EUGENIO VIASSA MONTEIRO
Humanity, since its exist ence, has seen a variety of aggressions, a wide va riety of cooperative ideas, and also an indifferent coexistence without any sign of sympathy or antipathy. Our experiences of convivi ality were enough to put aside some of the most harmful atti tudes and to centre on all the others that are indifferent or extremely positive for the de velopment of people, the cre ation of wealth, and people’s learning. Any aggressive attitude to ward other countries, driven by a sense of clear superiority, is extremely unfair and harm ful to the country targeted. But equally very bad for the aggres sor, who felt it was superior and prepared to win, and whose losses of lives and material damage are too high. Over the last two Centuries, we have observed the follow ing: Incredible suffering for all parties involved, as reported by Google. They have (rough ly 1826–2026) witnessed the deadliest conflicts in human history, largely driven by the industrialisation of warfare, the introduction of total war, and, in the 19th century, massive inter nal rebellions in Asia. It is important for our learn ing how many deaths were caused by the conflicts from 1826 to 2026.: 1. World War II (1939–1945): 70–85 million deaths. 2.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Taiping Rebellion (1850 1864): 20–70 million deaths. 3. World War I (1914–1918): 15–22 million deaths. 4. Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945): 10–20 million deaths. 5. Russian Civil War (1917 1922): 7–10 million deaths. 6. Second Congo War (1998 2003): 3–5.4 million deaths. 7. Chinese Civil War (1927 1949): 4–9 million deaths. 8. Vietnam War (1955–1975): 1.3–4.2 million deaths. 9. Korean War (1950–1953): 2.5–3.5 million deaths. 10. Mahdist War (Sudan) (1881–1899): 4–6 million deaths. What did we learn from past events, and how did we try to integrate that learning into our decision-making process? And how do we transmit all the les sons we learned to the younger ones? More important still is to teach in all the Primary and Secondary Schools of the whole world, that wars are nonsense: for the huge harm they cause, killing millions and leaving oth ers handicapped. All the dead and those hurt and others suf fering the inevitable and deep traumas from the tough situa tions they were involved in. The ones who survived car ried with them the post-trau matic stress, along with physical handicaps, which diminished their aptitudes and the capacity to live a normal life. These kinds of trauma are very frequent in all groups of soldiers, whether they have killed or not, but the deep sensation of fear facing unexpected situations of war is always strongly affecting them.
I remember what I read and wrote on essays edited by Mr Mahbubani, describing how a collaborative attitude was al ways the best. With no need for any expla nations, the intuition of any common sense person, who observes around and tries to interpret events with a cool brain, without passions, con cludes that peace is essential for people and families to focus on their work, their family life, education and studies of the children, the plans they want to carry out to have a happy life. Busy with valuable things, with leisure and rest included and new initiatives to come, to create wealth and mainly jobs. Such is what we see in many countries that have engaged in border skirmishes or illegiti mate occupations of their own lands. Focus on many African Countries, Eastern Europe, and some Asian and Latin American countries. Those in trouble and conflict remain destroyed, par alysed, without jobs for their youngsters, nor others. The schools fail to function, and dis grace is widespread. Those peo ple only underwent suffering, anxiety, bloodshed and death, and of course, spent their mea gre resources in search of weap ons to kill. Time was wasted by everyone involved. Mahbubani compared the Vi etnam-China incident with the one we see today in the Rus sia-Ukraine relationship. Both involve conflicts between a large country and a smaller one. Vietnam resolved its issue very smartly after a prolonged conversation spanning 10 years of conflict. During this period, when the border problems with China lasted until 1991, Trade between them scarcely reached $32 million. Following the peace agreement and improved trust, the need for troops on the border on either side was un necessary, and Trade jumped to $172 billion per year—a 5,375 fold increase! The analogies with Russia/ Ukraine seem pretty impres sive, and one wonders why there isn’t a deeper dialogue to better understand the situation and negotiate, considering the needs of each part without the expectations and tensions in duced by external interventions that promise significant help in resisting.
Who gains from this war? We can think of the same war initiated by the USA-Isra el against Iran. Destruction, no combustible, prices jumping, trade paralysed, and all the countries poorer and many of them losing their young people in the war. If the evidence of the high val ue of peace is clear, it requires common sense to identify the best way out for any conflict. It involves decisively moving to a dialogue, then negotiating, prioritising each party’s main interests, and making conces sions on secondary aspects to achieve a possible equilibrium, safeguarding the fundamental interests of both parties. Even though we think we are very powerful, it is always a flawed and false conclusion, be cause in violent clashes, there are inevitable moral and life losses on both sides. Mahbubani draws on his long experience with three princi ples of action to promote peace: first, Freeze; then, Talk; and later, Trade, benefiting both parties. More pragmatic or straightforward, he could not be. The need for a cold brain, to think serenely and not judge intentions, when they probably weren’t even there. Often, our wrong thinking comes from our imagination and our mania for grandeur and pride. Then, dia logue: it’s through talking that problems are understood and doubts and false interpretations dispelled.
And Trade comes as a consequence, something in the best interest of both parties in collusion, fostering long-term mutual interests that cement and ensure good coexistence and peace. That is why the great advantage of getting along with your neighbours is maintaining a cordial relationship. We need to be pragmatic and put aside our tendency to spec ulate and to exaggerate others’ intentions, which we find de testable and unacceptable. In the West and in the East, the things and the thoughts are very similar, and everywhere we need is that our reason pre vails, along with the common sense. (The Author is Professor at AESE-Business School (Lis bon), at I.I.M. Rohtak (India), author of The Rise of India)
