Is world peace possible?

[fryke]

Hmm... So you mean, if we remove all conflicts, there would be peace - for a moment. Because the word wouldn't make sense any longer?

[toast]

I mean: on a totally theoretical basis, removing all conflicts would remove peace too This sounds completely absurd, simply because it's made of 100% theory.

On a more practical point, which is the only point I am interested in, I believe peace does not signify complete absence of conflict. I will defend this point by 1- stating peace is what results from war 2- stating peace is a ponctual phenomenon, idea est it has a beginning, and an end.

War and peace may be antagonists, they are irremediably linked. They go together. Such a statement obviously deserved a complete argumentation, just give me one or two days to finish some administrative stuff for my institute

[fryke]

I can't wait two days right now. I'm putting the finishing touches on my new novel, which is about a bunch of people, God's daughter among them, and 'peace and conflict' might be a good subject for yet another chapter somewhere in the middle. (The book is basically going to be off-topic most of the time, part of the plot. One more excursion can't do any harm...) :-)

So... If theoretically removing all conflicts would create peace, how should we start... We could remove the basis for the conflicts before they can escalate.

But it's a bit difficult to define the basis of some conflicts. For example, a basic problem for the 'USA vs. Middle East' conflict are religious differences. Now, I'm all for removing religion, but proving that God doesn't exist has proven to be a bit difficult. Douglas N. Adams has said that it's possible by actually PROVING his existence (The Babelfish is the proof of God's existence which, read it up in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, therefore proves God's inexistence...).

I guess this all means that

a) I'm tired
b) Douglas Adams died too early
c) I should go back to work on my book.

[toast]

To avoid (a) getting worse, get to bed, lay down and think of (b), then get back to (c) as soon as tomorrow morning.

World peace: possible or not ? is a question with a specific context: the Earth and its organization.
Understanding how the world is organized will let me answer the question properly. The way the world is organized I will call the international order, which regulates the international system.

Raymond Aron provided three keys to the understanding of the international system: War, Nation-state, and Organisation. I'll analyze those three criterias (part 1), then examine their formation and functioning (part 2), and lastly I'll give some indications about how they dislocate (part 3).

My sources will be Raymond Aron, Philippe Moreau-Defarges, Dominique Schnapper, Henry Kissinger, maybe Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ernst Gellner too. All of them will be appropriately quoted and translated, I'll do my best.

I will, obviously, intensively use some knowledge gathered through the years of my studies. The whole text shoud be heavily illustrated with worldwide examples. The definitive result might be quite long. I also think that right criticism will imply the need for some revisions of the text, revisions that I will number.

See you soon

[Cat]

While the concepts of conflict and peace might be necessary to define one another, this does not imply that they are factually necessary to be able to exist at all ... moreover, world-peace does not imply the elimination of conflict in general, but of armed conflict.

A Greek poet (Hesiod, IIRC) defined two types of `envy': one that makes me hate he who has more than I have and one that makes me emulate to reach the same level. Obviously also in the case of conflict there are good and bad forms of conflict and all gradations inbetween. What the quest for world peace aims at is the elimination of (the causes for) armed conflict, not for the elimination of e.g. debate, protest, appeal, discussion, negotiation, argument etc.

[Darkshadow]

That wouldn't work very well, Cat, 'cause once you eliminated a cause for one, there'd be a new one to take its place.

[boneske]

I dont think world peace is an option while people only think about themselfs. Too many people in the world are ready to stab someone in the back when they least expect it. At least thats my 2 cents.

[toast]

Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 04/28/2003]

Pre-notes
#1- Check the previous post about my sources and way or reasoning. Remember this text gives only a few conceptions, examples and clues, and not an opinion.
#2- English is not my native language, please be indulgent. This text is abbreviated. Its structure is made openly apparent to simplify it all.
#3 - In brief, this text is food for thought. Reflexion should concentrate more on the original question than on the txt pertinence itself, IMHO.

Intro
The expression 'World peace' indirectly refers to the world's organization, performed through an international system of laws and legitimate structures (such as nation-states or supranational organizations).
Peace is part of this international system. Or rather: war is part of the international system, and peace, its logical antagonist, accompanies it.

Is the actual international system designed to preserve peace or to reach universal world peace ? Is world peace a conceivable concept ? The following text aims at detailing the world's post-WW2 international order, in such a way that the question: is world peace possible ? finds itself answered at some point.

International order: notions and problematic

Contents
1) General determining criterii of an international system
2) Formation and Operation of an international system
3) Dislocation and death of an international system

1) SYSTEM AND ORDER

Raymond Aron, "War and Peace between Nations"
"I call 'international system' a group of political units that shares regular relations and that is susceptible to find itself implicated in a general war."

Aron gives three key notions to analyze contemporary international system: war, nation-state, organization.

### A. War ###

1. Classic vision of war

DEFINITION
War is a link between states.
War is the event states must participate to to be part of the global competition for power.
Generally wars do not annihilate states (exception: Poland, end XVIIIth cent.).

CLAUSEWITZ
Clausewitz first and greatest thinker of war a s structurant principle for an internatl. system.
War is a political attempt (military is only a means, an instrument) to place a state as high as possible in the international hierarchy.
War designates a winner, and does not annihilate the defeated. Example: franco-prussian war, 1870-1871: Bismarck unifies Germany against France, clearly shows his victory to Europe, but does not eliminate France.
War is an army vs. army process, ie it occurs on battlegrounds, not on civilian ground.

2. War during the XXth century

WAR IS OUTLAWED
Until WW1, war is considered as inherent to societies. During WW1, the "big illusion" of a "final war" is born.
Concretization: pact of Society of Nations, June 28, 1919, introduces the idea of 'illicit wars'. Chart of UN, June 26, 1945, article 2 §4: use of force is prohibited between UN members.
Exceptions:
- Self-defense
- Security Council decisions
However:
- Self-defense is flawed. Example: Stalin intervenes against "human face of socialism" in Tchecoslovakia, 1968. Also: UN resolution 1368, after 9/11. Also: after WW2, all decolonization conflicts are said to be legitimate.
- Security Council decisions are influenced by local politics. Example: Iraq, 1990 (resolution 678).

THE NUCLEAR FACT
Humanity discovers it can annihilate itself. Equilibrium of terror: atom is ultimate aweapon of deterrence. The real strategic revolution is not Hiroshima/Nagasaki but H-Bomb (1951) and atomic ICBMs (1957).
Nuclear power moves conflicts from centre to peripherial areas, ie Third World.
Classic wars (no nucear power) continue: Iraq/Iran 1980-1988.
Nuclear power is considered illegal, then legal, then illegal again. Finally, Internatl. Court of Justice considers no solution is to be found (July 8, 1996).

EFFICIENCY/LEGITIMITY OF WAR
War is meant to have a clear winner and a clear defeated. Nevertheless:
1945: post-colonization conflicts aim at liberating a country.
1960: wars between Third World countries do not conclude to winner/loser situations (reasons: no warmongers after Mao Zedong and Giap, no legitimity if not independence war).
1990: Gulf war does not end up in total surrender of Iraq.

>> Summarized: War has always been part of the international order, even if its forms have changed.

### B. Nation-state ###

Considered as permanent entity. Product of history.

Ernst Gellner, "Nations and Nationalism"
"Nationalism is a form of political legitimity, corresponding to coincidence of ethnic and political boundaries. Conditions: 1- same culture to all national individuals, 2- individuals reckon they are part of a nation."

1. State as sovereign totality

Nation-states created to agregate individuals when needed (Industrial Revolutions). At the time, state considers itself a a global overwhelming power with 2 functions (law and order, see below). Today, societies escape from state limits to reach international dimension.

LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
Social contract philosophers: state is the enityt which defines the Law over natural rights.
But:
- states create laws inspired from other states (example: priviledged area of evolution of nation-state is occidental space - Occ. Europe/US/Jap - in which all countries inspire themwelves from each other).
- national rights are imbricated into supranational rights (human rights).
Hence, liberal conception of the state includes an international dimension.

SOLIDARITY FUNCTION
A nation is a group of individuals linked by solidarity. Regionalism can fragment national solidarity.

2. States' changes

Dominique Schnapper, "Immigrants' Europe"
Conception of Nation (transcendance of particularism to create a group that coincides with a territory), built around the national link, is reformed.

NATIONAL LINK
Nationality is provided by the state and by the state only.
Supreme form of nationalism is to die for your nation.
Areas where national link is problematic: Japan (Meiji era, 1868-1912), China (1842-1949), muslim world (conflict with umma (ummêt)).

MUTATION OF NATIONAL LINK
XIXth century; holistic nation-state.
Post-WW2: individuals sign temporary pacts with states. Examples: apatrids, tranfuges, fugitives.
Also: multinationalism (Europe).
Also: renewal of ethnic identities: Europe separated into catholic/orthodox/ottoman (Yugoslavia), China has North/South and center/periphery oppositions. Exception: Japan (reason: 1% immigration).

>> Summarized: nation-states integrate infranational and supranational dimensions. On a theoretical point of view, nation-state is challenged by its little (cities) and big (empires) brothers.

### C. Organization ###

XIXth century: national bureaucracy knows a start.
1919 (SoN) / 1945 (UN): international bureaucracy knows a start.

1. States are part of a whole

UN (states choose a camp: East/West, later non-aligned), Europe (states share some sovereignty with a new structure) equal multiplication of legitimity levels.

2.Those structures help non-national structures to grow strong

3. States use those structures but those latter are motivated by contradictory interests

Usage of UN by states vary through time. Some states manage to control or bypass it:
1945: UN is born, US are its mother.
1953: Third World rules (in terms of decisionary power) over the UN.
1990: Gulf War: the US initiate 100% of UN resolutions.
1999: Russia ignores the UN.
2001: Sept 12, 2001, resolution 1368 is forced by the US.

>> Summarized: component 2 (states) make component 1 (war) within component 3 (organization). Combined components 1-2-3 define an international order.
Transition: next part of text will show how this internatl. orders hatch and then live, before they die (part 3).

Part 1 provides element 1/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: The world is a regulated international system of interactions between states, and these interactions include war as the most prominent means to build a hierarchy between states in this ordred system.

Post-notes:
#1 - I may answer questions before publication of parts 2 and 3, but the text will be revised only as a whole, at the end (in a maximum of 48 hours).
#2 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#3 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studioes teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw
#4 - Discussion is open. Any addition to the text (esp. examples for sections B1, B2, C1) are welcome.