Deliver Us from Evil

Last week the Pope, in his “World Day of Peace” message, voiced a major challenge to Catholics, Christians, and people of good will everywhere. This frail, failing man presses on with his papal agenda even while others speculate about his successor. Perhaps 2004 will see a new pope elected, but meanwhile this man’s words hold a prophetic, almost electric, charge.

“Peace is possible,” he said. “And if peace is possible, then peace is a duty.” In my opinion the pope, with these simple words, has nailed the problem that peace-making poses for millions of American Catholics. His logic is simple (“If A, then B”), but his premise (“peace is possible”) is, to the American mindset, radical and controversial.

I meet a lot of ordinary, rank-and-file Catholics in my work, and I find many who express this view: “I hate war. Everybody does. But sometimes it’s the only way.” I translate this to mean either (1) peace is an impossible, utopian goal, or (2) a long-lasting, stable peace can only be maintained by the threat of war.

This was, of course, the logic behind the Cold War against the “Evil Empire,” and now the same logic supports the war on terror and the “Axis of Evil.” The idea now is to build peace by terrorizing the terrorists and their supporters. If America is ready to bomb, invade, and occupy any opponent, the logic goes, then we can frighten hostile nations into doing what we want. So attacking Iraq helps us control both “allies” like Saudi Arabia and “enemies” like Syria and North Korea.

This logic is not really modern—it is a clone of the old “Pax Romana,” the “peace” imposed by the Roman Empire through invasion, occupation, and terror throughout the known world. Jesus, of course knew this kind of “peace” first hand. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because the Roman occupiers ordered Joseph there for the census. Jesus grew up belonging to a conquered people, living in an occupied land. He knew any rebellion could lead to brutal destruction. He knew anyone seen as threat could be hung on a cross to die in public, as a terrifying example to keep the people docile. Indeed, Jesus suffered precisely that fate; our religion was borne of that “peace-keeping” terror.

Today, America enjoys enough military dominance to repeat the Roman strategy for “Pax”—and we’ve already made quite a start in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the lesson of history is clear. All empires have the same fate: they fall. They fall because their idea of “peace” rests on conquest, and every conquest produces conquered people, and the conquered always hate their conquerors. That hate is the sand on which all empires ultimately rest. Americans love to be loved, but all evidence shows that dislike, distrust, and hostility toward the US is spreading far and wide.

The Pope sees peace differently. He is a European, and Europeans see Roman ruins everywhere they go. They also remember more recent attempts to revive “Pax Romana,” like Napoleon’s Empire and Hitler’s Reich. They know that empire leads not to peace, but to ruins. But they also see another model for peace, one they much prefer. Ironically, this other peace is the “American recipe” for peace, which Europe observes in our history and wants to adopt for itself and the world.

They know that the 13 former US colonies gained our independence by war, but then struggled to establish our new identity. We experimented with the Articles of Confederation, which left too much sovereign authority to each state—like letting each state print its own currency! The need for a stronger, “more prefect union” next led to the US Constitution, made possible by several “great compromises” where states yielded sovereignty to a central federal government. But the true logic of federalism was only tested decades later, when southern states attempted to secede and war forced them to remain. So the Revolution brought independence, but only the Civil War cemented us as one nation. The Europeans see the aftermath of this: a federal system of states at peace with each other for more than 140 years, and an American people who believe that war between our states has been banished forever.

Europeans likes this “Pax Americana” recipe so much, they have begun to build their own “United States” in Europe (officially, the European Union). Independent states like France and Germany are yielding sovereignty to an increasingly powerful federal system that already includes a parliament, a court system, a single currency, and military force, and soon will have its own constitution. The “old Europe,” which began this union as the Common Market in the 1950s, has already achieved peace for more than 50 years (since world War II). Now it is welcoming new states this year so that all Europe will achieve the same kind of lasting peace the North American continent already enjoys.

John Paul II has been a key player in making all this possible. When he says the “paths to peace” are difficult, he speaks from the experience of living in a country repeatedly occupied by conquerors from Germany and Russia. He knows we have arrived at a fork in the road of history. We all say we want peace, but which path shall we take? The “Pax Romana” built on conquest, threat of war, and fear—or the “Pax Americana” built on federalism, law, and trust and already being copied by others?

Seems to me the choice is simple. Why settle for a fraudulent “peace” (where war always lurks in the wings, threatening to upstage peace) when we can have a real peace that banishes war altogether? John Paul II claims such peace is possible, and the historical record (since 1865 in the US and since 1945 in Europe) proves him right. Why not choose the real thing instead of its counterfeit?

The problem is, extending “Pax Americana” worldwide would take sacrifice. To achieve international federalism, the US would have to sacrifice the double standard permitting it to attack other nations. It would have to compromise its absolute sovereignty and accept international law as binding on US actions. It would have to abandon the unilateral actions of a rogue nation (like the doctrine of “preemption” and the policy of nuclear first-strike) and abide by the rules and regulations of international organizations. Indeed, the pope’s address called for a reform of the United Nations to empower it to preside over just such an international system.

Maybe that kind of sacrifice is too much to ask of Americans. Maybe the price tag of peace is too high for them. Maybe that’s why so many believe that peace is impossible. How sad: for a nation to create the model for world peace but refuse to let the world have it.

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com