Wars throughout history and how to avoid them in the future


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wars throughout history and how to avoid them in the future

  1. 1. 1WARS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND HOW TO AVOID THEM IN THEFUTUREFernando AlcoforadoiABSTRACTThis article aims to reflect on the war from the beginnings of human history until thecontemporary era, to identify its causes and to outline how to eliminate them in thefuture. It was found in this reflection that it is time for humanity to provide the mosturgently the instruments necessary the humanity to take control of their destiny and putin place a democratic government in the world. The constitution of a democratic worldgovernment would be the only means of survival of the human species.Keywords: The main conflicts (wars and revolutions) in human history until the earlytwentieth century. Major wars in human history during the twentieth century. Majorwars in the history of mankind in the XXI Century. The causes of wars. The imperativeof ending the wars. Towards the Fourth World War. How to eliminate wars on ourplanet.1. The main conflicts (wars and revolutions) in human history until the earlytwentieth centuryHistorians assume that there have always been wars because the documented record ofhuman history, dating back to 6000 years, there has been only 292 years of relativepeace between peoples. This time period of 55 centuries, however, is only a speck of thetotal time of human presence on Earth [See the article by Roberto Junior CP under thetitle Conflitos bélicos (Conflict in warlike) on the website <http://www.library.com.br/Philosophy / conflito.htm>]. The following passage, taken from the book A History ofWar of John Keegan (Companhia de Bolso, 2006), illustrates the prevailing perceptionabout: "The written history of the world is largely a story of war, because the stateswhere we live emerged from conquests, civil wars and struggles for independence.Moreover, the great statesmen of history were generally men of violence, because eventhough they were not warriors - and many were - they understood the use of violenceand did not hesitate to put it into practice for their purposes".Historical records older already talking of wars and struggles. There is, therefore, tostun now, at harvest time from all evil actions generated by humanity, the number ofwars and revolutions grow at an unprecedented scale, both in quantity and in intensity.Several names have emerged to classify the various types of war invented by humans:wide, localized, civil, holy, guerrilla, revolutionary, subversive, lightning, chemical,bacteriological, conventional, nuclear, ethnic extermination, of conquest, religious,world, etc.Among the conflicts of Antiquity, wars between Greeks and Persians, known by thedesignation of Medical Wars, have a great importance for the history of the Westernworld. They happened because the dispute of land of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), rich
  2. 2. 2in cereals and spices. Darius, king of Persia, decreed that all the Greek colonies in theregion should pay tribute to Persia. This attitude led to a revolt of the colonies that wereaided by Athens against the power of the king [See the article As principais guerras dahistória e suas consequências (The main wars of history and consequences) of FelipeAlexandre Lima Farah et alli posted on the website <http://gguerras.wordpress.com />].In this article, it was presented the wars of Rome against Carthage called the PunicWars. In the third century BC, Carthage was the main power of the West, controllingmuch of the trade and the Mediterranean territory while Rome was a province-basedagro-livestock, but in recent times had been getting successive military victories and hasarrived to control the entire Italian peninsula. It was clear that at some point theexpansionist ambitions of the two would intersect. Using as a pretext the Carthaginianattack to Numidia, Rome attacked Carthage and this attack was devastating: the city wassacked, burned, and its population enslaved. The Roman victory in the Punic Wars,which lasted for over a century, was decisive for the establishment of the RomanEmpire.The wars of Rome against the barbarian occurred in the fourth and fifth centuries of ourera. The barbarians were of German descent and lived in the northern and northeasternEurope and northwestern Asia, at the time of the Roman Empire living in relativeharmony with the Romans until the fourth and fifth centuries. Many Germans wererecruited to join the mighty Roman army. The Romans used the word "barbaric" to allthose who dwelt outside the borders of the empire and who did not speak the officiallanguage of the Romans: Latin. Peaceful coexistence between these peoples and theRomans took until the fourth century, when a horde of Huns pushed the other barbarianson the frontiers of the Roman Empire. This century and the next, what we saw was aninvasion, often violently ended by overthrow the Western Roman Empire. In addition tothe arrival of the Huns, one can cite as other reasons that led to the invasion of thebarbarians it was the pursuit of riches, fertile soil and pleasant climate.In the article As principais guerras da história e suas consequências (The major wars ofhistory and its consequences) are analyzed Crusades total of eight, which wereconducted from 1096 to 1244. In the eleventh century, the Arabs (Muslims) dominatedJerusalem, known as the Holy Land by Christians (because Jesus lived on this site), wholeft that Christians should make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem. At the end of thiscentury, the Turks, the people who came from central Asia, conquered this and otherMiddle Eastern lands. As they were also converted to Islam, but much more intolerantthan the Arabs in matters religious, forbade Christians to perform their pilgrimage in theHoly Land. In 1095, the Churchs response came with Pope Urban II, summoning thefaithful for military expeditions aiming to conquer the Holy Land and fight the enemiesof Christianity initiating the movement of the Crusades. Behind this interest, there wereother indirect, how to recover the influence of the church in Byzantine territory,conquering more land for the nobles, expand the area of influence of Catholicism andexpand trade routes in the East to the commercial cities of the Italian peninsula, likeVenice and Genova.
  3. 3. 3The Franco-Dutch War (1672 - 1678), also known as "Dutch War" was a militaryconflict between the Kingdom of France, the Bishopric of Münster, the Electorate ofCologne and the Kingdom of England against the Dutch Republic (United Provinces).Among the origins of the attack moved by the kingdom of France against the UnitedProvinces (aka Holland), is the support given by this Republic to Spain during the Warof Devolution (1667-1668). To fulfill its purpose, a primary concern of Louis XIV wasto seek the support of England, in a rare moment of understanding between the twogreat powers. England joined because he felt threatened by the growing naval power ofHolland and France agreed to support in exchange for financial support of three millionpounds [See the article As principais guerras da história e suas consequências (Themain wars of history and consequences) of Felipe Alexandre Lima Farah et alli postedon the website <http://gguerras.wordpress.com />].Another episode of the story presented in the article As principais guerras da história esuas consequências (The major wars of history and its consequences) was the ThirtyYears War (1618 - 1648) which is the generic name for a series of wars that severalEuropean nations fought against each other from 1618, especially in Germany, fordifferent reasons: religious rivalries, dynastic, territorial and commercial. The rivalriesbetween Catholics and Protestants and German constitutional issues were graduallytransformed into a European fight. Despite religious conflicts be the direct cause of thewar, it involved a major political effort of Sweden and France to try to lessen thestrength of the Habsburg dynasty, which ruled Austria. The war became a conflict forhegemony between the Habsburgs and France. That way, the conflict has expanded toalmost every continent. The hostilities caused serious economic and demographicproblems in Central Europe and had an end with the signing, in 1648, some treaties,collectively, are called the Peace of Westphalia.The end of the Thirty Years War was the beginning of French hegemony in Europe andthe decline of the power of the Habsburgs. Germany was the only one left defeated,ruined and ravaged these thirty years of war. The main battlefields of intermittentconflicts were the cities and principalities of Germany that suffered very seriousinjuries. Many of the fighters were mercenaries who had plunder as main form ofpayment for their work. Thus, taking the force, where they passed or stopped thesupplies necessary for their maintenance and profit, a predatory strategy was used thatled to the complete destruction of countless communities. Today it is estimated that thepopulation of Germany fell 20% during the war. In some regions the decline reached50% as entire villages disappeared.The English Revolution of the seventeenth century represented the first manifestation ofsystemic crisis in the modern era, identified with Absolutism. The monarchical power,severely limited, ceded most of its powers to the Parliament and it were introduced theparliamentary regime that remains today. The process began with the PuritanRevolution of 1640 and ended with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. Bothare part of the same revolutionary process, hence the name of the English Revolution ofthe seventeenth century and not English Revolutions. This revolutionary movement
  4. 4. 4created the preconditions for the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, pavingthe way for the advance of capitalism. Should be considered the first bourgeoisrevolution in the history of Europe in 150 years anticipating the French Revolution [Seethe article As principais guerras da história e suas consequências (The main wars ofhistory and consequences) of Felipe Alexandre Lima Farah et alli posted on the website<http://gguerras.wordpress.com />].The Seven Years War were international conflict that took place between 1756 and1763, between France, Austria and its allies (Saxony, Russia, Spain and Sweden), onone side, and Britain, Portugal, Prussia and Hanover, another. Several factors triggeredthe war: the concern of the European powers with the growing prestige and power ofFrederick II the Great, King of Prussia; disputes between Austria and Prussia forpossession of Silesia, German eastern province, which has the domain Prussian in 1742during the War of Austrian Succession, and the dispute between Britain and France forcontrol of maritime trade and colonies of the Indies and North America. It was alsomotivated by competition for territories in Africa, Asia and North America [See the textof Guerra dos Sete Anos (The Seven Years War) available on the website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_dos_Sete_Anos>].The Seven Years War, ended by the victory of England over France (Treaty of Paris,1763), left the winning nation in possession of rich territories in the Americas (UnitedStates and Canada), already colonized, and recognized their right to expanding itsdomain towards the interior of the continent. This possibility appealed to settlers, whopromptly prepared to explore and seize new lands, but to his great surprise, the Londongovernment, fearing trigger wars with the Indian nations, determined that no newexploration or colonization of territories could be made without signing treaties with theIndians. This was the first source of conflict between the colonists and the BritishCrown.The War of Independence of the United States (1775-1783), also known as theAmerican Revolutionary War, began after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763ended the Seven Years War. At the end of this conflict, the territory of Canada wasincorporated in England. In this context, the thirteen colonies represented byMassachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina andGeorgia started having followed and increasing conflicts with the British Crown, whichdue to huge spending on war, initiated further exploration on these areas. The AmericanRevolution of 1776 was a broad-based popular movement, the main engine colonialbourgeoisie, which led to the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. The United Stateswas the first country to equip itself with a constitution written policy [See the textGuerra da Independência dos Estados Unidos (War of Independence of the UnitedStates) available on the website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_da_Independ%C3%AAncia_dos_Estados_Unidos>].
  5. 5. 5The French Revolution relates to events that occurred from 1789 to 1799 that changedthe political and social context of France. The French Revolution was triggered by thedeepening of the economic and social crisis. The economic causes were structural. Theagricultural crisis, which was due to population growth, was also a determinant of theFrench Revolution. Between 1715 and 1789, the French population has grownconsiderably, between 8 and 9 million. As the amount of food produced was insufficientand drooped frosts food production, hunger hovered over the French helping to sparkthe revolution that begins with the convocation of the States General and the Fall of theBastille and ends with the coup of 18 Brumaire of Napoleon Bonaparte. At issue werethe privileges of the clergy and nobility. The French Revolution was influenced by theideals of the Enlightenment and of American Independence (1776) (See text RevoluçãoFrancesa (French Revolution) posted on the website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Francesa>].During the French Revolution, thousands of people were detained, tried and summarilyguillotined. Individual rights were suspended, and daily held up to applause popular,public executions and mass. The Jacobin leader Robespierre, sanctioning summaryexecutions, announced that France did not need judges, but more guillotines. The resultwas the death sentence of 35 000 to 40 000 people. Despite the Jacobin Terror, theFrench Revolution is considered the event that launched the Contemporary Age.Abolished serfdom and feudal rights and proclaimed the universal principles of"Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité), phrase by Jean-JacquesRousseau.The sociologist Raymond Aron wrote in The Opium Of The Intellectuals (TransactionPublishers, 2009) the following, concerning the French Revolution, comparing it withthe English Revolution:The passage of the Ancien Régime to the modern society is consummated in France with abreak and a unique brutality. From the other side the English Channel in England,constitutional rule was established progressively, representative institutions come fromparliament whose origins date back to medieval customs. In the eighteenth and nineteenthcentury, the democratic legitimacy replaces the monarchical legitimacy without totallyeliminate, the equality of citizens gradually erased the distinction of "states" (nobility, clergyand people). The ideas of the French Revolution launches in storm across Europe: thesovereignty of the people, the exercise of authority as a rule, elected assemblies sovereign andsuppression of differences in personal statutes were held in England, sometimes earlier than inFrance, without the people, with a start of Prometheus, shook their chains. The"democratization" was there (in England) the work of rival parties.(...) The Ancien Régime collapsed (in France) at one stroke, almost without defense. AndFrance took a century to find another system that was accepted by the vast majority of thenation.The Napoleonic Wars is included among the major wars that have occurred in history.The Napoleonic Wars are among the most important because it influenced the fate ofmany countries, including Brazil with the escape of the Portuguese Royal Family toBrazil in 1808 and the transfer of administration to Rio de Janeiro. In 1815, Brazil waselevated to "United Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarve". The troubled relationship
  6. 6. 6between the French revolutionaries and European monarchies made the kingdoms ofAustria and Prussia in 1792 to create an alliance to regain the throne of France, knownas the first coalition. The response of the Directory, the highest body of the Frenchrepublic comes with organizing his troops for battle, among them one sent to Italycommanded by the young Napoleon Bonaparte. The first coalition was defeated. Thatleft only to England, who insisted on fighting alone against France [See the article Asprincipais guerras da história e suas consequências (The main wars of history andconsequences) of Felipe Alexandre Lima Farah et alli posted on the website<http://gguerras.wordpress.com />].With the intention of ruining the English power in the Middle East, Napoleon plannedthe conquest of Egypt. The return of French forces was the asset that led to anothervictory over the alliance of European monarchies. This gave Napoleon Bonaparte,newly appointed consul for the 18th Brumaire coup, a great fame among the masses,leading the Senate in 1804, in conjunction with a referendum, declare him emperor ofFrance. The ideals of the French Revolution expanded throughout the Europeancontinent, which caused an imbalance in the other European nations. The peace lasted inEurope for a few years until they were formed new coalitions. France defeated Russiansand Austrians at Austerlitz and Prussia at Jena. However, Napoleon was defeated by"General Winter" after the occupation of Moscow, in Russia, in Leipzig in the "Battle ofNations" and at Waterloo in Belgium. After this battle, stuck custody English, GeneralNapoleon Bonaparte was sent to Saint Helena where he died in 1821, ending theNapoleonic era.The French defeat paved the way for England to become the hegemonic power on theplanet with its naval, economic and military power. The Napoleonic wars could spreadEnlightenment ideals of the French Revolution, with the weakening of the Europeanmonarchies that after World War I, would be deposed giving way to democraticrepublics founded on these ideals, which had not had a strong expression in the world,thus contributing with many colonial revolts.The First Opium War or the First Anglo-Chinese War was fought between the BritishEast India Company and the Qing Dynasty of China from 1839 to 1842 with the aim offorcing China to allow free trade, mostly opium. Britain called for the opening of theopium trade, while Chinas imperial government tried to ban. English merchants wereexpelled from China and arrived in London to present a complaint to the Britishgovernment, which decided to attack China with its powerful navy to force the Chineseto buy opium grown in British India. Chinese troops were unable to deal with theBritish and surrender to them. By the Treaty of Nanjing, the first of the UnequalTreaties, granted an indemnity to Britain, open five ports, and the cession to the Britishisland of Hong Kong for a period of 100 years, ending the monopoly of trade within theSystem Canton. Wars are often cited as the end of Chinas isolation and the beginning ofmodern Chinese history [See text Primeira Guerra do Ópio (First Opium War) postedon the website <http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeira_Guerra_do_%C3%93pio)>].
  7. 7. 7The Second Opium War, Anglo-Chinese War, the Second China War, the Arrow War,or the Anglo-French expedition to China, was a war of the British Empire and theSecond French Empire against the Qing Dynasty of China from 1856 to 1860s. This warcan be seen as an extension of the First Opium War, hence the name given to it. In1856, China breached the Treaty of Nanking. In the treaty, the nation allowed theopening of five ports to Britain, and those of English rule. In that year, some Chineseofficials boarded and searched the ship British flag Arrow, triggering more conflictbetween China and Britain. But this time, the British relied on a new ally: France. Theattacks of the two countries began in 1857. If England, which was already a power ofthe time and had ample ability to win the war alone, with the help of the second highestpower, France, became obvious victory of Europeans [See text Segunda Guerra doÓpio (Second Opium War) available on the website <http :/ / pt.wikipedia.org / wiki /%C3% Segunda_Guerra_do_ 93pio>].This time China was forced to sign another agreement: the Treaty of Tianjin, whichguarantees the opening of eleven new ports to the West, and allows freedom ofmovement for European merchants and Christian missionaries. To try to manage thisforeign influx, China then created the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which allowedWestern legations were installed in the capital and renounced the term "barbarian",including documents used when making reference to Westerners.The Russo-Japanese War was caused by the intention to conquer Korea and Manchuriaby the Russians and the Japanese. After the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Russians forcedthe Japanese to return to Port Arthur, Russian troops occupied the territory andexpanded to Manchuria. Several diplomatic agreements were tried until the Japanesetook possession of the harbor when confronted and defeated their opponents. This wasthe first time a European country was overcome by an Asian nation. This war helped toexacerbate the crisis in his Russian Czarist regime and subsequently triggered theRussian Revolution in 1917 [See the text Guerra russo-japonesa (Russo-Japanese War)available on the website <http://guerras.brasilescola.com/seculo-xx/guerra-russojaponesa . htm>].In the battle Russian naval fleet was under Japanese. In the ground battle Japan had alarge advantage in the number of soldiers. While the Russian army had 80,000 soldiersill prepared, the Japanese had 270 million soldiers trained and equipped. On May 27,1905, the Russians sent 38 warships to Japanese territory, 27 were sunk. The other daywas the balance of the battle: Russians 4,380 dead, 1,862 wounded, 5,917 prisoners,while Japan had negligible losses in relation to the Russian casualties, 117 killed and583 wounded.2. Major wars in human history during the twentieth centuryDespite repeated intentions of all countries of the globe in maintaining world peace,three major wars (1st World War, 2nd World War and the Cold War) occurred in thetwentieth century. In World War I (1914-1918), died about 9 million people. In 1919was founded the League of Nations, whose principles were "the prohibition of war, the
  8. 8. 8maintenance of justice and respect for international law." European leaders wereconvinced that a new and lasting international order was beginning. For the BritishPrime Minister, David Lloyd George, the new international order "put humanity on ahigher plane of existence ..." Only twenty years later, was triggered World War II(1939-1945), which killed between 40 and 52 million people.Moreover, the violence of the conflicts in our time has no parallel in history. The warsof the twentieth century were "total wars" against combatants and civilians withoutdiscrimination. The historian Eric Hobsbawm [A Era dos Extremos (The Age OfExtremes), Companhia das Letras, 2008] adds: "Without a doubt it was the mostmurderous century of which we have record in scale, frequency and extent of war,barely stopping for a moment in the 20s, as well as human catastrophes that producedfrom the greatest famines in history to systematic genocide. The tragedy of the wars inthe twentieth century is also summarized in these words of John Keegan [Uma Históriada Guerra (A History of War), Companhia de Bolso, 2006]: "In this century, thefrequency and intensity of wars also distorted the perspective of ordinary men andwomen. In Europe West, in the United States, Russia and China, the exigencies of warhave reached most households over two, three or four generations’ call to arms has ledmillions of sons, husbands, fathers and brothers to the battlefield , and millions did notcome back".After the World War II, history repeated itself: was founded the United Nations andhopes for peace were renewed. Hopes that gave rise to an endless series of local wars,so numerous that just part of our day-to-day. Some consider these many wars as hasbeen the Third World War. Eric Hobsbawm summarizes the situation after World WarII: "The human catastrophe unleashed by the Second World War is almost certainly thelargest in human history. Looks not least this catastrophe is that mankind has learned tolive in a world where the killing, torture and exile became mass experiences of day-to-day " [A Era dos Extremos (The Age Of Extremes), Companhia das Letras, 2008].The World Priorities report, published annually by a group based in Washington,defines a major war as a conflict involving a government, or more than one, resulting inthe death of at least a thousand people per year. By this "technical" criterion since theend of World War II until the year 1992 there had been 149 wars that killed over 23million people. In the twentieth century, the number of military confrontations grewsubstantially. If only we settled these conflicts properly, without considering shortrebellions, military coups and even genocide, we find that throughout the twentiethcentury there were 107 wars. In the twentieth century, until 1995, without regard to theFirst and Second World War, there were, by the same criteria, a total of 241 wars, ofwhich 166 hatched in 1950. No less than 70 countries were involved in wars from 1994to 1997.In a speech in 1992, the UN Secretary-General admitted that since the creation of theUnited Nations in 1945, there were over a thousand major conflicts around the world,which left about 20 million deaths. According to World Watch magazine, our century
  9. 9. 9was less peaceful history, and cites the following comment from a researcher: "Morepeople have been killed by wars in this century than in all previous human historytogether." According to an article published by The Washington Post, since the end ofWorld War II the world met 160 wars, which killed about 7 million soldiers and 30million civilians. These figures do not include, of course, the millions of victims ofviolent crimes throughout the Earth in the last 50 years. The former Secretary of theU.S. State Zbigniew Brzezinski made an estimate covering all " mega deaths " that haveoccurred since 1914 and reached a total of 187 million dead [See the article Conflitosbélicos (Conflict war) by Roberto Junior C. P. available on the website<http://www.library.com.br/Filosofia/conflito.htm>].Does the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union,eventually also the danger of a nuclear holocaust? A quick analysis on the globalnuclear power and the news leaked lately about the development of nuclear weaponsshows that this hope too has no reason to be. In addition, the human never invented aweapon that had not used. Experts Robert Norris and William Arkin, responsible for thepublication Nuclear Notebook, claim that nuclear weapons dismantled so far by theUnited States and Russia, under arms reduction treaties, were obsolete equipment, andthat the two countries continue with their programs development and renewal of theirnuclear arsenals.In 1970, when it entered into force the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union together had 7,455 nuclear warheads. In 1995, after overtwo treaties limiting nuclear weapons, the other two reductions of these weapons, andthe deactivation of about 7,000 warheads, the United States and Russia together had16,900 nuclear warheads, capable, according to estimates, the end Life on Earth 14times. In 1997, according to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the two countrieshad stocked in their territories 21,550 warheads. In this atomic race, only the UnitedStates has spent about $ 4 trillion, and continues to spend another 33 billion dollars peryear to maintain its strategic nuclear weapons ready for use anytime. The expert BrianHall reported that the Pentagon will book between 3000 to 4000 nuclear warheadsabove the ceiling specified by the first arms reduction treaty, as a "safety margin" tocounter possible future hostile relations with Russia.The result of the global investment in this sector is that the destructive power of thenuclear arsenal on the planet today is equivalent to 4.2 tons of TNT for every person onthe planet. This, of course, if these estimates correspond to reality. France claims tohave 500 nuclear warheads, China 300 warheads and Britain 250 warheads. It isestimated that Israel has about 200 warheads, India 20 warheads and Pakistan 10warheads. With the end of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan havebeen born as a nuclear military power, with many warheads on their territory.South Africa already had nuclear weapons but said it "gave up" them. It is alsosuspected that North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons. Taiwan and SouthKorea have also attempted to deploy their nuclear weapons programs. Even Switzerland
  10. 10. 10has developed a program to build nuclear weapons, active until 1988 according to aSwiss military historian. There are estimates that the nuclear nations currently possessmore than 30,000 warheads, others say up to 45,000 warheads. It is impossible to knowexactly the right number.On May 29, 1995 China tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile launched frommobile base (harder to detect). This type of missile can carry nuclear warheads totargets up to 8000 km distant. On May 15, 1995, China had made an undergroundnuclear test, hours after signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aimsprecisely to prevent the spread of atomic weapons testing and practice worldwide.China argued that he had done so far only 45 nuclear tests, while the United States haddone 1,030. One difference insufficient to deter some Chinese officials, who threatenedto rain atomic bombs on Los Angeles, the United States defended cases in Taiwanfurther invasion by China. Taiwan, incidentally, is already preparing for anyeventuality: in April 1998, the country has tested "successfully" their own supersonicmissile.Other countries also contribute significantly to the assembly of nuclear nightmare. InAugust 1997, the British magazine Janes Intelligence said Israel might be tempted tolaunch a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran, as his arsenal was vulnerable to anattack. At the same time, the Indian prime minister said he would not accept pressure toreview its nuclear policy, which includes the option to make weapons. In September,the vice president of the United States confirmed the existence of a Russian-Americanreport realizing that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and manufacture long-range missiles. Also in September, U.S. satellites detected the firing of a missile"Rodong-1," North Korea, which has the ability to reach Japan. In March 1998, the newIndian Prime Minister Atal Bihari threatened: "We will pursue all options, includingnuclear, to protect the security and national sovereignty. " In April 1998, Pakistan, Indiabelligerent neighbor, has successfully tested a missile with a range of 1500 km.For Russia the greatest concern today is about the safety of its nuclear facilities.According to American experts, none of the almost ninety locations in which are storedthe 700 tons of nuclear material in the production of weapons grade, has adequatesecurity. According to an article published by Readers Digest in June 1997, about 33tons of plutonium is stored in Chelyabinsk-65 complex, southwestern Russia, an oldwarehouse, with windows and a lock on the door, in the port of Murmansk, nearFinland, a storage area for nuclear waste is guarded by two men and a dog. A U.S.report submitted to the NATO admitted it could no longer rule out unauthorizedlaunches of Russian nuclear weapons [See the article Conflitos bélicos (Conflict war) byRoberto Junior C. P. available on the website<http://www.library.com.br/Filosofia/conflito.htm>].In May 1997, the vice president of the Security Council of Russia, Boris Berezovsky,has announced that the new national security doctrine included "the right to first strikewith nuclear weapons in case of a threat." In June, the country has tested "successfully"
  11. 11. 11launch the ICBM SS-19, 27m in length operating range of 10,000 km and capacity forsix nuclear warheads. A report on the release reported that in addition to checking theefficiency of the missile test aimed to demonstrate that Russia retained its ability torespond to a surprise attack. In October, the Washington Times reported that Russia wasreducing spending on conventional weapons and expanding investments in its nuclearshield. In December, the CIA warned that some Russian officials wanted to include inthe security doctrine the option of "limited use" of nuclear weapons, to prevent aregional conflict is magnified.The harbingers of war go beyond. In 1996, American spy satellites have discovered thatthe Russians were building a huge secret military complex in the Ural Mountains,despite the monumental economic crisis that plagued the country for years. The Russianmilitary expert Pavel Felgengauer confirmed that the base, known as "dead hand", wasdesigned to initiate called "second strike", ie a massive nuclear retaliation to a surpriseattack. The system would work automatically after an enemy attack. In the UnitedStates, a few months after this news, the Air Force signed a contract for more than abillion dollars to a consortium of companies to develop a system of airborne lasercapable of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. The stated goal was to protect troopsand bases missile armed with conventional warheads, chemical, biological and nuclearweapons.Currently, handguns are developing laser acoustic whirlwind of causing shock wavesand microwaves. Until the advent of the Fourth World War, human ingenuity willcontinue to be applied predominantly in those things, always with great success. IfWorld War IV actually occurs, there will be no winners or losers among the people,who exterminate each other.All that has just been reported demonstrates the shameful defeat for humanity againstthe forces that foment wars. It´s demonstrated increasingly stupidity, arrogance of theruling elites of certain countries and their rulers, they never learn the lessons of the pastand continue to use violence and force to plunder the people of the world and takepossession of wealth of smaller nations, helpless and suffering the humiliation offoreign rule, before the gaze complacent and submissive UN (United Nations).Albert Einstein, on top of his wisdom, has a lapidary phrase that says he can notconceive that humanity continues to wage war, to raise fences and walls, when it shouldreturn his gaze upward, to the grandeur of the universe, leave this ignorant world youlive in and see that we are just a single grain of sand in the cosmos. We could developmore if we understood our true existence. The war has no meaning or as a path to peace,because in a deeper analysis, is murder of the whole society against men, women andchildren. The war has no winners, is a defeat for both the vanquished as to the winner.A treaty is not written nor blood nor tears. War is the dream of fools, imbeciles realityand the condemnation of the innocent.Article A tendência dos Conflitos Armados (The trend of armed conflict) prepared byMartín Chahab (See website
  12. 12. 12<http://www.achegas.net/numero/29/martin_chahab_29.htm)>, there is the assertionthat, in the course of the two World Wars century, humanity has lost over 70 millionlives: from 1945 until the fall of the Soviet Union, the 40-year Cold War, died on theplanet about 17 million people in armed conflicts and wars between 1990 and 2003 ledover 3 million lives. In all armed conflicts of the twentieth century caused about 90million deaths.However the trend of casualties in armed conflicts has decreased, although the amountof these conflicts has taken a reverse direction. Since the end of World War II has beentriggered more armed conflicts around the planet than in previous centuries and thistrend seems to be increasingly emphasized. In summary, the twenty-first century isshaping up as a world in constant conflict.One way to understand this antagonistic relationship between the number of deaths inconflicts and the number of these conflicts through the ages, is raising a hypothesislinking the structure of the international system with the armed conflict: the more statesconcentrate power in international relations more conflicts armed the world will be andmore deaths produced by them. This leads to a complementary hypothesis verysuggestive: in a bipolar world will be produced fewer armed conflicts between statesand consequently fewer fatalities. Looking at the historical statistics we see that theinternational system, finalized at the end of World War II, caused more than 70 milliondead until the twentieth century, the bipolar system during the Cold War generated 16.5million casualties in armed conflicts and that the current unipolar system governed bythe United States reduced deaths the figure of 3 million in little more than a decade,when the number should have been, according to the same trend of the Cold War, nearly5 million deaths.What is the conclusion one draws from this situation? One can interpret these data in thesense that humanity takes better care of herself when there is a concentration of powerin a single state or when the existence of a hegemonic power that controls the otherstates less war between them and, consequently, fewer deaths. The unipolar systemshows that there are fewer armed conflicts between member states of the internationalsystem. This finding indicates that the war can be abolished if a world governmentlegitimized by all countries of the world.On the other hand one can interpret this trend of armed conflicts in the world todayinjecting new variables and the issue is no longer present as simple as it seems andunidirectional. In the above-cited article The trend of armed conflict prepared by MartínChahab it is evident that in reality there are more armed conflicts in the world todaythan in previous stages, but the types of conflicts are shifting. Since the end of the ColdWar we observe the growth of conflicts within states or intrastate, while conflictsbetween states or inter-state have maintained the same frequency before 1990 (Figure1). Between 1946 and 1989 (Figure 2) there were 718 intra-state conflicts and from1990 to 2004 there were 429. If the current frequency was the same as in the Cold War207 would intra-state armed conflicts but the figure is greater than twice. This means
  13. 13. 13that the logic that drives these conflicts has changed. There are more conflicts withinstates after the Cold War. While there is more peace among states in the internationalsystem, records the occurrence of more war within national states (Figure 1).Figure 1 - all intensities conflicts between 1946 and 2002Source: Chahab, Martín. The trend of Armed Conflict (See<http://www.achegas.net/numero/29/martin_chahab_29.htm)>)Figure 2 - Armed conflict 1946-2003Source: Chahab, Martín. The trend of Armed Conflict (See<http://www.achegas.net/numero/29/martin_chahab_29.htm)>)There are several reasons for this to happen. Heidelberg Institute on InternationalConflict Research, in its annual publication of the Conflict Barometer, has shown thatmany of these interstate conflicts in the world are being solved at the level of latencythrough negotiations and that a dwindling number of them comes to a civil war. TheGráfico 1: Conflictos de todas las intensidades entre 1946 y 2002051015202530354045194519471949195119531955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003Fuente: Center for Systemic PeaceInterestatalIntraestatalGráfico 2: Conflictos Armados desde 1946hasta 200371842921164929493020040060080010001946-1989 1990-2003Fuente: Center for Sy stemic PeaceIntraestatalInterestatalTotal
  14. 14. 14recent uprisings in the Arab world deny this trend. This may be an important reason forunderstanding the reduction of armed conflict between states. At first glance it wouldseem that cooperation between states is preventing wars possible to hatch, but in factwhat has prevented many conflicts pass of the non-violent to violent has been the workof several international organizations such as the United Nations Organization ofAmerican States, European Union Economic and Monetary Community Center, theEconomic Community of Western States, and the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe, among others.3. Major wars in the history of mankind in the XXI CenturyThe current trend of interstate armed conflicts in the world is no longer binding, asbefore the interests of the State, such as a territory, sovereignty or political power, but tothe technological development and commercial supremacy, and this dispute by field oftechnology nor relates with the war industry, but with the ability to control internationaltrade. We then have a new premise: the greater world trade based on cooperation amongstates, the lower the amount of interstate armed conflict and consequently fewer deaths.What has to be the same as saying further technological development with the increasein world trade, there will be fewer interstate wars and fewer deaths.What we see here is the occurrence of a significant change in the trend of conflictsbetween states also bringing with it a significant change in the systems of individual andcollective security. Therefore, in this scenario it is important to rethink that there aresystems of defense of the States and groups of States. In the present context theexplanation derive the existence of new threats such as international terrorism, theproduction of weapons of mass destruction, etc. But this is an incomplete analysis of theissue and does not characterize trends in the long term, beyond simple contextualexplanation.Consider one of these trends. Suppose a new paradigm of international relations afterthe Cold War: the clash of civilizations. According to this theory the new wars would belinked to the confrontation between the different civilizations of the world. SamuelHuntington [O Choque de Civilizações (The Clash of Civilizations), Objetiva, 1997]states in his work that Western civilization would in future have to face not only withMuslim civilization but also an alliance between Muslims and Confucians (China),which seek to destroy the Western supremacy and Christian. The cultural wars of thefuture would be centered in the religious aspect. However, based on the article byAndrej Tusicisny (2004), observed that, using the Huntington categories of analysisconflicts between different civilizations, not produced what the author had alleged in hisfamous and suggestive article and there are also no indicators that will happen (Figure3). Instead, conflicts have increased within the same society as the number of them,produced between different societies, has remained constant.Taking the definitions civilizations used by Samuel Huntington, it is concluded that theUnited States has faced in armed conflicts in the last 20 years, the two types of cultures:the Muslim and Latin American. The United States faced Libya in 1986, Panama in
  15. 15. 151989, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002 and the Gulf War in 1998 and 2003.Figure 3 - Comparison of conflicts between civilizations and all conflicts between1946 and 2000Source: Tusicisny, Andrej, Civilizational Conflict: More Frequent, Longer, and Bloodier . Journal ofPeace Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004.One can conclude that the higher the technological development with the increase ofglobal trade, less war between states and fewer deaths. Therefore we started to believethat global trade is that it has slowed conflicts between states, but it should be noted thatthis increase in global trade is rooted in technological development. However, GDPgrowth in different States is based on a greater or lesser exploitation of natural resourcesaround the world, technological development and this, in turn, has been made possibleby the exploitation of non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas. As technology andglobal trade advances are depleted natural resources that sustain this growth. In thissense, if humanity does not change its structure dependent on these same exhaustibleresources that operate their industries and means of transportation, we believe that therewill be clashes between different states in search of these resources.The realistic scenario of international relations has been invaded by new actors:transnational corporations and international organizations. The United States are not theexclusive representatives of these global companies. These new actors, which partlydominate the global world need also natural resources of the states where they arelocated to meet and sustain their interests. States like the United States, England, Spain,France, Germany, Australia, Canada, among others, represent the interests of thesecompanies. Global companies can fuel armed conflict against states that hold abundantnatural resources as was the case of U.S. invasion in Iraq to get hold of oil reserves.The capitalist countries showed a decrease in economic growth tending to depressionafter the 2008 crisis. Two countries, China and India have been growing steadily overGráfico 5: Comparación de los Conflictos entre Civilizacionesy todos los Conflictos entre 1946 y 2000Conflictos TotalesConflictos entreCivilizaciones01020304050601946194819501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000Fuente: Andrej Tusicisny, Universityof Matej Bel
  16. 16. 167% per year, and both have a dependency immense oil and gas as all developedcountries. If we reflect realistically about this situation, one can assume that soon therewill be a confrontation between China and India and developed countries in search ofthese natural resources, but it would not be likely in view of the current scenario ofglobalization and interdependence. Both China and India have maintained a directrelationship with the external worlds most developed countries like the United States,Japan, Germany and France and bilateral trade with both these powers has grown atunprecedented levels. Multinational companies from these countries come to installingthe giants of Asia and China is the second holder of U.S. bonds. In this sense economiccooperation has played a key role in these economic ties between Western and Easterncountries avoid questions that would generate some kind of conflict.But cooperation is only possible in a world of abundance. Scarcity no friends, there areonly rivals. It is known that the reserves of oil and gas in the world have their daysnumbered. Unless you put the layout technologies that work with other types of energyand there is a global technology transfer may reappear typical conflicts for scarcenatural resources that have shaken humanity throughout its history. This type of armedconflict, as old and new at the same time, could reappear on the planet, since not onlyamong rival states, but also with new actors like the private armies of the largemultinational companies that seek to defend their interests.The cooperation and global trade have their limits on the basis of their owndevelopment. Although one might think, thanks to technological advances, humanitywill escape from dependence on scarce natural resources by another type of energy, it isimportant to remember that there are too many interests disrupting this pathway.4. The causes of warWhy the world becomes more violent every year? Not only is an increase in the numberof armed conflicts around the world, as the people themselves are more violent. Asimple traffic quarrel may end in death. People calm, sociable and become apparentlynormal, one hour to the next, in cold and ruthless criminals. What accounts for this?It is not uncommon to claim that "since the world began, there have always been wars."It will be hard to find anyone today who does not believe this statement. Yet, it is false.In the early days of mankind had not wars. None human being, no people of that distanttime would have had the idea of assaulting his fellow. Nor even, they would be able to,for example, to attach your neighbors land against their will, by means of brute force.It is difficult to try to draw a parallel between the ways of life of human beings of thattime with humanity today. At that time, living in peace and harmony with their fellowhuman beings was for something as natural as breathing, eating and sleeping. Humanshave lived on Earth, without offending or mistreat each other, much less war againsteach other. This, however, was a long, long time. No record of that time came to thepresent, and so it is assumed that this situation did not exist.
  17. 17. 17According to Raymond Aron (1962), as the mans life is organized in families andflocks, might seem less likely in the conduct properly bellicose. Most animals fight, butthey are rare species that practice war, understood as collective and organized action.Aron says that war is the clash of behaviors organized a trial of strength between"teams," each of which intending outdo the other by multiplying the force of eachcombatant by the discipline of the whole. In this sense, the war cannot be prior to theformation of teams, social phenomenon that implies the existence of society. We willmeet in the first Sumerian evidence of troops with military training.Homo sapiens appeared about 600,000 years. The Neolithic Revolution, agriculture andanimal husbandry regular dating back some 10,000 years. Complex societies orcivilizations arose about 6,000 years. This means that the period is termed historic onehundredth of the total duration of the existence of humanity on planet Earth. Accordingto Aron (1962), no anthropologist has ever found any evidence that the men hadprepared an organization or a combat tactic before age Bronze Age (1300-700 BC to3300 BC). Not surprisingly, the first indisputable evidence of armies and war date backto the Bronze Age is a period in which civilization was the development of this alloyresulting from mixing copper with tin.As to the first humans inconceivable the idea of causing any harm to his fellow today,sounds like illusion, fantasy, the idea of a world without conflict, because we considerviolence as a characteristic of the human being. One can speculate whether there wouldhave been an intermediate stage between the many millennia during which the manlived under the threat of wild beasts and period, much shorter, the threat to your safetyhas to come out of other men. It would be a time when men possessed sufficienttechnical means to defend against the beasts and without engaging in the pursuit ofwealth and the class struggles, achievements and areas. It is shown that small companieswithout metal tools, isolated, yet show traits of warlike societies.Bergson says in his book Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion (1976), thatthe origin of the war is the existence of property, individually or collectively, and howhumanity is predestined to property, by its structure, the war would be natural. Peoplewho fear the lack of food and raw materials they need to judge threatened by hunger andunemployment, are capable of anything. To survive, they are ready to attack. Thus areborn the wars authentic, adjusted to its essence. JJ Rousseau thought that wars arise, orat least expanded, with the expansion of local and class inequality and individualownership are linked to wars of conquest and domination by the warriors. Could not beotherwise, since the political units were forged for combat and the price of victory wasalways the land, slaves and precious metals. Marx and Engels argue that social conflictsare resulted from the division of society into classes with the emergence of privateproperty to replace the collective ownership of the means of production prevailing inprimitive societies.Raymond Aron (1962) argues that biologists call aggressiveness propensity of ananimal to attack another of the same species or different species. In most species (but
  18. 18. 18not all) subjects battle each other. Some are not aggressive (ie, do not take the initiativeto attack), but defend themselves when attacked. Among primates, man lies at thebottom of the scale of aggressiveness. While animal is relatively combative. In otherwords, just one little intense stimulation to get him to trigger aggression.Aron says that among the higher vertebrates, groups often manifest aggressiveness withrespect to individuals who do not belong to their community. In humans, however, themanifestations of aggression are inseparable from collective life. Even when it comesfrom the reaction of an individual against another, the aggressiveness is influenced inmany ways by the social context. The emergence of a social existence itself was not thesole cause of the new dimensions that took the phenomenon of aggression: thefrustration and inadequacy resulting from aggressive reaction are the most importantfact in human relations.Aron is defender of the thesis that the frustration is a psychic experience, revealed byconsciousness. All individuals feel frustration since childhood. The frustration is aboveall the experience of deprivation, ie, a well-intended and not achieved, oppression feltpainfully. The causal chain that leads to emotions or acts of aggression originatesalways in an external phenomenon. There is no physiological evidence that there is anincitement to the spontaneous struggle originated in the individuals own body. Physicalaggression and the will to destroy not the only possible reaction to frustration. Thedifficulty in keeping the peace is more related to humanity to man than his animality.Man is the only being capable of preferring revolt to humiliation, and true to life.Hannah Arendt (1970) argues, especially with Niezstche and Bergson, about what shecalls the biological justification of violence. These thinkers attribute to a dimensionexpansionist power and a natural inner need to grow. The violent action in this contextis explained as a strategy to give new vigor to the power and stability. Arendt disputesthat view, saying that "nothing could be theoretically more dangerous than theorganicist tradition of thought in political affairs, through which power and violence areinterpreted in biological terms".Arendt argues that "neither violence nor power are natural phenomena, that is, amanifestation of the vital process, they belong to the political realm of human affairs,whose quality is guaranteed by the essentially human faculty of man to act, the ability tostart something again. Arendt dismisses organic metaphors of violence as a disease ofsociety. The distortion of the phenomenon of violence in Hannah Arendts refusal tojoin the historical process with the struggle for survival and violent death in the animalkingdom and give the meaning of politics as determining human.Arendt reluctant to associate violence with the power or the State: The power is in factthe essence of all government, but violence. Thus, all previous tradition in refusing toequate political power with the organization of the means of violence and consensus toaccept that violence is the most flagrant manifestation of power. His argument isprocessed in order to refute statements like Wright Mills (All politics is a struggle forpower, the basic form of power is violence), Max Weber (The domination of man by
  19. 19. 19man based on media legitimate violence) or Bertrand de Jouvenel (To him whocontemplates the course of ages, the war is presented as an activity that belongs to theessence of the States).5. The imperative of the end of warEverything suggests that the wars of the twenty-first century will be the fulcrum as thebattle for natural resources that tend to run out. Our development model is reaching itslimits. If we consider the example of China, in 2003, it consumed 30% of oil and only avery small fraction of the population was based on the standards of developed countries.What will happen in the next year if China maintains its growth rate to provide its 1.3billion people live according to the standards of developed countries? There will be ahuge impact on the demand for natural resources. Even before the depletion of naturalresources, there will be an "economic war" real, what will happen in a few years.Tomorrow, given the depletion of certain natural resources, the position of somecountries can change. China, for example, has followed during the past few decades,prudent economic policies: free trade, to sell products to the world market, buyingTreasury securities in the United States to offset the trade deficit in this country. But inthe near future, there will be a conflict if not widespread economic measures atinternational level to avoid this "economic war". Thus, taking into account the scarcityof resources that should occur, it is certainly for the battle for resources that the world isnot going to a war of civilizations as suggested by Samuel Huntington in his book OChoque de Civilizações (The Clash of Civilizations) that we are witnessing. If theinternational dialogue is to establish a common goal based on the values of allcivilizations will certainly be to the battle for resources that the world is going.According to Bernard Nadoulek (Eyrolles, 2005), despite the resurgence of extremistaspects not happen the clash of civilizations. Despite being the real fundamentalistprotests from all sides and terrorist acts claimed in the name of religion, the clash ofcivilizations will fail. And this for three reasons. The first reason, because culturaldifferences have not been the cause of wars. Nadoulek recognizes, however, that themore civilized nature of our own culture has often been used as a discourse to justify anact of aggression vis-à-vis a country in another culture. The second reasons come fromthe fact wars submitting an ethnic, religious or occur more frequently among membersof a civilization, or between people who live in situations of proximity. Finally, the thirdreason, most important, respect specifically to the identity. Is not the foreigner wholives far away, you want to occasionally kill him but the next door neighbor, yourneighbor. According to Bernard Nadoulek the current confrontation between the UnitedStates and the Muslim world is also considered as "war between them."What start there is a crisis of civilization and not the clash of civilizations. Actually, thereal problem with respect to our model of industrial development that causes pollutionand climate change, and contribute to the natural resources that are still relatively high,are rapidly depleted. The oil, water and land are at the center of conflicts around theworld. Wars for oil, water wars, wars for land, air wars. Where there is oil there are
  20. 20. 20conflicts. No matter to what extent the appearance of a culture war appear linked to theinvasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (and the threat of similar action in Iran),because the reality was, and is, that it is war for oil.6. Toward World War IV?Pascal Boniface, director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS),author of forty books on geopolitical issues, professor at the Institute of EuropeanStudies of the University of Paris VIII and a member of the Advisory Committee onDisarmament with the Secretary-General of the United Nations says in his book Vers La4e. Guerre Mondiale (Armand Colin, 2009) that, after the end of the Soviet Union,some Western leaders wanted to find a replacement for the communist threat anddeparted quickly to replace it as a unifying factor in progress in the South West underthe leadership of the United USA. The discourse on the clash of civilizations has givensupport to the foreign policy of the United States war on terror, especially after theattack of September 11, 2001 that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.Huntington explains in his book about the clash of civilizations, that Islam has bloodyborders and wars that Islam was unleashed in greater numbers and bloodier than thoseof other civilizations. However, it is not necessary to have an encyclopedic knowledgeto highlight the fact that neither of the two World Wars was triggered by Islam, nor theChinese or Soviet gulags, genocide in Rwanda, not to mention the evils of colonization.According to Pascal Boniface, there is a paradox to say that the Israeli-Palestinianconflict is the array of a possible clash of civilizations. First, because Huntington doesnot speak of this conflict in his book devoted a few lines to say that Jews are not acivilization but they were assimilated by Western civilization. According to Boniface,this conflict is relatively small, even in terms of physical destruction and deaths, whencompared to other contemporary conflicts, such as those occurring in Africa orChechnya.The big difference is that in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which criticizesthe Western world in general and America in particular, is not indifference, but activecomplicity with Israel. Without the full solidarity of Americans toward Israel, would notbe possible for this country to maintain the military occupation of the Palestinianterritories, despite an impressive number of UN resolutions demanding its withdrawal.This is seen as proof of double standard. This conflict became a symbol that goes farbeyond their geographical location and the attitude of the protagonists. The continuationof the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contrary not only to the strategic stability in theregion and the world, but also to the national interest of the United States because itundermines their relations with the Arab countries.For Boniface, there is a triple deadlock in how it is conducted the fight againstterrorism. Effects are treated, but are not attacked the root causes of the problem. Thisdoes not mean that there is no need to have a military component and the judiciary inthe fight against terrorism. Even with the elimination of Bin Laden did not end
  21. 21. 21terrorism. What is needed is the political deal that can help a terrorist being supported ata fraction of the population. It is necessary to understand their reasons and motivations.In the case of Israel, it seems clear that Palestinian terrorism was fought moreeffectively when there were real prospects for peace in the region and cooperationbetween Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.Unlike the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed because it could not keep upeconomically and technologically the West, there was nothing like the war againstterrorism. Complete protection is impossible because local officials may be protected,but there are always, schools, hospitals, theaters, which are potential targets. It´s notpossible to control all aircraft, all trains, subways. The attacks of September 11 cost $100,000 to its organizers, which resulted in an increase of $ 150 billion in militaryspending to the United States.Pascal Boniface says that the idea of a Fourth World War is being developed byAmerican neoconservatives who believe that the Cold War was World War III and thewar against Islam or terrorism, they use both words often so indifferent, would be thefourth. Your policy is based on confrontation. They believe that political problems canonly be resolved by the use of force. Military force is a universal answer. The problemis that the current policy of the United States, claiming to refute the thesis of the clashof civilizations simply creates the conditions for its existence.The war against terrorism is often presented as the Fourth World War. Indeed,addressing this challenge, the Western world is called, as happened during the ThirdWorld War, the Cold War, to form a block, under the leadership of the United States. Inthis sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, once marginal, has become an important issuethat goes beyond the regional level. The future of international security is at stake in thisarea that has become the epicenter of a potential conflict of civilizations. However, it isnot inevitable. There is still time, if adopting a policy of good will to stop the viciouscircle that threatens to bring the world to ruin. It is imperative to avoid this scenariodescribed from happening.7. How to eliminate wars on our planetThe current situation of the planet is dramatic. Humanity feels overwhelmed by thegreat powers in the service of monopoly groups run their economies and to doeverything to defend their interests, disregarding laws, cultures, traditions and religions.Invasions in peripheral countries, openly or surreptitiously, with unconvincingarguments are part of everyday life of the great powers in their relentless pursuit forworld power even if it has to disregard domestic laws and international treaties.How to build a new scenario of peace and cooperation among nations and peoples of theworld? This is a challenging and thought by many ancient philosophers such asImmanuel Kant to this topic in his The perpetual peace. In 1795, Kant launched thisbooklet that had great success with the public worship of his time. It was a project thataimed to establish a perpetual peace among the peoples of Europe, and then spread it all
  22. 22. 22over the world. It was a manifesto in favor of Enlightenment permanent understandingamong men. The main objective of Kant was to eliminate war that has always been seenby him as something that prevented mankinds efforts towards a decent future forhumans. How to accomplish this?Kant proposes in Perpetual Peace fundamentals and principles necessary for a freefederation of states which should not take the form of a world state, as this would resultin an unlimited absolutism. Also can not have a sovereign power that allows interfere inthe internal affairs of States free. Should be a federation of Free States in which all haverepublican constitutions. The ultimate goal of this federation would be the promotion ofthe highest good, which is the true peace between states, ending the disastrous war, towhich all States have always turned their efforts, as order page.Kant sought to end the "state of the international nature" that characterized internationalrelations so far. It should be noted that the term "state of nature" was defined by thephilosopher Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan. According to Hobbes, the "state ofnature", the absence of law reigns, so there is no room for justice. In this context, allseeking to defend their rights by force. In the "state of nature" thus conceived asHobbes, reigns the war of everybody against everybody. The state of nature is thereforethe state of freedom without external law, that is, no one can be forced to respect therights of others nor can be sure that others will respect its much less can be protectedagainst acts of violence of others.In practice, even after the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 that put an end to thedisastrous Thirty Years War in Europe, international relations from the time of Kant didnot differ fundamentally from today. Today, as then, we are experiencing the "state ofthe international nature" with the upsurge of violence in international politics. HannahArendt says in his work On Violence that the practice of violence as any action changesthe world, but the most probable change is a more violent world.Kants Perpetual Peace was not put into practice because the assumption for itsimplementation would be to overcome the root causes of political violence generatingwars and revolutions that have characterized the history of mankind. This means thatthere would be the need to overcome the root causes of violence, within each nation,with the elimination of disparities in wealth between "top" and "bottom" in the socialscale and at international level, for one hand, with the elimination of disparities ineconomic and social development between the rich and the poor and on the other, thedispute between the great powers for world power.The conquest of perpetual peace could only happen if these contradictions wereeliminated. Mankind has to acquire the knowledge that will only be possible toeliminate the political violence that leads to war of everybody against everybody in thenational and international levels since the contradictions above indicated that stillprevailing disappear in the world in which we live. Internationally, unlike what occurredin the past in which the great powers clashed with other countries, whose differences,when they were not resolved with diplomacy, were resolved on the battlefield through
  23. 23. 23successive wars, today faced also with organizations independent terrorists such as AlQaeda.The emergence of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda makes it put into questionthe current interstate system resulting from post-war in 1945. This situation makes itbecomes imperative to create a new international legal and political superstructure toaddress these new issues. The fact that there is a new international legal and politicalsuperstructure to treat contemporary terrorism does not justify the government of acountry like the United States also act outside the law, that is, the current internationallaw to take justice into their own hands as do against the terrorists of Al Qaeda.It should be noted that the U.S. government would have every right and obligation tohunt and capture Bin Laden, but without invading another sovereign country likePakistan without their permission and murder him in cold blood without offering himthe right of defense. This type of procedure is similar to someone who does not believein the justice of his country, he decides to take justice into their own hands. It ispermissible to imagine that, with the use of intelligence and not violence, it would bepossible to reach Bin Laden. One of the reasons why the United States is losing itspower to influence the world lies in the fact of wanting to solve international problemsthrough the use of force.One may ask how would the use of intelligence in the case of Bin Laden? In this case,the U.S. government should seek to win the support of the leaders of the governments ofthe region and its people, acting proactively in promoting the development of thesecountries, as well as provide them with technological resources to monitor and trackdown Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The smart way to work in the region would meangaining the support of local governments and their populations to isolate Bin Laden andAl Qaeda. There is no doubt that the U.S. government would have arrested Bin Ladenno longer had it acted in this way, ie with intelligence.According to the highest principles of civilization, the U.S. government should send BinLaden to be judged by the International Tribunal in The Hague, as happened to theformer president of Yugoslavia, Milosevic, accused of the crime of genocide. Withoutthe adoption of this type of procedure, U.S. will be jeopardizing the highest principlesthat should guide the civilized life making prevail "international state of nature," ie, the"war of everybody against everybody".Why are there wars? Will be the consequence of war social and economic pressures thatinfluence the life of humans in society organized as Karl Marx says or will result, only anatural aggressiveness to man, installed at the core of something that has been called"human nature"?.For some, the cruelty of economic systems, the wars, the domination of man by manwould be no more than a reflection of the most fundamental characteristics of man as aspecies: the savage instincts, aggressiveness as the engine of development, laziness andcomplacency as factors maintaining the domination of the weak by the strong. But if we
  24. 24. 24come to the conclusion that man isn´t a wolf to man, that man does not kill and does notoverwhelm the other for pleasure or instinctive compulsion, the way will be open forseeking other forms of society that allow human beings to live in a different mannerfrom what occurs nowadays.Peace has been defined as the absence of war. The formula of Clausewitz (war as thecontinuation of politics by other means) is replaced today by the inverse formula:politics becomes the continuation of war by other means. Historically, the search forpeace between nations presented three characteristics: the balance, the hegemony andempire. This means that the forces of the nations will be in balance, or be dominated byone among them, or are overcome by the forces to the point of a unit that all other losetheir autonomy and tend to disappear as centers of political decision. Enough is thus theimperial state, which holds a monopoly on violence.Between peacekeeping and peace equilibrium situation and the situation of empire ispeace of hegemony. The absence of war is not related to the approximate equality offorces that reigns in the political units, preventing any of them, and any coalition ofthese units to impose their will. Rather, it is linked to the unquestionable superiority ofone of the units. The hegemonic state does not seek to absorb the units reduced toimpotence, not abusing its hegemony, and respects the external forms of independenceof States. The hegemon does not aspire to the status of empire. Hegemony is a form ofprecarious balance.It is time for humanity to provide the most urgently needed instruments as possible totake control of their destiny and put in place a democratic government in the world.This is the only means of survival of the human species. Because there is no othermeans can build a world in which every woman, every man of today and tomorrowhave the same rights and the same duties, and in which the interests of the planet, all lifeforms and future generations would be finally taken into account, in which all thesources of growth would be used in an environmentally and socially sustainable.A world government would not replace the governments of each nation. The worldgovernment would aim to defend the general interests of the planet that may conflictwith the interests of each nation. He would work towards every State to respect therights of each citizen of the world seeking to prevent the spread of the global systemicrisks. He would avoid the empire of one and anarchy of all. The world governmentmight emerge from a war or be designed to prevent their return. Actions to constitute aglobal governance has been the subject of Concert Nations in 1815, the League ofNations in 1920 and of the United Nations in 1945 that were in vain because the worldgovernment would not have any means to make decisions or to put into practicesanctions against those who do not comply.A world government could result in future of major systemic disasters such as extremeecological crisis, the economic crisis of great magnitude, expansion of an economyorganized crime, the fall of a meteorite on the planet and the advancement of terrorist
  25. 25. 25movement that would make the democratic governments of the world to join forces.The preservation of peace is the first task of any new form of world government.Tomorrow, who will rule the world? No one, probably. And this is the worst scenario.No country more powerful than either cannot control the wealth and the problems of theplanet. No country wants a world government. However, the economic crises, financial,ecological, social, and political development of illegal and criminal activities todayshow the urgency of a world government. One must understand that the world marketcannot function properly without the rule of international law. The rule of internationallaw cannot be applied and respected in the absence of a world government that isaccepted by all countries. A world government will only have legitimacy and besustainable if it is truly democratic.Mankind has to understand that has everything to gain by uniting around a democraticgovernment in the world beyond the interests of nations, including the most powerful,controlling the world in its entirety, in time and space. The new world order must bebuilt not only organize the relations among men on earth, but also their relationship withnature. It is necessary, therefore, to be drawn up a contract that allows the global socialeconomic and social development and rational use of natures resources for the benefitof all mankind. The building of a new world order based on these principles is urgent. Aworld government will exist in future even after a disaster happens. It is urgent to thinkabout it before its too late.BIBLIOGRAPHYARENDT, Hannah. On Violence. Harvest Book, 1970.ARON, Raymond. Paz e Guerra entre as nações. Brasília: Editora Universidade deBrasília, 1962._______________. The Opium Of The Intellectuals. Transaction Publishers, 2009.BERGSON, Henry. Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion. French &European Pubns, 1976.BONIFACE, Pascal. Vers La 4e. Guerre Mondiale. Armand Colin, 2009.CLAUSEWITZ, Carl Von. Da Guerra- A Arte da Estratégia. Editora Tahyu.FARAH, Felipe Alexandre de Lima et alli. As principais guerras da história e suasconsequências. Disponível no website <http://gguerras.wordpress.com/.>.HOBSBAWM, Eric. A Era Dos Extremos. Companhia das Letras, 2008.HUNTINGTON, Samuel. O Choque de Civilizações. Objetiva, 1997.
  26. 26. 26JÚNIOR, Roberto C. P. Conflitos bélicos. Disponível no website<http://www.library.com.br/Filosofia/conflito.htm>.KANT,Immanuel.A Paz Perpétua. Pocket Plus, 1979.KEEGAN, John. Uma História da Guerra. Companhia de Bolso, 2006.MOKHIBER, Russel. Crimes Corporativos. Editora Scritta, 1988.NADOULEK, Bernard. L´Épopée des Civilisations. Eyrolles, 2005.TUSICISNY, Andrej. Civilizational Conflict: More Frequent, Longer, and Bloodier?.Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004.WIKIPEDIA. Guerra dos Sete Anos. Disponível no website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_dos_Sete_Anos>.___________. Guerra da Independência dos Estados Unidos. Disponível no website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_da_Independ%C3%AAncia_dos_Estados_Unidos>.___________. Revolução Francesa. Disponível no website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Francesa>).____________. Primeira Guerra do Ópio. Disponível no website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeira_Guerra_do_%C3%93pio>.____________. Segunda Guerra do Ópio. Disponível no website<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segunda_Guerra_do_%C3%93pio>.____________. Guerra russo-japonesa. Disponível no website<http://guerras.brasilescola.com/seculo-xx/guerra-russojaponesa.htm>.iAlcoforado, Fernando, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from theUniversity of Barcelona, a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning,regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, SãoPaulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo,1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes dodesenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel,São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na EraContemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and SocialDevelopment-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG,Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora,Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global(Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011) and Os Fatores Condicionantes doDesenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.