Peace efforts needed in a world on the brink

The conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine and parts of Africa involve terrible human costs as well as high risks of escalation. The longer these continue, the higher the risks. These should end as early as possible, and this should be the highest priority at the world level just now. In Gaza, in a small region with a population of just over two million, already over 100,000 have either died or been severely wounded over the last six and a half months or so. Over two-thirds of the people have been displaced and there is hardly anyone who has not been deeply adversely affected by personal serious loss, apart from the collective trauma. The sufferings of children have been the saddest part of the tragedy.

What is more, at the time of writing, there are high chances of the acute humanitarian catastrophe intensifying further unless an elusive peace deal can be somehow clinched. What is no less worrying is that there are multiple levels of conflict where escalation can take place – Israel versus not just Hamas but also the Houthis, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria and of course Iran. In addition these conflicts can draw in the USA and its close allies like Britain, as well as other countries, in certain conditions. Last but not the least, violence by Israeli settlers against the Palestinians has also been increasing in the West Bank region. All the hectic activities for peace have not produced the desirable results. However consensus has emerged among most forces of peace regarding what is needed immediately – a sustained ceasefire along with release of Israeli hostages. The urgency of this is well-established but this has not been possible yet despite multiple rounds of non-transparent talks taking place from time to time. What is no less worrying is that there appears to be hardly a visible and reassuring plan in place for the day after the shooting stops, if and when it stops. The Ukraine conflict also has been extremely costly in terms of human costs, with several hundred thousand human lives having been lost and millions displaced, externally and internally. After the failure of the Ukrainian offensive last year, it has been a road downhill almost all the way for the Ukrainian military effort. All the billions of dollars poured into ‘helping’ Ukraine in various ways have not improved the military prospects for Kyiv, and there appear to be even lesser future prospects for this now as the Ukrainian military effort also faces an acute shortage of manpower, something which cannot be made up by financial aid alone. It is in this context that the statement by French President Emmanuel Macron regarding France being prepared to send its soldiers also to Ukraine for certain military operations should be examined. Although this was criticized by several NATO members and did not appear to have the support of people within France too, the situation may change if the Ukraine military effort appears to be almost in a state of collapse. Very important sections of Western elites are very heavily committed if not to a Ukrainian victory then at least to avoiding what may appear to be a humiliating defeat. Quite apart from the fact that President Biden and his close security advisers have long been quite aggressive in their support for Ukraine and for ‘bleeding’ Russia in a proxy war, the prospect of a defeat is even less acceptable for them in a crucial election year, that too quite close to election time. So if defeat or serious reverses are impossible to accept and if Ukraine with all the financial and weapon aid is unable to avoid what appears more and more like defeat, then the suggestion of Macron may appear more acceptable and, apart from the few weapon trainers and military advisers who are likely to be already there, regular NATO forces may also be sent to Ukraine. This is not the most likely scenario, only an increasing possibility. This should be discussed widely for all its serious implications, as once NATO forces reach Ukraine, more destructive war will take place and at some stage nuclear weapons may get used. Russia and NATO member countries have over 11,000 nuclear weapons. Several strategic and weapon experts have been warning against brinkmanship as there are several possibilities in which, when nuclear weapon powers are confronting each other in a situation of deep tensions and intense suspicions, misjudgment and misunderstanding of each other’s intentions can also lead to exchange of nuclear weapons which increasingly tend to have very high-speed delivery systems, and once this starts, with thousands of weapons ready for use, one does not know when it will stop. Hence the highest emphasis should be given to avoiding any direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, and to achieve this, efforts should be made to end the Ukraine conflict as early as possible. The dangers are simply too high and there is no doubt that the longer the conflict lasts, the higher the chances are of its spiraling out of control. The case for a very early end of Gaza and Ukraine conflicts is very strongly established but still the institutional mechanisms and the forces of peace have not been able to resolve these conflicts. In fact such failure can be seen even in an internal conflict like Sudan where the task of bringing peace is much less difficult, but despite this within a year a new civil war could spread so widely as to displace over eight million people. Perhaps the most troubling part of this and several other ongoing and threatened conflicts in Africa, including in South Sudan, is that these are taking place in areas which are already experiencing acute and in some places even catastrophic hunger situations due to adverse weather conditions, disasters, partly related to climate change, and other factors. These places face a huge shortfall of resources needed to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need this the most, and conflicts make the task all the more difficult. The Horn of Africa region and the Sahel region have been particularly vulnerable in this context, but new tensions and possibilities of conflict have been emerging here in recent times, partly related to big power conflicts. In such a situation of peace becoming highly elusive when it is needed the most, the peace movement needs to be strengthened at many levels to become a much bigger force with a continuing presence. More immediately, some of the world’s most respected senior (notin-active-service) diplomats, statespersons, jurists and scholars need to join hands, supported by better and bigger mobilization by peace activists, to make the best possible efforts for early and effective peace in the most sensitive places to start with.