Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No Common Language Of Justice And Peace

Opinion

No Common Language Of Justice And Peace

United States' flag waves along with other flags representing the international community

Oliver Helbig//Getty Images

Which is better: A world at peace but where there is injustice in every country or a world in which justice reigns in every country but which is in constant economic, political, and military conflict? What a terrible choice! Neither world has ever existed or ever will, but it is instructive to think about both possible worlds to think about the challenges facing political leaders, corporate and nonprofit leaders, political organizations, religious leaders, and citizens themselves.

The world must clearly avoid another World War, a topic receiving increasing attention in the last year or so and especially in recent months. World War III could be a nuclear disaster, although it is not a given that World War III would be a nuclear war. Still, any World War III, whether it develops out of the war between Ukraine and the West and Russia and North Korea, Israel, Hamas, Iran and the Middle East, or Taiwan and China, is potentially a devastating war that could take tens of millions of lives.


Yet even if World War III is avoided, achieving justice in individual countries is a massive, endless journey and, for many, as frightening as war itself. Indeed, while millions pursue justice, the journey remains elusive: there is no concept of justice that all countries share in practice, although some liberal internationalists, some socialists, and some right-wing authoritarians will tell you that there is such a concept in theory.

Even taking a broadly liberal democratic concept of justice -- one that promotes basic civil and political rights and some baseline of economic goods that prevents the worst forms of poverty -- it is still hard to see how it will ever be achieved in all or even most of the countries of the world.

One reason the world is always in conflict on economic and political matters is because different countries have different concepts of justice. Add to this the basic fact that countries speak different languages, and it becomes clear why international relations and diplomacy are so challenging for all countries.

In the months ahead, as the Trump administration begins its second administration, it will be important to keep the twin goals of justice and peace in front of the administration and Congress. As the United States negotiates with other countries on economic matters, we need to work toward advancing our concept of democratic values, recognizing that other countries, even other democracies, do not share our precise concept of democratic values.

There is nothing wrong with promoting our cherished values, but we must not presume that every country lives with the same concepts. This applies especially to Russia and China. In our quest for peace, we must work more collaboratively with our allies since our enemies are forming powerful bonds that will require new alliances to combat them. The China-Russia-Iran-North Korea Axis is extremely powerful, and America alone cannot take them on. We must hold together our bonds with Europe, South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia.

And while we pursue justice and peace for the world, we must not lose sight of the fact that the battle over justice within our country is broadly similar to the battles over economic and political affairs we have with other nations. American Democrats and American Republicans, and even factions within both parties and with independents and Third Parties, do not share the same concept of justice -- or liberty or equality. Expecting a broad consensus on the world stage is even less likely.

The Freedom Caucus of the Republican Party has different ideals, values, and missions from Center-Left Democrats as well as mainstream Republicans in the same way that the United States overall has battled with the Axis Powers as well as France, Germany, and other NATO countries in West Europe. The reality is that rival factions within countries, as well as conflicts between countries, are similar in that they both talk past each other, often talking without listening to each other.

Despite the endless quests for peace and justice, whether within or between countries, citizens and leaders alike in the United States and other democracies need the kind of hope proclaimed over 50 years ago by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less