Joseph L. Kagle, Jr. Peace Essays

Peace Will Show Its Glowing Face

What the internet allows Rotarians to do is discuss ideas from the bottom up, from the membership at large. It does not differentiate between sexes and ages, just ideas that can be voiced, debated, shaped and reshaped. One of these voices comes from a Rotarian of 35 years in service and another from a young Rotaract member who is just forming a new concept for an eClub and its mission. What is possible on the internet is a dialogue of equals where just maybe some direction of purpose is composed. This is an unfinished discussion. The finishing will happen within each eClub and the minds/hearts of Rotarians. This is one more element in the journey toward peace.

Greg: ”Some Thoughts on eClubs” is certainly an interesting subject. It’s also interesting to consider that Rotary should not be “totally” apolitical, a religious, etc. when our RI constitution (I recall) does not say, “totally”, but lawyers might say that “totally” is implied.

I agree with you that it is difficult or impossible to be “totally” but where or when is the line drawn?

Please don’t think that I am being political in the following statement but you may realize that America is not the most popular country on Earth right now. So when we discuss peace initiatives and Rotary’s missions, we must recognize that if we are not to be “totally” we must accept comments both for and against terrorists.

Exactly how “terrorism” is defined can be as difficult to define as the word “genocide” was a few years ago in relation to Rwanda. Of course, many “terrorists” call themselves “freedom fighters” and most countries during their history have either supported or themselves been “freedom fighters”.

The English called the IRA terrorists but the U.S. supported the IRA so presumably called them freedom fighters. So you see where we are going on this?

The problem I have with not being “totally” therefore, is that if any gap exists in the brick wall, the degree of apoliticalness (I have just invented a new word) can get bigger and bigger.

The bigger it gets, the more destructive (rather than constructive) becomes our peace mission. As the first thing we have to do, and a very difficult thing it is, is to try to understand what it is that we do that makes these people hate us so much that they want to blow themselves up on our front lawn. As our actions and intent become less and less , personal beliefs and we become more pro-somebody, our outcomes are less and less pro peace. Once we understand the dynamics of this (and it differs between so many “terrorists”), we may be closer to obtaining peace. If the guy in the red corner has broken your nose and is about to send you to the canvas, you don’t hit him on the head with the chair. You work out what you’re doing wrong and FIX it, real quick. Tee hee !

I am also sad to remind you that many people (particularly in developing nations) feel that the U.N. is a toothless tiger and that until it grows teeth, it will not be able to achieve, to any great extent, its objectives. The majority of people in the majority of the world and regional polls, say that permanent world peace is but a dream. The is a great challenge but fraught with the dangers of militarism (particularly unilateral) as a cure for “terrorism” when those terrorists may really only be freedom fighters. Are/were the Lebanese people terrorists or freedom fighters?

How do we promote peace when extremists of all religious and even from western countries prefer militarism to impose their views on others?

The best way for peace initiatives to succeed is to remain (in my opinion) totally apolitical and plant seeds before the bombs fall, rather than after.

I really an interested in your further thoughts because I am presently involved in a peace project that I am trying to internationalise. I pray that you and other readers are not offended by any of my comments.

Joe: I find your comments very insightful. I learned a lesson with this new essay of mine on eClubs. No matter how much one travels the world and sees other cultures, and thinks that he or she is not conditioned by the local scene (education, political, atmosphere of the time- past and present, media, country of origin and temperament), we are conditioned by what we grew up with and in. I will walk softer in the future (if I can see where I am walking). Our problem, as I see it, walking a peace path is the balance between leaning so far backward that we fall that way or forward where we land on our faces. We shift a little between the two, keeping our balance but not be a bore in the middle where you have no opinions. I think that it will take teams of individuals to walk that path: some like myself who is trained to take risks and some who pull us back when we are getting ready to fall off a cliff (being “partly” political and “partly” religious, opening up that gap that you discuss). Don’t we need at time to open that small gap, knowing that we must make adjustments later to close it? “Only-safe-actions” may not lead to peace, just apathy. If it is a dream, then it is a dream worth fleshing out into a reality someday (which we might not see but the effort is worth the possibility). From what you have said, I think that you agree: Those who do nothing, never fail, but also never accomplish anything. When Paul Harris talks about the Golden Rule in Rotary, he is being “partly” religious (even if he covers himself by saying that all religions adhere to that principle).

You are correct. We must try to see the world of actions from both sides (if there are sides). But that does not mean being passive. At some point, you take a direction in which to move and when that happens you might offend the person who wants to stand still. I think that your analogy of the brick wall with a gap in it is fair but I see us, as Rotarians, being the bricklayers to constantly repair the wall when gaps are made. To not make an opening might mean that we never see the other side or journey to that place for information, fellowship and the pursuit of peace. As Rotarians who care about the world around us, the goodwill that we might bring to others, who wish to serve and who also wish to cross borders in that service, we must see, I believe, “mistakes” as “learning experiences”. War and violence has a rich history that can be used for constructive and destructive purposes. Peace may not have the volume yet to compete, but time is not on the side of peace so moving forward is not an option for us.
That said, I agree too tat we must try to understand why people hate us so. That is so hard because it is easier to say “them” where we want to think “us”. One way that I have started to change that in my own mind is to: use verbs when thinking about some scene or incident or person instead of nouns. It is difficult because we have been schooled in “naming” things, people and actions. It helps me but I do not see it in the media or our educational systems. There is an underlying assumption when considering anything that we do not understand that we must “name it” before we understand it. Poets have done it: “To be or not to be…”, or “Upward beyond the onstreaming, it moondled” or “A rose is a rose is a rose….” My friend, Robert Wilson, builds whole, long plays around a verb, an action, and stays away from settling for a name, even the critics demand it. Maybe that is how we move: suggest but never name, describe but do not personalize, give a critique but not blame. And as I say that, I see opening gaps again in our imaginary wall.

You say, “The first thing we have to do, and a very difficult thing it is, is to try to understand what it is that we do, that makes there people hate us so much that they want to blow themselves up on our front lawn.” Yes, I agree, that is it. The eyes that we see with is what we see. It is the principle of uncertainty. The instrument with which we examine anything helps to shape the outcome of what we are examining. That instrument is our language, our beliefs, our customs, our background, our education, our…whatever. Therefore we need a global team of individuals who respect each other and are not afraid to admit that sometimes they are wrong in their thinking or sometimes someone else has a better way of seeing through their instrument. We should include a few poets who see language in a different way.

The U.N. is another of your unfulfilled dreams. As parents we allow our children’s teeth to grow by feeding them the right stuff. What is the right stuff for the U.N.? Before we throw away a tool, we should examine how we have used it in the past and how it should be used. “Planting seeds before the bombs fall” would certainly help. Isn’t that something the “terrorist/freedom fighters” have done over the internet very well? We can learn from that knowledge. There is a tool for RGHF and eClubs to use to plant seeds of peace. Isn’t that what this dialogue between us in the last couple of days doing? We need more of this participation.

It is hard for me to have “total” apoliticalness. I marched in the ‘60s for peace and that still lingers but I will try. Many of us who marched have seen that there are other ways to make inroads into “win-lose” minds.

Greg: Your comments and suggestions are the most enlightened I have read for a long time. We are beginning to get a bit controversial which I believe is highly desirable in view of the world’s present madness.

Why controversial: Answer- because the state of world affairs were different in the past. It is my humble opinion that Rotary has not evolved as much as it should have. Neither for that matter has the U.N. evolved but that is another story. World affairs (vis a vie world peace) needs a re-think and change of direction by RI to evolve into something more attune to today’s needs.

I believe with all my heart that Rotary should drop its Community Service. I believe that Rotary should ONLY have an International Service avenue. If it did, Clubs would be forced to do international projects and NOT projects within their own international borders.

That means that American Clubs, Syrian Clubs, UK Clubs, Malaysian Clubs, Israeli Clubs, etc. would all HAVE to conduct projects in another country and NOT in their own country.

Now, if that didn't have the immediate effect of improving international understanding and tolerance, nothing would. The rules would have to be strictly enforced (unlike the U.N.) and clubs disbarred if they did not comply. There could even be extra rules that incorporated further requirements to only do international projects within different religious, cultural or racial boundaries. That would prevent Australia and New Zealand, America and Canada, Afghanistan and Iraq from forming alliances or cliques as you so ably put it.

ONLY through International Service will our 1.3 million members learn about other races, etc.: their needs, their likes and dislikes, their living conditions. ONLY through international service will people become more tolerant. Recipients will learn to love their benefactors and visa versa. Can you imagine the effects of Iraqi Shi’ites being recipients of projects from America rather than bombs? Can you imagine Harlem residents being recipients of projects emanating from Rwanda? The list is endless. It forces communication between races. It forces cooperation and understanding, learning, appreciation, humility. It forces LOVE.

I am not going to expand on this opinion but my theory is far more detailed than described here.

Only one question Joe. – are we only talking of eClubs here or of all Rotary Clubs in your essay? Your thesis seems only to relate to eClubs.

Joe: After reading you email this morning about "international service" spread around to all Rotarians worldwide, I went to the YMCA to work out. It is surprising how much you think when on a stationary bike for 20 minutes, while lifting 5 pound weights 1000 times and watching world, local and sports news from 7 television sets. Here are my final thoughts (I hope) because we need critiques and comments now:
1) I agree with the direction for Rotary eClubs of "total" international service as a final destination.
2) I see excuses appearing for why it should not happen. It is the "cabbage" story: A Rotarian says that he or she cannot help in this because "His or her spouse is cooking cabbage!" The question is asked, "What does international service have to do with cooking cabbage?" The answer comes back, "Nothing, but I have found that one excuse is as good as another."
3) I would amend or suggest a timetable for how this all might happen: a) there should be a percentage for eClub members: 1st year member, 40%
international, 60% to local projects with a mentor to help; 2nd year
member, 50-50; 3rd year member, 60-40, 4th year, 70-30, 5th year 80-20, and senior members (after 5 years of service), at least 90-10%. I leave the 10% for this reason: one cannot really get away from where you live and who lives around you. Local and international service should be given (when every possible) as a team effort.

Rationale: three stories: 1) When I was growing up, my great uncle was the ward boss in Pittsburgh and I learned politics from him. He always gave a portion of his time to the local community and would always have his door open to hear requests. He was a "godfather" for that district, part German, Italian and Irish. He was finally Mayor of Pittsburgh and could broaden his ear and hand to help.

2) When on Fulbright grants and at conferences, I talked with many individuals from Middle Eastern countries and they had some insights. Why is Hezbolah successful in their community? They have a humanitarian side which aids that population in need. If you give, you get.

3) I served on the Curriculum Committee for Leadership Pine Bluff,
Arkansas and Waco, Texas. I saw somethings that I thought should be changed in the five years that I lived in Arkansas but the climate was not right for change. It took me and another member of the committee eight years to do
> two
> things: change the titles of the sessions (which changed the emphasis):
> government became "We the people;" History of Waco: "A River Runs through
> It;" and culture/art: "A Search for Beauty and Truth." I also served on an
> arts consortium that did not work together until we all agreed that "If we
> raised the cultural waters, all the art institution boats would go up."
> That
> became an incentive to do projects together to raise more funds for
> services. We have to have patience but is there time for patience is the
> question. In the Republic of Georgia, it was easy to get all the national
> arts together in major grants (things could not get worse, they felt).
Greg, that is a lot of ambitious thinking for the world, and I will have to think about it a lot more myself, but I have several points in reply. (are entitled to tear me into as many threads as you wish.) - not 'tearing' commenting.

My First thought with regard to forcing all Clubs to do nothing but international projects, and dropping all community ones, is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". As much as I agree with you that International projects are extremely important, the reason most people join Rotary Clubs to start with is to do something about their growing need to do something for their community. IF we forced this issue on all Clubs, I believe you would see a fantastic drop in Rotary Membership.

Second, that would change Rotary from an organization that runs from the Bottom up, into a Top down organization. Yes, our top does have a set of rules that we work from, but over time they have come from the bottom. No large corporation changes their leadership every year like Rotary does, and yet we have lasted 102 years. It is a business model that few or no sensible corporate leaders would suggest. Rotary gets away with it because of the yearly infusion of new ideas that start at the bottom with Club members, and they eventually work their way to the top.

It forces communication between races. It forces cooperation and understanding, learning, appreciation, humility. It forces LOVE.<<


Thirdly, I don't believe it is possible to force Love. Love is something that has to be earned because of and based on respect, and understanding. There is NO country in the world that gives as much to the rest of the world than the USA. I don't remember the numbers and don't have time to chase them down now, but the amount of GNP in the form of money and supplies and services is not matched. Look at the quick response by us to victims of the tsunami from the earthquake in the Indian Ocean, the earthquake victims in Pakistan, the Hurricane several years ago in the Yucatan area. And, at the same time our citizens also dig deep into their pocketbooks. We give and what does that bring us in return? It certainly isn't Love. Maybe on a small personal level, but not from the governments.

Having said all that, I DO believe that the more International service we do, the better and it does help to bridge the differences and help increase understanding. I believe I heard that RI has made a change of some sort to encourage more matching projects and allowing more of them to be done in the US. I think it has all gone the other way in the past. Hopefully, that will encourage any receiving US clubs to understand the importance and in their future they will take on more projects in other countries.

So, as much as I agree with you in the need for more international projects, I see very little chance of success in forcing anything, as I believe it only breeds resentment. Good leadership by example and subtle encouragement, or even not so subtle on occasion, will lead to better results. And Yes, I believe that we must continue to be controversial and to try and push the limits. As smart as our top RI leaders are, they deal more in the 'what is', rather than 'what can be', and the low level members have a better chance of generating the new ideas.

Stella: Hi folks, I was very disappointed to see the following letter in the new RIBI magazine. I think we need to answer it.

Roger: Horrifying news! I was horrified to find that there are now eClubs being formed [Virtual Rotary - June issue]. Surely this flies in the face of everything that Rotary stands for? The whole basis of Rotary is fellowship through personal contact, which enables us to carry out our tradition of service. The whole idea is ridiculous and will undermine our efforts to recruit "real" new members.

Joe: Wow! I wake and awake this morning to be new day. You begin to answer some basic questions, Greg:

Is the world of today global? Yes, it is green (money, ideas and people go across borders to carry out daily work). Yes, the problems confronting each of us are no longer local. The domino effect that was a concern before the Korean and Viet Nam Wars is now a reality. The “madness” that you speak of is a reality.

Is Rotary International international? Yes, look at the experiment of eClubs. Look at the makeup of eClubs. Look at how business (which is who started the Chicago club originally) does business today. Look at where services are for Rotary International and many local clubs.

Are there ideas in Rotary that might improve the world, Service Above Self and Service Without Borders? Maybe each Rotary should be though of as a “self”. Just as individuals “circle the wagons” of their lives so do organizations. By reaching out, we may do a better job of reaching inside the new “self”. It cannot be done by individual “selves” but by organizational “selves”. Teamwork and cooperation is one key. Rotary calls it fellowship.

Are there ideas that have been stated before in this direction? Yes, yes, yes!

Helen Keller: “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.”
Halford Luccock: “No one can whistle a symphony. It takes an orchestra to play it.”
Martin Luther King: “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”
Karem Abdul-Jabbar: “One man can be a crucial ingredient on a team, but one man cannot make a team.”
Woodrow Wilson: “We should not only use all the brains we have, but all that we can borrow.”
Edwin Land: “The first thing you do is teach the person to feel that the vision is very important and nearly impossible. That draws out the drive in the winner.”

Walt Disney: “If you can dream it, you can do it. Never lose sight of the fact that this whole thing was started by as mouse.”

Source Unknown: “Make no small plans for they have no capacity to stir men’s souls.”
Ray Kroc: “No one of us is more important than the rest of us.”
Source Unknown: “Keep your goals out of reach, but not out of sight.”

Etc. etc, etc…

I live by a thought that my father once told me: “Never make a mistake, but have learning experiences.” Of course, too many learning experiences can turn into the “madness” of which you speak in today’s world. Solutions are the outcome of learning experiences.

I think that we might, as you suggest, have Rotary eClubs learn from the world’s “mistakes”. Rotary started with Polio Plus. We have international student and member scholarships. We communicate with each other now. We have health and water projects. Let’s take a step toward fellowship, goodwill, global service and peace. It is the next step, I hope. Everyone can help others (“us”).

Thank you for your thoughts. Virtual space does not stop thinking.

Basil: eClubS. May I, as a dinosaur from an earlier age, offer a slightly different view to Joe and others' excellently argued view of eClubs.

While I accept that the pursuit of peace and conflict resolution should be an important part of any society, I do not see this as a specific raison d'etre of Rotary or even as more of a priority than its appearance as 'Object of Rotary 4'. The original ideas of Rotary lay in the friendship and fellowship engendered by regular meetings. Very soon, Rotary found a 'cause' by working together, at first for each other, then for the local community as in the public toilet project in Chicago; later, for the greater community of a nation, e.g. food parcels for first World War soldiers, and eventually for the world as a whole, e.g. Polio Plus and Shelter Boxes. Such work is the remit of all similar service clubs. In my view Rotary is basically a service club and this service, in essence, is humanitarian. It is not merely a 'talking shop' but a 'doing force'.

However, while membership of Rotary is international, each nation, indeed each club, interprets Rotary in its own way. In the USA one salutes the flag; in Britain we toast the Queen. But, what happens, for example in Eire which is one half of RIBI District 1160 ? At a person to person level, the halves of Ireland are well integrated but their own personal and national aspirations may be contradictory. They suborn their differences for their service to their communities. What we accept is a desire not to allow political, ethnic or religious differences to mar our personal fellowships, friendships and actions. Our remit is primarily humanitarian service. Even in this, our work has over the years caused problems. The Church in some countries, such as Spain and Ireland, once objected to Rotary because it was doing work in the communities which was considered the prerogative of the Church. Political authorities in totalitarian countries have regularly banned Rotary as a potentially subversive organization with strong links to the United States.

In the case of eClubs, where membership may not be local and thus dedicated to the needs of a local community, it may well be multi-national. For them, there may be an added or separate code in which 'Object of Rotary 4', the pursuit of peace and conflict resolution, becomes the main priority, but this should not be the case for ordinary clubs. If we are to continue with eClubs, then it may be that they will need a new set of precepts, appropriate to their status.

By the way, it is perhaps an example of a slightly distorted view of the world that "planning situation one" referred to "America's War in Iraq". Those of us in countries which may also have lost many troops in Iraq, do not believe that it is "America's war" though we may also be in agreement about the lack of a plan for peace. It is in the nuances of such wording that many problems arise.

None of this implies that I am against Rotary being involved in either 'peace' or 'the United Nations' or any other similar body, when Rotary is invited to participate, but I would not wish to see the movement slanted towards these as priorities in their activities.


Kate: I just arrived from my vacation in Puerto Rico and found all of your emails very interesting and exciting. I'm surprised how similar your conversations are to the ones we have within our e-group. As you said, it's about training local members (Rotary or e-Rotary) to think globally.

On the terrorist vs. freedom fighter conversation, an important topic has been raised. This debate has raged since before the American Revolution/Uprising until recent movements. What is often confused is the fact that terrorist refers to means and freedom fighter refers to motive. A terrorist is anyone that inflicts terror to achieve their desired results. Freedom fighters work toward liberation. Aren't Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Aung San Suu Kyi freedom fighters? They didn't employ terrorist tactics. On the flipside, we can all think of political groups that may be classified as terrorists but not freedom fighters.

The United Nations in its present state is very similar to the federal system established by the Confederation of States (prior to the United States Constitution); each member retains some level of autonomy and shares some power with central government. Just as the Confederation lacked power, the UN will not have any teeth until the member states begin to share power with the collective. More power must be shared between the states and central government for the central government to be effective. The answer may not immediately lie in bodies such as the UN which lack political power, but in regional groups like the European Union. As it was alluded to, the green governs; with economic unity will come political unity and the ability to establish a centralized peace-keeping body that can guarantee life and liberty across national borders. I think Jean Monnet is an interesting study in peacekeeping.

This is not the end of this debate, dialogue. It is a beginning. There will be other voices that come into the forum of ideas and possible actions. The pendulum will swing from local concerns to global interests and back again. Neither will be right but the swing between them will start a process of discovery for the balance of an answer. Peace is a dream yet unfulfilled but it is a dream worth dreaming and working toward. In today’s world, it is one of the highest callings for dreamers and doers As long as there is a platform for ideas, ideas will come forth. Someday, we will awake to find Peace showing its glowing face. This condition for the world will benefit local, traditional Rotary clubs and the new baby, Rotary eClubs. . .