A World Without War: The Process Towards an Ideal World?
The Invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, took many by surprise. Russia originating from this invasion is part of an effort to prevent the expansion of power carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Russia later stated that their actions constituted a "military operation" not an invasion. As usual, the aggressor state always adheres to the principle that the "insecurity" caused by outsiders is a real threat.
This attitude that seems "offensive" from Russia has several reasons, according to Thomas Hobbes, in such an anarchic world, war is a natural trait for humans, this is reinforced through the adage "Homo Homini Lupus" which means humans are wolves to other humans. Humans will never be separated from conflict and war, the nature of the great desire for power coupled with the need for knowledge and honor drives him to expand his influence. This trait gave birth to a struggle to maintain or gain power.
If you look back, Thucydides who is a Greek philosopher perfectly explains how war is something that cannot be avoided. In his work entitled "The History of the Peloponnesian War", Thucydides said that the growing power of Athens was considered a threat to Sparta and this was a threat, therefore war was inevitable.
Thucydides realized that the root of the conflict is human nature which allows emotions to dominate and cloud judgments about things. However, this does not mean that war is unavoidable, full awareness of its consequences should provide an overview and prevent it from happening.
The next issue that haunts me is whether war can be avoided. Graham Allison who is a Professor at Harvard University with a focus on national security studies through an article written in The Atlantic explains comprehensively that in the last 500 years, there have been 16 powers that have risen and 12 of them ended in war. However, in the last 3 editions, the new powers that rose were able to restrain themselves. This shows that war is not inevitable if both sides can compromise.
What is war?
Before going any further, it would be better to understand beforehand what the definition and meaning of war are. War or conflict is an inseparable part of human life, at least this is the assumption of realists. As for liberals, war is a last resort to end a problem, this principle is stated in the United Nations Charter (UN) Article 2 paragraph 4. The previous leaders used war as an element to expand their power, show their dominance and unite their nation, and to take revenge.
We watch closely that war only changed forms, which initially only used swords and spears, then the discovery of gunpowder which led to the creation of firearms to modern wars in the form of economic and information warfare. However, it seems that the essence and value of war remain the same, namely as a last resort and a means of domination.
Dreamed of peace
Can we agree that war and violence are inseparable parts of human life. Andrew Robinson in an article written in newscientist entitled "The real utopia: This ancient civilization thrived without war". Andrew provides evidence that in the Indus River Valley civilization around 2800 BC, no equipment related to war was found, such as armor and weapons for war. Not only that, the great fortresses that should exist in every kingdom were not found, and the condition of human bones showed conditions that were not much different which showed that the people at that time lived well.
The next question that arises is whether peaceful conditions will lead to a better situation. Mark Leonard in his book entitled "The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict" proves that even when there is no war, countries tend to take advantage of this situation only for their interests. Turkey uses immigrants from Syria as its bargaining power to the European Union, or China through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has succeeded in pressuring cooperating countries not to discuss China's domestic problems in the global arena. This proved that in a state without war, the world faced a situation not much different. Perhaps we can call it an "unacknowledged war" situation.
Of course, we wonder how a "peaceful" situation can be realized, one of the interesting articles written by 43 leading experts in international relations titled, "Why We Should Preserve International Institutions and Order." It has been publicly stated that the presence of the international order and international institutions after World War II played a role in shaping the situation without a major war, and it should be noted that the US played an important role by being one of the initiators in shaping this process.
If we examine it further, the peaceful situation that has been realized at this time is so false. The international system that is complained about is only in favor of a few parties, it is an open secret that members of the UN security council have the privilege to veto all resolutions that have been agreed upon. So the next debate is whether a peace system like this is what we need, a situation that only benefits a handful of big countries and their allies.
Realities and threats in the future
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the state of the world today is much better than in the last hundreds of years. From the Our World in Data report, the average life expectancy of the world's people is 70 years, this is much better than during the industrial revolution which only reached 35 years. Furthermore, the infant mortality rate, which is one of the scariest scourges, has been significantly reduced to less than 1%. And finally, GDP per capita growth is at an average rate of 2% per year.
The hope for a better life without war is unlikely to last long. By the time of the 2021 pandemic, countries around the world had a staggering 0.7% increase in arms purchases. In fact, the world is battling health and economic threats. If you look at the analysis of experts, this is based on the potential for war soon on a large scale that will rage in many places, such as the South China Sea, the Senkaku Islands, the Taiwan Strait, the Korean Peninsula, the Persian Gulf, and Ukraine.
Revenge and ambition
Threats in the future do not only come from the geopolitical situation but there is another dimension in the form of history. For some countries, past trauma is an important lesson and leads to bigger problems. Foreign policy and national security China at Tel Aviv University explained very well how China's position in viewing foreign threats. China had entered a dark period called the "Age of Humiliation" (1839-1949), China was forced to follow rules made by foreign parties. This is because China's military strength is so weak.
This experience has led every Chinese leader not to repeat the same thing. This trauma played a major role in determining the direction of China's foreign policy, especially in the defense sector. China is getting more and more aggressive towards all those who try to interfere, this is a normal action but it will be very risky and of course, lead to war.
It's not just China, the ex-Soviet countries like Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are experiencing the same thing. The dark experience of the past when they were still part of the Soviet Union (now Russia) led ex-Soviet countries to act more firmly against the Soviets. Past trauma, such as silence from opinion to severe famine, of course, does not want to be repeated. However, Russia's attitude through "Russia World" supports every compatriot who is in every former Soviet country to secede. Russia's increasingly aggressive attitude and trauma from the past that still lingers have led ex-Soviet countries to approach the West through the initiation of joining NATO. If each country is tied to the realities of its past, then how can they understand each other?. Trust is the key to cooperation, if trust cannot be realized then peace is just a dream.
Learning from the past
If you look back on the Cold War, the two great powers, the United States and the Soviets competed to outperform each other through the Nuclear Arms Race, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries almost turned the world into a nuclear battleground.
Bertrand Russell, who is one of the leading philosophers, responded by saying that decision-makers act like teenagers playing "Brinkmanship". Brinkmanship is a game played by juvenile delinquents, this game uses two cars arranged in a straight line to collide with each other, the first car to dodge will be shouted as a chicken or a coward. Russell compares the same thing to policymakers, they only care about pride without taking into account the lives that will be lost if they continue to compete.
The other side of war
However, war is not always bad, Otto Von Bismarck proved otherwise. Bismarck was the Prime Minister of the era of the Prussian Empire, in 1867 the Prussian Empire was not yet fully united, the parties who did not want to join were the countries in Southern Germany. Bismarck realized that the best way to unite the countries in South Germany was to form a common enemy, with a common enemy creating a sense of threat that had to be overcome together. Bismarck then encouraged the Prussian Empire to go to war with France in the Franco(1870-1871). This war was won by Prussia and most importantly the parties from South Germany joined the Prussian Empire.
It's not just Otto Von Bismarck, the people of Rwanda who have a dark history of civil war show that peace can be realized. The hatred between ethnic groups that had been instilled since the colonial period by Belgium eventually ended in the genocide by the Hutu ethnic group against the Tutsi in 1994 which claimed 800,000 lives. As a result of this incident, many people thought that stability would be difficult to achieve in Rwanda. However, the government and the people of Rwanda began to forget this event, Rwanda managed to increase life expectancy to 67 years, becoming a country with the 15th largest economic growth in the world and the highest political stability in the region. sub-Saharan.
The attitude that must be taken
War is two sides of the coin, on the one hand, it is interpreted as an effort to unite people who are difficult to unite. This is evidenced by the unification of the Prussian Empire by Otto Von Bismarck through the war with France. However, on the other hand, it results in great losses in terms of material and soul.
If you defend the argument that war is unavoidable, it seems that the Indus River Valley civilization can break it. Ancient society was able to manage the situation well, but it should be noted that there are complexities that are so different from the current situation. Each country will certainly think that its goal is the best for itself and the world. If policymakers are still acting like teenagers playing "Brinkmanship" then it will only be a matter of time to see the end of the world.
Finally, if every human being read and understood Carl Sagan's writing, namely "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space" maybe things would be different. Carl Sagan gives a perfect explanation that the earth we live in is so small that it is even likened to a blue dot in the composition of the universe, but the hatred embedded in it is so great. If humans understood that hatred would only lead to destruction and that no one would come to save them, perhaps peace would have been realized decades ago.
Pic Courtsey-Alfred Kenneally at unsplash.com
(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)
