War-fairs…peace by peace

 

 

 

 

 

“This is a war to end all wars.” American President Wood row Wilson had declared this in 1917, justifying decision to join the First World War. A wartoendallwars…anew beginning… a new world. Moved by the same emotion, the leaders of that time formed the League of Nations. But soon enough, theworldwasready for another war, and another, and another. To this day, the desire for a new world free of war has never really gained any ground.For,the groundis fullofweeds. Weeds can spread far and widein no time.Weeds eat-up allnutrients essential forplantlife and as a consequence, all life. A village farmer (not initiated into the crude sophistication of the world)could tell thatonecannotprune weeds. They are to be removed completely or else they grow again fast and in no time consume everything. Yet, suchis our collective folly thatwe keep pruning the weed in show of great solidarity for mankind. Historians of the pastsay thatseedsof thewar-weedwere carelessly allowed to remain in the ground (sometimes even carefully placed) in many a peace treaty. And thanks to these effortsof keepingpeace on very unsteady ground, world peace has remained an illusion.

 

A war to end all wars was never ‘this one’. The League failed but it left behind anidea. Anidea of a place where countries of the world can come, sit, talk, discuss, debate before they take up arms. Indeed, a very good idea! On its remainsnowstandstheUnitedNations. The same brilliant idea spreading its wings! But its founders did not pay much attention to the ground they were building this edifice upon. Some say, weed seeds were carefully placed sothat the groundremained shaky.For long, this keeper of world peace has seen much of its good work getting vetoedunilaterally.Abigprice foramassive blunder – a blunder to build its foundation not upon the principles of justice, equalityand fairplaywhichcan hold the edifice steadfastly but upon power. The more powerful became more than equal. And though it is not doing a great job as a representative body of mankind collectively – it sure is a great representation of mankind in its present state – Seeking justice for all through equality yet almost always making the powerful more equal. And ‘powerful’ is a shaky ground – today it is you, tomorrow it will be me, always it will be someone but never will it be everyone. So, theUnitedNations–whichshould have been the apex body having the mandateof allsovereignnationsisnow being nudged to keep its ‘relevance’. But what can it do even if a warring nation declares its Secretary General as a ‘person non grata’?

 

Hardly anything. Standing on that shaky ground, it can hardly do anything. Here too, it seems a perfect representation of mankind.We, too, do not want war but what can we do?We are reaping a harvestofweedshoping to findsomegrain. With half-hearted efforts whoever got the desired result? Attherootofallwars,more thangreed for more power or evil intention, lies this half-hearted effort to bring peace. EvenbeforePresidentWoodrowWilson said thosewords, humanswerealways calling for peace. So, the sincerity of the desire was never in question, the depth of its commitment is. The ‘Yes…but….?!?...” syndrome hasmade humans a defeatist lot. Consider another war which is unfolding rather rapidly as we keep ourselves busy with Ukraine and the Middle East – the Climate Change. Temperatures are soaring world over; the polar regions and the deserts are rapidly greening; snow at the glaciers is melting; storms are hitting mankind with uncanny regularity; wild fires, floods, droughts are becoming frequent. The world is aware of this war. It says it is bracing for it. Nations have set targets tocut theirgreenhouseemissions so that the temperatures could be brought down. The intent is on records, in policies and their implementations. But with wars, new escalations and growinguncertainties,corporates and countries may not be too keen on keeping their efforts on to meet these targets.Often,wehaveseen these goals becoming first victims of any chaosin the world.Somany times, have we seen nations, societies and individuals, when caught between addressingpresentinconveniencesand loomingcatastrophe,choosing the former.

 

Had our commitment to check climate change been really deep, we would have already been on the winning side of that war. Alas!Itis winning and how! Our climate action so far has been like pruning the weeds only. Itis indeed hoping against hope that the two major wars of our times will end sooner than later, reducing pain and suffering to humanity. It is also worth hoping that through collective efforts, the importance of having an effective,justapexbodyoverallnations inbringingbetterprogress formankind getsdulyunderlined tomake theUnited Nations more and more relevant. But it will require much more effort, at all levels, thanjust hope to ensure thatwe completely remove the weeds that entail war.Wemust sow the right seeds in our minds, in our lives, in our institutions to gain lasting peace. It will do well to remember that humanity, despite its shallow commitments, has always wished for peace. “We hate war. We do not rejoice in victories.

 

We rejoice when a new kind of cotton is grown, and when strawberries bloom in Israel,” said the Iron Lady of Israel Golda Meir. Our commitments ought to be deep for we have seen so many outcomes of war. Apart from inflicting death and destruction it achieves very little. This quote by Bertrand Russell best encapsulates what war does. “War does not determine who is right - only who is left.”