World Peace: Myth or Reality

LAHORE: Bloodshed and violence started in this world after the first murder on earth took place when Hazrat Adam's (AS) son, Qabil killed his brother Habil. Power, pride, greed, jealousy, hunger, inequality and security seem the main forces which compel anybody to murder others and make impossible for peace to sustain in this world.

Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some modern ones have viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history, concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today, war is seen by some as undesirable and morally problematic. At the same time, many view war, or at least the preparation and readiness and willingness to engage in war as necessary for the defence of their country. Pacifists believe that war is inherently immoral and that no war should ever be fought.

Sustainable peace was never established in any part of the world at any time in the history. If the peace was honoured in one region, the war was being waged at the same time at other place. On average, the world remained calm in different time periods to get relief from just-ended violent conflicts, such as the tranquillity after the World War II till the dawn of Cold War.

Observers presented different theories which were the main forces behind these conflicts like clash of minds, clash of ideas, clash of ideologies, clash of races, clash of colours, clash of interests, clash of religions and clash of civilizations. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Huntington is increasingly regarded as having been prescient as the United States invasion of Afghanistan, 2002 Bali Bombings, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2006 blasphemous cartoon crisis, the 2005 London bombings, the ongoing Iranian nuclear crisis and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict fueled the perception that Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is well underway.

The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. Friedrich Nietzsche also saw war as an opportunity for the Ubermensch to display heroism, honour, and other virtues. Another supporter of war, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, favoured it as part of the necessary process required for history to unfold and allow society to progress. At the outbreak of World War I, the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude has been embraced by societies from Sparta and Rome in the ancient world to the fascist states of the 1930s to the ongoing War on Terror of current history.

To many, the term peace is the opposite of war, the absence of which clearly indicates the presence of peace. More liberal thinkers, however, tend to make a distinction between mere suspension of hostilities and peace, which in their view is an end to hostilities. Both these camps consider war as ´state of nature´ and view peace as a necessary constituent of civil life. There is clearly a strong association of sort between peace and security; for the most basic human security of all, which is survival, is threatened by the absence of peace, that is war. But note should be taken that they are not synonymous.

I think any kind of Peace Body can not work properly in present circumstances. Due to many reasons, no world organization obtained significant success in establishing peace. These organizations remained biased in dealing with different issues, and gave priority to one on the other. These organizations led by leaders of powerful countries were very selective in choosing the problems. For example, in many cases, UN members have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions. Such issues stem from the UN's intergovernmental nature — in many respects it is an association of 192 member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization.

Other serious security failures include:

Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of Security Council members to approve any military action.

Failure by MONUC (UNSC Resolution 1291) to effectively intervene during the Second Congo War which claimed nearly five million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1998-2002 and in carrying out and distributing humanitarian aid.

Failure to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre: despite the fact that the UN designated Srebrenica a "safe haven" for refugees and assigned 600 Dutch peacekeepers to protect it, the peacekeeping force was not authorized to use force.

Failure to successfully deliver food to starving people in Somalia; the food was instead usually seized by local warlords. A US/UN attempt to apprehend the warlords seizing these shipments resulted in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.

Failure to implement provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Kashmir conflict.

Failed to prevent or help sufficiently in the area of Darfur genocide: a crisis still exists in that area.

To establish a system of International Law and Order based on new legalized International Bill of Human Rights, it is necessary to determine the complete harmony and coexistence among all the nations, governments, leaders (political and religious), and especially the common men.

To quote one Western scholar:

"If Islamic rules were followed today, much of modern warfare would be impossible, and terrorism would be unthinkable. There would be no attacks on civilians, no retaliation against innocent parties, no taking hostages of non-combatants, no incendiary devices."

In short, peaceful development of humanity is in line with Islamic discourse on the ontology of mankind. As such the theory and the practice of peace appears to link itself with the dominant discourse of the powerful in the world. It has in effect become divisive, fragmented and exclusive. Islamic response to the concept of peace, based on inferences from the holy Quran, however, informs a unifying, holistic and inclusive precept. Without intending to undermine the importance and significance of peace, anywhere and any time, which Islamic discourse outlines as the mission of all prophets, a closer look at the holy Quran appears to root peace in justice and virtue. Without those foundations, however, peace may prove a very fragile commodity indeed.

The writer can be reached at rahil.yasin@gmail.com