Originally published on the CGS blog on May 14, 2014.
The Washington Post recently published an article entitled “In the long run, wars make us safer and richer” by Ian Morris. In the article, Morris argues that through “10,000 years of conflict, humanity has created larger, more organized societies,” greatly increasing human safety and promoting economic growth.
In the Stone Age, 10-20% of all humans died at the hands of other people. By contrast, in the past 100 years, only 1-2% of the world’s population died violently. Similarly, prosperity has increased, with life expectancy more than doubling (from 30 to 67) and average income rising from $2 to $25 per day. According to Morris, all of this happened because “war made states, and states made peace.” While he admits that war “may well be the worst way imaginable to create larger, more peaceful societies,” Morris asserts that it is the only way.
This argument, however, assumes that pacification and suppression of dissent equals peace. It does not. Violent conflict merely creates the illusion of peace, which is broken as soon as those who have been suppressed garner the strength to rise up against those who beat them down. If violent conflict had really created peace through pacification, it would have ended after the first war. Instead, the cycle of conflict continues.
A very obvious example is World War II. Hitler was able to rise to power on the wave of support he gathered by speaking out against the allies and reparations that bankrupted Germany after the first World War. If peace rather than revenge had been sought in the wake of WWII, Hitler would have had no platform from which to acquire power.
We see the same cycle of conflict in post-colonial states, particularly in Africa. During the colonial era, European powers ruled through oppression and violence, beating down native peoples while elevating other groups and importing their own people and culture. As a result, when they pulled back from the territories they claimed, conflict emerged as those who had been oppressed fought back against those who had been in league with the oppressors. Genocide in Rwanda and apartheid in South Africa are particularly pertinent examples of this phenomenon.
Conflict has created a safer, richer world for the victors, but in its wake has left the losers to fend for themselves in a poor, fractured society where the cycle of conflict is perpetuated. To break this cycle, we must encourage the waging of peace, not war.
In his article Morris made a compelling argument for conflict as a force that created peace. But Morris is writing from the side of the victors. Today there are still 2.4 billion people living on less than $2 a day, and 9.2 million children alone are dying every year from preventable causes. These numbers could be reduced drastically if conflict ended. Conflict is a billion-dollar industry, costing millions of dollars in aid and assistance beyond the cost of waging war.
In light of these facts, we must allow for the possibility that cooperation and peace rather than conflict could have created the same, if not greater, benefits for everyone involved–not just those that triumph over others.
For additional perspective, check out this response to Morris’ piece.
