War and Peace

By a strange coincidence, I am reading Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace while newspapers and the Internet are full of stories about the Libyan civil war, the ongoing battles in Mindanao and threats of war in the South China Sea. War and Peace was Tolstoy’s compelling novel on the Napoleonic wars from 1803 to 1815.

I am reading a new translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky on kindle (which by the way is a modern way to read books). But the themes that Tolstoy grappled with in the 19th century when he wrote War and Peace have not changed. It is as true then as it is today. The protagonists might have changed; the countries and causes different but war is war. It is good to be reminded of that as we read through the day’s various editorial and commentaries by writers here and abroad about present-day wars.

*      *     *

Of the many themes Tolstoy developed in War and Peace, the most instructive is to remember that war is brutal and barbaric, not at all grand or glorious as some make it out to be.

The other is Tolstoy’s belief that rather than try to control the course of history, human beings are better off moving with its currents. This theme is essential Tolstoy so relevant in the wars of today.

In War and Peace he compares history to a river. In carefully chosen words to depict characters he cites men like Napoleon who attempt to divert the river from its natural course. But there are other men who do not think that way. He creates the character Kutuzov who reflects Tolstoy’s own thinking that would merely control the boat they are traveling in, but not the river itself. This is, of course, a nuance.

Tolstoy says Napoleon failed because no man can manage or manipulate history that he equates with destiny. On the other hand, men like “Kutuzov succeed, because they understand this great truth.”

There are many examples of such characters in our times  of leaders attempting to control history, thinking that it is within their power to alter its course. Tolstoy was convinced this was folly and advanced his theories of freedom.  

*      *      *

When men are not at war, how should they live at peace? He says love and compassion are the keys to a successful and fulfilling life. He uses the character Pierre Bezuhov as a person who seeks the meaning of life. Although other authors before and after Tolstoy have said the same thing, he created his own characters to show that human beings should be defined by what they do and not what they inherit.

His rendition of upper class society in St. Petersburg reminds me very much of Manila’s 400 (surely more than that now when the phrase was once used to describe Manila society). Paradoxically, war begins at peace.

War is the result of the inordinate desire for material possessions, no less true today as it was in Tolstoy’s time when he wrote on Napoleon trumping countries with war victories, claiming cities as war trophies while on his way to Moscow. By the time he reached Moscow, it was an empty city  he and the war goals he set left a trail of death and destruction only to finally lose the war.

*      *      *

The images flashed on our television sets about death and destruction in Libya’s civil war show man’s inhumanity to man. Gadhafi’s murder may have been deserved but it hardly represented the rule of law that the rebels and their allies claimed to be fighting for. You can’t expect niceties in a war.

As Guardian wrote “The West wrings its hands over dead Gadhafi photos, but war is always hell. The stench of doublethink is more noxious than any vapor emerging from the meat store in Misrata. To get upset by photographs of the dead Gadhafi is to pretend we did not know we went to war at all. The Arab spring became The Autumn of the Patriarch as his dead body haunted the new era.

No wonder a Libyan was quoted as saying he has given more trouble dead than alive. Yet the main trouble dead Gadhafi has given is to expose the fundamental shallowness and sentimentality of the western democracies’ support for Arab revolution and in particular our military intervention in Libya.”

*      *      *

This column has always been against the war in Mindanao, because it will not bring peace. Besides, there are avenues to peace available (to control the boat rather than change the river), although it will take time. But we grieve for the 19 soldiers who were killed in Al-Barka. All efforts must be exerted to find out who and what caused it. Already there is talk among local executives and other military that there was a lack of coordination of all concerned.

Worse, civilians were caught in the crossfire. Still there are many who urged an all-out war, among them former President Erap Estrada who believes this is the solution. This view should be laughed out instead of being held up as a “solution.”

*      *      *

As for the threats of war in the South China Sea, the Chinese have clarified that they are for peaceful development and will not be taunted into war.

Ms. Jiang Yu, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said to Global Times:

“China upholds the strategy of peaceful development. China actively advocates a new concept on security featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination. And China seeks good-neighborly friendship and cooperation with its neighboring countries.

To safeguard regional peace and stability serves the common interests of all countries in the region. At present, all countries in the South China Sea region have committed to peacefully addressing maritime disputes through dialogue and consultations, so as to maintain regional peace and stability, and sound bilateral relations among them.

We hold that it is imperative that relevant countries should implement in real earnest the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea...

The countries outside the region should respect the efforts by the countries within the region to resolve the issue through dialogue and consultations. Intentionally creating tension and confrontation will do nothing helpful to settle the issue, but only make it more complicated. We do not want to see troubles stirred up by any country, nor any interference into the South China Sea issue by any country outside the region.”