Is global peace possible?

Against the backdrop of Cold War 2.0, the prelude to which is the War of Ukraine, even talk or mention of global peace would sound ludicrous. It is not just the Ukraine war but a mélange and confluence of factors- polarization across the world, the disconnect between state-society relations in many parts of the world, failed or failing states, putatively recessionary conditions, the failure or quasi failure of capitalism, not merely in practical but also in philosophical terms , the absence of an alternative, and so on- that militate against global peace.

So, is global peace possible?

Maybe.

How?

To arrive at a tentative ‘answer’, the nature of peace must be defined. There maybe no such thing as absolute peace. It, too, like most other themes, is relative. The best that can be hoped for is relative peace. How can this be defined? Absence of relative violence? Perhaps. If this is employed as the tentative definition of peace and when transposed to the global level, how can this condition be achieved?

There are basically four ways. Or approaches.

One, distilled from the realist and neo-realist schools of international relations is the balance of power approach. This entails a rough parity of power- parity in terms of hard power and its accoutrements. In prosaic terms, it means say, in a pair of states, the balance of arms- tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles, and so on- between these. In this instance, if there is balance of power, war is less likely. But balance of power leads to arms races, which in themselves are not bad if they lead to relative peace (defined as absence of war here) even if these lead to the ‘security dilemma’- that is, the increase in one state’s security leads to a decrease in the other’s, a condition that leads to perpetual arms races. The real problem or issue here is the redirection of a state’s resources to these- a zero-sum game that detracts from the economic welfare of a given state’s population. What use is the absence of war (that is, relative peace) if the population of a given state is starving? If security is defined in more holistic terms, then this condition leads to insecurity. Balance of power, even though a realistic option to attain peace and security is inadequate.

The other approach is ‘peace through trade’. The theory here holds that trade helps build a stake in peace for both states and peoples. This hypothesis is a roundabout way of rooting for capitalism as the condition for peace- popularized by New York Times’ brilliant but ‘irrationally exuberant’ master publicist Thomas Friedman in his famed (but vulgar) formulation of the ‘Golden Arches theory of peace. (The late Michael Gorbachev may have encouraged young Russians to eat their pizza(not really an Italian delight but an American concoction) or hamburgers but the Russian reality did not change, as evidenced in the third decade of the 21st century). While trade does lead to linkages that can potentially lead to peace between states but 20th-century history demonstrates its inadequacy. On the eve of the First World War, it is said the world was not only deeply globalized but intermeshed in trade flows and crisscrossing capital flows. It just took an assassin’s bullet in Serbia for the world to descend in an orgy of senseless violence. Moreover, trade can be weaponized in state antagonisms. (Beggar thy neighbour policies are one example of this).

Also Read: WION Spotlight | Ukraine War: Some home truths for the West 

The third is democratic peace. Here theory posits that democracies do not fight democracies. The inference is that if more and more countries become democratic, then world or global peace will obtain. While there is some statistical evidence to buttress this proposition, and it is crystallized in the formation of the European Union, it can be problematized by positing democracies against non-democracies. In the final analysis democracy is a western value (which is not to demean it) but democratization can be seen by non- democracies as a  neo-imperialist western project and thus resisted. Moreover, positing democracies against non-democracies is a binary that can actually lead to conflict and even war.

The fourth is peace enforced by a hegemon-that goes under the broad rubric of hegemonic stability theory. Here it is stated that the hegemon can enforce its will over warring parties and thereby create conditions of peace. But the question is of the legitimacy of the hegemon: how does it make itself acceptable to others? Some say through soft power.  Others say through voice in the hegemon’s policies. In terms of the former, soft power- even though a very powerful concept and idea- by itself is not adequate enough. In terms of the latter, voice in the hegemon’s decision-making processes creates reaction in the polity of the hegemon and it is not always possible to have a robust voice in these processes.

Also Read: Wion Spotlight | China & India slug it out in Colombo

All these approaches to relative peace are then either inadequate or not robust enough. Is global or world peace necessarily a chimera?

Not always.

I would posit that ultimately it is statesmen that can create conditions for relative peace. Far-reaching visionary, sensible and sensitive statesmen (this is not an impossible combination), can reach and arrive at understandings for peace. Key is creating frameworks for and of peace. (The reference here is not to treaties and summits. Both can be broken and decimated-the former has happened historically and the latter can just be avenues for grandstanding or photo-ops). How can these frameworks be arrived at? Understanding the concerns and issues of each other with empathy is one answer. This does not mean ‘taking the proverbial bow’ to relativism but acknowledging issues of great concern with delicate care and sensitivity and embedding these in frameworks.  The necessary condition for building these frameworks is underpinning these with raw, hard power. Ironically then peace can potentially flow from power. Or, ‘swords can be turned into ploughshares’ by virtue of power.  

Is, the question is, such a statesman or statesmen, on the global horizon?

No.

What implications does this have on global peace? Bleak and stark is the answer. Alas!

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE