PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: DREAMING BIG

Overview

As an Australian citizen born in England, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of geopolitical tensions on individual lives. My family migrated to Australia in 1963, seeking a new beginning in a country that promised a brighter future. At the time, the world was on the brink of nuclear war, with the Cuban missile crisis threatening to unleash mutually assured destruction. It was only through the leadership of John F. Kennedy and the voices of those who sought a way out of this destructive path that the crisis was averted.

Kennedy’s speech was a call for a re-examination of Cold War attitudes and a different approach to the Soviet Union, based on peaceful coexistence and cooperation. He announced his intention to pursue a nuclear test ban treaty and a reduction of arms and military spending. This speech was influential, leading to improved global security and prosperity as funds earmarked for nuclear weapons were redirected to other needs.

However, there is a deeper malaise underlying the current disinterest in geopolitics and world affairs that makes the march to global war slow and progressive in the minds of many. The film “Don’t Look Up” encapsulates this malaise, where wilful ignorance and disinterest in an existential threat appears humorous and believable, but nevertheless tragic. The idea is that we are so detached from reality and caught up in our own view of the world that we fail to see how we are collectively destroying the planet or risking our existence as a species through war between major nuclear powers.

To make international diplomacy and inter-governmental cooperation a reality in the new world order, we must focus less on the “us and them” attitude and more on peacemaking and the conditions for peace more generally. The industrial military complex has long since rationalized violence as the justification for war in defence of something worth fighting for, by making our moral and emotional response to the actions of others appear legitimate and good sense. We need to challenge this mindset and work towards a more peaceful and cooperative future.

Related Posts:

• World Peace, 10 June 1963

Just to recap JFK said in his speech:

“First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable — that mankind is doomed — that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade — therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable — and we believe they can do it again.”

Basic to this speech was the reflexive and rational appeal to self-awareness and seeing things through the eyes of others to improve relations between conflicting parties. It was an appeal to our better selves and, notably, lead to the ultimate peace dividend: improved security and prosperity as funds earmarked for nuclear weapons were redirected to other needs.

War or Imagining Peace? Which is it?

Kennedy emphasized the need for dialogue and understanding between nations during a Cold War. He announced that he, along with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, would hold discussions regarding a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He also stated that the United States would not conduct atmospheric nuclear tests if other countries agreed to do the same.

Peaceful coexistence requires a commitment to diplomacy and the willingness to work towards common goals. It involves recognizing the value of peace making and the importance of mutual respect. In a world that is constantly changing, peaceful coexistence is essential to ensuring a better future for all.

John Lennon’s words of wisdom are as apposite now as they were when he was alive. https://youtu.be/vND53ZrQD9M. He was murdered, like Dr Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, for promoting peace at a time when the world was divided into them and us.

When no one wants to hear a message, we have learned through social media to discount it, by calling it fake news, misinformation or propaganda. It can be viewed as observation bias, constructed and distributed by search engine algorithms, based on the channels we subscribe to and watch. We select from a world of information the information that best aligns with our preferences. 

This manufactured consent and observation bias is convenient for those who see material benefit in the idea that when people are divided and uncertain about the veracity of information in the public domain any truth is possible and back channels can be manipulated to sustain a delusional narrative. All that is needed, in this context, is the construction of a storyline or narrative by gatekeepers of information that preserve ignorance and a focus on things at home that are more mundane, certainly not contentious, or negative. Any existential threat, in other words, is not worthy of a conversation at a dinner party when there are much happier and positive conversations to be had closer to home. I urge you to read Edward Herman and Noel Chomsky’s (1988) book Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the Mass Media. Manufacturing consent is a term that refers to the way the mass media shapes public opinion in favor of certain political and economic or business interests, such as political or economic elites or the deep state.

Marcuse, another famous author, and philosopher, points out, that, a one-dimensional society in a totalitarian future simply accepts consciousness as a taken-for-granted reality quarantined from critical thinking or any consciousness or awakening, usually by rendering all forms of opposition and critique of the status quo ineffective. This is where cynicism prospers, and hope dies. The best social analogy is the willingness of people to shut down others who forget about the golden rule at dinner parties, don’t talk politics or religion, and certainly don’t talk about the risk of nuclear war or the existential threat of climate change when their family and friends already suffer from anxiety and depression and are dealing with more important things in their lives. One could ask if there is anything more important than a pending disaster that can be avoided if we change the way we think. But that would miss the point: there is a social mechanism and standard within the comfort zone of liberal democratic societies that ensures families and friends don’t get bogged down in complexity or confusing conversations about existential threats and how to make the world a better place. The corollary is the critique of Marx himself: he was too preoccupied with his writing and critique of capitalism to take care of his immediate family. As the story goes, Frederick Engels did that, which is a short and misleading way of saying he helped Karl Marx and his daughters and illegitimate son by paying off family debts and sending them money.

One Dimensional Man and Peace Making

As I delve into the concept of peaceful coexistence, I cannot help but draw connections to Herbert Marcuse’s work, “One-Dimensional Man”. Marcuse argues that modern society has become one-dimensional, where people are trapped in a system that limits their ability to think critically and act outside of the established norms. This one-dimensional society creates a false sense of freedom, where people are content with their current state of being and do not strive for change.

In the realm of peace making, this one-dimensional thinking can be detrimental. If we limit ourselves to the prevailing narratives and accepted practices, we may fail to see alternative solutions and miss opportunities for true peace. We must break free from this one-dimensional thinking and challenge the status quo. To achieve true peace, we must dream big and think beyond the current limitations. This means examining our own attitudes to Others and embracing different perspectives; being willing to challenge our own beliefs and biases while attempting to understand Others and their perspectives. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and just society, where peace can indeed be achieved as a precursor to sustainable development and global prosperity.

Related Posts:

• • One-Dimensional Man

• • The Relevance and Failures of Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man

For Marcuse, society is totalitarian when the matrix of technology alienates us from a form of consciousness that would liberate and free us from slavish compliance with this denial of reality and Orwellian doublespeak. As the dogs of war remind us, the path to peace is through war and defense; it has nothing to do with making money from weapon sales. Anyone who disagrees with that in reference to a just cause is potentially labeled a traitor or collaborator or simply on the wrong side of history. Wanting peace during global conflict is a dangerous business.

More than ever, we need to make international diplomacy and inter-governmental cooperation a reality in the new world order, particularly in the West’s dealings with Russia and China. To do this we will have to focus less on the “us and them” attitude, creating pariahs or demonizing others and more on peacemaking and the conditions for peace more generally. The industrial military complex has long since supported the rationalization of violence as the justification for war in defense of something worth fighting for, by making our moral and emotional response to the actions of Others appear legitimate and good sense. We are, after all, the good guys on the right side of history and they are essentially bad and on the other side.

I do believe that this MAD-ness is largely grounded in greed and mindlessness. There is, of course, a risk for those who speak against violence and advocate for peace; by not taking sides in a conflict, of being accused of collaborating with those who instigate wars. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a case in point. To understand the sequence of events that led to the invasion may be seen by some as irrelevant, historical, insensitive, or academic, during the righteous indignation and the defense of an innocent people who are the victims of a terrible injustice. Speaking about the cause of this geopolitical trauma at a time of crisis does not help ease the suffering of the Ukrainian people, but it does give us some insight into options for a negotiated settlement that are determined by the onset of war and conditions for peace; conditions that ought to have been seriously considered before February 2022. Any person who writes about this issue may be accused of taking sides, or not sympathizing with the victims even as the victims are killed in greater numbers. It is very hard to be objective when one is confronted with the horrors of war and the suffering of innocent people who are caught in the middle of this war. But when World War III starts, and the parties involved in the conflict are nuclear armed, then we are one step away from oblivion. Logic tells us that a negotiated peace settlement and a new architecture for peace in Europe is the only way of avoiding more horror. Pointing to the self-interest of either party or how one party or the other benefits in an economic or geopolitical sense does not help this cause at all. To survive in the modern age, we need to find a reason and evolve much as outlined in the Fermi paradox; where there is a fundamental conflict between the argument that intelligent life exists on Earth, and the total lack of evidence that intelligent life exists anywhere other than on Earth. The arrogant assumption is that those that brought us to the brink of nuclear war are in fact intelligent. We may need to redefine intelligence to understand the logic behind mutually assured destruction and the use of nuclear weapons when major powers find themselves facing an existential threat. I often say to my family and friends that if Aliens landed on planet earth, they would be extremely disappointed with our self-defeating attitude to stopping the forever wars that plague the planet.

Personally, in the not-to-distant past, I have considered supporting nuclear weapons for Australia as a guarantee of Australia’s strategic defense, but I now want to see the abolition of nuclear weapons altogether as a way of removing the existential threat they pose to humanity. This just seems to me to be the right thing to do.

We are all caught in the middle of these dilemmas, simply because in this age, with telecommunications and social media, we view the images of war and consume the propaganda, disinformation and misinformation as passive consumers that are so remote from the frontlines that it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I watched Stan Grant ask a audience member in the program Q&A to leave the TV studio on air because Stan was upset by his overt support from Russia and advocating violence. My initial response was to defend the right of the man in the audience to air his views, and as a result to view Stan’s emotional response as overreach. On reflection, I do see why Stan felt the way he did, emotionally caught up in the conflict through his own commentary and understanding. And I defend his right to feel and act in the way he did; being human in a free, liberal society affords everyone the right to feel upset, to express their upset and avoid being in the company of those who advocate violence against others. Sometimes it is important to draw a line in the sand, to stop hate speech and consider how all of us contribute to the acceptance or legitimation of violence by not speaking out.

I was reminded of that in my broader conversations wherein I got upset at a friend who advocated killing Putin’s children and family, as an emotional response to the images of dying children and civilian casualties in Ukraine. I walked away from that conversation and got upset myself at the hatred and vitriol. I apologized for my emotional response and after a long discussion we agreed that advocating violence against innocent people is wrong and should not be countenanced, even in anger after witnessing atrocities. We agreed in the end to wish and pray for a more peaceful world, to maintain our friendship and to avoid using language that in any way justifies or supports violence against innocent civilians who are caught up in this horrific conflict. We also discussed Australian and US killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq during those conflicts and whether all nations should have nuclear weapons to guarantee self-defence and not relying on treaties or collective security if attacked.

I believe national security should not be asymmetric or one-way. I understand that nations may try to justify their actions based on collective defense or security, however security and peace need to be mutually agreed and compromise is essential if higher order principles and sense are to prevail. I do not agree with demonization of whole countries and peoples; like racism that is inhuman and a reflection of an inability to see things through other people’s eyes. It was Jesus Christ that reminded us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I am sure there are similar or equivalent principles across all peoples and cultures. This principle reminds us to look at things differently, instead of through the lens of fear projections and loathing. Sowing fear and loathing for personal or collective gain is not helpful. Nor is the creation of pariah states through propaganda and disinformation campaigns that focus more on perpetuating violence, rather than de-escalation and peacemaking.

I hope that world leaders appreciate that we all have a better and much wiser worldview that could be mobilized, motivated in large part through some higher order aspirations for love, kindness and compassion. I extend these thoughts to all world leaders through mindfulness and prayer in the hope we can all work through problems together and find resolutions. A person at a friend’s BBQ recently said “you mean peace, love and lentils”, a disparaging reminder that, in his view, only hippies and vegans believe in John Lennon’s philosophy of peace, love and harmony in the world. I realise that people in some places view kindness and compassion as weakness or appeasement in staring down enemies and their own demons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Strong men and women throughout the world, assured of their own safety and security, extend the hand of friendship and goodwill to overcome differences and find ways to achieve peace and prosperity for others.

For Europe, there will be no peace and prosperity unless Russia and China, indeed all major powers, feel safe and secure in their own neighborhoods. A new European security architecture is needed to maintain peaceful relations and coexistence between nations. I am sure those in the United States and European capitals understand now that NATO does not guarantee peace in and of itself. People who promote war between nuclear armed countries are not being responsible world citizens. We look to leaders to provide security, not to plunge the world into never-ending wars and conflict. Sanctions are reactive and just kick the can down the road in the false belief that great nations can be subjugated economically. It may be that more countries need to declare neutrality as a worthy objective before the major powers put aside their differences and work for peace. I have no doubt the Americans would be concerned if Canada or Mexico joined a treaty organization that viewed the United States as a threat. I think there was a thing called the Monroe doctrine in the 1960s which spelled out this concern during the height of the Cold War.

We all face an existential crisis with climate change, a crisis that needs addressing in practical ways and urgently. No country needs to give up its right to self-defense and security, but all countries should consider their own security as an outcome of their willingness to maintain and support sustainable development and amicable relations with their neighbors.

Examining Our Own Attitudes toward Others and Reimagining Peaceful Coexistence in Times of Crisis

As I reflect on the topic of peaceful coexistence, I cannot help but think that many of our views and attitudes towards others are shaped by fear projections, particularly during times of crisis.

Ultimately, achieving peace requires us to dream big and imagine a world where all individuals are treated with respect and dignity. We must work towards breaking down the barriers that prevent us from achieving this goal, and actively promote diplomacy and negotiation in times of crisis.

As I reflect on how complex this issue is, I am reminded of the importance of dreaming big. We need a vision of how things could be to work toward a collective goal. When we set our sights high and work towards a common goal, we can achieve wonderful things together. To make peace, it is important to acknowledge and respect the differences between individuals and communities, along with an understanding of why war is profitable for those who don’t want peace. We must strive to create an inclusive vision of the world where peace and prosperity go hand in hand. There are after all other ways to make money rather than profiting from conflict and wars.

One way to achieve this shared vision of peace and prosperity is through education. By educating ourselves and others about how different cultures manage conflict, we can break down barriers and build bridges between people and nations. It is also important to address systemic issues that contribute to inequality and discrimination.

In addition, communication is key to achieving peaceful coexistence. We must be willing to engage in difficult conversations and actively listen to others’ perspectives. By doing so, we can find common ground and work towards a shared vision of a peaceful and just world.

As a footnote, my father passed away a few years back. I miss him. He always wished for world peace, as I do now. I will not leave Australia looking for a safe haven elsewhere, but do I send my thoughts and message of peace to all those world leaders and people who will listen and who can and should try to make a difference in making this beautiful world safe and secure for our families and future generations. I believe one day we won’t need nuclear weapons, but until that day comes, I ask you not to promote or encourage conflict and war between nations. Be willing to do as JFK suggested, examine your own attitudes, and seek compromise, extend the hand of friendship and busy yourself reimagining what world peace looks like for all concerned, not just for yourself or for our allies, but for everyone.

END