History tells
us that war
is becoming old fashioned
By
Jonathan
Power
TFF
Associate since 1991
Comments directly to
JonatPower@aol.com
May 4, 2007
LONDON - Are the great powers really as war-prone
as the traditional balance of power theorists, like former secretary of
state, Henry Kissinger and Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, argue?
I think the evolution of history in all its complexity tells us something
else. Even though human beings have made war as far back as we know this
doesn’t predetermine our future, and it doesn’t necessarily
prove there will be more of the same.
We should wind the historical clock back to the fifteenth century. It
is then we can take advantage of the late Evan Luard’s fascinating
study of war in European societies. He divided up the history of warfare
into five periods: The Age of Dynasties (1400 to 1559), the Age of Religions
(1559-1648), the Age of Sovereignty (1649-1789), the Age of Nationalism
(1789-1917) and the Age of Ideology from 1917 onwards.
In the Age of Dynasties, when kings and dukes ruled uncertain fiefdoms,
war was often “private”- the cause of some noble or knight,
even an independent rabble of disbanded troops, not unlike in Africa today.
The Age of Religions brought more intense wars, and more costly too. This
was the age of the birth of Protestantism and dissent from Rome. Religion
became the most important reason for waging war as religious minorities
battled against intolerance from on high.
The third period, the Age of Sovereignty, was the era of state building.
War tended to come about as the king or princes sought to extend or consolidate
their national territory. In this period wars over faith, with their massive
toll on civilians, practically disappeared.
Wars decreased in number and decreased further in the next era, the Age
of Nationalism. Despite the Napoleonic wars and the First World War, France
was involved in international wars in Europe in only 32 out of 128 years.
Prussia was at war in only five of those years. There were long periods,
1815-1854 and 1871-1914 when the major European powers did not fight each
other at all.
For adherents of the balance of power school this era throws up interesting
questions. What had changed to explain the difference between the war
years of 1854-71 and the peaceful decades before and after? Nothing. Right
through this era there was a rough balance of power between the five or
six major powers. Much of the time it succeeded in keeping the peace,
but it wasn’t foolproof. Even U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice condemns “balance of power” politics as outmoded and
dangerous. “We tried this before; it led to the Great War”,
she said not so long ago.
The final era was the Age of Ideology, as the countries of Europe, along
with Japan and the U.S., fought each other, the liberal democracies first
against the fascists and then against the communists. Now it appears to
some that we are entering a new era of ideological war - against Islamic
fundamentalism - and one combined with a new age of nationalism as the
U.S. seeks to best any country that might challenge it with weapons of
mass destruction.
Looking back over this vast historical panorama, according to Luard’s
meticulous arithmetic, wars have become less frequent and the number of
years in which an average country has been involved in war has declined
noticeably over the centuries. The Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute reports that they are still declining, steadily.
Going back through the ages we can see from our perspective that the reasons
wars were fought were not issues that would now engage us. Would we fight
to keep our prince in power? Would we fight for our tribe? We certainly
wouldn’t fight for our religion and it is extremely doubtful if
we would fight to expand the territory of our country. Interestingly,
there is little evidence that countries have ever fought over economic
issues.
The truth is that questions that seemed of paramount importance in one
era, a reason for bloody war, are matters of indifference in a subsequent
age. What was in one age solved by the brutal application of force is
either ignored or solved by quiet diplomacy in another.
Is mankind putting gradually putting war on one side? The trend seems
to suggest we are. Wars in the Third World are decreasing. Very few in
Europe are inclined to go to war and a bare majority in America. And that
only becomes a workable majority if people think it will be a quick one-
hence public opinion turning so quickly against the war in Iraq.
Michael Mandelbaum in his book, “The Ideas that Conquered the World”
has summed it all up rather well: “The great chess game of international
politics is finished, or at least suspended. A pawn is now just a pawn,
not a sentry standing guard against an attack on a king.”
Copyright © 2007 Jonathan
Power
Last 
Next
Jonathan Power can be
reached by phone +44 7785 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Jonathan
Power
2007 Book
Conundrums
of Humanity
The Quest for Global Justice
“Conundrums
of Humanity” poses eleven questions for our future progress, ranging
from “Can we diminish War?” to “How far and fast can
we push forward the frontiers of Human Rights?” to “Will
China dominate the century?”
The answers to these questions, the author believes, growing out of
his long experience as a foreign correspondent and columnist for the
International Herald Tribune, are largely positive ones, despite the
hurdles yet to be overcome. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 2007.
Tell a friend about this column by Jonathan Power
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Get
free articles & updates
|