|
So, using my three main reasons for going to war (natural resources, ego, pre-emption), let's now look at some reasons countries are not technically at war yet who are not at peace. These countries at Non-war include Isreal and Syria/Jordan/Egypt/Palestine (or at least the Palestinian people), and the United States and Afghanistan.
Outight war is horrifying and terribly costly. The alternative, non-war, is to be prepared to go to war at a moment's notice, or to actually be fighting without any formal declaration. There are some obvious examples: Isreal has been at this state since inception in 1948, and the United States is fighting a non-war in Afghanistan since we are not technically fighting the country but rather a small (yet significant) part.
Other than War and Non-war, everyone is at peace or at least neutral, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. For one thing, peace and neutrality are not the same thing. Switzerland is known for being neutral, yet it wasn't during World War II as it helped both the Axis (by laundering gold) and Allies (with information about Nazi troop movements). Argentina was also 'neutral' during that conflict, yet Nazi submarine bases were built on her shores.
These days, howevever, without any global conflict (I don't mention the War on Terror since that is not technically a concerted effort, despite the best efforts of the Americans), more countries are in a state of non-war than are at peace. England and the United States can be considered at peace, of course, yet China and the United States cannot. Why? Because the United States has something China wants and, sometime in the future, will have to fight someone for (natural resources). The United States and Mexico are also in a state of non-war in that Mexico wants something the United States has (economic opportunities, infrastructure) and will one day have to fight for what it needs or slide back into a third-world country. Almost every country in Africa with the exception of Morocco and South Africa are in a similar state: they either have natural resources they will one day have to defend (oil or crops) or are nearing (or at) a desperate state where they will have to invade. Africa specifically cannot continue to to subside on help from the West (or East) as sooner or later those countries helping Africa will have to turn their attention inward (again, to either protecting what they have or fighting for what they need).
So. A fragile world without peace is where we seem to be heading. And yet, I have hope.
One day perhaps countries will look beyond their petty differences and realize we are all at risk if we continue as we are. We as a planet have come together (it seems) with regard to global warming (or cooling, or rotating, or whatever they call it these days), why can't we get together on peace?
I have hope. This is a fragile world, sure. But it is the only one we have. Let's never forget that.
|
tweet this!
