87617306
For the Latin word, Bellum, WAR, comes from the old word, Duellum, a DUEL, as Bonus from Duonus, and Bis from Duis. Now Duellum was derived from Duo; and thereby implied a difference between two persons, in the same sense as we term peace, UNITY, from Unitas, for a contrary reason. So the Greek word, polemos, commonly used to signify war, expresses in its original, an idea of multitude. The ancient Greeks likewise called it lye, which imports a DISUNION of minds; just as by the term dye, they meant the DISSOLUTION of the parts of the body. Nor does the use of the word, WAR, contradict this larger acceptation of it. For though some times it is only applied to the quarrels of states, yet that is no objection, as it is evident that a general name is often applied to some particular object, entitled to peculiar distinction.
At the very beginning of “On the Law of War and Peace” Grotius provide us with this definition of war. What strikes me about this definition is just how modern it sounds. War as a state of being whereby there is a duality, a split between parties, who then engage in a conflict. The remedy, implied in this definition, is therefore unity, or a drawing together of the duality into a singular entity, unified and peaceful. The way to do this of course is through reconnection, and that I suppose it what peace is (though I haven’t yet come across Grotius’ definition of peace). Grotius does point out in his conclusion that:
…good faith, in the language of Cicero, is not only the principal hold by which all governments are bound together, but is the key-stone by which the larger society of nations is united. Destroy this, says Aristotle, and you destroy the intercourse of mankind.
The other thing I like about this description is the almost off hand reference Grotius makes to the Greek origins of the word. War as a disunion of minds, but also a dissolution of parts of the body. In an era where modern warfare can indeed completely dissolve bodies, this is perhaps a very apt description worth remembering.
If there is ever to be a way of asserting peace in the world, especially if the leaders of states are determined to draw distinctions and division between peoples, it must therefore come from both the connection of a body to more of itself and also the connection between minds and bodies who might otherwise represent the enemy, the “other” implied by the Latin definition. For where an “other” arises, there also arises the potential for war, as the distinctions become the points upon which the conflict hangs. It’s clear that leaders hungering for war seek to emphasize difference in order to facilitate the state of “bellum.” Sewing together people, nations and issues is the way to peace.
This is of course where the tools of the common people come into play, notably conversation, connection and compassion. And technologies such as the web facilitate these things.
During the war in Yugoslavia, perhaps the first Internet war, I remember reading discussion forums heavily used by Belgrade residents to write, in real time, about what was happening around them. They reported vividly the sounds of jets over head and explosions in various parts of the city. There was rampant speculation about what was being bombed, and where the planes were coming from. Over a number of harrowing weeks, people all over Yugoslavia connected with each other and the world during the terrifying nights when they were under siege from NATO. Reading these accounts, in real time no less, drew me far deeper into that war than I would have been otherwise, and made me a part of the whole thing. Reading well written English commentary from people my own age, expressing fear as bombs fell around them, bombs dropped from planes flown by my country, made the whole thing seem almost like a civil war. It was as if we were bombing our neighbours and friends, ourselves really. All the talk of Slobodan Milosevic this and that couldn’t possibly hold up to the reality that dozens and dozens of scared English speaking Serbians were an email message away. Like my family, friends and neighbours. The web erased the primary differences of appearance, accent and location, and instead emphasized an intimacy previously uncontemplated by the makers of war.
I think the web is one powerful tool of peace. Perhaps we’ll see blogs from Baghdad if the war proceeds against Iraq, and once again we will be afforded the choice to believe in difference or attempt to erase it.
