Early this year I competed a free online course with Coursera, which offered free lectures from the University of Tokyo and open discussions with lifelong learners from every corner of the world. One of the assignments asked us to think about the greatest peacekeeping measure, suggesting military power, democracy and free market as potential tools for peace. These short thoughts were then peer reviewed and open to discussion. The entire process was very rewarding in terms of keeping me connected to a field of study that inspires me and others who feel motivated to consider similar pursuits. The following ideas were my initial thoughts from this process.
Conditions for War and Peace: Final Essay
Realists would argue that military prowess acts as a deterrent against potential attacks, following the adage that defense is the best offense. The argument of Huntington, that military professionalism can limit war, is very compelling in that often the 'experts of war' will only take calculated risks to avoid loss and damages wherever possible. Also, it should be highlighted that it is usually the case that those who have experienced war are the greatest advocates for peace. Military power has great potential for limiting war although it does not promote peace - as peace in its truest sense is not only the absence of force, but it is the presence of hope.
Arguments for Economic Liberalism carry potentials as they explain complex power dynamics and allow for the protection of self-interest. Dr Fujiwara explained clearly that the United States and China may not have a hegemonic war in the traditional sense because free market and interrelated economies means that one cannot be destroyed without destroying the other. In this sense, the United States and China are economically interrelated. This argument has merit but it will not be strong enough to stop China from invading the United States should the benefit at some point outweigh the cost. Without an ethical basis of mutual respect and/or a value for human life, the arguments of Free Market Theory are not strong enough to lead to the elimination of war.
I agree with Dr Fujiwara that democracy will have a role in building global peace in the long term, however, democracy alone will not end wars. The example of the United States, a rich, powerful and stable democracy, engaging in warfare is proof alone that civic institutions and the majority of people themselves can support violence and war - and therefore democracy does not equate to peace. Where the people and their institutions do not equally value the lives of others living outside of their political boundaries, democracy will never eliminate war.
Finally, it will be a universal commitment to valuing human life that will be the greatest potential for peace, alongside the appropriate conditions of democracy, free market and possibly military power. It will be through developing empathy within individuals, communities, nations and international institutions that true and lasting peace will be supported. This has links to Liberal Institutionalism, Pacifism, Humanism and other theories but in its core it is the ability for people to value the greatest potentials for peace locally, regionally and internationally that will ultimately be the greatest deterrent against war. This of course has yet to be proven on a large scale but can be seen clearly in grassroots peacebuilding efforts around the world, where emotional inter-personal connections can reduce the incidence of violence and promote a warm and lasting peace.
