496 No War Yes Peace (Anzac Day II)

In response to last weekend’s Anzac Day blog I received this question:

“We know what the world looks like WITH war …

What do you suppose the world would look like WITHOUT war?”

I am so grateful for the question; it is a case of, “phew ... I thought you'd never ask.” As questions go, this is one of the great ones. I have been working on the answer for some ten or twenty years ... years ago I wrote an essay with a fictional look back in the year THREETHOUSAND over the past one thousand years and human progress from war to peace; the fact is, I've been working on the answer all my life ... I’m glad to be given the impetus to focus on it and put it on the page. So thank's for asking.

My response comes in five sections, or chapters.

First of all - by way of an introduction - let me state: It is paramount that we - all of humanity but especially our leaders - familiarize ourselves with a reality that needs urgent cognition and action: Since World Wars I & II technology has advanced so fast and so far, that another world war would likely have calamitous consequences (not that the first two didn’t, with tens of millions killed) but with the development of advanced weaponry and the looming implementation of autonomous weapon technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI), future world wars will pose a great threat to the survival of the human race. In science fiction this scenario has been played out many times: Humans are outgunned by smart robots equipped with AI. The fact is: Humans would lose their last battle against intelligent robots; that is not fiction, it is - while speculative - a reasonable prediction. So, the preamble to my response is: Humans must dismantle the institution of war, as a matter of our own survival; on top of the fact that war in principle is immoral and indefensible, even as a "last resort".

So here are my five ideas I deem pre-conditions for world peace:

One ... The world needs an effective World Government, an authority that has the power to end local skirmishes; i.e. the United Nations - which presently is a toothless tiger - needs to be resourced and empowered to become a potent, efficient world policing authority. Resultant from such a change in the world's power-dynamic would be a reduction in NATIONALISM ... in itself a major step toward a peaceful world. The former Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, said in his 1963 Roy Milne Memorial Lecture on Australian foreign policy (I have an essay UNITED NATIONS):

“Australia must strive above all

for the Parliament of Man,

the Federation of the World.

The ultimate security of our nation

and the ultimate survival of civilization alike demand it.”

Two ... A far-reaching re-alignment of the separation of state and religion is required; this is particularly pertinent in view of the stresses created in the world by orthodox Islamism - with the stipulation that infidels must either be converted or killed - and where the Quran states that, “peace will come to the world once all people are followers of Islam.” I have blogged before about the latest book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (blog 487), the outspoken critic of Islam, who makes the point that Islam, if it wants to be tolerated by the wider community, needs a reformation, indeed a revolution. The bottom line is: World wide peace will not be achievable with a militant Islam. Read also Sam Harris’ interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (It would be a pointless diversion to assert now that Christianity and Judaism were at times as militaristic as Islam [which nevertheless is true] ... the fact is that only Islam has at the heart of its ideology the tenet that it must conquer the world and introduce sharia everywhere. My blog 418 Sam Harris ... The Problem with Islam, sheds light on this issue.) Another point Harris makes is interesting: Muslims deem their culture superior to the West's ... it's galling to them to see their economies largely inferior to other systems; he sees this as a significant contributor to Muslim's hostility toward the West. Relevant in view of this state of affairs are the next two points:

Three ... It is paramount that all countries of the world implement multiculturalism. Indeed, all religious and cultural groups - while they shall not be involved in government - must have equal rights and be afforded the same level of tolerance. Minorities must have the same rights in all countries as the majorities. Importantly: All groups must commit to principles of liberty, peace, freedom and equality for all.

Four ... The world will never be a peaceful place as long as there are the great discrepancies in wealth and utilisation / distribution of resources we see today. Resources administration must be under the auspices of the World Government.

Five ... Finally, the most basic of requirements is asked of every single human being: We must embrace the need for a great change in CONSCIOUSNESS. For the past few weeks I have been reading extensively - and I blogged about - material by Jiddu Krishnamurti. He was outspoken about one idea: He advocated a psychological revolution involving our minds ... to bring about positive change in human society (see my essay MIND 2). In the same vein, here is my favourite quote from the utterance of a politician (Barak Obama, when he was on the campaign trail to become president of the United States):

“I don’t want to just end the war,

I want to change the mindset

that got us into war in the first place.”

I have related essays in my book with no title, instead three definition for the term en.light.en.ment ... on WAR, PACIFISM, PACIFISTS, WEAPONRY, FIGHTING FOR PEACE and WAR / PEACE CONSCIOUSNESS .

It is enlightenment of the individual (but especially the world leaders) that is required. Enlightenment is the raising of lower consciousness to higher consciousness. However, the specific aspect of enlightenment in our war / peace context is the requirement of a shift from war-consciousness to peace-consciousness. As regards Anzac Day, this would result in a refined version of remembrance of fallen soldiers ... without the jingoism, the PATRIOTISM, the nationalism and the militarism.

Furthermore - as Krishnamurti says - it is up to every individual to develop their own specific inner peace … only with that inner peace are humans able to construct that outer (world) peace we all crave; (meditation comes into play here). Krishnamurti has a book Freedom from the Known. He talks about the freedom that will give us inner peace; the Known to free ourselves from (to detach from) are:

... our illusions & disillusions, hang-ups, past experiences (good or bad), biases, expectations, our traditions, religious doctrines & dogmas, hatreds, regrets, sorrows & guilt, prejudices & preconceptions.

Once we gain that freedom, we are able to fill our minds with the requirements for first inner and then outer peace (see my blog 488.)

My book has three essays on PACIFISM (and PACIFISM probably should be the subtitle of this blog). One misunderstanding with pacifism is the doctrine of "absolute pacifism" (where force is not allowed even for personal defence; I took issue with Sam Harris on this point in my blog 417) ... I have said (in my Pacifist Manifesto), if under attack - when a gun is pointed at your family - you do what is required of you (there is a fist in pacifist). So, what you do when you’re attacked has nothing to do with the principles of pacifism; in fact, the argument is a spurious digression.

That point leads to another aspect of pacifism: It is often misunderstood or simply ignored that pacifism does not work instantaneously, but over generations; it is specious to expect pacifist concepts to work if they are implemented once one finds oneself in the middle of an attack. Indeed, the points I make above may well take a while to implement ... conceivably hundreds of years.

Confucius is thought to have said:

"Even a journey of 1000 miles

begins with a single step."

Let us make a step on the journey to world peace; the alternative is for humans to stay in the rut we've been in since the dawn of man. But the point of this blog is this: We must wise up to the reality that - while wars in the old days were fights of man to man - in centuries to come wars would be a fight for the survival of the human race.

p.s.

This week in the SMH is an opinion piece on Anzac Day by our Prime Minister ... Tony Abbott maintains again that, "We do not glorify war …” He talks about honour, values, victory, successful advances, spirit of adventure, mateship, the "Great War". “In the magnificent defeat at Gallipoli, the terrible victory on the Western Front and the successful advances in the Middle East, our soldiers embodied the commitment to freedom, the spirit of adventure and the bonds of mateship that we hold dear ...” Abbott's article, where the "Great War was the crucible in which the Australian identity was first forged ..." is yet one more example of how the prevalent thinking regards applied war-consciousness as the path most likely to lead to freedom:

"The terrible sacrifices of our forebears left us an enduring legacy of freedom."

Frankly, his opinion piece does not seem to be primarily about Anzac Day as the occasion to remember our fallen soldiers ... it reads to me like a call to arms, as it extols the spirit of adventure and mateship. The reference to the "Great War" (certainly the greatest oxymoron in our language) is sure to rally the troops to fight the "just war" in the quest to pursue successful advances and victory ... "terrible sacrifices" and "magnificent defeats" are par for the course in this quest for freedom.

On the other hand, peace-consciousness asserts that freedom is obtainable without "terrible sacrifices" and "magnificent defeats" ... allow me a slogan:

Peace is easily achieved.

First change the mind.

Then stop the shooting.

p.p.s.

Yet again in the newspaper another Anzac story, by Peter FitzSimons (writer of three books about WW I battles), to match any in its depth of war-consciousness. Says he:

"For in writing Gallipoli, I wrestled throughout with the question of just why it was this battle was so important to Australians at the time, and since. The bottom line? The tragic truth is, the prevailing view 100 years ago was that a nation was not a real nation until blood was shed - both ours, and more particularly that of our enemies.

Hence the widespread rejoicing when the news of Gallipoli broke, with this very paper noting in an editorial entitled THE GLORY OF IT, that with the news of the Gallipoli landing, Australians were ever more a changed people ..."

That was then, but the tragedy is, it seems little has changed, with our obsession with all things battle, glory, heroes, sacrifice, defeat, victory, bloodshed and death.

FitzSimons said in a tv interview, "the danger now is that we don't just remember ... but we celebrate." Precisely.

He finishes his article saying “… it really is a time of respectful remembrance for the Diggers of Gallipoli, for those who followed them into Australia's other battles, and for the families who lost them.” It seems like an afterthought.

Yet, Remembrance and Gratitude to those who gave their lives, indeed to all those who served their country - as well as to those who live with the anguish of having been left behind when their loved-ones did not return - is noble and worthy; it must be at the centre of Anzac Day musings ... but stripped of all jingoism and militarism.

p.p.p.s.

Alan Ramsey in the SMH today - Anzac Day - does not mince words: "Time for Australia to stop fighting other peoples' wars." Comparing Gallipoli with Vietnam, he says, "Fifty years later (after the start of the Vietnam war) and the anniversary of Australia's entry into its first war without Britain, the "mother country", is ignored, smothered by the jingoism of the circus the Gallipoli centenary has become. Two defeats, both conflicts in which Australian forces were no more than battle-field fodder manipulated by two "great and powerful friends", one defeat deified as "glorious" and "nation-defining", the other nobody wants to know."

Furthermore, "Doesn't anybody in this ridiculous government of ours pay any attention to the mistakes, blunders, lies etc of their predecessors when it comes to forever knuckling under, previously, to London, and now to Washington? Don't we have any national self-respect in what we do and how we're seen when we persist in kissing foreign backsides?"

Read this in context with an article by Tony Stephens in the Herald: "Another myth: Australians as a peace-loving nation." Read and weep ... what about the notion that we remember in order to learn from past mistakes?