War on the decline?

Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard, and Joshua S. Goldstein, professor emeritus of international relations at American University, argue that war is in long-term decline around the world, both in frequency and in deadliness (“War Really Is Going Out of Style,” New York Times, 17 December 2011):

“War” is a fuzzy category, shading from global conflagrations to neighborhood turf battles, so the organizations that track the frequency and damage of war over time need a precise yardstick. A common definition picks out armed conflicts that cause at least 1,000 battle deaths in a year — soldiers and civilians killed by war violence, excluding the difficult-to-quantify indirect deaths resulting from hunger and disease. “Interstate wars” are those fought between national armies and have historically been the deadliest.

These prototypical wars have become increasingly rare, and the world hasn’t seen one since the three-week invasion of Iraq in 2003. The lopsided five-day clash between Russia and Georgia in 2008 misses the threshold, as do sporadic clashes between North and South Korea or Thailand and Cambodia. […]

What about other kinds of armed conflict, like civil wars and conflicts that miss the 1,000-death cutoff? Remarkably, they too have been in decline. Civil wars are fewer, smaller and more localized. Terrible flare-ups occur, and for those caught in the middle the results are devastating — but far fewer people are caught in the middle. The biggest continuing war, in Afghanistan, last year killed about 500 Americans, 100 other coalition troops and 5,000 Afghans including civilians. That toll, while deplorable, is a fraction of those in past wars like Vietnam, which killed 5,000 Americans and nearly 150,000 Vietnamese per year. Over all, the annual rate of battle deaths worldwide has fallen from almost 300 per 100,000 of world population during World War II, to almost 30 during Korea, to the low teens during Vietnam, to single digits in the late 1970s and 1980s, to fewer than 1 in the 21st century. […]

Perhaps the deepest cause of the waning of war is a growing repugnance toward institutionalized violence. Brutal customs that were commonplace for millennia have been largely abolished: cannibalism, human sacrifice, heretic-burning, chattel slavery, punitive mutilation, sadistic executions. Could war really be going the way of slave auctions? Nothing in our nature rules it out. True, we still harbor demons like greed, dominance, revenge and self-deception. But we also have faculties that inhibit them, like self-control, empathy, reason and a sense of fairness. We will always have the capacity to kill one another in large numbers, but with effort we can safeguard the norms and institutions that have made war increasingly repugnant.

None of this, the authors would agree, should be taken as grounds for complacency. The direct and indirect effects of conflict still kill far too many people. A nuclear war could reverse the statistical trend towards declining deadliness in an afternoon. The Middle East remains a powder keg where a major war is far from inconceivable. And our continued headlong drive for economic growth without regard for the limits imposed by a finite planet could lead not just to environmental disaster, but to war on a global scale.

In short, past trends are no guarantee of future performance.

But the declining frequency and deadliness of war is, for the moment at least, a fact, and a fact worth recognizing and celebrating.

Photo by balazsgardi

Tags: Defence policy, Joshua S. Goldstein, Misc..., Nuclear weapons, Steven Pinker, War