“(...) only those of you who are ignorant of the world can believe that any nation, even so great a nation as the United States, can stand alone and play a signal part in the history of mankind.” (WW, 1919)
Within the complexity of news that confronts us every day with stories of new and old wars, it has become more and more difficult to keep looking for a clear horizon of peace. The so called “new” or “hybrid wars” undermine the rules of traditional warfare and international conventions and affect thousands of civilians in a most tragic way. In most cases, it is hard to outline the real causes and the goals of the conflicts that are frequently fought by a multiplicity of actors who have more to win with the continuation of war than with a sustainable plan for peacebuilding. The use of new technology, like drones for example, has often contributed to expanding the once delimitated battlefields to urban and even residential areas and enlarged the time and intensity of the fighting. Today, more than 123 million people are displaced and many more live under almost unbearable life conditions as a direct consequence of wars and violent conflicts. This reminds us of the suggestion by Immanuel Kant that “we are highly cultivated in art and science (...), but we still have a long way to go before we can be considered moral. Almost 250 years later, in a brave new world of global connectedness and engineering wonders in all fields of knowledge, have we come a little farther?
In a moment when we witness a redefinition of our world order, or more concretely, when the multilateral system of the United Nations Organization is challenged in so many ways, it is important to ask this question, because it is inextricably interwoven to the prospect of reaching for sustainable solutions of peace and dignity in many conflicts around the globe.
In order to stop wars in different places of the world, some leaders in the international arena have announced great peace deals that promise the end of war – even in 24 hours. What is meant by this concept of peace is a simple declaration to stop the fighting. It is taken as simple negotiation of give and take - and also of pressure (and intimidation if necessary) allowing the peace dealer to take his part of profit - and fostering his position of geopolitical power. Peace is seen as a simple transaction overlooking peoples, stories, culture and politics, reflecting an order of imposition and national interest of the strong, rather than a principle of freedom and sovereignty of all (great and small states alike). But peace is not a deal. And so, any proposal like this is not going to work.
It might be possible to achieve a ceasefire in a short period of time, but sustainable peace is a long-time process of mutual negotiations, implying firstly mutual recognition and then concrete (re-) construction plans for infrastructures as well as institutions, and including finally healing and conciliation paths for the torn communities. It needs diplomats and peacemakers – and of course a strong economic recovery plan. It is not a distant pathway to hope, but a concrete roadmap of hard work and trust-building.
The world order designed after World War II – or to be more accurate, the order established already after the First World War – had precisely this goal of peace understood as a common roadmap based on international agreements, on cooperation and trust. Interestingly, this political order was invented (and even imposed) by American Presidents, both in 1920 and in 1945 who understood that a liberal world would serve American interests best. But if the UN is not holding to the promises made at the moment of its foundation and if it is not able to answer the political questions of the present, we should look for solutions to adjust it to the signs of our time.
However, going back to the 19th century will not make the world a safer place, on the contrary. If we look closer at Europe (or the world) – say, before 1920 – we will see a continuous battlefield expanding its violence to other continents and peoples. There, peace was only seen as the absence of war and hidden deals were made while signing treaties for truce and drawing unsustainable lines on the maps of nationalism. As a consequence, the fighting reemerged within a larger culture of war where territories could be bought and sold and peoples displaced and exchanged. Wars might be won like that, but not sustainable Peace.
This is why Donald Trump`s vision of a new nationalism is wrong. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that – within an interdependent world – borders would make a country great and protectionism would make it rich. In fact, the illusion of nationalism and protectionism lead to a loss of trust – and it might lead to war. As Woodrow Wilson claimed less more than one hundred years ago, within a larger world, no country could solve the challenges of modernity on its own – and peace could only be guaranteed by a concert of nations within common rules and institutionalized relationships of freedom. By this, he led the USA from isolationism to leading power in the 20th century. The time was not ready to absorb these ideas – but Franklin D. Roosevelt knew how to renew this project with an opening liberal and multilateral world order: The UN system.
With many flaws, this model of multilateralism is still a strong device to guarantee non-violent conflict resolution and sustainable peace. As an example, the Sustainable Development Goals have made a big difference and managed to secure peace in many regions of the world. Our main concern should therefore be to search for an effective reform of international institutions that build bridges by fostering dialogues and opening new trust-building mechanisms. And this is not a deal. But, as peace in itself, a long process of commitment and hope.
Have a great and impactful week!
Mónica Dias
Director of the Institute of Political Studies