Maq Masi Blog

In an age of unprecedented technological advancement, global connectivity, and the existence of international bodies dedicated to peace, war remains a grim and perplexing reality. Despite the rise of institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, nations continue to arm themselves, conflicts flare across the globe, and the arms industry thrives. Is war an inevitable feature of human existence, or can we move beyond it?

To answer this, we must look to both history and theory, drawing on the insights of great thinkers and political theorists to understand why war persists—and whether peace is truly possible.

Theories of Conflict and Cooperation

At the heart of the question lies a fundamental divide in political thought. Realism, one of the oldest and most influential theories of international relations, holds that war is inevitable because states operate in an anarchic system where survival is paramount. Power is the ultimate currency, and war becomes a necessary tool for securing national interests. Thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and ancient figures like Thucydides argued that the struggle for dominance and security would always lead to conflict, as states act in their own self-interest.

Yet, Liberalism offers a more optimistic outlook. Liberalists argue that cooperation, democracy, and international institutions can mitigate the causes of war. The Democratic Peace Theory, for instance, asserts that democracies are less likely to fight each other, and international trade fosters economic interdependence that makes conflict costly and undesirable. The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that democratic governance and a shared commitment to peace could one day lead to a world without war. The League of Nations, and later the United Nations, were born from this vision—though their effectiveness remains contested.

Meanwhile, Constructivism challenges the idea that war is driven purely by material interests like power or resources. Constructivists argue that the social and ideological constructions—such as national identity, historical narratives, and perceived enemies—shape state behavior. Alexander Wendt famously argued, “Anarchy is what states make of it.” If the global community embraces different norms, peace could be constructed just as effectively as conflict.

Adding to these views, Feminist theories highlight that traditional international relations have often overlooked the role of gender in shaping conflict. War has historically been framed as a male-dominated enterprise, with aggression and domination idealized as masculine traits. Feminist scholars like Cynthia Enloe argue that including more diverse voices, particularly women, in peacebuilding processes could lead to more durable and humane solutions to conflict.

The Human Costs of War

While these theories help us understand the forces driving war, it’s the human cost that truly illustrates its futility. History’s great writers, leaders, and thinkers have consistently echoed this sentiment.

Leo Tolstoy, a veteran of war himself, later denounced it as futile and unjust. In War and Peace, he depicted war as a force beyond human control, driven by senseless power struggles that devastate ordinary lives. His words reflect a timeless truth: war is destructive not only on battlefields but within societies and individuals.

Albert Einstein warned of the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons, expressing his fears with the famous statement, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” His plea for disarmament resonates even today, as the existence of nuclear arsenals continues to loom over humanity.

Ernest Hemingway, a veteran of World War I, wrote in A Farewell to Arms that “War is not won—it’s survived.” His works capture the disillusionment of those who experience the horrors of war firsthand, offering a sobering reminder that those who glorify conflict often never bear its true cost.

Even military leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower grew wary of war’s industrialization. As a former general and U.S. president, Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, recognizing that the business of war could perpetuate conflict for profit. He urged diplomacy over militarization, emphasizing that lasting peace could only be achieved through cooperation.

Is Peace Truly Possible?

If war is such a destructive and futile endeavor, why do we continue to wage it? The answer may lie in the intersection of these political theories and human behavior.

Realism reminds us that power dynamics and security concerns drive much of international conflict. But Liberalism and Constructivism offer hope: if we can strengthen global institutions, promote democracy, and reshape international norms, perhaps war can be avoided. The feminist critique adds that by expanding the voices involved in decision-making, particularly those of women and marginalized groups, we might find more creative and compassionate solutions to conflict.

Furthermore, history has shown us that nonviolence and diplomacy can lead to peace. Mahatma Gandhi led India to independence through nonviolent resistance, proving that it’s possible to overcome even the most entrenched systems of oppression without violence. Nelson Mandela, too, transitioned South Africa out of apartheid through dialogue and reconciliation, offering a model for resolving conflicts without bloodshed.

Moving Forward: Solutions for Peace

To achieve lasting peace, we must approach the issue from multiple angles. Strengthening international organizations like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice is essential, as these institutions provide a framework for resolving disputes without resorting to violence. But beyond these formal mechanisms, we must foster a global culture that values dialogue over dominance.

Disarmament, particularly of nuclear weapons, is crucial. Einstein’s warnings about the consequences of war ring more urgent than ever in the modern era. Reducing the influence of the arms industry on global politics is also necessary; as Eisenhower warned, a world where war is profitable is one in which peace will always be out of reach.

Most importantly, we must redefine what it means to be strong. True strength lies not in the capacity to destroy but in the ability to build and to heal. As history has shown, peace is not just the absence of war—it is the presence of justice, equity, and mutual understanding.

Conclusion

War, while a persistent feature of human history, is not inevitable. It is shaped by human decisions, ideologies, and structures. By learning from political theory, understanding the human cost of conflict, and working together to reshape our global norms, we can build a world where peace is not only possible but inevitable.

The choice is ours. Do we continue down the path of destruction, or do we commit to creating a future where dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperation triumph over conflict? The time for war should be over. Now is the time for peace.