2024-01-19 20:18:05
“Right now, it seems like it will never end. But when it does, I promise you,” says Dr. Christine Cheng after a rather discouraging conversation about ending wars. “But,” she adds in a thoughtful tone, “it might be Will happen after we both die.”
The writer Albert Camus already wrote in his book “The Thing” that wars and epidemics are great on a person’s perception of reality, and “therefore he tells himself that it is an unreal thing, a bad dream that will pass. And from bad dream to bad dream, it is man who passes.”
Victories became rare
Nevertheless, sometimes we get to witness the end of a war. Christine Cheng, from King’s College London, and Dr. Dan Reiter, from Emory University in the US, are researchers devoting their time to understanding what such endings might look like, and what can help them arrive in the future. our life.
Dr. Christine Cheng / Photo: private photo
“The thesis of my book, ‘How Wars Ends,’ is that a long war is a situation in which at least one side, sometimes both, is misinformed about the chances of winning,” Reiter says. “After all, according to game theory, if they both knew who was really stronger, they would not have entered the war in the first place, but simply determined the outcome in advance. Wars end when both sides truly understand their situation.” Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an excellent example of this thesis. Russia must have thought that its victory would come much more easily than it actually did.
The mistakes that leaders always repeat
The end of wars also depends on the definition of their goals, except that there are not always such. Gideon Rose, former editor of the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine, wrote in his book How Wars End: Why We Always Fight the Last Battle (published in 2010) that “it is always difficult to end wars well even if you start them well.”
He pointed out the inherent gap between the state of mind one must enter in order to focus on victory and the thought of the afterlife.
“Also in the US at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there were those who said: ‘We should not let questions about the stability of the country prevent us from removing the Taliban leadership. The question of rebuilding Afghanistan is not our strategic goal,'” he writes, but according to him this is a misunderstanding of the nature of war. “War is, simply, to beat the bad guys in order to change the situation in our favor. The second part cannot be neglected.”
In his book, Rose analyzes how the leaders erred in long-term thinking in all American wars since the beginning of the 20th century. After World War I, the US did not take into account what a battered Germany would do with the mortal damage to its image. After World War II, it vowed not to repeat the same mistakes against Germany, but forgot to take into account the Russians. In Vietnam, there was no end plan written at all The war, in the Gulf War, George W. Bush’s administration did not consider what would happen if Saddam Hussein’s regime did not fall, and so on. A series of leaders that Rose cites admit that they make decisions “from the gut” or according to public opinion, rather than according to an orderly plan, based on facts and realistic forecasts. “With no clear goals, the war ends when both sides realize that they have reached a more or less static situation,” he writes.
read more
Cheng says that wars can end in one of three ways: in a complete victory for one side, in negotiations, or in a rare third option – both sides run out of energy to fight, and simply lay down their weapons. According to her, since the end of the Cold War, negotiation has become a more common outcome than victory, and she explains why.
“With the end of the Cold War, a variety of proxy conflicts of the US and the West against Russia and the East lost their international importance and turned into civil wars. The US, as the largest power in the world, with its partners in Europe and the international coordinating organizations such as the UN, then assumed the role of controlling the order and began to pressure the parties in these conflicts to compromise.
“It had the international authority and the ability to prevent the entry of weapons, to apply sanctions or rather to give incentives to the side that kept the peace, and in general to suppress conflicts where both sides were much weaker than it.” However, today, especially in the Middle East, there are once again two international axes of power that support opposing sides in the conflict, so that the chance of ending them in negotiations overseen by the US, NATO or the UN as a kind of international judges that both sides are forced to accept is diminishing.
In today’s wars, what does victory look like?
Cheng: “We imagine victory as the waving of a white flag, the surrender of one of the sides, like in World War II. In civil wars, or wars against terrorist or guerrilla organizations, this kind of victory is rare. Nevertheless, there are few examples of victories even in such cases, if Because not necessarily ones we would be happy to learn from. In Sri Lanka, it can be said that the government defeated the Tamil Tigers, which demanded the establishment of an independent Tamil state. This victory had terrible costs, so much so that some called it genocide. Hundreds of thousands of people on both sides died, and in the end of the organization’s leader as well. Today there is no regular violence on the part of this organization, so it can be said that it was a victory.
The men of the “Timilian Tigers” in Sri Lanka, 2007. The country won in the end, at a heavy price / photo: ap
“I think that at least some Israelis imagine such a victory. But these are a few examples, among many examples that did not succeed, and the truth is that I do not think it is possible in Israel. The history of conflicts of this type shows that this does not happen if the organization is strong, and is supported by the population and by external forces “.
Reiter is also not optimistic about the chances of defeating Hamas. “If Hamas fought tank against tank, you would easily defeat them, but such wars of insurgents from within the population cannot be won as in a normal war. Sometimes, if the movement depends on a charismatic leader, it happens when the leader dies. Or if it depends on outside weapons, You can sometimes win when the weapons stop coming, but against an organization like Hamas, that’s rare.”
Dr. Dan Reiter / photo: private photo
Cheng adds that what appears to be a victory at first glance does not always last. “For example, in Afghanistan in 2003-2005 it was quite clear to the Americans that they won, but in 2021 the Taliban returned to control the country. So who won? Today it is said, definitely not the Americans. Different people also see different situations as victory. Sometimes what is seen as victory is a spin , which depends on the way things are presented in the media of one side.”
The role of a third party
Despite the decline in the power of American pressure, ending a conflict through negotiations is still common today. Cheng’s research emphasizes the importance of third parties in such an end to the war. These factors have a triple role: to pressure, mediate and guarantee.
“If, for example, I’m Biden and want to end the war in Ukraine because I have an election year ahead of me, I can stop promising Zelensky weapons or positive public opinion,” she says. Such pressures are very relevant in a country like Israel, where it is not clear whether it can arm itself in a way that would allow it to continue fighting.
According to Cheng, when both sides are already looking for a way to end the war, the mediating party does not have to be a big country, but a small country that is perceived as neutral or even an association. “Like the Norwegians in Colombia, who created a secret channel where the two sides of the civil war in the country talked even when the war was raging fiercely. In the secret channel, both sides try to describe a reality of the day after, which they can live with. If they can imagine such a reality together, it is possible to sit down to negotiate official”.
The president of Colombia signs an agreement with the rebels. Norway has created a secret communication channel / Photo: Reuters, IMAGO
Cheng adds that wars can be stopped as soon as they start, when both sides think a step ahead, understand how much they can get involved and retreat, but at a certain moment a line is crossed, the war enters “Shuang”, where in order to justify the costs of war, the opposite party is described as an absolute devil And the war is described as ‘to be or to cease’. “And then there is a fear that any negotiation with the ‘devil’, any legitimacy – no matter how small it is given to him – will reduce the motivation of the fighters, and if the negotiation does not succeed, then it will be more difficult to fight. But nevertheless, after a long period of fighting, at high prices, the citizens are becoming interested in negotiations even with those satanic elements.”
The solution to the trust problem
Facing a “satanic” factor usually also creates a problem of trust. We don’t think he will keep agreements. “Trust is the classic problem,” says Cheng, “and to deal with it there is the third role of the third parties, which is the guarantee of the agreement. For example, with the end of the civil war in Sierra Leone, Britain pledged that any violence by the rebel forces would be met with the presence of British forces alongside the army the government within 72 hours, and this for 20-30 years from the signing of the agreement.”
Cheng says there are signals signaling to both sides that the third party is expected to keep its promises to guarantee the agreement. “For example, if he sets up a military base at your place, or conducts a military exercise at your place.” The American aircraft carrier arriving in Israel was an example of a statement of support for Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. In the event of a ceasefire, the US could choose to continue giving it similar backing.
The aircraft carrier that the USA sent to the region as a sign of guarantee / Photo: Reuters
The UN was established to be the international enforcement agency for such agreements. Indeed, the UN has succeeded in serving as a peacekeeping agency in many conflicts, but we have also known other examples that have shown that its power is limited. “What is important to know about UN forces is that they can only remain with the consent of both sides,” says Reiter. “After 1956, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers from its territory, and Israel never had anything to do about it. Another limitation is that UN forces “They are more relevant when you can put them on a certain line that separates the populations, for example in Greek Cyprus versus Turkish Cyprus. When the populations are mixed, it is more difficult for the UN peacekeepers to intervene and protect.”
UN forces in Cyprus, 1974. Effective when there is a dividing line between populations / photo: ap
The feeling is that we “were there” a bit. Countless cease-fires were reached with Hamas, and they were violated.
Cheng: “Sure, and that’s how it is with everyone. Endless rounds of negotiation, agreement, violation, like that over and over again until something catches on.”
Even when you get on less violent lines, that’s not always the end of the story, she says. “Even in the agreement in Ireland, which is considered one of the successful examples of the cessation of hostilities after many years of bloodshed, there are small incidents of violence here and there, but the parties manage to contain them in order to prevent a deterioration back to war. We have seen in our studies that one of the factors predicting non-deterioration is the continuation of international attention to the country, even after the agreement was signed and seemingly everything was over. For example, in Sudan, the state of South Sudan was established after negotiations, and the world believed that the problem there was over, and stopped paying attention. Now there is a new war there, with slightly different sides.”
Is it possible to end a war without trust, but also without the backing of external forces?
Reiter: “Yes, by physical means. For example, in 1967, Israel was very suspicious of Egypt and Syria, but after it conquered Sinai, Gaza and the Golan, it felt sufficiently protected by this territory to stop fighting. Even your separation wall, which Although very controversial, it works on a practical level. This way, Israel can afford not to fully control the West Bank, and it does not threaten the existence of the state. The Iron Dome is a technological solution that helped Israel avoid entering Gaza on the ground for several good years, despite the complete lack of trust, and during the period The situation in Gaza was not good, but better than it is now.”
All of these, he says, are examples of how a physical barrier can give one or both of the parties the confidence to sign an agreement, even if he does not have full confidence in the other party, because even in the face of a violation of the agreement there are “ashes”, and it will not be a situation of being or ceasing .
Is this possible between Hamas and Israel right now? With a little creativity maybe yes, says Reiter. “Now you have a new challenge, tunnels. So what do you do? Make all the land hard? A wall down? A moat with crocodiles? I say – I don’t know, but on the face of it, any engineering project no matter how complex it is is easier to carry out than a ground war On the one hand, signing an agreement with an entity like Hamas and hoping for the best, on the other hand.”
Waiting for a change in Iran
One of the conditions that predicts success in negotiations, Cheng points out, is that each side is represented by one clear party that can be discussed with, and has the authority to sign agreements. “For example, I am not sure that Israel currently thinks that Sinwar represents all Gazans, or that Abu Mazen represents all Palestinians, including Gazans. Then the question arises whether the leadership of the other side should be weakened by splitting it or if it is better to let the leadership consolidate, so that it is possible to argue with it.
“There are quite a few people in Gaza who hate Hamas, but also see Hamas as their only shield against Israel, which they hate more, and experience both of these things at the same time. Perhaps in Gaza, too, you can find the legitimate and non-terrorist side of the organization, because Hamas is not going Nowhere. It cannot be completely destroyed, because it is a civil movement.”
Faced with the raising of eyebrows regarding the existence of a non-terrorist side of Hamas, she notes that “the IRA also looked like Hamas for moments, and today they are a legitimate political entity in Ireland. This happened in other places as well.”
When there is no one to talk to, who can you talk to anyway? Cheng and Reiter both turn the spotlight on Iran. “It is an authority that has the ability to stop the aggression of Hamas, but it has no interest in doing so at the moment,” says Cheng, and Reiter adds that Iran can be a key factor “if the regime changes or if they want to return to the Western world, because Iran does depends on the Western economic system and would have been happy for more cooperation with the West, as we saw around the signing of the nuclear agreement, which, by the way, they complied with.”
We talked about ending the war with victory or negotiations. There is a third option.
Reiter: “It’s not common, but sometimes both sides just get tired and lay down their weapons at a certain point, without reaching clear agreements. This happened, for example, in North Korea. A cease-fire agreement was signed there that everyone believed was temporary, and since then, for 50 years, neither side has renewed the The fighting is full, and they have a very clear and thick border. They sometimes have escalations, which they know how to retreat from.”
It seems that in Israel they are not tired yet.
Cheng: “Well, it’s because of the attacks of course. I feel from the Israeli side feelings of rage and revenge that remind me of the feelings in the USA after 9/11. The U.S. reacted harshly and essentially turned the very marginal terrorist organizations of Afghanistan and Iraq into a global movement. Biden is actually saying, don’t make the mistakes we did, even though we understand the outrage. It makes sense that you would feel a desire for revenge and not be able to feel anything else for a long time.” .
The US was not under an existential threat. In Israel the situation is different.
“I understand that this is your perception now after the attack. Outside of Israel, you seem very strong and not under an existential threat at all.”
#Researchers #discover #wars