A Greyhound bus advertisement from the waning days of WWII: Is
an
end to war a serious prospect? A recent conference in France
grappled
with that and other questions involvedthe changing face of warfare.
War Weary West Addresses New Challenges of War (Le Monde, France)
"Globalization produces deep divisions, some of which develop
into a new type of war in which states,
as the guarantors of international peace, must prepare themselves for, and
accept, a number of challenges. ... Overcoming these challenges means creating the
conditions for achieving a better world in which 'living together' makes better
sense."
The world changes, and so does war. Since the
end of the Cold War in 1991, conflicts are less between two powers and increasingly
within states. Partnering with Le Monde, thinking about war was the theme of the 16th Rendez-vous de l'Histoire, held from
October 10 to 13 in Blois. Considering war yesterday, today and tomorrow, the
four days of debate and lectures revisited conflict in all of its aspects.
After these reflections before a large audience, one thing is clear: globalization
produces deep divisions, some of which develop into a new type of war in which states, as the guarantors of international
peace, must prepare themselves for, and accept, a number of challenges.
The first challenge is historiographical.
To study conflict, is it necessary to look beyond the narrow scope of national
history? On the eve of the commemoration of the First World War, the debate
between historians is gathering momentum. Up to now, proponents of national
history held the upper hand. But for some time, history as a discipline has opened
up new approaches. Considering that current conflicts are likely to involve
various actors from different states, transnational history offers a new
perspective on war, leading to an overall reinterpretation the Great War from a
global angle, as the audacious American historian Jay Winter has done in the latest
book he has edited, The
First World War(Volume 1, Fayard, 35 €),
published on October 9.
The second challenge is a philosophical one,
because at stake is the tension between life and death. Ravaged by two world wars,
Europe no longer wants to hear talk of war. Through his various interjections,
particularly in the final conference, film director Bertrand Tavernier
stressed the absurdity of certain decisions made by general staffs between 1914
and 1918, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of young Europeans
considered cannon fodder. The trauma left by the carnage of 1914, as by that of
1939-1945, has resulted in the rejection of war by the European public, so much
so that today, the West seems to reject violence, while the rest of the world
remains exposed to it.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The third challenge is sociological. Civil
societies aspire to participate in the political decision-making process, and
conflicts increase this involvement. States must therefore contain opposition
at the outbreak of a war. We saw this in the double-take on the Syrian issue.
Public opposition to intervention eventually halted the plans of Western
nations. However, what really deterred Washington and Paris from launching
raids against Bashar Al-Assad's regime? Was it Russian-American
agreement to dismantle Syria's chemical arsenal, or was it the hostility of
public opinion? While it cannot be said that the latter was determinant in the
search for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, the debate remains unsettled.
A
democratic gamble
Another challenge, this time military, raises a
central question: what doctrine should states adopt when confronting new forms
of warfare? According to Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who was present at Blois, for an armed
intervention to be fully justifiable, it has to meet the triptych of security, morality,
and legitimacy, which by themselves don't necessarily go hand in hand with
legality. From these emerge the revaluation of the concept of a "just
war" in the context of the strategic debate on the principle of the "responsibility to
protect."
Finally, the last challenge is a strategic one.
Against terrorism, the Obama Administration wants, for instance, to pit the
three traditional forces - army, air force and navy - against another tactical grouping:
special forces, drones and cyber war. This approach, born out of the
globalisation of risk, has pushed states to adapt to new sources of insecurity,
such as mass terrorism, mafias, and Internet crime. Against these networks, the
state cannot employ conventional military action. It must call upon other means
of defense, but also advocate a different concept of
security. So, for example, when it intervenes militarily, should it delegate part
of its logistics to private military companies in combat zones?
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Overcoming these challenges means creating the
conditions for achieving a better world in which "living together" makes
better sense. In his inaugural speech, Israeli diplomat and historian ElieBarnavi devised the outlines of a solution for
lasting peace: spreading democracy across the world to eradicate war. For Barnavi, in fact, democracies never enter into conflict. However,
this democratic bet doesn't only rest on the shoulders of states, as war and
peace have always divided humanity. It is a gamble made even more difficult in
a world that remains complex, dangerous and rebellious. The meaning of "rebels"
will, appropriately, be the theme of next year's 17th Rendez-vous
de Blois.
*GaïdzMinassian
is a Researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Studies
