If We Want Peace, We're Going to Have to Learn to Say No
We live in a world where young men and women are trained as soldiers to kill, whether they're Canadian, American, Israeli, Palestinian or Taliban.
Killing goes against everything
we're taught from childhood about love and compassion. It goes against
every religious doctrine and moral code.
It's small wonder, says Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire, that so many come back from war "sick at heart."
Some of those soldiers never reconcile the fundamental contradiction between the job of killing and the belief that it's wrong. There are telling, but rarely noted statistics. Depending on which country's numbers you look at, suicide rates among soldiers and veterans run anywhere from twice to four times that of civilians.
Maguire believes this has to end.
"We have to move beyond that [military mindset] because the world is too dangerous with nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, suicide bombers. The world is so dangerous now that we have to make this quantum leap in the way in which we provide security and deal with our conflicts in a non-killing, non-violent way," she told me during a recent interview.
"We have to start to disarm our own minds and look at the fact that there are always alternatives to violence."
That hope for a global mindshift away from war and toward peace and nuclear disarmament appears to be the reasoning behind the Nobel committee's controversial choice of American President Barack Obama as this year's peace prize winner since Obama has contributed only hope to the peace process so far.
The committee must have believed that alone may be enough to mobilize the vast majority of people in the world who long for peace, who aren't violent, who prefer peace to war and who have sent sons and daughters into battle with heavy hearts.
Maguire is among those who disagreed with the choice, telling BBC that Obama "has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues."
Ending war means a massive societal shift.
"We must create the idea that to even think of war is horrific," says Maguire, whose own peace prize was awarded for her work in ending the fighting in Northern Ireland.
It means transforming millennia of solving problems by fighting with solving conflicts through talking. It will be hard, but perhaps not impossible, says Maguire, who cites the mind-shift about smoking. In a very short time, smokers went from being cool to being pariahs.
As with smoking, it starts with children and education. Kids are already taught at home and at school that violence is bad. But as a number of University of B.C. researchers are finding, using programs that emphasize empathy and compassion can reduce children's aggression.
But much of what children learn doesn't come from either parents or teachers. It comes from television, movies and video games. All of which are becoming increasingly violent.
A decade ago, UNESCO research found that 93 per cent of children in 93 countries with access to television watched for three hours a day and saw five to 10 violent acts every hour.
Since then, Laval University professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise studied six major Canadian television networks examining films, situation comedies, dramatic series and children's programming (though not cartoons). Between 1993 and 2001, they found incidents of physical violence increased by 378 per cent with an average of 40 violent acts per hour in 2001.
As for video games, studies have consistently shown that playing them is associated with increased aggressive behaviour and thoughts, physiological arousal and decreased empathetic and helping behaviour.
But those are only first steps. Citizens have to reclaim the power to say no to war. Maguire is among the Nobel peace laureates and others advocating that no country be allowed to go to war without citizens having a chance to vote on it.
She and others also advocate governments having peace departments and peace ministers to act as counterweights to defence ministers, their departments and security advisors.
It's impossible to know whether a pacifist voice in cabinet might have saved Canada from going to war in Afghanistan. But it couldn't have hurt.
And it wouldn't have hurt to have had someone in government for the past two decades pointing out that Canadians were being fooled into believing that our military was a peacekeeping force, not a fighting one.
That alone might have saved lives because at the height of our hypocrisy, Canada sent soldiers ill-equipped on to battlefields.
Of course, if polling is any guide, Canadians would have supported troops going to Afghanistan in 2002 in a combat role since only 20 per cent opposed the mission.
However, the most recent poll indicates that a slim majority of Canadians oppose the Afghan mission.
It's likely because the deaths are adding up. So far, 131 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have died. But that pales compared to the so-called collateral damage. In Afghanistan last month, 202 Afghan civilians died. In August, 169 died.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended the mission until 2011 after commissioning a report that urged a "comprehensive strategy" that was not "faint-hearted."
There are 12 pages at the back of the report listing who was consulted. The overwhelming majority were military and security experts.
Surely at some point, we have to recognize that negotiating peace instead of making war is what's truly heroic.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
42 Comments so far
Show AllWe are the only ones who can stop war. Not Obama, not any politician, not any savior that we are waiting for, not any legislation we are waiting for....
This comment bears repeating....
" I wish war were a decision that was based on......." Your wish just came true. The decision to kill or not to kill IS just that simple. When simplicity is the focus and not the complex issues that spring up out of that simplicity, then the force behind the intent to not kill is amplified. if one becomes trapped in mental rational about killing then any number of reasons will seem acceptable. However, when the intent of the people is to not kill regardless of the consequences of threats, then the person or persons making that threat becomes powerless. A recent example might be of interest. A woman who recently had a row with bank of america about BofA raising her interest to 30%, wrote a letter stating that she flat out refused to pay, regardless of the consequences. She then opened a web site on this issue and received thousands of hits from people stating they would do the same. BofA immediately backed off and returned her rate to 12%. Why, did BofA do the unthinkable? Because they believed that the intent of the woman was unshakeable. It is the same with war or any other aspect in life. If the people of this country refused to accept war and followed through with action such as no one signing up for the military, the present military refusing to fight, the tax payers deducting war spending from their taxes etc. then what recourse would the govt. have? this of course is not the reality of the people of this country. The reality is one of collective aggression based on fear and cowardice. most are just afraid to be fearless and say NO to killing.
During the 60's there was a question" " what happens if you called a war and nobody came?" Those were the days of the draft. Everyone of the right age was called to serve the army. (including the offspring of our senators and congressmen). Well, after the Vietnam conflict was over, we conveniently shelved the draft and happily elected to ask for volunteers to serve.
So the first step is to understand "who is volunteering?" My guess is poor youth attracted by the benefits being used to lure them. Very few kids from rich families are volunteer.
Remember, if you don't volunteer, there will be no army one day.
The jobless young men and minorities are the ones who volunteer becuase they see the army as their only opportunity to getting an education, making money, supporting their families, "being a man", and engaging in a noble activity which our demented culture has convinced them is a noble thing to do. They do not have the education or information to help them to think otherwise.
Not only do we have to recognize why these young men are seeing the army as an opportunity, but we have to provide them jobs, schooling and opportunities that offer them more constructive ways to support their families.
Only the "haves" can do this for the "have nots". We have to go beyond the "It's all good, I've got MINE" type of thinking. We have to go beyond thinking that "distribution of wealth" are dirty words. We have to stop buying into the hype the media feeds us every day.
People are going to have to learn to say, "No, I'm not paying for torture, I'm not paying for murder, I'm not paying for global capitalist terrorism."
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Violence is the last, desperate resort of the helpless!
Think about it.....
Yeah Chuck, just like patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
There are many reasons for war and a main one is imperialism, the desire of a country to control most of the world or a large part of it at least. That is the situation with the US. The question is why? Did it have its roots in controlling the oil assets of the Middle East to supply an insatiable economy? Was it a natural response to the increasingly powerful political role of the military in US culture and governance? What was it? Monroe decided that the US should be all powerful in the Americas but his doctrine seems to have no geographic restrictions today. I think it is a sociopathic cultural anomaly that has taken hold of America and can only be stopped by a major force for good such as the new president. He seems to be continuing his "change" slowly but surely under the most trying of circumstances. I wish him well.
Mairead also said:
"That a peaceful and just society can be achieved only through nonviolent means and that the path to peace lies in each of our hearts. I believe that hope for the future depends on each of us taking nonviolence into our hearts and minds and developing new and imaginative structures which are nonviolent and life-giving for all.
"Some people will argue that this is too idealistic. I believe it is very realistic. I am convinced that humanity is fast evolving to this higher consciousness. For those who say it cannot be done, let us remember that humanity learned to abolish slavery.
"Our task now is no less than the abolition of violence and war. We can rejoice and celebrate today because we are living in a miraculous time. Everything is changing and everything is possible."
Excerpted from October 12, 2009: http://www.wearewideawake.org
"Back to U2, Lennon and Vanunu"
On November 19, 2008, Mairead said:
"There is great hope for peace in Israel/Palestine, as this is a political problem with a political solution and the Israeli Government and USA, by treating Palestinians on a Fair basis, and with real political will can help solve this historical conflict which has resulted in this inhumane occupation.
"I recognize there is a deep fear of ethnic annihilation amongst many Israelis, but we, as the human family, must all learn to deal with our fears non-violently, and realize our best hope for human security is not in occupation but in implementing just and equal policies for all the people, and making friends with our enemies...Our security as the human family does not lie in militarism, nuclear weapons or war."
Excerpted from "THE Ongoing NAKBA and Vanunu"
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1112&Itemid=212
"Barbarians in business suits" characterizes our noble,
American arms manufacturers and their blind, lacky, military branches.
Adolf would be so proud of you!
Let's play one of his rousing speeches,
for old time's sake.
Isn't nationalism wonderful... I think I'm getting aroused now!!
Green cash for red blood, easy money---what a country!!
About 170 million people perished in the bloodiest of all, the magnificent, 20th Century...Can you top that?? You bet you can...
Remember, war is good for the economy, and the bankers.
Vietnam blues, war powers act, Imperial dreams, Napoleonic
complex.
Grow up little boys....Mommy is calling you for dinner..
no more war-games... she's calling you.....hurry home...
sickos, one and all.....patriots, my ass.....
Not ONCE in this article does the author mention the CAUSES of war. When a society focuses on consumption and GDP and economic growth...what else would you expect? Cheap resources are gotten by waging war, imposing one's will and agenda on the country where the resources come from....killing is necessary if you want to build an economic empire (whether it is a personal or societial conquest).
Are you buying Chiquita brand bananas? If you are then you are supporting the oppression of third-world people in latin America.
Do you enjoy your Starbucks over-priced and burned coffee beans each day? Then you are supporting a corporation that exploits 95 percent of the coffee farmers who pick and prepare the beans for Starbucks who then BURNS each batch of beans before you get you 10.00 latte.
Take personal responsibility for your part in helping the war machine. Each dollar you spend (and I spend) determines if we support oppression & war or if we support equality and peace!
I wish war were a decision that was based on YES I LOVE KILLING PEOPLE or NO I DON'T LIKE KILLING PEOPLE...but it isn't!
" I wish war were a decision that was based on......." Your wish just came true. The decision to kill or not to kill IS just that simple. When simplicity is the focus and not the complex issues that spring up out of that simplicity, then the force behind the intent to not kill is amplified. if one becomes trapped in mental rational about killing then any number of reasons will seem acceptable. However, when the intent of the people is to not kill regardless of the consequences of threats, then the person or persons making that threat becomes powerless. A recent example might be of interest. A woman who recently had a row with bank of america about BofA raising her interest to 30%, wrote a letter stating that she flat out refused to pay, regardless of the consequences. She then opened a web site on this issue and received thousands of hits from people stating they would do the same. BofA immediately backed off and returned her rate to 12%. Why, did BofA do the unthinkable? Because they believed that the intent of the woman was unshakeable. It is the same with war or any other aspect in life. If the people of this country refused to accept war and followed through with action such as no one signing up for the military, the present military refusing to fight, the tax payers deducting war spending from their taxes etc. then what recourse would the govt. have? this of course is not the reality of the people of this country. The reality is one of collective aggression based on fear and cowardice. most are just afraid to be fearless and say NO to killing.
Who expects perfect peace... are you addicted to war, or is it just everyone else?
No, not period.
Early man was more the prey than the predator... Our monkey forefathers had interpersonal fights (even deadly ones) but no ongoing wars with large factions. Along our evolution we became an amazingly cooperative species, not a warlike one. This was necessary to fend off predators. War is a product of the culture we live in, which is the only culture you know about because we've only had writing for a paltry 5-6 thousand years. This does not mean it is inevitable.
Wow. Sounds like we better start offing ourselves immediately, luckyyou.
You first...
No thanks. Like I said, you first.
The Dems are thinking of the probable political consequences of bringing our troops home.
If there is any act of terrorism afterwards, no matter how small or how it is construed, Repugs will blame Dems, call them weak on terror, and Dems will lose the next election as the sheeple react to what the conservative media tells them to.
War profiteers and the Israel Lobby will withdraw any economic support for Dems and crank up support for Repugs. Money wins elections.
So calling Dems spineless is probably not the best way to see the problem of money in politics. A problem we could all be trying to address by getting Kucinich, Lee, Feingold, Sanders, Frank, and other progressive pols to introduce a bill to get money out of politics.
This is one of the best suggestions I've seen.
The money in our politics is the problem, it is stopping the will of the people at every turn. That is the first priority really.
Of course, Americans are still selfish...but let's work at this problem starting from the biggest issue.
What's not helpful about the NPP being awarded to the US president at this time is that it lends the US a false image of being a peacemaker in the world and it helps the hawks go on pretending that is the role we play with our military.
Another part of a new dialogue needs to be our talking out loud that we would rather suffer shortages and a poor economy in our country than gain from any suffering we cause others. And then we should hold our leaders accountable for that. It would set us free.
Perhaps if we used our cerebral cortex to analyze the fight -flight reaction, and get the heck out of countries that we don't belong in or have ownership of, respecting the sovereignty of the nations of the world, respecting diversity and resources, and make agreements based on mutual needs and understanding, acknowleging the protection of natural systems on our amazing planet as tantamount to peace, perhaps...
Odoco, Jerry D Rose, monroematt, nicholas101, Whirled Peas, Paul Revere, TruthKnoller, and other friends out there,
You all have good points. You are right, for example, that the military-industrial complex, so eloquently discussed by President Eisenhower (but only after he had concluded his tour of duty as President) is very powerful. But not ALL-powerful.
I think that we need to be more positive than that. Not one of you has responded to my urgent plea that we need to figure out how to replace the current “war system” with a workable “peace system.” No matter what any of us says or does, with the number of people and the number of “sovereign” nations in this world, there will ALWAYS be differences of opinions and conflicts of interest between various groups. Humanity NEEDS a reliable way to deal with such differences and conflicts, and to resolve them peacefully. If we cannot do that, we seem to be destined to endure endless wars until none of us are left to fight.
Felix.
Sigsep: I could not agree more with your excellent post; only one problem, other than educating the sheeple and their present brainwashed state of consciousness, I have no answers other than supporting progressives and their causes. Yes, unfortunately,there will always be criminals and bad people causing conflicts in the world. Maybe some one out there in cyberspace that is a lot smarter than me has some great ideas; otherwise, like you state," we are destined to endure endless wars until none of us are left to fight".
Bring America Back !!!!
****Dear Daphne, The military-industrial complex is a
WAR Machine, ergo, it cannot and will not ever produce
Peace !
***It was sheer Insanity for Obama to pledge Change and Peace to Americans when elected, then keep the same war mongering war criminal Robert Gates, as Sec of Defense.
Sheer Insanity to keep General Betrayus as the Troop on the Ground.
***The War Machine is not capable of saying "NO", and Obama was Elected to do that for we Americans. Instead of doing that job==Obama has become absorbed by the DC culture of corruption and the military industrial complex which is at the heart !
Giving Obama the NObel Prize for Peace was and is a Disgrace.
At least He accepted it in your name... it is up to us to keep goin.
" We must create the idea that to even think of war is horrific". Yes, we need to shift the paradigm from war is patriotic and the people that fight in wars are heroes and the ecomium of the whore Military,Industrial,Congressional, Mainstream Media! The sad thing: war is horrific if fought for the right reasons i.e. protection of its citizens. But wars fought for punic,nefarious and egregious reasons to support the corportocracy and its extraordinary evil sybarites is beyond description! Peace must become patriotic and we need to honor and give medals to the peacemakers and expose war for what it is: $$$$ and power for the few, wealthy, elite 1% at the expense of the other 99%. We must make wars, in American society, what they are---a four letter word!
If We Want Peace, We're Going to Have to...
DEMAND LEGISLATION TO CURB CORPORATE LOBBYING NOW!
what American democracy, if 'representation' is actually Congress' unwavering loyalty to members of the American Chamber of Commerce exclusively?
If We Want Peace, We're Going to Have to...
DEMAND AN END TO CORPORATE STRANGLEHOLD ON THE NEWS!
we've no grip on reality (high rated reality programming doesn't count) i.e., how can we expect 'journalism' from NBC, if it is owned by defense contractor/healthcare co/fossil fuel purveyor/money lender GE?
Obama has increase our immoral troops in Afghan from 34,000 to 68,000.
Some Nobel laureate.
Obama lies = troops die.
Ms. Bramham, in discussing the views of Mairead Maguire and others, rightly asserts that we must "start to disarm our own minds and look at the fact that there are always alternatives to violence."
The outlook of most of the world's people is affected by the powerful emotion of fear. In a world filled with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, we must get rid of the notion that every nation can be completely "sovereign," and that every such sovereign nation has the right to attack another nation with whom they happen to have a conflict of interest or other disagreement.
We must abandon the "war system" of settling international disputes. But to do that, we badly need a "peace system" to replace it. Humankind must learn to replace the law of force with the force of law on the world scene: we must learn to institute the rule of just, democratic, but enforceable world law on a global scale.
The United Nations is a wonderful start in that direction. But the UN has never been given the attributes necessary for governance. The General Assembly practices a "one-nation-one-vote" system in which a small nation in Africa has the same voting power as China or the United States. The only reason the US tolerates such an inequity is because our veto power in the Security Council enables us to stop cold any action that we don't like. That kind of a system does not enable the UN to provide us with governance. The one-nation-one-vote system should be replaced by weighted voting, in which not only nationhood but also population and financial contributions to the UN are counted.
What we need is a United Nations having the necessary attributes of world governance. Its jurisdiction must apply to all countries and to every person individually, but must be limited to issues that cannot be resolved within a country. It needs to contain the three important functions of governance: legislative, executive, and judicial.
To get rid of war, we need more than anything else a peaceful mechanism for solving the inevitable conflicts of interest between nations.
For more information on UN weighted voting, please go to the Center for War/Peace Studies, http://www.cwps.org/ and view the seven videos on weighted voting:
1. Introduction by Myron W. Kronisch
2. Walter Cronkite
3. The Binding Triad
4. The Tobin Tax
5. The Schwartzberg Plan
6. Edward C. Luck
7. Your Role
Felix.
Thanks!
Thanks!
In the US it is so difficult to counter the propaganda of the Mitary Industrial Complex. Can we address this matter through reasoned discourse? Even among my fairly well-informed, "liberal" family, I can't get through to them---merely on pragmatic grounds---what a waste our military spending has been. How do we change the culture when the MIC owns TV? I'm slowly bringing this issue up through channels in the Presbyterian Church (nationally we've TALKED a good game).
Any suggestions out there?
- it is so difficult to counter the propaganda -
Which is yet another reason that I suggest that Progressives choose the strategy of focusing their voices on one thing (rather than the current unsuccessful strategy of going in ninety directions at once, as each Progressive follows their own cause)
And I suggest that one thing be the law that allowed this madness to happen, the flaw of a law, the bug in America's code, and something that people can see for themselves (rather than illusory entities such as 'the MIC').
Repeal this law just as we repealed Prohibition when it obviously failed (see, comparison to previous failure).
If enough people keep asking to talk about Public Law 107-40 eventually a media magnifier (such as Olberman) will ride the story and bring upon national attention.
It will be easier to get attention if we can entertain them - thus speak of the DAFT war (formerly GWOT and WOT) and the DAFT law (not 'the 2001 AUMF'), and ask them to defend DAFT (Defense against Future Terrorism).
Every country deals with future terrorism but only America declared war against it.
Well said. That's exactly what we need to do: focus. Put everything we've got into solving one problem, then move on to the next. It's a proven strategy.
monroematt,
What you are doin is worthy of the peace prize.
You earned it.... keep goin.
I don't think that the five entities which own 95% of all American media are going to listen. Those five are too much a part of the military-industrial complex which Republican President Eisenhower warned about almost 50 yrs ago. What we CAN do is to encourage people to put their television sets into the dumpster where they belong. There is no middle ground with those things. If it is in your house, you will watch it. Throw yours in the trash, raise your children with books [and conversation over dinner every day], and put the bumper sticker on your car which reads: Kill your television. We are so far in the hole that the amount of items to be accomplished seems overwhelming, and the list of actions to take is long and daunting. This one, however, is easy, and takes no great effort on anyone's behalf, and removes the world's most successful propaganda machine from your lives. Kill your television.
MichaelC
Mairead Maguire had every reason to be dubious of Obama as a fellow recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. As you may have forgotten (if you ever knew it) she, along with Cythnia McKinney and others, was one of those held and detained by Israel for her affront to that country of attempting to deliver humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza. Neither the President of the United State nor his Secretary of State turned a finger toward securing their release---it would offend our "staunch ally" (military puppet) Israel, you know. A peace laureate who can't use his office in support of a peaceful mission to a country whose people were victims of a violent military assault? Give me a break, you Nobel guys!
Jerry,
How long were they detained and how do you know what was goin on out of your sight?
Jim: Maguire was incarcerated from 30 June until she was deported to Ireland on 7 July after Ireland (unlike the U.S.) exerted strong diplomatic pressure for her release. McKinney was held for a similar length of time. What was done with them "out of my sight" I can't my definition tell you, but McKinney has been fairly forthcoming in describing the conditions of her incarceration.
McGuire is harrassed each and everytime she enters the United States - think of that - a Nobel laureate peace-seeker who is actively harrassed by the US government.
The same happens in Canada. Peace activists are stopped at the Border from entering the Country while War Criminals like GW Bush are allowed to give speeches at "Dinner parties".