Peace That Does Not Last

By Ayman Okeil

The use of force in international relations may compel a threatened state to enter negotiations, allowing diplomacy to replace warfare. While I understand that deterrence can be achieved through force, it is crucial to recognize that lasting peace cannot be attained through force alone. Historical examples illustrate that force does not yield enduring peace; rather, it can provoke opposing forces that create chaos, often difficult to control.

Britain historically adopted the principle that greater power instills fear in potential enemies. This notion was echoed by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, becoming central to U.S. foreign policy. Since Donald Trump took office on January 20, 2025, he has repeatedly emphasized the phrase “peace through force.” This sentiment has resonated globally, with leaders echoing it. For instance, the President of the European Commission stated during an emergency EU summit in Paris in February 2025 that “Ukraine deserves peace through force.”

This raises a critical question: Is peace truly achievable through force? From my perspective, the more pressing inquiry is whether such peace can endure. The answer is a resounding no. The use of force since the establishment of Israel in 1948 in the occupied Palestinian territories has failed to bring lasting peace. Similarly, NATO’s military intervention in Libya did not foster peace but instead resulted in a nation divided between conflicting governments. Numerous examples throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America further illustrate this failure. Rather than achieving peace, the application of force often leads to the emergence of counter-forces and armed resistance, with its use ultimately resulting in failure when wielded for illegitimate purposes.

After World War I, the concept of “armed peace” emerged, suggesting that nations that ramp up military spending and stockpile weapons could achieve deterrence. However, this principle did not prevent the outbreak of World War II, which claimed the lives of 40 million civilians. Today mirrors that past, as nations compete to increase military expenditures. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged in mid-February 2025 to boost military spending, while Trump urged NATO members to elevate their military budgets to no less than 5% of GDP. History indeed repeats itself. As Karl Marx observed, history reiterates twice: first as tragedy, then as farce.

Thus, while I concede that force plays a role in preventing wars and establishing deterrence, using it to enforce peace through aggression or the forced displacement of populations undermines international law and disregards moral and humanitarian standards. Even if such actions result in a temporary peace, it will ultimately be fleeting.