Can security be achieved by violent means? This the rationale that is driving much of the world right now – from Israel’s attacks on Iran, Gaza and Hezbollah; Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; Trump’s sending troops to California, and countless other conflicts around the world.
In the short-term, yes. When faced by enemies who have the means and the desire to destroy you, using violence could be the only way to protect yourself.
The limitation of this use of violence is that it doesn’t address the thoughts and emotions that motivate our enemies. Bullets and bombs can kill people but not an ideology, especially an ideology that draws its strength from emotions of hatred, fear, humiliation, despair, vengeance and disgust. The more “collateral damage” there is, particularly non-combatant women and children, the more those emotions are stirred and the more people are motivated to take up arms.
Albert Einstein understood this, writing in 1930: “Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. You cannot subjugate a nation forcibly unless you wipe out every man, woman, and child. Unless you wish to use such drastic measures, you must find a way of settling your disputes without resort to arms.”
After the devastation of two world wars, a handful of visionary leaders decided to try a different strategy for security – to break the ancient cycles of hatred and revenge by turning former enemies into friends. It was not easy. Many thousands of individuals struggled with their own consciences to forgive, or to ask forgiveness. Those that did were often motivated by a desire that their children could have a better future. At the political level, the generosity of the Marshall Plan made it possible for people to imagine a better future. Statesmen like German Chancellor Adenaur and French Prime Minister Robert Shuman worked to integrate the coal and steel industries of France and Germany which laid the foundations for the European Union.
There is an Irish proverb: “It is in the shelter of each other that the people live”. The best form of security comes from having neighbours and neighbouring countries who are friends and who benefit from each others’ prosperity.
This should always be the long-term aim.
Meanwhile how do we get there?
In the immediate now, there is a valid argument for limited use of force to protect against an aggressor. However it should always be restrained, limited as much as possible to military targets, and with a view to building a sustainable peace after the fighting is over. A good question to consider when looking at the actions of various leaders who are using force is: “What is their endgame?”
(photo credit: UN, Korean War 1951 https://www.flickr.com/photos/un_photo/3836440521)
