Главная страница «Первого сентября»Главная страница журнала «Английский язык»Содержание №12/2009

Who Cares About Pacifism?

Pacifism is a theory which came into existence in the 20th century. For decades it has been considered to be a platform for social movements that is relative to policy-making. The pro–peace idea opposes war and all other forms of violence as a means to treat individuals, communities and nations. Over time humans have been competing for better things. Thus, they established state governments to secure their common needs and ambitions. Since then, foreign policy has been an essential part of the shaping of state policy and depends mainly on the international role of a country.

Nowadays, when humanity has achieved all possible means of weaponry, it becomes clear that war cannot be used as a way to settle confrontations or any other dispute with the help of force. Since nuclear power appeared, the issue has been of crucial importance. Humanity comprehended the danger which nuclear build-up causes. Regardless of the tendency to maintain a balance of power and suppress any aggressive intentions at regional or global levels, the concept of pacifism is far from reality.

Pacifism as state ideology is the same social myth as communism or democracy in their pure forms. Such utopian ideas are good to get popular votes during political campaigns. Do all these pro-peace candidates believe that absolute pacifism can be reached? Ordinary people wish to live in a peaceful world, justifying their governments. No one would admit that their government intervenes somewhere, disturbing the world order in general. However, there are authorities who bring troops, redraw the map of the world, and launch world wars. Governments persuade their population that their policy is identified with national justice, as Hitler’s did. A real pacifist could hardly come to power, because pacifism itself neglects state power and addresses moral principles which are more respected than national interests as an impetus to progress.

If a country has enough importance on the international arena, especially if it is considered to be a superpower, it needs more space to distribute its influence in other regions of the world. In case of a lesser state, it has to struggle against global processes. Such a state has nothing to do but attempt to preserve its political and cultural identity. The most striking example these days to cover both state roles are the USA on one hand and Iran on the other. The USA is a superpower in this unipolar world system. After the USSR collapsed, the USA has had no rival to prevent it from extending its authority and the whole process of Westernization, its prevalence as a unique way to live and govern, over the whole world. No matter what sort of historic and, as a consequence, political experience they have obtained, this tendency for democracy is adopted as a dominant one, but not every country agrees to accept it. Iran is one of the most ardent adversaries of the main world process. It makes attempts to resist the unipolar system and to establish its own order in the Middle East region at least. Nuclear possession seems to be the only way to make the world community turn its eye to the lesser states which contravenes the idea of pacifism.

Theoretically, the world community is on its path to a ‘peace-loving’ world society. Of course, civilization is still quite far from establishing a world government, but it could reduce a great number of regional conflicts, creating a number of regional and ad hoc integrating entities, such as international organizations that advance the easing of tensions more than international organizations at the global level. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization helped China to realize its economic ambitions and to deepen its influence in the region. It was necessary to put its increasing power in a peaceful direction, and the SCO is a mechanism able to satisfy Chinese ambition for regional hegemony and to strike up a friendship between the member-states concentrated in the Asian region. Another method to approach the pro-peace mind is to avoid all attributes which could tend to war. The mass-media tend to substitute the term “war” for the more neutral “military operation” which gives different meanings to the same actions. It does not matter how they are called: military relief to a nation or a military expedition with a rescue purpose. Unfortunately, the modern world is not perfect enough to avert wars.

The big picture of the lack of pacifism does not give way to despair. Several countries have adopted pacifism as their preferred stance to conduct foreign policy and have practiced it for decades and even centuries. The Scandinavian region is respected as the most peace-keeping area of the planet, as well as Switzerland, the latter rejected war and stood neutral through four years of a global war in the heart of battleground-covered Europe. It is still loyal to this neutral role. One possible solution to the warring attitude is an international treaty on mutual nuclear destruction that would equalize countries in one sphere at least. It would be the first step to ease tensions between the nuclear-equipped superpowers and the nuclear build-up orientated Third World.

Anyway, it is the world community which has to be aware of the wider scope of pressing needs, and pacifism should be one such long-term target akin to economic development, international cooperation and environment. When it is part of the agenda and not just the background for political campaigns, it will have more space to be modified and transformed into something down-to-earth.

By Julia Kim ,
MSLU, 4th year