1. 1
WARS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND HOW TO AVOID THEM IN THE
FUTURE
Fernando Alcoforadoi
ABSTRACT
This article aims to reflect on the war from the beginnings of human history until the
contemporary era, to identify its causes and to outline how to eliminate them in the
future. It was found in this reflection that it is time for humanity to provide the most
urgently the instruments necessary the humanity to take control of their destiny and put
in place a democratic government in the world. The constitution of a democratic world
government would be the only means of survival of the human species.
Keywords: The main conflicts (wars and revolutions) in human history until the early
twentieth century. Major wars in human history during the twentieth century. Major
wars in the history of mankind in the XXI Century. The causes of wars. The imperative
of ending the wars. Towards the Fourth World War. How to eliminate wars on our
planet.
1. The main conflicts (wars and revolutions) in human history until the early
twentieth century
Historians assume that there have always been wars because the documented record of
human history, dating back to 6000 years, there has been only 292 years of relative
peace between peoples. This time period of 55 centuries, however, is only a speck of the
total time of human presence on Earth [See the article by Roberto Junior CP under the
title 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 of
War of John Keegan (Companhia de Bolso, 2006), illustrates the prevailing perception
about: "The written history of the world is largely a story of war, because the states
where we live emerged from conquests, civil wars and struggles for independence.
Moreover, the great statesmen of history were generally men of violence, because even
though they were not warriors - and many were - they understood the use of violence
and did not hesitate to put it into practice for their purposes".
Historical records older already talking of wars and struggles. There is, therefore, to
stun now, at harvest time from all evil actions generated by humanity, the number of
wars 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 the
designation of Medical Wars, have a great importance for the history of the Western
world. They happened because the dispute of land of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), rich

2. 2
in cereals and spices. Darius, king of Persia, decreed that all the Greek colonies in the
region should pay tribute to Persia. This attitude led to a revolt of the colonies that were
aided by Athens against the power of the king [See the article As principais guerras da
história e suas consequências (The main wars of history and consequences) of Felipe
Alexandre 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 Punic
Wars. In the third century BC, Carthage was the main power of the West, controlling
much of the trade and the Mediterranean territory while Rome was a province-based
agro-livestock, but in recent times had been getting successive military victories and has
arrived to control the entire Italian peninsula. It was clear that at some point the
expansionist ambitions of the two would intersect. Using as a pretext the Carthaginian
attack to Numidia, Rome attacked Carthage and this attack was devastating: the city was
sacked, 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 Roman
Empire.
The wars of Rome against the barbarian occurred in the fourth and fifth centuries of our
era. The barbarians were of German descent and lived in the northern and northeastern
Europe and northwestern Asia, at the time of the Roman Empire living in relative
harmony with the Romans until the fourth and fifth centuries. Many Germans were
recruited to join the mighty Roman army. The Romans used the word "barbaric" to all
those who dwelt outside the borders of the empire and who did not speak the official
language of the Romans: Latin. Peaceful coexistence between these peoples and the
Romans took until the fourth century, when a horde of Huns pushed the other barbarians
on the frontiers of the Roman Empire. This century and the next, what we saw was an
invasion, often violently ended by overthrow the Western Roman Empire. In addition to
the arrival of the Huns, one can cite as other reasons that led to the invasion of the
barbarians 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 of
history and its consequences) are analyzed Crusades total of eight, which were
conducted from 1096 to 1244. In the eleventh century, the Arabs (Muslims) dominated
Jerusalem, known as the Holy Land by Christians (because Jesus lived on this site), who
left that Christians should make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem. At the end of this
century, the Turks, the people who came from central Asia, conquered this and other
Middle Eastern lands. As they were also converted to Islam, but much more intolerant
than the Arabs in matters religious, forbade Christians to perform their pilgrimage in the
Holy Land. In 1095, the Church's response came with Pope Urban II, summoning the
faithful for military expeditions aiming to conquer the Holy Land and fight the enemies
of Christianity initiating the movement of the Crusades. Behind this interest, there were
other 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 and
expand trade routes in the East to the commercial cities of the Italian peninsula, like
Venice and Genova.

3. 3
The Franco-Dutch War (1672 - 1678), also known as "Dutch War" was a military
conflict between the Kingdom of France, the Bishopric of Münster, the Electorate of
Cologne 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 United
Provinces (aka Holland), is the support given by this Republic to Spain during the War
of Devolution (1667-1668). To fulfill its purpose, a primary concern of Louis XIV was
to seek the support of England, in a rare moment of understanding between the two
great powers. England joined because he felt threatened by the growing naval power of
Holland and France agreed to support in exchange for financial support of three million
pounds [See the article As principais guerras da história e suas consequências (The
main wars of history and consequences) of Felipe Alexandre Lima Farah et alli posted
on the website <http://gguerras.wordpress.com />].
Another episode of the story presented in the article As principais guerras da história e
suas consequências (The major wars of history and its consequences) was the Thirty
Years War (1618 - 1648) which is the generic name for a series of wars that several
European nations fought against each other from 1618, especially in Germany, for
different reasons: religious rivalries, dynastic, territorial and commercial. The rivalries
between Catholics and Protestants and German constitutional issues were gradually
transformed into a European fight. Despite religious conflicts be the direct cause of the
war, it involved a major political effort of Sweden and France to try to lessen the
strength of the Habsburg dynasty, which ruled Austria. The war became a conflict for
hegemony between the Habsburgs and France. That way, the conflict has expanded to
almost every continent. The hostilities caused serious economic and demographic
problems 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 and
the 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 intermittent
conflicts were the cities and principalities of Germany that suffered very serious
injuries. Many of the fighters were mercenaries who had plunder as main form of
payment for their work. Thus, taking the force, where they passed or stopped the
supplies necessary for their maintenance and profit, a predatory strategy was used that
led to the complete destruction of countless communities. Today it is estimated that the
population of Germany fell 20% during the war. In some regions the decline reached
50% as entire villages disappeared.
The English Revolution of the seventeenth century represented the first manifestation of
systemic 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 the
parliamentary regime that remains today. The process began with the Puritan
Revolution of 1640 and ended with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. Both
are part of the same revolutionary process, hence the name of the English Revolution of
the seventeenth century and not English Revolutions. This revolutionary movement

4. 4
created the preconditions for the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, paving
the way for the advance of capitalism. Should be considered the first bourgeois
revolution in the history of Europe in 150 years anticipating the French Revolution [See
the article As principais guerras da história e suas consequências (The main wars of
history 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 and
1763, between France, Austria and its allies (Saxony, Russia, Spain and Sweden), on
one side, and Britain, Portugal, Prussia and Hanover, another. Several factors triggered
the war: the concern of the European powers with the growing prestige and power of
Frederick II the Great, King of Prussia; disputes between Austria and Prussia for
possession of Silesia, German eastern province, which has the domain Prussian in 1742
during the War of Austrian Succession, and the dispute between Britain and France for
control of maritime trade and colonies of the Indies and North America. It was also
motivated by competition for territories in Africa, Asia and North America [See the text
of 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 (United
States and Canada), already colonized, and recognized their right to expanding its
domain towards the interior of the continent. This possibility appealed to settlers, who
promptly prepared to explore and seize new lands, but to his great surprise, the London
government, fearing trigger wars with the Indian nations, determined that no new
exploration or colonization of territories could be made without signing treaties with the
Indians. This was the first source of conflict between the colonists and the British
Crown.
The War of Independence of the United States (1775-1783), also known as the
American Revolutionary War, began after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763
ended the Seven Years' War. At the end of this conflict, the territory of Canada was
incorporated in England. In this context, the thirteen colonies represented by
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia started having followed and increasing conflicts with the British Crown, which
due to huge spending on war, initiated further exploration on these areas. The American
Revolution of 1776 was a broad-based popular movement, the main engine colonial
bourgeoisie, which led to the independence of the Thirteen Colonies. The United States
was the first country to equip itself with a constitution written policy [See the text
Guerra da Independência dos Estados Unidos (War of Independence of the United
States) available on the website
<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_da_Independ%C3%AAncia_dos_Estados_Unidos
>].

5. 5
The French Revolution relates to events that occurred from 1789 to 1799 that changed
the political and social context of France. The French Revolution was triggered by the
deepening of the economic and social crisis. The economic causes were structural. The
agricultural crisis, which was due to population growth, was also a determinant of the
French Revolution. Between 1715 and 1789, the French population has grown
considerably, between 8 and 9 million. As the amount of food produced was insufficient
and drooped frosts food production, hunger hovered over the French helping to spark
the revolution that begins with the convocation of the States General and the Fall of the
Bastille and ends with the coup of 18 Brumaire of Napoleon Bonaparte. At issue were
the privileges of the clergy and nobility. The French Revolution was influenced by the
ideals of the Enlightenment and of American Independence (1776) (See text Revolução
Francesa (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 summarily
guillotined. Individual rights were suspended, and daily held up to applause popular,
public executions and mass. The Jacobin leader Robespierre, sanctioning summary
executions, announced that France did not need judges, but more guillotines. The result
was the death sentence of 35 000 to 40 000 people. Despite the Jacobin Terror, the
French 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-Jacques
Rousseau.
The sociologist Raymond Aron wrote in The Opium Of The Intellectuals (Transaction
Publishers, 2009) the following, concerning the French Revolution, comparing it with
the English Revolution:
The passage of the Ancien Régime to the modern society is consummated in France with a
break and a unique brutality. From the other side the English Channel in England,
constitutional rule was established progressively, representative institutions come from
parliament whose origins date back to medieval customs. In the eighteenth and nineteenth
century, the democratic legitimacy replaces the monarchical legitimacy without totally
eliminate, the equality of citizens gradually erased the distinction of "states" (nobility, clergy
and people). The ideas of the French Revolution launches in storm across Europe: the
sovereignty of the people, the exercise of authority as a rule, elected assemblies sovereign and
suppression of differences in personal statutes were held in England, sometimes earlier than in
France, 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. And
France took a century to find another system that was accepted by the vast majority of the
nation.
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 of
many countries, including Brazil with the escape of the Portuguese Royal Family to
Brazil in 1808 and the transfer of administration to Rio de Janeiro. In 1815, Brazil was
elevated to "United Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarve". The troubled relationship

6. 6
between the French revolutionaries and European monarchies made the kingdoms of
Austria and Prussia in 1792 to create an alliance to regain the throne of France, known
as the first coalition. The response of the Directory, the highest body of the French
republic comes with organizing his troops for battle, among them one sent to Italy
commanded by the young Napoleon Bonaparte. The first coalition was defeated. That
left only to England, who insisted on fighting alone against France [See the article As
principais guerras da história e suas consequências (The main wars of history and
consequences) 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 planned
the conquest of Egypt. The return of French forces was the asset that led to another
victory 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 of
France. The ideals of the French Revolution expanded throughout the European
continent, which caused an imbalance in the other European nations. The peace lasted in
Europe for a few years until they were formed new coalitions. France defeated Russians
and 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 of
Nations" and at Waterloo in Belgium. After this battle, stuck custody English, General
Napoleon Bonaparte was sent to Saint Helena where he died in 1821, ending the
Napoleonic era.
The French defeat paved the way for England to become the hegemonic power on the
planet with its naval, economic and military power. The Napoleonic wars could spread
Enlightenment ideals of the French Revolution, with the weakening of the European
monarchies that after World War I, would be deposed giving way to democratic
republics 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 British
East India Company and the Qing Dynasty of China from 1839 to 1842 with the aim of
forcing China to allow free trade, mostly opium. Britain called for the opening of the
opium trade, while China's imperial government tried to ban. English merchants were
expelled from China and arrived in London to present a complaint to the British
government, which decided to attack China with its powerful navy to force the Chinese
to buy opium grown in British India. Chinese troops were unable to deal with the
British and surrender to them. By the Treaty of Nanjing, the first of the Unequal
Treaties, granted an indemnity to Britain, open five ports, and the cession to the British
island of Hong Kong for a period of 100 years, ending the monopoly of trade within the
System Canton. Wars are often cited as the end of China's isolation and the beginning of
modern Chinese history [See text Primeira Guerra do Ópio (First Opium War) posted
on the website <http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeira_Guerra_do_%C3%93pio)>].

7. 7
The 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 the
Second French Empire against the Qing Dynasty of China from 1856 to 1860s. This war
can be seen as an extension of the First Opium War, hence the name given to it. In
1856, China breached the Treaty of Nanking. In the treaty, the nation allowed the
opening of five ports to Britain, and those of English rule. In that year, some Chinese
officials boarded and searched the ship British flag Arrow, triggering more conflict
between China and Britain. But this time, the British relied on a new ally: France. The
attacks of the two countries began in 1857. If England, which was already a power of
the time and had ample ability to win the war alone, with the help of the second highest
power, France, became obvious victory of Europeans [See text Segunda Guerra do
Ópio (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, which
guarantees the opening of eleven new ports to the West, and allows freedom of
movement for European merchants and Christian missionaries. To try to manage this
foreign influx, China then created the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which allowed
Western 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 Manchuria
by the Russians and the Japanese. After the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Russians forced
the Japanese to return to Port Arthur, Russian troops occupied the territory and
expanded to Manchuria. Several diplomatic agreements were tried until the Japanese
took possession of the harbor when confronted and defeated their opponents. This was
the first time a European country was overcome by an Asian nation. This war helped to
exacerbate the crisis in his Russian Czarist regime and subsequently triggered the
Russian 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 a
large advantage in the number of soldiers. While the Russian army had 80,000 soldiers
ill 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 day
was 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 and
583 wounded.
2. Major wars in human history during the twentieth century
Despite 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 the
twentieth century. In World War I (1914-1918), died about 9 million people. In 1919
was founded the League of Nations, whose principles were "the prohibition of war, the

8. 8
maintenance of justice and respect for international law." European leaders were
convinced that a new and lasting international order was beginning. For the British
Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, the new international order "put humanity on a
higher 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 wars
of the twentieth century were "total wars" against combatants and civilians without
discrimination. The historian Eric Hobsbawm [A Era dos Extremos (The Age Of
Extremes), Companhia das Letras, 2008] adds: "Without a doubt it was the most
murderous 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 produced
from the greatest famines in history to systematic genocide. The tragedy of the wars in
the twentieth century is also summarized in these words of John Keegan [Uma História
da Guerra (A History of War), Companhia de Bolso, 2006]: "In this century, the
frequency and intensity of wars also distorted the perspective of ordinary men and
women. In Europe West, in the United States, Russia and China, the exigencies of war
have reached most households over two, three or four generations’ call to arms has led
millions of sons, husbands, fathers and brothers to the battlefield , and millions did not
come back".
After the World War II, history repeated itself: was founded the United Nations and
hopes 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 has
been the Third World War. Eric Hobsbawm summarizes the situation after World War
II: "The human catastrophe unleashed by the Second World War is almost certainly the
largest in human history. Looks not least this catastrophe is that mankind has learned to
live 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 in
the death of at least a thousand people per year. By this "technical" criterion since the
end of World War II until the year 1992 there had been 149 wars that killed over 23
million people. In the twentieth century, the number of military confrontations grew
substantially. If only we settled these conflicts properly, without considering short
rebellions, military coups and even genocide, we find that throughout the twentieth
century there were 107 wars. In the twentieth century, until 1995, without regard to the
First and Second World War, there were, by the same criteria, a total of 241 wars, of
which 166 hatched in 1950. No less than 70 countries were involved in wars from 1994
to 1997.
In a speech in 1992, the UN Secretary-General admitted that since the creation of the
United 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
was less peaceful history, and cites the following comment from a researcher: "More
people have been killed by wars in this century than in all previous human history
together." According to an article published by The Washington Post, since the end of
World War II the world met 160 wars, which killed about 7 million soldiers and 30
million civilians. These figures do not include, of course, the millions of victims of
violent crimes throughout the Earth in the last 50 years. The former Secretary of the
U.S. State Zbigniew Brzezinski made an estimate covering all " mega deaths " that have
occurred since 1914 and reached a total of 187 million dead [See the article Conflitos
bélicos (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 global
nuclear power and the news leaked lately about the development of nuclear weapons
shows that this hope too has no reason to be. In addition, the human never invented a
weapon that had not used. Experts Robert Norris and William Arkin, responsible for the
publication Nuclear Notebook, claim that nuclear weapons dismantled so far by the
United States and Russia, under arms reduction treaties, were obsolete equipment, and
that the two countries continue with their programs development and renewal of their
nuclear arsenals.
In 1970, when it entered into force the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United
States and the Soviet Union together had 7,455 nuclear warheads. In 1995, after over
two treaties limiting nuclear weapons, the other two reductions of these weapons, and
the deactivation of about 7,000 warheads, the United States and Russia together had
16,900 nuclear warheads, capable, according to estimates, the end Life on Earth 14
times. In 1997, according to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the two countries
had stocked in their territories 21,550 warheads. In this atomic race, only the United
States has spent about $ 4 trillion, and continues to spend another 33 billion dollars per
year to maintain its strategic nuclear weapons ready for use anytime. The expert Brian
Hall reported that the Pentagon will book between 3000 to 4000 nuclear warheads
above the ceiling specified by the first arms reduction treaty, as a "safety margin" to
counter possible future hostile relations with Russia.
The result of the global investment in this sector is that the destructive power of the
nuclear arsenal on the planet today is equivalent to 4.2 tons of TNT for every person on
the planet. This, of course, if these estimates correspond to reality. France claims to
have 500 nuclear warheads, China 300 warheads and Britain 250 warheads. It is
estimated that Israel has about 200 warheads, India 20 warheads and Pakistan 10
warheads. With the end of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have
been 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 also
suspected that North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons. Taiwan and South
Korea have also attempted to deploy their nuclear weapons programs. Even Switzerland

10. 10
has developed a program to build nuclear weapons, active until 1988 according to a
Swiss military historian. There are estimates that the nuclear nations currently possess
more than 30,000 warheads, others say up to 45,000 warheads. It is impossible to know
exactly the right number.
On May 29, 1995 China tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile launched from
mobile base (harder to detect). This type of missile can carry nuclear warheads to
targets up to 8000 km distant. On May 15, 1995, China had made an underground
nuclear test, hours after signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims
precisely 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 had
done 1,030. One difference insufficient to deter some Chinese officials, who threatened
to rain atomic bombs on Los Angeles, the United States defended cases in Taiwan
further invasion by China. Taiwan, incidentally, is already preparing for any
eventuality: in April 1998, the country has tested "successfully" their own supersonic
missile.
Other countries also contribute significantly to the assembly of nuclear nightmare. In
August 1997, the British magazine Jane's Intelligence said Israel might be tempted to
launch a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran, as his arsenal was vulnerable to an
attack. At the same time, the Indian prime minister said he would not accept pressure to
review 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-American
report 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 new
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari threatened: "We will pursue all options, including
nuclear, to protect the security and national sovereignty. " In April 1998, Pakistan, India
belligerent 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 stored
the 700 tons of nuclear material in the production of weapons grade, has adequate
security. According to an article published by Reader's Digest in June 1997, about 33
tons of plutonium is stored in Chelyabinsk-65 complex, southwestern Russia, an old
warehouse, with windows and a lock on the door, in the port of Murmansk, near
Finland, 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 unauthorized
launches of Russian nuclear weapons [See the article Conflitos bélicos (Conflict war) by
Roberto 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 strike
with nuclear weapons in case of a threat." In June, the country has tested "successfully"

11. 11
launch the ICBM SS-19, 27m in length operating range of 10,000 km and capacity for
six nuclear warheads. A report on the release reported that in addition to checking the
efficiency of the missile test aimed to demonstrate that Russia retained its ability to
respond to a surprise attack. In October, the Washington Times reported that Russia was
reducing spending on conventional weapons and expanding investments in its nuclear
shield. In December, the CIA warned that some Russian officials wanted to include in
the security doctrine the option of "limited use" of nuclear weapons, to prevent a
regional conflict is magnified.
The harbingers of war go beyond. In 1996, American spy satellites have discovered that
the Russians were building a huge secret military complex in the Ural Mountains,
despite the monumental economic crisis that plagued the country for years. The Russian
military expert Pavel Felgengauer confirmed that the base, known as "dead hand", was
designed to initiate called "second strike", ie a massive nuclear retaliation to a surprise
attack. The system would work automatically after an enemy attack. In the United
States, a few months after this news, the Air Force signed a contract for more than a
billion dollars to a consortium of companies to develop a system of airborne laser
capable of destroying ballistic missiles in flight. The stated goal was to protect troops
and bases missile armed with conventional warheads, chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons.
Currently, handguns are developing laser acoustic whirlwind of causing shock waves
and microwaves. Until the advent of the Fourth World War, human ingenuity will
continue to be applied predominantly in those things, always with great success. If
World 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 against
the forces that foment wars. It´s demonstrated increasingly stupidity, arrogance of the
ruling elites of certain countries and their rulers, they never learn the lessons of the past
and continue to use violence and force to plunder the people of the world and take
possession of wealth of smaller nations, helpless and suffering the humiliation of
foreign 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 not
conceive that humanity continues to wage war, to raise fences and walls, when it should
return his gaze upward, to the grandeur of the universe, leave this ignorant world you
live in and see that we are just a single grain of sand in the cosmos. We could develop
more 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 and
children. 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 reality
and the condemnation of the innocent.
Article A tendência dos Conflitos Armados (The trend of armed conflict) prepared by
Martín Chahab (See website

12. 12
<http://www.achegas.net/numero/29/martin_chahab_29.htm)>, there is the assertion
that, in the course of the two World Wars century, humanity has lost over 70 million
lives: from 1945 until the fall of the Soviet Union, the 40-year Cold War, died on the
planet about 17 million people in armed conflicts and wars between 1990 and 2003 led
over 3 million lives. In all armed conflicts of the twentieth century caused about 90
million deaths.
However the trend of casualties in armed conflicts has decreased, although the amount
of these conflicts has taken a reverse direction. Since the end of World War II has been
triggered more armed conflicts around the planet than in previous centuries and this
trend seems to be increasingly emphasized. In summary, the twenty-first century is
shaping up as a world in constant conflict.
One way to understand this antagonistic relationship between the number of deaths in
conflicts and the number of these conflicts through the ages, is raising a hypothesis
linking the structure of the international system with the armed conflict: the more states
concentrate power in international relations more conflicts armed the world will be and
more deaths produced by them. This leads to a complementary hypothesis very
suggestive: in a bipolar world will be produced fewer armed conflicts between states
and consequently fewer fatalities. Looking at the historical statistics we see that the
international system, finalized at the end of World War II, caused more than 70 million
dead until the twentieth century, the bipolar system during the Cold War generated 16.5
million casualties in armed conflicts and that the current unipolar system governed by
the 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, nearly
5 million deaths.
What is the conclusion one draws from this situation? One can interpret these data in the
sense that humanity takes better care of herself when there is a concentration of power
in a single state or when the existence of a hegemonic power that controls the other
states less war between them and, consequently, fewer deaths. The unipolar system
shows that there are fewer armed conflicts between member states of the international
system. This finding indicates that the war can be abolished if a world government
legitimized by all countries of the world.
On the other hand one can interpret this trend of armed conflicts in the world today
injecting new variables and the issue is no longer present as simple as it seems and
unidirectional. In the above-cited article The trend of armed conflict prepared by Martín
Chahab it is evident that in reality there are more armed conflicts in the world today
than in previous stages, but the types of conflicts are shifting. Since the end of the Cold
War we observe the growth of conflicts within states or intrastate, while conflicts
between states or inter-state have maintained the same frequency before 1990 (Figure
1). Between 1946 and 1989 (Figure 2) there were 718 intra-state conflicts and from
1990 to 2004 there were 429. If the current frequency was the same as in the Cold War
207 would intra-state armed conflicts but the figure is greater than twice. This means

13. 13
that the logic that drives these conflicts has changed. There are more conflicts within
states after the Cold War. While there is more peace among states in the international
system, records the occurrence of more war within national states (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - all intensities conflicts between 1946 and 2002
Source: Chahab, Martín. The trend of Armed Conflict (See
<http://www.achegas.net/numero/29/martin_chahab_29.htm)>)
Figure 2 - Armed conflict 1946-2003
Source: 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 International
Conflict Research, in its annual publication of the Conflict Barometer, has shown that
many of these interstate conflicts in the world are being solved at the level of latency
through negotiations and that a dwindling number of them comes to a civil war. The
Gráfico 1: Conflictos de todas las intensidades entre 1946 y 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Fuente: Center for Systemic Peace
Interestatal
Intraestatal
Gráfico 2: Conflictos Armados desde 1946
hasta 2003
718
429
211
64
929
493
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1946-1989 1990-2003
Fuente: Center for Sy stemic Peace
Intraestatal
Interestatal
Total

14. 14
recent uprisings in the Arab world deny this trend. This may be an important reason for
understanding the reduction of armed conflict between states. At first glance it would
seem that cooperation between states is preventing wars possible to hatch, but in fact
what has prevented many conflicts pass of the non-violent to violent has been the work
of several international organizations such as the United Nations Organization of
American States, European Union Economic and Monetary Community Center, the
Economic Community of Western States, and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, among others.
3. Major wars in the history of mankind in the XXI Century
The current trend of interstate armed conflicts in the world is no longer binding, as
before the interests of the State, such as a territory, sovereignty or political power, but to
the technological development and commercial supremacy, and this dispute by field of
technology nor relates with the war industry, but with the ability to control international
trade. We then have a new premise: the greater world trade based on cooperation among
states, 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 increase
in 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 conflicts
between states also bringing with it a significant change in the systems of individual and
collective security. Therefore, in this scenario it is important to rethink that there are
systems of defense of the States and groups of States. In the present context the
explanation derive the existence of new threats such as international terrorism, the
production of weapons of mass destruction, etc. But this is an incomplete analysis of the
issue and does not characterize trends in the long term, beyond simple contextual
explanation.
Consider one of these trends. Suppose a new paradigm of international relations after
the Cold War: the clash of civilizations. According to this theory the new wars would be
linked to the confrontation between the different civilizations of the world. Samuel
Huntington [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 with
Muslim civilization but also an alliance between Muslims and Confucians (China),
which seek to destroy the Western supremacy and Christian. The cultural wars of the
future would be centered in the religious aspect. However, based on the article by
Andrej Tusicisny (2004), observed that, using the Huntington categories of analysis
conflicts between different civilizations, not produced what the author had alleged in his
famous and suggestive article and there are also no indicators that will happen (Figure
3). 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 the
United 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
1989, 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 between
1946 and 2000
Source: Tusicisny, Andrej, Civilizational Conflict: More Frequent, Longer, and Bloodier '. Journal of
Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004.
One can conclude that the higher the technological development with the increase of
global trade, less war between states and fewer deaths. Therefore we started to believe
that global trade is that it has slowed conflicts between states, but it should be noted that
this increase in global trade is rooted in technological development. However, GDP
growth in different States is based on a greater or lesser exploitation of natural resources
around the world, technological development and this, in turn, has been made possible
by the exploitation of non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas. As technology and
global trade advances are depleted natural resources that sustain this growth. In this
sense, if humanity does not change its structure dependent on these same exhaustible
resources that operate their industries and means of transportation, we believe that there
will 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 the
exclusive representatives of these global companies. These new actors, which partly
dominate the global world need also natural resources of the states where they are
located to meet and sustain their interests. States like the United States, England, Spain,
France, Germany, Australia, Canada, among others, represent the interests of these
companies. Global companies can fuel armed conflict against states that hold abundant
natural 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 depression
after the 2008 crisis. Two countries, China and India have been growing steadily over
Gráfico 5: Comparación de los Conflictos entre Civilizaciones
y todos los Conflictos entre 1946 y 2000
Conflictos Totales
Conflictos entre
Civilizaciones0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Fuente: Andrej Tusicisny, Universityof Matej Bel

16. 16
7% per year, and both have a dependency immense oil and gas as all developed
countries. If we reflect realistically about this situation, one can assume that soon there
will be a confrontation between China and India and developed countries in search of
these natural resources, but it would not be likely in view of the current scenario of
globalization and interdependence. Both China and India have maintained a direct
relationship with the external world's most developed countries like the United States,
Japan, Germany and France and bilateral trade with both these powers has grown at
unprecedented levels. Multinational companies from these countries come to installing
the giants of Asia and China is the second holder of U.S. bonds. In this sense economic
cooperation has played a key role in these economic ties between Western and Eastern
countries avoid questions that would generate some kind of conflict.
But cooperation is only possible in a world of abundance. Scarcity no friends, there are
only rivals. It is known that the reserves of oil and gas in the world have their days
numbered. Unless you put the layout technologies that work with other types of energy
and there is a global technology transfer may reappear typical conflicts for scarce
natural resources that have shaken humanity throughout its history. This type of armed
conflict, as old and new at the same time, could reappear on the planet, since not only
among rival states, but also with new actors like the private armies of the large
multinational companies that seek to defend their interests.
The cooperation and global trade have their limits on the basis of their own
development. Although one might think, thanks to technological advances, humanity
will escape from dependence on scarce natural resources by another type of energy, it is
important to remember that there are too many interests disrupting this pathway.
4. The causes of war
Why the world becomes more violent every year? Not only is an increase in the number
of armed conflicts around the world, as the people themselves are more violent. A
simple traffic quarrel may end in death. People calm, sociable and become apparently
normal, 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 distant
time would have had the idea of assaulting his fellow. Nor even, they would be able to,
for example, to attach your neighbor's 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 that
time with humanity today. At that time, living in peace and harmony with their fellow
human beings was for something as natural as breathing, eating and sleeping. Humans
have lived on Earth, without offending or mistreat each other, much less war against
each other. This, however, was a long, long time. No record of that time came to the
present, and so it is assumed that this situation did not exist.

17. 17
According to Raymond Aron (1962), as the man's life is organized in families and
flocks, might seem less likely in the conduct properly bellicose. Most animals fight, but
they 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 each
combatant by the discipline of the whole. In this sense, the war cannot be prior to the
formation of teams, social phenomenon that implies the existence of society. We will
meet in the first Sumerian evidence of troops with military training.
Homo sapiens appeared about 600,000 years. The Neolithic Revolution, agriculture and
animal husbandry regular dating back some 10,000 years. Complex societies or
civilizations arose about 6,000 years. This means that the period is termed historic one
hundredth of the total duration of the existence of humanity on planet Earth. According
to Aron (1962), no anthropologist has ever found any evidence that the men had
prepared an organization or a combat tactic before age Bronze Age (1300-700 BC to
3300 BC). Not surprisingly, the first indisputable evidence of armies and war date back
to the Bronze Age is a period in which civilization was the development of this alloy
resulting 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 consider
violence as a characteristic of the human being. One can speculate whether there would
have been an intermediate stage between the many millennia during which the man
lived under the threat of wild beasts and period, much shorter, the threat to your safety
has to come out of other men. It would be a time when men possessed sufficient
technical means to defend against the beasts and without engaging in the pursuit of
wealth and the class struggles, achievements and areas. It is shown that small companies
without 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), that
the origin of the war is the existence of property, individually or collectively, and how
humanity is predestined to property, by its structure, the war would be natural. People
who fear the lack of food and raw materials they need to judge threatened by hunger and
unemployment, are capable of anything. To survive, they are ready to attack. Thus are
born the wars authentic, adjusted to its essence. JJ Rousseau thought that wars arise, or
at least expanded, with the expansion of local and class inequality and individual
ownership are linked to wars of conquest and domination by the warriors. Could not be
otherwise, since the political units were forged for combat and the price of victory was
always the land, slaves and precious metals. Marx and Engels argue that social conflicts
are resulted from the division of society into classes with the emergence of private
property to replace the collective ownership of the means of production prevailing in
primitive societies.
Raymond Aron (1962) argues that biologists call aggressiveness propensity of an
animal to attack another of the same species or different species. In most species (but

18. 18
not all) subjects battle each other. Some are not aggressive (ie, do not take the initiative
to attack), but defend themselves when attacked. Among primates, man lies at the
bottom of the scale of aggressiveness. While animal is relatively combative. In other
words, just one little intense stimulation to get him to trigger aggression.
Aron says that among the higher vertebrates, groups often manifest aggressiveness with
respect to individuals who do not belong to their community. In humans, however, the
manifestations of aggression are inseparable from collective life. Even when it comes
from the reaction of an individual against another, the aggressiveness is influenced in
many ways by the social context. The emergence of a social existence itself was not the
sole cause of the new dimensions that took the phenomenon of aggression: the
frustration and inadequacy resulting from aggressive reaction are the most important
fact in human relations.
Aron is defender of the thesis that the frustration is a psychic experience, revealed by
consciousness. All individuals feel frustration since childhood. The frustration is above
all the experience of deprivation, ie, a well-intended and not achieved, oppression felt
painfully. The causal chain that leads to emotions or acts of aggression originates
always in an external phenomenon. There is no physiological evidence that there is an
incitement to the spontaneous struggle originated in the individual's own body. Physical
aggression and the will to destroy not the only possible reaction to frustration. The
difficulty 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 she
calls the biological justification of violence. These thinkers attribute to a dimension
expansionist power and a natural inner need to grow. The violent action in this context
is explained as a strategy to give new vigor to the power and stability. Arendt disputes
that view, saying that "nothing could be theoretically more dangerous than the
organicist tradition of thought in political affairs, through which power and violence are
interpreted in biological terms".
Arendt argues that "neither violence nor power are natural phenomena, that is, a
manifestation 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 to
start something again. Arendt dismisses organic metaphors of violence as a disease of
society. The distortion of the phenomenon of violence in Hannah Arendt's refusal to
join the historical process with the struggle for survival and violent death in the animal
kingdom and give the meaning of politics as determining human.
Arendt reluctant to associate violence with the power or the State: The power is in fact
the essence of all government, but violence. Thus, all previous tradition in refusing to
equate political power with the organization of the means of violence and consensus to
accept that violence is the most flagrant manifestation of power. His argument is
processed in order to refute statements like Wright Mills (All politics is a struggle for
power, the basic form of power is violence), Max Weber (The domination of man by

19. 19
man based on media legitimate violence) or Bertrand de Jouvenel (To him who
contemplates the course of ages, the war is presented as an activity that belongs to the
essence of the States).
5. The imperative of the end of war
Everything suggests that the wars of the twenty-first century will be the fulcrum as the
battle for natural resources that tend to run out. Our development model is reaching its
limits. If we consider the example of China, in 2003, it consumed 30% of oil and only a
very 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 1.3
billion people live according to the standards of developed countries? There will be a
huge impact on the demand for natural resources. Even before the depletion of natural
resources, 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 some
countries can change. China, for example, has followed during the past few decades,
prudent economic policies: free trade, to sell products to the world market, buying
Treasury securities in the United States to offset the trade deficit in this country. But in
the near future, there will be a conflict if not widespread economic measures at
international level to avoid this "economic war". Thus, taking into account the scarcity
of resources that should occur, it is certainly for the battle for resources that the world is
not going to a war of civilizations as suggested by Samuel Huntington in his book O
Choque de Civilizações (The Clash of Civilizations) that we are witnessing. If the
international dialogue is to establish a common goal based on the values of all
civilizations will certainly be to the battle for resources that the world is going.
According to Bernard Nadoulek (Eyrolles, 2005), despite the resurgence of extremist
aspects not happen the clash of civilizations. Despite being the real fundamentalist
protests from all sides and terrorist acts claimed in the name of religion, the clash of
civilizations will fail. And this for three reasons. The first reason, because cultural
differences have not been the cause of wars. Nadoulek recognizes, however, that the
more civilized nature of our own culture has often been used as a discourse to justify an
act of aggression vis-à-vis a country in another culture. The second reasons come from
the fact wars submitting an ethnic, religious or occur more frequently among members
of a civilization, or between people who live in situations of proximity. Finally, the third
reason, most important, respect specifically to the 'identity'. Is not the foreigner who
lives far away, you want to occasionally kill him but the next door neighbor, your
neighbor. According to Bernard Nadoulek the current confrontation between the United
States 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, the
real problem with respect to our model of industrial development that causes pollution
and 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 the
world. Wars for oil, water wars, wars for land, air wars. Where there is oil there are

20. 20
conflicts. No matter to what extent the appearance of a culture war appear linked to the
invasions 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 European
Studies of the University of Paris VIII and a member of the Advisory Committee on
Disarmament with the Secretary-General of the United Nations says in his book Vers La
4e. 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 and
departed quickly to replace it as a unifying factor in progress in the South West under
the leadership of the United USA. The discourse on the clash of civilizations has given
support to the foreign policy of the United States war on terror, especially after the
attack 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 bloody
borders and wars that Islam was unleashed in greater numbers and bloodier than those
of other civilizations. However, it is not necessary to have an encyclopedic knowledge
to highlight the fact that neither of the two World Wars was triggered by Islam, nor the
Chinese 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-Palestinian
conflict is the array of a possible clash of civilizations. First, because Huntington does
not speak of this conflict in his book devoted a few lines to say that Jews are not a
civilization but they were assimilated by Western civilization. According to Boniface,
this conflict is relatively small, even in terms of physical destruction and deaths, when
compared to other contemporary conflicts, such as those occurring in Africa or
Chechnya.
The big difference is that in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which criticizes
the Western world in general and America in particular, is not indifference, but active
complicity with Israel. Without the full solidarity of Americans toward Israel, would not
be possible for this country to maintain the military occupation of the Palestinian
territories, 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 far
beyond their geographical location and the attitude of the protagonists. The continuation
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contrary not only to the strategic stability in the
region and the world, but also to the national interest of the United States because it
undermines their relations with the Arab countries.
For Boniface, there is a triple deadlock in how it is conducted the fight against
terrorism. Effects are treated, but are not attacked the root causes of the problem. This
does not mean that there is no need to have a military component and the judiciary in
the fight against terrorism. Even with the elimination of Bin Laden did not end

21. 21
terrorism. What is needed is the political deal that can help a terrorist being supported at
a 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 more
effectively when there were real prospects for peace in the region and cooperation
between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.
Unlike the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed because it could not keep up
economically and technologically the West, there was nothing like the war against
terrorism. Complete protection is impossible because local officials may be protected,
but there are always, schools, hospitals, theaters, which are potential targets. It´s not
possible 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 military
spending to the United States.
Pascal Boniface says that the idea of a Fourth World War is being developed by
American neoconservatives who believe that the Cold War was World War III and the
war against Islam or terrorism, they use both words often so indifferent, would be the
fourth. Your policy is based on confrontation. They believe that political problems can
only be resolved by the use of force. Military force is a universal answer. The problem
is that the current policy of the United States, claiming to refute the thesis of the clash
of 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 Third
World War, the Cold War, to form a block, under the leadership of the United States. In
this sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, once marginal, has become an important issue
that goes beyond the regional level. The future of international security is at stake in this
area that has become the epicenter of a potential conflict of civilizations. However, it is
not inevitable. There is still time, if adopting a policy of good will to stop the vicious
circle that threatens to bring the world to ruin. It is imperative to avoid this scenario
described from happening.
7. How to eliminate wars on our planet
The current situation of the planet is dramatic. Humanity feels overwhelmed by the
great powers in the service of monopoly groups run their economies and to do
everything to defend their interests, disregarding laws, cultures, traditions and religions.
Invasions in peripheral countries, openly or surreptitiously, with unconvincing
arguments are part of everyday life of the great powers in their relentless pursuit for
world 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 the
world? This is a challenging and thought by many ancient philosophers such as
Immanuel Kant to this topic in his The perpetual peace. In 1795, Kant launched this
booklet that had great success with the public worship of his time. It was a project that
aimed to establish a perpetual peace among the peoples of Europe, and then spread it all

22. 22
over the world. It was a manifesto in favor of Enlightenment permanent understanding
among men. The main objective of Kant was to eliminate war that has always been seen
by him as something that prevented mankind's efforts towards a decent future for
humans. How to accomplish this?
Kant proposes in Perpetual Peace fundamentals and principles necessary for a free
federation of states which should not take the form of a world state, as this would result
in an unlimited absolutism. Also can not have a sovereign power that allows interfere in
the internal affairs of States free. Should be a federation of Free States in which all have
republican constitutions. The ultimate goal of this federation would be the promotion of
the highest good, which is the true peace between states, ending the disastrous war, to
which all States have always turned their efforts, as order page.
Kant sought to end the "state of the international nature" that characterized international
relations so far. It should be noted that the term "state of nature" was defined by the
philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan. According to Hobbes, the "state of
nature", the absence of law reigns, so there is no room for justice. In this context, all
seeking to defend their rights by force. In the "state of nature" thus conceived as
Hobbes, reigns the war of everybody against everybody. The state of nature is therefore
the state of freedom without external law, that is, no one can be forced to respect the
rights of others nor can be sure that others will respect its much less can be protected
against acts of violence of others.
In practice, even after the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 that put an end to the
disastrous Thirty Years' War in Europe, international relations from the time of Kant did
not differ fundamentally from today. Today, as then, we are experiencing the "state of
the international nature" with the upsurge of violence in international politics. Hannah
Arendt says in his work On Violence that the practice of violence as any action changes
the world, but the most probable change is a more violent world.
Kant's Perpetual Peace was not put into practice because the assumption for its
implementation would be to overcome the root causes of political violence generating
wars and revolutions that have characterized the history of mankind. This means that
there 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 social
scale and at international level, for one hand, with the elimination of disparities in
economic and social development between the rich and the poor and on the other, the
dispute between the great powers for world power.
The conquest of perpetual peace could only happen if these contradictions were
eliminated. Mankind has to acquire the knowledge that will only be possible to
eliminate the political violence that leads to war of everybody against everybody in the
national and international levels since the contradictions above indicated that still
prevailing disappear in the world in which we live. Internationally, unlike what occurred
in 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
successive wars, today faced also with organizations independent terrorists such as Al
Qaeda.
The emergence of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda makes it put into question
the current interstate system resulting from post-war in 1945. This situation makes it
becomes imperative to create a new international legal and political superstructure to
address these new issues. The fact that there is a new international legal and political
superstructure to treat contemporary terrorism does not justify the government of a
country like the United States also act outside the law, that is, the current international
law 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 to
hunt and capture Bin Laden, but without invading another sovereign country like
Pakistan without their permission and murder him in cold blood without offering him
the right of defense. This type of procedure is similar to someone who does not believe
in the justice of his country, he decides to take justice into their own hands. It is
permissible to imagine that, with the use of intelligence and not violence, it would be
possible to reach Bin Laden. One of the reasons why the United States is losing its
power to influence the world lies in the fact of wanting to solve international problems
through 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 of
the region and its people, acting proactively in promoting the development of these
countries, as well as provide them with technological resources to monitor and track
down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The smart way to work in the region would mean
gaining the support of local governments and their populations to isolate Bin Laden and
Al Qaeda. There is no doubt that the U.S. government would have arrested Bin Laden
no longer had it acted in this way, ie with intelligence.
According to the highest principles of civilization, the U.S. government should send Bin
Laden to be judged by the International Tribunal in The Hague, as happened to the
former president of Yugoslavia, Milosevic, accused of the crime of genocide. Without
the adoption of this type of procedure, U.S. will be jeopardizing the highest principles
that 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 that
influence the life of humans in society organized as Karl Marx says or will result, only a
natural 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 man
would be no more than a reflection of the most fundamental characteristics of man as a
species: the savage instincts, aggressiveness as the engine of development, laziness and
complacency as factors maintaining the domination of the weak by the strong. But if we

24. 24
come to the conclusion that man isn´t a wolf to man, that man does not kill and does not
overwhelm the other for pleasure or instinctive compulsion, the way will be open for
seeking other forms of society that allow human beings to live in a different manner
from what occurs nowadays.
Peace has been defined as the absence of war. The formula of Clausewitz (war as the
continuation of politics by other means) is replaced today by the inverse formula:
politics becomes the continuation of war by other means. Historically, the search for
peace between nations presented three characteristics: the balance, the hegemony and
empire. This means that the forces of the nations will be in balance, or be dominated by
one among them, or are overcome by the forces to the point of a unit that all other lose
their autonomy and tend to disappear as centers of political decision. Enough is thus the
imperial state, which holds a monopoly on violence.
Between peacekeeping and peace equilibrium situation and the situation of empire is
peace of hegemony. The absence of war is not related to the approximate equality of
forces that reigns in the political units, preventing any of them, and any coalition of
these units to impose their will. Rather, it is linked to the unquestionable superiority of
one of the units. The hegemonic state does not seek to absorb the units reduced to
impotence, not abusing its hegemony, and respects the external forms of independence
of States. The hegemon does not aspire to the status of empire. Hegemony is a form of
precarious balance.
It is time for humanity to provide the most urgently needed instruments as possible to
take 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 other
means can build a world in which every woman, every man of today and tomorrow
have the same rights and the same duties, and in which the interests of the planet, all life
forms and future generations would be finally taken into account, in which all the
sources of growth would be used in an environmentally and socially sustainable.
A world government would not replace the governments of each nation. The world
government would aim to defend the general interests of the planet that may conflict
with the interests of each nation. He would work towards every State to respect the
rights of each citizen of the world seeking to prevent the spread of the global systemic
risks. He would avoid the empire of one and anarchy of all. The world government
might emerge from a war or be designed to prevent their return. Actions to constitute a
global governance has been the subject of Concert Nations in 1815, the League of
Nations in 1920 and of the United Nations in 1945 that were in vain because the world
government would not have any means to make decisions or to put into practice
sanctions against those who do not comply.
A world government could result in future of major systemic disasters such as extreme
ecological crisis, the economic crisis of great magnitude, expansion of an economy
organized crime, the fall of a meteorite on the planet and the advancement of terrorist

25. 25
movement 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 the
planet. No country wants a world government. However, the economic crises, financial,
ecological, social, and political development of illegal and criminal activities today
show the urgency of a world government. One must understand that the world market
cannot function properly without the rule of international law. The rule of international
law cannot be applied and respected in the absence of a world government that is
accepted by all countries. A world government will only have legitimacy and be
sustainable if it is truly democratic.
Mankind has to understand that has everything to gain by uniting around a democratic
government 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 be
built not only organize the relations among men on earth, but also their relationship with
nature. It is necessary, therefore, to be drawn up a contract that allows the global social
economic and social development and rational use of nature's resources for the benefit
of all mankind. The building of a new world order based on these principles is urgent. A
world government will exist in future even after a disaster happens. It is urgent to think
about it before it's too late.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARENDT, Hannah. On Violence. Harvest Book, 1970.
ARON, Raymond. Paz e Guerra entre as nações. Brasília: Editora Universidade de
Brasília, 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 suas
consequências. 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
JÚNIOR, 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>.
i
Alcoforado, Fernando, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the
University 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, São
Paulo, 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 do
desenvolvimento 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 Era
Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social
Development-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 do
Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.