The Difference Between Peace and Freedom

No matter how much you may want it to be, it's not the same...

Caveat: I actually wrote this piece several weeks ago after someone else had posted a 'give peace a chance' article. I hadn't planned on posting anything for a while, but I just read Little-Whip's article here: Link and thought that instead of a really long comment, I could leave an even longer article.

This is not a simple debate. Dictionary.com says the following about freedom:

free•dom ˈfri dəm - Show Spelled Pronunciation[free-duh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

And the following about peace:

peace pis - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pees] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, interjection, verb, peaced, peac•ing.
–noun
1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
2. (often initial capital letter ) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism: the Peace of Ryswick.
3. a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, esp. in personal relations: Try to live in peace with your neighbors.
4. the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security: He was arrested for being drunk and disturbing the peace.
5. cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.
6. freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, anxiety, an obsession, etc.; tranquillity; serenity.
7. a state of tranquillity or serenity: May he rest in peace.
8. a state or condition conducive to, proceeding from, or characterized by tranquillity: the peace of a mountain resort.
9. silence; stillness: The cawing of a crow broke the afternoon's peace.

So many people who have freedom seem to think it equates or should equate to peace. It does not. Conquerors from the beginning of human history have offered the nations and people they’ve conquered peace. The Roman Empire that spanned the known world even called it the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. They would smash any opposition, establish a new local government, and begin receiving tribute in the form of riches, raw materials, and slaves. If a country or people resisted, they were crushed. If they went along with the Romans, if they surrendered their national or cultural heritage and identity, if they subjugated themselves to their conquerors, if they gave up their freedoms, they became second-class citizens of the Empire, and enjoyed the benefits of the Pax Romana, peace.

China brought peace to Korea. Then Japan brought peace to Korea. Then China brought peace to Korea again, back and forth like that for some time. The Mongols brought peace to China. Throughout the Middle Ages, various European countries brought peace to each other. The English Empire during the Victorian era brought peace to various locations throughout Asia, Africa, and India. The Kaiser wanted to bring peace to a Europe united under the enlightened rule of the Prussian Aristocracy. The Nazis tried to bring the peace to the world through spiffy uniforms, bureaucracy, lots of drill and ceremony, the elimination of most religions, conflicting ideologies, and the Jews. All of them. The Soviet Union wanted to bring peace to the world by enforcing the rule of communism, which would have worked if everybody had just been willing to give everything they ever worked to get to someone else. Pol Pot tried to bring the peace of a simpler, more idyllic time to the people of his nation. Fundamentalist Islamic radicals want to bring the peace of Sharia Law to every unenelightened infidel on the planet. Under their supervision, we can have the peace of enforced prayer, public executions of anyone caught disobeying the law, including women looking directly at men, or women driving, or getting an education, or speaking their mind, or men allowing their wives, sisters, or daughter to have any of those freedoms. Etc. etc. etc.

Peace here in the Middle East is possible, it’s even easy, and many sides have proposed the method: all you have to do is kill and/or drive out everybody in X group, and we will have achieved peace.

Everybody out there arguing that we need to give peace a chance is ignoring the nature of peace as practiced by most of the world. Peace is what whoever is in charge allows you to have. You can have peace, as long as you don’t rock the boat. I hear guys here in Iraq and back in the states talking about how things are worse now than they were under Saddam, because at least he kept the peace. They forget already about the torture chambers, the Death Squads, the midnight disappearances and executions, the mass graves, and the gassing of villages that didn’t toe the line. Saddam kept the peace alright, good for him.

The other argument now is that we, the United States, have now become the conquerors, and are crushing world resistance and setting up our own version of peace. On the surface, this is close to true, but there’s more to it. Our motives are what makes a difference. We are trying to create a climate in which the people of Iraq can establish their own freedoms. I will grant that maybe our methods might be flawed, and we all need to understand that a free Iraq may not ever look completely like a free United States, simply because our cultures are so different.

That is the effort, though, to bring freedom to the people here. And, as has become painfully obvious, it is not a peaceful process. Freedoms like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. These are freedoms we enjoy in the US, that we exercise daily, and that, unfortunately, not many of us really understand. Or rather, we don’t understand how rare and precious they are, and how easily they can go away. One of the ways dictators maintain the peace is to take away freedom, they silence critics who speak out about freedom of speech, they censor the press, and suborn it for their own propaganda purposes, they use tear-gas and fire-hoses on protesting assemblies, tell you what god you can worship, and when, and how, and they take away your weapons so you can’t fight back when they come to punish you for disturbing the peace with your complaints.

Before you insist that the US is wrong for getting into Iraq and protest the war just because it’s the war, look at the alternatives. Would you really want Saddam back in power? Do you really want us to leave now, knowing that the only thing that’s providing even the smallest amount of security here for the average citizen is the presence of Coalition Forces? Do you want Iran to move in here and set up another fundamentalist state with their stone-age ideology, intense hatred for all things western, and potential for creating their own nuclear weapons? Do you want us to abandon these folks to someone else’s idea of peace just when they’re starting to figure out how to keep their freedom?

Peace is not the same as freedom, it never has been. Any peace that anyone has enjoyed while at the same time enjoying freedom has been worked hard for and fought for. Most times you can’t have both, so you have to decide, which would you rather have? If you want peace, that’s easy enough, just knuckle under and do what you’re told. If you want freedom, be prepared to do without peace.

blogging

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post