(Éirigh, December 1969, pp. 14-17)
Fifty wars in twenty-five years! This is the finding of a recent survey by Time magazine. The daily headlines so often deal with Vietnam, Nigeria or the waves of student unrest in the world that the paper seems almost empty without some reference to violence. War has become so much a part of our daily reading matter that a great deal of it passes by unnoticed. How many of know, for example, that since 1960, about 100,000 people have died in fighting between government and rebel forces in Bolivia, or that after an unsuccessful coup by the Indonesian Communist Party, mobs slaughtered between three and five hundred thousand communists and suspected fellow-travellers?
Conscience of Humanity
Where does the conscience of humanity fit into the picture? Ask any man or woman around the world whether war or peace is his preference. The answer will surely be ‘peace.’ The problem is not as simple as that, of course, but surely counting heads is better than breaking them? Is it fair to ask whether we tolerate war because of apathy or boredom? – apathy, because killing is easier than convincing; boredom, because at times we take TV films of actual war scenes no more seriously than if they were Westerns.
The Problems
Given a universal desire for peace, where does the problem lie? Certainly there is a great deal of fear and mistrust among nations. The memory of past wars and treacheries hinders real progress even where friendly feelings prevail on the popular level. For example, it is widely believed that General De Gaulle’s motive in building up his much vaunted force de frappe was fear of a united and resurgent Germany, and that his stated purpose – that of an independent role for France – was no more than a smoke-screen.
Another serious obstacle to progress is the narrow nationalism that still prevails widely. A glance at the past can be instructive here. Four hundred years ago Italy was fragmented into a host of tiny baronies, dukedoms and principalities. These waged war incessantly and the unfortunate people who suffered most were persuaded that the war was in their best interests. Today the pattern is not so different except that it is “writ large.” People no longer think of themselves exclusively as citizens of a city or parish but the sacred cow of national sovereignty still has her worshippers. Nationalism was at least as powerful a factor in Russia’s post-war expansion as was the desire to spread the establishment of Communism. This was shown very clearly by a former Vice-President of Yugoslavia, Milovan Djilas, in his book, Conversations with Stalin.
“Better Red than Dead”
In recent years one of the primary sources of disillusionment to those who work seriously for peace is the rise of a new breed of peace movements. These range in character from the CND‘s “Better Red than Dead” variety to the slogan-chanting anarchists who display more wind than wisdom in the prescription of panaceas for the world’s ills. The favourite target in the sights of these “peacemakers” is the so-called vested interests such as the munitions and aircraft corporations in the United States. These must certainly take some of the blame but, as scapegoats, they are heavily overloaded. The incessant harping on the vested interests theme is effective as a tactic in self-exoneration but, in common with other red herrings, it smells fishy.
Mao and War
Chairman Mao, in his Little Red Book, states that war can only be won when it has the whole-hearted support of the population. The same might be said of peace. There cannot be a lasting peace until public opinion is effectively mobilized all over the world to demand peace in concrete terms, and to see effective control by international authority. In some respects the peoples of the world are drawing closer together than ever before. Nations, no more than individuals, can afford to live in “splendid isolation.” The reaction of world opinion is acknowledged as a force to be reckoned with in the formulation of a state’s foreign policy. Television can be a really powerful weapon in this regard. Vietnam has been called the first TV war. The reality of a conflict is literally brought home, especially with colour television, where blood really looks like blood.
“Soul-Force” of Gandhi
Public opinion, properly motivated and organised, can be highly effective as can be seen from the example of a leader like Mahatma Gandhi in India. The term he used to describe his force literally was “soul-force,” and that is just what it is. It was a highly active form of non-violent resistance by which the people stubbornly refused to co-operate with the British authorities. There the lesson was learned that even if an aggressor is victorious he still cannot govern without at least the tacit consent of the governed. More recently, we have the example of Czechoslovakia, which would undoubtedly have suffered a much more severe visitation of comradely wrath if it had not been for the brilliantly imaginative and highly co-ordinated passive resistance of the Czech people. In our own country, we have seen, in the last six months, the striking success which has accompanied these methods.
The UN
The United Nations can provide us with a kind of negative example. It has sound leadership and organisation, and yet it is a weak body, precisely because member nations have not yet attained to that degree of political maturity which would enable them to look beyond their own particular interests. The peace-keeping operations of the UN have not been noticeably successful but they have certainly been better than the alternative.
World War II
Surely the lessons of the last three decades ought to have taught man that war does not solve problems but rather compounds them? The second world war, which saved Europe from Hitler and delivered half of it to Stalin, cost fifty million lives. The uneasy peace in the world at present is also costing lives, the lives of those who starve while vast sums are spent on arms which will be museum pieces in a decade. If only a fraction of the human skill and ingenuity devoted to war were diverted instead to agricultural development, to medical research, or to the many other needs of the world’s poor, not only would a great number of lives be saved but an active source of future war would be removed.
Disarmament – a top Priority
How long can the present balance of terror last? When minor incidents can provoke major crises the danger is obvious. ‘It is difficult for armed men to live in peace,’ said Aristotle. Two and a half thousand years of human history have proved him right. Disarmament ought to be a top priority human project. However, if it is to be effective, it must be bi-lateral. Unilateral disarmament is only a form of unconditional surrender, a head-in-the-sand solution.
Serious consideration should also be given to a proposal to nationalize munitions industries. By making governments responsible for the sale of arms it would eliminate the hypocritical stance taken by some countries such as Britain, which favours the Federal Government in Nigeria and yet does not commit itself wholeheartedly because of British oil investments in Biafra. It saves its oil, its exports and its diplomatic position by looking the other way while British firms sell arms to Lagos. Equally important, the sacrosanct right to “free private enterprise” is preserved.
Where is the Christian contribution?
Have we Christians any contribution to make towards a world peace movement? The love of one’s neighbour is an integral part of the Christian view of life, and yet Christians have not been notable for practising it. In the 1914-1918 war the world saw the shocking spectacle of a number of European countries, most of them Catholic at war with one another. They applied the same doctrine, quoted the same principles, emanating from the same spiritual authority, and were supported by their respective hierarchies in their mutual slaughter. The warring factions of Christians all prayed to the one true God for victory. Twenty years later the world was treated to a repeat performance of the same mockery. Lest anyone think that those days are gone he should know that the majority of soldiers in the Nigerian army, before its recent expansion, were drawn from the Tiv tribe, which is predominantly Catholic, and were sent into action against the Biafrans, who are also predominantly Catholic. Casualties in the Nigerian war are currently higher than those for Vietnam. Not many years have passed since Cardinal Spellman issued his famous call, ‘Christian soldiers, kill the Chinese!’
Pope Paul’s efforts
A few years ago an international convention of theologians met in Holland to discuss this problem. The only definite conclusion they reached was that this is a very complex problem requiring a great deal of study. One bright spot in so much darkness is the very great effort made by Pope Paul to arouse public opinion to an awareness of the gravity of the threat of war. His visit to the UN in 1964 and his world Days of Peace were the highlights of this effort. He cannot claim any sensational success in terms of wars prevented or shortened but he has certainly succeeded in arousing Catholics to a more active interest in the matter, and for this he deserves every credit. But his efforts would have been a great deal more successful if he had more co-operation from national hierarchies. The somnolent reaction of many bishops was particularly disappointing. Wasn’t it St. Pius X who said the greatest encouragement to evil men is the indolence of the good?
History is skeptical about “final solutions” and I do not attempt to propose one here. But I do think that however the problem is solved – if it is solved – it cannot come until the weight of public opinion, the expression of the common conscience of mankind, is so universal and so urgent that the call to peace will be irresistible. Public opinion might be described as the sum of private opinions. I have given mine – What is yours?