(This section was renumbered in Edition 2; readers of that edition of Patterns of Power can find the latest version of this section at https://www.patternsofpower.org/patterns/renegotiating/international/. Readers of the Rough Guide should refer to https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition01/94.htm for the original contents of the section on Overcoming a Refusal to Negotiate and to https://www.patternsofpower.org/patterns/renegotiating/refusal/ for the latest version of it.)
The founding of the United Nations in 1948 did not see the end of war. More than 100 wars were started between 1948 and 2010.[1] An armed conflict can be seen as the outcome of a political failure:
As Clausewitz famously wrote, €śwar is a mere continuation of policy by other means€ť.[2]
Rupert Smith expressed it differently:
"our confrontations and conflicts must be understood as intertwined political and military events, and only in this way can they be resolved".[3]
The only way to avoid war, or to end a war that has started, is to resolve the underlying political problem. Better governance is needed. Contemporary international relations largely rest upon an uneasy balance of power between countries pursuing their own interests; there will be continued friction between them as long as they jostle with each other for position.
To take America as an example, its neo-conservatives have pursued an €śinternational order that reflects our values€ť.[4] This assumes that America's values €“ including its belief in democracy and individual freedom €“ would be of benefit everywhere in the world. Not everybody agrees that these values are of universal benefit. American leadership can be seen, by governments which do not share its values, as equivalent to saying €śWe want to overthrow your government€ť.[5]
Similarly, America saw the spread of communism as a threat. Several powerful countries have at some time tried to introduce their form of government to other countries, and have thereby increased international tension. America, Russia and Britain, among others, have pursued a coercive foreign policy (6.7.7.1); this has been politically disadvantageous to them, it has been costly in financial terms (7.4.6.1), and it is not conducive to continued security (7.4.7). It is reasonable to try to improve the way in which international security is maintained, as described below:
· The UN seems the most credible of the options proposed (9.5.1).
· Reform of the UN is necessary, to make it more effective (9.5.2).
· Collaborative international governance (9.5.3) could be implemented if the major powers all supported international law.
· There are many advantages in following that route (9.5.4).
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] A document entitled Wars Fought between 1945 and 2010 was available in April 2014 on the Ultimate Bible Reference Library website at http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com/Wars_Fought_Since_1945_to_2010.pdf.
[2] This Clausewitz quotation comes from On War, Chapter 1, where it is the heading of section 24. The whole chapter was available in April 2014 at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1123&Itemid=290. Its attribution was given there as Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham. New and Revised edition with Introduction and Notes by Col. F.N. Maude, in Three Volumes (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & C., 1918). Vol. 1. Chapter: CHAPTER I: WHAT IS WAR?
[3] Rupert Smith described the interconnection of war and politics in his book The Utility of Force, (p. 372).
[4] George W Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, described what that Administration was pursuing:
€śAn international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome.€ť
This quotation came from an article entitled Rethinking the National Interest, which was published by Real Clear Politics on 10 June 2008 and which was scheduled to appear in the July/August 2008 edition of Foreign Affairs; this article was available in April 2014 at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/rethinking_the_national_intere.html.
[5] This point was made by Amitai Etzioni, Professor of International relations at George Washington University, when introducing his book Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy, in a lecture Foreign policy after Bush at the RSA in London on 4 June 2007. The audio file can be consulted at the British Library's Drama and Literature Recordings Section, by making an appointment via e-mail at drama@bl.uk.