Chapter 9 Peace

The media constantly reports on global conflicts, terrorist attacks, and social unrest, highlighting the turbulent nature of our world. Despite the elusive nature of actual peace, the concept itself is frequently invoked across various domains, from politics and business to education and the military. Peace is cited as a cherished value in numerous documents, suggesting a broad consensus on its desirability. However, this apparent consensus on the meaning and value of peace is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, the concept of peace has been interpreted quite differently.

Today, the pursuit of peace faces many questions:

• What precisely does peace mean, and why is it so fragile in the contemporary world?
• What strategies can be employed to establish lasting peace?
• Can violence ever be a legitimate means to achieve peace?
• What are the underlying causes of increasing violence in society?

This chapter delves into these questions to explore the multifaceted nature of peace, its challenges, and different approaches to its pursuit.

9.1 Introduction

While 'democracy', 'justice', and 'human rights' have become widely used terms, the widespread consensus on the desirability of peace is comparatively recent. Many prominent thinkers throughout history have viewed peace negatively.

For example, the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche glorified war, believing that conflict was necessary for the growth of civilization. Other thinkers similarly praised strife as a path to individual heroism and social vitality, while condemning peace. The Italian social theorist Vilfredo Pareto argued that ruling elites ('lions') were those willing to use force to achieve their goals.

However, peace has always had champions. It held a central place in the original teachings of most major religions. The modern era has also seen fervent advocates for peace, both spiritual leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and secular figures. The contemporary emphasis on peace is largely a response to the horrific atrocities of the 20th century, particularly the World Wars and the rise of Fascism and Nazism, which resulted in millions of deaths. The horrors of Partition in India and Pakistan serve as a closer example.

These calamities involved advanced technology used for destruction on an unprecedented scale. The bombing campaigns of World War II (e.g., German 'carpet-bombing' of London, British 1000-bomber raids on German cities) escalated violence. The war culminated in the USA dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, causing immediate death for over 120,000 people and many more later from radiation effects. Approximately 95% of casualties were civilians.

The post-war period (decades after 1945) was marked by intense rivalry between the USA and the USSR, driven by a competition for world dominance using nuclear weapons as the ultimate measure of power. Both nations amassed large nuclear arsenals. The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 brought the world dangerously close to nuclear war when the US discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba and responded with a naval blockade and military threats. The crisis ended when the USSR withdrew the missiles, but it highlighted the extreme risk of nuclear conflict.

The current value placed on peace stems from humanity's experience of immense suffering caused by its absence. The potential for tragic conflict, including the ever-present threat of terrorism using modern weapons, makes life feel more insecure than ever before. Peace remains valuable precisely because it is constantly under threat.

A photograph of Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th-century philosopher known for his critique of traditional morality and, in some interpretations, his glorification of conflict over peace.

R.K. Laxman's cartoon highlights a common sentiment that leaders from 'backward nations' focus on basic needs (employment, education, health) rather than military power (nuclear bombs), suggesting a critique of militarization.

9.2 The Meaning Of Peace

Peace is often simply defined as the absence of war, but this definition is insufficient and potentially misleading. War is usually understood as armed conflict between states. However, violence that represents a violation of peace can take many other forms, such as the mass killings during the Rwandan genocide or the conflict in Bosnia, which were not traditional interstate wars. While every war disrupts peace, not every absence of peace is a war.

A better definition would be the absence of violent conflict of all kinds, including interstate war, civil war, riots, massacres, assassinations, or physical attacks. However, even this definition doesn't fully capture the complexities of violence, as violence is often deeply rooted in the structure of society.

Social institutions and practices can perpetuate and reinforce inequalities (caste, class, gender) in ways that cause subtle, invisible, but significant harm. Such 'structural violence' can lead to large-scale negative consequences, even without overt physical attacks. Challenges to these social hierarchies by oppressed groups may also provoke conflict and violence.

Forms Of Structural Violence

Structural violence refers to harm caused by social structures and institutions that prevent individuals from meeting their basic needs or exercising their rights, often leading to inequality and oppression. Examples:

• Caste Hierarchy: Traditional Indian caste system, particularly the practice of untouchability (asprishya), subjected certain groups to extreme social exclusion, deprivation, and denial of basic rights until outlawed. The lasting effects demonstrate structural violence.
• Class Disparity: Social order based on class generates inequality and oppression. In developing countries, many laborers in the informal sector face abysmal wages and working conditions. Even developed countries have a sizable underclass lacking opportunities.
• Patriarchy: A social system where men hold primary power, resulting in systematic subordination and discrimination against women. Manifestations include selective abortion, denial of adequate nourishment/education to girls, child marriage, domestic violence, sexual harassment, honor killings. The low child sex ratio in India is an index of ongoing patriarchal impact.
• Colonialism: While direct rule is rare now, its historical legacy of systematic exploitation continues to affect former colonies, representing a past form of structural violence. Ongoing conflicts like the Palestinian struggle against Israeli domination represent a contemporary example of prolonged subjection.
• Racism/Communalism: Involves stigmatization and oppression of entire racial groups or communities. Racism (e.g., historical Negro slavery in the US, persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, apartheid in South Africa) is based on the scientifically unfounded idea of distinct races but used to justify discrimination. Communalism in South Asia, targeting minority religious groups, is a regional counterpart.

The harm from violence, whether direct or structural, can create grievances that persist and re-emerge as conflict. Dialogue and addressing underlying grievances are necessary for lasting peace. Initiatives like promoting people-to-people contact between India and Pakistan aim to help resolve long-standing issues stemming from past violence (like Partition).

Philosophers have offered different perspectives on violence and peace. Gautam Buddha's view suggests transforming the mind can end wrongdoing. Mahatma Gandhi strongly opposed violence, believing it achieves only temporary good but permanent evil, advocating instead for non-violent resistance. Friedrich Nietzsche, conversely, viewed peace as merely a pause between necessary conflicts that foster vitality and heroism.

Eliminating Violence

Eliminating violence requires addressing both individual propensity for violence and the structural causes rooted in society. Spiritual practices and modern therapies can help individuals. However, eliminating structural violence necessitates creating a just and democratic society where social institutions do not perpetuate inequality and oppression.

Peace, understood as harmonious coexistence and broad human welfare, is an active process of constantly pursuing moral and material resources for well-being. It is not an end state achievable once and for all. The path to peace involves overcoming obstacles like injustice and imperialism.

9.3 Can Violence Ever Promote Peace?

The idea that violence, though evil, can sometimes be a necessary means to achieve peace has been argued. Supporters might claim force is needed to remove tyrants or achieve liberation for oppressed groups. However, resorting to violence, even for seemingly just ends, can be counter-productive. Violence, once unleashed, can escalate out of control, leading to widespread death and destruction, potentially undermining the just goals it sought to achieve.

Examples like the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975-79), which used extreme violence to impose a communist order, resulted in massive deaths and human tragedy, demonstrating the horrific potential of revolutionary violence. Even when not reaching this extreme, using violence by radical movements to achieve desirable objectives can lead to it becoming institutionalized, becoming part of the resulting political order, potentially leading to authoritarianism (e.g., the FLN in Algeria achieving independence through violence but leading to an authoritarian regime and backlash).

Pacifists argue that peace is a supreme value and morally oppose violence even for just ends. They advocate fighting oppression through non-violent means, mobilizing love and truth to change oppressors' hearts and minds. Non-violent resistance, like civil disobedience, is seen as a powerful means to challenge oppressive structures without resorting to violence. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence (ahimsa) involved not just refraining from physical harm but also mental harm and even the thought of causing harm. For Gandhi, non-violence was an active pursuit of well-being and goodness, requiring immense physical and mental restraint and courage, not passivity. He argued that if non-violence failed, resorting to violence was preferable to cowardice.

The debate over whether violence is necessary, even for removing oppressive regimes (like the Nazi regime), highlights the complexities. However, critics argue that the negative consequences of violence often outweigh any perceived benefits, leading to further conflict and injustice.

Non-violent resistance, like Gandhi's Satyagraha (deploying truth and love to challenge unjust laws) in India's freedom movement and Martin Luther King's Civil Rights Movement in the US, has shown success in challenging oppressive structures without resorting to violence, demonstrating the potential of militant but non-violent struggle.

9.4 Peace And The State

It is often argued that the current global system of separate sovereign states poses an impediment to achieving peace. Each state prioritizes its own perceived self-interest and is willing to act against others (even its own members) to pursue the interests of its citizens. States possess consolidated instruments of coercion (army, police), which, while intended for citizen protection, can be used to suppress internal dissent or against other states in pursuit of territory or resources. This inherent conflict potential is exacerbated by the absence of an effective world government and vested interests like the armament industry benefiting from war.

The solution to states using force against their own citizens (as in authoritarian regimes) or engaging in international conflict is seen by some as making states more accountable through democratization and strengthening civil liberties. The struggle for democracy and human rights is thus closely linked to the pursuit of peace, aiming to limit the state's power and ensure it serves the well-being of its members through just and peaceful means.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman from The Times of India, highlighting a perceived disconnect between focusing on basic human needs and military power (specifically the nuclear bomb).

The dilemma of states using violence for international objectives, such as the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (justified by historical claims and accusations) and the US-led repulsion, highlights the persistent possibility of conflict in a system lacking effective global governance. This is fueled by states prioritizing self-interest and the interests of industries profiting from war.

9.5 Different Approaches To The Pursuit Of Peace

Different strategies and approaches have been proposed and pursued for maintaining peace in the world, often reflecting different views on the nature of international relations and the role of states:

1. State-Centric Approach (Balance of Power): This approach views states as the central actors in international relations, respecting their sovereignty and accepting competition among them as a reality. The focus is on managing this competition to prevent conflict, primarily through arrangements like a 'balance of power'. This involves states forming alliances to deter potential aggressors, ensuring no single state becomes dominant enough to threaten others. The 19th-century European balance of power is often cited as an example that helped prevent large-scale wars for periods.
2. Interdependence Approach: This approach also acknowledges interstate rivalry but emphasizes the growing interconnectedness and interdependence between nations in areas like trade, economy, and social cooperation. It argues that increased cooperation promotes international understanding and trust, tempering state sovereignty and reducing the likelihood of global conflict, thereby fostering better prospects for peace. Post-WWII Europe's journey from economic integration (leading to the European Union) is often seen as a successful example of this approach leading to durable peace.
3. Global Community Approach (Supra-national Order): This approach views the current state system as temporary and envisions the emergence of a supra-national (above the state) order. It sees fostering a global community and promoting global governance as the surest way to achieve lasting peace. Proponents point to increasing interactions and coalitions across state boundaries involving multinational corporations, international organizations, and people's movements as signs of an emerging global community. They argue that globalization is eroding state sovereignty, creating conditions for world peace under a global framework.

The United Nations (UN) is often seen as embodying elements of all three approaches. Its Security Council, with powerful permanent members holding veto power, reflects the reality of state power hierarchy (Approach 1). Its Economic and Social Council promotes cooperation among states (Approach 2). Its various commissions and agencies (like the Commission on Human Rights) work to develop and apply transnational norms, contributing to a sense of global standards (Approach 3).

Pacifism is a viewpoint advocating opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. It exists on a spectrum from supporting diplomacy over war to absolute moral opposition to violence in any circumstance. Principled pacifism considers violence morally wrong, while pragmatic pacifism believes non-violent alternatives are better or war costs outweigh benefits. Pacifism can be based on moral principles or practical considerations. Anti-militarists specifically oppose state military institutions. Some pacifists adhere to principles of non-violence (ahimsa).

PACIFISM

Pacifism is the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means. It encompasses a range of views, from a preference for diplomacy to absolute moral opposition to violence or coercion. Principled pacifism views violence as inherently wrong, while pragmatic pacifism believes peaceful methods are more effective or the costs of war are too high. Some pacifists are against state militarism specifically. Some follow non-violence principles, emphasizing that only non-violent actions are acceptable. Adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

9.6 Contemporary Challenges

Despite its achievements, the UN has not succeeded in preventing all threats to peace. Dominant states continue to assert their sovereignty and shape the international system based on their priorities, sometimes resorting to military action (e.g., US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing significant loss of life).

The rise of terrorism is partly seen as a response to the actions of powerful states. Terrorists pose a major threat using modern weapons and technology (e.g., 9/11 attacks). The potential use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups is a frightening possibility. The global community has struggled to curb both the actions of powerful states and the violence of terrorist groups. Instances of genocide, like the massacre in Rwanda in 1994, have occurred despite international awareness, highlighting failures in intervention.

However, there are also positive developments. After WWII, some countries like Japan and Costa Rica renounced maintaining military forces. Nuclear-weapon-free zones have been created through international treaties. The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the USSR removed a major threat of nuclear rivalry between superpowers.

The contemporary era has also seen the rise of peace movements and popular initiatives fostering peace across geographical and political boundaries. These movements, often linked to other causes like women's rights or environmental protection, advocate for non-violent solutions, use modern communication channels, and contribute to the field of Peace Studies.

In conclusion, peace is a complex, multifaceted concept facing constant challenges. It is more than just the absence of war; it involves creating and sustaining harmonious social relations and pursuing human welfare in the broadest sense. Obstacles range from injustice to imperialism. However, using violence to remove these obstacles is unethical and risky. In an era of terrorism, genocide, and total war, the quest for peace must inform both the means and ends of political action.

A conceptual design for a peace award, incorporating symbols that represent understanding of peace (e.g., dove, olive branch, clasped hands, globe).

The existence of nuclear weapons is debated in relation to war prevention. Some argue they deter large-scale wars due to mutual assured destruction, while others argue they increase the risk of catastrophic conflict.