Cicero was a precursor of humanism and pacifism. He believed in “audiumenta hominum” (collaboration between men) which is why he hated militarism, opposed the centurions who sacked the defeated cities and demanded mercy from all those who the defeat left without the protection of the laws. But not everything that the great Roman philosopher and jurist taught on the subject of war and peace was correct.
His belief that “bad peace will always be better than the best war” has been contradicted by many tragic chapters in history. Today the author of the De Legibus, the Philippic and the De Oficcis would not dare, for example, consider that “the peace” they signed served a purpose. Chamberlain and Daladier with Hitler giving him the Sudetenland. Instead, what the disastrous Munich Pact did was encourage the Führer to devour the rest of Czechoslovakia and then advance into Poland and then the rest of Europe.
History is plagued by terrible peace agreements that have only served to shed rivers of blood. The “Ciceronian” must have thought of this. Donald Trump before making peacemaking promises that might encourage or fuel wars, rather than prevent or end them. The fact of not having categorically denied the version that could cause the United States to leave NATO will hardly be able to avert the dangers of wars for Europe. On the contrary, it inflames the expansionist claims of Vladimir Putin; Likewise, the repeated promise not to involve Western power in any military conflict while in the White House can serve as a green light for China to invade Taiwan.
The idea that democratic governments have some sort of addiction to war contributed to the victory Kamala Harris. This idea, converted into propaganda and repressed in the media and on the networks, has to do with the two world wars in which the governments of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt respectively entered, and with the Vietnam war that Lindon Johnson unleashed and in which he placed late Republican Richard Nixon.
However, Ronald Reagan financed the Nicaraguan Contras and launched the invasion of Grenada. In turn, George Herbert Walker Bush invaded Panama and launched Operation Desert Storm which removed Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, while his son George W. invaded Iraq and Afghanistanstarting wars that made other wars worse. Ergo, it is not correct to say that Democrats make war and Republicans make peace. In any case, it worked for the New York tycoon, even if when he talks about world pacification he seems not to include conflicts such as the bloody war between the paramilitary forces commanded by Hamdan Dagalo and the Sudanese army led by de facto president Abdelfata al Burkhan, who is devastating for Sudan.
But the bigger question is what he will do to end the wars in Europe and the Middle East, as well as prevent what hangs like a sword of Damocles over Taiwan. At that point, the promise of a peaceful White House can unleash hell. Xi Jinping He came to power promising to annex Taiwan. If the Chinese leader becomes convinced that Trump will not actually be involved in any war while occupying the Oval Office, he will be tempted to invade Taiwan during that period.
The only thing that stopped the Asian giant from launching itself on the island is the possibility of clashing with the United States. Therefore, if it is clear that, as long as Trump is president, Washington will not attack China for that island, Xi knows that he has four years to carry out the announced invasion without running greater risks. By the way, it would be great if you could end the war between Russia and Ukraine, seats Putin and Zelensky negotiate. But the only end of the conflict he alludes to is the capitulation of Ukraine and the victory of the Russian invaders. This does not mean achieving peace.
The only way to prevent the head of the Kremlin from expanding the map of Russia at the expense of Ukraine is to strengthen the resistance of the invaded country so that it can resume the offensive and weaken the invader
What Trump has said he will do is the opposite: he will cut off the supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, forcing it to negotiate an end to the conflict. handing over Crimea and Donbassbut much more.
Cutting military aid to Kiev will reduce the duration of the war, but will not impose a just pacification. Trump will reward the invader and punish the invaded, because he will leave the Ukrainians without the possibility of continuing to fight to reconquer the territories occupied by the Russians. If it were to cut off supplies to Ukraine and withdraw the United States from NATO, it would encourage the Kremlin chief to continue advancing his wars of conquest into Europe.
What is likely is that by rewarding expansionist aggression, new wars of territorial expansion will be stimulated. If Trump guarantees American non-intervention, why should Putin refrain from advancing on Moldova and Lithuania? As for the Middle East, what is your plan to end the eternal conflict? It will convince the Saudis and other countries and organizations that do not recognize it Israel sign the Abrahamic Pacts and ensure the safety of Israelis and the disappearance of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian-run enemies?
The other big question that Trump gave no clue about: Does his plan involve convincing Netanyahu to accept the “two-state solution” so that a Palestinian state exists in Gaza and the West Bank? Will you pressure the Israeli government to remove settler settlements from the West Bank? Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian representatives must disappear, and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must become territories vital for the existence of a state.
Does Trump have a formula for moving towards peace with territorial justice for the Palestinians?
#Trump #war #peace
How do Cicero’s philosophies on war and peace apply to contemporary conflicts in Europe and Asia?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Foreign Policy Expert on the Legacy of Cicero and Modern Peace Efforts
Editor: Good morning! Today, we have a very interesting topic to discuss—Cicero’s views on peace and war and their relevance in today’s geopolitical landscape. Joining us is Dr. Laura Emerson, a renowned expert in classical philosophy and international relations. Welcome, Dr. Emerson!
Dr. Emerson: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Cicero is often credited as a precursor to humanism and pacifism, advocating for “audiumenta hominum,” or collaboration among men. What do you think he would say about current global conflicts?
Dr. Emerson: It’s compelling to consider Cicero’s ideals in the context of today’s world. He passionately condemned militarism and argued for mercy towards the defeated. In many ways, he would be disheartened by the persistent cycles of violence we witness, especially considering his disdain for those who exploit war for power.
Editor: That’s an insightful perspective. However, you noted that his statement, “bad peace will always be better than the best war,” has faced criticism. Could you elaborate on that?
Dr. Emerson: Absolutely. History has shown us that many so-called peace agreements have led to greater conflict down the line, such as the Munich Pact with Hitler, which only encouraged further aggression. Cicero would likely reassess his position in light of such outcomes. Peace should not be a mere absence of conflict but must be a constructive resolution that addresses underlying issues.
Editor: Speaking of unresolved issues, the current geopolitical climate raises questions about the future of peace in Europe and Asia. How do you perceive Donald Trump’s potential impact on international relations, especially regarding NATO and China?
Dr. Emerson: It’s a complex situation. Trump’s approach could inadvertently embolden figures like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. If Trump signals a retreat from NATO obligations or non-involvement in conflicts, it may enhance the likelihood of aggression from countries like Russia and China. For instance, Xi might see an opportunity to act in Taiwan if he believes the U.S. will not respond decisively.
Editor: That’s a sobering thought. How important is military support in these contexts? You mentioned that Trump promised to cut military aid to Ukraine—what implications could that have?
Dr. Emerson: Cutting military support would likely embolden aggressors rather than promote peace. While it may shorten a conflict temporarily, it risks leaving Ukraine vulnerable and unprepared to negotiate from a position of strength. Cicero’s emphasis on justice and lawful conduct would argue against sacrificing one group’s autonomy or security for a facade of peace.
Editor: So, in a situation where Trump calls for negotiations and potentially compromises Ukraine’s territorial integrity, what would be the right approach to prevent further escalation?
Dr. Emerson: Ideally, the West would strengthen Ukraine’s capabilities, supporting them not just militarily but also through diplomacy. A more balanced strategy that reinforces democratic values would create a more robust front against aggressors while respecting the sovereignty of nations. Cicero might argue that any peace achieved through coercion is not true peace, but rather a veneer that could easily shatter.
Editor: It seems we’re at a crossroads where the very premise of peace must be re-evaluated. As we conclude our discussion, what lasting lesson can we draw from Cicero’s philosophy in today’s context?
Dr. Emerson: We must remember that peace is not merely the absence of war, but a state of justice and mutual respect. Cicero’s strong advocacy for law and morality in governance reminds us that any pursuit of peace must be grounded in ethical considerations that truly benefit humanity. Fostering dialogue and understanding is paramount; otherwise, we risk repeating the grim lessons of history.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Emerson, for such a thought-provoking discussion! It’s clear that Cicero’s wisdom remains crucial in navigating modern geopolitical challenges.
Dr. Emerson: Thank you for having me! It’s always enlightening to connect historical thought with current events.