War over Peace

PEACE: freedom from civil or inner disturbance

Latin’s pax, meaning “tranquility or absence of war” gave peace to the English language. In the 11th century, pais (Old French) meant “peace, reconciliation, silence, permission.” In Anglo-French, pes identified both “an agreement” and “the absence of war.” In hypothetical prehistoric Proto-Indo-European, the base *pag- meant “to fasten,” suggesting connection to a pact as something to which previously warring parties attached some token signifying an agreement to cease hostilities—perhaps something like the seals attached to royal treaties ending a war.

Around the turn of the 11th century, a spiritual sense was added to the political meaning, as in “peace of the heart, soul, or conscience.” John Milton uses that sense in his verse drama Samson Agonistes (1671), which depicts the rash biblical figure facing his end and finding “internal peace.” Despite foolishly revealing the secret of his hair, Samson comes to see his situation as part of God’s plan and resolves himself to his condition, achieving peace of mind, if not peace with his enemies, the Philistines.

Political Peace

Article 1 of the United Nations Charter (1945) states the signatories’ desire to “maintain international peace and security.” The UN has sought to achieve this goal on more than 70 missions executed since 1948, all carried out to preserve political peace. In 1945, the UN chartered the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its purpose is “to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture.” On the surface, these words also seem to indicate an intention to encourage political peace. However, UNESCO now seems to be setting the stage for an Orwellian change.

In 2024, UNESCO published a resolution entitled “Peace Education in the 21st Century,” which defines peace as “not just the absence of war and direct violence (‘negative peace’)” but also as involving resolution of “the underlying causes of conflict that can lead to violence and war (‘positive peace’).” UNESCO goes on to define what it calls “unconventional” threats to peace. These include “climate change, large scale human migration, social injustice, the scarcity of resources (food, water, biodiversity, oil, gas, etc.) and pandemics.”¹ UNESCO’s new mission apparently seeks to lessen violence, injustice, and inequality by embracing the driving ideologies of the Left.

Political Indoctrination

This mission is to be accomplished by “peace education.” Its curriculum teaches students to see climate change “on a par with nuclear proliferation,” and its “peace” necessitates “factors that make society less violent, unjust, and unequal.” Violence, too, undergoes a redefinition to include “hidden” and “indirect forms” implicit in “norms, customs, and laws.”

UNESCO’s goal, then, is to engineer “global equity … as a condition for peace”²—an aim as ambitious as that of George Orwell’s world government in 1984.

UNESCO’s scheme presumes the efficacy of global elites to preserve political peace by reshaping the world. Individual rights play no role, and spiritual peace, such as that found by Samson through confession and repentance, is not a part of it. As in 1984, UNESCO seeks to control the world by first controlling words.

Peace treaties are agreements between parties seeking to live in harmony rather than conflict, andtrue peace is a spiritual virtue nurtured by freedom, not by indoctrination. Throughout history, the moral structure of most states has been that of their dominant religion. Under the guise of seeking peace, UNESCO seeks to impose its own secular moral structure on sovereign nations. This is not a recipe for peace but for conflict.

Notes
1. Lisa Logan, “UN Redefines ‘Peace’ To Revolutionize Classrooms With More Critical Theory,” The Federalist (Nov. 20, 2024).
2. Ibid.