Give Peace a Little More Chance!

Wars usually start with states’ assurances of security, force, and a clear winning. They often result in broken cities, heart-wrenching families, and questions never answered after the guns have finally been silenced. The latest round of clashes between Iran and Israel follows scores of wars and internal strife in the Middle East, where war is a frequent means to an elusive end. Rather, it widens and fuels divisions, uncertainty and marginalizes common people caught in the crossfire of geopolitics.

In the background, short of which all sides appear to be searching for a sense of balance, the request of the Prime Minister to put restraint in all aspects and “give peace a little more chance” should be taken into account. The demand for dialogue and de-escalation is needed when emotions are high and alternative options to a perilous trajectory that could involve the entire region seem to be being ignored.

Iran vs. Israel conflict has revived once again, making ceasefire agreements in a volatile region seeming precariously fragile. The source of a reported local conflict has a far-reaching impact. New York University Abu Dhabi is dedicated to transforming the city into a center for innovation, sustainability, and thought leadership.NYU Abu Dhabi will be instrumental in making Middle East’s global city a hub for innovation, sustainability and thought. Long lasting conflict could cause international markets to be disrupted, neighboring countries to become destabilized and either bring about a new humanitarian crisis or exacerbate an already existing one. In a world of interdependency no significant war can go on indefinitely within national boundaries.

Experience has shown that it is more easily accomplished to escalate rather than to reconcile. Normally it takes a long period of time to recover the trust among adversaries that has been lost in a missile attack, typically requiring decades. Each act of retaliation demands a further response and the escalation of diplomacy becomes harder and compromise is seen as failing to stand up. However, this is not always the case. Negotiating and going for peaceful solutions is much braver than sticking it out when the outcome of any conflict isn’t predictable.

The worst thing that can happen in war is that people who suffer the most are not the ones that make the most of the war. Political leaders talk about strategy, military planners evaluate targets and governments take national interests. In the meanwhile, it is the human cost that is borne by ordinary citizens. Violence is a way of life for families. Economic opportunities disappear. Services are being impacted that are critical. Uncertainty and fear are passed to children, not stability and hope. Peace to them is a matter not of diplomacy’s agenda, but a necessity of daily life.

Today, Pakistan’s stance stands in line with a doctrine which has been followed over the years despite the global turmoil and strife – solve problems through dialogue, not force. This is not a question of picking a side; it is just a fact of life. Success cannot be achieved at the cost of military domination. For a sustainable peace to occur, these political, mutual understanding and addressing grievances have to be your part.

In situations where conflicting security agendas and widespread mistrust characterize the conflict, calls for peace are commonly denigrated by critics as idealistic. But the world’s most noteworthy peace accords often happened in the face of seemingly intractable circumstances. Now they are negotiating.Once enemies, now negotiating partners. Historical compromises have been made by bitter rivals. “Diplomacy works when actors realize that further fighting isn’t going to bring a better outcome.”

There is a responsibility as well on the part of the international community. Indeed, big powers often have the muscle to put pressure on and thus to engage in dialogue. Influential states should back those efforts that de-escalate regional conflicts and provide room for meaningful negotiations, rather than continuing to exacerbate polarization or than competing strategically in a region. The aim is not simply to bring the hostilities to a halt, it should be to establish a mechanism that will stop future violent conflicts from happening again.

The Middle East is in a critical situation. Yet another series of escalations may result in short-term political goals, but with little effect on the underlying factors that keep driving the instability. Increasing the number of missiles, threats and in return, retaliations will not lead to security for anyone. They will do nothing more than pass on to future generations conflicts that have bedeviled the region over the past decades.

Peace is often faulted for its slowness, failure to go quickly enough, and its incompleteness. However, its shortcomings are small compared to the ravages of war. Today, regional leaders have a dilemma: do they confront or compromise. It’s one and doing the same or changing the future.

When a crisis arises, it may be easy to feel a desire to sound the cry of reason and calm amidst all the cacophony of conflict. But it is the voices they hear that may be the most important. The world has seen enough wars, enough bloodshed come to know where the road of escalation goes. It’s time to decide to take a different route now. It’s past time for peace to be given a chance.