The main argument for focusing on opposition to one\u2019s own country\u2019s wars is that such opposition is the most practically effective strategy. A country\u2019s citizens generally have far more influence over what their own government does than what other countries\u2019 governments do. While the odds are typically stacked against peace activists\u2019 efforts in any situation, such activists have at least a better chance of stopping or limiting their own governments\u2019 war-making than of having such an impact on other governments. A home-country focus is a better use of one\u2019s energies.<\/p>\n
Further, trying to stop other countries\u2019 hawkish policies isn\u2019t only inefficient, it can be dangerous. Pushing for opposition to or confrontation with another country can easily increase international tensions in a way that makes war more likely or can escalate existing wars. This danger is especially great if activists try to exert pressure on other countries through their own governments, which are full of policymakers who don\u2019t share the activists\u2019 own concern for peace.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2-blog-no-nukes-1-1024x680.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Promoting Peace Abroad<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn contrast, advocates for anti-war efforts with a more global scope could argue that peace activists need to be concerned with war and its victims everywhere, regardless of the countries involved. National boundaries don\u2019t eliminate the larger bonds of humanity, and work to stop war\u2019s violence shouldn\u2019t be limited by such boundaries either.<\/p>\n
Further, trying to stop only one\u2019s own country\u2019s hawkish policies isn\u2019t a good long-term response to war in general. Even if activists could end all wars and related policies pursued by their own governments, war would presumably continue in the world, and peace activists would still need to grapple with that. Also, if peace activists\u2019 own country is directly involved in a conflict with another country, that situation might well require activists to identify responses beyond just refraining from waging war. Working to stop another country\u2019s hawkishness might be inevitable in such situations.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/9-blog-world.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Possible Approaches<\/strong><\/h3>\nI see the strengths of both positions. Finding some balance or middle way between them that doesn\u2019t set peace activists against each other is difficult. I will just offer some tentative thoughts on how to address the legitimate concerns of both positions:<\/p>\n
\n- Peace activists should devote most of their time and energies to opposing the wars and hawkish policies of their own governments. This is the area where peace activists can be most effective (and therefore perhaps have the greatest obligation to act). Peace building at home should be activists\u2019 focus.<\/li>\n
- However, this home-country focus should not become an exclusive focus only on one\u2019s own country\u2019s war-making. Peace activists should sometimes work against other countries\u2019 war-making, even if this isn\u2019t their primary concern.<\/li>\n
- On those unusual occasions when peace activists do work against other countries\u2019 war-making, they should strive to work through channels other than their own government. Working through international institutions such as the United Nations or non-governmental organizations and (perhaps most important) working in collaboration with peace activists in the targeted country is a preferable way of opposing another country\u2019s hawkish policies. Working through one\u2019s own government is a risky approach, as it can all too easily turn opposition to the other country\u2019s war into a cover for one\u2019s own country\u2019s hawkish policies.<\/li>\n
- While peace activists should focus on opposition to war-making by their own countries, they should always remain aware of and informed about war-making by other countries. They should cultivate this global perspective for two reasons:\n
\n- Even if we cannot do anything else, the absolute least we can do for victims of war around the world is to recognize their suffering.<\/li>\n
- A global awareness of war makes peace activists more effective in the struggles within their own countries. Having a broad, cross-cultural understanding of wars and the situations in which they occur makes peace activists better analysts and critics of their own countries\u2019 wars. For example, knowing that countries that are very different (politically, economically, or culturally) from an activist\u2019s own country have nevertheless pursued similarly hawkish policies can give that activist a more sophisticated understanding of why countries pursue such policies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Peace activists should always seek to identify creative new ways of resolving conflicts without resort to violence. This will help both in opposing their own countries\u2019 wars and those of other countries. (This last point is perhaps the most obvious one of the whole list, but it never hurts to emphasize it.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As I said, these are just tentative ideas. Whether or not these particular suggestions are the best approach, peace activists should give careful thought to the problem of how we can best promote peace at home and abroad.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
===========================<\/p>\n
For more of our posts on the peace movement, see:<\/em><\/p>\nMaking the Case for Peace to Conservatives<\/a><\/p>\nFifty Years of Protesting for Peace<\/a><\/p>\nThe Consistent Peace Ethic<\/a><\/p>\nAn Example of Why the Peace Movement is in Deep Trouble<\/a><\/p>\nInconsistency Sabotages the Peace Movement\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/p>\nI see the strengths of both positions. Finding some balance or middle way between them that doesn\u2019t set peace activists against each other is difficult. I will just offer some tentative thoughts on how to address the legitimate concerns of both positions:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Peace activists should devote most of their time and energies to opposing the wars and hawkish policies of their own governments. This is the area where peace activists can be most effective (and therefore perhaps have the greatest obligation to act). Peace building at home should be activists\u2019 focus.<\/li>\n
- However, this home-country focus should not become an exclusive focus only on one\u2019s own country\u2019s war-making. Peace activists should sometimes work against other countries\u2019 war-making, even if this isn\u2019t their primary concern.<\/li>\n
- On those unusual occasions when peace activists do work against other countries\u2019 war-making, they should strive to work through channels other than their own government. Working through international institutions such as the United Nations or non-governmental organizations and (perhaps most important) working in collaboration with peace activists in the targeted country is a preferable way of opposing another country\u2019s hawkish policies. Working through one\u2019s own government is a risky approach, as it can all too easily turn opposition to the other country\u2019s war into a cover for one\u2019s own country\u2019s hawkish policies.<\/li>\n
- While peace activists should focus on opposition to war-making by their own countries, they should always remain aware of and informed about war-making by other countries. They should cultivate this global perspective for two reasons:\n
- \n
- Even if we cannot do anything else, the absolute least we can do for victims of war around the world is to recognize their suffering.<\/li>\n
- A global awareness of war makes peace activists more effective in the struggles within their own countries. Having a broad, cross-cultural understanding of wars and the situations in which they occur makes peace activists better analysts and critics of their own countries\u2019 wars. For example, knowing that countries that are very different (politically, economically, or culturally) from an activist\u2019s own country have nevertheless pursued similarly hawkish policies can give that activist a more sophisticated understanding of why countries pursue such policies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Peace activists should always seek to identify creative new ways of resolving conflicts without resort to violence. This will help both in opposing their own countries\u2019 wars and those of other countries. (This last point is perhaps the most obvious one of the whole list, but it never hurts to emphasize it.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
As I said, these are just tentative ideas. Whether or not these particular suggestions are the best approach, peace activists should give careful thought to the problem of how we can best promote peace at home and abroad.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
===========================<\/p>\n
For more of our posts on the peace movement, see:<\/em><\/p>\n
Making the Case for Peace to Conservatives<\/a><\/p>\n
Fifty Years of Protesting for Peace<\/a><\/p>\n
The Consistent Peace Ethic<\/a><\/p>\n
An Example of Why the Peace Movement is in Deep Trouble<\/a><\/p>\n
Inconsistency Sabotages the Peace Movement\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n