Worldwide no-war pact easier said than done

Air Vice Marshal Arjun Subramaniam (rtd)
Military historian

IN a laudable initiative that reflects his altruistic vision of a post-Covid-19 world, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed a worldwide truce that could lead to a cessation of all conflict around the world. This, he argues, will allow the world to concentrate on tackling the debilitating impact of the pandemic on almost all aspects of human existence. Macron claims he has the support of all global leaders including Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. To be fair, though, the first call for such an initiative was made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres earlier this month. Considering the flak that the WHO has received for its skewed handling of the pandemic, no one really gave much credence to the call from Guterres. Rather, several global strategists predicted the gradual demise of the UN as a credible global voice in an already fragmented and polarised world that is bound to grope for a new normal in a post-pandemic era. Macron’s clarion call has offered a new lease of life to the UN which has already commenced negotiations with protagonists in various conflict zones across the globe, ranging for Syria and Yemen to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is all too apparent that the pandemic could be a result of human overreach and indiscretion. At one level, it seems to mock mankind’s unbridled ambitions and at another, revelations that the virus could be a complex combination of multiple viruses seem to directly challenge the power of science and technology, globalisation and other such man-made networks. Consequently, it has done enough to plant a seed of doubt even among those like Macron that it is maybe time to reflect on the uncalibrated accumulation of power, nationalism and realism in what is bound to be a world that will be searching for answers and a new equilibrium in the years ahead, something like a Plan B. Let’s look at the big picture and see whether these personal reflections mirror those of the “movers, shakers, tall leaders and more.” Altruism, it seems, is not dead and there is certainly hope for the world if more leaders join the clarion call for global peace.

So far so good. However, it is when one thinks of the processes, methodologies and resources that would be required to gather global consensus and then enforce a global ceasefire in multiple conflict zones, that one wonders where the manpower and the money will come from, particularly when the UN and other global institutions are bleeding from lack of funding. Instead, major regional players would have to take the lead. Upfront, it may appear that convincing nations and states that are in some form of conflict or tension with one another will be the easiest to achieve. However, it will not be a one-size-fits-all kind of a situation. Europe will be the easiest to handle with Russia holding all the cards, whether it is in terms of assuring the frontline NATO states that they need not fear Russian resurgence, or burying the hatchet with Ukraine and its other neighbours with whom it has ethnic or territorial disputes. Should Putin see value in Macron’s proposition and not look at the situation opportunistically, the two could ensure that Europe stays afloat.

Asia, Africa and South America will be tough to handle because of different reasons that range from intractable historical disputes and animosities, embedded radical ideologies, and a proliferation of proxies and ongoing hybrid wars that allow for continuation of conflict under an umbrella of deniability. Can China and India bury the hatchet and resolve a territorial dispute over almost 4,000 km of high-altitude wasteland? Seen in isolation, it seems perfectly doable, but add-on the other zones of conflict that go beyond war and infringe on aspirations of influence and hegemony, it looks tough. Who will relent and give up, and how much is the moot point. India and Pakistan can sign on the dotted line and assure the world that they would ensure a comprehensive ceasefire along a volatile Line of Control, like on several occasions in the past. However, will the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad be joint signatories and abandon their clarion call for jihad, the establishment of a Caliphate and the severance of Kashmir from the Indian State?

Will an increasingly aggressive and angry Iran assume joint leadership of the Islamic world along with a shaken Saudi Arabia to ensure the cessation of fratricide in the form of the ongoing conflict between the Shias and Sunnis. What about Israel and the Palestinian problem — can it merely be wished away by a call from global leaders amidst a hardening Israeli posture and a plethora of non-State and hybrid actors who have hijacked the Palestinian cause for decades? In Africa, barring the scourge of the Boko Haram in Nigeria, which will certainly not respond to call for peace, restoring peace in hotspots like Sudan, Somalia and Libya is eminently doable, provided the African Union retakes ownership of collective peace in the continent from warlords and vested interests. Here again, it is not the will, but the lack of resources that will act as an impediment to peacemaking.

There is little doubt that people across conflict zones are exhausted. They are looking for divine inspiration as the battle for their lives and livelihood intensifies. Finally, can any global peace initiative succeed without the committed assistance of the US? One needs to go no further than the aftermath of WW-II when it was a generous and altruistic Marshal Plan that revived much of the world. If one were to don a realist’s hat, the Macron Plan stands little chance, but in such troubled times, why not instead listen to John Lennon sing ‘Give Peace a Chance’.