The Fragility of Agreements

Everything in this world is shaped by the powerful force of difference among human beings. Life, in all its manifestations and transformations — in nature and in human affairs alike — is driven by contestation and diversity.

Rain nourishes the earth, brings forth crops, and fills hungry stomachs. Yet clouds can sometimes withhold their bounty: the rains fail, drought descends, the land turns barren, harvests diminish or disappear altogether, and hunger takes hold.

Since ancient times, primitive tribes have fought over fertile land and sources of water. But after blood is spilled and the dead accumulate, the warring sides eventually incline toward peace. For if the reason for fighting is to secure the necessities of life, it would be madness for that struggle to become instead a path to death.

Such is the nature of human existence: a perpetual movement between violence, conflict, and peace.

As the Quran says: “Had Allah not repelled some people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted. But Allah is gracious to all.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:251).

Human contestation — whether peaceful or violent — is thus the driving force of human life across all fields and throughout all ages.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes lived through the English Civil War between the monarchy and Parliament, with all the violence and upheaval that accompanied it. Those events became the wellspring of the questions that shaped his philosophy.

In Leviathan, where he presented his comprehensive vision of the political order of the state, Hobbes explored human nature and the selfish impulses that can drive people toward violence in pursuit of their own interests.

He concluded that the existence of a strong state exercising authority over all was the essential guarantee of security and stability in society. He leaned toward the side of the monarch, believing that achieving security, peace, and stability for society as a whole under sovereign rule should take precedence over democracy — and even over freedom itself.

Many philosophers and thinkers who came after Hobbes agreed with aspects of his philosophy, while many others challenged him. His ideas remain, to this day, the subject of debate, disagreement, and agreement alike.

Empires have waged wars against one another. Peoples have invaded other peoples, occupied their lands, and seized their resources after wars both long and short.

Yet the inclination toward peace — and the willingness to reach settlements and make concessions — has often been the means by which the flames of war are extinguished.

Throughout ancient and modern history, the world has witnessed numerous agreements concluded after long and bloody wars and conflicts. Some endured and succeeded; others failed and unraveled. In both cases, however, they helped reshape the world.

Among the most significant was the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Netherlands. The settlement has often been described as laying the foundations of the modern nation-state, yet it did not prevent further wars from erupting across Europe.

Then came the Congress of Vienna in 1815, following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte. Austria, Britain, Russia, France, and other European powers participated in the conference.

Among its most important outcomes were the redrawing of Europe’s map to establish a balance of power on the continent, the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty to the French throne, the territorial expansion of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, the reorganization of the German territories, and the unification of Belgium and the Netherlands under a single kingdom.

Yet many of the arrangements produced by the Congress did not endure as intended. Indeed, they contributed to tensions that culminated in the European revolutions of 1848, which profoundly affected the continent.

The Treaty of Versailles followed the First World War, only to contribute to the conditions that ultimately led to a horrific Second World War, unprecedented in its scale of destruction.

Then there was the 1958 union agreement between Egypt and Syria, which Arabs applauded and celebrated in song, only to see the union collapse three years later.

The Korean Armistice Agreement stopped the fighting, but it did not formally end the war through a peace treaty. Technically, the two Koreas remain at war to this day.

The Paris Peace Accords sought to end the war in Vietnam and secure the withdrawal of U.S. forces, yet fighting on the ground continued until North and South Vietnam were unified in 1975.

The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1979 ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel, but it did not end Israel’s wars and conflicts with other Arab states and parties.

The same can be said of the Taif Agreement among the Lebanese parties. Although it helped end the Lebanese Civil War, the comprehensive and lasting peace envisioned by its signatories did not ultimately consolidate the authority of the Lebanese state or establish its full sovereignty over the entirety of its territory.

To this list of fragile agreements and faltering settlements, we could add what has happened — and continues to happen — in northern and southern Sudan, in northern and southern Yemen, and in the aftermath of the Oslo Accords between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.

The world celebrated Oslo, and Palestinians rejoiced, believing that their return to their land had become only a matter of time.

Then Yitzhak Rabin, the principal Israeli architect of the agreement, was assassinated by a Zionist extremist.

As for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who had placed his authority behind the agreement, he died after suffering from a mysterious illness — and those who claimed to know the circumstances never entirely dismissed the possibility of foul play.

Today’s talk of proposed agreements and settlements between states and parties currently at war compels us to revisit the long historical record of agreements signed by countries and factions that had endured years of conflict and bloodshed.

History repeatedly reminds us that peace is far more difficult to achieve than words written on paper or politicians’ signatures placed beneath them.

In many cases, such agreements have resembled nothing so much as an attempt to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

Source: Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.