The difficult pursuit of peace

Grant T. Hammond
USA Today. 125.2618 (Nov. 1996): p13.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1996 Society for the Advancement of Education
http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/
Abstract:

Military conflicts and political tensions have increased because of the proliferation of states in the post-Cold
War era. Reorganization of the international system without conflict is difficult to achieve, and there are many
long-running civil wars.

Full Text:

THE COLD WAR is over. The Gulf War ended more than five years ago, though Iraq's Saddam Hussein is
stirring again. Even the conflict in the former Yugoslavia is on hold. Yet, peace and the ability to preserve it are
more fragile than ever. Why should this be so?

First, as the number of states has increased, so has the chance of war. When the United Nations was created
in 1945, there were 51 members. There was no India, no Israel, no Vietnam, and Japan and Germany were
occupied after World War II. Today, the UN is approaching 200 members. Colonies have become independent,
and disputes that were internal have become international.

Second, though the pace of change has quickened with many areas of the world going from a near Stone Age
past to the 20th century in a generation, political maps evolve more slowly. In a century-long effort to promote
international law and peaceful change, we are loathe to recognize change by force of arms. As a result, the
world continues to recognize "states" that are largely fictions and "governments" that have no sovereignty and
which don't even control their own capital, let alone a country.

In some cases, there are long-running civil wars; in others, anarchy with no pretense of law or order. In many
others, there are regimes that are puppets of other states or kept in power only by using massive amounts of
international aid as graft and corruption. Liberia, the Sudan, Lebanon, Cambodia, Haiti, Zaire, Somalia, and
Bosnia are "pretend states," not real ones.

The problem, as historian Charles Tilly has noted, is that "States make wars and wars make states." Trying to
shape the international system without resort to the force of arms is a noble aim, but a very difficult process.
Most states owe their existence to the force of arms and have suffered one or more secessionist threats. There
are more long-running civil wars--Chad, Sri Lanka, and even Northern Ireland, and more recent examples in
the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union--than there are examples of peaceful secession such as
Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Third, because there is no universal international law, no global sovereign, or an effective enforcement
mechanism accepted by all, change in the international system is condoned or rejected by individual states.
Globe-spanning empires such as the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese in the 17th and 18th centuries
and the "concert of Europe"--the great powers of the 19th century--did the job in the past, albeit with differing
success. However, World War I saw the end of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires
and World War II sounded the death knell of British, French, and other colonial holdings.

Keeping the peace in their respective spheres of influence fell largely to the two superpowers--the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R.--during the Cold War of the last half of the 20th century. Now, the Dr. Hammond is professor of
international relations, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. U.S., as the self-proclaimed last
remaining superpower, and the UN in its urge to engage in "preventive diplomacy" have inherited the
responsibility for the 21st century--whether we like it or not.

Many others are involved, too. Ideological blocs, religious movements, and racial and ethnic groups all seek to
institute their preferred solutions. Regional alliances such as NATO seek to police their neighborhoods with
differing success. Major powers in each region seek to have their way as well. If all of these fail, the problem
can be taken to the United Nations' Security Council, and a squabbling debating society of 15 powers, great
and small, is expected to provide solutions where everyone else can't. Five of these states--the U.S., Russia,
China, Britain, and France--can veto any initiative they do not like. Creating a "New World Order" is difficult,
perhaps illusory.

Fourth, the motives for supporting and participating in the business of peacekeeping are mixed at best. For
some, it is a means of returning to a glorious past or settling an old score. The Turks, former rulers of Bosnia
under the Ottoman Empire, and the Russians, patrons of their South Slav brothers, the Serbs, both demanded
to participate in UN peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia--which is like placing foxes in the hen house.

Some countries have long experience in peacekeeping--Canada, the Scandinavian countries, Fiji. Some, such
as the Baltic republics and Romania, are anxious to prove that they are good international citizens and worthy
members of an expanded NATO. There are still others--the Nigerians, Egyptians, and Pakistanis, for instance--
who get valuable training and sophisticated communications gear and actually make money in pocketing the
difference between what the UN pays and what their forces cost.

Fifth, amazingly enough, it sometimes works. The UN has kept Greece and Turkey, both NATO allies, from
going to war with each other on Cyprus for 32 years. That is good from a military perspective, but Cyprus is still
divided and the basic conflict unresolved, which is bad from a political one. Is the UN experience in Cyprus a
success or failure? How many of these can the international community handle and for how long?

Sixth, the burden is growing. The UN has become involved in more peacekeeping operations in the last five
years than in all the previous years of its existence. United Nations peacekeeping efforts include more than
80,000 troops at a cost of over $3,000,000,000 a year. Other countries, notably the U.S., contribute additional
billions as well. Peacekeeping seems to many to be as expensive as war used to be.

We don't have it right yet, and the effort can not succeed in many, perhaps most, places. Making peace,
keeping the peace, and promoting peaceful change are difficult, costly, and unending tasks. We have trouble
doing these in our families, neighborhoods, places of work and worship, and our own country. It should come
as no surprise that it is even more difficult on a global scale. Nevertheless. as at home, it doesn't mean we
should stop trying.

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)

Hammond, Grant T. "The difficult pursuit of peace." USA Today, Nov. 1996, p. 13. General OneFile,
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=lapl&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA18856921&it=r&asid=8a70d0a330a3d1347e35fa3688ca1119.
Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A18856921