Why Do We Fight? – The Roots of Conflict and Strategies for Peace in the World

The increasing frequency of armed conflicts, civil wars, and transnational wars is a burden on the world’s peoples and poses a threat to global stability and peace. The Russian-Ukrainian war and its various impacts serve as clear evidence of the ramifications and diverse costs of contemporary wars on humanity, necessitating an examination of the causes of wars and conflicts, as well as the factors that exacerbate them and diminish the ability to resolve them.

In this context, Christopher Blattman presents an in-depth analysis of the causes of wars and various ways to establish peace among different cultures and societies in his book titled Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace. Despite the contradictions and disparities, the author examines numerous countries suffering from armed conflicts, such as Sudan and others, and areas plagued by different forms of gang wars like Chicago.

Causes of Wars:

The outbreak of wars stems from various causes that differ according to the specific context and circumstances of each situation. However, the author outlines common denominators that can be viewed as a general umbrella for the outbreak of wars between nations and groups, whether these are national wars, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, or gang wars. Addressing conflict and establishing peace requires a genuine understanding of the underlying motivations, which can be summarized as follows:

Self-Interest of Leaders: This reason is a foundational pillar for the outbreak of wars, arising from the narrow and personal calculations of leaders that may not necessarily align with societal needs, prompting nations and groups to engage in prolonged conflicts. This issue is not necessarily tied to the democracy of political systems but primarily stems from the inefficiency within internal checks and balances. The author highlights the case of Liberia, which experienced a bloody conflict in 1989 driven by desires for dominance and control over resources, resulting in significant internal division, particularly due to the political system’s failure to maintain sufficient checks and balances. The unchecked self-interest of leaders can render peace more fragile.

Intangible Incentives and Ideological Amplification: Belonging to a specific ideology—be it religious, cultural, or intellectual—or strong attachment to a particular sect can motivate groups within society to resort to violence, conflict, and war, as seen in the American rebellion against Britain amid the rise of the new ideology of self-determination and Adolf Hitler’s efforts to disseminate his ideology during World War II to preserve what he claimed was the superiority of the German race.

This reason is also evident in internal wars resulting from counterinsurgency strategies applied against domestic groups, generating internal violence, as in the case of peasant uprisings in early modern Europe and Vietnamese or Iraqi resistance to American invasion. Moreover, many governments (Britain, Russia, China, Iran, Indonesia, France, Myanmar) employ violence to subdue regions under their sovereignty and reject the principle of self-determination. This approach often fuels violence and subsequently leads to war, as anger and the quest for glory significantly narrow the space for compromise and adherence to peace.

Differences in Material and Moral Advantages: Wars ignite due to one party’s desire to acquire the material or moral advantages enjoyed by the other, prompting rulers to activate diverse alliances and mobilize forces in preparation for war. Conflicts typically arise when warring nations disagree on their relative strengths. This has historically led governments to privatize the benefits of fighting while socializing the costs of wars.

Imbalance and Commitment Issues: A state’s motivation to use violence and declare war on another often stems from fear and anticipation of an imbalance of power with that adversary. This was evident in the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003, primarily driven by Western fears regarding Iraq’s development of military capabilities, especially weapons of mass destruction. Competition and ambitions for power expansion amid rivalry with surrounding powers often spur conflicts due to miscalculations of targeted states’ capacities. The author argues that issues of commitment pose a major obstacle to resolving civil wars, exemplified by Colombia’s peace agreement in 2016 between the government and Revolutionary Armed Forces, which was undermined by a lack of commitment to cease violence, resulting in subsequent waves of violence and conflict.

Misjudgment of Mutual Powers: One reason attributed to the outbreak of war lies in misconceptions and misjudgments regarding the strength of adversaries and the international community’s capacity to address any future imbalance among conflict parties. This cause for war tends to increase when conflict parties deliberately engage in deception tactics, ultimately escalating misunderstanding on the opposing side. A lack of information contradicts pathways to achieving peace; notably, the “Seven Years’ War” serves as an example, occurring between most European nations from 1756 to 1763 against the backdrop of expansion, leading to an extended global conflict. This issue also appeared during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as Iraqi assessments of the global situation were flawed, leading to an assumption that Russia and France—permanent members of the Security Council—would not support the invasion.

Strategies for Peace:

The threats associated with violence and fears of wars erupting between different nations and groups, along with the subsequent various costs, significantly affect the economic, commercial, and financial dimensions of states; this may lead to the bankruptcy of ruling regimes, prompting them toward political compromise and negotiation. This serves as a foundation for adopting peaceful measures to contain potential conflicts. In this context, the author outlines several strategies for establishing peace and preventing the escalation of disputes and civil wars among nations and groups, including:

Deterrence Strategy: The absence of this strategy drives the likelihood of wars, regardless of their nature. The author cites gang wars within Chicago, which lack deterring mechanisms and accountability to society, fostering a climate of violence and aggression as factions attempt to build a mental image of their capabilities. Conversely, deterrence reduces conflicts, as seen in the United States’ approach in Afghanistan following the September 11 events—it aimed to build a formidable image of American military capabilities to deter other nations and terrorist groups from attacking U.S. territory.

Threat Strategy: This strategy influences the paths to peace through the role played by international institutions and organizations involved in peace efforts by threatening sanctions or international trials. The United Nations Security Council serves as a tool for oversight and cooperation among nations. Despite inconsistencies in objectives and conflicting interests among its members, it ultimately fosters commitments among all units of the international system through established rules and norms, thus promoting peace.

The United Nations, the Security Council, and other entities are regarded as international institutions that have established international charters for interaction between states and achieving collective security, and they are expected to significantly contribute to expanding the scope of negotiation and reducing the likelihood of wars, given that these institutions include nations worldwide, creating a common interest in resolving disputes rather than resorting to conflict. These organizations may help address the five previously mentioned issues leading to war, as they serve as an umbrella and forum for information exchange and a means of joint coordination, reducing uncertainty and contributing to peace, and they reinforce pathways for enforcement and the rule of law, akin to the role played by international peacekeeping forces.

Accountability Strategy: Given that the bias toward war fundamentally lies within a range of risks and benefits specific to leaders, along with the contradiction between leaders’ incentives and public interests, accountability may play a crucial role in rectifying this imbalance. Accountability through a community and institutional framework (within the political rules set by the governed) within states could help align the interests of rulers with those of the public, achieving a level of internal balance that significantly contributes to peace.

Information Strategy: This involves the proactive activation of diplomatic institutions and intelligence agencies within states to communicate with other parties, enabling the verification and processing of initial information and obtaining accurate assessments, thereby reducing the risks of war. A lack of information conflicts with opportunities for peace.

Development Strategy: Economic development and mutual commercial interests, along with the transformations brought about by globalization in the relationships between nations, serve as factors for reducing clashes and wars. The author illustrates this through the period preceding World War I, during which Europe avoided wars for nearly a century due to the industrial revolution’s transformative effects on ideas and directions, resulting in economic development that created new social classes and spurred political rights.

In conclusion, the failure of states to achieve lasting peace and resolve disputes peacefully does not imply that war is a common occurrence; rather, it is the exception, not the rule. The author believes that common pathways to peace involve adopting deterrent and punitive strategies to address any potential moves by powerful states to employ violence, while ensuring commitment to agreements and fundamental principles of the global system, facilitating information exchange, and opening avenues for dialogue and negotiation to reduce the risks of slipping into wars, alongside fostering community development and enhancing cooperation with civil society institutions to avoid misconceptions and the negative frameworks of conflicts and wars.

Source:

Christopher Blattman, Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace, Viking, 2022.

Please subscribe to our page on Google News
SAKHRI Mohamed
SAKHRI Mohamed

I hold a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Relations in addition to a Master's degree in International Security Studies. Alongside this, I have a passion for web development. During my studies, I acquired a strong understanding of fundamental political concepts and theories in international relations, security studies, and strategic studies.

Articles: 15165

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *