Pugwash UK
Movement for the Abolition of War

Introduction

Not this year, not in my lifetime, perhaps in yours, and with a strong probability in my grandchildren’s lifetimes, war will be seen as an unacceptable way of settling disputes between states. The aim of this book is to hasten the day. It will not come quickly or without a great deal of effort, because much must and will change first. The hegemony of the United States will be challenged as newly industrialised states jostle for position centre-stage. Climate change and demands for a more even distribution of the world’s goods will cause major disruptions to the political system. The integrity of nation states will become less important, and the richer nations will learn that wealth must be shared.

There are those who say that war will always be with us. They will be proved wrong. The world is changing: there is a growing realisation that violence fails to produce lasting settlements. Already war has become virtually unthinkable within Western Europe, within North America and within most of Australasia. Although threats and counter-threats are still exchanged amongst both major and minor powers, there is great reluctance to go to war because it is clear that wars are less winnable and, in every war, both sides suffer. Wars on the scale of World War 2 have become improbable because both sides would certainly be losers. Many of the wars since then have involved guerillas or terrorists: the superior force has been defeated by an elusive enemy. The US/UK could defeat Sadam Hussein’s forces, but found guerilla tactics in the cities another matter. The use of excessive force against combatants hidden amongst civilians is counterproductive and merely increases resistance. Industrialised states will be less willing to try to impose their will by force. Disputes there will be, but increasingly they will be solved by dialogue round the conference table.

Of course, that does not mean there is nothing to worry about. States accumulate weapons under the illusion that this increases their security, when in reality the presence of the means for violence makes violent acts more likely. In every industrial nation, the military-industrial-scientific complex, discussed in chapter 6, facilitates conflicts all over the world. Even now, wars are being fought in many parts of the world. As I write, desire for revenge and national status has led to a bloody war in Georgia, and a newspaper recently (Jan 23 2008) reported that, as a consequence of the persisting state of war, 45,000 people a month were dying in the Congo. Nor must it be assumed that armed forces have become totally unnecessary: that would be the view of a starry-eyed idealist. From time to time the oppressed will need support. Peace must be promoted and maintained between factions in dispute. Sadly, there is always likely to be a broad spectrum of views as to when intervention is appropriate. It seems clear that the UN Security Council is not the appropriate forum for such decisions so long as a few nations have the power of veto. In any case, in the end, every dispute must be settled by negotiation leading to a solution that both sides see as acceptable. Even then, leaders’ views may not be acceptable to all their followers and it may be necessary to maintain peace by a show of neutral force.

This book is concerned with what we must do to accelerate progress towards a world without war. In doing so, I hope it will show that the goal is a realistic one. If the world is to be changed, it will be necessary to work both with the grass roots of public opinion and with the politicians and leaders who seem to control our fate. It will require new world-views, but they will be world-views that many of us already hanker for. I hope that the chapters that follow will show that we are not doomed by our very nature, for those who maintain that view have a false view of humanity. And I hope that it will show that we are not powerless against the false goals and ambition of some of those who seem to be in control. Of course what I write is coloured by my own experience: I grew up around the time of World War 2. As we shall see, the nature of war has changed since then. Indeed all wars are different and those who have experienced war in Vietnam, Mozambique, Iraq or Afghanistan would have a different slant on the nature of war. But many of the fundamentals are the same: in war, people kill and are killed.

The argument is simple. Two things are essential for war – weapons and people willing to use them. Both weapons manufacture and the motivation to fight are supported by the institution of war. The institution of war is a human construction and can be disempowered. Wars are led by politicians and generals, but leaders become ineffective if enough people refuse to follow them. It is partly because leaders are afraid of popular opposition that they try to keep their cards close to their chests, but non-governmental organisations can insist on governmental openness. If we could render the institution of war ineffective, even the most belligerent politicians would be powerless. With a sane outlook on the world, leaders will not go to war and people would not follow them if they did.