Frank Deaver Peace Editorials

     War is a dirty word.  Or in the famous (infamous?) words of an American Civil War general, “War is Hell!”  War is said to be the last resort when diplomacy fails.  Why then do nations and peoples continue on this path of destruction, and often self-destruction?

     Without focusing on any war – past, present, or future – let us simply weep for the usually needless suffering that war imposes on its victims.

     History is filled with the ugliness of warfare, and mankind appears not to have learned the lessons taught by history.  Nations and leaders of nations repeatedly demonstrate the opinion that the dirty work, the hell, is worth the suffering it brings.

     The suffering, unfortunately, is largely imposed on the innocent – those in the military sent to do the fighting, and those not in the military who are unable to escape the venue of the fighting.

     Decision-makers who initiate war seldom involve themselves in the fighting, but send others into the hell of battle.  A familiar saying asserts the dichotomy, “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,” succinctly defining the typical reality that the rich and powerful decide on a war they then impose on others.

     It is the victors who dictate the terms of peace, but often it is only a temporary peace.  A defeated society may be treated harshly, with a subsequent war of revenge.  Boundaries of nations may change, but the change has proven often to be only temporary.  A rebellion may be crushed, only to resurface at a later time.

     As we reflect on the realities of war and its aftermath, we must ask if the outcome is worth its price.  Does the end justify the means?  Are even desirable ends worth the cost in human suffering?

     Why do we fight?  Is it for land, or for power?  Is it aggression, or revenge? Is it greed, or hatred?  Is it defense, or pre-emption?  Is it for a noble cause, or for selfish motives?  Is it for a current and definable reason, or only an extension of ancient differences?

     These questions should lead us to even more important questions.  Are there no alternatives?  Is it not better to talk than to kill?  Has negotiation been exhausted before lives are sacrificed?  Can’t we consider what we agree on rather than on our differences?

     ** If we agree on love of family, why risk their safety, security, prosperity, and lives?
     ** If we agree on safety in our homes, why risk their destruction?
     ** If we agree on the desire for prosperity, why do we risk the creation of poverty?
     ** If we agree on national identity, why seek to destroy other identities?
     ** If we agree on love of country, why not recognize that same pride in others?
     ** Can we agree that it is better to talk without fighting, rather than to fight without talking?

     And in the midst of these unanswered questions, what is the role of Rotary?  Could wars have been avoided with the prior application of our Four-Way Test?  Is there a role that Rotary can play in reducing hostility?

     Rotary stands for international friendship, for respect, for fairness.  In this, our centennial year, we must proclaim these principles.  Our Group Study and Friendship Exchanges promote understanding.  Our humanitarian services demonstrate concern for health and prosperity.  Our Rotary Centers for International Studies were established to promote peace and conflict resolution.

     If, in these activities, we can encourage more discourse and less hostility, Rotary will have contributed to peace.  Rotary will have discouraged the hell of war.