It is not enough for the world’s people to want peace. Most people do, but nonetheless support a war when their nation state or ethnic group calls for it. Even passing laws against war, such as the creation of the League of Nations in 1920 or the famous Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war and was signed by the major nations of the world and never formally repudiated, did not do the job.note 3 Both of these laudable moves were created within a robust War System and by themselves could not prevent further wars. Creating the League and outlawing war were necessary but not sufficient. What is sufficient is to create a robust structure of social, legal and political systems that will achieve and maintain an end to war. The War System is made up of such interlocked structures which make war normative. Therefore an Alternative Global Security System to replace it must be designed in the same way. Fortunately, such a system has been developing for over a century.
Almost nobody wants war. Almost everybody supports it. Why?
Kent Shifferd (Author, Historian)
We want to hear from you! (Please share comments below)
How has this led you to think differently about alternatives to war?
What would you add, or change, or question about this?
What can you do to help more people understand about these alternatives to war?
How can you take action to make this alternative to war a reality?
Please share this material widely!
See other posts related to “Why we Think a Peace System is Possible”
See full table of contents for A Global Security System: An Alternative to War
3. In When the World Outlawed War (2011), David Swanson shows how people around the world worked to abolish war, outlawing war with a treaty that is still on the books. (return to main article)