The Oxymoron of Peace
TMS PEACE JOURNALISM, 21 Jul 2014
Robert C. Koehler – TRANSCEND Media Service
At the same time, values and ideas which were considered universal, such as cooperation, mutual aid, international social justice and peace as an encompassing paradigm are also becoming irrelevant.”
Maybe this piercing observation by Roberto Savio, founder of the news agency Inter Press Service, is the cruelest cut of all. Geopolitically speaking, hope — the official kind, represented, say, by the United Nations in 1945 — feels fainter than I can remember. “We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . .”
I mean, it was never real. Five centuries of European colonialism and global culture-trashing, and the remaking of the world in the economic interests of competing empires, cannot be undone by a single institution and a cluster of lofty ideals.
As Savio notes in an essay called “Ever Wondered Why the World Is a Mess?,”: “The world, as it now exists, was largely shaped by the colonial powers, which divided the world among themselves, carving out states without any consideration for existing ethnic, religious or cultural realities.”
And after the colonial era collapsed, these carved-out political entities, defining swatches of territory without any history of national identity, suddenly became the Third World and floundered in disarray. “. . . it was inevitable that to keep these artificial countries alive, and avoid their disintegration, strongmen would be needed to cover the void left by the colonial powers. The rules of democracy were used only to reach power, with very few exceptions.”
Whatever noble attempts at eliminating war the powers that be made in the wake of World War II — Europe’s near self-annihilation — didn’t cut nearly deep enough. These attempts didn’t set about undoing five centuries of colonial conquest and genocide. They didn’t cut deeper than national interest.
And global peace built on a foundation of nation-states is an oxymoron. As historian Michael Howard noted in his book The Lessons of History (quoted by Barbara Ehrenreich in Blood Rites): “From the very beginning, the principle of nationalism was almost indissolubly linked, both in theory and practice, with the idea of war.”
All of which leads me to the $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive warplane ever built, or not quite built. The aircraft, designed by Lockheed, is now seven years behind schedule, but the Pentagon had planned to display its new baby this week at the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. This debut has now been called off because the engine of one of the planes caught fire on a runway in Florida in June, and officials feared the problem was systemic.
In other words, it could happen again. It could happen at the airshow, with the jet’s prospective customers — Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and eight other U.S. allies — in attendance. Grounding it was a business decision. Indeed, it was a decision made at the delicate intersection of business and war.
“The setbacks follow a series of technical problems and development delays that have affected the F-35, one of the world’s most ambitious weapons programs, with estimated development costs of around $400 billion,” Nicola Clark and Christopher Drew wrote this week in the New York Times. “Analysts said the timing of the problems, just as Lockheed Martin was hoping to demonstrate the plane to prospective export buyers here, could not have been worse.”
What I found interesting — well, overwhelmingly depressing, actually — was the fact that this story ran in the Times’ International Business section. When Savio writes, “Attempts to create regional or international alliances to bring stability have always been stymied by national interests,” this may be what he’s talking about. National interests are business interests. In the mainstream media, this is simply a given.
And the ongoing setbacks and escalating cost don’t matter. The F-35 project is still going forward, even though, as Kate Brannen wrote recently in Foreign Policy, “over the course of the aircrafts’ lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion.”
The warplane’s supply of funding is inexhaustible, apparently. Congress is behind it all the way. And it’s hardly news. “Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program — and the jobs it has created — in place,” Brannen wrote.
Austerity is for losers. There’s always money to wage war and build weapons, indeed, to continue developing weapons, generation after generation after generation. The contractors are adept at playing the game. Jobs link arms with fear and patriotism and the next war is always inevitable. And it’s always necessary, because we’ve created a world of perpetual — and well-armed — instability.
The problem with the United Nations is that it’s a unity of entities defined by their hatred of one another and committed to the perpetuation of “the scourge of war.” We won’t begin creating global peace until we learn how to bypass nationalism and the single, unacknowledged agreement binding nation-states to each other: the inevitability of war.
__________________________
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press), is still available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com.
© 2014 Tribune Content Agency, Inc.
Go to Original – commonwonders.com
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
One Response to “The Oxymoron of Peace”
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
TMS PEACE JOURNALISM:
Robert C. Koehler starts by saying: “At the same time, values and ideas which were considered universal, such as cooperation, mutual aid, international social justice and peace as an encompassing paradigm are also becoming irrelevant.”
This is wrong.”Cooperation and mutual aid” is practiced in our days more than ever !!!!! this is why wars erupt eveywhere. Mr Koehler doesn’t seem to realize that “MILITARISM” is the No.1 business of politicians, of Governments. With oil, drugs and precious metals/stones, they create enormous wealth. For countries with money, their “cooperation” means paying vast sums of cash to countries that have arms, to sell (weapons, bombs,air-fighters, warships, etc, etc). Countries without much cash in their vaults, “cooperate” with drugs, oil or precious stones/metals. Countries with nothing “cooperate” by allowing USA and UK to install military bases in their territory, or, to use the territory for the transport of illegal weapons and drugs.
All of this is “cooperation and “MUTUAL AID”. Politicians help each other become richer and more powerful.
In fact, the observation by Roberto Savio, is correct, but not 100% accurate. Savio wrote that “hope” as represented, by the United Nations in 1945 — feels fainter than he can remember, quoting from the UN Charter “We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . .”
I’m sorry to say, but one has to be a bit naive to think that an organisation like the UN, with, as a main actor/member is the country that exploded atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is interested in “saving generations from the scourge of war”.
Mr Koehler speaks of the “undoing” of the “economic interests of competing empires” and thinks this is difficult because it’s been going for centuries. But the United Nations NEVER said they would do that. On the contrary, they promote empire rivalry and they consider themselves another Empire. This is why they have their own Armed Forces.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ehrenreich’s words “: “From the very beginning, the principle of nationalism was almost indissolubly linked, both in theory and practice, with the idea of war.” United Nations promotes United “Nationalism”. This means many countries “united” in the idea of war.
I saw so many wars concocted at the United Nations during my 7 years in Geneva, Switzerland, that I think I know a thing or two about this monstruous, death producing organisation. Not only they thrive on wars, they make fortunes with the Refugee Industry. UN Refugee Agency bosses make millions with their purchases of tents, camp beds, blankets, portable toilets, kitchens, the food and services they buy, etc.
What does it matter how much the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter cost, or whether it will be or not ready for an international exhibition? the ONLY thing that should matter is what the building of this and other air-fighters mean: that politicians have no intention whatsoever in working towards a world of Peace and that they are atre all liars.
When Savio writes, “Attempts to create regional or international alliances to bring stability have always been stymied by national interests”. To me, they have NOT been stymied; on the contrary, they’ve been “promoted”
Lockheed is a very big donor to political parties, so politicians have to retribute the favours.
This could have been written by me !!! “There’s always money to wage war and build weapons, indeed, to continue developing weapons, generation after generation after generation. The contractors are adept at playing the game. Jobs link arms with fear and patriotism and the next war is always inevitable. And it’s always necessary, because we’ve created a world of perpetual — and well-armed — instability.”
This is also something I always say: (and I’ve already said it above)”The problem with the United Nations is that it’s a unity of entities defined by their hatred of one another and committed to the perpetuation of “the scourge of war.” We won’t begin creating global peace until we learn how to bypass nationalism and the single, unacknowledged agreement binding nation-states to each other: the inevitability of war.
However, what our writer calls “problem”, members of the UN don’t see it as a “problem”. On the contrary, they are very happy at having found a solution !!!!!
Alberto