Peace and Conflict

Read the four texts. Some texts may match more than one statement.

Text A — Amara, 38, former UN interpreter

I spent eleven years working as an interpreter for UN peacekeeping missions across three continents, and the experience left me with deeply mixed feelings about the organisation. On the ground, the peacekeepers themselves are often remarkable people — dedicated, brave, and genuinely committed to protecting civilians. The problem lies above them, in the political machinery. I watched negotiations collapse repeatedly because a permanent Security Council member chose to protect its own strategic interests rather than support intervention. The UN's principles are admirable. The gap between those principles and the reality of international politics is where peace goes to die. I still believe in the idea of the UN. I just no longer believe it works as it should.

Text B — Marcus, 55, arms industry analyst

The argument that stopping arms manufacturing would stop wars is one of the most persistent and, I would argue, most misleading ideas in peace campaigning. The historical record shows clearly that the availability of weapons does not cause wars — political grievances, resource competition, and ethnic or religious division do. Disarm one side and you simply increase the vulnerability of those who cannot defend themselves. The reality is that a stable balance of military power between nations has been one of the most effective deterrents against large-scale conflict in the post-war period. I understand the emotional appeal of disarmament arguments. I just don't think the evidence supports them.

Text C — Priya, 29, peace studies student

What strikes me most about peace studies is how rarely it appears in mainstream education. Children learn about famous battles and military heroes but almost nothing about the people who worked — often at great personal cost — to prevent or end conflicts. The Christmas Truce of 1914, in which soldiers on opposing sides left their trenches to play football, is one of the most extraordinary moments in modern history. Yet it is taught, if at all, as a curiosity rather than as evidence that even in the most extreme circumstances, human beings can choose connection over violence. I think if we taught peace as seriously as we teach war, the world would be different.

Text D — Gabriel, 62, retired diplomat

I spent thirty-five years in diplomacy and I have come to believe, perhaps surprisingly, that the most dangerous moments in international relations are not when countries are fighting but when one side believes it has already won. Overconfidence after a military victory is one of the most reliable predictors of the next conflict. The peace agreements that last are those that give something to all parties — not perfect justice, but sufficient acknowledgment that the losing side was not entirely wrong. The Treaty of Versailles after the First World War is the textbook example of what not to do: a settlement so punishing that it planted the seeds of the next conflict twenty years later. Peace is not the absence of war. It is the creation of conditions in which war becomes less likely.