How do you define peace? This question has been on the national scene of late. It has been phrased differently, but I think "success in Iraq" and peace are actually synonomous. And therein lies the problem...
Nations work for peace by negotiating and maintaining treaties. Treaties have been drafted to set land boundaries, establish codes of conduct, and establish military alliances. Nations, however, cannot transform conflictual human relationships. In the sharing of resources and information, the transfer of goods and services, the lending and borrowing of funds, personal national interests preempt any notion of mutual harmony. Power, it seems, is more of interest than compassion and understanding.
Nations call on the use armies to stabilize – to police other nations that step out of line. This can be effective when the goal is clear and the action is tempered with multinational support and compliance with internationally accepted guidelines. Using armies to invade and conquer, however, does not effectively promote peace. This is an exercise of power that “seeks to annihilate rather than convert,” (MLK) and though there may be temporary victories, “it creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.” (MLK) Nations cannot build long term relationships - Only individuals can do that.
We have lost our personal connection to each other. We have let language and religion and culture keep us divided and insecure. We have stopped believing that we can change the world. We have stopped believing that our voices matter. Dr King said so beautifully, “we must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'. If we have the will and determination to mount such a peace offensive, we will unlock hitherto tightly sealed doors of hope and transform our imminent cosmic elegy into a psalm of creative fulfillment.”
So... how do you define peace?
RSS Feed