War and peace

 The concepts of war and peace, and the prevalence of armed conflict, has been a subject for discussion amongst various people on Twitter lately (See also, Thinking Strategically for an alternative view). One of my cousins has been following some of these discussions, and has this to add: (he refuses to get a Twitter account for fear of losing his thesis - a sensible move, I think!).

I would contend that you and your Twitter friends are too focussed on war. This is a video contending that it is the least violent time ever, as defined by a man dying at the hands of another man, whether that be in a war, a drive by shooting or a fight over the village goat. Which would seem to me to be as objective a measure as we can reach!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

 I would like to take this further. These are issues that are not new, and I will probably be raising more questions than answers, as ever is the case when attempting to define 'war'. But I think it is important to bear these in mind, and chew on them as food for thought.

 David Keen has raised the of the difficulty in distinguishing between war and peace in his article 'War and Peace: What's the difference?' in volume 7 of the International Peacekeeping journal (also partially available on Google Books). In the article he explains the similarities in intra-state conflicts between the time of 'war' and the time of 'peace.'

 Part of our discussion on Twitter covered the concept of whether WikiLeaks and (al-Qa'ida) fall under the jurisdiction of war or peace. Do we treat WikiLeaks as an enemy organisation, with its members as enemy combatants? This is dodgy ground. War-time is often treated as an exceptional situation, with exceptional circumstances that will include the introduction of 'temporary' powers and legislation. This is acceptable in inter-state wars when there are clear-cut declarations of war, and subsequent surrenders.

But in conflicts where the combatants are 'irregular' - whether guerilla fighters such as the IRA or the Taliban, or individuals who are members of a transnational organisation such as al-Qa'ida and WikiLeaks - there is no clear-cut beginning or cessation of hostilities. Indeed, with the case of al-Qa'ida and WikiLeaks, I think it's wise to see them as part of the scenery - they are symptoms of our changing world and are here to stay (indeed, WikiLeaks is not the first whistle-blower organisation, just the loudest, see Cryptome). Laura Donohue completed a study of temporary powers in the United Kingdom between 1922 and 2000, in which she found that 'terminology notwithstanding, there is nothing temporary about temporary emergency legislation.' (Page 85, fn. page 102)

 Since the 1980s the definition of security has been expanding beyond 'military' security to include political, economic, societal and environmental security. Some have criticised this concept of security due to the militarised connotations of 'security'. However, a quick glance at the national security strategies of the United Kingdom (I assume that if the UK is doing it, the US did it first) in the past two decades demonstrate the broad interpretation of security. The 'military' aspects of security aside, considering WikiLeaks and al-Qa'ida with the same attitude one might have toward rising sea levels or an ageing population encourages a calmer long-term, low-key strategic outlook.

 As we embark on the second decade of the twenty-first century, clearly defined wars are becoming less and less common. Conflicts can seem to be very common (due to greater media coverage) and more protracted (to our impatient Western concepts of time). We could interpret this in a Fukuyaman or Kaplanite sense, in which we over-react and declare that the world is now anarchic and without order.

 Alternatively, I think we should see the evolution of security and threats to our security as a good thing, because life is gradually becoming more peaceable (for some more than others, admittedly). If we treat WikiLeaks and al-Qa'ida as part of the fabric of the current age - one dominated by 'peace' - rather than an exceptional circumstance, our response to these threats is likely to be less exaggerated, not over-reactive, and thus less damaging to our everyday lives.

On the Popular Support for Wikileaks

"I want to start a riot."

These were the words of a friend as we headed home from a viewing of V for Vendetta. We were flushed with excitement from the climax of the film, where thousands of people dressed as the protagonist gathered to watch the Houses of Parliament explode into fireworks to the sound of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.

All of us had been stirred by the monumental epicness of the moment, where the people had risen up and removed the despotic Norsefire government.

Many of us were forced to read Nineteen Eighty-Four at school. Those, such as myself, who were not forced to read it but were interested in politics made a point of reading it. We are all well versed in the concept of 'sticking it to the man,' of standing up and destroying the autocratic regime. It's a common theme in literature, film and elsewhere; Equilibrium, The Bourne Identity, Half-Life 2. The list is almost endless.

It's common because it's exciting. It makes good entertainment. People can step into the moment and escape the typically slow-moving and unspectacular process of change in the real world. Even history often focuses on the 'seminal' moments of history such as 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But it is easy to ignore the choices and events in the background of history. If something like Pearl Harbour is the clock striking the hour, it is only sounding because of the 3,600 ticks and tocks that preceded it that one hears the ringing at all.

Wikileaks provides a 'real life' example of sticking it to the man. In the words of one Tweep, the Dept of State has crashed on the highway and the whole internet is rubber-necking while justifying their voyeurism as anti-secrecy.

People naively quote "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." They ignore the fact that we live in the freest nations on the planet. They ignore the fact that the only reason Julian Assange et al are still alive is because they target one of the most open democracies on the planet.

The Cablegate dump has revealed little more than anyone endowed with the barest levels of common sense and knowledge already suspect and knew. It has probably set back the ability for America and other Western countries to work in our national interest.

So people applaud an organisation that remains secret and opaque in the name of openness and transparency, and congratulate its messianic, nihilistic, tyrannical leader as a moral crusader. Meanwhile, those elected and appointed to protect us and to work toward our collective comfort and security attempt to fathom the consequences of this event.

Our democracies are not perfect. But people are spoilt by it, and remain ignorant of what living in true despotism and true corruption is really like. And that sometimes secrets have to be kept, not because the government wants us like sheep, but because it's in the interest of our collective security. We don't yet know if the clock has struck twelve, or if it is merely sounding the quarter hour and the promise of larger things to come.