The paradox of peace through aggression | Political Economy

#paradox #peace #aggression #Political #Economy

Eace is a deeply cherished value, transcending the boundaries of time, culture and faith. It is the tower toward which humanity collectively strives, the foundation upon which societies, religions, and great thinkers have sought to build a harmonious future. The claim that peace is ensured by an aggressive military buildup, or by spending vast resources on defense forces, presents an inherent contradiction—a contradiction that challenges the very essence of what peace is supposed to represent. In many ways, this paradox reflects a struggle humanity has long faced: the tension between the ideal of peace and the brutal realities of war.

Throughout history, religious orders and great philosophical movements have espoused peace as their central principle. Christianity, for example, promotes peace, forgiveness and love, through the teachings of Jesus Christ. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God,” says the Gospel of Matthew (5:9). Yet history is replete with examples of religious institutions and rulers who fought wars, fought battles and suffered untold suffering in the name of faith. This contrast between belief and practice, between the ideal of peace and the grim reality of war, points to a fundamental truth: the path to peace cannot be paved with bloodshed.

Islamic tradition similarly speaks profoundly about peace. The word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which means peace and submission. The Qur’an often emphasizes peace and reconciliation as in Surah al-Furqan (25:63), it says: “And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk easily on the earth, and when the ignorant address them.” [harshly]they say [words of] Peace.” Despite these teachings, there have been instances throughout history where wars have been fought in the name of religion, leading to discord between these religious orders and the ideals of peace espoused by their followers.

This contradiction is not limited to religion. Modern political and social systems are also affected by the paradox of achieving peace through war. George Orwell’s dystopian slogan of 1984, “War is peace,” echoes the absurdity of this logic. Although Orwell’s work is fictional, this phrase captures the paradox that is often a reality in international relations.

Governments/state apparatuses justify military interventions, arms production and defense spending to secure peace, security and stability. Yet these actions often increase tensions and fuel conflicts. The arms race during the Cold War serves as a prime example: both sides, convinced that they can secure peace by building up their nuclear arsenals, prefer global catastrophe to any lasting peace. Approached.

Political systems and modern states, including Pakistan, often justify the formation of the military to secure peace. However, these actions increase tensions, as evidenced by arms races and interventions.

Sufi philosophy, rooted in the belief in oneness and oneness, teaches that peace comes from recognizing the interconnectedness of all humanity.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in his seminal work Perpetual Peace that peace could only be achieved through the establishment of a democratic constitution, a federation of independent states, and the spread of cosmopolitan law. Kant’s vision, based on the idea that peace is the natural state of rational human beings, is diametrically opposed to the idea that peace can be created through war or by increasing military power. According to Kant, peace is not the result of conquest, but the result of cooperation, understanding and the rule of law. In this regard, peace should be seen as a goal to be pursued through diplomacy, dialogue and mutual respect, not through force.

Sufi philosophy, rooted in the belief in oneness and oneness, teaches that peace comes from recognizing the interconnectedness of all humanity. This ethic of harmony is in stark contrast to nationalist rhetoric that often promotes aggression toward perceived enemies.

The famous American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., also supported the cause of peace through nonviolence, famously declaring, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. ” The king understood that true peace is not just the absence of war but the presence of justice, equality and mutual respect. His vision of peace was not one that could be won through aggression or pressure from others, but emerged from solidarity and love.

As MK Gandhi, a staunch advocate of non-violence, said: “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.” His words remind us that peace cannot be achieved through violence, as every act of aggression only perpetuates retaliation, making lasting peace even more elusive. War, conflict, and aggression may bring short-term victories, but they leave their wake of destruction, loss, and division. It is ironic that those who claim to seek peace often resort to means – violence and war – that stand in direct opposition to it.

The contemporary world often chooses to see peace as a product of military dominance. This theory posits that the threat of violence, or actual war, can deter aggression and lead to peace. Ironically, the notion of achieving peace through preparation for war or through actual conflict contradicts the very essence of peace itself. As Lao Tzu once said, “The best fighter is never angry.” True power is not in the power to destroy, but in the wisdom to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

Bertrand Russell was well aware of the contrast between peace and war when he said, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” This statement highlights the futility of war, the destruction it causes and the inevitable loss that both sides face. Even victory is of no real benefit when human lives are lost, when societies are torn apart and when violence continues.

Finally, peace cannot be achieved through aggression, however well-intentioned. It is a tragic irony of human history that those who seek peace through war often fail to recognize that war in all its forms is inherently destructive and detrimental to the cause of peace. The notion that one can build a peaceful future by preparing for conflict is an oxymoron that has been proven wrong time and time again. As the Dalai Lama said: “We cannot find peace in the outside world until we make peace with ourselves.” True peace, then, begins from within—the cultivation of understanding, compassion, and a nonviolent approach to conflict.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, peace cannot be maintained by force. This can only be achieved by understanding. The paradox of achieving peace through aggression will persist as long as we fail to recognize that the path to lasting peace lies not in the accumulation of military power but in the cultivation of diplomacy, empathy and cooperation. When humanity abandons the misconception that peace can be achieved through violence, we will come closer to realizing the true meaning of peace. It is hoped that Pakistani decision-makers will learn from the intellectual will of these enlightened minds.

The author is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Beacon House National University, Lahore.