essays
There Are No Winners in War
a little roadmap to a more peaceful place
There are no winners in war. Every party in every war has lost. Has lost a lot of something. Lives, degrees of humanity, ideals.
The let’s-do-it-anyway reasons for wars are as complex and far-reaching – geographically and historically – as the tangled dynamics of a peace-seeking (and oftentimes not-so-peace-seeking) international community with no clear definition, no clear common agenda, and no clear force. But there are patterns behind all warring that seem universal enough to fit them in two nutshells, one rotten, the other hard to crack:
Bad reasons. From Caesarian greed to Hitleresque fanaticism, excruciatingly unnecessary wars fester in the abysses of human nature and can often be attributed to a single individual or small group commandeering from atop a mound of corpses they amass in spectacular disregard for human life. Territorial hunger and thirst for resources are manifestations of greed, while ethnic and religious warfare are outgrowths of fanaticism. As if wars weren’t cruel enough, there is a gory brutality to how avoidable this waste (not loss) of human life can be. The saddening and maddening epitome is WW2 for it isn’t much of an oversimplification or overexaggeration to say that some 80 million people died for the megalomanic delusions of one little man.
Good reasons. While belligerent fanaticism is an extension of life-threatening ideologies, there are benevolent ideals worth fighting for. The French revolution was the first morning of democracy and the American Civil War the last night of slavery. Ideally, such progressive and unifying goals could be achieved peacefully by spanning a rainbow across the aisle, but how can you reason with an oppressor if oppression itself is so very unreasonable? That’s why national monuments commemorate wars of independence, not tea parties of independence.
"...it’s easy to agree on one thing, our divisions notwithstanding: no one wants to be a victim of war."
Judging loftily but astutely from the summit of all history, a mountain of bad wars has buried a few “good” wars, which might be more aptly decorated with quotation marks than medals; after all, they were no different from the bad wars when tallying up death and destruction. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of ashes until they solidify into a fundament that humanity can climb to reach a higher level of cultural self-actualization, to build peace from pieces, like assembling the UN from the rubble of WW2. More often than not, humanity just sinks into those ashes of fast forgotten sacrifices and all that death and destruction was for less than nothing. War that doesn’t serve humanity’s evolution, war that doesn’t foster peace, is but a path paved with bodies and debris that only ever arrives at worse-to-worst-case scenarios: an unsettled stalemate where the ever-looming conflict flares up again and again; subjugation or surrender carrying a victory that has to be more bitter than sweet; or, the best worst case scenario, a pricy ceasefire that cost many lives and could have been procured from the start given that the only difference now is the body count.
Looking at this dire trinity of war outcomes, it’s easy to agree on one thing, our divisions notwithstanding: no one wants to be a victim of war. Not to be confused with no one wants war. People might endorse wars for many bad or a few good reasons, but absolutely no one wants to be at the receiving end of them when it starts hailing bombs. No one wants to die in a war, lose their beloved, their limbs, their home to a war. No one.
Why then, with the entire species in such rare unanimous agreement, and with all of history’s lessons readily available in our school of posterity, do we keep getting into wars?
The answer is hardcoded and hardwired into our nature and nurture: war is a cultural extension of a natural phenomenon: conflict. War is the bomb at the end of conflict’s fuse. And conflict is inherent to us, like to any other animal, and not an inherently bad thing. It would take as long as history itself to decode the DNA of every conflict that ever was because it is an everyday-everywhere occurrence that goes all the way back to where life was born. But it only takes a moment to understand the natural algorithm behind it: conflict is a side effect of biological diversity, and of „diverging ideas, interests, or persons” by human textbook definition. Conflict is not up for debate – it is a condition of life’s heterogeneity. Survival is conflict. Species against species, specimen against specimen. But homo sapiens is the only species that can choose its tool to resolve conflict: pen or gun.
From slight nuances to heavy oppositions, our individual opinions, ideals, and actions rubbing against one another in close communal proximity will always lead to friction. And the sparks of friction will sometimes kindle fires. But how to best put out a fire – with water or with napalm? How to best mediate a conflict – with handshake or handgun?
Rhetorical questions that don’t ask for answers. We all know this. We all know better. Why don’t we do better?
Mostly, sadly, or perhaps even fortunately, because not everyone is at the receiving end of wars and what isn’t our problem isn’t our problem. That the shadows of most wars are consequential, long, and not contained in their corner of the world, is the kind of dormant common sense that leaves our emotions unscathed and unresponsive. As long as our sun and sons are smiling at an intact life and home and future, a dearth of drastic motivation incapacitates the majority of civil society, which makes it difficult to move from standing by to standing up.
That’s what we appoint leaders for – to sketch out the big picture and use foresight rather than hindsight to effectuate preventative change with here-and-now action items. So why don’t our elected leaders do better? Why are they so quick to ship off others into war?
Simply put, because they aren’t these others. It is terribly easy to sign a declaration of war for those barricaded behind their desks. Leaders might carry history on their conscience, but that hypothetical weight will never weigh as heavily as a fallen soldier carried on a comrade’s shoulders. What happened to the Alexanders of this world, who would lead their armies by example, not send them by decree? They put their life where their mouth was. Imagine if world leaders had to serve in the wars they call for instead of watching them from their cushy chairs? There would be a lot less calling, guaranteed. Let's call it the Alexander Rule and chisel it into every constitution we can find.
But even the bravest heads of state will put national interests before global necessities. That’s their job. To meet our planetary challenges with multilateral responses, we have created institutions that transcend borders; above all, the United Nations, a body that remarkably includes almost every single country on Earth. Why then can’t or won’t this parental institution prevent or stop the bad wars that were collectively defined in its charter?
"It's great to see the US, UK, France, Russia, and China sit at the same table, but what’s the point if they can’t agree on the table manners?"
The international community is gridlocked because it hasn’t been all that communal for some time. After WW2 – history’s principal lesson – the entire planet got on the same side, and these united nations called themselves, aptly, the United Nations. But some of those unlikely allies have gone back from side by side to pick a side and sometimes pick a fight. And some of those some are the very some who handed each other veto powers and aren’t shy to use them when it comes to blocking whatever multilateral resolution doesn’t fit with their unilateral I-want-what-I-want toddler tactics; after all, as united as these nations might be on a good day, they turn into geopolitical rivals whenever their national interests collide. It's great to see the US, UK, France, Russia, and China sit at the same table, but what’s the point if they can’t agree on the table manners? How are they to safeguard peace if they are frequently the very aggressors of war, shielded from military intervention and accountability by their veto power – like the US in Iraq, Russia in Ukraine, or both of them tearing Syria apart? Someone should have vetoed these vetoes when the charter was drafted. Because now it would take all five of these powerful nations to agree and renounce their privilege. Wrestling the vetoes from them would undermine the whole contractual and diplomatic credibility and legitimacy of the organization. And who would take them anyway? What pack of underdogs could take on the top dogs if they won’t surrender their favorite weapon?
The only way for the UN to walk out of this paralysis is for the five permanent security council members to grow a spine and drop their veto crutches. In the meantime, adding more permanent and rotating members to the UNSC would be a first step towards diversifying its composition and giving it more of the General Assembly’s representative town hall flavor. Only when both these conditions are met, world majorities will take world decisions, truly. Back that up with a little more punch than blue helmets to enforce resolutions, and you might scare off the bullies. An independent force of UN peacemakers in addition to the peacekeepers could be more reliable and unified than military pick'n'mix proxy-support by member states. While we're at it, let's trim each member's domestic arsenal and military budget to divert these trillions towards a more equitable and therefore less conflicted world.
Needless to say that in a perfect novelesque world we'd all be holding hands while disarming every army and locking that stuff in the shack for an alien invasion or asteroid Armageddon. But, for better or worse, we're not utopian or celestial beings. Down here, the bullies have weapons and no qualms about using them. It’s too late to undo weaponry as a whole and it has been from the moment the first caveman bludgeoned another with a club. Weapon technology is pretty one-directional and once we opened pandora's box with dynamite, we blew it to smithereens. Can’t put anything back in there now.
When we are talking about peace, pragmaticism is of the essence. Looooong term, we might be able to resolve the underlying issues of societal tensions that precede wars: inequalities, injustices, ideological divergences – maybe via a (UN) world government concerned with ALL of humankind’s wellbeing and future. We might even evolve into pacifist wunderbeings that resolve all conflicts without arms. Until then, the UN is our closest approximation of an international coalition that can take on the world’s looming challenges, an anachronistic but solid skeleton we need to flesh out. In a complex and conflicted world, it is hard to get it right; but if not the UN, who then?
Curing the ailments of the UN’s most vital organ, the security council, has been debated internally for decades. By now it requires major surgery in an emergency procedure. With armed conflicts currently experiencing an uptick in frequency and magnitude, it sometimes feels like we are five minutes away from WW3 – a good time to jumpstart the reforms by making it an external, public issue in civil society’s hands. You and I must take it to the streets. Our survival, may it be threatened by nuclear warfare or nuclear climate, outranks national interest. We must demand from our leaders to put humanity first. United nations cannot exist without united people. Affiliated mindsets across borders, ethnicities, and formalities can push the international community to move forward in accord. This is no sandcastle in the sky. Civil movements are on the rise, building a commendable track record of changemaking. Fridays for Future. BLM. LGBTQ. #MeToo. Let’s harness activism’s tidal energy to move against war next, by demanding United-er Nations. We who demonstrate, we who sign petitions, are we who vote. Let's write it on our cardboard signs and vote away those who don't put our slogans into their political programs. Here are some for starters:
VETO THE VETO
seCURE THE SUCKurity COUNCIL
ENABLE UNSC WITH A BIGGER TABLE
There are no winners in war.
Need some more? Even ChatGPT is getting behind the cause, because this is a no-brainer for artificial intelligence:
One world, one vote
Equal voices, no veto
End veto tyranny!
Revolutionize the Security Council: No More Veto Dominance!
UNSC: Time to Evolve Beyond Veto Power!
Veto No More, Let Democracy Soar!
Equal Rights, Equal Say: End the Veto Today!
Outdated Veto: Obstacle to Global Harmony!
UNSC: Veto-Free for Unity!
Rise Against Veto Oppression!
Voice for All, Veto for None!
