[Jang Eun-su's Reading the World Through Books] The Second Cold War, Time to Further Increase the Gains of Peace

On Memorial Day, while talking with an acquaintance, I heard that the most terrible disaster in the world might be war. The comment was made in reference to Ukraine. Having witnessed the misery of this war over the past three months, I naturally empathized.

War destroys everyday life. It brings pain and fear, terror and grief, anguish and helplessness, despair and frustration. Cities turn to ashes, brutal massacres occur, and looting and assaults are rampant. Food and water supplies are cut off, roads and electricity disappear, and workplaces and schools vanish. On land where hope is destroyed, humans degrade into beasts struggling for survival. Dante wrote at the entrance to hell, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here," and when war breaks out, we encounter such hell alive.

With the war in Ukraine, a "second Cold War" has begun. In the first Cold War, we were Ukraine. We experienced the tragedy of fratricidal conflict and are still enduring the pain of division. Amidst that, we achieved an economic miracle, democratization, and national prosperity. In the second Cold War, it is time to consider the conditions of war and peace so that this land does not suffer unwanted damage.

According to Azar Gat's "War and Peace," the three fundamental forms of social interaction are cooperation, peaceful competition, and violent conflict. Humans solve complex social problems such as resource competition, reproductive struggles, and status contests by appropriately using these three strategies depending on the situation.

War and peace are both engraved in the human genome. To each other, we can be affectionate and intimate beings or mercilessly violent beings. Depending on specific environments and prospects for success, we freely combine cooperation, competition, and conflict to fulfill our desires.

Humans cooperate when the results of joint efforts to acquire and distribute resources exceed those achieved individually. In peaceful competition, all means except direct actions against opponents are used to obtain what is desired, while in violent conflict, direct physical attacks are launched to weaken or eliminate the opponent's capabilities. Humanity has never tried to solve all problems through violence, but has always used violence as a potential means for resource acquisition or deterrence of disputes.

Historically, as civilization progressed, wars decreased while cooperation and competition increased. In the evolutionary natural state, wars were common. About 25% of adult males died from violence. Since the establishment of states 5,000 years ago, violence has gradually been suppressed. A distinction was made between small-scale lethal violence such as murder or revenge and large-scale organized violence like war. The former was suppressed to maintain internal peace, leading to a significant reduction in war mortality rates relative to the population.

War was still preferred, and there were always forces seeking profit through risk-taking. However, as high walls and other defenses made quick and decisive victories difficult, war costs increased and rewards decreased, weakening the motivation for war. The likelihood that the fruits gained after enduring massive human losses and resource depletion would be worthless increased, so wars were often replaced by negotiations. Although defeat was miserable, victory often came with scars, so unless there was a desperate crisis or a certain overwhelming victory, wars were restrained. Trade and war coexisted, and cooperation and conflict alternated.

Since modern times, wars have generally declined sharply. After the Industrial Revolution, the exponential increase in wealth made peace more attractive, and war became a risky investment. Economic development and commercial free trade became more profitable than military conquest, ushering in an era of "modernization peace" that favored peace over war. Decisive and destructive wars between great powers rapidly decreased after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. From 1815 to 1854 (39 years), 1871 to 1914 (43 years), and 1945 to the present (77 years), great powers have not engaged in full-scale wars with each other. War became a declining enterprise, and the durability of peace increased.

Although there were two world wars and the Korean War, advanced powers gradually transformed their territories into "peace zones." Wars occurred between advanced and developing countries or among developing countries. However, in the modern weapons system, economic and military power have a virtuous cycle, making it practically impossible for developing countries to challenge advanced countries, thus strengthening the deterrence of war by advanced countries. Once connected to the global economy, developing countries found investing in modernization more beneficial than expanding military forces. This explains the reduction of wars in Asia and Africa since the 1990s.

Wealth from economic growth promotes peace, urbanization, aging populations, and increased participation of women reduce risks, and sexual liberalization and cultural globalization decrease belligerence. Accordingly, for the first time in history, the possibility of war among advanced liberal democratic countries has approached zero. The past 30 years of globalization have been the peak period of modernization peace.

However, nothing lasts forever. When major actors like the United States or China enter hegemonic competition, modernization peace breaks down. If barriers to free trade are erected, securing territory for energy and food becomes key to economic success, increasing the risk of war. Such situations arise when developing countries accumulate wealth through free trade and then threaten leading countries. In the early 20th century, when Germany challenged Britain, colonial disputes led to world wars. Today, as China rises and approaches the United States, and since the U.S. turned to protectionism after 2008, the second Cold War has begun.

Azar Gat says the new Cold War is a competition between democratic capitalism and authoritarian capitalism. As long as both rely on markets, "modernization peace" will prevail for the time being. However, ideological rivalry, currency wars, arms races, cold wars, limited wars?anything can happen, and more horrifically, small wars in places like the South China Sea could ignite a larger war as in 1914. The Ukraine war is another front in the systemic war.

Global security anxieties are rising. I believe we have sufficient strength to maintain peace and preserve prosperity. When the benefits of peace outweigh those of war, conflicts are restrained. It is time to pool our strength and wisdom and do our best to enhance the appeal of peace on this land.

Jang Eun-su, Literary Critic

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.