News Warfare on the wane in the world?

[Astronuc]

Warfare on the wane in the world??

I would certainly welcome that news, but is there really a reduction in war or military or paramilitary conflicts in the world?

A welcome surprise: war waning globally
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – After a 20th century that was perhaps mankind's most violent, all indicators point to a 21st century that will be as bad or worse. Civil wars and new ideological conflicts will multiply. The effectiveness of international forces for peace will wane. And the security of mankind will be the victim caught in the middle. Right?

Wrong, says a report based on a three-year study by a group of international researchers. Contrary to widespread public perception, they find that the world is witnessing fewer wars - and those wars that do occur are killing fewer people.

 

[pattylou]

Naturally I wonder how warfare is defined in the report - if we're replacing organised conflict with other types of conflict, then the image of becoming a more peaceful society isn't really accurate.

Global terror is up year after year since 9/11 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

I do believe wars are less deadly, but that's because the 1900's saw such atrocities (including nuclear bombs being used). With a baseline like that it would be hard to not see an improvement. We didn't even have antibiotics until the 1940's. so many deaths in war during the first half of the century were, likely, compounded by or directly due to infections.

Hopefully we won't use any more horrific "shock and awe" approaches in the middle east. The stratcom report that I linked a few weeks ago makes me think that we just may. (I can't find a great link, but this one will get you some of the details if you missed it last time around - I doubt you did though!)

http://proliberty.com/observer/20050822.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since two keys to waging war are disinformation and the control of good information, I think the internet will change everything. The recent actions of the Chinese government in this regard are disappointing to say the least!

One military leader of note [I don't recall who] once stated that one must constantly vilify the enemy or soldiers won't fight. That was easy to do until just about...now.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well one must wonder exactly what the effects of the internet would be. You do get that freedom Ivan speaks about but there's also the bad side of it. A palestinian or Israeli extremist in say, Switzerland, normally wouldn't have much of an ability to voice his opinions. Now with the internet, he has a much broader, much more accessible audience. What you just hope for is that the correct information out-doing the disinformation.

I'm happy this kinda report finally came out. I remember reading a list of the roughly 25 warzones on Earth right now and remember reading a list showing roughly 30-35 warzones back in the early 90's. Hoped it was showing a good sign but this helps clarify it.

 

[russ_watters]

I would certainly welcome that news, but is there really a reduction in war or military or paramilitary conflicts in the world?

It probably depends on what scale of conflict we're talking about (geograpically or in casualty count) or what section of the world. It is certainly true, for example, that the West was more peaceful in the second half of the century than the first, on the large scale (no world wars).

The study is more about smaller conflicts before and since the Cold War - I can see that, considering the extent to which the Cold War affected regional and local conflicts. After it ended, there was a power vacuum, but those little local conflicts (especially in eastern Europe) seem to be burning themselves out.

This is an interesting quote:

Other specialists note that the number of democracies in the world is growing. And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

 

[Skyhunter]

Don't hold your breath.

Why the vast improvement? The report credits an "explosion of efforts" in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The number of UN "preventive diplomacy" missions and government-based "contact groups" aimed at resolving conflicts has risen sharply in the last decade.

Give John Bolton time and he will fix that problem with diplomacy in the UN.

Other specialists note that the number of democracies in the world is growing. And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

How many democracies plan to adapt a policy of "preemptive war" I wonder?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What you just hope for is that the correct information out-doing the disinformation.

Agreed, however this is a stronger position to be in than when one or a few people could control nearly all of the information. It seems to me that just as many of us worry about Big Brother in this age of information, Big Brother has more to worry about as well.

 

[Smurf]

I think 9/11 proved that just the opposite of that. If anything the west is going to (finally) become more violent again. I don't see the rest of the world becoming any less so either.

As for this:

And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

Democracy IS recent history.

(that, and recent recent history would suggest that democracy works the same as any other kind of government, big countries beat up little countries)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was an interesting factoid that was apparently true for a time, and still is with one or two exceptions: No country with a McDonalds has seen war on its soil - war as in the sense of an organized miltary conflict. My theory is that everyone gets too fat to fight.

 

[Smurf]

What exactly do you mean by "organized military conflict"?

Iraq has a McDonalds, it's bretty brutal right now.

 

[Pengwuino]

No country with a McDonalds has seen war on its soil

haha oh man the possibilities!

"Iran developes new defense system; first McDonalds established, US halts hostilities"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Iraq has a McDonalds, it's bretty brutal right now.

I think not. Besides, I said

with one or two exceptions

Don't you read the post before responding? And how do you figure that McDonalds was in Iraq?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

haha oh man the possibilities!
"Iran developes new defense system; first McDonalds established, US halts hostilities"

Of course the idea being that the presence of McDonalds is an indication of stability and wealth.

 

[MaxS]

It probably depends on what scale of conflict we're talking about (geograpically or in casualty count) or what section of the world. It is certainly true, for example, that the West was more peaceful in the second half of the century than the first, on the large scale (no world wars).
The study is more about smaller conflicts before and since the Cold War - I can see that, considering the extent to which the Cold War affected regional and local conflicts. After it ended, there was a power vacuum, but those little local conflicts (especially in eastern Europe) seem to be burning themselves out.
This is an interesting quote:

I disagree with your comments about the west. Just because the west didnt wage its own wars doesn't mean it didnt wage war through proxies, or didnt pursue imperialistic goals (the school of the americas is STILL around).

 

[Pengwuino]

Of course the idea being that the presence of McDonalds is an indication of stability and wealth.

Oh... i thought we were talking about how McDonalds controls all world governments...

 

[Lisa!]

I got the answer! WW3 is going to happen in the early years of 21th and because of nuclear weapons, the war would end vey soon and no one (except ants of course) will stay alive to start another war. and about killing fewer people? well somehow you could say they just die because of NW and no one kill them in fact.

Forgive me because of what I said!

 

[vanesch]

and no one (except ants of course)

Slowly, my ideas (or those of my biology teacher) are finding their way...

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree with your comments about the west. Just because the west didnt wage its own wars doesn't mean it didnt wage war through proxies...

True enough, but such wars are significantly smaller than when 1st world nations start fighting against each other (I usually include that clarification, and forgot it this time).

 

[Andre]

A war would require at least two countries with a political dispute than could not be solved peacefully and war is the continuation of politics with other means (http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege/VKTOC.htm). A dispute between ideologies not separated by physical boundaries is not defined as war.

However for soldiers to raise the weapons with the objective to kill and start a war you have to motivate them as well as their kin that it's paramount to fight for the survival of the own society. This requires three more elements, strong and determined leadership, an ideology or cult to die for and a relentless indoctrination about enemy image building.

Strong leadership means dictatorship. A democracy is not renowned for starting hostilities albeit that it's not shy to react to hostilities, but you could argue about that. However if there is need to vote for waging war or not, and how to do it, then don't do it. You'd miss the agility to win the war.

It's probably not too hard to find ideologies worth dying for, like pleasing the god-emperor-dictator or defending ones cult or global warming or so. Finally, the indoctrination part requires a relentless misinformation about the terrible enemy who is eager to destroy us, the moment we're not paying attention.

So which element is declining, causing the reduction in real wars between states? Most certainly not misinformation, propaganda for religions or global warming is stronger than ever before. Moreover there are plenty of things to die for. We see that daily in Baghdad and other places. Consequently the waning factor is leadership. There are too many democracies and not enough dictatorships to generate traditional international wars.

 

[devil-fire]

the invasion of iraq was officialy based on misinformation by the most informed nation on Earth (exept maybe china, apparently they have good spys).

 

[Pengwuino]

the invasion of iraq was officialy based on misinformation by the most informed nation on Earth (exept maybe china, apparently they have good spys).

No, Israel probably has the best spy network. The CIA is probably in the top 5 to say the least.

 

[wasteofo2]

This is an interesting quote:

Other specialists note that the number of democracies in the world is growing. And democracies, recent history suggests, do not go to war against each other.

Recent history, what about all history since modern democracies arose?

There has pretty much NEVER been any instances of democracies going to war with each other. Some say that the war of 1812 counted, since Britain had a parlaiment, but they were hardly truly representative.

The American Civil War is probably the closest thing to a war between 2 democracies, but the Confederacy was even less representative than the Union. In the Union, African Americans were not guaranteed universal sufferage (I'm not sure exactly which states allowed African Americans to vote, or if any did at all), and naturally in the Confederacy, there was no way any African Americans could've voted. No women were permitted to vote in either the Union or the Confederacy. Furthermore, in the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis was never actually challenged for his office.

If you define a "Democracy" as a country in which citizens have universal sufferage, and one in which there are regular, legitimate, contested elections, then I think there are actually no instances of any Democracies going to war with each other.

 

[Smurf]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm"

 

[Pengwuino]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm"

See, i knew there was something wrong with the idea that democracies don't fight each other. Thanks for the info Smurf. You may now continue shining my shoes.

 

[Smurf]

See, i knew there was something wrong with the idea that democracies don't fight each other. Thanks for the info Smurf. You may now continue shining my shoes.

Would you like another rock to hump as well, master?

 

[wasteofo2]

None of those examples are really blaringly self-evident. Probabally the best is Britain bombing Finland. Most of those examples were ridiculous though. An independent Parlaiment (as in England) doesn't mean a democracy, just a group of aristocrats that may disagree with their king/queen. France post-revolution, and Germany during WWI were both pretty undemocratic, and really controlled by un-accountable dictators.

India and Pakistan, alright, and some of those smaller burgeoning democracies, like Croatia and Yugoslavia, fine.

But as a trend, Democracies certainly tend to fight much less than non-democracies; there is no denying that at all.

 

[Smurf]

But as a trend, Democracies certainly tend to fight much less than non-democracies; there is no denying that at all.

You need to keep scrolling down.

 

[wasteofo2]

You need to keep scrolling down.

You're just ridiculous if you think that there's evidence that democracies don't get into significantly less wars with other democracies than they do with dictatorships or than dictatorships do with other governments.

Most of those examples are ridiculous to tentative.

 

[Smurf]

I think he makes a pretty solid case, actually. I'd welcome you to point out any fallacies though.

 

[wasteofo2]

I think he makes a pretty solid case, actually. I'd welcome you to point out any fallacies though.

Gladly.

Finland in WWII.

WWII was started by reaction to bellicose actions taken by the German, Italian, and Japanese governments. No one has made the case that these three governments were democratic. The only democracy he lists is Finland.

He totally misrepresents Finland's position during the war.

Finland's populace didn't randomly decide "Hey, this Hitler guy is great, let's go take over the world with him!" Finland was fighting the USSR because of the USSR's own expansionist policy. The USSR was trying to take over as much of Europe as they possibly could. In fighting off the USSR, Finland was defending their sovereignty. What were they supposed to do, let Stalin take them over so that more German soldiers would have to be diverted to the Eastern front? What would that ridiculous proposition even gotten them, as the US and Britain essentially allowed Stalin control of everything he captured during WWII. Britain and the USA were allied with the USSR just because they needed to stop Germany, and becuase Germany was at war with both the USSR and Britain, so it only made sense to declare an alliance against a common enemy. The fact that Britain bombed Finland really was unfortunate, since Finland was just defending their sovereignty, but it was hardly an act of a Democratic country declaring war on another Democratic country. England was under attack from Germany. The USSR, was helping to defeat Germany. The USSR wanted to take over Finland. The Finnish people were fighting the USSR, and thus diverting the USSR's resources from fighting the Germans. The British were simply looking out for their own immediate self interest (being that they were in a pretty perilous position) and trying to do everything they could to make sure Germany didn't wipe out their own country. It was an unfortunate circumstance of 2 Democracies being under attack from 2 different dictatorships, and one attacking the other in hopes of allowing their favored dictatorship to beat the one that was attacking them.

It's not as if Britain had any particular problem with Finland if the USSR and Germany were out of the picture; at least not a big enough problem to bomb them. Both Finland and Britain were defending their sovereignty (and the sovereignty of others, in Britain's case) agianst bellicose Dictatorships. Circumstances simply had it that they were opposed dictatorships.

 

[Smurf]

That's your whole argument? That it was:

2 Democracies being under attack from 2 different dictatorships, and one attacking the other in hopes of allowing their favored dictatorship to beat the one that was attacking them.

I thought you were going to defend democracy...

 

[russ_watters]

I think he makes a pretty solid case, actually. I'd welcome you to point out any fallacies though.

First off, waste said modern democracies, so you can cut out anything before the US. Then you can cut out all revolutions and civil wars since they are...revolutions and civil wars. Frankly, looking at that list of 22, I don't see any that really qualify. The closest is the war of 1812, and many(most?) historians consider that part II of the revolutionary war.

 

[Smurf]

Well, it's like he said. The more you restrict it, the less impressive it becomes. Also, it's yet to be seen wether "democracies have never gone to war with each other" necessarily means "democracies won't go to war with each other".

like my second favorite maxim "Correlation is not Causation"

 

[russ_watters]

Well, it's like he said. The more you restrict it, the less impressive it becomes.

I don't see it that way at all. The way I usually put it is that no two major western democracies have ever been at war with each other. That's an extrordinary thing, considering that prior to them becoming democracies, the nations of the west were in nearly a constant state of war with each other. edit: If you think I'm changing the criteria on you, search the site - I've used the example before and I'm always pretty restrictive about it.

Besides, the writer of that link even admits that most of the references are obscure and barely passable, even under the most liberal criteria.

edit: Perhaps you find it uselessly redundant or self-reinforcing to say, essentially, that 'a form of government that works, works', but that's pretty ironic considering you freely admit the form of government you favor does not work. You could not reasonably say that stable, prosperous anarchic societies do not go to war with each other since no such thing has ever existed, nor even might exist for some centuries (milenia?) to come.

edit2: In fact, you take the logic a step further and chide others for not accepting your assumptions that an arachic society could be inherrently stable, prosperous, and peaceful -- and, of course, possible. With democracy, we don't have to make such assumptions: we know it works because working democracies already exist.

 

[Dayle Record]

I think that welfare is on the rise in the form of corporate welfare extended to defense contractors, who in turn increase our involvement in warfare, since we rely on intel from defense contractors to assess threats. There are more civilian contractors in Iraq, than US troops. What we give in corporate welfare, far overshadows social program spending. This is all moot, since we are now economically dead from this practice, but we just haven't fallen over yet. I was told yesterday, by a produce broker that the Chinese have just won the war, they own us, and they never fired a shot.

If terrorism counts as a war then we are in a war with Democratic Venezuela. Having close associates of the White House threaten assassination of Venezuela's Elected President, constitutes terrorism. Since the parties involved were not arrested, then there seems to be official sanction of that act.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see it that way at all. The way I usually put it is that no two major western democracies have ever been at war with each other. That's an extrordinary thing
..snip..
edit: Perhaps you find it uselessly redundant or self-reinforcing to say, essentially, that 'a form of government that works, works', but that's pretty ironic considering you freely admit the form of government you favor does not work.

It's a matter of tense. When talking about wether democracies, we should distinguish between "havn't gone to war" and "don't go to war". One is, if you take your definition of democracy, an empirical fact. The other, is a universal statement about the behavior of democracy, past, present and future, which takes more than merely a few history recitals to support. The strongest support for it is probably:

prior to them becoming democracies, the nations of the west were in nearly a constant state of war with each other

which is a pretty impressive alone. But we should take into account the fact that it took 2 world wars and a cold war during this shift to accomplish that. It was only when all of the Western European countries became fully democratic that the European Union reached a point of strength and a state of peace was assumed.

Also, this does not distinguish democracy as being the source of peace, merely a correlation. There are many other possible reasons for this correlation that should be addressed as well.

Furthermore, as I have claimed earlier in this thread, I consider the current western peace to be an entirely temporary measure, and in fact I think 9/11 is an excellent example of things starting to get back to the "normal" state before the west went on holiday.

As for Anarchism:

I have never actually said that anarchaic societies don't work, (at least I hope not) merely that, should you suddenly take away the government leaving behind everything else in our institutions, that it would soon digress back into authorative states (At least that's what I meant, I probably simplified it). Anarchism has to be set up by the people as a whole, and until they do that - well, it won't happen, but if it did (say, magic) it wouldn't work for long.

As for anarchists going to war, that belong in another thread.

 

[BobG]

First off, waste said modern democracies, so you can cut out anything before the US. Then you can cut out all revolutions and civil wars since they are...revolutions and civil wars. Frankly, looking at that list of 22, I don't see any that really qualify. The closest is the war of 1812, and many(most?) historians consider that part II of the revolutionary war.

I would count the US vs. Iriquois - mainly, because it's the same type scenario that would be the most likely today. Two radically different cultures that both happen to be democracies could still wage war against each other. The cultural differences outweigh any similarity in the type of government. (The similarity in culture and other factors weigh in on why Western democracies don't wage war against each other.)

McDonald's is a slightly better indicator. The combination of a democracy and multi-national corporstions can make war almost impossible. Democracies mean election campaigns and campaigns mean candidates need money. If a leader brings on destruction of a multi-national corporation's property, either in his own country or a different country, that leader is going to find it hard to raise funds for his election campaign.

 

[wasteofo2]

That's your whole argument? That it was: I thought you were going to defend democracy...

That's not my whole argument, that was an argument in relation to one instance.

Britain did not go to war with Finland.

Britain was in a war with Germany.

Finland was in a war with the USSR.

The only reason Britain attacked Finland was because they needed the USSR to help them defeat Germany.

2 Democracies did not "go to war", they were entangle in a messy set of circumstances that led them to be allied with one dictatorship in hopes of defeating another that was a present threat to their national sovereignty.

That's totally different than if Britain bombed Finland with the hope of taking it over or anything like that.

 

[russ_watters]

McDonald's is a slightly better indicator. The combination of a democracy and multi-national corporstions can make war almost impossible.

It sounds kinda funny, but yeah, I agree.

 

[Burnsys]

It sounds kinda funny, but yeah, I agree.

Yees i agree too. Specialy in cases like sheel and chevron in cool person.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see violence going down. Maybe wars between governments, but violence in a whole is going to rise.

 

[alexandra]

According to an analysis I read, the "Human Security Report" that published these findings (http://www.humansecurityreport.info/) suggests two factors leading to a decline in conflict: decolonisation and the end of the Cold War:

One explanation these reports offer for the overall decrease in wars in the last two decades is the ending of two of the main "drivers" of conflict: decolonisation and the cold war...

Many of these conflicts had a wider geopolitical aspect as "proxy wars" between the United States and its allies and the Soviet bloc. It was characteristic of this cold-war era that these wars, which killed at least 10 million people and wounded 30 million, were fought in the "third world" - including Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Ethiopia/Somalia - rather than Europe.

When the two types of conflict, decolonisation and cold war, are taken together, it is not surprising that (as the Human Security Report points out) the two countries that have been most involved in international wars since 1946 are Britain and France; the United States and Soviet Union/Russia are next on the list.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/2927.html

The analysis continues that the apparent good news is, perhaps, not as good as it looks:

But a close reading of the HSR's detailed analysis suggests two issues in particular that deserve closer attention.

The first is the marked tendency it notes for people to flee from major areas of conflict, seeking security either in neighbouring countries or even further afield. This means that large numbers of people are being exposed to sustained and often extreme dislocation and hardship - a trend that may well result in an underestimation of the actual numbers killed and wounded in current conflicts.

The second issue is that in any case, the crude counting of casualties can be hugely misleading, especially when conflicts are happening in weak and impoverished societies. Most wars of the modern era take place in just such societies, with sub-Saharan Africa being particularly badly affected. In such circumstances, the effects of war can take years or even decades to overcome.

The destruction of schools, hospitals and clinics, damage to farming systems, marketing networks, ports and even bridges will have a far greater effect in poorer countries where most people already live close to the margins. The net effect frequently is to add to malnutrition, susceptibility to disease and, especially, infant mortality and death in childbirth in a manner that is almost entirely missing from the simple, direct statistics of war.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/2927.html