The Cost of War: Why Peace Remains Elusive
- The Paradox of War and Peace – History shows that war is often justified as a means to achieve peace, yet it remains the biggest obstacle to lasting stability.
- The Cost of War – Beyond battlefield casualties, war devastates economies, displaces populations, and deepens global divisions, preventing true progress.
- The Path to Peace – Sustainable peace requires diplomacy, mutual understanding, and cooperation, rather than conflict driven by national interests and power struggles.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch historian, says, “Human beings are cooperative and kind by nature, as were our hunter-gatherer ancestors. However, our leaders (kings, generals, and politicians) can build upon their suspicions of the outgroup to motivate them to wage war.”.
History bears witness to this cognizant fact that the human mind is embossed to maintain peace by war, while at the same time, it is pretty sure that war is the only source that tarnishes the reputation of peace. Strikingly, it would be pertinent to remind the readers about the preamble of UNESCO’s charter: “Wars begin in the minds of men. And it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be built.”. It seems like we first provoke the sentiments of war and then defend ourselves for peace.
The only reason we fight for this is the self-interest of every state as per their foreign policy. No one fights for the collective interest of humanity, because that is not in the domain of their interest. Just have a look at America’s foreign policy. On one side, they proclaim that we want peace in the world, and on the other side, she is a ground provider and alliance of every international conflict and largely contributes to the Cold Wars, like the war in Afghanistan, which became a ground for international powers to serve their interests on, but unfortunately, they left with empty hands.
It would be a lame excuse to exaggerate that war falls in the interest of superpowers, but I would say that peace is a tragedy that can’t be bear by everyone. as Austria and the Netherlands were on opposite sides in the Second World War. However, both have reached the same conclusion—that war belongs in a museum and that peace is far more precious than victory over the rival. For seven decades now, the Europeans, including the Dutch and Austrians, have reaped the benefits of working together. Both countries are well-developed and prosperous, providing every conceivable facility to their citizens. Today, according to the IMF, the Netherlands’ GDP per capita is an impressive figure of $61,100, while Austria is not far behind at $56,800.
Much ink must be spilled on highlighting that even neighboring countries can’t bear each other just because we have lost the acceptance power. Let’s predispose on Pakistan and Indian relations. Neither wars (1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999) nor peace attempts (1999, 2004, and 2015) have resolved their mutual grievances. The deep mutual mistrust continues. A prominent example of a country that was once unified and now has peacefully considered borders is the Korean Peninsula, where North Korea and South Korea exist as separate nations with a heavily demarcated border, established after the Korean War.
Even in an Islamic context, Islam prohibits war to the greatest extent, as the Quran says: “If anyone kills a person—unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land—it is as if he kills all mankind.’’ The Muslim rulers had proved this by their actions, as Caliph Abu Bakr Siddique is reported to have ordered his army in very clear terms: “Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.”
From all perspectives, it is quite unambiguous that war is not the way to resolve conflicts or retaliate to meet your grievances. It will rather complicate the de facto. which will lead to a point of no return, as in WWI and WWII, where resettlement and peaceful dialogue were words unknown to opponents.
The most perturbing is that according to the United Nations International School, humans have been at peace for 268 years out of the past 3,400 years, which is only 8% of recorded history. However, historians say that there have been no periods of history without war. Growing disenchantment is that if history is made by wars, then what can we predict about the future?
The future might be more encircled by wars than the past. The only difference will be like “old wine in a new bottle.” In three thousand years of history, China has spent at least eleven centuries at war. The Roman Empire was in conflict during at least 50 percent of its lifetime. Since 1776, the United States has spent over one hundred years at war. The dream of peace has been universal in the history of humanity.
Broadly speaking, it is presumed that war is an inescapable term. Then it pops into mind that what then makes a difference between the uncivilized of the past and the civilized of the day? That would simply mean that the clock is ticking the same as before. Inasmuch as the world is more civilized and educated than before. So, it must be a one-size-fits-all approach to prove through actions and policies to pacify the region.
In A Political History of the World, Jonathan Holslag has produced a sweeping history of the world, from the Iron Age to the present, that investigates the causes of conflict between empires, nations, and peoples and the attempts at diplomacy and cosmopolitanism. A bird’s-eye view of three thousand years of history, the book illuminates the forces shaping world politics from Ancient Egypt to the Han Dynasty, the Pax Romana to the rise of Islam, and the Peace of Westphalia to the creation of the United Nations.
At the risk of displeasing innocent ears, that famed philosopher Bertrand Russell rightly noted that war does not determine “who is right, but who is left.”. Nations have historically waged wars to show their dominance and to follow the strategy of expansionism and nationalism. War does not lead any nation to glory. That is why great leaders are the ones who end a war and promote peace. Peace agreements, like the Treaty of Hudaibya, were put forward to avoid conflicts and wars, and had it not been for such pacts, the world would have been a different place today.
Similarly, the Holy Quran enjoins that if they (enemies) are inclined towards peace on just terms, the overture should be accepted: “If they incline to peace, incline you as well to it, and trust in Allah. Surely, He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” Therein, it is pertinent to understand that the world doesn’t need any more wars to bear. What needs to be ensured is peace, inasmuch as peace is a word unknown to the people of Palestine, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and many more.
At the end, I am convinced that wars can’t lead us towards peace. What can ensure peace is mutual understanding, acceptance, table talks, and, more importantly, mutual interest for the sake of humanity.
The author is a freelance writer and is studying Public Administration at Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad.
