If Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s Little Prince were to ask today’s world leaders to draw him not a sheep, but peace, it is likely that many would illustrate, just like the aviator in the story, with a box. Particularly in the West.
This wouldn’t be to sidestep the Little Prince’s requests, however. They would intentionally draw a large box of ammunition because, for many, the world is back to the “peace through strength” model, where realpolitik and military deterrence seem to be the only arguments of the hour to ensure “peace.”
But does peace absolutely have to come through force, through confrontation? Shouldn’t it be thought of more like the relationship between the fox and the Little Prince, that is, something that needs to be tamed over time to create bonds?
This image came to mind while listening to a recent conference titled “International Security: Back to the Future,” presented by the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at UQAM. The speakers highlighted that we are back in a moment where the game of the great powers (United States, Russia, China) dictates the state of the world, as I also mentioned last December in a column about the American intervention in Venezuela.
As the question of peace solutions in a confrontational world was only briefly touched upon during the conference, it seemed important to delve deeper into it.
“Currently, diplomacy is being exercised coercively, under military pressure. In these conditions, peace negotiations are no longer what they used to be,” notes Charles-Philippe David, founder of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair and participant in the conference.
According to him, three reasons push the “diplomacy of peace” into oblivion. First, bilateral agreements are preferred over multilateral discussions. It seems outdated, the time when one could say the more people adhere to negotiation values, the greater the chances of obtaining a lasting and trustworthy agreement.
Furthermore, the UN, as the mediation hub par excellence, is increasingly being sidelined, marginalized.
And then, medium powers like Canada, Norway, Japan, and South Korea are taking a back seat on the global stage and are fading in front of the omnipotence of the great powers leading the game.
“The great powers have always led. But never to this extent, and especially never looking so alike. The United States didn’t look like Russia or China. But we are witnessing a kind of ‘putinization’ of American foreign policy that is really worrying,” analyzes Charles-Philippe David, who will publish a book on the subject in March, titled “The World in Peril: The End of Pax Americana” (Somme Toute editions).
(Continued…)
