The inconvenience of peace

Like many people, I would like to have peace, just as long as I don’t have to work too hard for it. You know what I mean, right? I don’t want to have to change or be inconvenienced by peace. But as the saying goes, the reality is, “You can’t keep doing the same thing, and expect to get different results.” So, like anything else, if I don’t have peace and I want it, I’m going to have to change the way I think about things and do things.

Years ago I came across a statement about peace that has stuck with me: “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.” This statement struck me because it goes against conventional thinking. The general expectation is that first we need to establish peace, and then we’ll have unity. If we first build peace with that country then we’ll eventually become unified, and consider ourselves as one. But this statement challenges that thinking. It says there is no way to have peace until you first establish unity with that nation. Establish your unity, and then peace, security, well-being will naturally follow. Without unity first, there is no way you’ll have peace.

On the surface, this statement seems to address the concept of global peace, which for many of us is a distant and abstract idea. I have plenty of “lack of peace” in my own life. Maybe that’s a place to start. So, I began to consider that this same principle might apply to not only world peace, but also to the day-to-day peace that we all want in our lives. In my mind, I began to replace the word “mankind” with smaller and more intimate relationships. “The well-being of this marriage, its peace and security is unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.” “The well-being of my workplace, its peace and security is unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.” “The well-being of my government agency, its peace and security is unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.” The well-being of this friendship, of these ethnic groups and cultures, of my interaction with my employer or my employees—every relationship or organization—its peace and security is unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.

Well, this is a change. It’s a change in thinking, and like I said, I am glad to have peace, as long as I don’t have to be inconvenienced. And change is inconvenient. Big time. It’s going to take some convincing.

As I thought more about this, I began to see that pretty much every problem in the world can be boiled down to disunity. Wherever there is a lack of a sense of oneness, there is a lack of peace and security. Wherever is a lack of appreciation for the idea of unity—that we are a “unit,” we are one, we are the same on a deep fundamental level, our feelings are the same, our pain is the same, our laughter and joy is the same—wherever this idea of oneness and unity is lacking, there is no peace.

Here is an example. Two ethnic groups are at war—maybe subtle war, maybe outright war. The world tries to solve the conflict by trying to first address issues of peace and security, without touching on the concept of unity at all. “Let’s see,” says the world, “Well, first, everyone has to put aside their weapons. Next, let’s draw some borders. You people all stay on this side of the line, and you other people stay on that side of the line. And let’s see if this works. Maybe after a while, you’ll be able to get along better and not kill each other any more.” This is pretty much the same approach many of us parents take when trying to negotiate peace among our warring children (which is maybe where this approach toward international peace negotiations came from!)—make them stop hitting each other, send the kids to their separate rooms, and hope that when they come out, they’ll get along better.

In both scenarios, sooner or later, war is going to break out again. The peace is temporary. The security is ephemeral. Because it was not based on unity. It’s not based on the concept that despite our differences, we two people are really fundamentally one. Without establishing this concept as the fundamental basis for peace, the peace will eventually erode. And I think this concept can be applied to all our relationships. First establish (or re-establish) the unity between friends, employees and employers, spouses, co-workers, members of government, businesses—whatever relationship might exist—and peace, security and well-being will be a natural and lasting outcomes.

So, maybe I’m a bit more convinced now. But, this raises a whole new set of questions. If I need to shift my focus to first establishing unity, what am I going to have to do differently? What is needed for unity to exist, especially in my daily life. We’ll continue the discussion next time. I suspect it’s going to be a bit inconvenient.

(David Khorram, MD is a board certified ophthalmologist, and director of Marianas Eye Institute. Questions and comments are welcome. Call 235-9090 or email eye@vzpacifica.net. Copyright © 2005 David Khorram.)