Is world peace possible?

[habilis]

toast: Very nice. I enjoyed reading your analysis. Just a quick comment:

It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.

I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.

More and more I'm thinking that as long as humans and human nature exists, world peace or even world order can't happen for any substantial length of time. Of particular concern is nuclear proliferation.

[Cat]

One of the problems deriving from chauvinism, is that immigrant are defined only on the base of them being immigrants: they are not Moroccans, Turks, Iraqi's, they are immigrants and seen as a kind of pariah's, even worse is the case of illegal immigrants. These foreigners are treated by public opinion and the authorities as a kind of parasites and they are massified, denying their individual culture. Their culture is not even seen as culture, but only as "different from our own one", as anti-culture and hence as dangerous. This, of course, triggers the response by the immigrants of forming close knit communities of their own, which again are percieved by the locals as dangerous breeding nests of fundamentalism and refusal to integrate with society.

In short, people are not prone to accept and respect the Other as an equal. They only percieve Others as equals when they are Identical to themselves. This has all to do with the strenght of one's own identity. When this is based largely or exclusively on being subject of a nation, every (percieved) threat to that nation counts as a personal attack and undermines confidence in oneself. The ensuing fear is projected on anything being different, critical, or opposed to ones nation, hence the proliferation of accusations of antipatriottism in America.

People lacking strong bases for their own opinions and personality, people which define their personality through appeal to the abstract values of their nation, cannot but see immigrants and foreigners as a threat. Moreover, in the case of the recent conflict between the US and Iraq we see two very strong cultures, based on the weakness of the individuals' personalities which see each other as a threat. Only when the chauvinism of "my culture/nation/religion is better than yours" stops, only when we stop thinking in terms of "them" and "us", a road to peace can be found.

There is nothing wrong with loving your country, but if this is the cause of hating another country, something is wrong. Moreover, chauvinism is a deeply irrational, fanatic fundamentalistic way of loving ones country ... and criticising a country or your own country isn't antipatriottic. Democracy consists in checks and balances, when the scales tip too much towards one end, the other end must correct the balance. That's why there is cuch a thing as a parliament, and not only just a government.

[toast]

Originally posted by habilis
It seems that nationalism ends up being harmful to foreign countries.

I can't imagine a way to prevent people from getting proud of their country - nor would I want to.

Formation of nation-states goes with formation of a national link, which does not replace familial, religious or local links, but subordinates them.

Attribution of nationality is an exclusive domain of the state. Nationality gives you an identity, and protection. Until post-WW2, individuals are protected by the state and by the state only (diplomatic protection mecanism).

Totalitarian states go further: the totalitarian individual is part of a State collectivity. At any moment, the non-conform individual can be chased or eliminated. Eg:
USSR - Koulaks
Nazi Germany - Jews

It is obvious you cannot stop this natural process of patriotism_you are talking about. The term 'nationalism' refers to more extreme ideologies and to concrete acts, more than string moral support to your country.

Nationalism you will find in national-socialist (Ugg: 'nazional-sozialistische' ?), or in National Front (French extreme-right party).
You will also find nationalism in the expression national-populist which can designate Jean-Marie Le Pen, Umberto Bossi, Silvio Berlusconi, Jorg Haider or Ros Perot (to French speakers: consult book by Yves Mény, Yves Surel, "Par le Peuple, Pour le Peuple").
Finally, you find 'nationalism' in the Algerian National Liberation Front, which also exists in many other Arabic countries.

To make it short, nationalism is a flawed form of patriotism, what Cat called chauvinism. Hence nationalism is shown under a negative angle in my text, while patriotism is not (for it is not evoked in the national link, I'll have to update that).

[toast]

Question: Is world peace possible ?
Answer [version 1 - 05/04/2003]

Pre-notes
#1- Part 1 and a few posts before part 1 are to be read befoe this part.
#2 - Sorry, I'm late, but I have so many things to do this month, I couldn't go faster.
#3 - Bored with too long text ? Don't read section 3 of this text, it can be skipped

Quick Intro
This is part 2, about formation and functioning of international orders (orders is plural, as explained before). It logically follows the definition of an international system and of an international consequent order, which were detailed in part 1.
In this second point of my anwser to the question Is world peace possible ?, I concentrate on showing that war is part of the normal operation of modern international systems.
A quick study would show this statement is also true with older systems (Antiquity, 18th century napoleonian wars, etc), but I will voluntarily ignore older systems to keep part 2 short and to link it to the specific actual context.

Contents
1) International values
2) Hierachies of power
3) Communication and trade


2) FORMATION AND FUNCTIONING OF INTERNATIONAL ORDERS

An international order is a product from History. Consequently:
- Every order is imperfect: it is heterogenous (eg: Europe: Iron Curtain), it is not simply bipolar or multipolar (eg: neutral states).
- Every order is precarious: an order is a temporary attempt to organize world relations between states. Time consolidates orders and make them grow old and obsolete at the same time (erosion of values).
- Every order has its counter-order. Some countries will never surrender to fixed rules (Russia, USSR, then Russia, are pretty perfect examples).
- Finally, an order can be ambiguous. In 1918, Germany has lost the war and is heavily weakened by the Treaty of Versailles; nevertheless, it stays economically more productive than France or GB (winners).

An international order builds on common referrals accepted as legitimate by its actors (1), on a hierarchy of its elements, that is states (2), and on the communication and trade betwwen its elements (3).

### A. International values ###

1. Values and customs

Europe between end of 30 Years war (1618-1648) and napoleonian wars (1792-1815) accepts to ignore major antagonism between catholicism and protestantism at the time. Monarchs submit to the cujus regio, ejus religio principle (every prince is Head of Church in his own country). First time a (forced) consensus is found in Europe to build an international order.

European order finds its counter-order at the time and until WW1 in Africa: while Europe is an ordered place, Africa is a free-for-all for colonisation).

2. Antagonisms in values

Community of values does not mean community of interests: marxism and liberalism are engaged into a planetary war, but create together an international, peaceful order (atomic order, or order by the atom for Samy Cohen and Pierre Moreau-Defarges). Washington and Moscow are fiends to each other, but are the foundation of a stable nuclear order (SALT-START treaties or rupture of nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Beijing in 1957 illustrate part of this order).

>>> Summarized: It appears through time that what builds an order is less common values than common fears.

### B. Powers' hierarchy ###

Different orders:
- Orders by empire (18th century)
- Orders by equlibrium (bipolar atomic order)
- Orders by unique forces (post-1991: USA)

1. Criterias of hierarchy

Ultimate test of hierarchy: war between state 1 and state 2, war which may take state 2 up into hierarchy over state 1. However, war itself has changed:
- 1945-1991: war is ideological and military (East/West atomic competition).
- 1991-*: Socialist order collapses. Competition axes itself towards technical and economical competition, which brings Asia in competition.
International order, even if military competition has moreorless disappeared, stays neverthless a violent game.

What can be said of the American hegemony ?
- USA are first in all domains of competition. As explained by Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard, Public Press 1997), USA are the first world hegemony (even Rome had not reached this state).
- However, as Romans said, the Tarpeian rock is not far from the Capitol. Which is a fine metaphor to say that all form of power appeals to excess and to its own collapsing.

2. Legitimity of hierarchy

Legitimity goes with the idea of nature: what is legitimate (human rights) must be natural, essential (by essence). Example: the "white's man burden" is experienced as a natural mission.

Hierarchies are vulnerable:

a) Hierarchy can collapse due to exterior factors.

19th century: Chinese Empire is destroyed by Europe.
20th century: European order is destroyed by the war and supplanted by East/West order, two non-European nations (US/USSR).

b) Hierarchy can mutate due to interior factors.

Assume state X is a powerful state, state x is a less powerful one.
- X gets bored with dominating x. Colonisation sometimes ends by X deciding that x is too costly in terms of men, bureaucracy, resources etc.
- x learns to use/blackmail X. Eastern Europe under soviet domination asks Moscow for huge compensations (goulash communism) to stay in Eastern orbit.
- x steals ideology of X. Colonisation has reversed the colons' ideas (freedom, religion...) against X states.

c) Hierarchy is not a fixed state.

- US / Israel: US support birth of Israel (1973-1979: Kissinger perpetuates effort). Israel then considers it can act without US permission (1982: Peace in Galilee operation), supported by American Jew lobby.
- US / Japan: relation started US > Japan while now both need each other the same way.

3. Ambiguity in hierarchy

Not only hierarchies revise themselves, they are not always obvious.

- Criterii to hierarchies are multidirectional: is there a choice to be made ? Which one ? Military ? Then #1 US #2 China. Economical ? Then #1 US #2 OPEP countries. Ideological ? Fallacious. On top of that, political/economical compromises between states make the establishment of a coherent hierarchy a difficult task.
- Democratisation of the internatl system (creation of UN: two decisionary instances: General Assembly and Sec. Council) kills the idea of a vertical hierarchy (ranking: #1#2#3#4 and so on) for a horizontal one: Sec. Council has 5 horizontal members, as shown by the Iraq crisis, one member is enough to paralyze action of the 4 others. Egalitarism may be more complex to master, it kills a violent form of hierachy in the internatl. order.

>> Summarized: The hierarchy that emerges is regulated by war, or rather by military activity in a first place, hence this hierarchy is destined to change. As the world democratizes itself, international order builds a democratic, horizontal (egalitarian) hierarchy which means less than the vertical one. World peace is hence closer to this conception of internatl. system than to the other one, which is not always obvious.

### C. Communication and trade ### (as said in pre-notes, this is not so important)

1. Multidimensional networks of communication

- Offical institutional channels: meetings, summits, involving Ministers and Heads of States.
- Interaction between governants and public opinion (see Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent). Some governments shape the people's opinion (totalitarism), although totalitarian leaders all wrote in their memories their people were less than they deserved.

2. Misunderstandings !

Notorious one: 1870, Ems dispatch (Bismarck tricks Napoleon IIIrd who declares war on Prussia).
1970: Jimmy Carter (counsellor: Brzezinski) declares "moral politics" behavior. USSR thinks of some conspiracy with Third World.
1975: US think SS20 soviet missiles are deliberate violation of treaties.

3. Two different logics

Military (competition) and political (compromise). Sometimes both meet, in democracies (Eisenhower), in dictatures (Central Asia: Turkmenistan). How can world peace be imagined with military leaders as heads of state ? Every internatl order is thus a precarious equilibrium, and the first factor of fragility resides in national choices.

Part 2 provides element 2/3 to my answer to the 'Is world peace possible ?' question: what creates an international system includes violence. War has been and still is, although technico-economical competition should replace it in an idealized vision of the world, the one criteria of states' hierarchy. Nation-states thus stand as the source of warlike relations between world entities. Unless the world expects a complete, Fukuyama-like transformation, war is a capital element of any international or national, any old or modern, system.

Post-notes:
#1 - Quotes were made without exact titles or translations.
#2 - Text structure taken from Philippe Moreau-Defarges (Paris Institute of Political Studies teacher). He's not one of my teacher, btw
#3 - Discussion is open. If you want a...
#4 - Hint: last part of my reasoning is maybe a little too kantian. I may explain the Immanuel Kant theory about world order and world peace a bit later.

[Androo]

Originally posted by Androo
no

I said that.

[wiz]

eh actuall it is NOT possible.
why? ... relligion and war go hand-in-hand. ironic heh.

[toast]

Originally posted by wiz
eh actuall it is NOT possible.
why? ... relligion and war go hand-in-hand. ironic heh.

Three critics to your statement, in crescendo:

1) Simplistic. One sentence, one thought, one second of reflexion, no more.
2) Obsolete. You were right ten centuries ago. Please press Refresh button.
3) Fashionable. Everybody incl. Dubya likes to say it's all about djihad.

That's harsh, but it's true. If you're interested, develop your point. Otherwise, click here (caution: it's rude and brutal).

[slur]

War is all about desire, pure and simple. Perhaps it could be said that those who are starving and cut off have a right to the basic things they desire. Nevertheless, strong desire for things you do not possess will lead you to go after them. The objectives of war - from the point of the aggressor - are all about obtaining control and material.

Justifications for war never go very deep, and they tend to only fool those who prefer to be fooled. Once you have a potential target the rest is textbook stuff.

Historical claims have always been the preferred justification.

Imminent threats became fashionable in the twentieth century.

A Moral Objective is usually enough to appease the populus.

A fascinating thing about Bush is that he really seems to believe the USA can steamroller the world into a cooperative democracy founded on our principles. I believe he honestly sees no irony in the idea.

I realize that tactically, taking down terrorism means removing the incentives to terror. The US sees the phenomenon of terrorism as an endemic of right-wing totalitarian religious states. It believes that such states need to be reformed, and I believe it correctly assumes that they are most responsive to the rattling of sabers.

War and Diplomacy are intertwined -- each is a willing servant of the other.

World order is a much different matter than world peace. To eliminate all conflict is naturally impossible. People are imperfect and sensitive, and they get into conflict. World order is maintained by an explicit or implicit contract between the people in power and the masses. Too many of these contracts are one-sided, but order can be maintained in these cases through coercion.

Iraq is being "rebuilt" today. Once the interim leadership is in place to oversee elections, will the people feel things are being done fairly? When the elections have been held and the votes counted and the winners announced, will people readily accept the outcome, even if it is not in their favor? In other words, can the population be made to place their faith in a system that has potential benefit?

The order we enjoy here in the US is owed largely to the decency of the people here, who feel that they are empowered to affect public policy. As long as the checks and balances are in place people in the US generally feel good about the contract. Dissent against the US administration is borne out of a healthy - and not unwarranted - suspicion that the agents of government serve powerful interests for whom war is a boon.

The European Union is in the midst of coalescing its collective values, and these values are very much like our own. Europe has lost its taste for crusades, and this is what differentiates them from us. America is a young nation with a burgeoning sense of adolescent bravado. Our representatives now proudly and loudly exclaim that the US is the world's only Super Power.

In other words, if the world is to be tamed, only the US has the means to do it. And who can argue with our principles?

America is - it seems to me - only beginning to get its taste for crusades, and this movement will continue to proliferate. Remember, the official government line is that we are meant to feel good about liberating Iraq.

When an American likes a burger,
he orders another one.

America is on a Crusade, clearly so, but maybe there won't be another war in its name. Maybe diplomacy will work without war - but probably not without the threat of war. And therein lies the rub of escalation. The likelihood of spurious wars breaking out over blockades and no-fly zones is increased tenfold.

Devotees of peace, get down to the local Red Cross and volunteer now!