Has the meaning and the struggle for peace evolved?

Oct 25, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

A rather interesting debate has arisen consequent to the massive U.S. military presence and actions in the Caribbean, the position of the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the U.S. request to the Government of Grenada to station U.S. military assets on the island.

The debate has swung from us being told that ‘the Caribbean is not a zone of peace because of narco-terrorism and illegal immigration’; to a statement by CARICOM Heads of Government reiterating their position that the region remain a zone of peace, to a letter writer who recently wrote saying ‘the Zone of peace is a lofty ideal not the stark reality; that ‘Zone of peace is goal that is pursued;’ and ultimately, to a plea in a statement by ten former CARICOM Heads of Government that the region to be a zone of peace where the rule of law prevails.’

As far as the struggle for peace is concerned, Guyanese are more likely to view it through the prism of the controversy with Venezuela. Others more attuned to the wider international situation would recognize peace as an imperative for the Caribbean and further afield, in respect to the Israeli-Hamas and the Russia-Ukraine wars.

Contextually, it would not be out of place to make reference at this point in time to China’s President Xi Jinping proposed Three Global Initiatives; the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. All three initiatives are interrelated and are inextricably linked. And from a narrower perspective, they are relevant to hotbeds of tension wherever they may be.

Under present day conditions, a fundamental question that must be answered is: what does it truly mean to promote and to fight for peace in an age when sovereignty, the rule of law, and democracy themselves are contested?

From all indications, the concept of peace has evolved with the times, after a century defined less by open warfare and more by border tensions, fight against narco-terrorism, human trafficking and human rights abuses, peace may no longer mean the absence of armed conflict alone.

If the struggle for peace is redefined as the fight against narco-terrorism, human trafficking and human rights abuses, then there may be justification for those involved to claim to be fighters for peace, but if it remains a commitment to fraternity, disarmament, and reconciliation then that’s another matter

The question therefore is; should we celebrate those who genuinely work for and build peace through reconciliation, forgiveness, and healing or those whose political narratives happen to align with the strategic interests of a powerful nation?

Nowadays, the language of peace has been appropriated, politicized, and redefined in a world where moral capital is increasingly leveraged for political gain.

But the perennial question still remains; is peace merely the absence of war, or should it, say in a Guyanese context, include the pursuit of social justice in the face of attempts to rig elections, to dismantle the guardrails of democracy and attempts to foist an undemocratic regime on people?

Again, in a Guyanese context, can political opposition, however justified, be equated with the pursuit of peace? Should opposition political personalities be recognized as fighters for peace when at the same time they tenaciously cling to a receding paradigm known for its divisiveness in a politically polarized society?

Or, should those who have tangibly contributed to the prevention of conflict, the fostering of reconciliation, and the promotion of peaceful coexistence among peoples and nations be the ones to be recognized as the true fighters for peace? These are searching questions we need to ponder.

Peace is not a word to be used lightly, nor a banner to be waved for political convenience. It is a moral covenant that demands honesty, empathy, and humility from all who claim to act in its name.

In the light of the complexities of this modern era, the fight for peace may require new forms of resistance, and while a decision, in the case of Grenada Vs the US, one way or another may be viewed as bold or weak, if not controversial, only history, with the clarity of distance, can render that judgment

The art of reconciliation and the classical understanding of peace as the resolution of disputes through dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual recognition, compels us to reexamine the meaning of peace itself in today’s world.

Peace, like democracy even when fragile, remains a lofty aspiration for people around the world.

Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Guyana Peace Council

---

---