Perspective Chapter: A Difficult Peace

Abstract

The unprecedented destruction, human suffering, and advances in weapons technology that occurred during World War II spawned an intense push by the international community to create global peace. To create lasting peace, the international community adopted liberal peacebuilding, which includes “the promotion of democracy, market-based economic reforms, and a range of other institutions associated with ‘modern’ states…” The theory supporting liberal peacebuilding is the democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies do not go to war against each other. While there is some support for the democratic peace theory, there also exist strong arguments against it. This chapter will argue that war-averting agreements among countries are only possible when the issue(s) involved are not of significance to at least one party; otherwise, diplomatic negotiations are most likely to fail, and armed conflict is often the end result. This is because critical issues are more akin to zero-sum games than other issues. One side’s gain is another side’s loss when the issue is one in which all parties consider it not negotiable.

1. Introduction

If one ever watches an awards show or a beauty pageant, it is almost a given that the term global peace or world peace will be invoked at some point during those events. Leaders from the world’s most powerful countries regularly discuss peace. International organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank were created in the name of peace. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seemingly develop overnight to address some components of the various security challenges facing the world at any given time. Yet, despite all these efforts, peace eludes the world, wars continue to rage, and sensitive issues that carry the prospects of war exist in every nook and cranny the world has to offer.

If a majority of countries in the global community are in favor of global peace, then why have not they succeeded in creating the conditions for global peace? Why does global peace seem unattainable? Why do so many people snicker at the mention of world peace (if you have ever watched the Oscars with a friend, you will understand what I am referring to)? There is a simple and familiar answer to this question: irreconcilable differences. Irreconcilable differences occur when a specific issue is of great importance to all concerned parties. If you have ever been engaged in an argument with your spouse, sibling(s), parent(s), or neighbor(s), this should sound familiar. When an irreconcilable difference exists, no amount of discussion or pleading is going to produce an outcome that is acceptable to all parties. This same phenomenon plays out on the world stage, and it is the reason wars still occur and will continue to occur for as long as human society exists despite humanity’s best efforts to the contrary.

Another factor making it impossible to settle certain disputes is the lack of an enforcement mechanism. During the Cold War, the United States or the Soviet Union enforced international rules, whether they be those of the communist block or those of the Western democracies, using military force if needed. Examples include Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the uprisings in Eastern Bloc countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Modern-day ad hoc alliances (discussed in the next section) of states, international organizations, NGOs, private sector enterprises, and wealthy individuals do not possess the power to enforce negotiated agreements, international law, international customs, or superimposed rules on warring parties. As a result, security challenges go unabated for long periods, and they often spill over into neighboring countries in a conflagration of the conflict, creating an even greater obstacle to global peace [1].

Even non-state actors that possess an enforcement mechanism have failed to create peace in the absence of armed conflict. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the primary example of such an actor. NATO is a political and military alliance that spreads democratic values and works towards the peaceful resolution of disputes [2]. Under Article 5 of its founding charter, NATO is authorized to undertake military operations to prevent warfare or facilitate peaceful resolutions of disputes that have already resulted in active combat [2]. NATOs record of preventing the outbreak of hostilities is, like its international partners, underwhelming. Some of the most recent examples include the Balkans Wars in the 1990s that witnessed the most egregious war crimes since World War II, the terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent failed campaign in Afghanistan, and NATO’s inaction involving the war between Russia and Ukraine.

The issue with non-state actors such as the U.N., the World Bank, the IMF, and NATO has not been studied in a comprehensive manner. It is commonly accepted that international organizations have to incorporate the vested interests of the states that created them, as well as the fact that international organizations do not always support the state actors in a conflict, but rather the splinter factions and groups that are in direct conflict with the state. All of that is true. What is also true, and requires more research, is that many international organizations develop their own independent authorities and power through the widely accepted process of custom building [3]. International organizations develop this independent power via the legal authorities that were granted to the by the creator states [3]. In the process of carrying out their missions, international organizations create rules, definitions, and processes that, after a period of time, become international customs law [3]. This is a legitimate practice in the international arena, but it leads international organizations to develop authorities and powers that are independent of their creators and supervisors, the nation-states.

2. International relations theories review

International relations is a subject that has been studied since the nation-state was born with the 1648 Treaties of Osnabrück and Münster. Known as the Peace of Westphalia. Researchers have long since established scholarship describing different theories of international relations and continue to argue to this day which theory best describes the international environment. The theories scholars have developed all subscribe to the democratic peace theory, which states that democracies do not go to war with other democracies [1]. Several reasons are used to buttress the democratic peace theory, and they all support the overarching idea that democracies share characteristics that make it injurious to go to war with other democracies.

The most prominent of those characteristics include: (1) democracies are characterized by common political norms that reject conflict and coercion as legitimate measures to accomplish their foreign policy goals; (2) democracies are composed of governing institutions that owe their authority to their citizens, and those citizens will be reluctant to go to war due to the sacrifices and costs associated with war; and (3) democracies engage in free trade through bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, and war with other democracies would disrupt their economies [4].

The democratic peace theory is not without its detractors. Disagreement exists among scholars as to whether democracies are less prone to wage war [4]. Scholars have put forward the following arguments to answer that question: (1) democracies are more peaceful overall; (2) democracies are equally as likely to conduct war as other forms of government; and (3) democracies are more likely than other forms of government to wage war [4]. Opponents of the democratic peace theory can point to examples of democracies fighting each other, such as the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom, the United States Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the 1948 and 1967 wars between Israel and Lebanon [4]. Furthermore, Ripsman argues that relations are intense and ripe for conflict between democratic and authoritarian states because authoritarian states claim their authority by coercing their citizenries rather than by gaining their trust and consent [4].

The most prominent theories of international relations support both conflicting views of democracies, the view that they are more peaceful than other forms of government and the view that they are not. There are various subvariants of these theories, but the three theories presented below provide the broadest description of modern thought on international relations theory.

First, realism argues that human beings are instinctually violent, and states reflect this violent nature [5]. Realism argues that self-interested states continuously compete for power and security [6]. It maintains that states are the main actors, and they use economic and military power to pursue their self-interests [6]. Second, liberalism provides that concern for power is trumped by economic and political interests, especially a desire for prosperity and commitment to liberal values [6]. Finally, constructivism posits that states’ actions are influenced by elites’ beliefs, collective norms, and social identities. The key actors in constructivism are the individual citizens, and their methods of influence are ideas and discourse [6].

3. The players

Contemporary views of global peace require parties to investigate and respond to a more diverse set of issues than in the past, including traditional security threats such as civil wars, failed states, failing states, and regional conflicts as well as new threats, including organized crime, piracy, kidnappings, arms trading, narcotics trafficking, human migration, conflict-related commodity rents, and human rights abuses [1, 7]. Add to that the ever-present issue of terrorism, which has dominated the international security agenda since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and one can easily see the diverse, differentiated, and fragmented set of challenges facing today’s world [7].

The challenge of creating sustainable peace has never been more difficult. The international security regime faces the quid pro quo of trading effectiveness for legitimacy and vice-versa [1]. In response to this tradeoff, new international alliances, created from the aforementioned list of players, and methods for addressing security threats have developed [1]. Many of these alliances have formed on an ad hoc basis, including in those peacebuilding efforts headed by sovereign nation-states.

3.1 The mediators

To effectively respond to such a diverse list of international security challenges, contemporary liberal peacebuilding has transformed from a state-centric strategy dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union to a multifaceted and multilateral approach that includes many different players including states, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, and even wealthy individuals. These different players tend to form informal teams on an ad hoc basis as crises arise around the globe, and they are involved in all facets of the peacebuilding process including security assistance, economic development, humanitarian assistance, governance, and the rule of law [1, 7]. The active participation of these new parties in the international peace process is a positive development because they bring a diverse set of expertise that may not exist in the governments of nation-states.

3.2 The disputing parties

Parties to international disputes have changed in their character in the past 30 years. It is no longer the case that disputing parties are exclusively sovereign nation-states. Contemporary disputes can involve nation-states, criminal networks, pirates, drug cartels, human trafficking networks, terrorist organizations, local belligerents, illegal immigrants, shadow governments, and illegitimate ruling parties. These are the most common groups with which the international community must deal if they are to achieve global peace [1].

This new group of belligerents is unique and dangerous to global peace due to their ability to either cross borders themselves or facilitate the spread of conflicts to other states and regions. Additionally, responding to this new set of belligerents is challenging because they often operate underground, whereas nation-states are easy to locate and identify. The ability of these belligerents to operate outside of the public eye makes responding to them extremely difficult and makes the outlook for global peace less likely than when the sole threats were from other nation-states.

3.3 The process

The contemporary process of creating and sustaining global peace is vastly different than the multipolar, superpower state-led process that was commonplace during the Cold War. The new process, dominated by the aforementioned ad hoc teams of diverse entities, has been termed “collective conflict management” in much of the current peace literature [1]. Collective conflict management experienced its beginnings before the conclusion of the Cold War as Mikhail Gorbachev worked to liberalize the Soviet Union’s economy with his policies of glasnost and perestroika [1]. The parties that implement collective conflict management have done so without upending the rules and customs of the established international order [1].

While the global peacekeeping parties have ensured their actions are in accordance with international rules and customs, this may not be sustainable. As previously mentioned, the security challenges have evolved into elements that are mobile, hard to detect, and effective at bringing what may have started as a local conflict to other locales, states, and regions. Whether it be via the establishment of new customs or the creation of new international laws and rules, at some point peacemakers will be forced to adopt new strategies and tactics.

4. Global peace is an unrealistic goal

The conclusion of World War II initiated a new phase in international relations and peace promotion known as liberal peacebuilding. Liberal peacebuilding is a process predicated on the democratic peace theory that includes a variety of policies that are supposed to promote and spread peace in areas with ongoing conflicts. Policies that fall under the liberal peacebuilding umbrella include “supporting ceasefires and peace processes; demobilizing and disarming former combatants; reintegrating former combatants into society; stabilizing the economy; employment creation; economic development; repatriating (or resettling) refugees and internally displaced persons; responding to food insecurity; responding to acute health concerns; strengthening law and order; promoting and facilitating democratic practices; strengthening institutions of justice and legislation; resuming and strengthening public service delivery; promoting human rights; promoting reconciliation; addressing land reform claims; and drafting constitutions and amendments” [7].

Liberal peacebuilding is a cause that is worthy of the international community’s investment. The different elements of the liberal peacebuilding process are, however, not accepted in all societies [7]. Certain liberal peacebuilding elements such as liberal democracy, liberal human rights, market values, the integration of societies into the global economy, and the centralized secular state are broadly accepted in the West due to the presence of secular societies and the acceptance of the values associated with democracy, but certain of these values may not exist in countries whose main identity is their religion and countries that have been ruled by authoritarian governments for extended periods [7].

4.1 Public opinion

The widely held assumption about conflicts is that they are started by aggressive leaders, while, in reality, states’ citizens often push their leaders to engage in such conflicts [4]. While populaces in mature democracies are initially hesitant to become involved in conflicts, they can be provoked. When they are provoked, most of the evidence available regarding past wars demonstrates the existence of demanding publics that often will not settle for less than unconditional surrender and harsh peace agreements with former combatants [4]. According to Ripsman, public opinion in established democratic states tends to harden during times of war. While he does not supply reasons for this reaction, there are some obvious reasons why democratic populaces respond in such a harsh manner.

First, democratic populaces have access to information, whether it be through free media or online platforms that increasingly provide news content to their subscribers. Second, democratic populaces have more freedom to express and exchange information among their families, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and other affiliates. Third, leaders in democratic populaces are expected to provide transparency, honest assessments, and updates on the states of the countries that they govern. Fourth, in many cases, established democracies and their populaces are wealthier than countries and populaces that possess other forms of government (exceptions include Qatar, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates) [8]. As a result of this wealth, populaces in these states have access to technology where they can find information about current events. All of these reasons have to do with information. It is information that hardens opinions in democratic states.

4.2 Social factors

States, regions, and locales that are either involved in an ongoing security crisis or have recently emerged from a security crisis often have a significant amount of built-up social tension that can undermine the prospects for peace and cause a state to regress back into conflict [7]. Conflicts can be caused by social strife or worsened by deteriorating social conditions as a result of a conflict [7]. One of the greatest risks that peacemakers face when intervening in a conflict is the potential for corruption to favor certain social groups at the expense of others, thus worsening social relations and risking a return to or an intensification of a previous conflict [7].

Social relations are sensitive issues states, regardless of their form of government (witness the change in the current Chinese government’s focus on the private sector, an issue that has not been at the top of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s list of priorities until now). States marred by conflicts are particularly ripe for social injustices, and international peacemakers have to ensure that a special emphasis is placed on treating all social groups within states in a fair and equitable manner to reduce social tensions. Doing so, however, is easier said than done. Whether international peacebuilders take a top-down or bottom-up approach, the prospects of corruption and social injustice are always probable. Ensuring the broadest possible participation in the peace process is a critical imperative to ensure the creation of a sustainable peace.

4.3 Cultural factors

Many contemporary hotspots are multicultural in nature. One recent example where the outcome of peacebuilding is still to be determined is Iraq. Iraq is divided along three different sectarian and ethnic lines, including Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds [7]. These three groups have historically been hostile towards each other. The presence of an authoritarian leader in Saddam Hussein is the only reason that Iraq did not disband into three separate regions, each dominated by one of the three groups.

Even though the presence of an authoritarian leader prevented the breakup of Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s actions, including the gassing of his own people, created tensions that simmered until Hussein’s regime was toppled when those tensions were allowed to boil over. Iraq is still in the very early stages of a democracy created with the influence of the United States. Whether the country can overcome its differences and integrate its diverse population is still to be determined. Doing so will require compromise and understanding on the part of the Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and international peacebuilders; unfortunately, such a compromise may be an example of an irreconcilable difference, making agreement without conflict unlikely.

4.4 Historical factors

The end of World War II brought great change to the global scene. The center of power moved from the European continent to the United States in the West and the Soviet Union in the East [9]. The destruction wrought by the fighting in Europe left the former powers including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany in tatters, without the resources to rebuild or provide for their populaces. Most important for global peace, the end of World War II marked the end of colonialism as the European powers could no longer afford to maintain their vast empires [9]. As a result, the European powers’ former colonies obtained independence almost overnight in a geopolitical sense [9].

With former colonies being given the gift of self-determination, global peace became subject to the ability of those former colonies to integrate disparate communities and unify them into governable nation-states [9]. Given the fact that the former European colonizers had drawn boundaries without concern for the ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural makeup of the different communities within those boundaries, an atmosphere conducive to conflict was created. For example, pre-colonial Africa had been divided up into different tribes. The European colonizers did not consider the tribal nature of Africa when they divided up the continent [9]. In the Middle East, Iraq is a prime example of the haphazard way colonies were created. The United Kingdom created borders for Iraq that incorporated three communities of people that were diametrically opposed to each other, including Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds [10]. Another example, which is described later in the text, was the creation of Israel on land that had been administered under the British Mandate for Palestine until 1948, resulting in a population composed of both Muslim and Jewish communities who each considered the land on which Israel was created to be their own [11].

Conflict in Africa, Iraq, Israel, and other former colonies was tamed in colonies that transitioned to authoritarian states after gaining independence. Not until the fall of the Soviet Union did some of these states begin to democratize and open deep divisions that were present within their populations. That watershed moment created the conditions that are conducive to world peace in the long run, but fertile for conflict in the short term. For example, in South Africa, apartheid deeply divided the former British colony and ensured that the majority of the native population lived a life of poverty during the policy and created the conditions for retribution after the policy was ended. In Iraq, the United States removed the former authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein, from power and created a power vacuum, which they spent the better part of two decades trying to fill. Iraq is experiencing a tenuous success at the moment, but only time will tell whether the country is able to successfully integrate its Shia Arab, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish populations. Finally, Israel will be discussed later in this paper, but they are engaged in an ongoing struggle with organizations such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Iranian-backed Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, commonly referred to as Hamas, for the right to occupy the land that was granted to Israel by the United Kingdom after World War II and the Holocaust. The Palestinians and the Israelis have suffered through an intermittent hot war with unmeasurable suffering as a result of the irreconcilable differences in the form of land.

4.5 Political factors

This chapter has presented the arguments and justifications for the democratic peace theory, and the idea that democracies do not go to war with other democracies for a variety of reasons including trade relations, common political beliefs, and populaces that are naturally inclined to avoid the hardships of war. The merits of the democratic peace theory have been debated and will continue to be debated in the future, but there is another side to the story of democracy and how it creates peace among nations.

While fully developed and functioning democracies may claim that established democracies are peaceful towards other established democracies and settle conflict in a civilized way, countries with newly established, young democracies and quasi-democracies are described as being ripe for conflict, including war [12]. Gat argues that the lack of a fully developed economy and the need for social modernization create fertile conditions for conflict [12]. Additionally, Gat argues that the democratization process creates the conditions for conflict because it releases ethnic tensions and nationalist aspirations that were previously suppressed by authoritarian governments [12].

Historical evidence supports Gat’s hypothesis. The United States and Great Britain engaged in the War of 1812 when both countries were developing democracies. While Great Britain possessed what was then considered an advanced economy, the United States did not. A second example was the Falklands War, a short war between the United Kingdom and Argentina over control of the Falkland Islands. Argentina was a quasi-democracy that was characterized by significant instability. Afghanistan represents a young democracy installed by the United States that engaged in brutal infighting and, ultimately, a failed democracy. Finally, Yugoslavia is the most brutal example of a country whose democratization led to the release of ethnic tensions and nationalist feelings. Yugoslavia broke up into multiple republics, but not before a bloody civil war ensued that included numerous war crimes, including genocide on a scale unseen since World War II.

Modern history has witnessed unprecedented peace among the world’s most developed and functional democracies. This peace does not mean democracies never fight each other, as some interpretations of the democratic peace theory portray. In fact, democracies can be one of the most conflictual forms of government when they are in developmental stages without a mature economy, liberal democratic institutions, and advanced social relations.

4.6 Lack of local ownership

According to Newman, a major contributor to the perceived lack of credibility of peacebuilding efforts, including economic development and liberal governing institutions, is the lack of “local ownership” [7]. Western peacebuilding efforts have often relied on local leaders and “power brokers” regardless of the legitimacy or lack thereof of those leaders and “power brokers” [7]. Newman stipulates that the success of liberal peacebuilding efforts requires “local ownership,” better understood as a “bottom-up, community peacebuilding” approach [7].

Implementing a peace-building process centered around power centers often results in an incomplete understanding about the causes of conflict [7]. Society’s power sources may not be fully transparent because it is in their interests to frame a problem in such a way as to keep them in power. Members of the local community are more apt to provide an uncensored narrative of the issues affecting their lives.

Another issue that Newman does not cover is the need for local support in order to carry out liberal peacekeeping efforts. Experience has shown that relying on the centers of power very often leads to corruption and wasted resources. Relying on the local populace to implement a peace plan, assist with distributing resources, and provide important intelligence is likely to result in more success than relying on the centers of power.

4.7 Education

A factor integral to addressing the issue of conflict resulting from the critical nature of issues involved in a dispute is education. The composition of a curriculum necessary to address contemporary conflicts is very different than the composition of the curriculum that was necessary to address conflicts that arose during the multipolar Cold War. Institutions are working to address what may be referred to as a “conflict education deficit.” According to Harris’s Peace Education Theory, peace education has evolved from a curriculum focused on the impetuses of war and prevention methods to a study of conflict in its various forms and how to address those conflicts [9]. As concern about different forms of conflict, including ecocide, genocide, modern warfare, ethnic hatred, racism, sexual abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, the drug trade, gangs, and more have increased, educators have worked to develop a “twenty-first century” education that includes instruction about human rights, international relations, development, the environment, and traditional conflict [9].

Harris’s education hypothesis is that peace education teaches about peace, why it is lacking in some areas of the world, and how to create peace in areas riven with conflict [9]. Peace education is composed of the following five elements:

1. “It explains the roots of violence;

2. It teaches alternatives to violence

3. It adjusts to cover different forms of violence;

4. Peace is a process that varies according to context; and

5. Conflict is omnipresent [9].”

Peace education is a necessary first step to addressing the world’s conflicts. Current global leaders are from an older generation that grew up during the Cold War and studied peace from the standpoint of a multipolar struggle among states and their respective allies. In order for peace education to succeed, it must incorporate the idea of the importance of issues to the parties involved in conflict because shared, higher levels of importance can lead to negotiation stalemates and long-term conflicts, including combat. A second requirement for peace education is that young policy professionals, who have been properly educated about modern conflicts, influence contemporary leaders, who, as has been mentioned, are unfamiliar with modern peace education and often employ tactics that were designed for traditional state-based struggles centered around superpowers and their allies.

5. Case studies

As mentioned in the previous section about the democratic peace theory, there are several examples of democracies engaging in combat or other types of conflict that can be classified as war. The common thread in these case studies is the presence of an issue of significant interest to both parties, making it too challenging to compromise. Such an issue is referred to as an irreconcilable difference. Understanding irreconcilable differences is critical because they are immune to non-conflictual forms of diplomacy and usually lead to conflict, including war. The case studies that follow provide examples of irreconcilable differences and the predicted conflicts to which they lead.

5.1 France and West Germany

France and Germany have historically been bitter rivals. The two neighboring countries were at the forefront of the two worldwide wars, and each side suffered greatly due to their involvement. Each war was characterized by a period of time in which Germany temporarily conquered French territory before ultimately being defeated by the Allied powers, which included the United States, the United Kingdom, and the French resistance. After the conclusion of each war, Germany adopted a democratic government. After World War II, this analysis applies to West Germany as the country was divided into four sectors controlled by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union. East Germany, administered by the Soviet Union, adopted an authoritarian government that ultimately answered to Moscow.

During both post-war periods, the French adopted a conflictual nature towards the German state. After World War I, Germany was experiencing economic upheaval due to the crushing effects of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was unable to pay the reparations required of her without resorting to hyperinflation-causing monetary policy. As a result of Germany falling behind on its reparations payments, France and Belgium used their militaries to occupy the Ruhr, an important industrial center for the German economy [13]. The French and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr harmed German workers and weakened the German economy further. The French viewed their actions as a way of securing economic value equal to Germany’s unpaid reparations [13]. The result was a hardening of German public opinion to match that of French public opinion and the ultimate failure of the French to accomplish its goals [13]. The occupation of the Ruhr was later utilized by the Nazis as a way of galvanizing support for their eventual rise to power.

After the Second World War, France adopted a similar conflictual attitude. When the United States and the United Kingdom agreed on the need to rehabilitate West Germany as a bulwark against the spread of communism, the French were uncooperative [13]. The French finally agreed to support the rehabilitation of West Germany, but only after intense pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom [13]. The French were interested in curtailing Germany’s potential power by separating Germany’s industrially rich regions, including the Ruhr and the Rhineland, from the broader country [13]. One of the major reasons for French intransigence was negative French public opinion towards Germany, forcing French leaders into the difficult situation of pushing back against its allies [13].

In both instances, the conflict involved two democracies, as both France and Germany had established democratic governments at the time of these crises. The reason for the conflicts, an armed invasion in the first case outlined above, was the presence of issues that both countries classified as extremely important. In the case of France’s invasion of the Ruhr, France was adamant about Germany paying for the destruction it caused during World War I. Germany, on the other hand, was adamant about not paying reparations because reparations were crippling the German economy, preventing its rebuilding efforts, and creating suffering among its population. Reparations represented an issue about which both parties had very strong interests, and thus they could not achieve agreement.

In the second instance outlined above, while not an armed conflict, the issue centered around the rehabilitation and integration of West Germany. The French, having fought two wars in 20 years with Germany, were against a strong, centralized West Germany, while West Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom were unwilling to accede to France’s demands. Germany was in favor of consolidating as a centralized West German state for economic and security reasons. In the case of the post-World War II conflict, France’s relative weakness vis-à-vis its allies forced it to accept the idea of rehabilitating a centralized West Germany, but France would not have done so without the pressure of its two stronger allies. The issue of rehabilitating and creating a strong, centralized West Germany was an issue that was critical to both parties, and thus, they could not come to an agreement.

5.2 Israel and Palestine

Since the birth of the Jewish state, Israel and Palestine have been in a constant state of conflict, including armed conflict on multiple occasions. The impetus for the long-term conflict that is approaching its eightieth anniversary is the issue of land. After World War II, the State of Israel was declared and immediately recognized by the United States, helping to cement its legitimacy. The land that Israel claimed was the land that had been administered by the British as Palestine. Resolution 181(UN Partition Plan for Palestine) of 1947 was to create two states—Israel and Palestine. While the Israelis agreed to the two-state solution, the Palestinians did not. Since that fateful decision, there have been multiple episodes of full-scale war between the two sides. One of the most significant wars was the Six Day War of 1967, the result of which left Israel in control of the former Arab territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip [13]. The long “intifada,” as the struggle is referred to, has created poor living conditions for both the Israelis and the Palestinians [13]. Opinion polls have demonstrated that the Israeli population has mostly supported a two-state solution, though support has waned during times of conflict [13]. Though the public has supported a two-state solution, they have demonstrated doubts in those same polls regarding the likelihood of sustained peace due to mistrust of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the governing body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization [13]. The October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel that killed approximately 1200 people, created 240 hostages, and resulted in an Israeli counteroffensive gives credence to the doubts about the prospects of peace by the Israeli populace [14]. There have been multiple negotiations and peace plans proposed during the prolonged conflict, including the Clinton Plan of December 2000, in which Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank plus additional territory to provide the Palestinians with the equivalent of 100% of the territory of the West Bank [13]. All these offers were refused.

Why, given the length and brutality of the struggle between Israel and Palestine, have the two parties not been able to agree to end the hostilities? Why have some Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa displayed a reluctance to establish diplomatic relations with Israel to show their support for Palestine (it should be acknowledged that Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan established diplomatic relations with Israel with the Abraham Accords negotiated during the Trump Administration)? The reason is that the issue at stake, land and, in some cases, Holy land, is an issue that is critical to Palestinians and Israelis. Both states lay claim to territories controlled by the Israelis, and neither is willing to negotiate a settlement with the other due to the fact that compromises over the very critical resource, which is land, are much too difficult. There are many reasons for the difficult nature of compromise on this issue including hardened positions among the two civilian populaces and a shortage of land for both. Despite the fact that these issues can be worked out if the parties cooperate, the conflict continues due to the critical nature, for both parties, of the issue of land.

6. Potential solutions

Solutions to the problem of irreconcilable differences on issues of great importance leading to armed conflict are difficult to envision. One idea, provided by Dr. James Welch in a different context, is to classify transnational criminal actors in such a way as to make them accountable to states and their judicial systems [15]. Specifically, Dr. Welch proposes to reclassify subnational actors with a broad geographical reach as “Stateless International Entities” or “SIEs” [15]. Doing so would subject SIEs to international tribunals, where they can face justice for their actions [15].

A second action that involves international organizations is to restructure the leadership of international organizations such that the founding states maintain control over the missions as well as the rules of these organizations. Doing so will help prevent international organizations from growing independent of states’ leadership and limit the sovereign power these international organizations are able to accumulate. In this way, international organizations can focus on effectiveness and efficiency rather than budgets, portfolios, expertise, and power grabs.

7. Conclusion

Contemporary ideas about global peace are centered around the employment of liberal international peacebuilding processes that must address a laundry list of issues in newly formed democracies and societies characterized by ongoing conflicts or problems associated with post-conflict rebuilding and reconciliation. Some of the major issues on which international peacebuilders must focus include security, development, humanitarian assistance, governance, and the rule of law [7].

While the international community is working to reorient itself from a multipolar state-centered world characterized by conflict among nation-states to a world characterized by a wide variety of untraditional challenges, it has been argued in this paper that the international community will only find success in a limited number of conflicts or former conflicts. They will be challenged and most likely fail to implement sustainable peace in conflictual situations that involve issues that are viewed as critical to all of the parties involved in a particular conflict, a situation that has been termed irreconcilable differences in this paper. This is because these conflicts are best characterized as zero-sum games where one party’s gain is another’s loss on an issue that the parties all view as not negotiable.

The international community is seeking to better prepare itself to address the underlying issues related to contemporary conflicts through updated peace and conflict curriculums in institutions of higher learning, and the use of ad hoc partnerships that involve the private sector, non-profit organizations, international organizations, and wealthy individuals in addition to traditional nation-states. The hope is that the combined experience and expertise of this diverse group of actors will be better able to respond effectively to such contentious issues. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.

This chapter represents an introduction to contemporary global peace efforts and the complicated issue of resolving conflicts that involve issues critical to all parties. This issue demands the attention of other scholars to expound upon the arguments in this paper, study tools that have been implemented with success in conflict situations and tools that have not achieved success, opine upon the developing peace curriculum in our institutions of higher learning, and refine the roles of different actors in the global peacebuilding process. This issue is in its infancy, and only at such time as we have a solid body of empirical and qualitative evidence can scholars and our peacebuilding institutions start turning the tide in contemporary conflicts.