What is a "peacemaker"?
Google gave me 680,000 hits for the term.
Dictionary.com has this to say:
"1. someone who tries to bring peace
2. a belt-fed machine gun capable of firing more than 500 rounds per minute; used by United States troops in World War II and the Korean War"
Historically, three things characterize peacemakers:
1.) They are people of high idealism who see freedom as the highest ideal. While peacemakers value peace highly, they are not willing to sacrifice their own or someone else’s freedom to achieve peace. In fact, they see peace as a state where individuals are able to enjoy as many freedoms as is possible. Patrick Henry was a peacemaker, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
2.) They are willing to do anything to make the peace. Peacemakers recognize that truth in the paradox that war is often a necessary requirement for peace. The first fifty years of the 20th century saw the rise of major threat to Asia-Pacific peace. Japan fought a war with China, Russia, and China age. Her actions were brutal, aggressive, racist, and imperialistic. Fire from the sky made the peace. Japan has not been a threat to any nation in world in the fifty years since. In fact, it has become a model of freedom, prosperity, and peace in the region. Negotiations would never have achieved this.
3.) They think that peacekeeping is an appropriate strategy with rational and moral nation-states and when no other options are realistic, but they also recognize that despots must be utterly destroyed and generally, the sooner the better. Peacemakers see mankind as fundamentally selfish and self-serving and that disagreements and conflicts are brought about by the evil desires of despots.
The fundamental difference between the two is more than just a semantic one. Peacekeepers seek to preserve the status quo with reason, understanding, and tolerance. They hope to “keep” peace, so give it a chance. It is, at its essence, a passive position. They want to keep the peace as though they are keeping the neighbor’s dog while they are away for the weekend. If that were the case, all one would have to do is feed it some kibbles, take it for walkies, and scoop its poop. Unfortunately, there is a dog-knapper out there, and he wants to steal the neighbor’s dog and ship him to a slave-dog factory in the third world where poor Fido will slave out his last days making coffee mugs inscribed with the lyrics of John Lennon’s “Just Imagine”. When the dog-knapper shows up at the door with a loaded Uzi, our peacekeeper is going to be prepared to do little more than watch as Fido is boxed up and shipped out. If he is a well-trained peacekeeper, he will probably offer to help with the taping, hand over the leash, and offer to drive them to the airport. A peacemaker would have dropped a smart bomb on the dog-knapper’s car, sent the marines to the factory to liberate the pooches, and then built an entirely new factory based upon basic civil liberties and manufacturing flea collars.
Case in point, here is the Canadian monument to peacekeepers. I have a great respect for the many selfless men and women who have sacrificed their time and lives in attempts to preverve
the peace in numerous difficult areas. That being said, look at the monument: there is a guy observing through binoculars, a woman using a field radio, and guy standing watch with a rifle. They aren't doing anything. Notice the inscription, "Reconciliation". Contrast that with the Marine Corps War Memorial. They have conquered a deadly foe on the road to the defeat of an evil totatitarian regime. They will lose many thousands of their own in this one battle They were peacemakers.
Peacemakers seek to make the peace where there is no peace. Peacemakers are also willing to sacrifice in the present in order to avoid conflict in the future. In Iraq, there had been a kind of peace. That is, there was no armed conflict or violence (if you don’t count state-sponsored murder and genocide). That made it an ideal state for the peacekeepers. But peacemakers looked at Iraq and saw a leader that had launched two aggressive wars, had gassed his own people, denied his people any sort of civil liberties (a think I even saw an Amnesty report that suggested it was becoming “worse than the fascist-totalitarian regime of the United States”), had used poison gas against civilian communities, and had led the third world in research into atomic weapons, chemical, and biological agents. Seeing this, the peacemakers in the Bush administration made the decision to sacrifice peace in the present to assure a true peace in the future. It was a bold mood and heavily criticized. It rattled the peacekeepers and exposed the failure of their strategies in Iraq. It is the type of move few politicians are willing to make these days. That is the fundamental difference between a politician and a leader. A leader is willing to risk current standing and power for a greater future good while a politician only seeks to preserve his current status.
I think George W. Bush may go down in history as a peacemaker despite launching two “aggressive” wars. James Madison earned that that status after finally dispatching the Barbary pirates in our first war on terror. Harry S Truman, George Marshall, and Douglas MacArthur earned that status after World War II. Ronald Reagan earned that status after the Cold War. Much has to happen before Bush the Younger will be considered a peacemaker. Today and days after it will be important days.
Thoughts Anyone?
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment