What causes wars? An almost universal consensus (in the West) is that wars are the result of misunderstandings. When wars break out it is widely believed that they could have been avoided if only the protagonists had a better understanding of each other. Why do Muslim imams and religious leaders label the West with the sobriquet Great Satan? It's because they do not understand us. If they did, they would like us better and would not say such things. A suppressed snide corollary usually goes with this cliche: Islamic misunderstanding is due to ignorance. If they knew more, if they were better educated, they would like us Westerners better.
As Jonah Goldberg put it
It's a staple of the liberal view of the world that peace comes with mutual understanding; when people get to know each other, they don't kill each other. "If we could just get both sides in a room to talk this out . . . " is the beginning (and end) of wisdom for this crowd. Meanwhile, . . . the corollary to all of this is that violence only begats more violence. It's almost as if the Pax Romana, the Pax Britannia, and the Pax Americana were all the results of intensive group therapy sessions in which the leader of these regimes simply hugged out all their differences. [Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (New York: Sentinel/Penguin, 2012), p. 262.]It is undeniably true that some of the most intractable conflicts have been internecine ones. We cannot avoid thinking about the situation in the "former Yugoslavia" where people of different ethnic and religious traditions lived peacefully together for decades--and, as former neighbours, became embroiled in a ruthless, bloody conflict of ethnic cleansing. Neighbour killed neighbour. They all understood each other. In most cases they knew each other very well, but in the end, it mattered not a whit. The same is true of the horrific conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda, the of Troubles in Northern Ireland, or the of North and South Koreans, or the European nations engaged in the horrors of the Great War.
In all of these cases the protagonists understood very well the arguments, grievances, and shared history of their neighbours. It turns out that war is rarely a matter of mere misunderstandings.
This, of course, has been President Obama's naive folly. He appears genuinely to believe his pursuit of mutual understanding would ensure global peace would break out to the joy of all mankind. But if Obama and the liberal tradition he represents are wrong, and that mutual understanding does not contribute to "world peace", what might? Decentralised, vested interests--otherwise known as free trade. Goldberg again:
In modern times the most reliable--not foolproof, just reliable--engine of peace is not lofty dialogue or religion, or frilly exhortations but lowly, mercenary trade. . . . From time immemorial the most bloodthirsty people in the world have been willing to put aside their differences in the cause of commerce. Mobsters tolerate those they find intolerable in the name of business. Modern democracies do not declare war on each other for numerous reasons, but near the top of the list is the fact that citizens recognize their interconnected economic interests. . . .In our neck of the woods we have had the point illustrated in recent days. This year's Heads of Commonwealth meeting was held in Sri Lanka. Various civil rights folk were raising hue and cry in the media over the civil rights record of the Sri Lankan government, trying to pressure the respective Commonwealth prime ministers to beat the Sri Lankan government with a big stick. Pretty forthright was David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK. Much less publicly forthright (albeit privately active) was our own Prime Minister, John Key. Why the difference? The fact is that Sri Lanka is becoming a very strong trading partner with New Zealand. We need them; they need us. The mutual trading interests help compel the two nations to work together. Britain, however, has nowhere near the same incentive, nor constraint. We believe that Key would have made the much more constructive impact on the matter with Sri Lanka. He ended up encouraging them in certain directions, not hectoring like a harridan. Mutual trade interests do that kind of thing.
Montesquieu had it right: "Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities." [Ibid., p. 266]
A similar thing is at play right now between Australia and Indonesia. The latter is all riled up at discovering that Australia has been spying on the phone conversations of the Indonesian president and his wife--as well they might. The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott has been dismissive of the offence taken. Tensions are escalating. It is almost certain, however, that the mutual interests of trade between the two nations will force both governments into more conciliatory postures. Were those mutual interests not there--were not strong commercial interests in both countries pressuring their respective governments to "cool it" things might quickly spiral out of control.
If, along with platitudinous beauty contestants, we truly love world peace, we will promote globalised free trade. With a passion.
1 comment:
Your opening line: "An almost universal consensus (in the West) is that wars are the result of misunderstandings."
Yes, to a point. However, this particular question spawned the study of International Relations, and the above answer is not universal - it is the liberal perspective, which has a broad church with variations on the causes and reasons fielded in an overly optimistic viewpoint.
Other schools of thought - such as realism, still pervade although now on the back foot for reasons I'd find difficult to sum up.
There is no doubt Obama has brought this liberal sense of communication and understanding being a mechanism for preventing wars, but yet his government machinery is steeped in realism - as yet another drone flies out to bomb civilians with the same sense of necessity that such Machiavellian thinking produces. I often wonder how people (Obama, the Democrats and the left in this case) are so blind to the disconnect between talk and actions that they continue to think that a conversation will sort things out once the survivors get the drone shrapnel removed.
The middle ground - commerce and mutual self-interest I also find though an empty dream. Yes, trade fosters mutual self-interest, but the problem is this too becomes a viewpoint from a particular lens that assumes self-interest can be fully realised by trade.
Which is why Tutsi that worked along side Hutu were still slain when the blow up happened.
I'll agree that the seeds of cooperation comes from exchanges of mutual benefit. Add to this inter-marriage and the blending of cultures, but I suspect that falling back on the things of this world is simply not enough. It is looking outward and adopting the spirit of Christ that will be where a full solution lies. That so many have abandoned this will mean the lesson must be learned yet again.
Post a Comment