The Nixon-Peace sign is used as a symbol for peace in Australia, and as a national symbol, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.In its official definition of the sign, the OCHA defines the symbol as a flag or banner with a cross and a vertical line across it.The OCHA describes the sign as an "icon of peace" that "is displayed on every corner of Austra...
The peaceful world needs a better definition of peace, an idea that has become a staple of the West’s diplomacy for decades.
The term peace is sometimes used in the context of a peace deal between two countries or a “political agreement” between states, which are usually defined as a framework for managing conflict.
In a new book, Peace by Design: How Globalists Created a New World Order and Its New Enemies, authors David Brooks and Edward Luttwak argue that the concept is flawed.
They suggest that peace is not a framework to be followed but is rather a tool that the United States, Western Europe, and Japan have used to make global politics more favorable to them.
Brooks and Lutwak’s argument comes in the book’s introduction, which argues that the notion of peace is based on an incorrect understanding of history.
It was not the Cold War, they argue, but the end of World War II that ushered in the era of peace.
The Cold War ended with a declaration of “total war” in 1945.
Since then, the term peace has become synonymous with the United Nations, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.
The United States is the world’s largest military power, the biggest economy, and is the largest exporter of arms, according to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The United States and the European Commission have argued that the term “peace” is misleading and should be replaced with “civilization.”
In the introduction, the authors cite the UN’s Millennium Development Goals as a guide for creating a “peaceful” world.
In their book, Brooks and Luttwak argue the Millennium Development Goal was a globalist and nationalist agenda to advance a “world order that would foster economic and political integration, protect human rights, promote economic growth, and ensure universal access to health care, education, and housing.”
As they write, the goals of the Millennium are “not to bring about universal peace or to guarantee the dignity and respect for all people.”
Instead, they seek to “promote the spread of democracy and the development of the market economy and social democratic institutions that would ensure equal opportunities and opportunities for all peoples.”
In their book’s conclusion, the writers point to the “globalists’ own failure to address the root causes of inequality in our global economy, their failure to promote human rights and the rule of law, and their failure not to recognize the growing and urgent threat of climate change.”
The book’s title is apt.
The authors argue that while the “peace plan” is a very ambitious idea, its execution has failed to deliver.
It has not worked because of an absence of the kind of globalists’ stated goals.
Instead, it has only led to the creation of a world in which the world is more unequal and where human rights are often undermined.
In the world of the future, Brooks argues, the only way to “make peace” is to build a world that is “not a world of winners and losers, but of people who have the right to live in peace.”
Read more from The Washington Post