World Peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and/or people. World peace is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare. The term is sometimes used to refer to a cessation of all hostility among all individuals. For example, World Peace could be crossing boundaries via education, engineering, medicine, diplomats and/or an end to all forms of fighting.
Contents |
While world peace is theoretically possible, some believe that human nature inherently prevents it.[1][2] This belief stems from the idea that humans are naturally violent, or that rational agents will choose to commit violent acts in certain circumstances.[1][2]
Others however believe that war is not an innate part of human nature[3], and that this myth in fact prevents people from reaching for world peace.[4]
Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed. Several of these are listed below. World peace is achievable when there is no longer conflict over resources. For example, oil is one such resource and conflict over the supply of oil is well known. Therefore, developing technology that utilizes reusable fuel sources may be one way to achieve world peace.
World peace is sometimes claimed to be the inevitable result of a certain political ideology. According to former U.S. President George W. Bush: "The march of democracy will lead to world peace."[5] Leon Trotsky, a Marxist theorist, assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace.[6]
Proponents of the controversial democratic peace theory claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely wage war against each other.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (the only exceptions being the Cod Wars, the Turbot War and Operation Fork — all of which had no casualties) Jack Levy (1988) made an oft-quoted assertion that the theory is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations".
An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the Industrial Revolution. A world peace may thus become possible if this trend continues and if the democratic peace theory is correct.
There are, however, several possible exceptions to this theory.
In her "capitalism peace theory," Ayn Rand held that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones and that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history—a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world—from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of capitalism, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come. But the element of statism kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by the time it blasted the world in 1914, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies.[15][16]
However, this theory ignores the brutal colonial wars waged by the western nations against countries outside Europe; as well as the German and Italian Wars of Unification, the Franco-Prussian war, the Crimean War, and other conflicts in Europe. It also posits a lack of war as the barometer for peace, when in reality class antagonisms were ever present.
One could argue that the argument is based on a non-sequitur fallacy since it may not have been capitalism that was the cause but rather the little state authority (also, correlation does not imply causation), which would make it an argument for anarchism in general, ranging from anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-communism, not necessarily capitalism.
There are proponents[17] of cobdenism who claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars. For example, if one country produces firearms and another produces ammunition, the two could not fight each other, because the former would be unable to procure ammunition and the latter would be unable to obtain weapons.
Critics argue that free trade does not prevent a nation from establishing some sort of emergency plan to become temporarily self-sufficient in case of war or that a nation could simply acquire what it needs from a different nation. A good example of this, is World War I. Both Britain and Germany managed to become partially self-sufficient during the war. This is particularly important, due to the fact Germany had no plan for creating a War economy.
More generally, other proponents argue that free trade—while not making wars impossible—will make wars, and restrictions on trade caused by wars, very costly for international companies with production, research, and sales in many different nations. Thus, a powerful lobby—unless there are only national companies—will argue against wars.
Mutual assured destruction (sometimes known as MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[18][19] Proponents of the policy of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War attributed this to the increase in the lethality of war to the point where it no longer offers the possibility of a net gain for either side, thereby making wars pointless.
Some see a trend in national politics by which city-states and nation-states have unified, and suggest that the international arena will eventually follow suit. Many countries such as China, Italy, the United States, Germany, India and Britain have unified into single nation-states, with others like the European Union following suit, suggesting that further globalization will bring about a unified world order.
Proponents of isolationism and non-interventionism claim that a world made up of many nations can peacefully coexist as long as they each establish a stronger focus on domestic affairs and do not try to impose their will on other nations.
Non-interventionism should not be confused with isolationism. Isolationism, like non-interventionism advises avoiding interference into other nation's internal affairs, but also emphasizes protectionism and restriction of international trade and travel. Non-interventionism, on the other hand, advocates combining free trade (like Cobdenism) with political and military non-interference.
Nations like Japan are perhaps the best known for establishing isolationist policies in the past. The Japanese Shogun Tokugawa initiated the Edo Period, an isolationist period where Japan cut itself off from the world as a whole. This is a well-known isolation period and well documented in many areas.
World peace has been depicted[20] as a consequence of local, self-determined behaviors that inhibit the institutionalization of power and ensuing violence. The solution is not so much based on an agreed agenda, or an investment in higher authority whether divine or political, but rather a self-organized network of mutually supportive mechanisms, resulting in a viable politico-economic social fabric. The principle technique for inducing convergence is thought experiment, namely backcasting, enabling anyone to participate no matter what cultural background, religious doctrine, political affiliation or age demographic. Similar collaborative mechanisms are emerging from the Internet around open-source projects, including Wikipedia, Need4Peace, and the evolution of social media.
Economic norms theory links economic conditions with institutions of governance and conflict, distinguishing personal clientelist economies from impersonal market-oriented ones, identifying the latter with permanent peace within and between nations.[21][22]
Through most of human history societies have been based on personal relations: individuals in groups know each other and exchange favors. Today in most lower-income societies hierarchies of groups distribute wealth based on personal relationships among group leaders, a process often linked with clientelism and corruption. Michael Mousseau argues that in this kind of socio-economy conflict is always present, latent or overt, because individuals depend on their groups for physical and economic security and are thus loyal to their groups rather than their states, and because groups are in a constant state of conflict over access to state coffers. Through processes of bounded rationality, people are conditioned towards strong in-group identities and are easily swayed to fear outsiders, psychological predispositions that make possible sectarian violence, genocide, and terrorism.[23]
Market-oriented socio-economies are integrated not with personal ties but the impersonal force of the market where most individuals are economically dependent on trusting strangers in contracts enforced by the state. This creates loyalty to a state that enforces the rule of law and contracts impartially and reliably and provides equal protection in the freedom to contract – that is, liberal democracy. Wars cannot happen within or between nations with market-integrated economies because war requires the harming of others, and in these kinds of economies everyone is always economically better off when others in the market are also better off, not worse off. Rather than fight, citizens in market-oriented socio-economies care deeply about everyone’s rights and welfare, so they demand economic growth at home and economic cooperation and human rights abroad. In fact, nations with market-oriented socio-economies tend to agree on global issues[23] and not a single fatality has occurred in any dispute between them.[21]
Economic norms theory should not be confused with classical liberal theory. The latter assumes that markets are natural and that freer markets promote wealth.[24] In contrast, Economic norms theory shows how market-contracting is a learned norm, and state spending, regulation, and redistribution are necessary to ensure that most everyone can participate in the “social market” economy, which is in everyone’s interests.
Many religions and religious leaders have expressed a desire for an end to violence and/or world peace.
With specific regard to the pursuit of world peace, Bahá'u'lláh of the Bahá'í Faith prescribed a world-embracing collective security arrangement as necessary for the establishment of a lasting peace. The Universal House of Justice wrote about the process in The Promise of World Peace.[25]
Many Buddhists believe that world peace can only be achieved if we first establish peace within our minds. Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, said, “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”[26] The idea is that anger and other negative states of mind are the cause of wars and fighting. Buddhists believe people can live in peace and harmony only if we abandon negative emotions such as anger in our minds and cultivate positive emotions such as love and compassion.
The basic Christian ideal promotes peace through goodwill and by sharing the faith with others, as well as being proactive and doing good works and forgiving those who do try to break the peace.
Traditionally Hinduism has adopted an ancient Sanskrit phrase Vasudha eva kutumbakam,[27] which translates as "The world is one family." The essence of this concept is the observation that only base minds see dichotomies and divisions. The more we seek wisdom, the more we become inclusive and free our internal spirit from worldly illusions or Maya. World peace is hence only achieved through internal means—by liberating ourselves from artificial boundaries that separate us all.
According to Islam, faith in only one God and having common parents Adam and Eve is the greatest reason for humans to live together with peace and brotherhood. Islamic view of global peace is mentioned in the Quran where the whole of humanity is recognized as one family. All the people are children of Adam and Eve. The purpose of the Islamic faith is to make people recognize their own natural inclination towards their fraternity. According to Islamic eschatology the whole world will be united under the leadership of prophet Jesus in his second coming.[28] At that time love, justice and peace will be so abundant that the world will be in likeness of paradise.
Added October 5, 2009 by IECRC - Islamic Educational & Cultural Research Center's research on religious involvement in world peace and the concept of the World Peace Order is expanded in great detail in its latest publication "World Peace Order - Towards an International State".[29]
Judaism teaches that at some future time a Messiah will rise up to bring all Jews back to the Land of Israel, followed by everlasting global peace and prosperity.[30] This idea originates from passages in the Tanakh and rabbinic interpretations.
In addition to this well known idea of a Messiah, there also exists the idea of Tikkun olam (Repairing the World). Tikkun olam is accomplished through various means, such as ritualistically performing God's commandments (keeping the Sabbath, kashrut laws, etc.), charity and social justice, as well as through example persuading the rest of the world to behave morally. This would result in the beginning of the Messianic Age.
Compassion for all life, human and non-human, is central to Jainism. Human life is valued as a unique, rare opportunity to reach enlightenment; to kill any person, no matter what crime he may have committed, is considered unimaginably abhorrent. It is a religion that requires monks and laity, from all its sects and traditions, to be vegetarian. Some Indian regions, such as Gujarati, have been strongly influenced by Jains and often the majority of the local Hindus of every denomination have also become vegetarian.[31]
“All beings and creatures are His; He belongs to all” (Guru Granth Sahib, 425). Gurus furthermore preached to “Sing the Praise of the One, the Immaculate Lord; He is contained within all” (Guru Granth Sahib, 706). “The special feature of the Sikh of the Guru is that he goes beyond the framework of caste-classification and moves in humility. Then his labor becomes acceptable at the door of God” (Bhai Gurdas Ji, 1).[32]
A report in May 2011 on the Global Peace Index highlighted that had the world been 25% more peaceful in the past year, the global economy would have benefited by an additional $2 trillion, which would account for 2% of global GDP per annum required to mitigate global warming, cover all costs to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, cancel all public debt held by Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and cover the rebuilding costs for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.[33]
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "FOOTNOTERummel1997" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page.
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "FOOTNOTERay1995" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page.
<ref> tag with name "FOOTNOTEWeart1998" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page.