Rant of the Week

GIVING PEACE A CHANCE

 

The Christian Reformed Church officially believes that there is such a thing as a "just" war.  It's there in our official church policy, right next to sensual abstinence and charitable materialism.

I liked the 1960's.  Sure there were a lot of crazy ideas in the air, and a lot of foolish ones.  And sure, the hippies were naive and idealistic. But you have to see it from the point of view of someone "coming of age".   You have to appreciate what it was like before t he 1960's. 

The 1950's was Frank Sinatra, Leave it to Beaver, Senator Joseph McCarthy.  It was Billy Graham and Richard Nixon and John Wayne.  It was military bands and double-knit pants, pant-suits and Tupperware parties.

The 1960's was the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jesus Christ Superstar, and blue jeans.  It was Woodstock, Janis Joplin, J.D. Salinger.  It was t-shirts and sandals and free love--whatever that was-- and John Kennedy. 

It was no contest.

One of the things a lot of people in my generation believed in--don't puke now--was the PEACE movement.  I remember arguing with my teachers and parents and minister about it.  They all believed that war was a regrettable necessity, but a necessity nevertheless.  They argued that the world was full of violent, evil people, who were just itching to conquer and destroy us, just like the Nazis, and the Communists, and, of course, Cuba.  In order to preserve our God-ordained lives as suburban consumers, it was necessary to threaten to destroy all life on the entire planet.  There could never be peace as long as there was sin in the world, and there would always be sin in the world. 

The more sophisticated among us argued back: they are warlike because we are warlike.  They hit back, because we hit first.   They threaten to destroy us because we threaten to destroy them. 

Hopelessly naive, so we were told.

The Christian Reformed Church produced a thoughtful document that supported the pro-war faction.  But a careful reading of it reveals that the peaceniks were gaining the high ground.  This document laid out very stringent conditions under which a war could be considered "just".  The one that was most interesting:  the benefits of a particular war should outweigh the cost.

Well, I suppose you wouldn't have a hard time finding militarists who really believed that the benefits of a war outweighed the costs.   Benefit: lots of medals.  Cost: hundreds of thousands of lives.  After reading this document, I came to conclusion that some members of the committee which wrote it were playing a joke on us.

It is of more than passing interest that the current generation of leadership in the West, especially Tony Blair in England and Bill Clinton in the U.S.,  are baby-boomers, members of the "Give Peace a Chance" generation.  And guess what: they are proving us right.

The biggest difference between Clinton and Blair and their predecessors, Thatcher and Reagan, is that Clinton and Blair really do believe that peace is a good thing.  (One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as president, way back in 1980, was to restore the funding for military brass bands which President Carter had cut.   Thatcher, of course, charged off to Argentina to save the Falklands for England, tally ho.)

And so we finally have peace in South Africa.   Peace has a tenuous grasp in the Middle East.  And so you have Blair in Ireland and Israel, and Bill Clinton lending the full support of the U.S.  But it is not those two men alone.  Baby boomers now hold the reigns of power in industry, commerce, education, and government, and whatever other compromises they have made in their lives, they seem to agree that peace is better than war.

Of course, there are still conflicts and civil wars and other disturbances, in places like Nigeria and Kosovo, and the Middle East could still explode if negotiations don't make some progress soon.  But over-all, has the world ever been in better shape?  No, it hasn't.  Last year, there were two significant conflicts in the entire world.  In any given year during the 1960's, there were at least 20.

*

Perhaps the difference in generations is most aptly summed up in a controversy that broke out several years ago between the Canadian Legion and some "peaceniks" in Chatham, Ontario.  The Legion was outraged-- outraged, I say-- that a group of nuns and activists had decided to hold a peace rally in front of the local cenotaph.  How dare they!  In their protests, the Legion made transparent all their pretty rhetoric about heroism and sacrifice: the truth was, they didn't go over "there" to die for their country.  They went over there to kill.  And the monument was not a tribute to the peace they won; it was a tribute to the camaraderie of men who enjoyed dressing up and shooting guns off at each other, and then spending the next forty years boozing it up away from their wives and retelling the same boring stories about "Jack" and "Bill" and how splendidly they gave it to the wicked kraut. 

I had been brought up to respect these men for the grim work they did of defending liberty and freedom.  After hanging around a Legion hall a few times, and after all we've heard in the last few years-- about the Queen and admitting Sikhs to the Legion halls, and the flag and so on-- I was left with the impression that most of these men had some skewed imperialistic notion of "liberty" that didn't have much latitude in it for diversity or democracy.  I don't think many of these men cared much about the horrible injustices of the Nazi regime, except insofar as particular incidents could be used to paint the enemies as monsters.

More recently, the veterans complained bitterly when the National War Museum revealed plans to include a section on the Holocaust.  How dare they?  What's that go to do with World War II? In the U.S., veterans complained so loudly and bitterly that the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. was forced to withdraw an exhibit that merely documented-- did not damn or praise, merely documented--   the bombing of Hiroshima.  In one sense, their actions are a glorious admission of shame.  They want to pretend that Hiroshima never happened.

I have gone from believing that these men fought out of a sincere belief in democracy and freedom and justice to believing that most of these men still hold the same attitudes and political views that gave rise to many of the 20th century's military conflicts in the first place, namely, that honor and national pride are worth killing for, and that material wealth must be guarded against interlopers, and that killing in the name of a nation or a flag is honorable and right.

All Contents Copyright © Bill Van Dyk
 1998 All Rights Reserved