The War to end all Wars!

By Chris Johansen, GI Co-editor

The phrase of this title was probably coined at the end of WW1 to try to give some justification to the madness of the preceding four years. However, through the subsequent 100 years wars have continued, many of them breaching the depths of horror unleashed during WW1. A visitor from outer space, in seeking an explanation for human history might end up googling the phrase “insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results” to summarize human behaviour. 

Although in school, during the 1950s, I was taught the glories of wars of the 20th century, and Australia’s role in them, over the passage of time I have come across various facts and interpretations causing me to alter my school days perceptions. My current interpretation of WW1 was that it resulted from the squabbling among European monarchies, many of whom were blood relations – but then family squabbles can get rather nasty. Nothing much to do about liberation from oppression or improving the human condition. And Australia plunged headlong into this with historians later classifying this action as “the birth of the nation”. From schooldays this was rather a puzzling concept as we were also taught that the nation was born over a decade earlier, in 1901.

Although there must have been great relief from all at the armistice on 11th November 1918, unfortunately, actions were not taken to ensure that it would indeed be “the war to end all wars”. To me, the most significant outcome of WW1 was WW2. This, I would suggest, mainly happened due the imposition of severe economic reparations on Germany, the defeated power, by the victors – with Australian PM Billy Hughes an ardent advocate of harsh reparations. This led to deteriorating economic and social conditions in Germany, already crippled by war, spurred by rampant inflation caused by having to pay back war debts. This opened the door for the Nazis, promising restoration of national pride, economic revival, and reinstatement of pre-war borders. WW2 then became inevitable.

However, an acknowledgement to humanity at the end of WW2 for a lesson learned. This time the decision was not to economically punish the defeated nations, Germany and Japan, but provide assistance to help them economically recover as quickly as possible, e.g. via the Marshall Plan in Europe. German and Japanese economies indeed did prosper and those countries to this day are among major powers least likely to become involved in war. Lesson – the importance of ensuring the socio-economic well-being of societies as a means of preventing war.

My perception is that Australia is not very good at interpreting, and documenting, history. For starters, in school we were taught the terra nullius version of the colonization of Australia ‒ of the benign attempts to ‘civilize the natives’ rather than the actual ethnic cleansing. Despite essentially becoming an independent nation in 1901, our reflex reaction was to follow the ‘mother country’ into war without much apparent thought. This continued up until early WW2 when then Australian PM John Curtin decided it was more appropriate to deploy Australian troops to defend Australia rather than continue serving British Command. But, out of the frying pan into the fire, as after WW2 we have blindly marched in lockstep with the military adventures of the USA, in the mistaken view that this will ensure our security. For example, the mistakes of the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the ‘pacification’ of Afghanistan, etc.

At this moment in history we are at similar risk of sinking into major global conflict, as was the situation in 1913. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists the ‘doomsday clock’ is at two minutes to midnight, the highest risk assessment for outbreak of global conflagration since the height of the cold war. This assessment arises due to the current proliferation of egoistic, nationalistic, xenophobic leaders, and the widening human well-being gaps that facilitate their rise to power. Although there were some rather unpleasant weapons of mass destruction around in 1913 (e.g. poison gas, ‘big bertha’), they are kindergarten toys compared to what is now available – nuclear weapons capable of obliterating humanity several times over, even more nasty chemicals, and not to mention recently developed cyber weapons which we probably don’t even know too much about. This arsenal is now falling into the hands of xenophobic leaders, who value their own egos over world peace. Dare I mention our great protector, the USA. Are we ready to be tweeted into another American adventure, or should we think again?

It is indeed a great advantage for leaders, xenophobic or otherwise, to have some sort of threat facing their country. Then they can claim to be protecting the populace from that threat. But if a threat is not so apparent then the temptation is to create the perception of one. This was worked out in caveman times by anyone wanting to be the leader of the tribe. Unfortunately, this philosophy continues unabated today, rather than leaders concentrating their efforts in securing peace. For example, Australia’s foreign policy seems to centre around strengthening the US alliance (irrespective of US international behaviour) and promoting arms sales, hardly steps towards conflict reduction. On the other hand, over the years Australia has decreased its foreign aid budget directed towards human development despite the established peace dividend benefits of overseas development assistance.

My proposal is that Australia would have a more secure future, with less chance of involvement in war, if it essentially ditched the US alliance and developed an independent foreign policy, along similar lines to countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Finland. And that they refocus their efforts on engaging in potential conflict areas to reduce international tensions, primarily through development assistance programs. Having worked in such programs since 1979, I can claim with confidence that they do indeed promote international goodwill and decrease tendencies towards violent conflict.

But how do we wean our leaders away from the philosophy that their power relies on protecting us from real, imagined or created enemies? Of course, it must emanate from the grass roots, but that is not an easy task for grass root activists, especially in an atmosphere of heightened nationalism and xenophobia. Cries of treason are evoked. But, despite attempted government intimidation of objectors, during the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, public opinion was mobilized sufficiently to at least scale down those conflicts before the US led forces had achieved their original objectives.

While we know that climate change will be a slow process of making life increasingly difficult for humanity, we also know that a breakout of major conflict can potentially decimate it in an instant, considering all of the weaponry now available and whose hands it is in. Thus the need for urgent action in promoting pathways towards peaceful co-existence. The threat of nuclear obliteration was with us all through the cold war, but it didn’t happen. More by good fortune than foolproof planning, e.g. the man who saved the world. But with the insertion of artificial intelligence into the defence equation, we cannot rely on luck into the indefinite future – its all open to hackers and other cyber mischief makers. Thus the urgency of changing present narratives about ‘defence’, ‘security’, ‘deterrents’, etc.

‘Peace and non-violence’ is one of the four pillars of The Greens, but probably gets less attention behind ecological sustainability, participatory democracy and social justice. A GWA discussion group, convened by Giz Watson, is trying to remedy this. Topics under recent discussion include the linkage between individual and international tendencies towards violence, reasons for complacency towards nonviolence activism, especially among young people, the linkage between war and socioeconomic circumstances, and what should be our reaction to ‘commemoration’ of past wars. With regard to commemoration of 11th November 1918, the discussion group participants emphasized that we should not be commemorating war, but peace. The appropriate ceremony, we think, is thus the Perth Peacemaking Conference on 10-11 November at St George’s Cathedral, Perth.

Header photo: Trench warfare WW1. Creative Commons