By ROBERT METZ
Guest writer
"All we are saying is give peace a chance" goes the popular tune that peace activists have adopted to support their demonstrations against United States' involvement in Kuwait. It's true: that is all they are saying. Beyond that, they have nothing to say, nothing else to protest against, and nothing to offer in the way of a realistic solution to a problem that has plagued mankind since the beginning of recorded history: war itself.
Supporting the war is not an issue; nobody supports war. The real issue is whether or not we support our right to take collective action against armed physical aggression. It seems to me that unless we support such a right our ability to peacefully govern ourselves will be utterly lost. That leaves those who use force against others in perpetual control, eliminating the possibility of peace altogether. If you're not allowed to strike back at someone who's hitting you (or your friend), then you simply don't have any rights at all. The bully wins every time.
PROFESSIONALS: That's why I must speak out against the so-called peace protesters - particularly the professional agitators who invariably have some hidden political agenda to promote (usually socialism or anarchism) and who exploit the sincere peace sentiment of many who simply wish to express their concern for those trapped in the ravages of war. In the case of Saddam Hussein, these professional protesters are supporting the bully - in more ways than the might imagine.
Though they profess love and concern for the survival of mankind, peace protesters demands that war or weapons be outlawed in the name of humanity would ensure that the peaceful nations of this earth would soon be taken over by the criminal nations. Criminals and dictators don't obey laws - not even their own. How can you possibly enforce the outlawing of weapons without having them yourself? The contradiction is obvious and, if accepted, self-destructive.
Given that they call themselves peace protesters, it's remarkable how you only hear from them when Americans are involved in a conflict. Wars and dictatorships have spilled blood for oil for the better part of this century, not just since Jan. 16. Where were all the committed peace protesters then? A glance at their protest signs will demonstrate that they are not protesting for peace, but against the United States.
Considering that, in the absence of conscription, none of the protesters will have to go to the gulf, the protests are somewhat misdirected. If they hate war, fine. Nobody's asking them to go. But by protesting against those who have made a different choice, they are undermining the rights of fellow citizens to take action against aggression, and by default, supporting the philosophy and actions of dictatorships. It is a tragic display of moral cowardice.
As philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand so powerfully wrote in her 1966 essay, The Roots Of War: "This means that (peace protesters) are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed."
In their attempt to claim the moral high-ground on the issue of Canadian and U.S. involvement in the war, protesters are quick to cite past injustices perpetrated by the two countries, arguing that this negates the moral right of either country to act. This is a false and irrelevant issue. As citizens, we must always be supportive of the right action, whether or not it is being carried out by persons with pure intentions. Since none of us are pure in this regard, does this negate our right to justifiable action? I think not.
NOT OIL: The war in Kuwait is not about oil, or about Kuwait, or about a host of injustices that may have been perpetrated by some Mideast nation against another. The war is about a ruthless dictator, who, by invading another country, has given every other peace-loving nation on Earth the moral right to take action.
In this case, they exercised that right. By doing so, they have challenged the centuries-old axiom that "might is right" with a new perspective, namely, that right is might.
Let's hope would-be dictators the world over eventually get the message. It is they who are the enemies of peace.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
