Nicole Dovel

Physical violence is now so common in our society we are all but desensitized to it. The horrors of a mugging, of rape, or of military violence are passé on the nightly news. US policies like the “War on Drugs”, the “War on Poverty”, and the “War on Terror” are a reflection of our society’s emphasis on war and aggression. One byproduct of a culture that is as focused on war and aggression as ours is, is that we mistakenly attempt to create peace through violence. As an example of this, I was dismayed to learn recently that over 80 percent of the War on Drugs funding in Columbia goes to military and police aid. Over $3 billion has been spent there since “Plan Columbia” passed in 2000, and yet it is still common consensus that the US has not effectively helped Columbia reduced the availability of drugs either in Columbia or here in the US. What does this show about our culture? I think it reveals a misplaced notion that we can “fix it all” with force. We try to change the world using force. Just look at the “War on Terror”, or the “War on Poverty”. These issues, like drugs, stem from social issues. Social inequality, racism, gender discrimination, poverty, broken families, and poor education contribute to the causation of most violence, and are all going to necessitate a lot of intervention on both a governmental funding and agency level, and on a personal one-on-one level in order to address these issues successfully. In the case of Columbian drugs, I don’t understand why someone thinks that an ingrained belief and pattern of growing and selling drugs can be dismissed from someone’s mind just by supporting a military junta. Drug use stems from a lack of education and opportunity. If no other viable options are available, what more can be expected of anyone in that situation? Why don’t we invest in education, in social programs, basically in the PEOPLE, not in guns? It may be just me, but it seems like it would be a lot more effective solution.

This is an article I thought was very timely and should be read. It was published Oct. 3, 2007, at

http://peaceblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/promoting-real-security-through-international-cooperation-and-democracy-building/

The title of the article is:

Promoting REAL Security through International Cooperation and Democracy Building

Let me know what you all think.

———————-

This week we have all seen the horrors unfold the territory formerly known as Burma. It was renamed Myanmar in recent years by the ruling military junta. Up until 2 weeks ago Myanmar was the internationally recognized and used name for this state much to the dismay of Democracy activists and Buddhist Monks. Now, since the pictures of a dead Monk floating in the Inle Lake and the truth of the military dictatorship have immerged in mainstream media the international community has jumped on the ‘democracy for Burma’ bandwagon.

Isn’t it a little late to support these Democracy activists? Would it not have been more productive to address this issue back in 1990 when a general election voted agianst the militaristic government and these results were thrown out by then State Peace and Development Council Chairman Than Shwe? This is the man who responsible for the atrocities of recent weeks and for the renaming of this once democratic country.

Pres. Bush, at the UN meeting declared that we must support democracy in Burma. After our invasion he declared we must support democracy in Iraq, and after 9/11 he declared the Afghans ‘hated us for our freedom’. Why, after we supplied AK47’s and rocket launchers to the Taliban to support our proxy war with the Soviets did they have such a change of heart against the U.S.?

Surely, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was a significant factor. But how did this rise occur? The Taliban, like the SPDC did in Bruma, took over Afghanistan with military might. They terrorized Afghan citizens, created a huge refugee crisis, and institutionalized Madrasah educational systems to teach Islamic fundamentalism to the oppressed and disenfranchised population. It is apparent to me that if we had supported a democratic movement and given non-military aid (in the way of education and basic necessities) to citizens in those early years we could have avoided the tragic events of 9/11. Subsequently, we could have avoided the current international quagmire we find ourselves in today. No one straps a bomb to their body if they are leading a fulfilling and secure life.

The only way to combat terrorism and promote grassroots democratic systems is to engage the population BEFORE the violence comes to a head. We have the largest military in the world and yet we have no Peacekeepers. We allocate 90% of our security budget to our own military and a fraction of it to international cooperation. It is time we switched our priorities to secure a future for our children and children all over the world.

So often, we focus on global peace. While this is certainly a valuable endeavor, it is also important to consider the importance of personal peace.

In our culture, time is of the utmost importance. It is to be scheduled, used constructively, spent, lost, gained, or killed. Many times, Americans are more concerned with getting things done on time (aka on a predetermined, arbitrary schedule) than they are with developing deep interpersonal relations or maximizing intellectual benefit. Many time, this preoccupation with time comes at a cost to personal peace. Personal peace has to do with being content, fulfilled, living a satisfying purposeful life, and having balance between work and leisure. For me, I know I struggle between wanting to “do it all” (perfectly, of course), and between saying no because I know despite my best efforts, there will never be more than 24 hours in each day. When my life is balanced; when I feel purposeful, effective, and at peace with myself. I am much more productive. I have better health, and enjoy my life more because each experience I engage in has more meaning to me, and I interact with my life more. One clumsy way to describe this is to say that when I have “personal peace”, I am happier.

What would happen if more people tried to create balance in their lives and strived to live in a fashion where they ended each day feeling peace in their hearts? If each person was personally at peace, how would that change international relations? If people were in harmony with themselves, they would be in a position to discuss and work collaboratively to create a greater peace and harmony. Personal relationship coaches teach that before you are ready to be in a committed relationship with another person, you must first be complete and whole by yourself. Why isn’t this same advice applied to relationships on a grander scale? I’m not advocating for isolationism, but I am hoping that we as humans can begin to acknowledge that peace is a holistic approach, and cannot be accomplish in the western paradigm of “either/or”, but rather in the eastern “both/and”. Meaning that we cannot focus either globally or internally, but must instead incorporate both diplomatic relations, multinational organizations, and national efforts within our own borders. This improves foreign relations, and prepares our own country to be ready to deal with other countries and their different manners of living. Thus paving the way for peace.

We’re in a peace and diplomacy floor. So we are supposed to be learning about how to communicate, and how to resolve conflict. Immediate to our own daily lives is the fact that RMWC is now RC. I have been thinking about this a lot lately. The upperclassmen have had an amazing experience so far. They have been changed and empowered by being at RMWC. It had such an affect upon them, they do not want any aspect of that experience to change. However, one of the biggest and most notable distinctions of that particular experience is the fact that they attended a school with only female students. For various reasons this is no longer the case. It appears to me that while originally, this may have been a very important aspect in creating the setting for a life changing experience, what makes RC special goes beyond this. It encompasses the dedicated faculty, caring students, a desire to create a cohesive supportive community, and a recognition of the power of the young and the importance of honor and integrity. One way community is built is through shared experiences, such as skeller sings and silly traditions like the even/odd rivalry, ring week, and the pumpkin parade. Most unfortunately, the upperclassmen seem to have forgot what it was that they love about RMWC and what they supposedly believe in their heart. Their cruel rejection of the first year class and polarizing actions have done nothing but communicate to the first years that we are NOT welcome here. This is very sad because it could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy that the upperclassmen said; that this year’s first years are different, and don’t belong. By not welcoming the first years with open arms- as every other class was before us-the chain is broken. First years, excited by the prospect of creating themselves and of attending what they recognized as a very unique & special community, are now choosing to not be a part of the Randolph College community because of the way they were treated by upperclassmen. I hope that the upperclassmen will be able to recognize the destructive nature of their behavior. Yes, as individuals we may be accepted, but as a whole we are rejected. Randolph AND Randolph Macon are about accepting all types of people, and yes that does include men. Whether you (upperclassmen) are happy or not about the change, attacking first years- physically or emotionally- will only serve to cement the negative change you fear. What we as a school can learn from this is to be brave, and take action.