Modern Warfare and the Pursuit of Peace and Diplomacy in a Changing World

While the international community commemorates the end of the Second World War, the global stage seems to be ready for conflict again. With a show of force, China celebrated the win over fascism by flexing its military. In Asia, countries face different types of insecurity, some of which include being in active wars, recovering from the destruction of previous battles, and living under different threats. Meanwhile, the US continues to record a peak in the production of advanced weapons, even as the books of global history bear the United States as a country preaching peace. and diplomacy. In Europe, war in Ukraine is escalating, defense spending is ballooning, and Russia’s drone incursion over Poland increases talk of war. Africa remains conflict-ridden, combating wars of domestic and international origin. The United Nations, the primary institution formed to maintain peace, has unfortunately turned into an institution clouded by politics, competition, and restraining interests.

The alarming view is something we all should be concerned with. The perils that await us are much different than in the middle of the 20th century, during which the deadly Second World War demolished continents and changed the global power balance. The primary division within mankind during that period was the battle of ideology. The subsequent Cold War cemented this division, slicing the globe into two unyielding zones of capitalist vs. communist. However, despite the partitions, the total warfare destruction of 1945 was greatly restrained. The only country that truly faced the magnitude of the devastation was Japan. This country was on the receiving side of the horrific atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet today, the calculus of war is very different. One of the most startling changes is the speed, scale, and accuracy of most modern weaponry. In the 1940s, warfare was often a matter of “hit or miss.” Bombings could be devastating, but the technology of the time was very limiting. Today, we live in the age of artificial intelligence, geolocation, hypersonic missiles, and autonomous systems.This makes modern warfare very precise, to a terrifying extent. One can easily eliminate entire cities, set infrastructures back to the Stone Age, or even wipe out whole populations in a matter of seconds. This makes the threat very real and very immediate. Unlike in the past, time gave nations the sliver of a chance to sit and negotiate before conflict. In modern scenarios, conflict does not give an inch of space or a second of time to waste.

To make matters worse, the sources of potential conflict today, while lacking profundity, may be more dangerous. Ideologically, entire nations were previously mobilized around grand visions of governance and justice, no matter how flawed they may have been. The things that divide humanity today are more insidious, having narrowed down to unethical geopolitical interests, the competition for dwindling resources, and, in select cases, strident religious fundamentalism. The absence of ideological stricture makes these motives more unstable, chaotic, and unpredictable. The more pertinent danger in such cases is that conflicts will not only begin but will also develop at an alarming pace within and beyond borders.

Given these facts, it might be tempting to succumb to despair. Still, history teaches the rest of us that, however slow or faulty it may be, diplomacy is the first and best line of defense against humanity’s own dark, inhuman impulses. Relentlessly, and regardless of how dismal the situation may be, we must not waver. Withdrawal from any potential communication is an expensive luxury. Global politics must include unyielding, non-negotiable aspects such as diplomatic mediation from indifferent third parties, be they small or major geopolitical players, or private distinguished individuals and coalitions.

In the current scenario, it is futile to aim for global disarmament. Almost every region in the world is witnessing an increase in the defense budget, making the arms race even more worrisome. Even so, we should not be discouraged from exercising arms control, building interstate trust, and even entering peace agreements. Stopping wars may not begin with a focus on the broader context. It can also be done with small trust-building and the leadership of some people willing to set aside pride and focus on peace.

For Africa, the situation is quite urgent. The underlying issues of the continent’s conflicts include poverty, inequality, and exclusion. External actors use issues to engage in predatory exploitation for geopolitical purposes, even though we know that the fundamental cause is structural deprivation. The elimination of wars in Africa requires poverty reduction to be treated as a strategy for peace, not merely as a humanitarian necessity. Conflict prevention is achieved through development that promotes inclusion, youth engagement, and economic resilience. The people in the community are more likely to invest in prosperity than violence.

This doesn’t mean that Africa must wait for handouts or for solutions to be imposed from outside. It means that African governments, civic society, and regional organizations must make purposeful and deliberate decisions to incorporate peacebuilding into their economic plans. The absence of conflict is not peace. It is the absence of war and the presence of dignity, justice, and opportunity for all. Africa must deal with poverty, lack of good governance, and exclusion to not only avoid internal conflicts but also to protect itself from outside manipulation.

In addition, the continent needs to take proactive steps to achieve food sovereignty as the shadow of conflict looms, knowing that war usually exacerbates food insecurity. The continent must seek to invest in sustainable agricultural practices, develop resilient local food systems, and reduce external import dependency. A strategy that will best protect the continent’s population from the dual shocks of conflict and the global market. Not only will food sovereignty help in reducing hunger, but it will also empower communities, enhance stability, and act as a foundational element for long-lasting peace.

More than anything else, it is paramount for military and diplomatic strategies to be combined to achieve success in stopping wars in modern times. Substantial military force and oversimplified heroic maneuvers to win over and control allied nations are an entirely ineffective strategy at achieving world peace. It is imperative that these perspectives are accounted for in local governments, regional governing bodies, and at the global level. Additionally, it is critical to have leaders that understand the consequences of war and can communicate that the advantage of the buildup of military prowess of a nation over the devastation it will have in the long run is minimal. This is compounded with the need to have a population that actively resists hate speech, as well as divisive rhetoric that almost always is a precursor to warfare. 

As it stands, the defense lies in the people’s choices, and rest assured borders mean nothing, as does wealth. The very fabric that connects humanity is our planet, and it is slowly becoming evident that, irrespective of one’s social class and disposition, wars, nuclear fallout, climate-related shifts, or anything of that matter are threats that concern everyone. 

As a result, world peace cannot be achieved with the assumption that one nation will impose their will, or favour, to achieve it. It is a shared burden that everyone must take on, and it starts with the understanding that survival is a priority. The advancement and global reach of war is something that this world has witnessed before. The very civilizations that are in place today will be gambling with their own existence if that mistake is made, with the newer, far deadlier technologies available to us today.

Peace is not easy, nor is it inevitable. But it is possible if humanity has the courage to choose it.