are valid, natural divisions of thought. Take Republicans and Democrats, for instance. At the extremes, it seems there is more room for hate than love. I remember a time when (I perhaps naïvely thought) we allowed the democratic process to take place. When a president or governor was elected, that was the will of the people and even if we didn’t like his (or her) policies, we’d support our elected official as best we could during their term of office. At the next election we’d vote a change if we didn’t like the actions of our elected officials. In the last few decades there has been a shift. Now the losing side enters into malicious personal attacks on our elected officials during their term instead of waiting for the next election. The press, instead of reporting the news of creative new ideas, instead feeds on the frenzy of sensationalism and conflict.

The lack of world peace seems to be intertwined with power. Getting one’s way becomes the dominant thought. Gaining power over other people becomes the goal. I suppose the initial effort is innocent enough: “If I could gain power, I could help ‘the poor people of the world and they would love me’”. The problem is that our political leaders innately want the authority to do good in the world. They cannot wield their influence to make this world a better place without that power. So they do whatever it takes, including some very nasty things, to gain that power at all costs. Gradually, power translates into a personal boast. “Look at me, how important I am and what I’ve done in the world.” Or, “You can see from my great work that I’m a really good person.”

A study of tyrants would show that their quest for power begins in subtle ways. Several years ago, I met the man who fingerprinted Saddam Hussein after his capture. During the fingerprinting, Saddam asked for a comb. What an innocent request! But to grant that request would have meant giving this brutal dictator power over his captor. The next request could have been for a nail file. Then a hammer, a knife, a gun, mustard gas and ultimately a nuclear bomb. Ultimately, once he gained that control, failure to follow the dictates of this pathetic man would lead to death.

So where upon that continuum between innocence and dictatorial power does one draw the line? If someone’s avowed goal is to kill you, when and how do you object? In the answer to that question lies the secret to world peace—or war. It is almost impossible for normal, reasonable people to understand why anyone would want to murder another human being. But we know that such brutal acts happen. If you believe that basic human rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then at some point you must act even in self defense to prevent murder, incarceration and oppression. How do you do that without murder, incarceration and oppression (substitute the words war, prison and law)? And what do you do about a person who doesn’t hold life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as their ideals? Can you trust such a person to uphold your values?

Peace has to do with trust. To be trusting one must be open. To be open means to expose one’s vulnerability. To expose one’s vulnerability is to show weakness. Weakness is the delight of those wishing power. Power drives those seeking peace in the world…their way. Unless you can obtain universal agreement that power is not the way to peace, the cycle will continue.

If the answer to world peace is in trust, how is that built? The United States should not care if Iran or North Korea or anyone else has nuclear weapons as long as we trust that they will not use them against us or anyone else. By the same token, they need to know unequivocally that we will not use the awesome nuclear power of the United States to wield force over them. And if peace is tied to trust and we know that trust is lost quickly and gained slowly—by acting in predictable ways—we need time to evaluate that our trust in them is genuine just as they need time to evaluate that our motives are genuine. But with nuclear weapons, time is not on anyone’s side. It only takes an instant to explode a device which will murder thousands of innocent people. If that happens we can never in our lifetime trust the perpetrators of that event to not do it again. The United States used that power in 1945. As a result, we still are not trusted several generations later. However, now that power might rest not with a nation, but a few individuals.

So if peace is founded in trust, what are the chances that world peace will ever occur? I think the chances are pretty slim. We would need unequivocal cooperation with one hundred percent of billions of people. The odds are just too long. If that is true, then what is the best we can hope for? I think it is in the ongoing dialog with all world leaders. Even if someone wants to kill you, opening the dialog to understand why in very blunt terms is our best hope. It doesn’t make sense to support that person, but it does make sense to talk. To do so means swallowing one’s own pride and assumption that one way is the only way to achieve understanding. That is why peace is so hard. It is also clear that we cannot treat others as if they were the same as we. It would be like training an allegator to protect it’s nest with soothing words instead of it’s sharp teeth.

In other words, world peace will only come when we all agree that the weak will rule. As soon as we give the weak that power, they too will be corrupted by the power. The end result is that world peace is impossible.

So the best we can hope for is an uneasy tension. The stakes for that uneasy tension are high. Especially in a world where a rogue group or nation has power to cause death and destruction on a massive scale. So the answer has to be a constant effort to break down the walls of secrecy. Oddly, that must be done on two fronts, overtly and covertly. Overtly so that the world does see the transparency that your intentions are honorable. Covertly, so that you’re not caught by surprise when the other side’s overt statements do not match their covert agenda.

Good luck, world leaders. Swallow your pride. Talk a lot. But watch carefully! As for me, the only impact I’ll ever have is on a few people at a time when I volunteer to do a little kindness. What about you?


Labels

Individuals Murder Governments Wage Wars
Individuals Oppress Governments Pass Laws
Individuals Kidnap Governments Imprison
Individuals Extort Governments Tax
Individuals Pursue Happiness Governments Wield Power
Individuals Riot Governments Build Bureaucracy
Individuals Rebel Governments Control

If I’m a Zealot You’re a Combatant
If I’m a Defender You’re an Insurgent
If I’m a Terrorist You’re an Imperialist
If I’m willing to die for a cause You’re a suicide bomber

©Frank Bliss 2006 All rights reserved
December, 2006