Anti-war essays on this Page are often met with the patronizing response that violence is human nature: to think otherwise, while nice, is both naive and dangerous. Yet examples abound which indicate otherwise.
Jesus, MLK. Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, are the first examples who come to mind, but with a little thought, we could come up with others, who demonstrate that people can commit to a nonviolent path. “But,” one interjects: “three of the above four died violently, is this the price to be paid when one commits to nonviolence?” True, these individuals did pay a price for their message, but their deaths were the result of political persecutions; not war, which is the topic here.
The way of life of the above individuals indicate people are able to rise to higher spiritual planes; they are able to sacrifice for the greater good; not in war, but through peace, through negotiation, through non-violence, even love.
If soldiers are willing to sacrifice their lives in war, then why not sacrifice considerably less through nonviolent behavior. This isn’t to pick-on soldiers, they, more than the rest of us, have been victimized by the powerful forces of greed, ambition, and self obsession, which hide behind damaging ideologies in order to support the ruling status quo. To some extent, we all participate in the charade.
There is hope for a humanity which does not resort to violence; but this must be taught. The problem in the West is we are wedded to a competitive ideology which is an outgrowth of the capitalist ideology which, due to its premise of competition, can produce no other result. Capitalism’s emphasis on the self and of material ambitions over others, lays the spiritual or metaphysical foundation for war.
Not to confuse spirituality with religion, but it is a mystery that capitalism and Christianity reside side-by-side in the West. One emphasizes self-interested advancement while the other emphasizes individual sacrifice for the greater good. I don’t mean to neglect other religions, but I don’t know enough about other religions to speak of their ways. Christianity’s New Testament scripture teaches peace achieved through love and sacrifice.
The first step along the path to peace is for people to understand that war or peace is a choice: to not accept the lie that humankind is only capable of a world of violence. This message must spread globally, as currently, most nations are in preparation for war. The public, globally, must demand, in non-violent fashion–befitting of their mission, that governments enter negotiations to roll-back war preparations, and, more broadly, to roll-back the militarization of our societies.
To preemptively respond to the inevitable comments that negotiations with a commitment to non-violence will enable the conquest of Europe by Russia, Taiwan by China, and Israel by neighboring “terrorist” organizations, let me emphasize the term negotiation, with pressure coming from the domestic populations on all sides of these conflicts. There is little chance the U.S. or its western partners will suddenly lay down their arms; but there needs to be swelling pressure, by a growing pool of people committed to nonviolence, to force parties to the negotiating tables. Short of this, there must be a political price to be paid by those who continuously lead us into war.
Despite a recent hardening, Russia has demonstrated, and stated, its willingness to negotiate throughout the war, with the caveat that negotiating parties must consider the realities on the ground. In other words, Russia’s territorial conquest will affect its negotiating position. This seeming willingness to negotiate comes despite persistent western corporate press reports to the contrary–consistent with the press’s overall irresponsible reporting of the war.
The Ukrainians, on the other hand, have stated they will negotiate with Russia only after Russia withdraws from all of its territory, including Crimea–in an effort to maintain the status quo subsequent to Western expansion into the region which provided the context for war. The demand by Ukraine for reclamation of all of its territory, particularly Crimea, is a disingenuous negotiating stance designed to fail; it belies a true accounting of the causes of the war. During October of 2022, Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a decree which states Ukraine will refuse to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.
The longer the war in Ukraine goes on, the harder it will be on the Ukrainian people. Ukrainian conscription aged men, in significant numbers, are trying to escape the country in order to avoid a deadly fate on the front lines; Western budget and arms support will continue to fade. Better to end the war now before more lives are spent in a futile effort for complete and total victory: as defined in the heads of the ruling elite.
It would have been better to end the war in April of 2022 when, by many accounts, a near negotiated end to the conflict was undermined by the West, via former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who visited Ukraine during the negotiations. From an outsider’s perspective, one might suspect the West sensed Russian vulnerability after Russia’s failed initial invasion and believed, then, was the time to pounce.
A global swelling pool of nonviolent adherents could force a negotiated end to this war through a calibrated withholding of financial, munitions and trade support on both sides of the conflict. This would seem to be an area where China and the U.S. could muster some cooperation.
This itself causes one to wonder if the problem is a lack of negotiating talent on all sides of these conflicts? Has militarization directed the world’s attention toward technological processes and arms production which has come at the expense of negotiation skills with a commitment to avert war.
China and the U.S. had negotiated over three decades of agreement over Taiwan before the provocative U.S. “pivot to Asia”. There is no reason to believe the two nations cannot, once again, reach some negotiated level of acceptable discontent. War, afterall, is expensive.
The U.S. could force a negotiated two state solution in Palestine and stop the current slaughter through the mere withholding of munitions to the state of Israel, upon which Israel depends.
Ultimately, it is our choice. Do we choose the darker side of our humanity: resort to violence and war? Or do we choose the path of peace, non-violence, negotiation, of faith, over fear?
Militarism leads us down a path where we see only violence as the “solution” to that which separates nations, and within nations, to that which separates ruling establishments from domestic rebel factions.
If the world is to be saved, it will be saved by those with faith in the nonviolent mechanisms of negotiation and cooperation, rather than through those who through fear, resort to militarization and war.
The latter will lead to massive human suffering, starvation, energy crises, climate disaster, likely anarchy and revolution, and in the worst case scenario, we all melt in a nuclear firestorm or freeze in its aftermath.
A commitment to nonviolence is the only path forward.
PostScript: Comments are welcomed. Civility is requested. Please avoid partisan politics.
Peace begins with us.