Different methods are most appropriate for different cultures; it also depends on the reason for the war.
Ultimately, some wars are just and should be allowed to go ahead to alleviate suffering in the long term. In some scenarios, like Gandhi and the independence of India, peaceful protest is effective.
In others, the paradoxical approach is truly necessary (for example, the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt in 1973 lead to peace between the two nations).
There is a situation for every method of ending war, the key is establishing which should be used for each individual conflict. In today's more complex world, it is unlikely that Gandhi's protests would be effective. It is also so that intervention in wars in recent times by foreign powers has a poor track record in establishing long-lasting peace (think of Iraq and Afghanistan as examples).
If I would suggest a single way of making there be peace, it is that there must be international consensus to do so. The U.N. needs more teeth; an organisation is a puppet of the US in all but name and in which China and Russia veto all steps toward ending wars can never be effective. Unfortunately, disbanding the U.N. or removing the veto could likely cause a split in the world powers and a potential Cold War II.
The one sure truth, in my mind, is that blind pacifism is not the way to go. It must be recognised that some wars are necessary. There can be no world peace if world peace is not a sensible ultimate goal. There must be war, if only to later establish peace. A "good force" should fight against an "evil force" to prevent its tyranny, and we cannot ensure there are no evil forces without a dictatorship to tell us what is good and what is evil, and force obedience.
Therefore, the only way to achieve total world peace, as far as I can see, is through dictatorship. But dictatorship itself is unpeaceful, so maybe there can be no total world peace. To achieve the more realistic goal of "nearly-world" peace, there needs to be a way of ensuring international consensus on solving crises to prevent minor skirmishes becoming fully-fledged wars.
How can we create a world of peace?
← View full post
Different methods are most appropriate for different cultures; it also depends on the reason for the war.
Ultimately, some wars are just and should be allowed to go ahead to alleviate suffering in the long term. In some scenarios, like Gandhi and the independence of India, peaceful protest is effective.
In others, the paradoxical approach is truly necessary (for example, the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt in 1973 lead to peace between the two nations).
There is a situation for every method of ending war, the key is establishing which should be used for each individual conflict. In today's more complex world, it is unlikely that Gandhi's protests would be effective. It is also so that intervention in wars in recent times by foreign powers has a poor track record in establishing long-lasting peace (think of Iraq and Afghanistan as examples).
If I would suggest a single way of making there be peace, it is that there must be international consensus to do so. The U.N. needs more teeth; an organisation is a puppet of the US in all but name and in which China and Russia veto all steps toward ending wars can never be effective. Unfortunately, disbanding the U.N. or removing the veto could likely cause a split in the world powers and a potential Cold War II.
The one sure truth, in my mind, is that blind pacifism is not the way to go. It must be recognised that some wars are necessary. There can be no world peace if world peace is not a sensible ultimate goal. There must be war, if only to later establish peace. A "good force" should fight against an "evil force" to prevent its tyranny, and we cannot ensure there are no evil forces without a dictatorship to tell us what is good and what is evil, and force obedience.
Therefore, the only way to achieve total world peace, as far as I can see, is through dictatorship. But dictatorship itself is unpeaceful, so maybe there can be no total world peace. To achieve the more realistic goal of "nearly-world" peace, there needs to be a way of ensuring international consensus on solving crises to prevent minor skirmishes becoming fully-fledged wars.