A Melody Called Peace - Scott Johnson

Скачать книгу

Carnegie, Scottish-American philanthropist and industrialist, is known as the greatest inventor and one of the primary advocates of the above-mentioned peace movement. His death was in August 1919, when the slaughter of the First World War had disappointed him. However, he left some institutions with the goal of achievement of international peace.

      These essays came out after a century, when the world witnessed global turbulence- although it was not as severe as 1919. The collection of “Peace Conversations” of Carnegie in The Hague was published, assisted by the Carnegie UK Trust and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published them. Hence, this is a collective work, reflecting on the heritage of Carnegie’s vision, the international peace meaning now and one century ago, and the new context where conflict continues in the globe.

      Putting their hopes in the realm of reason, Carnegie and his fellow peace activists believed that the European Enlightenment project was about to win and war could be abrogated. Mankind had disallowed fighting and disputes among people. Thus, in 1905, Carnegie at St. Andrews University told the move of progress could turnover conflict between nations to history. Following conferences on the peace, he developed the “temple of peace,” which is known as the elegant Hague Peace Palace. It was opened in 1913 and yet hosts the Carnegie Foundation, the International Court of Justice, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. A note was sent to the trustees of the newly established Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in December 1910 by Carnegie. In this letter, he asked trustees to spend revenue of this center for hastening the war abolition, the foulest blot upon our civilization. After achievement of this goal, the board should make a decision on “the subsequent most humiliating remaining evils” that have to fight against.

      The catastrophe of the Great War of 1914–1918 crushed optimism of peacemakers. The fumble peace of 1919 once again crushed their optimism. Jay Winter in his essay, elaborated painful details of the drawbacks in the Versailles Treaty of 1919, its failure in establishing it a peaceful order in Europe. It just paved to way to a new war two decades later. Versailles omitted the defeated and the desires of non-Europeans were ignored. As the German economy crippled, Europe was doomed to economic recession. The 1919 settlement was like a building that had been constructed on fragile foundations, being built under the pressure of the global economic depression in 1929 and the entry of the Nazis in 1933.

      In the turbulent conditions of the 1920s and 1930s, the Carnegie institutions were struggling to resist the nationalism, economic crisis, and protectionism. The liberal internationalists, James Brown Scott, James Shotwell, and Nicholas Butler, known as Carnegie men, won a better opportunity in 1945 for promoting their vision. These men had been distracted in the craft of the 1919 treaty. However, they again gained a profound involvement in the development of a new postwar settlement and the United Nations. According to record of Frédéric Mégret, the Nuremberg Trials were a short moment when international justice was respected and there was a prosecution for crimes against peace. However, this internationalist time mostly known as postwar period. With starting the Cold War, peace again, became an evasive goal.

      What lead us all into such a chaos?

      By ending the Cold War in 1991, a new brilliant postwar point appeared. However, after a quarter of a century again we saw dark clouds coming. New types of disorders are characteristics of the contemporary world. It seems that the brutal world of the First World War time is returning.

      There are three main trends that drive violence and conflicts in the contemporary world which I have described in this preface. The first trend is determination of national leaders for defending the supremacy of state sovereignty against multilateral international organizations. The second one is the elevated capability of non-state actors in the modern era, like drug barons, such as warlords, money-launderers, and terrorists, which create instability and conflict. The third trend reduction of the human agency by technology specifically advanced IT, and accordingly, the smaller size of the world and facilitation of asymmetrical warfare, where a small group of people can create significant disruption.

      Andrew Carnegie and the generation of 1900 identified the first trend, although the international organizations dreamed by Carnegie did not still emerge. This story indicates that the power in the world is possessed by nation-states. They have competition with each other for lands and the resources of the world. For this purpose, these nation-states have an insistence on the absolute right or fetishization of state supremacy. One of the most threatening consequence of this phenomenon is deployment of nuclear weapons by the states in defiance of each another, though it might not be the most salient outcome.

      This was not 1914 revisited. Robert Muggah and Rachel Kleinfeld noted that state-to-state conflict levels in the world are currently at historical lows. The way of confrontation of the big powers of the world with each other has changed in the form of proxy war in third countries, digital destruction, or punishing trade tariffs. In addition, the strength of nationstates of the early 21th century is likely less than at any time in modern history, and they are taking their last stand against a long global integration process (consider quixotic isolationist politics of Brexit?). However, the voice of states is getting louder in the meantime. In recent years, governments of such countries as China, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, India, and the USA have fed global disruption for their “national interest.”

      Look at some cases from 2019. In August 2019, government of India stated that making decision on abolishment of the Indian-administered Kashmir autonomy is an internal affair, although it could have international consequences and could flame conflicts with Pakistan. Again in August 2019, we witnessed insistence of Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil on the Amazon forest fires as a domestic affair of Brazil and the countries of Amazon, despite the fact that these fires accelerated global warming and provoked resistance of local residents. The government of China claimed that those who criticize China’s surveillance operation for monitoring and controlling the Uyghur tribes in Xinjiang Province are interfering in internal affairs of China.

      There were severe international reactions to the first two examples, which indicates multilateral diplomacy is still alive. Bernard Bot, former head of The Hague Peace Palace, and William Burns, head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, are recognized as two esteemed and noble diplomats and Carnegie men, which skillfully showed the necessity of diplomacy. Diplomacy demands crafty and astute and innovative individuals now. Besides, diplomacy requires profound international institutions. Bernard Bot noted that if we want to implement a peace process successfully, longlasting commitment and planning are needed that only can be provided by a mature and experienced international body.

      The second trend is more contemporary. The wars in the globe have always been waged by non-state actors-from Vikings in 8th century to the warriors of the Thirty Years’ War. However, their outcome has not ever been very considerable. According to Mary Kaldor, contemporary conflict is described as a social situation or a mutual enterprise where the interests of a large number of armed groups from violence itself are more than from victory. It seems that there is not any end for the conflicts in Democratic Republic of Congo or in Syria where small gangs are supported by remote sponsors or liberated local resources and are operating in regions where regular statehood has vanished.

      In other countries, a more robust state constructs similar consequences as the government conspires with or hires out enforcement to offensive actors, and consequently, systematic violence is engendered. Muggah and Kleinfeld depicted a shocking image of the situation in such countries as Mexico and Brazil. Apparently, there is no war in these countries. However, the number of deaths from violence is equal or even higher than death rates in Syria or Afghanistan. They used the term “privilege violence” for describing a cruel circle where security forces and politicians are allowed to have cartels, mafias, and gang impunity, bribes, campaign contributions, and help escape the vote or repress electorates.

      There is a third trend that enhances the devastating power of non-state actors. This trend is the increasing democratization and sophistication of technology. Currently, the primary handguns of the world include a smartphone and a laptop. The opportunities that these devices provide for some global citizens have been unimaginable a generation ago. At the same time, if a single laptop is used by the wrong individuals, it has the capability of disabling the electricity grid if a country.

      The

Скачать книгу