Check for web archive captures
Threats to Peace
By lindamuralidharan on 2011-04-01 03:46:46
Somehow we like to think that threats to peace will come from some "rogue state" where greedy or power mad leaders will
want to attack us or some one of our allies. This really is a lot like the old days where we were taught to vilify aggressive
nations who wanted to invade nearby states to consolidate territory or power or trade or resources.
Of course, it doesn't matter if we are to vilify the modern concept of a rogue state dictator or the old style imperial leader (of
Russia, Persia, England, Germany, Japan, or Rome), "they" were always conquerors and aggressors and sometimes bad
guys, but we are always on the side of the angels....whether colonizing Native Americans, snipping off chunks of Mexico, or
taking over the Philippines.
Now we find ourselves involved in armed conflict out of revenge in Afghanistan, having a whole history of fighting and
fixing the pottery in Iraq, involved in armed conflict to protect civilians (only we don't know if that means protecting them
from somebody for years), wondering if we ought to be more helpful to people in Syria and a host of other places where it is
just conceivable that the military power of the US could help break the yokes of dictatorships...
My goodness there could be threats for so many situations...how will we ever maintain peace?
Is violence the solution, though? Maybe when we step back and look around at all the possible threats to peace in our
world, we may decide we better find a different set of solutions. Maybe the problem is partly in our own thinking.
There is anew book out called "Back to the Future" by David Sidota, and his thesis is we let the 80's politicians and
adventure films and tv shows convince us that violence solves it all...especially if we are imagining ourselves the heroes ...
rugged individualists and all that. Well, that is another book to read and from the sound of the reviews I think I will agree
with some of it.
I also want to consider what role greed plays in presenting threats to peace and to peaceful solutions. Some people have
asked on these pages for more information about how and where money needs to be put into our system in order
for our economy to be more prosperous. Jacob Hacker's book, "The Transference of Risk" doesn't explain this exactly but it
helps see the way in which greed has transferred money to those who already have a lot and ways in which the ordinary
person is left to shoulder a greater burden...those who have the most heavy lifting to do are asked to do more. And in the
current issue of "Mother Jones Magazine", there is a lot of documentation of how certain greedy leaders have spearheaded a
lot of exploitation of either the poor or of all of us who are not in exceptionally privileged positions. The issue details much
of the tax return rip offs of poor people...over charging them to do their returns and then charging exorbitant interest rates to
have their earned income tax return amount delivered to them almost instantly. Perhaps some of our readers who are in
favor of consumer education might want to join the movements trying to shut down these exploitation shops which
encourage the most vulnerable to pursue instant gratification and waste what little money they might manage to save on high
interest rates...when all they would need to do would be to have their taxes done for free and then wait two weeks for the
money to come.
The same issue describes the history of Dell Computers and the founder, Michael Dell and how he started his computer
company concept with the declaration that his products would be made in America. Funny thing, the richer he got the more
he found it useful to send much of his production off shore. And the richer he got, the easier he found it to buy influence in
Washington so that rules could be passed that would give him advantages in the market place (no free hand of the magic
market for him). Well, he is rich to levels I can't quite fathom...and lots of American jobs have been lost..not so he can
"compete" but so he can win on an uneven playing field and not have to count the losses of those who want to put food on
the taoble and have a good working car in the garage.
Is it a threat to peace when people have to struggle extra hard to have the basics of an "American" standard of living and it
is thus all the harder to take time to go to city council meetings or read or watch more careful analysis of world affairs? And
it isn't just the time and effort required..it's the anxiety about all those bills that create some of the depression and stress the
scientists report about in American society...and which cuts into our national productivity whether as persons or parents or
workers.
Is it a threat to peace when powerful people...and those who can buy even more power...may influence policies not for
conflict resolution or minimization but for their ever increasing desire for financial gain?
Greed is not new in the world, and we have made a lot of progress in some areas....we pretty much avoid using force of arms
to change regimes in the US, the UK, India, Australia, and many other places. Now we may begin to perceive that it is us
and our attitudes that keep expecting to address change or defense in the international sphere mainly by war, by force.
Actually, the present administration has been partially responsive to the movement to get the rapid tax return rip off artists
out of the pockets of the working poor. New regulations are limiting (not eliminating) some of the worst practices. This is
done peacefully...not by hiring a bunch of knights or mercenaries to shut some businesses down. Let's move on and begin to
include more conflicts in the category of "What would it look like if we exercised teamwork to get that mess straightened
out or those water rights agreements in balance?" What if we had a goal of "objective" international communal pressure on
Gadhafi....nations put their selfish needs for oil aside, get agreement that nobody would trade with the guy or send him
supplies. It's a concept. Some nations might not agree but diplomacy would move more and more into the same sanctions
camp. Some nations would still need to be persuaded on the basis of narrow self-interest...yes, work those pressure points.
And again let's not lose sight of important issues while distracted with no flys and tsunamis. I would like to see some top
level, hopefully very competent analysis that shows how much of aid and military assistance we give Israel would need to
be reduced before they would consider changing their stance on wanting all or most of Israel/Palestine for themselves.
If greed is a threat to peace, let's call the greedy people out (strictly metaphorical here). If we are part of the problem, let's
begin boycotting the movies that say bigger and better killing is the way to go.
