I'm with the economic cause analysts here. In my view World War II was a continuation of World War I. In other words it was a bloody struggle between competing capitalist imperialisms.

Today we have one dominant imperialism, but China is developing rapidly and may eventually challenge US supremacy both economically and militarily.

The Europeans are there or thereabouts. While they may have "solved" their internicene imperialist conflicts through the establishment of the EU, their bigger target is now the US, and China.

The invasion of Iraq represented in my opinion an attempt by US imperialism to show China and Europe that it was the top dog economically and militarily and would take whatever action was needed, including military action, to retain that spot.

The invasion was also an attempt to control the oil rich region and to control the flow of oil to its imperalist competitors.

The defeat of the US in Iraq (and I might add Afghanistan) must send messages to China and Europe that the mighty state is not so mighty after all.

I see the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a truly democratic society wehre production ocurs to satisfy human need as the only viable alternative to the present war mongering system.

As Rosa Luxemburg wrote many years ago, the choice for humanity is clear -socialism or barbarism.

Whilst I might agree that the war in Iraq is largely the result of economic circumstances, i.e. the need for the U.S. to control the oil supply, it also has a religious element too. Afghanistan, on the other hand is totally the result of a religious conflict, where the Christian West is seeking to overcome the resident Taliban, who are resisting somewhat more strenuously than was thought possible.

History will show that the West has bitten off more than they can chew in both spheres.

David

Passy and VK3AUU

You guys remind me of a child with his hands over his ears chanting I can't hear you.

John I understand that your simplistic analyses are derived from your blind adherence to the outdated and demonstrably failed principle of "socialism". But I don't see how you can deny the truth when it is staring you in the face. The Coalition will prevail in Iraq, there are already clear signs that this is so. Much as that success pains you, you cannot deny, surely, that it exists.

General Petraeus is saying that Iraq is now stable enough that some troops can come home soon. This is in stark contrast to the situation barely more than a year ago.

As for Afghanistan, when coalition forces can leave Iraq they will be shifted to Afghanistan where they will have the same effect. The Taliban are resisting more strenously because they have a safe haven over the border in Pakistan. The gov't there is currently unwilling to do anything about this problem but I don't imagine that will last too long. NATO and the Americans will not tolerate it for long.

As we have seen, whenever socialism has been implemented it has rapidly turned into barbarism. As an organising principle, socialism has clearly and unambiguously failed on multiple occasions. You're not only flogging a dead horse, its been dead for decades.

There has never been a war between countries in the Commonwealth, and I understand that the US has never bombed a country that has McDonalds in it. Uncertain if there is a connection, but in most countries the rulers are in a minority.

If the minority rulers want a war with another country (for whatever reason), they simply brainwash or force the majority population to carry out the war.

The ability of the majority population to vote out such minority rulers would be an important requirement to eliminating wars.

Certainly, this is a good analysis of the Balkans and South African conflicts (and similar apartheid-style conflicts like Northern Ireland and Palestine-Israel). However, this is only part of the much larger story of conflict dynamics.

There are many other factors that ensure continuing conflict between and within nations. These include:

• Ongoing glorification of war and the military
• Excessive jingoistic nationalism or tribal identity
• Force-based social, sexual and moral codes
• Unequal gender status (especially the subjugation of women)
• Family (and educational) discipline based on dominance and control
• Extreme inequality of property ownership, wealth and access to resources
• Alienation from, and exploitation of, nature.

The above factors maintain a system of structural violence within societies, which regularly spills over into ongoing conflict and warfare.

Peace studies think-tanks – such as the Bradford University study mentioned in the essay, and also some of our homegrown institutions such as the Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Qld – have done commendable groundbreaking research into the dynamics of peace and conflict. Historically, conflict research has tended to concentrate on the specifics of warfare, while largely ignoring peace. More recently, interdisciplinary research has started to identify that peace has its own set of dynamics.

If we gave peace more of the recognition it deserves, instead of constantly relegating it to the poor, less sexy, relation of war – then it just might start to catch on.

You chaps just want complex answers.
Theres only one answer...
Jerimiah 17:9 says that "the heart is deceitful above all".
Its never been any more complex for anyone who knows the Holy Bible.
Men love to sin...thus the wars and the conflicts.
The solution?
Go to Jesus Christ for a new heart.
HE gives it to everyone who receives Him and what HE did on the Cross.

After 2000 years it doesn't seem to have made any difference. I think we need more pragmatic solutions.

Instead of WYD we might as well have 250,000 representatives of world governments getting together for a big "love-in".

David

Gibo writes ...

‘Go to Jesus Christ for a new heart.HE gives it to everyone who receives Him and what HE did on the Cross.’

What kind of father allows his own son to be tortured for many hours and nailed to a cross to die slowly from shock and loss of blood? And what kind of a person allows himself to be subjected to such horrific treatment, just because his father told him to?

The whole Passion of the Christ story is about father fixation, blind obedience to authority, sado-masochism, political martyrdom and capital punishment – all the psychological hallmarks of the structural violence endemic to societies based on dominance.

You missed the point SJF.
Its all about the Shedding of Blood for the forgiveness of sins.
In the Old Testament it was animal blood.
In the NT it was Christs Blood...if we receive Him and His Sacrifice. To do that you, genuinely, confess your sins and invite Jesus in and The Holy Spirit comes...viva! new life!...you become born again (John 3:3).
"All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"...Romans 3:23.
Why the shedding of blood to cover sin?
God Requires it so.
"Life is in the blood"...Leviticus 17:11.
This points to the seriousness of the sin we have in our lives, that blood needs to be shed to cover it.
The fall of man in Eden is very serious and the root of all our troubles.

Gibo

You argumnet is no different really to what the Islamists argue.

Embrace (insert name of god here) and there will be peace in yourself and on earth.

I must admit I haven't noticed much historical evidence for these asertions.

I would say that this article is superficial but that would be too kind. It is feel-good bunk. It could only have been written by someone who studied "peace studies."

It is not the lack of information or social progress that causes wars. It is 1. greed (for power/goods/land), 2. conflicts of interest (between groups). Period.

I have no idea where the author found "urge to discover" instinct and made it a fundamental concept in human inter-relationships. It is an individual quality at best. Why not consider the "urge to survive" or "urge to reproduce" instead?

Ideologies may or may not contribute to warfare -- depends on the ideology or its interpretation. It depends on the time and place. For it to be a cause for war one or more of the two factors must be present. An ideology of hate or discrimination must have other people to hate and discriminate against. Therefore "religion" or any other ideology must link to cause one or cause two or both to be violent.

On the other hand, given human history, the idea that war is just part of our evil nature is probably right, but that is too simple and direct and doesn't pay for cute, fancy, feel-good "peace studies" classes or diplomas.

Kactuz

PS: I would like to see some "peace studies" graduates go to Darfur and explain to the Janjaweed raiders that are killing and raping that their "bad" behavior is because they have no good information sources and they have been allowed to discover whatever they are supposed to have been discovered. I am sure that after a 5 minute lecture they would turn around and go back, feeling good that the warm milk of radiated human kindness has finally thawed the frozen recesses of their cold, ignorant, lost and misunderstood hearts.

Passy,

Please try to avoid using "isms". If you ask 10 painters to paint a portrait of someone, you will get 10 different perceptions of the same person. If you ask 10 painters to paint a portrait of anyone, you will get 10 completely different pictures.

Similarly, if you ask 10 of your associates to write about an "ism", you will get 10 different interpretation of the same thing. If you ask your associates to write about any their favourite "ism", you will get 10 completely different views.

Anyway, who are these people who direct us what to beleive and what to do? Why are so many of the leading advocates of any system end up disgraced or in front of a judge? Examples: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush, Howard, the bosses of Enron, Pol Pot, the leaders of the "cultural revolution" in China, etc.

You may like to acquaint yourself with the Chaos Theory (the mathematical version), and its implication to various human activities.

VK3AUU,

If you look more closely at the situation in Afghanistan, about 70% of the population are illiterate. It is difficult to have any meaningful education in that situation, or to have a free media and judiciary. They have a feudalistic system which excludes the majotity from any kind of social advancement. As you can guess, illiterates can be pray to anyone who offers them any "salvation" as the Taliban have done.

SJF,

If you want peace, it is worth trying to understand what causes wars.

Kactuz,

Regarding Darfur, the Janjaweed are pasturalists. There is a clash between those who want to stay settled on a farm, and those who want to roam freely with their cattle.

The situation is complex. One thing you do not do is talk to them trying to "re-educate" them in farming practices. Even if their government was intent of investing in eudcation and in agriculture, instead of spending money on their military, things will not change in a hurry. All the while, the Chinese are just looking on and helping themselves to Sudanese oil.

WK3AUU,

I referred to the Taliban in Afghanistan offering "salvation". I should have said instead that the Taliban offer many of the illiterate Afhgans a sense of order that they recognise. The sense of order offered by the coalition forces there, or by the Russians before that, simply does not resonate with them at all.

Istvan

‘If you want peace, it is worth trying to understand what causes wars.’

For every war in history, there have been billions of words written and spoken in an effort to understand what particular set of political, historical and social circumstances led to that war. However, all these analyses do nothing to prevent wars from happening.

No matter what the particular situation is that gives rise to wars – whether it be Darfur, the Peloponnesian War or the gangs of Melbourne’s Underbelly, the underlying cultural dynamics are virtually the same.

Kactuz

‘I am sure that after a 5 minute lecture [the people of Darfur] would turn around and go back, feeling good that the warm milk of radiated human kindness has finally thawed the frozen recesses of their cold, ignorant, lost and misunderstood hearts.’

Perhaps not after 5 minutes – 5 generations maybe. That's too late for the people dying now, but not for a future world.

Istvan, re your last statement, I could not agree with you more. Instead of fighting with them, we should just be asking what we might do to help them do what they want to improve the lot of their fellows.

Isn't it strange (possibly not) that the Yanks thought they were good fellows when the were trying to get the Russians out of the country, even to the extent of supplying them with arms in exchange for buying opium.

David

Kactuz,

Talking to the Janjaweed is like trying to teach someone calculus when they just learnt how to add up with their fingers.

We tend to confuse what is an opinion and what is a hypothesis. For example. Everyone has an opinion on global warming. Some think it is over-hyped, others think that it is more serious than we admit. A scientist will probably collect hundreds or more information about sea temperatures, ice flows, Sun spots, the axis of our globe, ice cores, and so on. On the basis of all the information the scientist will form a hypothesis, which will be tested.

Another example is that of a dentist whom you may know socially. He or she will express lots of interesting opinions on various things. You would certainly not pay that dentist for the opinions. However, if that dentist comments on the condition of your teeth, you will willingly pay because you respect all the accumulated knowledge. (Which is, basically a hypothesis.)

We have analysed the causes of war to death...and we should pass on to analysing what prevents wars. A simplistic but true cause of wars is that governments choose war over other other solutions to conflict. In the case of the Vietnam war, Britain was invited to join the USA, Australia and NZ into the muddy killing fields but Prime minister Wilson simply decided not to join in and Britain didn't because he made that personal decision.

We like to think the USA went after Saddam for oil and to finish unfinished business and to destroy the country so US companies can re-build it and therefore stimulate the US economy. Probably all motives for the war, but why didn't the USA spend the allocation of war dollars on helping Saddam thereby building the Iraq economy and making a lasting peace that way, circumventing the whole sorry mess?

Humans get paranoid, grandiose and violent. There is a history of outbreaks of war for no other reason than a failure to manage the economy of the a country leading to economic depression, probably the cause of the second world war in Europe. Why does war have to be the inevitable outcome?

Why can't leaders say no to war?

Why don't leaders - governments learn from their mistakes?

How can we stop our leaders making war on us and other countries?

The Australian Government is currently conducting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against drug addicts. When will they stop this violent behaviour? What are the alternatives

Barfenzie,

You are absolutely right about the "failure to manage the economy of a country leading to economic depression" and to possibly leading to war.

You are also correct about some leaders, especially in totalitarian countries, developing a grotesque sense of self-importance. However, we should not beleive everything the media portrays as true. The influence of those paranoid leaders have greatly diminished, to almost insignificance, on the world stage. (Their influence on their own people is another matter.)

Article: "Conflict develops where there is an absence or the denial of the ability to access, to analyse, to synthesise, and to disseminate information freely"

It looked to me that even from the examples given the primary trigger for conflict was one group hogging the available resources. The reason given above was a second order driver; one possible way the disproportionate allocation of resources might happen. I guess the article is saying it is the main (only?) way it happens.

I can go with most wars boiling down to arguments over the control of resources - or to put it another way the desire for some bastard to get rich. But asserting the control of information flow is the main weapon people use to hog resources? In fact it looks like the article takes it further - implying if you release the information flow and everything will fix itself. This is a bit hard to swallow without evidence, and none was given.

rstuart,

Unfortunately, those who are holding the levers of power, - that is, controlling the flow of information and hogging the resources, - will not let go voluntarily. Before that happens, there is usually a cathertic event that actually strips them of power. This happened in Germany, when the Nazis lost the control of the media and the control of the economy. In a far less dramatic way it happened in Poland and in the Ukrain.
Allowing the concentration of all the media simply cannot happen in a Western style democracy. (Admittedly, some energy suppliers are trying their best to acquire a monopoly, but contrary to appearances, they will not succeed.)

We should not allow ourselves be too influenced by the popular media. (There are commendable media outlets that are better at reflecting reality.) There are many influences, even in places like Iran and Belarus, where the picture is far more fluid than portrayed by the popular media. In places like the Sudan or Israel/Palestine, we just have to wait a little longer.