IF the year 2025 had started on a note of at least some limited hope for bringing peace to a troubled world, the subsequent months have led to a steady erosion of these hopes.
Even diminished hopes for salvaging some kind of peace agreements in difficult situations should not be understated or neglected, as even these very limited hopes are precious. Nevertheless, the overall disappointing situation of peace efforts can hardly be missed.
In Gaza, the most horrible proposals for mass displacement of people are being pushed, while at the same time, daily killings and starvation continue. One shudders to think of the situation and its consequences if and when a large number of Gazans are displaced externally or expelled from their homeland.
The negotiations relating to Iran’s nuclear programme are also faltering due to the hawkish elements in the West taking a stand that, it appears at present, cannot be reconciled with the stand taken by the Iranian side.
There is also the additional question of how the Palestinian issues are tackled in any Iran-US agreement, openly or in the form of an unwritten understanding.
The prospects of Russia and Ukraine reaching an agreement that can end their war soon have become very dim, while the prospects of ending the war on a note of goodwill are even lower.
What is extremely worrying is that, whether in the context of Ukraine or Iran, the possibility of these widening into a nuclear war or a world war that had receded for some time is being talked about again.
Meanwhile, the conflict in Africa can be very harsh in terms of high human cost. It has been worsening over a wide stretch of land, crossing from Sudan to South Sudan and simmering time and again in Congo, Rwanda and other places.
South Asia confrontation, fortunately, saw an early ceasefire but has left behind increased hostile feelings.
We may see big territory grab in Greenland, followed by more big power hostility in the ecologically highly vulnerable Arctic region.
Above all, the bigger and overwhelming threat of a war involving the US and China still looms like a dark shadow hanging over the world. If leading European countries continue to be as unreasonably hostile to Russia as seen in recent times, this too can blow into a conflict and war that is much bigger than the Ukraine conflict.
So, it is not just that crucial peace negotiations are not making hope-giving progress; actually, the overall conflict and war prospects are clearly worsening. At the same time, the UN as a peace-making force is being increasingly marginalised, leaving the conflict-prone world to become more and more dependent on ad-hoc attempts to resolve conflicts and ending wars. It is not surprising that conflicts tend to be longer-lasting and do not end on a note of new goodwill, instead ending, when at all, as frozen conflicts.
While a lot of news and media attention are focused on any latest round of peace negotiations, it is becoming increasingly clear that not much can be expected as long as various sides remain confined to narrowly defined positions based on perceived self-interests, without there being any refreshing perspective guided by a wider vision of world peace.
Such a vision, in turn, cannot emerge from a vacuum. A lot of work has to be done at two levels to realise this.
Firstly, some of the world’s most senior diplomats (most of them may be in retirement or semi-retirement), academics and leaders who have been known for their deep commitment to peace, need to come together to prepare the ground for the success of various peace negotiations and related peace efforts, as well as to create a wider paradigm of world peace.
Secondly, at the grassroots level, a much stronger peace movement of people having continuity and deep commitment should emerge, with the ability to influence people as well as leadership in the direction of peace and peace with justice.
If such efforts are made, sincerely supported by the UN and numerous other organisations which have been active for the cause of peace with justice to a lesser or greater extent, then a much stronger and wider paradigm of peace at a wider level can emerge within which the chances of success of peace negotiations can increase considerably.
This wider paradigm must be based on a realisation, and its wider spread among people, that given the kind of destructive weapons including WMDs that exist now, in a world that goes from conflict to conflict with conflicts lasting longer and longer, no one can be safe and no one’s children and grandchildren can be safe. Moreover, life-threatening global environmental and related problems cannot be resolved except in conditions of much greater international cooperation and peace. Given these realities, the tendency to try to harm or destroy others or to gain dominance over others is completely outdated and will only result in ruin and destruction of all. Hence while completing rejecting such tendencies, a wider paradigm of peace must evolve in which various sides come to the negotiating table with an overwhelming commitment to world peace and ending war and conflict, while all other parties are also guided by commitment to world peace (not narrow selfish interests) to help in ending war as early as possible on a note of goodwill and friendship.
————–
Bharat Dogra writes extensively on environment, development and welfare issues. The views expressed here are the writer’s own, and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be reached at: bharatdogra1956@gmail.com
