An embrace in the time of a war

At the medal-awarding ceremony after the women's 10m air pistol shooting competition on Sunday, silver medalist Natalia Paderina from Russia and bronze winner Nino Salukvadze from Georgia embraced each other. The scene must have moved everybody who was watching in the shooting range or before the TV screen or who read about the news online or from other media, for everybody knows the significance of the embrace - the two athletes' countries are right now engaged in a military conflict.

The two athletes are definitely patriotic. They have come to the Beijing Olympics to win honor for their countries. But they did so by striving for the "faster, higher and stronger" goal in peaceful competition rather than engaging in bitter rivalry out of hatred.

When asked why she kissed and embraced Paderina "while Russia and Georgia are at war", Salukvadze said: "We hope there is no war in this world ... There is no hatred between us athletes. Paderina and I are good friends." Paderina agreed: "We are true friends. Our friendship has lasted for a long time ... Sport should be separated from politics."

Their moves and words best illustrated the ideals of Olympics: peace, progress and friendship.

On November 1 last year, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution urging all its member countries to observe the Olympic Truce during the 29th Olympic Games to be held in Beijing. Regretfully, however, a military conflict between Russia and Georgia erupted right on the day of the opening ceremony last Friday.

Just days before the opening ceremony, about 100 Chinese veteran generals and soldiers gathered in the Peace Temple near the Beijing Great Wall to pray for peace. The war veterans announced a "2008 Peace Declaration by Chinese Veteran Soldiers", calling for a "global truce during the (Beijing) Olympic Games" and "turning swords into ploughs".

Olympic Truce represents mankind's inborn love and yearning for peace.

But why is there war in the world?

Although it is a hard question for anyone to answer in a simple way and there are as many reasons as one can list, the largest, and the most essential, reason is: conflict of interests.

War used to be an effective means to grab as large a share of interests as possible when resources were insufficient to go around among different groups (clans, tribes and nations) of people due to poor means of production. In modern and contemporary times, as technology and civilization both advanced, war was less and less used for direct division of wealth. Market order and social rules, or contract, are believed to be the dominant force to determine the division of interests in the world. So long as every member of community observes law and order, there is no need for war.

This theory, however, is a sham one. The question is: is law and order established and maintained in a way fair to every member of community, the world for example? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. The contemporary global economic order and strategic order are not fair to all nations and regions. Unfair division of interests can lead to armed conflicts. Therefore, in the final analysis, a fairer and more reasonable world order - economic and political - is the most fundamental way to eliminate war.

Though it may not settle the problem at the roots, we still hope an Olympic Truce can prevail. Just as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said a few days ago: "Let them lay down their weapons, if only temporarily, so that humanity can lay claim to gold even before the Games begin."