HodgBlog

In a previous post, I wrote about some of the reasons why I do not think that world peace is possible. But some days I have more hope about it.

For instance, I recently heard Amy Goodman speak on the KUOW radio program “Speaker’s Forum”. One of the things she said (which I think is correct) is that if people in the US really knew what was happening in Iraq, the war would soon be over. She also said that rather than being a silent minority, pacifists are actually a “silenced majority”. Basically, she was implying that the news media are largely to blame for the non-peaceful situation we are in, by keeping the US public ignorant of what is really happening and making us feel isolated by not telling us what other people really think about it. So maybe the first step on the path to world peace lies in a media revolution, which actually seems a lot easier than changing US foreign policy and world religious teachings. Once the people understand what is happening, they will demand peace, and the leaders will have to deliver it.

Another ray of hope is the Non-Violent Communication movement. The basic premise is that by understanding that everyone has the same basic human needs and desires, and that everyone is subject to the same basic human emotions, we can learn to state ours and listen to others’ in a simple and direct way, without violence or coercion. The movement teaches a method for such communication, which can be used for everything from talking with your friends and family to negotiating between governments. Learning about non-violent communication helps me believe that there is a viable alternative to war, which, after all, is just a very violent (and unproductive) way of communicating disagreement. So once we have all decided that we don’t want war any more, there is a good tool out there to help us sit down at the table with our former enemies, and work out the terms of peace.

2 Comments »

Terrorism was in the news today (the U.K. apparently broke up a plot to blow up commercial trans-Atlantic flights)… it got me thinking about the question of whether it is possible to achieve peace in the Middle East, and the world in general. Here are a few thoughts.

First off, what would it mean to say that we had achieved “World Peace”? There are three components to my vision of World Peace. First, dispute resolution: regional and international disputes would always be solved without violence and without the threat of violence. Second, personal freedom: everyone in the world would have the right to believe, speak, and live the way they wanted to (as long as that manner of living respected others’ rights to believe, speak, and live in their own way), without oppression or fear of reprisal. Third, social justice: everyone would have access to the means to achieve at least a basic level of food, housing, health, education, employment, and environmental protection. I do not believe that anything short of all three of these conditions would truly mean World Peace.

I want to believe that it is possible to achieve this vision of World Peace, but I have my doubts. To have World Peace, it would require everyone in the world, fundamentally, to respect every other human being in the world. But today many religions (especially the fundamentalist branches of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which appear to be growing) are teaching intolerance rather than respect — and in some cases, advocating violence against others who do not share their beliefs. If a group does not respect the right of another group to exist, obviously the two groups will never be at peace; if people do not respect the rights of other people to live and believe differently, there will always be the threat of oppression in the future. So, until these religions start teaching respect instead of intolerance, or until they fade away because people realize the inhumanity of what they are teaching, we will never achieve true World Peace.

Another obstacle to achieving World Peace, frankly, is U.S. foreign policy. Again, it is a problem of respect: the U.S. does not act as though it respects any other nation’s right to self-determination. If a country is being told what to do by another country, under an implied or more concrete threat of violence, then the two countries are not at peace. So, until the U.S. shifts its policy away from promoting U.S. business’ domination of the world economy under threat of violence, we will never achieve true World Peace.

Should I continue to hold onto my hope for World Peace?

3 Comments »