Today I come to declare another reason for optimism: war is on the decline globally. Really.
Take a look at these two articles. The first is in The New Republic (registration required, but free four-week registration available and well worth it). The second in the New York Times (registration required).
But aren’t we living in the latter days? Shouldn’t there be more “wars and rumors of wars?” What is going on here?
First, let’s look at the details. Please read the below from The New Republic.
Five years ago, two academics–Monty Marshall, research director at the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University, and Ted Robert Gurr, a professor of government at the University of Maryland–spent months compiling all available data on the frequency and death toll of twentieth-century combat, expecting to find an ever-worsening ledger of blood and destruction. Instead, they found, after the terrible years of World Wars I and II, a global increase in war from the 1960s through the mid-’80s. But this was followed by a steady, nearly uninterrupted decline beginning in 1991. They also found a steady global rise since the mid-’80s in factors that reduce armed conflict–economic prosperity, free elections, stable central governments, better communication, more “peacemaking institutions,” and increased international engagement. Marshall and Gurr, along with Deepa Khosla, published their results as a 2001 report, Peace and Conflict, for the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland. At the time, I remember reading that report and thinking, “Wow, this is one of the hottest things I have ever held in my hands.” I expected that evidence of a decline in war would trigger a sensation. Instead it received almost no notice.
“After the first report came out, we wanted to brief some United Nations officials, but everyone at the United Nations just laughed at us. They could not believe war was declining, because this went against political expectations,” Marshall says. Of course, 2001 was the year of September 11. But, despite the battles in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere that were ignited by Islamist terrorism and the West’s response, a second edition of Peace and Conflict, published in 2003, showed the total number of wars and armed conflicts continued to decline. A third edition of the study, published last week, shows that, despite the invasion of Iraq and other outbreaks of fighting, the overall decline of war continues. This even as the global population keeps rising, which might be expected to lead to more war, not less.
And the following:
The University of Maryland studies find the number of wars and armed conflicts worldwide peaked in 1991 at 51, which may represent the most wars happening simultaneously at any point in history. Since 1991, the number has fallen steadily. There were 26 armed conflicts in 2000 and 25 in 2002, even after the Al Qaeda attack on the United States and the U.S. counterattack against Afghanistan. By 2004, Marshall and Gurr’s latest study shows, the number of armed conflicts in the world had declined to 20, even after the invasion of Iraq. All told, there were less than half as many wars in 2004 as there were in 1991.
Marshall and Gurr also have a second ranking, gauging the magnitude of fighting. This section of the report is more subjective. Everyone agrees that the worst moment for human conflict was World War II; but how to rank, say, the current separatist fighting in Indonesia versus, say, the Algerian war of independence is more speculative. Nevertheless, the Peace and Conflict studies name 1991 as the peak post-World War II year for totality of global fighting, giving that year a ranking of 179 on a scale that rates the extent and destructiveness of combat. By 2000, in spite of war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda, the number had fallen to 97; by 2002 to 81; and, at the end of 2004, it stood at 65. This suggests the extent and intensity of global combat is now less than half what it was 15 years ago.
And the following:
Mueller calculates that about 200 million people were killed in the twentieth century by warfare, other violent conflicts, and government actions associated with war, such as the Holocaust. About twelve billion people lived during that century, meaning that a person of the twentieth century had a 1 to 2 percent chance of dying as the result of international war, ethnic fighting, or government-run genocide. A 1 to 2 percent chance, Mueller notes, is also an American’s lifetime chance of dying in an automobile accident. The risk varies depending on where you live and who you are, of course; Mueller notes that, during the twentieth century, Armenians, Cambodians, Jews, kulaks, and some others had a far higher chance of death by war or government persecution than the global average. Yet, with war now in decline, for the moment men and women worldwide stand in more danger from cars and highways than from war and combat. World Health Organization statistics back this: In 2000, for example, 300,000 people died in combat or for war-related reasons (such as disease or malnutrition caused by war), while 1.2 million worldwide died in traffic accidents. That 300,000 people perished because of war in 2000 is a terrible toll, but it represents just .005 percent of those alive in that year.
This low global risk of death from war probably differs greatly from most of the world’s past. In prehistory, tribal and small-group violence may have been endemic. Steven LeBlanc, a Harvard University archeologist, asserts in his 2003 book about the human past, Constant Battles, that warfare was a steady feature of primordial society. LeBlanc notes that, when the aboriginal societies of New Guinea were first observed by Europeans in the 1930s, one male in four died by violence; traditional New Guinean society was organized around endless tribal combat. Unremitting warfare characterized much of the history of Europe, the Middle East, and other regions; perhaps one-fifth of the German population died during the Thirty Years War, for instance. Now the world is in a period in which less than one ten-thousandth of its population dies from fighting in a year. The sheer number of people who are not being harmed by warfare is without precedent.
So, why is all this peace breaking out?
Well, there are many reasons. The authors cite the spread of democracy (democracies rarely if ever attack each other), the end of the cold war (no more superpower proxies fighting it out), the success of peacekeeping bodies and even the success of nuclear deterrence, which has kept big powers from attacking each other.
I would like to add another factor that has not been mentioned in the articles above: the peacekeeping force of a single superpower. Many historians have noted that the “pax romana” developed by the Roman Empire was the source of an extraordinary amount of relative peace in the Meridian of time. The same thing seems to be happening now. Since 1991, there really has been only one superpower, and that superpower has done a good job in maintaining a relative state of peace, just as Rome did in its day. Don’t believe me? What would happen to South Korea and Japan without the presence of the United States to restrain North Korea? How many people were killed in Iraq per month during Saddam Hussein’s reign compared to now (don’t forget the wars against Iran and Kuwait, which Saddam started, not to mention the wars against his own people)?
But beyond that, what does this mean from a eschatological standpoint? We know that wars will increase in the last days. Why isn’t it happening now? Is this the calm before the storm? I tend to think so, but is there another end-time scenario that does not involve massive global war? What say you, Latter-day Saints?
Isn’t the concept of a Pax Americana rather established? Maybe it is a function of communication. a thousand years ago there could horrible wars and yet no one would know. Now we get play by play (at lest those interested) of the conflicts that do arise.
J. Stapley, I wish the concept of Pax Americana were more established and accepted as truth by more people. But it’s not. You should listen to the anti-American tirades I endure on a daily basis in a European company (and there may even be some in this very thread. Stay tuned!).
There is a mentality that is anti-American among Americans and other nations that is beyond rational thinking. It boggles my mind to hear the rhetoric of those who oppose the United States in principle, but are the first to cry for help from them whenever a disaster occurs.
Just yesterday, in Pakistan, a Mosque, in a middle class area, was destroyed by 3 Muslim extremists and a number of people killed. Whom do the Muslims blame. The U.S.. They then attack a KFC outlet and kill the 6 employees. Go figure.
The world is less of intelligence and more of emotion, particularly fueled by corrupt politicians, the press, and false or incomplete reports coming out.
Just look at how the Democrats rant and rave. You’d think they were tied up in a gulag somewhere. Reasonable disagreement, without being disagreeable, is passe in the current environment in the world.
This is probably the calm before the storm, since a lot of political strategies in Canada, the U.S., Europe, and other parts of the world are developed with a “damn the electorate” attitude.
The French have just rejected the EU “constitution”, the Dutch are likely to follow, as well as the British, and yet, the EU politicians are saying it should be ratified in spite of the ignorant masses. Europe could still have internal strife in spite of it’s attempts to unify.
There is hardly a nation in the world that is not facing some sort of ethnic conflict which could result in internal war.
The recipe for war, is when the intelligentsia believe they know better than the people what is good for them.
Look at how political dialogue occurs. In spite of pleas from citizens to develop sound policies, the powers that be seem to be trying to find better ways to package the garbage they have been carrying, lo these many years. So it all breaks down to rhetoric and how to package it, rather than really doing something positive. That is a recipe for disaffection, emotional instability and eventually war. And we only have ourselves to blame for allowing it to happen.
Larry, you may find this commentary very interesting.
Thank you for that reference. It summarizes a major problem in western democracies.
Moses 7:46 – God states that the meridian of time was a time of wickedness and vengeance. Does that equate with the peace under governance of Rome?
Geoff B: democracies rarely if ever attack each other
I’ll buy the rarely, but keep in mind that by attacking the Confederate States of America, the United States of America became one of the few democratic nations to attack another democratic nation.
There have always been wars, but now the world is globally united in a way that it never was a thousand or two thousand years ago. The world is now global. When we are talking about the known world we are talking about the whole of it, not just a cradle of civilization that doesn’t recognized the rest of the world as part of it. This is due in large part to communication.
Therefore the Wars and Rumors of wars are twofold. The wars are still around but now the incorporate more of the world than local squirmishes and the rumors are themselves the communications. Talking about wars, reporting about wars. As J Stapely said we can now get Play-by-plays of whats going on. I think this very clearly fits into the category of rumors of wars, including the articles you yourself mention. Those are rumors that wars are subsiding but none the less they are rumors of wars.
Charles, you bring up a very good point. It’s been years since I studied ancient Greek, but if I remember correctly the word being used here is akoeh (that’s a poor transliteration, I know), which is related to the root of our “acoustic.” It can be taken to mean clatter or noise also. At the time of King James, rumor could also mean clammer or uproar (though that meaning is now archaic), so it was a good counterpart for akoeh. The only good reason I know for keeping the term rumor in current translations is because it’s traditional. A better translation would probably be something like, “Wars and the clamor of warfare.” The noise of war, of course, can occur without actual wars; e.g., bombs exploding, buildings falling, gunshots from crime in the streets.
I spoke with a friend recently who mentioned that her brother-in-law, who is in the Special Forces, is currently in South America hunting down war lords. I suppose that the global war on drugs could be a “rumor of wars.†It is my understanding that the Gospel must go out to every nation kindred tongue and people before the end of the last days truly begins.
JA Benson,
That is not to be the beginning of the last days, but rather a sign that the winding up scene is about to begin, which is the last of the events of the last days.
I may not have interpreted your statement correctly, so forgive me in advance if my point is off base.
Larry you are right. “Winding down†is a much better choice of words. Thank you.
I have a personal pet peeve which is that often members get excited when our nation is in a time of war. Predictions will be made that Armageddon is just around the corner when in fact the Gospel has not been taken to all of God’s Children.
Also another war rumor, in the popular book _Black Hawk Down_ by Mark Bowden the author relates that before the incident in Somalia started; the United States sent to Somalia a CIA operative. This operative’s mission was to become friendly with a particular warlord by the name of Aidid. The operative’s mission was to give Aidid an elegant cane that was fitted with a tracking device. This was done so that the US could track Aidid down and send in a missile strike. The day before the CIA operative was suppose to give Aidid the walking stick the CIA operative played Russian roulette and unfortunately he lost. The United States then sent in Army Rangers and Special Forces to take out Aidid. That is the background on the unfortunate Somalia incident. This is just one example of an assassination attempt that failed. I am surmising that these sorts of covert incidents go on unreported throughout the world. This would be my own personal definition of “rumors of warsâ€.
JA,
Covert operations have been the modus operandi of nations since time immemorial. I’m not sure they qualify as rumors of war.
Events such as N.Korea and Iran developing weapons grade uranium, or plutonium, and a subtle threat from other nations that they cease and desist might qualify, since those are public declarations that we can all assess. Covert operations are unknown and can’t be.
The near conflict atmosphere that existed between India and Pakistan, a few years ago, could be defined as a rumour of war.
The warning that American leaders have thrown out recently to any nation that harbours wounded Al Qaeda operatives would also qualify, I believe.
It is interesting to note, though it’s been many years since I studied this, but it seems to me that there has been relatively little, if any time, since the world began that there has been total peace on the earth. We exist under the cloud of war or rumour of war.
As far as the winding up scene is concerned, it is my perception that most of the conflicts will be internal, or limited regional battles. There is hardly a nation in the world that doesn’t suffer from some sort of internal conflict, that if unchecked, could erupt into civil or sectarian war. It won’t take many to do it.
I remember having lunch with Eldridge Cleaver back around 1981, and asking him what chance of success the Black Panthers might have had had they not been stopped by the FBI. He felt quite confident that they could have started a civil insurrection that would have brought the country to the brink, if not destroyed it (He also was grateful it did not succeed). So, it wouldn’t take many to start a panic and destabilize a nation.
That is why I support efforts like those that have been imposed in the U.S. to curb terrorists and criminals.
Larry, I agree with most of your comments, except for this: “it is my perception that most of the conflicts will be internal, or limited regional battles.” I agree that there will be internal conflicts, perhaps even in the United States again. I agree with you that we should be doing everything possible to fight terrorists and criminals because we have the knowledge that their secret combinations will be the source of possible battles in the future (btw, there are other places where secret combinations will be a problem, such as in the business world). But I think the scriptures, from Daniel to Isaiah, to Ezekial to Revelation to the BoM, to the D&C, make it clear that there will be a large worldwide battle that will cause all to choose sides. You will either be in favor of and fooled by the anti-Christ dictator figure who will lead the forces of evil or you will not be. I agree with Avraham Gileadi’s writings that indicate that Isaiah has told us how it will take place in the latter days: the anti-Christ will besiege the Lord’s people, and things will look bleak, but they will be saved through their faith at the last minute. I have no clue how all this is going to play out. I would never pretend to know the identity of the anti-Christ figure, who may not come about for hundreds of years for all we know. But the scriptural record is pretty clear that there will be a worldwide conflict of some sort. I see WWII, for example, as a likely model. Think how bleak things appeared for the Allies in 1942. I see that type of scenario playing itself out again.
So, the lack of war now is puzzling given what the scriptures say. I have to think it’s the calm before the storm. The BoM, for example, had periods of relative peace that last a few years before all heck breaks out. I’m guessing we’re in one of those periods (although as an optimist, I wish it weren’t true and that there could be another possible scenario.)
Geoff,
I think there are other possible scenarios. I’m still waiting for an argument that will disuade me from considering the disruption of the early christian church to be a fullfillment of the anti-christ nearly overcoming the saints.
Jack, you make a good point, that I will expand upon: it’s impossible for us to know the exact end-time scenario. I don’t think we’re supposed to know too much about it. I think we’re supposed to do what the prophet tells us to do and keep our covenants and things will work out alright in the end. But at the same time we’re supposed to study Isaiah and the rest of the scriptures and try to interpret what they are saying. And they do appear to talk about a worldwide war in the latter days, although of course your interpretation may also be correct.
If ‘rumor’ could be translated as “clamor”; then perhaps it is “wars and clammor[ing for] wars”?
Larry-
Great comments and examples. We are both splitting hairs. I totally agree that mankind has been sticking one another in the back since the beginning of time. I think that we are more aware of these events because of world wide news coverage. Small events like the attempted assassination of Aidid-the-Warlord erupting into a battle that without the aid of CNN, journalist Mark Bowden and who ever made the movie _Black Hawk Down_ most of us would not have generally known about it.
In the year 1918 at the close of WWI a small group of American and Japanese (with French and British aid) forces went into Russia to help the White Russian Army defeat the Red Army. The White and American/Japanese Army nearly took the Red city of Volga when they were defeated. I had never heard of this myself until my teenager read about it _In Lies My Teacher Told Me_ (pg 23-26). If this event occurred today I should think that FOX, CNN etc… would have been all over it. They probably would call it a quagmire today.
I so agree with you that all the conflicts are rumor of wars. Great examples. I certainly was enlightened about your conversation with Eldridge Cleaver.
We would not be aware of conflicts, but for the great news coverage that we have during our time. It is also this improved news coverage that gets people (at least where I am at) all excited thinking that the “end is nearâ€. I don’t think at least at the rate we are headed that the winding up time has come, but instead we are in a time of relative peace so that every nation, kindred, tongue, and people will have a chance to receive the Gospel of Christ.
Also Lyle I like your interpretation of rumor meaning clamor. That certainly makes sense.
Geoff and Jack great points. I have just discovered this blogging thing and you all are certainly expanding my pitiful little brain. Thanks for the great education.
Peace first. Then the gospel goes to all nations.
Then decadence thrives, then people reach a point of severe immorality.
Think about it. We have a global media, the same message and culture can spread from a few sources to many. Immoral activity can spread easily. Wickedness could literally fill the earth. You know: “Everybody’s doing it”.
Iraq is potentially on its way to peace and democracy, yet can we deny the immorality that will spread through this country’s youth culture?
(note – freedom is great, don’t get me wrong, I’m just making a point)
The problem as I see it is that today people have started to become open about immorality. It’s glorified in some instances popularly. People live by the mantra “If it doesn’t hurt anyone it’s okay”. People justify destructive behavior, and more significantly, they learn to manage it. They learn to ‘get away with it’.
With liberation from tyranny ultimately comes liberation from all societal institutions. People get to choose their behavior.
Today people can ‘get away with it’, but what happens if there’s a catastrophe? True, there was 9/11 and people reverted to religion and family and good deeds. But what about a real catastrophe. How can a decadent society respond to something truly catatrophic without resorting to barbarism. And I would say that American society today is not nearly as decadent as what I am thinking of.
So the world will become more free, people will become more ‘liberated’, decadence will rule, and then can you imagine the wars and rumors of wars as people who don’t respect their bodies, don’t respect their families, and don’t respect anyone but numero uno all fight over addictive substances, luxury items, and food?
Pax Romana? This isn’t Rome, this is the WHOLE WORLD! Can you imagine its fall?
I’m being sort of ridiculous here, but I think I’m describing something close to reality.
Oh well, the important question to ask is that although peace is breaking out, is righteousness?
Zack, I would agree with your scenario of peace first then the gospel being offered to the whole world to reject or accept. Seems to make sense. Of course, there will be times of war and times of peace during the time of the “fulness of the gentiles,” which we are living in. I tend to be an optimist and see two trends happening at the same time: increased decadence and increased righteousness. The choice between the two is becoming more and more stark.