One could argue that the subject of ‘History’ is a story of battles and wars between tribes and nations culminating in the two devastating world wars of the twentieth century.  Even today the spectre of war remains as the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani threatens a new conflict on a global scale.  Due to its endurance throughout each of our lives, the opinion war is ‘human nature’ is commonly espoused by the media and a view held by the majority of the world’s population.  Yet there is a small, growing group of academics and researchers that have been actively working to abolish all wars and their presence is growing.

World Beyond War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.  Founded in 2014 the Group is currently running a six week online course which I enrolled on so I could learn more about the subject.  From the first week’s content, including a video from Executive Director David Swanson, some strong arguments were made which I shall consider in this post.

Firstly the idea that war is inevitable due to ‘human nature’ is an idea which Swanson considers to be a myth.  This is propagated by the idea that war has existed throughout history yet Swanson argues that much like human slavery, war has the potential to be abolished in the future.  According to the Encyclopaedia of Human Rights from Oxford University Press in the late eighteenth century three quarters of the earth’s population were held in slavery or serfdom and Swanson states the idea of abolishing something so pervasive and long lasting as slavery would have been widely considered ridiculous.   Yet today, although existent in some areas, human slavery is generally considered as undesirable, unjust and something which civilisation has passed on from.  The existence of organisations such as World Beyond War and countries such as Costa Rica and Iceland which have abolished their armies are indicators that this possibility is moving closer.   The expectation is not that the abolition of war will be achieved ‘now’ but it is something which will be possible in future years, perhaps before the 22nd Century.     

Furthermore, Swanson brings light to the different arguments which are used to defend the justification of war.  For instance, the criteria for a’ just’ war is that it is the last resort; yet, there are frequently non-violent alternatives which are not considered.  Instead the option of war is chosen because countries have prepared for war, have significant military power and see this as a method to achieve their aims.  If countries did not have militaries (such as Iceland or Costa Rica) there would be no choice but to find an alternative solution.  In counter to this, one could argue that not having a military could lead to a country being invaded/occupied which unquestionably is an emotive subject.  Education of non-violent methods of passive resistance could be encouraged to support this although a global agreement to abolish war would solve this problem.

Swanson explains that war is not necessary and is often chosen for financial reasons.  However, if military spending was used differently, many of the world’s problems could be solved – research from the site WorldBeyondWar.org/explained cites that 3% of US military spending could end starvation on earth.  Due to the existence of nuclear weapons, war in this era is also a dangerous choice and comes at the risk of nuclear apocalypse.  As President John F. Kennedy said, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

Overall, as an introduction, some strong arguments are made which expose the myth that war is ‘necessary’.  These reasons coupled with a growing global awareness and consciousness gives reason for me to believe that war can be ended in the future, in spite of the many challenges.  Learning more about the methods and actions which can be taken to encourage a world beyond war is something I hope to learn more about as I progress through the course.