|
|
“In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people”-Leo Tolstoy
Today is a day of disdain for humanity. While the idea of peace has never suffered so much, the strength of its pursuit has been unprecedented. One question I have asked is whether or not war, conflict and disdain are inevitable parts of human existence. Furthermore, is inevitability the result of necessity? In other words, do we need war to perpetuate our own existence at the expense of another group of people?
In order to answer such questions one must first analyze the predominant definition of “human nature.” The pessimistic view of humans - concurrent with Judeo-Christian assumptions about human behaviour - can lead to the extinction of the human race. We, as creatures in a material existence, must therefore reassess our values and rethink our view toward peace. It may seem clear to the rational mind that inflicting death and destruction form the antithesis of peace; this self-evident truth, however, has also become victim to the new definition of “peace.”
The idea of reassessing our moral values has been powerfully put forth by Nietzsche, who, with poetic prose, formidably criticized ideas that still command a reign of influence today. It is our responsibility to apply this criticism to ideas which are today giving rise to war. It must be understood from historical precedent that philosophy can form the basis of political action. It is therefore necessary to re-evaluate what is meant by terms like “liberty” and “freedom”; moreover, it is necessary to understand why pursuing to realize such concepts has led to their antithesis, namely captivity and imprisonment. The central question here is this, “Must an ideal be realized by contradicting itself?”
While attempting to answer this paradoxically complex question is difficult, it is certainly worth a try, at least for the sake of peace. In addition, what we must realize is that failing to address this question can have disastrous consequences, or as may be asserted, would allow the continuation of the current state of disaster. It is clearly evident that this topic should be thoroughly analyzed in a longer analysis than I can afford to offer here. Brevity, however, is better suited to times of despair.
Since the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives to what is nothing more than an economic investment such as military adventurism in the service of economic planners who see control over Iraq’s oil as a good means of preserving American hegemony, particularly by exerting leverage over Europe. The rational person must begin to realize that George Bush’s “crusade for freedom” only serves as concealment for the administration’s imperialist ambitions. Using the European and Japanese historical precedents as a guide for political action in Iraq, American strategists along with their corporate allies have made murderous miscalculations. As unparalleled military powers have historically done, the American administration counted on a quick victory that would make Iraq “free and democratic”—in other words, colonized and subservient.
Convinced that material would prevail over spiritual dedication, the American and British forces entered Iraq confidently, only to encounter a population unwilling to live under structures of colonization. As descendants of African slaves would never forget their history and what their ancestors endured, Iraqis also remember their history and colonial past. Once again, history has proven to be a powerful element in shaping national sentiments. Yet when ambitions of dominance prevail over the mind, history becomes a precedent of trivial importance.
For this reason the idea of peace suffers. It is used as a pretext to achieve its opposite. While the “defense intellectuals” would find grounds to defend contradicting peace, we should be aware of the practical consequences in advocating the “happiness for the greatest number” principle. It can provide a dangerously powerful philosophical justification for the unethical intentions of political and economic elites. Peace must be seen as an absolute principle that must not be compromised. We must be most careful when the elites announce they are doing something in the name of this ideal. Engaging in offensive, as opposed to defensive war “for peace” is not only contradictory but morally wrong. In the words of David L. Wilson, “War creates peace like hate creates love.”
Human nature is complex enough to be able to justify any political action, whether ethical or not. For realists, atrocities have been recorded in history in exemplification of human nature’s inherently evil, egoistic character. But history is vast enough to have counter-examples. While the European conquerors should have stood in admiration of the natives’ spirit of sharing and egalitarianism, they labeled their new slaves as being primitive, uncivilized and, essentially less than human. The label “savage” was imposed on the native; a label symbolizing brute force as being the base of his volition.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Nima Shirali
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
