Global Peace and Security

Common-Good Values, Part 7

In his famous book Foundation, 20th century sci-fi novelist Isaac Asimov once quipped: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” While put in the mouth of a fictional character in his book, the statement reflects a profound truth about how violence works. Almost inevitably, violence is a sign that a lot of other things have gone wrong first—a lot of people in power have been incompetent. Unfortunately, this reality is often overlooked in questions of war and international relations.

In theory, everyone agrees that security is a good thing. No ordinary, sane person wants to live in a war-torn world; nobody truly likes having to fear for their lives every day. Nobody really likes when their lives are in the balance, never knowing if they will see another day. Theoretically, everybody agrees that world peace is the ideal. However, there is significant disagreement on how to achieve this goal.

Two Non-Options

Unfortunately, most discourse on the subject of achieving a peaceful world falls into two very unhelpful camps; you could call them “non-options.” Both of these non-options claims to give an answer to the question of how to maximize peace and security in the world, but in reality serve only to aggravate the situation.

The first solution is pacifism—the idea that we must simply avoid war at all costs and abolish the military. This idea has much in its favor; it appeals to the peace-loving among us, and rightly reckons with the truth that war is evil. However, pacifism suffers from a strong degree of naïveté. In the real world, war is often a necessary evil, a necessary means of preventing an aggressive, rival nation from stealing your land and killing your people. As long as humans are prideful, ambitious, greedy or fearful, war will undoubtedly be a tragic part of human existence.

However, merely reacting against pacifism by becoming an aggressive military expansionist is not a solution either. Warmongering is just as naïve as pacifism. A nation that aggressively dominates other nations through its military might will cling to its power only precariously and breed resentment. Any nation that seeks to control other nations or overwhelm the global scene with raw power will simply draw the ire of warmongers in other countries. It’s no secret that America has become such a nation.

What’s needed is an approach to national and global security that balances a love of peace with the acknowledgement that war is sometimes a tragic necessity.

The Solution: Just War Theory

Beginning with St Augustine of Hippo in the AD 500s, Western political theorists, philosophers, and theologians have developed just such an approach to security—an idea known as just war theory. In just war theory, military power is acknowledged as part and parcel of living in this world—but only as a last resort, and only in self-defense. According to just war theorists, a nation may only go to war with another nation if they are directly attacked by them, or if there is a clear and imminent threat of attack that must be stopped in order to save the lives of its citizens.

What is attractive about this approach is that it acknowledges that both diplomacy and military strength have their places. Diplomacy should always be the first resort—a nation should be constantly working to be on good terms with as many nations as possible. Amiable relations among nations is always a good thing. However, military strength has its own place as well—a given nation must always be adequately prepared to defend itself from any foreign invasion. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” isn’t just a memorable quote from President Theodore Roosevelt; it is a piece of practical wisdom that should guide our policies today.

In all areas of national security, home defense should always be the highest goal. The point of national security—whether achieved through diplomacy or through just war—should never be to achieve a global police state, where one nation controls the entire world. Such an approach to world peace might seem a straightforward solution, but will in the long run only serve to undermine global security.

The perfect example of this kind of approach is that of the small central European nation of Switzerland. By combining mandatory militia service, international neutrality and diplomacy, and a strategic mountainous location, Switzerland become a peaceful nation that hasn’t seen war in over two hundred years.

While America certainly can’t follow Swiss policy to a “T", there are many things that can be learned from Switzerland. If nothing else, Switzerland proves that it is possible to be a peace-loving nation and a well-defended nation at the same time. While breaking treaties with other nations and immediately stepping down from its role as the global police would be unwise and have many chaotic results, America certainly can look to be on better terms with more nations, and take more intentional steps towards achieving security through peaceful means. Think tanks and organizations such as World Beyond War have spent large amounts of time, energy, and resources devoted to finding just these means of ensuring peace and security through competence, not violence.

***********************************

We hope you’ve enjoyed this seven-part series on Common-Good Values! We believe that these seven values can provide the foundation for rebuilding an America where people can work together in solidarity rather than tear society apart. If you have any thoughts or ideas about how these values can bring Americans together, please let us know in the comments below!