April 11, 2023
We hope you enjoy our articles. Please note, we may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page. Thank you if you use our links, we really appreciate it!
Human ingenuity is not at its best when the ongoing war in Ukraine comes to mind. It seems history has not offered enough lessons to world leaders as they continue repeating it by engaging in conflicts with devastating consequences. Interstate wars and World Wars come to mind in this context.
In this digital age the war happening thousands of miles away appears close, as if happening in our close vicinity, as the social media provide minute updates and flash the images of death and destruction. Despite the war going on for more than one year, the world leaders have failed to find a peaceful solution. Developments in the last few weeks, for example, targeting of the US drone by Russia, the visit of Russian President Putin to the occupied territory, the visit of the Chinese President Jinping to Russia, President Biden’s visit to Poland, Russia announcing that it is deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, have exacerbated the crisis, giving rise to the fears of further escalation and possible nuclear conflagration.
Russia is the aggressor as it invaded Ukraine, a sovereign democratic country, but that does not and should not discourage the international society, based on collective morality and ethics, to explore peaceful pathways to end the war. The crisis also calls for prudent leadership and statesmanship, and awaits creative imagination on part of the political leaders to see beyond horizon by rising above immediate national interest and geopolitical concerns. The war has benefitted none but the arms industry and war propaganda machinery. It has killed thousands of people, mostly Ukrainians. It has further vitiated the relations between Russia and Ukraine, and undermined prospects of cooperation in the region. Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory created a permanent scar in bilateral relations with having larger implications for the region and beyond.
Speaking at the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington DC, in 1953, President Eisenhower elaborated on how war affects humanity and violates many of its beautiful canons. In his words, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children…This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” It seems Eisenhower’s wise counsel was lost to history and nothing was learned. This is visible in the case of war in Ukraine.
While addressing the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945, President Truman said, “We hold a powerful mandate from our people. They believe we will fulfill this obligation. We must prevent, if human mind, heart and hope can prevent it, the repetition of the disaster from which the entire world will suffer for years to come. If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn.” While speaking at the closing session of the same conference, Truman reflected on the Second World War and the devastation it caused, and argued, ‘if we had had this Charter (UN Charter) a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it-millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die…we have here resolved that power and strength shall be used not to wage war, but to keep the world at peace, and free from the fear of war.”
The United Nations was founded to promote international peace through dialogue and collaboration, in order to make war a defunct instrument, but the last seven decades have apparently not provided a propitious picture regarding its effectiveness in promoting international peace despite contested success of the UN operations. It would be too expensive and deadly to have another prolonged war in Ukraine, with wastage of billions of dollars, and the loss of human lives, and then realizing the futility of war, as reflected in the speech of Truman in 1945.
Despite the violent human history and interstate wars, there are a few instances when leaders displayed prudence and statesmanship and adopted peaceful pathways to address conflict. When the Cuban missile crisis happened in 1962, President Kennedy had options to follow the path of confrontation and war, and the path of dialogue. He listened to the wise counsel of his Under Secretary of State, George Ball, who made a case against an attack on Cuba as such a course of action would “far from establishing our moral strength” “alienate a great part of the civilized world.” Ball’s argument and other similar wise counsel, linking America’s traditions to larger moral considerations, played a role in shaping Kennedy’s preference to diplomatic negotiations.
Though the Cuban missile crisis and the war in Ukraine are two different developments happening in two different time periods, the similarity lies in the fact that both the developments presented options of war and dialogue before the parties to the conflict. The Cuban missile crisis should present before the leaders an example how complicated crises could be handled peacefully without sacrificing national interest. The crisis of 1962 is instructive as it calls for widening political and policy imagination to explore peaceful pathways to address the war in Ukraine. The war has pushed the region towards chaos and instability and exacted heavy material and social and moral costs, yet to be gauged fully.
How to arrive at a peaceful solution? There are no definitive answers. There are fledgling attempts however, and they need to be cultivated more. For example, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres in his meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky a few weeks ago appreciated the agreement between Ukraine and Russia on supply of food grains through the Black Sea. It implies that not all good will is lost despite the war. The conflicting parties must realize that the old methods of war, hostile propaganda, and moral exclusion are not working in Ukraine. The best minds from Ukraine, Europe, the United States, Russia and other major powers including China and India must come forward to develop a peace plan that addresses the concerns of Ukraine and Russia, while realizing that such a peace process would not be an easy process. But it must start from somewhere.
There are broadly two streams of arguments about international peace. One stream of argument holds that after the World Wars, with the establishment of international institutions such as the United Nations, the world has become peaceful. Such an optimistic view of the world has been challenged by the war in Ukraine. The war has strengthened the second stream of argument that the world has become much more violent despite international institutions. The war has also unsettled the vision of one world, supported by increasing global communication and market economy, bolstered by technology.
War in Ukraine is not a crisis for one country or group of countries, but for the humanity. Humanity must rise to the occasion, or, to use the words of Truman, it would bear ‘the bitter wrath of generations.’ One hopes all the stakeholders, particularly heads of states involved in the conflict, realize this, and work towards a peaceful solution of the conflict.
