On a beautiful afternoon in 1959, Coretta and I journeyed
from our hotel in Beirut to take a plane for Jerusalem. After about two
hours in the air we were notified to fasten our seat belts -- we were
beginning to descend for the airport in Jerusalem. Because of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, this city has been divided. And so this was a strange
feeling -- to go to the ancient city of God and see the tragedies of man's
hate and evil which causes him to fight and live in conflict.
Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable. At the
same time the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab
world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten
peace and harmony. Until a concerted and democratic program of assistance is
affected, tensions cannot be relieved. So there is a need for a Marshall
Plan for the Middle East.
At the heart of the problem are oil interests. As the American Jewish
Congress has stated, "American policies in the Middle East have been
motivated in no small measure by the desire to protect the $2.5 billion
stake which U.S. oil companies have invested in the area." Some Arab feudal
rulers are no less concerned for oil wealth and neglect the plight of their
own peoples.
The solution will have to be found in statesmanship by Israel and
progressive Arab forces who, in concert with the great powers, recognize
that fair and peaceful solutions are the concern of all of humanity. Neither
military measures nor a stubborn effort to reverse history can provide a
permanent solution.
As I said in my Nobel Peace Prize Lecture: Nations are not reducing, but
rather increasing, their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons has not been halted. The fact that most of
the time human beings put the risk of nuclear war out of their minds because
it is too painful does not alter the risk of such a war. Man's proneness to
engage in war is still a fact, but wisdom born of experience should tell us
that war is obsolete.
If we assume that life is worth living, that man has a right to survive,
then we must find an alternative. In a day when guided ballistic missiles
carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim
victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a
calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil and political
disillusionment. A world war, God forbid, would leave only smoldering ashes
as a mute testimony to the human race whose folly led to ultimate death. If
modern man continues to flirt unhesitatingly with war, he will transform his
earthly habitat into an inferno even the mind of Dante could not imagine.
It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love
peace and sacrifice for it. We must shift the arms race into the peace race.
In 1967, when I took my stand against the war in Vietnam, I recounted
that I had lived in the ghettos of Chicago and Cleveland, and I knew the
hurt, the cynicism and the discontent. As I walked among the desperate,
rejected and angry young men, I told them Molotov cocktails and rifles would
not solve their problems. I tried to offer my deepest compassion while
maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through
nonviolent action.
But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our
own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to
bring about the changes it wanted. I knew that I could never again raise my
voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having
first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world
today: my own government.
In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to
him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. This need
to maintain social stability for our investments . . . tells why American
helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American
napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in
Peru. . . .
It is with such activities in mind that the words of the late John F.
Kennedy come back to haunt us. He said, "Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice
or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who
make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges
and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are
considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme
materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness
and justice of many of our past and present policies. A true revolution of
values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and
wealth. The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach
others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of
war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of
burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans
and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples
normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields
physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled
with wisdom, justice, and love.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead
the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death
wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of
peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.
Clayborne Carson is director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers
Project at Stanford University. -- © Estate of The Rev. Martin Luther King
Jr.