The Memorial to Peace
In reading the commentary on War in the pages of the Press, I keep hoping to see the discussion range wider than Iraq and whether war in this case was justified or not, and whether waving or burning flags is appropriate under the circumstances, to examine the underlying premise of war. It seems that many view the justification for war as a point of departure, arguing that this war is or is not justified. In most cases the writer admonishes the reader to support those who wage war even if the war itself is considered ill timed, immoral or unjust.
The argument most forcefully advanced is that sometimes war is inevitable, a last resort, and that liberty itself is procured or secured by war. That those who are willing to make the sacrifice of their lives are waging war to secure liberty for you and me. I take exception to the premise that violence secures liberty. Many who viewed this war as necessary advanced the argument that the “Tip of the Spear” is how we achieved liberty and how it is maintained. That the State that enjoys freedom does so at the expense of war. Peace they argue, the absence of armed conflict, can only be established by military force and permitted to stand behind a shield of violence.
Liberty is secured by law not necessarily by violence. The State exercises the power of Police to stop, apprehend, detain or arrest any and all, citizen or not, who inhabit the territory of the State. Only if and when individuals resist the power of the Police does State violence begin. State violence ends when Legal representation confronts the State and the rules of civilized society are adjudicated before an impartial jury. The Jury does not represent the will of the State. The Jury interprets the Law of the State.
International Law secures the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people in all States irrespective of Government forms and structures. Absolute liberty is a fiction. All States regulate and legislate acceptable norms of behavior for the greater benefit of all, and most if not all create impediments to violence as a mechanism of conflict resolution.
The violence that we have recently witnessed was not limited to Iraq. It was an instrument that wielded a blow to the effectiveness of International Law.
If you want to live in a world of maximum freedom, argue against the use of force and violence to find solutions to International Conflict, and promote the rule of law in the affairs of wo/man/child.
All law is not just. All States do not profess to make their citizens free. Work in your community to make law just without resorting to violence, force the State to create and uphold freedom with your intellect not with your blood. That is the greatest mechanism for establishing liberty that man has devised.
The pre-emptive war at the tip of the spear is State Foreign Policy based on violence. Wage Peace, secured by States that are ruled by Law, in an International framework of Diplomacy. That is a world vision worthy of moral leadership.
The United Nations are Peace loving nations united by Charter to put an end to war and violence, let's live up to that Charter and set the example of what it means to Wage Peace.
The greatest honor is to confront the violence, to disarm the belligerent with the moral force of non-violence, truth and love.
Satyagraha; Grasp the truth, on this, the day we mourn those who died in the killing ritual of nations.