Democracies do not go to war with each other
Countries most prone to war are not democracies or autocracies, but countries in between
We need jaw jaw not war war”, said Winston Churchill rather hypocritically. Still, he would be glad to see that the number of wars around the world has fallen dramatically since the end of World War II, despite the conflicts in Korea, Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Pakistan versus India, Central America, Cyprus, ex-Yugoslavia, Syria and now Yemen.
Compared to centuries past this has been a remarkable era, yet one not often acknowledged.
Interstate wars, apart from India versus Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Yemen, have vanished off the map. The wars that remain are civil wars.
The democracies do not go to war with each other, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher long ago observed.
A detailed study made by the Economist last month, analyzed all international wars since 1900, along with the belligerents’ wealth and degree of development.
It counted all conflicts in which at least 100 people per year were killed, excluding deaths from terrorism, massacres of civilians outside combat, starvation or disease.
The data showed a strong correlation between democracy and peace, with the exception of the US.
The countries most prone to war these days are not democracies or autocracies; they are countries in between.
A similar finding applies to prosperity. Middle-income countries are more warlike than very poor or rich ones.
Why? Wars are expensive, and citizens in tyrannies struggle to organize uprisings. Perhaps a little political competition or wealth makes it easier to take up arms.
The development and growth of international law have undoubtedly had a cooling impact. Grotius, the great Dutch philosopher, wrote in the early 17th century: “Where judicial settlement ends, the war begins”.
The data showed a strong correlation between democracy and peace, with the exception of the US. The countries most prone to war these days are not democracies or autocracies; they are countries in between
To wage war was not a criminal act. It was what States did to uphold the law. Grotius was a clever man but in fact, his writings sanctioned the two terrible world wars.
We now realize that “legalizing war legitimized violence and blocked routes to peace”, as written by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro in their seminal book, The Internationalists.
It was a successful Chicago Corporate lawyer, Salmon Levinson, who wrote in 1917, “The only real way to bring an end to the war is to outlaw war”.
All the plans made before assumed the legality of the war. Levinson drew up a plan to outlaw war unlike any other peace plan than under discussion.
Levinson organized a global social movement around the idea of Outlawry. He made an impact. At a special conference in Paris of major countries on August 27th, 1928, the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, declared that the day would mark “a new date in the history of mankind” and the end of “selfish and willful warfare”.
By signing a treaty, soon to be known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the nations of the world would no longer treat war as a lawful means to resolve disputes.
Briand said the treaty would “attack the evil at its very root” by depriving war of “its legitimacy”.
That day, 15 nations signed the Peace Pact, and within a year nearly every nation in the world did the same. For the first time in history, a war was considered to be illegal. Tragically, the Pact didn’t survive the pressure of events and the selfish, nationalistic, views of antagonistic countries.
The first challenge came from Japan when it invaded Manchuria in 1931. The League of Nations was paralyzed. The other important institution, the International Court Of Justice, whose charter said that disputes had to be submitted to it, was ignored.
The US Secretary of State, Henry Stimson, started to think about sanctions- “Sanctions of peace” to replace the “sanctions of war”. In January 1932 Stimson delivered diplomatic notes to Japan and China, saying, “The US Government does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and the obligations of the Pact of Paris.”
The League allowed that Japan might take Manchuria but Manchuria would not belong to Japan. Later, other signatories of the Pact- Germany, Japan and Italy- ignored it.
At the end of the Second World War, the United Nations Charter included the words of the Pact verbatim:
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” There was one exception- if the Security Council authorized force to keep the peace.
Today we look at a world where territorial conquest has all but disappeared. Immunity for Heads of States no longer exists.
The International Criminal Court can prosecute those accused of war crimes. Before 1928 the average State could be expected to be conquered once in a person’s lifetime. Now, it is once or twice in a millennium.
Yes, a lot of it. Most people, especially politicians, are blind to this momentous achievement.
Copyright: Jonathan Power.
Add commentComments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.
With the increase in egg prices the government decided to import eggs to regu
In order to critically discuss a movement, we must first understand its etymo
Many battles were fought during the long war between the Sri Lankan armed for
When can one say they’ve had enough of being in a state of ‘wokeness’ a
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
29 Mar 2023 - 2 - 980
28 Mar 2023 - 8 - 1013
24 Mar 2023 - 1 - 1398
23 Mar 2023 - 1 - 3747
Name - Reply Comment