World Peace is not desireable

The theory that world peace should be the ultimate goal of society is fraught with disillusionment and it is in fact civil unrest that is the greatest protector of human welfare. Competition between democratic political parties is the best hope the world has for a minimizing violence and protecting human rights:

“What do you call the slaughter of thousands of civilians in the streets of Syria by a despotic regime — is that “world peace”?

What do you call it when soldiers go home by home, systematically raping and killing women and children in the villages of Sudan — is that “world peace”?

Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Mauritanians who, in the twenty-first century, are forced into slavery by their own countrymen — is that “world peace”?

To the peaceniks, it is, as long as no one intervenes to stop these injustices from happening.”

Let’s break down the concept of peace level by level. First, on a global stage.

war arises due to a conflict of interests between two parties. So to alleviate this problem, world peace could only fundamentally be established by creating a single entity that encompasses the whole world. Since there is only one state, there would be no conflict and thus no war. While this power would be created with the goal of peace, there is obviously a danger to human rights, as this force would be so omnipotent and it would not have to answer to anyone. It is dangerous because “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If there is no opposition to power, and no war, terrible atrocities like those listed above, would occur similarly to the work of the Nazi’s, Stalin and other dictators. But, this could occur on a global scale instead of within the state. And even as this was going on, it would still be “peace” if the victims could not fight back. Clearly, “as Teddy Roosevelt once declared, wars are ‘as a rule to be avoided [but] they are far better than certain kinds of peace.’” So, clearly we can rule out world peace, but what about interstate peace?

Perhaps our only hope is democracy. It has many flaws, but its greatest strength is that it holds its leaders accountable for their actions, and balances power, so that no single person can dominate. It has other benefits too, “Indeed, one of the great phenomena of international relations is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.” Democracies show the most promise for a more peaceful world. But despite this lack of war between states, unrest within a state is important too.

Assuming then, that all states are democratic, it’s imperative that there be competition within the state. If each democratic state was made up of a single party, then those outside that party would not have a say. It is important that there be competing powers within the state in order to assure the rights of the people and ensure that the majority is in power. If there is no conflict or opposition inside a state, it could give rise to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson spoke to this when he said, “(Revolution) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical… It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."  Civil turmoil, while it may be extremely costly and violent prevents a tyrannical power from abusing its power with no opposition. However, it’s possible that

While conflicts are extremely upsetting, they are essential as well. While I do not believe that world peace is either attainable or desirable, I think that limiting casualties while protecting rights is. The best way to accomplish this, is to foster intrastate competition in democratic states.