Retaliation doesn’t lead to peace

The Jan. 17 Olympian used the term “retaliation” as if it was as normal as negotiation in international affairs. It is not. It never solves a problem. It does not lead to peace. It just exacerbates the conflict and leads us closer to outright war. Why do we do it? To salve a roughed-up male ego?

On page 1 we read, “But three current and former senior government officials said large cyberattacks against the United States and its interests would be included in the kinds of foreign aggression that could justify a nuclear response -- though they stressed there would be other, more conventional options for retaliation.” What justification is there for using a tactic that we know will worsen relations with other countries? Calm down, guys, and try peacemaking for a change!

Retaliation is also used by the powerful against those over whom they have control. On page 3 you report, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement has put (Maru) Mora-Villalpando in deportation proceedings, and she and her supporters charge the agency with retaliation.” This retaliation is for her very public use of her free speech rights to condemn the injustice of locking up people who have committed no crime in the Tacoma Detention Center and using them as slaves. Her campaign has had success in that Attorney General Bob Ferguson has sued the GEO company, manager of the private prison, to pay at least minimum wage for the forced labor of the inmates maintaining the prison. Free speech wins, Maru suffers retaliation.

This story was originally published January 27, 2018 at 3:53 PM with the headline "Retaliation doesn’t lead to peace."