Title Page:

The Problem of Peace / The Possibility of Peace

An Address by Dr. Charles Malik

Blue Box Info:

The following is a commencement address delivered by Dr. Charles Malik at Hope College in
Holland, Michigan on Wednesday, June 3, 1953. This address was given almost two months
before the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed (July 27, 1953).
 THE POSSIBILITY OF PEACE
Commencement Address at Hope College, Holland, Michigan,
on Wednesday, June 3, 1953

by

Dr. Charles Malik

Ambassador of the Republic of Lebanon to the United States and Representative of
Lebanon on the Security Council of the
United Nations

I
Peace is on every mind today. There is the Korean War which, so far as I know,
everybody wants to see ended. Religious leaders everywhere preach and pray for peace.
President Eisenhower has repeatedly affirmed that peace is his objective: a real and lasting
peace. Europe–and especially Sir Winston Churchill–displays an ardent desire for peace. I
think it is apparent by now that India under the leadership of Mr. Nehru will do almost
anything to prevent a world conflict. The present Soviet masters for weeks and months now
have been chanting the hymn of peace. As for the smaller nations, it is of the essence of
their position to want and work for peace. Nothing disturbs more the thought of the ordinary
man and woman going about their daily cares than the Possibility of war. People simply
crave to be told that we are on the road to peace, that there will be understanding and
concord, that a conference here and a little concession there will bring about peace.
But when people are in this desperate mood, they may fall in grave error. Desiring
peace with such fervor, they usually indulge in wishful thinking, refusing—with terrible
consequences to themselves and their children—to face the realities of the world. Nothing is
harder than to introduce sober, hard thinking into the mind of an anxious man
And so I propose to raise the ultimate issues of war and peace at this
Commencement. And first I ask: Are we to conclude from the universal desire for peace that
peace is the highest thing to which we should aim? Is peace an unconditional good, so that it
would be right to seek and achieve it at any price? May there not be something above
peace, something beside which war is not the greatest evil?
These are fundamental questions. Mankind has always wrestled with them. In the life
of every generation critical moments arise when one must come to grips with fundamental
questions of war and peace. I believe we are at such a critical time in history today. When
people no longer take peace for granted, when they anxiously profess a desire for peace, it
is evident they are at the same time debating in their minds the question of war. No man, no
leader, who talks peace is not at the same time wondering in his mind whether peace is
possible. We may therefore lay it down as an incontrovertible maxim, that when talk of peace
is in the air, it is not because peace is really just around the corner, but it is precisely
because there is a terrible fear and danger of war.
But entirely apart from these general questions of principle, we are faced today with
the concrete situation of the tension between the Communist world and the non-Communist
world. One third of the world is completely sealed off: economically, politically, socially,
intellectually. We know precious little about what is really going on there. Moreover, this
Communist world has very clear ideas about what it conceives to be the rottenness, the
decline, the decadence, the evil, of the rest of the world. It is therefore moved by a Messianic
view of its own destiny vis-a-vis the outside world. Finally, the Communist world is armed to
the teeth and disciplined to the hilt, but what do we see on the other side? Politically, we see
bickering and squabbling and disunity; psychologically, we see softness and a
weakening of the moral resolve; and economically, we see high tariffs as between the free
nations, material greed vitiating and obscuring the larger issues. To really face the situation
of peace today we must not only raise the questions of principle but also grapple with these
terrible immediate matters.
But first as to the questions of principle.
II
We asked three questions of principle: Whether peace is the highest thing, whether
peace is an unconditional good, and whether war is the greatest evil.
I cannot overemphasize the fact that there is so much confusion at the present
moment about these issues that as a matter of fact we cannot seek to be too clear on them.
The answer to all these questions is in the negative.
Peace is not the highest thing. Truth, freedom, goodness, justice, are higher than
peace, and if they are attacked, it will be our duty to take up arms and defend them. Peace
therefore is a by-product: if we aim at truth and goodness first, peace will inevitably result.
But if we aim at peace above everything else, even if that should mean the sacrifice of truth
and justice, then the resulting so-called peace is an absolute sham.
It follows that peace is not an unconditional good and it is right to defend oneself and
one's goods if attacked. The pacifists who would accept peace under any condition should
be reminded of two facts: first, that they would use force to defend their families and their
children if attacked, and second, that we have today great treasures of the mind and the
spirit which the pacifists and the rest of us enjoy, precisely because the previous generations
were not pacifists, but did protect these values against the assault of tyranny and barbarism.
It follows thus that war is not the greatest evil. Injustice, falsehood, despotism,
darkness, these are worse evils than war. In fact great civilizations declined and fell precisely
because they ceased to have something above peace for which they were quite prepared to
die and therefore to live.
The Romans defined peace as the tranquility of order. This is a good definition. But
what if there was fundamental disorder: political disorder, economic disorder, social disorder,
and above all disorder and disarray in the souls of men. Do you call the apparent tranquility
then real peace?
The ideal of peace at any price therefore is nonsense. Peace for the sake of peace is
nonsense. Truth and justice are above peace and we must live for them. And when there is
fundamental disorder we must bring forth a corresponding fundamental effort to correct it, an
effort that may involve the risk of war.
This then is the preliminary distinction of principle that I wish to see settled first.
III
Concerning the tension which the advent of Communism has introduced in the world,
we must, I think, raise the following questions:
(1) What are the prospects of a Korean armistice?
(2) What are the prospects of a Far-Eastern settlement?
(3) The significance of the rise of Asia.
(4) The central problem of Germany.
(5) The factors that make for peace and the factors that make for conflict in the
present world situation,
(6) Is peaceful coexistence possible?
(7) On whose side is time?
 Obviously this is a formidable order, but nothing short of an absolute and carefully
reasoned-out clarity on all these issues can answer authentically the question of whether
peace is possible. I shall take up only a few of these matters, and that in the tersest possible
terms.
IV
It is clear peace in Korea is not unconditional. The term "honorable" has been used
to qualify it. The condition of an "honorable armistice" seems to be that no prisoners of war
who do not wish to go back to the Communist domain be repatriated by force or by
intimidation. This is a fundamental point of principle, partly on humanitarian grounds, partly
because until the larger issue is resolved of whether Communism and the rest of the world
can coexist, it is right to hold out the prospect of secure freedom for whoever wishes to
escape from the Communist realm. Since it is inconceivable that the Western world will
compromise this issue, and since on the other hand it strikes at the very heart of the
Communist pretensions, the deadlock seems to be pretty deep. But a face-saving formula
within the limits of honor for both sides can be devised.
Armistice in Korea is one thing, and relatively easy: A Far-Eastern settlement is
entirely another, and much more difficult. Such a settlement raises above all the
question of the position of China and Japan in the world. Until China is ideologically and
politically independent, I doubt if a Far-Eastern settlement is possible. Also any such
settlement must ensure that the balance of forces in the Far East will not be further upset in
favor of Communism. In particular, a healthy, strong and friendly Japan appears to be
absolutely indispensable to the free world. Thus peace in the Far East is principally a
function of a fundamental change of heart in China and of a flourishing and free democracy
in Japan.
V
As compared with the situations in 1914 and 1939, the factors that make for peace
today–in the sense of mere absence of general war–are the following:
(1) The fact that the Soviet military machine has a different concept of war from that
promoted by the German military machine.
(2) The fact that the two powers without whose participation there could be no
general war—namely, the Soviet Union and the United States—have no need of territorial
expansion.
(3) The fact that America and Russia are not as critically contiguous to each other as
Germany was to her immediate mortal enemies.
(4) The fact that the American character and the Russian character in general do not
glorify war.
(5) The growing consciousness of the unspeakable destructiveness of modern
warfare.
(6) The mediating, moderating and restraining influence of such countries as India
and Great Britain.
If these factors serve as brakes against a possible conflagration, there are on the
other hand three fundamental respects in which the situation today is worse than it was in
1914 and 1939.
First, there is the fact of the Iron Curtain. There was no such curtain around
Germany. Peace is at best completely unstable so long as our one world is divided into two
worlds with no economic, social and intellectual intercourse between them, and so long as
the non-Communist world knows almost nothing about what goes on in the Communist
realm.
 Second, there is the fact of the Communist ideology. How can peace be real so long
as this ideology militantly dams all fundamental values outside its reach and so long as it has
disciplined agents all over the world fomenting the overthrow of the existing order by violent
revolution?
Third, there is the fact of the rise of Asia. If this rise did not entail a further upsetting
of the power balance in the world, it would have been to the good so far as the prospect of
peace was concerned. But there is a gradual softening and annexation of Asia by
Communism. I ask: can this process be allowed to go on indefinitely?
I must add that concerning both sets of factors there are fundamental imponderables
that cannot be gone into here.
He must be a far wiser man than I am who can assure you that if you weigh the
factors that make for peace against those that make for conflict you will come out reassured
with respect to the future.
VI
The phrase "peaceful coexistence" or "peaceful competition between the two
systems" is often used. This is a high-brow manner of inquiring whether war is inevitable.
Thus, those who believe in the possibility of "peaceful coexistence" or "peaceful competition"
are simply saying war is not inevitable.
Now it can be easily shown that according to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, war
between the Communist and the non-Communist worlds is in the long run inevitable. Their
deepest conviction which I can prove by page after page of quotations is that the world will
never be safe for Communism except after Communism has conquered the world.
The man who says that "peaceful coexistence" is possible—that is to say, the man
who says that war in the long run can be avoided—is himself either a Communist or a non-
Communist. If he is a non-Communist and really means what he says, then I fear he must be
a simpleton: for in reality he does not know what he is talking about. He has not read the
prophets of Communism: he does not know that, as I have just said, they believe absolutely
otherwise.
On the other hand, if such a man were himself a Communist—and there are many
Communists who say so today then you must remind him quietly of two things: first, that his
masters do not agree with him, and secondly, that since Communism teaches that lying and
deceiving and betraying are nothing, that they are quite permissible, nay often necessary, if
thereby the Communist can further his ends, we cannot believe anything he tells us. Thus in
the nature of the case we can have no confidence whatsoever that when he is preaching
"peaceful coexistence" he is not only lulling the rest of the world because he is not yet ready
for the decisive blow.
You cannot say—and be believed—that there can be peace and concord between
Communism and the rest of the world when your masters, your prophets, your fundamental
doctrine, the faith by which you live and move and have your being, teaches the exact
opposite.
VII
There remains only one possibility: that Communism has repented and therefore has
overcome itself. Until this happens, I am convinced real, lasting, genuine peace is
impossible.
There is much talk today about a possible change of heart in the Kremlin, about a so-
called “palace revolution,” about the liquidation of Stalinism and the starting of a fresh
new page in Russian history. If any of this is true, peace then is possible. For whatever can
be lawfully done by the outside world to induce a fundamental modification of Communist
doctrine, should be done. Along this line alone lies the hope for peace.
But to be true, this must involve a complete revolution in the thinking and practice of
Communism: a revolution of which we see no real signs. Have the fundamental ideas of
Marx been repudiated? Have the basic teachings of Lenin and Stalin been contradicted? Is
free economic activity allowed? Is the old Russian spirituality permitted to reassert and
propagate itself? Do the Russian masters really believe in objective truth, in the ultimacy of
the human person, in the existence of an objective law of justice above the dictates of the
state? Has dialectical materialism been declared an absolutely false doctrine? None of these
things has happened. But until they happen, peace is an absolute chimaera.
I say there is no evidence that Communism has thus
overcome itself. The difficulty is that a totalitarian doctrine like Communism that has been
radically instilled into the souls of people for a hundred years, and in whose defense millions
of human beings have gladly sacrificed themselves, cannot be abjured overnight. There is
no evidence whatsoever that an inner spiritual counterrevolution is on the march in Russia.
And even if it were, it would take at least ten years, probably a whole generation, before
Marx and his spirit were completely rooted out.
We may then say that so long as Marx and his disciples are the last norm of the truth
in the Communist domain, so long as there is no free normal intercourse—economically,
socially, politically, intellectually—across the Iron Curtain, so long as China is not
independent and Germany not yet fully integrated into the family of nations, and so long as
there is no letup in the armaments race, peace can never be secure.
VIII
The most important question is none of these matters I have raised. The most
important question is this: on whose side is time?
I am not in possession of the necessary knowledge which will enable me to answer
this question. But of three things I am absolutely sure: that this is the most important
question, that responsible leaders and statesmen must seek above everything else to
answer this question, and that on its answer all planning, all acting, and all hoping depends.
IX
Peace is certainly a function of strength and health: military, economic, and political.
To think for instance that in the present crisis you can secure peace and at the same time
maintain an endlessly rising standard of living is to suffer from a terrible illusion. You will be
very lucky indeed if before you are through with this thing you will have your standard of
living reduced by only one half.
But the greatest source of strength is moral and spiritual. It is from the peace of God
that passeth all understanding that all worldly peace that really matters finally emanates.
Have we had an experience of that peace? Do we know what it means to be grounded in it?
The young men who are graduating from college and university this season need that peace
more than anything else. For the coming years will be most exacting in the demands they
shall place upon each one of us.
If we have gained some idea of the ultimate living truth which judges us all, if by
means of this idea we see through the sham and falsehood which corrupt so much of the
world today; if we understand the love wherewith God has loved and continues to love us
despite ourselves; if we accept with thankful hearts every suffering and every trial in the
name and for the sake of this wonderful love; and if we trust Him in simplicity and in truth;
then I believe He will grant us the power to stand firm, and, standing firm, to triumph over
evil. At least if we go down then, we will not have gone down in vain. For history is justified
not by man nor by the vain imaginings of men, but by the blood and tears of the saints.