840 Pacifism revisited
I like to think things through thoroughly ... and inspire readers to
think about things the way they never thought about them before.
_____________________________________
I had reason to revisit the issue of pacifism. In an e-mail exchange it was said:
"The thing
I didn’t completely agree with was “Pacifism; war is wrong, period”. Pacifism
is a great concept in theory but the implementation of it is where I get lost. You’d really have to get EVERYBODY on the same page, or you’d have some
real problems on your hand. There’s always going to be evil in the world, it’s
just human nature for some and somebody has to be willing to do something about
it."
The oft mis-understood concept of pacifism puzzles many
people, so that indeed is a statement many would agree with; but ...
... so I believe the doctrine: “Pacifism;
war is wrong, period” holds.
The implementation - of course - is
the all-important issue.
Most people think of pacifism as the
act of not responding to an acute threat with appropriate action, i.e. if one
is attacked, the pacifists will not retaliate, since they do not take up arms.
This line of thought - in my view - is a “spurious digression”, it
is avoiding the crucial issue of functional, implementable, effective, realistic
pacifism.
The pacifism I am talking about is a force that works in a longer
time-frame than just the immediate threat (if your family is threatened, you do
what is required in that situation; there is a fist in “pacifist”). So,
pacifism applied today in the form of considered negotiations (take the issue
of North Korea) will prevent war tomorrow.
Let's for a moment
linger on the issue of North Korea. We may be on the brink of war, where two
leaders use extraordinary language to position themselves as the ones having
the upper hand in a conflict that is created through the perception that
if the DPRK gains nuclear weapons they will upset the balance of power to the
detriment of America - on the one hand - but where the leadership in N. Korea -
on the other hand - are full well aware that only the ownership of nuclear
weapons guarantees their survival (Kim Jong-un probably thinks all day long
about that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi would be alive, had they had
nuclear weapons). While it is clear that North Korea will soon have nuclear
capabilities, few world leaders disagree that their intentions are defensive;
they know a nuclear war would utterly destroy their country. Importantly, the
German leader Dr. Merkel takes the unequivocal position that "diplomacy
offers the only way out of the crisis". Note her
wording, it is the "only" way ... this is
pacifism at work. The difference in her approach and the approach by the US
president is peace-consciousness vs war-consciousness ... I have an essay on
the subject (see links below).
It is often said, “pacifism
doesn’t work, just look at WWII”. Other than my essays on PACIFISM there is
FIGHTING FOR PEACE; you may say, “… somebody has to be willing to do
something …” However, the crucial point is just what it
is somebody does and why. In my essay (links below) I relay
the story of the US entering WWI ...
... America were compelled to do so in order to resolve the impasse of
France & the United Kingdom being bogged down in a year-long war of attrition with
Germany. At the time Germans and Allies were close to negotiating peace terms. The entry of the US into the war lead to a
resounding victory for the Allies. As a result very unfavourable conditions for
surrender were imposed on Germany in the Paris Peace Conference. The outcome
were stifling economic depression in Germany and renewed nationalism. This gave rise to Hitler and eventually caused WWII.
Thus pacifists
can claim that when the USA entered the fray in 1917 in order to "fight
for peace” - where they were compelled "to do something" - they were
instrumental in starting another war ... their engagement resulted - indirectly
and inadvertently - in WWII. The beginning of WWI, by he way, was a result of
over-the-top notions of nationalism and patriotism on behalf of
Austria-Hungary, when the heir to their throne was assassinated. Note: this was
the statement that started this discussion; among other issues, my book
en.light.en.ment is about ...
Pacifism; war is
wrong, period. So is nationalism & patriotism