Can a pope really halt war? a history of restraint
The question of whether a plea for restraint – from a Pope, a UN Secretary-General, or any authority figure – can genuinely de-escalate or end a conflict is surprisingly complex. While the idea of a moral appeal stemming the tide of war seems appealing, history offers a more nuanced, and often cynical, perspective.
The limits of moral suasion
The initial wave of correspondence, triggered by a reader’s inquiry, highlighted a recurring theme: appeals to restraint rarely succeed once hostilities are underway. The analogy of “dogs of war salivating” is apt – once the machinery of conflict is in motion, driven by political ambition and, often, economic interests, appeals to reason often fall on deaf ears. Achieving “peace with honour” remains the elusive goal, and those who claim to deliver it invariably receive the credit, regardless of the true factors at play. The sheer difficulty of resolving conflicts, particularly those steeped in historical narratives of victimhood, underscores this point. The enduring question of who “won” the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, even half a century later, serves as a stark reminder of this complexity.
Unexpected interventions and uncomfortable lessons
However, ceasefires and truces, though often fragile, are not uncommon. The 1969 “Football War” between Honduras and El Salvador offers a relatively straightforward example of intervention by the Organization of American States bringing an end to the fighting, though the reverberations continued for years afterward. Perhaps the most striking illustration – and one that offers a distinctly unsettling lesson – involves the Wagner Group’s brief rebellion against Russia in 2023. The intervention of Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, acting as a mediator between Yevgeny Prigozhin and Vladimir Putin, swiftly ended the crisis. Yet, the fact that this resolution hinged on the shuttle diplomacy of a figure associated with an authoritarian regime casts a long shadow on the notion of principled conflict resolution.
Ancient wisdom and modern realities
The historical record reveals recurring patterns. Even ancient societies recognized the role of authority in influencing conflict. The Spartans’ cessation of campaigns based on priestly omens, as noted by Thucydides, demonstrates an acknowledgment – however superstitious – of the impact of powerful figures. Machiavelli, true to form, would likely have dismissed such divine intervention, but the underlying principle – that authority figures can shape the course of conflict – remains valid. The spontaneous fraternization between German and British troops on Christmas Day 1914, though ultimately suppressed by senior officers, underscores the contrast between the desire for peace among those who bear the brunt of fighting and the forces that perpetuate conflict.
Accountability and the shadow of victory
The question of accountability for war crimes further complicates the narrative. The lamentable reality is that prosecution often hinges on the victor’s willingness to pursue it. The case of Lt. William Laws Calley Jr., the sole individual convicted in connection with the My Lai massacre, stands as a testament to this. While more than 500 civilians perished, and many women were subjected to horrific acts of violence, securing justice for the Vietnamese victims proved virtually impossible, a consequence of the US defeat. The invocation of “God” in defense of war, a recurring theme throughout history, highlights the cynical manipulation of faith to justify conflict, as exemplified by the phrase “With God on our side, we cannot fail.”
Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of war, and the subsequent pronouncements against aerial bombing by Pope Leo XIV, represent a welcome, albeit belated, acknowledgement that war is not inherently holy. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962, and the role of UN Secretary-General U Thant in negotiating a de-escalation, offers a more optimistic example of international diplomacy achieving a critical outcome. However, the absence of extensive reporting in many other instances obscures the full extent of UN influence.
Ultimately, the record is mixed. While appeals to restraint have occasionally proven effective, they are often overshadowed by the enduring realities of power, ambition, and the relentless pursuit of victory, leaving a grim legacy of unanswered questions and unpunished atrocities. The persistence of conflict, despite countless calls for peace, speaks volumes about the enduring human capacity for violence.