Global Peace: Possible or a Pipe Dream?

With the war in Ukraine drawing a lot of attention and conflict between the United States of America and China looms, now might be a good time to look at how to establish peace.

One approach is Cosmopolitan conflict resolution, which refers to an approach that allows us to handle conflict at any level in the best interest of mankind as a whole. Cosmopolitan values put the emphasis on our shared humanity, stressing that we are all human first, with much more in common than what sets us apart. Only then should come our other identities which refer to our allegiance to family, clan, a community, a country, a sports team, an ethnic group, culture, religion or gender and class. It also requires that we accept and appreciate the “otherness” of those who have a different culture and a different way of looking at the world. That’s all good and well, but it sounds like we should all forget the strife, sit around a fire and sing Kumbaya together. It forgets that humans can be very competitive, that not all humans are the same, that some can be malignant and downright evil, that not all cultures are equal and that some acts can be condemned as evil, wrong, and deserve to be stopped, and that some wars have a just cause.

To take stock of the current state of affairs, Ramsbotham et al., meaning mostly left-leaning academics, note that parts of the world are not all at the same stage of development in moving towards a hoped for cosmopolitan future. Moving from one stage to the next does not always completely replace the old order and some countries can relapse into a previous level. (they make it sound as if the so-called cosmopolitan future is a more advance level of global civilization, whereas it might not be an improvement at all). Each stage is also associated with a concomitant change in the form of power.

The first stage refers to pre-state alternatives where power is determined by the charisma of leaders and the underlying philosophy is that of traditionalism. Somalia is an example where the state has collapsed and the country is run by warlords and clan leaders.

The second stage is the system of states where each states promotes its own interest in a system of global anarchy, meaning that there is no authority above that of the state and military or hard power is the deciding factor. Power is the main organizing principle in this Realist approach to the world. This is still the case in many parts of the Middle East, like in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as in southern and eastern Asia. It also underpinned the neo-conservative thinking of the Bush administration in the United States of America (USA). In my view it is just realpolitik. States can improve their power by aligning with other states and signing mutual defence pacts.

The third stage refers to the international society of states where there is a relatively ordered interaction between states and an acknowledgement that it is in everybody’s interests to act with restraint. International order is the organizing principle and it is supported by the values of pluralism and non-intervention, although in some cases it might be necessary and beneficent to intervene when a despotic government starts killing its own citizens, perhaps members of the opposition party or a minority religious group, for example.

The fourth stage refers to the international community, which acknowledges the importance of non-state actors as well. The main concept along which this community is organized is legitimacy as determined by international law, international institutions and international organizations. This international community is supposedly underpinned by the value of solidarity. However, many states have competing interests and irreconcilable values, which makes this unlikely in my opinion.

There is, of course, always the danger that it give too much power to international organizations, which might begin to act like a global government and interfere too much in the doings of individual states. It would undermine democracy, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. With a global government you would have unelected officials making decisions that affect people who did not vote for them and might be thousands of miles away from them. These officials would have no interests on the ground and might be too far removed from the people to really attend to their concerns. If these global organizations get taken over by authoritarians, they might not share the values of a specific group of people, and rule in a way that is not in their best interest.

The fifth stage refers to a hoped for, but barely discernible cosmopolitan future where international justice reigns and cosmopolitan values are the order of the day. They thus want to replace individual or specific religious values with so-called cosmopolitan ones. These five stages or features are all present at the moment in different parts of the world. It is, however, not a foregone conclusion that the world will move towards such a future (let’s hope not.

If, for example you have a way of doing things that works better than any other, it would be stupid to change the way you do it just to fit in with this view of global oneness. Likewise, if you are a Protestant, you have very little in common with a devout Muslim or a Buddhist, for example. You might do business with them and respect them in so far that you do not harm them, but there is no need to change your beliefs and work ethic just to fit in with someone else’s worldview). There are several forces that are driving this move towards a cosmopolitan world order, but also powerful ones that counter it.

Forces driving cosmopolitanism

Ramsbotham et al., those lefty academics, looked at the developments in three fields that, for them, point towards a possible cosmopolitan peace and future. These are international political and economic institutions, international law and democratic governance.

1. International institutions

The United Nations (UN) was founded after World War Two (WW2) with the express aim to maintain international peace and security. Some say it was founded by the Fabian society, a group with the express goal to spread socialism throughout the world. The world system under the UN is the first to have developed into a genuine global society of states. However, the UN has been criticised from several sides. Realists contend that the UN is too ineffective to deal with future challenges and only acts to constrain and frustrate the actions of its stronger members, most notably the United States of America.

Traditional Marxists see it as a tool of the capitalist powers, which is hilarious, since most of the UN’s development goals are expressly socialist. They mainly advance socialistic ideas, which means that they do not represent all people, ignoring those on the political right, while doing their best to advance the goals of the left. Whether the UN was captured by the left, or was so from the beginning, I am not sure, but right now, they are decidedly on the left, pressing and promoting a cosmopolitan worldview and global governance, which will increase their power exponentially to advance the leftist cause. The International financial institutions (IFI’s) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), along with the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been criticised for being controlled by the West or the North and for promoting its interests. For example, Chang (2003) argues that the global trade rules are unfairly skewed in favour of the developed countries and that these international institutions serve to perpetuate the imbalance.

It has also been suggested that the UN structures, most notably the Security Council, need to be restructured so that it can reflect the increasingly multi-polar world and include more members from the Global South. Similarly, the IFI’s needs to be reformed to reflect a more global representation and the trade rules need to be made fair. Everyone’s definition of fair is not the same.

Despite its flaws, the UN still acts as a global parliament and provides a platform for multilateral diplomacy. It also promotes leftism wherever it can. It can also be seen as the repository for cosmopolitan values like the universal declaration of human rights, yet they are not true to it, nor even are they true to their own original charter. The global acceptance of the principle of self-determination has had a profound effect on the world stage and can be seen as a big step forward for human emancipation. In reality it has not been accepted everywhere and many governments are undermining the rights of their citizens. The current leaders of the UN clearly do not believe in the universal declaration of human rights.

Conflict resolution principles permeate the UN system and are made manifest in the UN’s peacekeeping operations. Some of these operations are a joke, for example like the one in the Congo, and in reality, in several instances there is no peace to keep, and just becomes a spending orgy, a colossal waste of money, material, and most importantly, time. In Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, it is suggested that regional groupings should play an active part in settling disputes peacefully. Much progress has been made in this direction as can be seen in the European Union, the development of the African Union and also other regional groupings like ASEAN in Asia and the OAS in the Americas. Such groupings are still lacking in the Middle East and South Asia, though. They are, however, not equally effective.

Conflict transformation principles are visible in clauses about Human Rights and equal development and are seen in the work of many of the different UN agencies and the International Court of Justice. Equal development is, for me, a pipedream, since all countries are not governed equally well, do not have the same economic potential, and do not share the same culture and work ethic. For Ramsbotham et al. the UN is a composite organisation, being an instrument of the great powers at the same time as being a global parliament to accommodate the interests of all states and also the repository of cosmopolitan values. They fail to point out that is mainly promoting a leftist worldview and values.

The UN also has more legitimacy and the ability to integrate the different states than any other global organization like the G8 or G20 countries. For example, decisions taken by the G8 or G20 might be criticised for being the rich dictating to the poor, whereas the UN has more legitimacy.

The fact that all UN member states have accepted and signed that they will refrain from the threat or use of violence, is already a big step away from raw Realism, even though it gets breached in practice. Those instances are the exceptions and not the rule. Steven Pinker writes that all forms of armed conflict have decreased since the end of WW2 in what he calls “the long peace”.

Although it might seem utopian to think that the great inequality, poverty and insecurity in the world can be overcome at the moment, the existence and strengthening of international humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance and the existence of human rights all offer glimpses of a possible cosmopolitan future. A recent example of warm-hearted humanitarian assistance is the way that Europe has opened itself to help accommodate the Syrian refugee crisis, despite some serious problems and terrorist attacks in France. Another example is how several countries sent firefighters to Canada to help combat a massive fire in Alberta.

2. International law

Ramsbotham et al. see international law as both a progressive instrument of change that should be used to champion the rights and interests of people as opposed to governments and as a way to manage conflicts of interest between the great powers. Some of the stipulations of international law get ignored from time to time when it clashes with state interests, but the costs of doing so can be high.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can try individuals for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. A good example of this is the case of Sudanese President Oamr Al-Bashir who was indicted for crimes against humanity in 2008.

In some cases, like when deciding to respect a state’s sovereignty or to intervene when the state is harming its citizens, international law is torn between international politics and international ethics. Nevertheless, once international law has been normalized and internalized, it has the potential to transform a state’s interests and its identity to take on a more cosmopolitan character. Tell that to the Chinese and Russian governments, who are using international law as weapons in their competition with the United States.

International law helps to promote stability and shapes expectations. This makes it increasingly difficult for states to deviate from these norms. It underpins the idea of a shared humanity and helps point the way to a move away from injustice characterized by poverty and tyranny, towards a more just and cosmopolitan future according to Ramsbotham et al. However, a drive to enforce cosmopolitan values, and increased power to global institutions can lead to a global tyranny. The universal declaration of human rights is underpinned by cosmopolitan values and provides the framework and a benchmark to strive for in promoting a cosmopolitan world according to them, yet they frequently try to undermine inalienable human rights like freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and especially freedom of speech, especially when the speaker does not agree with their leftist goals. Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee, seems to be the way the political left promotes “human rights.”

3. Cosmopolitan democracy

Some consider democracy to be the best way to handle internal conflict in a non-violent way. Democracies are seen to protect human rights through the rule of law, yet in a country like South Africa, citizens are not all treated the same under the law, and people are discriminated against according to their race. This is also the case with companies and governments that are promoting so-called equity instead of equality. Despite these issues being brought before the UN, they have done nothing to stop the racist discrimination of the ANC government in South Africa, since they are a leftist party who supports the goals of the UN.

Several checks and balances in the democratic system like an independent judiciary and a free press can curb the abuse of power. This has not been enough to curb the abuses in South Africa. You need a strong constitution like that of the United States, underpinned by strong, Christian values. Governments can be held accountable at the ballot box through regularly held elections and those who lose are inhibited from resorting to violence because they know they might win the next round. For some reason, despite egregious abuses of power by the ruling party, South African voters have not voted them out.

Ethnic diversity can be accommodated by granting regional and local autonomy and protection of minority rights. Few governments do that though. Minority rights get flouted and ignored in countries like China and South Africa, yet the so-called global community does nothing to put pressure on the ruling parties. It also helps provide for the basic needs of citizens through universal taxation.

However, transitions to democracy can be violent. There is also a question of whether Islam is compatible with the values of democracy, human rights and cosmopolitanism. This is underscored by the refugee crisis in Europe at the moment and several incidents like the sexual assault of women in the streets of Cologne on New Year’s Eve, which has led to heightened tension.

At the same time, there is a long tradition of conflict resolution in Islam which can be tapped to promote cosmopolitan values. Islamic mysticism known as Sufism emphasizes inclusion of all humans and an appreciation of diversity. Cultural diversity is seen as an asset for humanity and not a threat to Islam. An example of this is the poems of Muslihuddin Sa’di which impart deeply universalistic and humanistic values. These approaches can help to bring Islamic and non-Islamic cultures closer together. However, it is especially its attitude towards gender equality which puts Islam at odds with cosmopolitan values. Bad actors are going to ignore inclusion and emphasize differences, and manipulate people in any way they can to get them to do what they want. They do not give a fig about humanity and humanistic values.

Democracy has also been linked to peace between states. There seems to be substantial evidence that democracies do not fight against each other. On the other hand, states which are semi-democratic seem to get involved in wars more frequently than either democratic or authoritarian states.

Some issues like global warming and other environmental issues, monetary management and global security can be best handled on a global scale and are beyond the means of any one state according to Ramsbotham et al. These issues provide a great pretext for international organizations to demand more power and work towards a global government. Whether global warming is as big a crisis as some of these global organizations claim, is debatable, since several scientist disagree and we have not had a definitive debate and answer. It is clearly not a imminent threat to humanity as a whole. In the wake previous leftist scares about the global climate, and apocalyptic predictions that did not come true, I remain highly sceptical.

It seems, however, that democracy cannot be imposed on people from outside by the use of force. In a cosmopolitan future, the values of democracy based on the principles of inclusiveness, impartiality and responsibility, would be expanded to the international scene. Inclusiveness probably means you would have include and pay people who do not deserve it and do bring much to the table. A global constitution would replace state sovereignty, people will determine their lot through democratic means and impartial institutions would intercede for the benefit of the people.

Since people are neither angels nor demons, and since I do not see the need for a global government, and I doubt whether people would act impartially in all their doings and deals, I think it is better to leave governance at a state level and preferably a local level. Far off bureaucrats do not have the best interests of locals at heart. A global constitution might not contain values I would identify with. Undoubtedly a lot of gains have been made towards creating a cosmopolitan future, but it thankfully not here yet. Against this are the forces that will drive future conflicts.

Forces driving the new wars

All forms of conflict are likely to happen again in the foreseeable future and the state should remain the main actor on the international stage for some time to come.

Interstate conflicts are disputes between states. As the balance of power in the global system shifts, from the USA to China, for example, it is hoped that it can happen without any major interstate wars.

Ethno-national conflicts are fought to decide the identity of a state. It is estimated that there are more than five thousand groups of people dispersed over the planet who might cherish the hope of self-determination. At the same time, there are only about 200 states, so there is no way that every group can be accorded independence, and these conflicts are bound to continue. Much effort can be made to ensure that the different groups get treated fairly and equally by those governing. The fact that they don’t is often the cause of the conflict. The war in Bosnia and the Kurdish fight for independence in Turkey are examples of this kind of conflict.

Ideological-governmental conflicts are fought to decide the state’s nature. It is usually when a state does not effectively satisfy the needs of its citizens, that other ideologies become more attractive. The rise of fascism and communism in the 1930’s coincided with the great depression and the failure of Arab nationalism and socialism has led to the rise of Islamist political ideology. On the global level the USA’s political and economic manoeuvres have led to a global jihadist reaction. Given the great inequality in the world, these conflicts are also likely to continue. The insurgency war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current war against the Islamic State are examples of this.

Economic-factional conflicts are fought for control of the state’s resources. In some cases, when the state is weak, criminals and warlords replace organized politics. Somalia is an example. Exploiting these resources become a way of life for some and in conflicts where criminal means are used to finance it, these activities can become the end instead of the means. So-called “state capture” in South Africa is another example. That is why you need a strong constitution like that of the United States, which might help to counter this.

These “new wars” are driven by several underlying factors which need to be addressed if a cosmopolitan future is to be attained, factors that all seem to be interconnected and any one or a combination of them that might spark a conflict. They are:

Economic inequality

Inequality is a huge problem for the left. The 62 richest people are said to own as much as the poor half of the world’s population, the richest 10% of the world owns 85% of global household wealth, and the bottom half owns 1% according to Ramsbotham et al. The average person in the top 10% own about 3000 times what that of an average person in the bottom 10% does. 88% of the world’s household wealth is concentrated in North America, Europe and the rich Asian-Pacific countries.

In countries like India and China with growing economies, thousands have been lifted out of poverty. Yet, this can lead to growing expectations and if they remain unmet it could lead to a sense of relative deprivation, which could spark revolutions. The population growth is also much higher in poor countries, which leaves many without hope or prospects and provide ample recruits for criminal organizations, revolutionary movements and fundamentalist groups.

On top of that, the world is becoming more unequal. Leftist argue this needs to be addressed if there is to be a cosmopolitan peace. However, some on the right argue that it is not a disparity between the haves and the have-nots, but between those who do and those who don’t. It can be argued that inequality is a good thing, that those who work harder and smarter should be rewarded for their industry and that people generally get what they deserve. To artificially create more equality would require taking from those who worked hard for what they have, and giving it to those who do not necessary deserve it: a great injustice.

The environment

Climate change, the depletion of natural resources and material scarcity will all have serious political effects according to the left. These range from potential conflicts over water, oil, forests, fishing and agricultural land to conflicts caused by the mass movement of people. There is also bound to be conflict over control of resources in and around the Arctic and over sources of underground water like aquifers that lie across borders. This has usually been resolved through diplomacy or war between individual states.

Gender oppression

A large part of the world’s women are still oppressed by patriarchal systems and it might be a profound source of future conflict for the left. It is important for the emancipation of all mankind that these gross imbalances are redressed, they yell. While I agree that women should have the same rights as men, I do not think it is necessarily to push for equal representation in all fields. Men and women are different, have different interests, skills, desires, and usually different goals. It should be left to occur naturally.

A shift in the balance of power

The shift in the balance of power could cause tension between the West and the rising powers. Western values have dominated the world scene for a long time. However, with the rise of India and China, global norms and values are likely to incorporate that of these non-western societies to reflect the shift in power. That is not a good thing, since Western values have been underpinned by Christianity and the Protestant belief that we are all equal under God and that we should treat each other like God’s children. The East does not share these values and does not have the same value for human life as espoused by the West at the height of its powers. I, for one, do not want to live under Indian or Chinese values, but prefer the Judeo-Christian values that are more just, values individual human freedom, and has created the most prosperity, having built the mightiest economy and country in the world, the United States of America.

Population growth in non-western countries tend to be much higher and those living in the West will become an increasingly smaller percentage of the world’s population.

However, in my view, the West will remain a major power for a long time to come. I believe peace is a universal human aspiration and not only attributable to Western ideas. The peaceful protest movements of Ghandi and the Dalai Lama, attest to a strong tradition of seeking political change through peaceful means in non-Western parts of the world. These methods have not worked in China, for example. Care must be taken to make sure that human rights and conflict resolution does not get associated solely with Western and Northern interests, but is accepted globally if it is to succeed.

Development of weapons

Military technology keeps evolving, and it has had a huge impact in the way wars are fought. With nuclear weapons that can be “dialed down” to limit damage, the possibility of their use increases. There is always the possibility that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons might fall into the hands of a group or government willing to use them. New technology also increases the ability of governments to control its population through surveillance and crowd control. That can be a problem if the government is authoritarian and does not respect the inalienable human rights of its citizens.

Hypocritically, the five permanent members of the UN security council are all among the world’s top ten arms exporters: the USA 1st, Russia 2nd, France 4th, China 5th and the United Kingdom 7th, according to SIPRI, 2016, probably because it is good business and means big bucks.

Weighting it up

On the positive side we have seen that war between states have decreased dramatically. We have had the advent of international institutions like the UN and the ICC, as well as several regional grouping, the codification and use of international law and human rights law, which are all big steps forward.

All forms of violent conflict and war has decreased after WW2. Since that war no nuclear weapons have been used in conflicts, none of the great powers have fought each other since 1953 directly, and no interstate wars have been fought between developed countries either. There has also been an overall decline in genocide, war and terrorism since the end of the Cold War, which Pinker calls “the new peace”. He mentions that it is with “fits and starts”, so some regression and bumps in the road are to be expected. However, he insists that violence has decreased dramatically over time. The drivers of cosmopolitan values have probably had a big influence on this.

Yet, according to Vision of humanity peace has decreased over the last decade and the gap between the most peaceful and the most violent seems to grow. More countries improved than deteriorated, but the extent of the deterioration was worse than the improvement. After WW2 there was a long improvement until the last decade when things have got worse. Terrorism seems to be at an all-time high, but most of the activities are limited to five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Iraq, all predominantly Muslim countries.

On the negative side, we have the underlying factors that are driving the new wars, including the great economic inequality, how we interact with the environment, greed, which is always a problem and the fact that it might be hard to unlearn the thinking that more than a hundred years of industrialization has taught us, although it can be argued that greed, competition, and a drive for more are innate to humans. Women are still oppressed by patriarchy in many parts of the world, which keeps almost half the world’s population from true emancipation and from self-actualization, while human ingenuity keeps coming up with more devious and deadlier weapons and also ways to control the population.

Although democratic forms of government seem to encapsulate cosmopolitan values best, there has been a decline in freedom in the world as a whole over the last decade. One of the reasons for this is the rise of authoritarian China, which has been seen as a role model in the developing world and also by many would-be authoritarians in the West, like the prime minister of Canada, and other leftists who dream of their own socialist utopia. An increasingly powerful Russia has also laid down a challenge to liberal values at home, abroad in what it considers to be its sphere of influence and on the international stage. There has also been an authoritarian backlash after the hope of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa. Civil society has been suppressed in Eurasia and other parts of the world and over the last decade there has been a rise of populist leaders who are against democracy in South America.

New methods have been developed to control and censor information and the social media has been used by groups like ISIS to spread their propaganda. Strict laws to suppress dissent have been implemented in places like Turkey, Ethiopia and Thailand. Corruption continues to undermine democratic governance in places like Brazil, Moldova and Nigeria and the world’s leading democracies, most notably the United States, seem to be unsure of themselves and have failed to take the lead in confronting global issues, which has led to weakening support in the rest of the world. They have been unable to resolve the conflict in Syria through a concerted and united effort (Freedom house, 2016).

About a third of the world’s population live in unfree conditions. However, that means the the bigger part of the world’s population does live in free or at least partly free conditions, which is positive. Although there has been a decrease in freedom in the world over the last decade, there has been a long-term decrease in violence and conflict over the world as well. Those positive forces for a cosmopolitan future like the international institutions, human rights law and democracy all provide a framework on which to build. The forces pushing for a cosmopolitan future might, in the long-term, overcome the current forces that are against it. This might lead to a one-world government. Sceptics, including me, do not believe they will be benign, nor democratic. For those of us who value true individual human freedom, that would be one of our worst nightmares come true.

The world’s economic and political institutions can be reformed to better fulfil the needs of the people. Gender inequality can be addressed where it is obvious and egregious, but not by forcing a fifty-fifty representation of men and women in all organizations. Instead I believe men and women should have equal rights and left to their own devises, letting the best and most suitable people occupy the positions for which they are most suited to, meritocracy trumping artificial equity.

Ramsbotham also wants us to live more sustainably and protect the environment. It can be noted that richer, capitalist countries have a better record of environmental conservation than socialist countries. The more peaceful side of the world’s religions must win out against the more violent side. The UN can speak out against the oppression of Christians in predominantly Muslim countries where they often are not accorded the same rights. Since the world is becoming more religious and not less, freedom of religion should be respected, allowing for the very real differences between the faiths, and not settling for a watered down, ecumenical faith that has no substance. For Ramsbotham et al. culture is the most important factor. There are rich sources of conflict resolution in all cultures and religions that can be used to move towards a more secure future. Security itself might not be a good thing if it is built on a unfair base or foundation.

There are a lot of resources that can be used to promote cosmopolitan conflict resolution through art and music, sport, entertainment and by making use of global information communications technology like the internet and social media. I am an optimist and prefer to look towards the future with hope, and I agree that a lot of progress has been made, but if it is to come to full fruition it will require a lot of work. If it is to be, it is up to us.

A cosmopolitan approach may be one way to deal with these “new wars.” The conflict that perhaps best represent these new wars at the moment is the ongoing war in Syria.

The conflict in Syria

In 2011 protesters took to the street in the city of Deraa to demand democracy after some teenagers were arrested and tortured for painting pro-revolutionary graffiti on a school wall. Security forces opened fire and killed several of the protesters, which led to more protests which spread nationwide. People called for the resignation of President Assad. The government responded with repression, but this just hardened the will of the protesters and thousands took to the streets across the country by July 2011. Eventually it turned into an armed conflict as the people protected themselves.

The situation deteriorated into a civil war as rebels battled the government for control. Fighting reached the capital city of Damascus and the city of Aleppo in 2012. According to the UN more than 250 000 people have been killed in the fighting by the end of 2015.

In 2013 rockets filled with nerve gas were fired in Damascus. The rebels blamed the government, while the government accused the rebels in turn. According to the Western powers only the Syrian government could have done it. To avoid a US intervention, President Assad agreed to the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons. However, there have been continued reports that chemical weapons are used during the fighting. ISIS/ISIL have also been reported to use homemade chemical weapons.

The conflict has turned into a hybrid ethno-national and ideological-governmental conflict between the majority Sunni’s and the president’s Alawite sect, who are Shiites. It has also led to the involvement of major regional and international powers and a power vacuum have allowed the Islamic State to grab control of parts of Syria and Iraq, declaring a “caliphate” in June 2014. It draws on foreign fighters from all over, who flock to the black banner of the Islamic State to fight against the Syrian rebels, the government, other jihadist groups and also against Kurdish forces.

In September 2014, a US-led coalition has started to bomb Islamic State positions. The Russians have also bombed “terrorists”, but some say it has mainly been against rebel forces to help shore up President Assad’s regime. Russia and Iran support the regime of President Assad, as does Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement. On the other side, the Sunni opposition are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan along with the USA, France and the United Kingdom.

There have been allegations of war crimes committed by all sides. This includes torture, rape, murder and blocking access to water, food and medical services. Thousands of civilians have died in the conflict thus far. IS have also terrorized the people under their rule by making use of gruesome public executions including beheadings, amputations and mass killings.

The conflict has led to one of the most serious humanitarian crises in recent times. More than 4.5 million people have fled from Syria since the fighting began. Most have fled to the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. Only about 10% have fled to Europe, but it has had a far-reaching impact. European countries are arguing about how the burden should be shared. It shows that nobody can ignore conflicts that take place in other parts of the world.

Hostility grew towards the asylum seekers after the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015. It has led to a rise of the political right in Europe and a questioning of the liberal values that have underpinned the European project. To their everlasting credit, Europe did not close its borders after the Paris attacks, but continued to take in refugees. It is a big challenge to cosmopolitan values and it remains to be seen how this will play out.

Also in the USA there has been an increase in Islamophobia. It needs to be pointed out that there is the very real threat that terrorists might have infiltrated the Western countries under the guise of being refugees, and are now just waiting for the right time to strike. I suppose countries have to weigh their ability to find and capture or kill these threats against the very real humane needs of the bona fide refugees.

In Syria there are estimated to be 6.5 million internally displaced people. Among the rebels, the Islamists and jihadists outnumber the more moderate secularists. Neither of the sides have been able to deliver a knock-out blow and it seems that only a political settlement can end the fighting. Western democracies have been criticised for not acting firmer, yet if they act too firm, they get accused of being imperialists. They seem to be damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

From a cosmopolitan viewpoint it can be argued that the whole conflict could have been avoided if Syria was a democracy and respected human rights. It would not have been necessary for the Syrian people to take to the streets in protest. The government would not have to fight a rebellion and the IS might have found it more difficult to grab territory. At the same time, if the world’s wealth was more equally distributed, extremist groups like IS would find it harder to recruit (maybe). If devious chemical, nuclear and biological weapons have not been developed, they could not have been used in this conflict.

Yet they have been, and they have been. The weapons are not responsible for the damage they caused, the people who used them are. War is not always bad, nor is it always unjust, but sometimes it is necessary to oppose a greater evil or to right blatant injustice. The threat of nuclear war has kept some countries from invading others or grabbing territory. During the Cold War it provided a kind of nuclear stand-off between the two great superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union, which never escalated to a direct, potentially costly — in money, material, and human lives — conventional war. Disarmament is not necessarily a good practice, since oppressed people might have to use weapons to free themselves, since the UN does not protect minorities all over the world. No police force can get to every crime scene to prevent every assault or murder, so citizens have to be able to protect themselves, and the best way to do that is with a firearm, since it equals the playing field and allows a mild and meek woman to prevent a much stronger man or men to overpower her and abuse her, for example. A despotic government is also likely to think twice before oppressing an armed population. In this way, guns are good.

Just the fact that the world was made aware of its use and that there was an international response shows that a cosmopolitan regime already has an impact. NGO’s and the media report on these issues and there is a forceful condemnation of it in the international community. Violation of human rights and war crimes get pointed out and it is becoming less and less acceptable. These laws are violated at a risk to the perpetrators, since they now know they can be prosecuted.

To deal with this, Kandor suggests that peace-keeping is not the answer, but rather the enforcement of cosmopolitan norms as codified under international human rights and humanitarian law. Kandor suggests that military forces should be retrained to perform a policing role as well. I don’t think this is a good idea, since it might confuse soldiers and lead to them not being fully soldiers and not fully policemen, but some hybrid, doing neither task well. Secure areas should be created in conflict zones where people can be safe and cosmopolitan norms maintained. This would decrease the flight of refugees. International military forces should perform tasks like separating the fighting groups and enforce ceasefires, protect safety zones and relief corridors so that food and necessities can reach the civilians, ensure freedom of movement and also capture war criminals. Special Forces can be used to capture war criminals, so you do not need to train soldiers as cops. Those capabilities already exist.

These forces must be seen as legitimate and therefore consent is necessary if at all possible from the larger society. It might be difficult to establish this in a war zone with people fleeing and bullets flying. The international force must act with impartiality and not distinguish between race, gender, nationality, religion etc. This is not even done in all countries during peace time. The idea is to convince people of the benefits of abiding by law and to marginalize those who break it. Force should be used to limit casualties on all sides. The international soldiers will be risking their lives not for a specific country, but for all of humanity (how brave). Yet, if a soldier has no skin in the fight, they will most probably not take the risks necessary to win the war. The best way to achieve this leftist vision would probably be for the UN to get its own military force which can intervene and then draw on support from member states as the need arises.

It has been shown in the war over Kosovo, that aerial bombing alone is not sufficient to end a conflict. The West might be afraid of casualties and reluctant to put boots on the ground after long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it might be the only way to end this. In the meantime, the bigger underlying factors that drive these conflicts have to be addressed as well if we are to attain a cosmopolitan peace.

All of which, I think, is a leftist pipedream.

Trying to impose a global authoritarian government will not create peace, since there will be those who rebel, who will fight for human freedom, who will teach their children the values that underpin it, and who will strive for it, and oppose tyranny until their dying breath, and who will, hopefully, inspire the rest of humanity to follow suit and protect the sanctity of human rights, our right to freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, maximum individual human freedom, endowed to us by our Creator, inalienable, under God Almighty.

If you like what you just read, please follow me on Medium and share this with your friends. If you did not, I thank you for reading this far and I hope you will like my next post.

Thank you.

Bibliography

BBC News. (2016).?Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911?. [Accessed: the 15th of June 2016].

BBC News. (2016).?Syria: The story of the conflict. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

CBC News. (2016).?Alberta rallies international help for Fort McMurray wildfires. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-rallies-international-help-for-fort-mcmurray-wildfires-1.3597807?. [Accessed: the 15th of June 2016].

Elliott, L. (2016).?Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world’s population, says Oxfam. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined?. [Accessed: the 15th of June 2016].

Freedom House. (2016).?Freedom in the world 2016. [Online]. Available from:?https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

Funk, N. C. & Said, A. A. (2009).?Islam and peacemaking in the Middle East. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Ha-Joon Chang. (2003).?Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London: Anthem Press

Hickel, J. (2016). Global inequality may be much worse than we think. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/08/global-inequality-may-be-much-worse-than-we-think?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

Independent. (2016).?Cologne attacks: What happened after 1,000 women were sexually assaulted??[Online]. Available from:?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-attacks-what-happened-after-1000-women-were-sexually-assaulted-a6867071.html?. [Accessed: the 15th of July 2016].

Kaldor, M. (2012).?New and old wars: organized violence in a global era?(3rd edition). Stanford: Stanford university press.

Mansbach, R. W. & Rafferty, K. L. (2008).?Introduction to global politics. New York: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. (2016).?The future of world religions: population growth projections, 2010–2050. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

Pinker, S. (2011).?The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. London: Allen Lane.

Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. and Miall, H. (2011).?Contemporary Conflict Resolution?(3rd edition).?Cambridge: Polity Press.

SIPRI. (2016).?Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. [Online]. Available from:?https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/html/export_toplist.php?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

The Economist. (2012).?For richer, for poorer. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.economist.com/node/21564414?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

The Economist. (2016).?Nuclear weapons: Cruise control. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21688862-barack-obamas-administration-which-began-vision-get-rid-nuclear-weapons-has?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].

United Nations. (2016).?What we do. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.un.org/en/sections/what-we-do/index.html?. [Accessed: the 15th of June 2016).

United Nations. (2016).?The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/?. [Accessed: the 15th of June 2016].

Vision of Humanity. (2016).?2016 Global Peace Index. [Online]. Available from:?https://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/our-gpi-findings?. [Accessed: the 16th of June 2016].