Some seeds of peace

Dorothy Searle believes that creating quiet, neutral spaces is vital in resolving conflict

I am very fond of the phrase ‘taking away the causes of all wars’. I also welcome the efforts of various groups to reduce violence between individuals and small groups and the ideas that are being acted upon to divert young people from the long-established principle that ‘might is right’.

However, I am conscious of the fact that, as Quakers, we are much better at saying that war is wrong than at suggesting ways to prevent it. It’s obvious that war doesn’t arise spontaneously; it must have roots somewhere. What these roots are will vary from war to war, but there are some things that come up over and over again. I don’t think we can do much about greed and the desire for power, but I do think we could help to deal with some other causes.

Many wars, especially those initiated by terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view), owe their origins to a sense of injustice. Often, the injustice is real, but so long ago that there is no real prospect of correcting it. Such people tend to have very long memories. Another major cause of war is fear – fear of what the enemy will do to us if they get the chance – and the natural response to such fear is to get our blows in first.

There are admirable organisations (often with a strong Quaker input) that try to arrange for the leaders of nations or groups to take part in private, informal discussions. The intention might be either to identify the injustice, in the hope that some mitigating action could be taken, or to confront the fears. An actual meeting in an obscure place could be arranged by the organisation, or it might act as a go-between.

To put such useful work on a firmer footing, I should like to see the United Nations set up a new organisation to carry out the same function on a larger scale. It would have to ensure that the process is always impartial, always takes every grievance seriously and always respects the courage of any leader who dares to look for a nonviolent way of addressing conflict. Such a reputation would encourage leaders to make use of it, accepting that, while confidentiality would be ideal, leaks will always happen. No leader ever wants to appear weak or indecisive.

Its services would have to be open to leaders of major dissident groups, as well as to those of whole nations, if the modern type of warfare is to be addressed. Since debate between other nations as to whether a particular situation warrants its use would waste valuable time (and probably add to the existing grievances), the organisation would have to be totally independent in its choice of which disputes to get involved in; also, it would have to be allowed to act in secrecy, requiring more trust than is usually given to official bodies.

I realise that this is merely the beginning of an idea, but I hope that others will take it further. While I don’t feel a call to initiate a Concern myself, I do feel led to make the idea known, in the hope that it may pave the way for others.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment