By Movine Omondi

From classical theorists like Carl von Clausewitz to modern thinkers such as Joshua Goldstein and Stephen Pinker, among others, war, as demonstrated by past and recent happenings in Ukraine and Palestine, continues to mesmerise mankind. Initially thought to be on the decline, warfare, particularly interstate wars coupled with a myriad of intrastate wars, may, after all, be on the rise. How does the world live with such an unsettling reality, given the ramifications of unabated warfare on international and regional security and stability. 

Introduction

The best definition of war was propounded by Carl von Clausewitz in one of the most prolific manuscripts on war; On War. War, according to him, occurred in two dimensions: absolute war and real war. Absolute war is the physically observable exchange of artillery; with boots on the ground that get to be seen and felt; while real war is the competition of ideas, interests, and values. It is a duel on a larger scale. It is what politics and power projections entail. Absolute war is thus the continuation of political intercourse by other means. In other words, States would continue negotiating during absolute wars until an agreement, either by defeat, surrender, or political compromise, is found. Consequently, states are always perceived to be in a state of forever-continuous warring! Regardless, not even a fool can miss the practical implications of war as envisaged in everyday usage, be it in an academic-scientific sense or by layman’s language. Thence the genesis of our topic. What our question begs is whether interstate wars, those which either pit national armies against one another, or intrastate wars, those which have internal actors fight one another, like civil wars, are really on the decline.

Discourse on this subject has often attracted serious consideration by thinkers drawn from different fields of varying and diverse backgrounds. Stephen Pinker’s writings have particularly been too combative as to declare a complete decline of violent human nature based on, among other reasons, a wave of humanitarianism eclipsing the human race, the evolution of mankind, increased human connectedness and interdependence through trade and commerce, and the evolution of information and communication technology (ICT).  In his words,”…the better angels of humanity have arisen, and isn’t it a good thing?” Joshua Goldstein proposes that so long as the number of battle deaths continues to decline, as they indeed have, then humanity is on track to free itself from the grips of senseless warfare. The overly optimistic picture painted by Goldstein and Pinker and their coterie of war-on-the-decline theorists, which largely relies on the decline in battle death numbers, has been challenged by other thinkers. For instance, Tanasha Fazal opines that the decrease in battle death numbers may be a result of advancements in military medicine and evacuation techniques. In other words, fewer combatants may be dying during battles of contemporary warfare because of improvements in medical care for the injured in battle, as well as advancements in transportation technology that aid the prompt evacuation of the injured from battlefields to the infirmaries. The average time taken by the US Army to evacuate its injured soldiers is about one hour, down from six hours in the 1950s. Bear Braumoeller also criticises the use of per-capita deaths from war to measure the propensity of States to engage in wars. He proposes that the use of force by States that can potentially turn into war should instead be adopted since it is indicative of the willingness of states to use considerable violence, even against one another, even if that willingness does not transform into an open violent conflict. Braumoeller reckons that the trend of relative peace as envisioned in the last seventy years, especially during the post-Cold War period, cannot be objectively explained as a demise of war in the world. He suggests that at least 150 years of consistent peace would be required to make such a daring conclusion even thinkable.

The assertions by these thinkers bring to the fore the divisive nature of conceptualising whether the world is really experiencing a decline in wars or otherwise. Indeed, a major power intra-State war was last witnessed in 1945, when the last of the Second World War came to an end, with the defeat of Nazi Germany and a convincing victory for the Allied Powers. Thus, in that sense, a proper world war has been well behind us for the past 70 years, save for the proxy wars during the Cold War period. The Cold War period never resulted in an actual one-on-one war pitting any of the major powers against each other. The closest to a duel was the Cuban Nuclear crisis of 1972, which almost triggered nuclear warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union. Many military encounters of the competing blocks occurred in proxy wars where they had no clear, direct contact. Therefore, one may say that an all-out war between the major powers has not been witnessed in recent times. This does not, however, eliminate the possibilities of great power war in the future or even render the wars that have occurred, both interstate and intrastate, unworthy of consideration. 

For instance, the fall of the Berlin Wall precipitated a wave of civil strife in Africa and other parts of the developing world. This was occasioned by the unprecedented abandonment of the dictators by their American or Soviet “masters,” hence leaving them at the mercy of angry civilians demanding political change. Unfortunately, a significant number of these regimes attempted to stay in power against the will of the majority and resorted to brute force to quell dissent. Such actions resulted in a wave of civil wars and armed struggles that eventually sent Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), among other countries, into complete failure while Cameroon, Myanmar, and Ivory Coast, among others, experienced momentary civil wars, coup d’etats, and continuous State fragility. Major territorial disputes also remain unresolved, including the centuries-old Israeli-Palestinian feud and the decades-long Indian-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and many others. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains particularly hot, including the recent explosion of armed warfare between Israel and Gaza-based Hamas, who essentially claim to represent Palestinian voices. As of November 2023, the new warring had caused at least 11,200 deaths, most of them being children, women, and young people, 36,000 injuries, displaced 1 million people (about the population of the State of Delaware), and contributed to immense destruction of private property and public amenities including residences, hospitals, cultural centers among others. The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian War has similarly caused massive losses, including 8,000 casualties and 5.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs), according to the International Rescue Committee August 2023 statistics. As such, there is consistent evidence of ongoing intrastate wars. There are also major interstate civil wars, including the Sudan Civil War, that have pitted the nation’s Army against a section of its paramilitary unit, officially known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The civil strife has led to an immense loss, including 9,000 deaths, 5.8 million displaced with 4.63 million internally displaced, and 1.207 million leaving the country to the neighbouring countries as refugees. As a result, the contest over whether real war is on the decline is becoming increasingly complex as more actors increasingly show an increased propensity and willingness to engage in armed violence. 

The outcome of a recent International Court of Justice ruling that granted Somalia two-thirds of marine territory previously held by Kenya is also a case in point. While the Kenya government has publically shunned this ruling and stated that it would not allow an inch of its territory to cease, the government of Somalia welcomed the decision by ICJ; as such, it remains a mystery how the two neighbours will resolve their contest. While it is too early to predict the trajectory of this conflict, it is still realistic that either of these parties may eventually resort to military action to protect their perceived national interests. A recent assertion by Ethiopia on its readiness to use force to acquire access to a port facility from one of its neighbours further demonstrates the increased war-like nature and war appetite that modern States are showcasing. There is also active infighting in several countries located in the global south as a result of the legacy of the Cold War, competition for natural resources, ethnic rivalries, and religious and sectarian extremism. Some of the hottest armed conflicts include those in the Sahel Region, Mali, Chad, and Central Africa Republic. The decades-old, resource-based, armed conflicts in the DRC, Nigeria, and South Sudan also continue despite numerous attempts at peace agreements. These factors combined with the advent of transnational crime and terrorism orchestrated by drug barons and terrorist groups like Al Shabaab, ISIS/L, and Al Qaeda, among others, pose a threat to human security and stability across the world.

The resurgence of great power rivalry following the rise of China as a major power and the reemergence of Russia as a global power seeking to recapture its lost glory also poses major challenges to the future of world peace. New frontiers of warfare, including space warfare, cyberattacks, and misinformation coupled with propaganda, may lead to an absolute war if the major powers fail to reach an agreement on how to resolve trade, geopolitical, and ideological contestations they hold against each other. The fact that both Russia and China are undemocratic polities, whereas the USA is a democratically governed state, only makes matters worse. For sure, lack of information on the capabilities of the other party heightens the plausibility of states to consider absolute warfare. 

Whether there is a decline in warfare as a result of fewer battle deaths or a more stable international regime held together by the United Nations and other international organisations and regimes as arbiters is debatable. What is clear is that there is an increase in the propensity of states to engage in warfare to protect what they consider inherently important to them, be it values, interests, or territorial integrity. The recent war involving Azerbaijan against Armenia is a clear demonstration of this viewpoint. The armed conflicts in Ethiopia, with the federal army going against the regional forces of Tigray also highlight just how costly wars have become. The continued confrontation between Egypt and Ethiopia on the prudent utilisation of the waters of the Nile River is also a major crack in international stability, especially since each party continues to hold its position without any signs of compromise. 

Egypt holds that it has the divine right to utilise the waters of the Nile, as it is the source of its very survival, while Ethiopia propounds that it is well within its right to also use the waters of the Nile, the majority of which originates from Ethiopian Highlands. As such, the government of Ethiopia has moved ahead to implement ambitious projects along the Nile, including the Grand Renaissance Dam (GRD) with a magnificent capacity for the production of hydroelectric power but a destructive effect on the volume of water that shall henceforth be available for other riparian countries including Egypt and Sudan who heavily relies on the Nile for sustenance. As a result of this contest, Egypt has not shied away from utilising its mammoth geostrategic influence to frustrate Ethiopia’s access to financial facilities globally. Should such tactics fail to convince Ethiopia’s government to abandon or at least compromise on the rate of filling the GRD, it is expected that Egypt, which has always held that if need be, military power may be used to defend its divine right over the Nile, may be left with no option but to consider military action on Ethiopia.  Thus, there is a willingness by state and non-state actors to employ armed violence to resolve differences with other states or non-state actors.

The worst scenario in the willingness of both state and non-state actors to employ violence in resolving differences would be an eruption of an absolute war between two major competing powers, the USA, China, and Russia, regardless of the cause. Be it a fight over the sovereignty of Taiwan, territorial integrity of Ukraine, natural resources in the Middle East, or even control of the South China Sea, it doesn’t matter. The underlying discourse is that the world may not be experiencing a decline in war, we are rather witnessing state actors engaged in an arms race in readiness for war!