|
Why Peace may be Impossible |
|
|
Saturday, 02 February 2008 |
Most people would honestly love to live in a peaceful world. If given a choice between conflict and co-existence, most segments of society would prefer to live in a world of trade and international co-operation. But that doesn't mean its going to happen.
Peace requires everyone to agree.
A war can be started by a single country or even a
single individual. Fear, uncertainty, and conflicting strategic
interests require even the most pacifist of national leaders to be
prepared in case of attack.
Where peace requires two nations to agree on peace, war only requires one nation to reject the terms of co-operation. World War One is a great example of how one individual can screw things up for everyone: Although the world was marching steadily toward war as new colonies and resources ran out, most of the world leaders still had a vested interest in staying out of any full-scale conflict. But paranoia ran high and no one wanted to be the last one prepared if something did happen... This is where Gavrilo Princip and the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand comes into play. With a single act, the conspiring assasins set off a chain reaction of events that would bring almost the entire world into war. If we don't invade, someone else will. This point was perhaps more obvious in the cold war, when any neglected nation became a prime target for the Soviet's to expand their influence. Today, China is ready to do the same. One need only look to Sudan, Congo, or Burma to see examples of resource-rich nations being physically coerced by larger external nations. The criticism America receives is about its inaction, the implication being we should use our military force to prevent military force from being used. Talk about a peace paradox. Striving for the Impossible Peace. Swift and total disengagement from the world won't suddenly usher in a new golden era of international friendship. So long as resources are limited and the dreams of political leaders are unlimited, there will be sleep lost over potential conflicts and disagreements that risk turning to violence. Although I may be critical of U.S. foreign policy as too aggressive or too self-interested, there is always the distinct possibility that our very presence prevents greater atrocities from occuring. Every nation needs the ability to defend itself, but it also needs the ability to project its force beyond its own borders. This is a simple fact of international life - if you can't influence foreign events, you're simply at the mercy of those who can. When everyone can to some extent, a balance can be reached. Peace might be miserable. Considering the variables like human nature and history, what would global peace even look like? Well, it would probably involve a one-world government that has little interest in your local issues. If the river needs to be diverted, if your neighborhood needs to be the next toxic dumping ground, these concessions would need to be made without question in the name of world peace. Anyone standing up for local issues could be considered a terrorist who threatens global harmony.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 April 2008 )
|
