David Cortright is a research fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and the president of the Fourth Freedom Forum. He has served as an adviser to governments and agencies of the United Nations, and he is an authority on economic sanctions, nuclear disarmament, counterterrorism, UN policy in Iraq, and nonviolent social change.
Cortright's book Peace traces the history of peace from its earliest origins through opposition to the Iraq war and the “war on terror.” It examines the lessons of history and underlying principles of peace — nonviolence, democracy, social justice, and human rights — through the lens of “realistic pacifism.”
Q: Why do we need a history of pacifism?
A: My hope is that Peace can help to overcome misperceptions. The word “pacifism” has been misinterpreted to the point where we really can’t use it anymore. It connotes naïveté and negative images of appeasement and cowardice. But its original meaning was much more holistic: advocacy for peace and seeking to prevent war. I use the term “realistic pacifism” to help recapture the original meaning of the word.
Q: When you were invited to write Peace, you explained to the publisher that you weren’t an absolute pacifist. How do you describe yourself?
A: My view is that we should avoid war at all costs, but there may be circumstances where the use of strictly controlled and legally authorized force is necessary to serve justice or protect the innocent.
I believe that using targeted and limited force to go after Osama bin Laden and terrorists who commit mass murder against innocent people is justified. The use of force also may be necessary to protect people against genocide and annihilation. In contrast, an absolute pacifist position doesn’t allow for the possibility of armed struggles to achieve justice and protect the innocent. It will not support military actions for any purpose, under any conditions.
Q: In Peace you discuss how nonviolent approaches can be realistic for policymakers dealing with the challenges of war and peace. Can you give an example from today’s news headlines?
A: For 99 percent of all disputes in the world, effective nonviolent means are available and can be used to achieve justice and protect the innocent. Sanctions in Iraq were preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and getting more power. That’s accepted now, but initially no one paid attention to the evidence.
Another example: The United States recently had some success in North Korea after offering economic assistance and vowing to remove Pyongyang from the State Department’s terrorist list (a list of states that sponsor terrorism) if North Korea were to close down its nuclear program. For North Korea, that was a real incentive for nuclear disarmament. The country’s government released long-awaited details of its plutonium program and dynamited a cooling tower at one of its nuclear reactors. Peace theory says you can’t convince another government to follow your wishes through coercion alone; you also have to provide incentives.
Right now among policymakers there’s too much of a tendency to view the military as the primary institution for addressing conflict. The primary message of peace theory and practice is that numerous other tools and methods are available and have been proven to work.
Q: What surprises did you uncover as you researched the book?
A: I was surprised by how much solid social science research exists to support the oft-repeated saying from Pope Paul VI: “If you want peace, work for justice.” It’s not just a phrase — some of the best social scientists in the world have proven that a lack of economic development is associated with armed conflict.
Social science research also shows that in societies where women are empowered economically, politically and socially, there is less propensity to use violence to solve social problems. Enhancing the socio-economic status and education of women is one of the most successful strategies for raising social economic development, which in turn promotes less violence.
Q: What has been the role of religion in peace history?
A: While religion often has been misused to justify horrendous violence, the great religious traditions also have teachings about peace at their core. Christianity derives its commitment to peace from Jesus’ commandment to love all, including our enemies.
In Islam, the Arabic term salaam is translated as “peace,” and is considered one of the holy names of God. In Judaism, the Hebrew word shalom embodies all of the conditions and values necessary for the prevention of war, including social justice, economic well-being, and human rights. Many of the core concepts and teachings from major religious traditions are founding principles of peacemaking.
Q: What do you mean when you say that peacemaking is a moral commitment?
A: We know that conflict exists in the world and that humans often resort to violence. The struggle against violence exists in each one of us, and we must renew the commitment to the ideal of peace every day of our lives.
