The phrase “peace is the opposite of war,” encapsulates a profound truth about the human experience. These two concepts stand as opposites in the spectrum of human existence, representing the dichotomy between harmony and conflict, cooperation and aggression. In this essay, we will delve into the intricate relationship between peace and war, examining their definitions, manifestations, and the profound implications they hold for societies worldwide.
Peace is a state of tranquillity where societies and individuals coexist harmoniously, without war. It is often preferred by individuals and states due to its moral superiority, social benefits, and cost-effectiveness. However, peace can also be a temporary interlude between wars, as seen in Europe between 1919 and 1939. Despite the end of the Cold War, many states continued to invest in national security, seeking external enemies to fight. This demonstrates that peace is no longer an inexpensive option compared to conflict, and in situations where things are never equal, peace can sometimes be a roadblock to progress. War is the antithesis of peace, characterised by large-scale military confrontations between state representatives. It is a state of organised, armed conflict where disputes are resolved through force and violence to achieve political and social objectives. Politics is the idea of who gets what, when, and where, and people go to war for these resources and power.
The nature of war
The nature of war is universal and eternal, with an act of force intended to compel opponents for political ends and a continuation of political intercourse with a mixture of other means. On the other hand, Forms of war are the ways war is fought, whether it’s on a battlefield or an urban centre. For example, as states improve their tax collection systems and financial resources are boosted, it allows them to carry on longer and more expensive military operations, changing the strategies and tactics that their generals will use to bend their adversaries to their will. Advances in technology can render these old forms of war obsolete, as war can now be digital, making it less easy to detect and affecting a large number of people at once.
Charles Tilly claimed that war makes a state and the state makes war, and that war is necessary for states to accumulate resources and acquire more status to dominate the world. Conflict and war are imminent and are a reflection of human nature, where man takes their self-interest into account and is threatened by another man’s self-interest. However, critics argue that wars are often fought between non-state actors, as it only needs an armed group ready to battle. For example, wars in Syria and Iraq show the potential of non-state actors to seize territories and populations, creating a crutch mentality for states and subverting sovereignty. This highlights the importance of understanding the dynamics of conflict and war to maintain global stability and peace.
It is important to note why wars are fought to distinguish the difference between war and peace. War is a complex and multifaceted conflict that can stem from various factors such as Greed, Grievance, and Revolution. War is sometimes fought for honour, and glory, and often fought for territorial acquisition, resource access, and economic defence. Many brutal wars have had underlying economic rationales but often justify their actions in noble terms, claiming to liberate citizens from undemocratic countries.
Wars of the 20th Century
Wars can also be fueled by opposing ideas and values, as well as ethnic and religious cleavages and differences. For instance, the Assad regime, led by Bashar al-Assad, exacerbated existing tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Syria through its authoritarian rule, repression of Sunni opposition, and alleged use of sectarian tactics to maintain power. The Syrian Civil War, which unfolded in 2011, intensified these sectarian divisions as regional powers with Sunni and Shia interests became involved, turning the conflict into a proxy war. The complex interplay of political, religious, and regional factors has contributed to the deep-seated hatred and animosity between Sunni and Shia communities in the context of the Syrian conflict. When one doesn’t understand the other person with a different belief, they tend to dehumanise, vilify, and create an in-group and out-group bias.
Revolutionary wars, on the other hand, are driven by states seeking to transform or overthrow the existing structure of society. For instance, nationalist revolutions and revolutionary violence to overthrow Western domination have been primary sources of war throughout the 20th century. The bloody conflicts following the Second World War were largely due to the folding of nationalist struggles against the West into the wider Cold War. These factors highlight the various reasons why wars are fought. New wars are also a growing trend in international society where political leaders use mass casualties, systematic rape, and genocide as tactics to defend their identity groups’ territorial reach. New wars derive from reduced revenue and power, increasing competition for public goods and services, leading to reduced civic nationalism but increased ethnic nationalism which causes conflicts between identity groups for these goods and services. These conflicts often involve international players, creating complex international civil conflicts with local and foreign participants.
The pursuit of peace is intertwined with ethical considerations grounded in principles of justice and respect for human dignity. Peace is not merely the absence of war; it is a commitment to fostering conditions that enable individuals to live with dignity and fulfil their potential. John Galtung argues that “an extended concept of violence leads to an extended concept of peace”. Peace is attainable, yet complex and difficult to achieve and not an immediate political priority. There are two sides to peace, negative peace and positive peace. The absence of personal violence is negative peace while the absence of structural violence altogether is positive peace. Peace requires the absence of war but also an absence of social injustice caused by structural violence. Structural violence refers to not just the observable use of force between states, but anything avoidable that prevents human fulfilment or self-realisation. It refers to the structures that maintain power and dominance over one group. For example, low wages, illiteracy, poor health, limited legal or political rights, and limited control over lives.
If individuals try to change their situation, they may face direct violence. Structural violence works slowly but kills more people in the long term compared to direct violence. As such, so long as people are starving and unable to go to school for reasons like gender, class, ethnicity, or identity, only peace in its negative form is achieved. Ultimately if these structures of violence persist, the concept of ‘peace’ has not been effectively communicated.
In Pursuit of Peace
Peace can be made through peace treaties, peace movements, and peace processes. Peace treaties are a form of agreements entered into by sovereign states. It assumes a legally binding character and gives any treaty special importance in international law because of its codification.
As such, treaties may be perceived by some states to threaten sovereignty. For example, the US felt that ratifying treaties was inimical to their self-interest as such did not sign some treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the revoking Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Peace movements are informal, organic movements that challenge authority within civil society. They often arise from within society, causing suspicion and gaining attention. The effectiveness of these movements in slowing the arms race or preventing specific military policies remains unclear. Mass peace movements, such as those sparked by World War I, focus on disarmament and collective security.
They also manifest through social media and online protests, such as Israel’s recent war in Gaza, where people call for the cessation of violence. However, media fatigue may lead to continued suffering and people may not realise their involvement and act in their own self-interest. Peace processes involve resolving conflicts through negotiations and non-violent means.
It’s crucial to determine if parties want peace and win over intransigent groups, especially those committed to ongoing conflict. External actors, such as NATO and the international community, can act as brokers to support all sides in the peace process.If parties want to exchange war for peace, external voices can encourage and guarantee agreements. However, even if the peace process is successful, no party is fully satisfied. If parties want to exchange war for peace, external voices can encourage and guarantee agreements. However, even if the peace process is successful, no party is fully satisfied.
The Present
Despite efforts to create a peaceful world, peace cannot be fully achieved until all forms of structural violence are limited. The Middle East remains unstable, with insurgencies in Afghanistan, drug gangs in Mexico, and potential state failure in Pakistan. Peace is not proven in today’s world due to excessive spending on arms. Recent research shows that wars have become less violent, with regional wars before the 1990s being more devastating. There is an elimination of inter-state wars but a focus on intra-state wars is also necessary. The limited polarisation between peace and war signifies a delicate global balance, indicating that while conflicts exist, an overarching state of war has not fully manifested. This suggests a nuanced landscape where diplomatic efforts and international cooperation are crucial. Nevertheless, the small gap between peace and war underscores the ongoing necessity for concerted endeavours to address conflicts, promote diplomacy, and shift the global paradigm more decisively towards lasting peace and stability.
Peace and war represent not only states of being but embody opposing principles that shape the trajectory of societies and individuals. While war often arises from unresolved conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and competing interests, the pursuit of peace necessitates a commitment to diplomacy, conflict resolution, and international cooperation. Instead of relying on aggression, peaceful resolutions focus on understanding and addressing the root causes of disputes, promoting dialogue, and creating a global environment where nations can collaborate to prevent conflicts and build lasting stability. In essence, the pursuit of peace requires a shift from confrontational approaches to inclusive strategies that prioritise diplomacy and the shared goal of a harmonious world. Understanding the profound implications of this dichotomy is essential for navigating the complexities of our shared humanity and working towards a future where peace prevails over the shadows of war.
