In researching a yet to be completed post I found my way over to the Vatican website. While there I found the following that offers clarification on my previous posting regarding the meaning of peace. A comment to this post pointed out that I was not fully correct in my interpretation of the definition of peace and they were right to do so. The Catholic Catechism provides another (I think better) definition.
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.
If I accept this definition then peace is not preservation of the status quo or détente as I stated earlier. The original intent of my discussion of peace was to determine whether or not UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was truly living up to what Gynne Dyer called his almost sole responsibility of watching over the peace of the world. To be specific how is the UN doing in Darfur? Clearly the conditions outlined above are not being safeguarded. So the next logical question is now what? This is where the Catholic concept of “Just War” comes into play.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Discounting the fact that I do not fully understand the term “serious prospects of success” the situation in Darfur comes down to “are all other means of putting an end to it been shown to be impractical or ineffective”. In good faith I would have to admit not yet, but it is pretty close. The next logical “other means” against Sudan is to enact sanctions against their oil industry. Will this be effective? How long does it take to determine whether sanctions are ineffective and in the meantime how many more people have to die to prove the point?
