Chapter 11

World Peace

These thine arts shall be, to engraft the law of peace,

Forbear the conquered, and war down the proud.

Virgil, Aeneid

While people say they long for a world free of war and aggression, the other side of their nature behaves in a most brutal fashion. At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations designated the year two thousand, The Year of World Peace. Nations of the world ignored the message. So is universal peace a possibility when otherwise peaceful citizens are readily persuaded into the most despicable and violent of crimes against their fellows?

From epoch to epoch the world’s great authors and thinkers tell us mankind has always held the vision of a peaceful world that would encourage a full flowering of the human spirit. Neglect of these works is not a sign of progress. Rather, voices from the past help us live better today. The wisdom these authors recorded and the discussions they carried on have been from some of the finest minds in history, and draw attention to the origins of many of our present problems. Even after twenty-five centuries their writings are still relevant to modern men.

In ancient Greece, Plato in his book, The Republic, had Socrates talking about world citizenship. But in the ancient world, peace was usually attained through conquest. In his treatise, Politics, Aristotle wrote that humanity was divided into freemen and slaves, the freemen being Greek, all others slaves. This was the general belief in Greece at the time and Aristotle taught it to his pupils, including the future Alexander the Great.

But Alexander questioned this doctrine, and in his conquest of the then known world, distanced himself from Aristotle’s teachings and attempted to make brothers of those he conquered. He had a vision that when all men were brothers they would live in harmony of heart and mind. This led him to believe that all those in his realm should be partners rather than subjects, and racial harmony could be achieved through intermarriage.

Plutarch in his Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, tells us that soon after Alexander’s death his beliefs inspired a Phoenician named Zeno, whose teachings at the Stoa in Athens gave to his followers the name of Stoics. They believed people should not identify themselves by their own small habitat, or even their country of birth, but should consider themselves to be citizens of the world, where each would be living in common with others under universal laws. While this idea is a worthy concept, it runs counter to the strong tribal instincts of mankind.

But stoics believed that both the equality within mankind and the harmony that exists throughout nature are simply the extension of a universe already in existence. By being submissive to natural laws they held that true freedom comes only when mankind is free from passions like anger, jealousy and envy, and unmoved by joy or grief. In other words, freedom is attained not by fulfilling one’s desires, but by the removal of desire. The spiritual effort required in seeking out these natural laws and applying them to daily living brought a recognition that conquerors were not required to bring about this harmony. Centuries later, Epictetus in his treatise, Discourses, still taught one should never say you belong to a certain town or country, but believe that you are a citizen of the world.

In Rome, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations echoed similar convictions when he wrote that his city was Rome, but as a man he was a citizen of the world. These sentiments were reflected in the Roman conception of its empire where conquered freemen were not considered to be their subjects, but were made citizens of Rome, and shared in all its privileges. This concept became embodied in Roman law, which continues to influence the jurisprudence of modern democratic nations.

In the Middle East the sanctity of the human spirit was also recognized, and similar beliefs were emerging. By putting their faith in the idea of monotheism, the people of Israel came to believe that because there was only one God there must also be just one universal society. Isaiah 49:6, for instance, gives a vision that people of all nations will become united under one God. Later, Christianity developed these ideas, and in Galatians 3:28 we read we are all one in Christ. This emerging theological concept introduced mankind to a kingdom in this world, but not of it.

At first these beliefs alienated Christians from their fellow men, and resulted in mob reactions against them, since they were seen to be enemies of the state. Eventually, however, towns became Christianized, and when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian the whole Roman Empire became a Christian society. But the Roman Empire that had lasted almost a thousand years was about to crumble. In 410, Alaric, a Christian barbarian, conquered the Christian emperor and took possession of Rome.

In an effort to refute the accusation that Christianity had brought about the demise of the Roman Empire, Saint Augustine wrote his now famous answer in a twenty-two-volume book entitled City of God. In this treatise, begun in 413, he claimed there were two cities in this world, an earthly city ruled by lust and hate where people lived by the flesh, and a heavenly city ruled by Christian principles where people lived by the spirit. He believed these two cities were here on earth; the earthly city bringing peace through conquest, and the heavenly city bringing an inner peace to the soul through the spirit of God.

Throughout the Middle Ages a peace of sorts was maintained in Europe through the authority of the Holy Roman Empire. Although not comparable with Saint Augustine’s two cities, the spiritual side emanated from the papacy in the Vatican, while the earthly welfare of the people was controlled through the Holy Roman Emperor. The Church kept disorder and insurrection to a minimum by preaching the view that, for the sake of Christian unity, it was better to tolerate injustice than rise up and strive against it.

The next milestone on the road to world peace was Dante’s treatise De Monarchia, written at the beginning of the fourteenth century. He believed that world peace was simply a means to an end in which there can be a full flowering of the human mind in understanding God’s unity and order. He wrote that disorder follows wherever there is a plurality of authority, and considered the full potential of mankind could never be achieved when each nation had a goal different from its neighbours. He concluded that universal peace could be achieved only when guided by a world government. In those days his writings had little chance of gaining much notice or support, despite the book’s importance in the history of ideas.

While Dante wrote of the need for a world government that gave political and spiritual unity, Christianity added its voice and taught that peace on earth will reign only after the resurrection of the body at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. Until then, people are to follow the Ten Commandments. But for centuries it seems the fear of hell was more important in controlling evil than the promise that good works were the way to eternal salvation in heaven.

The Renaissance introduced more authors to draw attention to the idea of European unity. The Memoires of the Duc de Sully recorded that Henry IV of France was one of the first to think this possible. At the end of the sixteenth century, under his tutelage, Sully drew up a plan for a Christian Republic with a council of sixty deputies. At the time it was only an idea, but a century later, and based on this concept, the Abbé de Saint-Pierre published a book entitled Project for Perpetual Peace. Although the book was ridiculed at the time, an undercurrent of approval persisted, and its influence was retained right through to the Congress of Europe, convened in 1948. The book’s only failing was that, being based on Christianity, it ignored other forms of religion practiced throughout Europe.

Nevertheless, the book captured the attention of Rousseau who published comments on it in 1761. In a quest for peace he drew on the writings of the Abbé in a treatise entitled A Lasting Peace Through the Federation of Europe. He pointed out that all the countries of Europe in those days were united in commerce, lifestyles and religion, but remained political enemies. This led him to believe peace could be achieved only through revolution and war. But he concluded the rewards of peace hardly warranted all the suffering and bloodshed the effort would bring. In Rousseau’s time, Sterne had Tristram Shandy saying that just as war leads to poverty, so poverty leads to peace.

Despite Rousseau’s disillusion with any prospect of peace, Immanuel Kant later took up his sentiments at a time when French Revolutionary armies threatened European monarchies. In his pamphlet entitled Perpetual Peace, Kant thought peace could be achieved only through world government. He believed the best solution for peace lay in the exercise of power established by law rather than by war and revolution. But history also convinced him a lasting peace encouraged a debasing self-interest and effeminacy to the detriment of national character as moral weakness grew.

Hegel took this one step further when he wrote that nations can never work in harmony, and disorder and war are necessary to cleanse the stagnant and corrosive influences of peace. These views may not be as radical as it first appears. Nowadays, after half a century of relative peace between nations in the modern Western World, we read of an increasing breakdown of old social mores, and the emergence of a permissive society that turns our homes into refuges against a ruthless current of violence in the community.

When the long road to world peace is traced from the ancient world through to the eighteenth century it is clear, while the dreams of a perpetual peace were shaped by people’s traditional beliefs, they were restricted by the means of communications in those times. Philosophers first limited peace to a small region in the Northern Hemisphere, and in Europe it was assumed any peace would be guided by the religious overtones of Christendom.

However, in the last two centuries the decline in religious influence, and a wealth of scientific achievement, caused a shift in direction in a desire for perpetual world peace. While improved communications were enlarging this concept to include the world’s population, the regression of religious influences took a bizarre turn. During the nineteenth century new visionaries appeared in Europe, believing science was the way to world peace. Saint-Simon and, in particular, Auguste Comte in France dispensed with God. In a complicated system, his book entitled The Positivist Catechism, introduced new dogmas that grafted science on to the theological practices of the Catholic Church, and replaced the priesthood with scientists and the like.

In Russia, Tolstoy was excommunicated for the views expressed in his treatise, New Christianity, in which he wrote that the way to world peace was through poverty and non-resistance to evil. In modern terms his ideas seem odd, but in his day, converts from many countries accepted his teachings and made pilgrimages to him.

By contrast, William James wrote that just as people can behave aggressively towards one another, so too do nations, and it is a mistake to imagine that peaceful political systems can survive against the weakness of human character. Freud also thought along these lines when, in his book entitled Civilization and its Discontents, he considered it was an illusion to believe human nature could rise above the desire for conflict.

In his book, Study of History, Toynbee drew attention to a cycle of growth and decline in civilizations. He noted that nations, having developed into a dominant power free of internal discord, reach a stable state where life is free of strife and there are no more wars to fight. Lacking challenge, creative activities slowly wane until a final disintegration is brought about either by internal anarchy, or by invasion from outside the borders. “Peace,” he wrote, “is simply an armed truce between wars.”

Until the twentieth century, the idea of world peace remained little more than a distant hope. But although men of action did not ignore the idea of a peaceful world community, it took the destruction and slaughter of two world wars and the prospect of nuclear annihilation to bring the sovereign states together in an attempt to protect the rights of mankind.

The League of Nations, formed at the end of World War One, made serious attempts to encourage world peace, but had no power to enforce its resolutions. It could simply call on individual nations to supply troops to enforce its decisions. But when tested, for instance, by Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, it proved to be ineffective. Eventually, because its tenets were unworkable, it became defunct at the end of World War Two. It did, however, recognize the need for centres of study that brought together people from all creeds and cultures. From these early ideas came the vision of a World University that would transcend the apparent parochial interests of individual nations and cultures. But because the League of Nations was not a true world body, as is the United Nations, it had no power to compel sovereign states to comply with its edicts. The refusal of the United States to become a member added a further obstacle to its function.

In the era immediately following the two world wars the desire for world peace was at its peak and efforts were made to ‘ensure it could never happen again.’ In 1945 a Universal Declaration of Principles was prepared under the chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt. This document formulated principles of liberty, equality and the outlawing of all discrimination. It upheld the individual’s right to freedom, including the right of conscience, social and cultural rights, and the responsibilities of people towards each other and to society. The declaration was intended to embrace all mankind, but unfortunately its precepts were not legally binding on the signatories.

Still, the declaration was a starting point when the newly formed United Nations undertook the difficult task of framing a world bill of rights. While the Geneva Convention upheld individual rights in times of war, the International Bill of Rights went further and aimed at protecting vulnerable populations from the actions of oppressive rulers during times of peace. But many governments objected to the idea of an international body interfering in their internal affairs. The sovereignty of the state proved to be a major stumbling block in establishing human rights, and Amnesty International continues to publish instances of gross breaches of these rights. Since nations continue to claim complete jurisdiction over their citizens, any intervention by an international body is resented: a situation underestimated by the forces, led by the United States, that invaded Iraq in 2003.

In 1762 Rousseau wrote that just as an individual will join with others for the protection offered by a town, so towns unite into the protection of a nation. But nations, too, feel threatened by other nations and any confrontation is prone to lead to war. The United Nations believed that a major threat to world peace was the ease with which the average citizen could be led into acts of warfare and armed conflict. It also recognized there can be no hope of a peaceful world community unless there are provisions for the development and mutual recognition of cultural and ideological values in the life of communities everywhere. But there have been many obstacles in attempts to reach an international consensus.

It was in the peace immediately after the end of the Second World War that Jacques Maritain pointed out how advances in science kept racing ahead of relevant legal and political capabilities, and caused them to become out of step. He concluded that the commercial interdependence of nations could not be relied upon to ensure peace since it is not a political undertaking, and therefore liable to become a source of political jealousy, rivalry and eventually, war.

Human rights continue to be threatened across huge areas of the globe where people suffer through inadequate economic development. While nations of the world have begun to tackle this imbalance, there is still a long and arduous route to negotiate before there is a noticeable reduction in local conflicts and human misery. It is not, however, only the poorer nations that suffer. The rights of citizens, even in the most advanced communities, continue to be threatened, not only by environmental pollution, but also by the products of scientific and technological progress: the basis of many protests, demonstrations, and civil unrest.

By the mid-nineteenth century, moves for a limited form of world government were high on the agenda of the United Nations. They hoped that by small steps it might be possible to arrive at some form of world government, and considered three basic assumptions. They believed nations should work towards arms control and disarmament; the peaceful settlement of disputes; and the encouragement of human rights in all its forms. In theory everybody at the UN favoured peace, but when governments understood it entailed some loss of sovereignty, support soon withered. Disarmament was widely discussed, but only since the end of the cold war has it been tackled to any extent, while settlement of disputes by negotiation has proved difficult.

Initially, the UN thought that if the level of worldwide education could be improved, people would become more tolerant of each other and develop greater insight into human rights. Despite many nations being opposed to world government, the UN set up several agencies to deal with raising educational standards, the reasoning behind the idea being to increase mankind’s appreciation of national differences. It was considered that, for the first time, a universal organization such as the UN could draw together the world’s religions and cultures. In so doing it would reduce mutual fears and misapprehension, and create opportunities to convert national suspicions and defensive attitudes into tolerance and reciprocal understanding.

Encouraging evidence to support this program came from the centres of learning in the Europe of five hundred years ago. In those days students from many western communities attended the old universities of Oxford, Bologna and Paris to study and reflect upon religious, scientific and cultural matters. But with the passage of time these centres of learning slowly devolved into the national institutions of today.

Almost two thousand years earlier, similar centres of learning in ancient India brought together students from the Middle and Far East. Despite their subsequent decay, these institutions have left a legacy of beautiful architecture: monuments to their cultural achievements. As a consequence many believed our own times needed institutions to deal with the multitude of modern-day problems obstructing the way to world peace.

The UN has already laid the foundations for this goal in bodies such as the Human Rights Commission and UNESCO among others. But prospects for a peaceful world community remain little more than visionary. Although considerably more needs to be done before cultural traditions can be reconciled on a global perspective, people remain aware that outstanding cultural achievements in literature, art, and music from round the world are appreciated by all, and are a universal means of communication that springs from a common source in the human spirit. People of every nationality flock to international exhibitions of works by famous painters and sculptors, listen to the music of great composers and read the literature of renowned authors. Great cultural achievements are universally revered, and draw people of all nationalities together.

Religious and secular ideologies must, however, be more widely understood before there can be any progress towards world peace. It is the constraints imposed upon a community by the restrictions of a limited ideology that draw barriers and block progress towards a world community. The present stand-off between Christians, Muslims and Jews gives little hope of an early resolution. The fears generated within cultural and religious institutions scattered round the globe continue to bolster their aggressive and separatist attitudes. People hoped the encouragement of a wider understanding and appreciation of their cultural achievements would reduce the fear that leads to their defensive reactions. The UN believes the way to a peaceful world community would be better served if the parochial interests and ideologies of these groups could be broadened into a wider trust and appreciation of others.

In the years after World War Two the UN considered many proposals for the formation of a World University. In 1970, feasibility studies were begun, the long-term aim being to draw out the riches of the many individual cultures for the ultimate benefit of all. They considered a World University should draw on graduates from a wide spectrum of nations to work together in the study of the cultures and religions of the world, together with global economics and environmental concerns. It was envisaged scholars would return to their homelands and promote a better understanding of other peoples. But there has been little progress over the last half century as the collective will of the member nations has slowly dwindled. The rift between Christianity and Islam continues to show little hope of narrowing.

This is not surprising since serious doubts have emerged about the value of raising the universal level of education as a way to world peace. In the Western World, regardless of its long history of cultural tradition and high educational standards, people still sink to an appalling disregard for human rights. The Holocaust, the war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the Middle East are examples. The value of education has also been extensively questioned since it is known that terrorists, suicide bombers, and protest leaders usually belong to the educated classes. Universities, too, have always been known to foster hotbeds of sedition. It is not surprising many nations remain uncommitted to a world university.

Under these circumstances, will world peace continue to be a myth, or could it be achieved by a world government having the international power to enforce its decisions? But once again problems arise from its restricted role in containing conflicts within national borders. In principle, its main task is considered to be a means to world peace by forestalling international warfare, and depredation of the environment. This, however, would entail greater powers than that of the present United Nations, and require a World Police Force and World Court with international recognition. Complete disarmament would be obligatory, and a means to enforce compulsory contributions mandatory. Clearly, the Great Powers are in no mood to yield to such powers, despite present-day international diplomacy often failing.

Another obstacle to world government is that mankind’s longing for peace is balanced by a spirit of aggression. The fluctuating balance between the two gives times when some leaders are for peace while others want war. Since leaders respond to a groundswell of popular sentiment within the population, there is never a time when all nations are for peace. The beating drum and flag-lined parades continue to impress crowds, and patriotism has always been an obstacle to peace.

If universal peace were to come, the livelihood of millions of employees would be threatened. The armed forces of the world would find themselves unemployed and, no doubt, revolt against world peace. Closure of armament factories would make redundant thousands of munitions workers, together with bureaucrats and others employed in technologies of war. The powerful news media would be deprived of any opportunity to report on the carnage and suffering associated with war and disorder, and could be expected to mount an extensive campaign against world government.

In the last half century the development of weapons of mass destruction has been a factor in keeping the major powers apart, but has done little to reduce conflicts restricted within national borders. This change of direction has dampened the need for defence against international conflict, particularly since the end of the cold war. World leaders have lost interest in the idea of world government, and it is no longer a priority.

From the numerous international contributions to the idea of world peace, think-tank opinions agree it can be brought about only through world government. This brings us to the consideration of what world government means, and how it could be brought into effect.

Since each nation consists of its whole population guided by a governing body, the same principle would apply on the world stage in regard to world government. In other words, world government could be founded only through the free suffrage of people everywhere. However, this would introduce the same problems at world level that besets each single nation. Besides, this concept assumes a democratic solution to world peace, a condition that is unacceptable to countries of different political philosophies.

A world government based on democratic principles raises further major problems. The first involves the nature of the leadership since there would always be concern of tyranny on the part of powerful nations. Over three hundred years ago Hobbes declared in his book Leviathan, that national popular assemblies are just as readily seduced by oratory as monarchs are to flattery. When this view is transposed to the level of world government, smaller nations fear they could be manipulated by the more powerful through deterioration in government.

Another practical problem revolves round the idea of a democratic management of the world’s nations. In the past, any nation that has built up an empire has found difficulty in applying democratic policies to the management and control of their colonies. Similar problems could be expected in the realm of world government. Some countries are served better by governments functioning along religious or tribal rather than political lines.

A further stumbling block is the concept of the sovereign state in which each believes in its own autonomy, although many remain bound by trade, treaties and other ties. But in a world society, the freedom of all must be protected. Since each nation retains its independence and the right to make war, despite the present role of the United Nations, poor political co-operation during times of national stress is likely. This was obvious when the US had difficulty in gaining co-operation for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and for Afghanistan.

Over three centuries ago, Hobbes wrote that when people are freed from the restraints of the law, anarchy follows. Half a century ago, Mortimer J. Adler applied a similar concept to world government, and considered the independence of nations and poor political co-operation is a recipe for anarchy on the world stage. There have been many more objections to world government, an important one being the time and effort that would be required in the search for an elusive utopia instead of being directed towards more practical ends. The answer according to Maritain lies in accepting the time required in finding ways round these insuperable odds. If the idea of a world government is deemed to be worthwhile, one should not rush to put it into effect, or place existing international bodies at risk.

Throughout the course of history people have always shown a natural desire to group together and strive for freedom. Contrary to the views of Rousseau, they may gather not solely for protection, but also for the mutual benefits brought to them by the cultural traditions of their society and fostered through their creative instincts. But Maritain pointed out that living together also entails suffering.

Thus, any world community that depended on mankind’s desire for the freedom of the individual would imply profound changes in people’s lives and economic structures at both national and international level. It would affect trade and commerce, particularly in the richer nations, since freedom would move in the direction of equalising the universal standard of living. People of poorer nations could not be expected to accept world government unless it offered improvements in their living standards. But since the idea of world government would be for the common good of all people it must necessarily override the common good of each individual nation. In other words, for the sake of peace the rich nations would have to lower their standard of living to balance a corresponding rise in the poorer countries - a moral obligation the richer nations clearly do not accept.

Could there ever be world peace without world government? For a brief moment in time after World War 11, men tried to find a formula for a universal peace. But with fading memories of two world wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation already half a century away, the drive for universal peace has waned, and replaced by such problems as global warming and the threat of terrorism. Still, the salutary lessons of international conflict have been learned, although not always practiced; more often than not, war and insurrection have been contained within national borders.

In recent years, as international communication networks were built up, people began to think in terms of a global village. It was hoped as commercial ties strengthened, it would become increasingly difficult for politicians to persuade populations that their problems could be solved only by making war. But since this unity remains rudimentary, present times show politics still has the power to topple our way of life.

It was Le Bon, in his book entitled The Crowd, who first drew attention to the proposition that great changes in society have always come from a groundswell of the people rather than the dictates of authority. If he is correct, the idea of world government is untenable if imposed upon society from above by power seeking demagogues.

As the poor in many countries become pushed into further poverty, there is seen to be a need for reform of the international monetary and financial system. This would require the establishment of a global economic coordinating council to formulate solutions for global markets and instigate a new global architecture. But after half a century, united Europe has difficulty maintaining the Euro as a common currency.

Moreover, a leading United States intelligence organization, the National Intelligence Council, has published a deeply considered outlook of the future. It is entitled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, and gives an astute insight of the future. Despite many uncertainties, it warns that the world will enter an increasingly unstable and unpredictable time as global warming increases. With the rise of China and India and others, it predicts the United States will lose its dominance, as a global multipolar system emerges. Since the Council anticipates international power will become more dispersed, it is likely no single, dominant international community could exist.

The report sees nations becoming fragmented as multilateralism grows, and conflicts flare over scarce resources. It foresees a drift of wealth from West to East, and Western Democracy will begin to lose its lustre. As the world’s population continues to grow, current technologies will be inadequate to cope with increasing demand for precious resources. Still, nations continue to be optimistic.

But the way the world thinks is also slowly changing. People whose interests were once limited to local affairs are online these days, and involved in global incidents that they may translate into action. Nowadays, people everywhere use their computers to build relationships and follow each other’s lives in an exchange of views that can unite old and traditional enemies in a bond of friendship. It can also do the oppsite.

In a sign of things to come, international cooperation by individuals via the Internet has led to dramatic political changes. Stories continue to emerge of concerned individuals using real-time Internet to rally worldwide support for those in strife, or to draw attention to worthy institutions in need of help. The Internet also supports long-term institutions able to bring together otherwise scattered movements, enabling them to acquire greater influence, -- important in instituting long-term change.

Adding to this groundswell of social development, today’s youth have grown up exposed to a lifetime of television, giving them a background unknown to earlier generations. Social media’s ready availability makes it the first place young children receive exposure to the outside world. Simple cartoons introduce toddlers to family proprieties, and how to work together. Kindergarten children play computer games and identify with characters that can shape their outlook. Watching real-time news, Sesame Street, or The Simpsons among many other series gives young minds a maturity that previous generations lacked. Older children get an insight into the ubiquitous functions of computer science, and many teenagers have a ready grasp of international affairs.

Great minds of the past thought of world peace as a top-down concept, with the citizens organised by some form of hierarchy such as world government. But because society never stands still we continue to experience change. Democracy gave us the bottom up system of government of the peole, by the people, for the people, and during the last half-century nations began to consider the possibilities of being linked in some form of peaceful association, like the European Union, but still overseen by a hierarchy of executive and legislative power. Nevertheless, we know that the great changes in society come from the bottom up by a groundswell of the people. Nowadays, we see this beginning to happen through the power of the Internet. Such incidents may be transitory, have no leaders or hierarchy, and bear no resemblance to past movements. Still, they show us that one individual’s knowledge can be a very effective asset for the global community, and that a network of individuals with expertise in their own field can spread information and organisation worldwide.

How this will bare up in the future is unknown, but it confirms that any leader or organisation now has a means to enlist the planetary community to advance their cause, and make a United Earth a possibility. But since history confirms that rapid change invites dangers, international leadership of the highest quality will be necessary to deal with global challenges and their associated complexities.