Why Aren’t We Investing in Peace?

indian-1343428_1280

On this day, one of the great activists of non-violence, Mohandas K. Gandhi was born. In honour of his memory and contribution towards global peace, today has been designated as the International Day of Non-Violence.

Unfortunately, many equate the term non-violence with passivity, or even weakness, but this represents a fundamental misperception of what non-violence entails. It also overlooks the promise and possibility of non-violent solutions to conflict.

So much of the misunderstanding surrounding the concept of non-violence stems from our general acceptance of war. The fact is that on a societal level, we invest quite heavily in the provision of defence. We recruit and sustain militaries, procure defensive weaponry and make contingency plans in the event of conflict. This reveals the extent to which we are comfortable with investing in war.

But why aren’t we investing in and building any of the necessary infrastructure for peace? We are perfectly content to watch as our taxes go towards preparing for war, but we don’t bother demanding an equal investment in the provision of peace. Perhaps this is because the prospect of peace seems too unrealistic to entertain, and so our political leaders continue to pay lip service to the ideals of peace while they simultaneously prepare for war, as the old Latin adage says si vi pacem, para bellum, which translates to ‘if you want peace, prepare for war.’

The truth is that if we continue to prepare for and invest in war to the exclusion of peace, that is precisely what we will get. So it’s time that we replace our outdated adage with another – si vi pacem, para pacem – ‘If you want peace, prepare for peace.’

I believe if we did start to invest in the provision of peace, it would enable a different and much richer approach towards non-violence. Perhaps this could then set the stage for a broader panoply of non-violent tools and approaches and therein demonstrate, for once and for all, the futility of equating non-violence with passivity.

So on this day of non-violence, let’s imagine what it might look like to develop the infrastructure for peace, and to begin to invest in instruments of non-violence in an equal – if not greater – measure than our prevailing investment in war.

Lessons from the Iraq War

‘Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.’ Martin Luther King

Last week Sir John Chilcot, Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, released his much anticipated report investigating the circumstances surrounding Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. The purpose of the Inquiry was to examine both the causes and consequences of the conflict with a view to identifying lessons for going forward. In the 6000-page report, Chilcot highlighted crucial areas of failure in the run-up to the war through to the post-war occupation, including oversights in the gathering and use of intelligence, an exaggeration of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and a ‘wholly inadequate’ level of post-war planning.

war-472611_1280

The revelations in the report are particularly damning when reflecting on the countless civilian lives that were needlessly lost as a consequence of the conflict, not to mention the fact that Iraq is less stable today than it was in 2003. Chilcot’s report has also provoked considerable anger from the families of military personnel, whose loved ones were asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in a war now widely seen as ill-advised, unnecessary and illegal. As the public continues to process the findings of the report, it will be crucial to draw lessons from this experience in order to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated. The extent to which the mistakes of the Iraq war can be avoided in the future will, however, depend on developing a better understanding of how this conflict arose in the first place.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq did not occur in a vacuum; it was very much a product of – and heavily influenced by – the context of 9/11 and its aftermath. Although it has been 15 years since the tragic events of 9/11, it is worth recalling just how momentous this attack was. Nearly everyone remembers where they were on that day and how they came to learn about what had transpired. It was, without a doubt, one of the most dramatic spectacles of violence ever witnessed in human history.

Amid the destruction and despair of that September morning, something quite remarkable occurred. Something which many of us seem to have lost sight of since. This attack didn’t just happen to Americans – it was an attack on the entire world. Even those who didn’t lose loved ones that day were profoundly moved and deeply affected. This became evident in the tremendous outpouring of love that emerged in the initial hours and days following the attack. From the ashes of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, an overwhelming and unprecedented sense of unity, heartfelt compassion and love arose across the planet. It felt as though someone had pushed the pause button, and for the briefest of moments the earth stopped spinning as we awoke to the truth that we are all connected.

ground-zero-63035_1920

Sadly, the sense of love that arose from the ashes of 9/11 soon dissipated and gave way to an opposing paradigm of fear. Fear that a similar attack would occur and a desperation to use any and all means imaginable to prevent it. From that point onward, fear began to take hold of our hearts and became the basis of nearly every misguided policy decision that came thereafter. It was in this context that the invasion of Iraq was conceived and ultimately executed.

Through the lens of fear, decision-makers exaggerated the threat of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), drew non-existent connections between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorist groups, and rushed into war without exhausting peaceful measures first or adequately preparing for what would come next. It was also in this spiralling climate of fear that some of the most terrible atrocities were committed against Iraqis, as witnessed by the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison and the tragic death of Baha Mousa.

Perhaps the greatest of irony of traversing the path of fear is that it has actually created what our political leaders had hoped to avoid when they set out to invade Iraq. While there was no significant terrorist threat emanating from Iraq in 2003, there certainly is now. ISIS – a much more pervasive and menacing force than Al Qaida – grew directly out of the conflict in Iraq. What is more, many counter-terrorist strategies have actually emboldened and empowered extremists, as the number of attacks, both in the region and around the world, have grown steadily.

As we come to terms with the conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry, one of the most important lessons we can take away is the utter futility of trying to defeat acts of terror and violence from a fear-based stance. As Martin Luther King once said: ‘Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.’ So if we truly want to undermine acts of violence and terror that offend every precept of our common humanity, we must find a way to restore, and then build upon, the unity, compassion and love we saw and felt in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. However short-lived it may have been, it was a much truer reflection of our nature than the disastrous and fear-inspired conflict that followed thereafter.