BLOG BLAST FOR PEACE 2009 - GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

It was Churchill who said,

"Except for brief and precarious interludes, there has never been peace in the world and before history began murderous strife was universal and unending. But up to the present time the means of destruction at the disposal of man have not kept pace with his ferocity. Reciprocal extermination was impossible in the Stone Age."

Sadly, the second half of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first bear him out. My generation, the baby-boomers, now nearing our sixties, grew up in a false sense of security, believing, like our parents, that never again would men and women be stupid enough to allow themselves to come within an inch of annihilation; that never again would the world witness genocide; and that never again would civilian populations suffer as they had in World War 11. My parents' parents, in their turn, had genuinely believed that World War 1 had been "the war to end wars".

We now know only too well what the heroes of 1918 came home to: betrayal upon a massive scale comprising depression both economic and emotional. In Germany the starving children of that period grew up to become the Nazis. Therefore what we do in Churchill's "interludes" of peace matters as much as what we do in war. And I would ask what we actively do to prolong the interludes of peace. Not much, I fear, as I remember how eagerly the flag-waving crowds of Thatcher's heyday saw the Falklands warriors off on their journey to "give the Argies some bargey". Why not "give the Argies some blarney" instead? Thatcher would have been just the person to do it, although not with charm. When the weapons of destruction are so terrible that they can annihilate, surely it is better to go on talking? Churchill again:

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

For Churchill, unlike many politicians who send troops into action, had seen the horrors of war. No one, in my experience, hates war as much as a war veteran, so I have never understood why peace demonstrators are often accused of not showing respect for "our boys". Surely not wanting "our boys" to risk slaughter again is the greatest tribute that we can pay them? My grandfather, to whom I have dedicated my peace globe, was blinded at the Battle of Jutland and. as far as I know, did not feel that there was any glory in it. Once when I was on the brink of womanhood I asked my father why nations glorify war: "There is no glory in war but sometimes men do glorious deeds in war", he replied and that is the wisest answer I have ever received to this question.

I am not naive. Neither am I a pacifist. I wish I was. But I cannot honestly say that I believe that we could continue, in this era, without a standing army or that some perpetrators of crimes against humanity can be stopped by anything short of force. The problem is that we are not logical about where, when and how we use that force, are we? If Saddam Hussein's régime deserved to be ended by western intervention, why not Mugabe's? Thus we come to the awful hypocrisy of it: we wage war when and where it suits us and we send "our boys" into unwinnable situations. It makes me sick when I hear a British Prime Minister expressing sorrow over the deaths of soldiers and a few hours later announcing that he is sending more young people to meet the same fate.

Is there a "just war" then? Perhaps the question should be, "Is there a just peace?" for if we could attain this, it is possible there would be no need for war.

Yes, I believe in the "just peace". And I believe that my own country, Britain, that self-righteous old coloniser, could help achieve it. We're a little country. Little enough to do without nuclear weapons if not without our military. Could we not be a brave country once again and take the lead in disposing of the means of "reciprocal extermination"?

All I am saying is, "Give peace a chance".

John Lennon - Give Peace a Chance



Bobby Darin - Simple Song of Freedom


Serge Reggiani - Le Déserteur