This paper was delivered at the 2024 CIDC Conference, “State of Emergency: Democracy and Digital Transformation in Times of War,” during the session “Multi-stakeholder Engagement in Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Democratic Renewal.” In the paper, Dr. Antonio Garcia reflects on lessons from humanity’s efforts to transform conflict.
Introduction
War has been a persistent feature in human history, prompting efforts to both govern and mitigate violent conflict. Although these attempts have often met with limited success, they provide insight into how societies have responded to war and sought to create a safer world. This paper draws on several historical case studies to place war, peace, and peace-making efforts into a broader historical context, focusing on the experiences of international organizations and individual leaders.
Leaders
Despite the development of peace treaties and international organizations, humanity has yet to fully learn the lessons of past wars. The creation of the United Nations (UN) and other supranational institutions was an attempt to prevent conflict and reduce violence. In practice, it has been key leaders who have driven change. One notable example is the innovation and practice of peacekeeping, which initially involved unarmed military observers. This was introduced by UN diplomat Ralph Bunche after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. As Brian Urquhart noted, “Ralph Bunche conceived, built up, and directed the UN’s first peacekeeping operation, the UN Observer Group in Palestine.” This was a revolutionary approach that complemented diplomatic and political efforts at conflict resolution, earning Bunche the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since then, peacekeeping operations have evolved, with the introduction of armed peacekeepers (beginning at Suez) and reflected in documents such as the Brahimi and Hippo reports, as well as the Summit for Peace. However, modern peace missions have often met with limited success. What was often lacking was the correct moment for peace, but also courageous leaders.
There are many historical examples of brave and principled leaders. Nelson Mandela, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner, left office after serving one term as the first president of a united and democratic South Africa. Other examples of ethical leaders that left their positions at the pinnacle of their power include Solon, the Lawgiver of Athens, in the 6th century BCE. His laws set the stage for the creation of modern democracy and gave a voice to the people. He left his position of authority apparently so that no one could claim he benefited from the laws he created. George Washington is another prime example who, after winning the War of Independence, returned to his farm, taking up his plough, echoing figures like Cincinnatus, the Roman leader—he later became a democratically elected president.
Each of these leaders faced crises involving opposing sides. Solon maintained his integrity against both the elites and the poor, invoking the image of the hoplite warrior and saying he stood with his strong shield covering both sides, allowing neither an unjust victory. Washington warned of the dangers of partisanship within parliamentary politics and its spirit of revenge. In the 1960s, Nelson Mandela declared that he fought against both white and African oppression, advocating for a truly inclusive, democratic South Africa. These leaders considered ideas of democracy and state-building within their personal approaches to ethics and governance.
Historical Context: Attempts at Making Peace
Despite some good efforts, not all leaders have sought peace. Many have used their power for destruction, especially in the 20th century, when ideological wars became prominent. A long European tradition of violent conflict shaped these 20th-century wars, including the Thirty Years’ War and the Napoleonic Wars. By the end of the First World War, the Ottoman, Habsburg, Russian, and German Empires had collapsed, leaving Europe in despair and paving the way for new ideologies.
The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, failed to create lasting peace and instead sowed the seeds of future conflict. The harsh terms of the treaty, coupled with the ideological struggles of the time, set the stage for the rise of totalitarian regimes. The League of Nations was a product of the ideas of its time and, while its conceptual foundation was strong, it ultimately failed to prevent future wars. Ideology and the organized killing machine of the modern state proved formidable, bringing the world to its knees through industrialized warfare.
The aftermath of the Second World War, with its unprecedented potential for global destruction, led to the establishment of the United Nations, a successor to the League of Nations, with the goal of preventing future wars and fostering peace. The UN has had mixed results. While there are fewer deaths from war today than in previous centuries, the cost in human suffering and trauma remains immeasurable. The UN has supported the development of legal frameworks aimed at regulating war, some which have a historical basis including but not limited to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1864, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the creation of the International Criminal Court which embodies the idea of global justice. But in practice, much depends on which states are party to a treaty, and in the case of the International Criminal Court, which states accept its jurisdiction.
Other successful attempts at the regulating of war was the prohibition of chemical weapons convention. Although gas was used extensively during the First World War, international restrictions prevented its widespread use during the Second World War. The prohibition of anti-personnel landmines is another success story. However, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has led to the discovery of anti-personnel mines in previously occupied areas. Amnesty International has requested a full investigation, stating that potential war crimes have been committed.
Perhaps one of the most important factors in preventing the escalation of conflict during the 20th century was the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was characterized by the threat of mutually assured destruction, which prevented direct confrontation between the two superpowers. However, proxy wars in places like Korea and Vietnam illustrated the limits of this deterrence, as ideological conflicts continued to drive violence. These conflicts also highlighted the West’s reluctance to commit to total war, which was similar to the Soviet Union. How this will play out in Ukraine remains to be seen, but international pressure will be key in ensuring an acceptable peace.
Conclusion
War has been ever-present in our history, but almost as long as violent conflict has been around we have sought ways to govern and regulate its use. Even the bleakest of cynics could find an inkling of hope in the correspondence between Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Freud expressed a pessimistic view of human nature, believing that aggression is an innate part of the human condition. He suggested that war is both a personal and collective phenomenon, driven by deep-seated impulses. Yet, Freud also offered a glimmer of hope, arguing that humanity could learn to control its aggressive instincts.
How this could be made to happen in practice is perhaps linked to the idea of compromise. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin contended that the pursuit of a perfect, utopian solution to conflict is often impossible. Instead, Berlin advocated for compromise—an imperfect compromise of which some form of democracy is not a bad option. The alternative is a so-called utopia, such as a form of Stalinist communism or the modern concept of a caliphate.
In conclusion, the history of war and peace demonstrates that while conflict is constant, human efforts to manage and mitigate its impact have evolved over time. There have been leaders who exemplified ethical conduct; and others who promoted destruction. Although the challenges are immense, the pursuit of peace remains an enduring human aspiration. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”
—
About the Author
Dr. Antonio Garcia is a historian and author with academic affiliations at Stellenbosch University, Durham University, and the Open University. He has written extensively on strategy, war, and peacekeeping. His book “Botha, Smuts and the Great War” was longlisted for the Templar Book Award. He co-authored “Number 788”, a biographical study on Swedish special operations, and is releasing “Experiences of Silencing the Guns in Africa” (co-edited with Jacob Udo-Udo Jacob) in December 2024.
