The bloody conflicts of the last century have taught Europeans a tough, but vital, lesson - that a respect for diversity is the key to conflict resolution, writes John HumeWe must avoid the clash of civilisations and create an international orderthat accommodates our different cultures
War has been described as the continuation of policy by other means. In truth, war is a failure of policy. Not only does war inevitably mean death and destruction, it is self-perpetuating. Wars breed wars. The greatest illusion has been the concept of the war to end all wars, the illusion that led to 10 million deaths in the first World War, and to the hecatomb of the second World War.
Europeans have learnt this lesson the hard way. After centuries of violence and division, we have broken out of the cycle of war. We achieved this breakthrough in the second half of the 20th century, the first half of which was the most murderous and violent in our history. Through the new institutions created, those of the European Union, the world has been given the best example of conflict resolution in human history.
The rest of the world can and should learn from our experience. The principles at the heart of the European Union are relevant to all areas of conflict. The first and most fundamental principle is respect for diversity. All conflict is essentially about difference, whether it is race, religion or nationality. Differences are an accident of birth. No one chooses where he or she is born. It is therefore essential that we strive for mutual understanding, difference is an asset to humanity, and difference should not be a reason for war and violence.
At first sight, this principle may seem irrelevant to the current crisis in world affairs. Clearly the Iraqi regime is not known for its respect for democracy, diversity and peace. Radical change is necessary if the Iraqi peoples are to be free to live their lives free from fear and terror.
Saddam Hussein's endless quest for victories has meant misery for his peoples, and total and utter insecurity for himself
The question is - how do we bring about the necessary changes, with soldiers, or with philosophy? The idea that the alternative to war is to do nothing is simplistic in the extreme.
We are all aware of the dangers of war, even those who are most heavily engaged in preparing for military strategies. War is risky and unpredictable. History shows that it is impossible to forecast the social, economic and political effects of war.
Who among the statesmen of 1914 would have foreseen the rise of communism and fascism that the slaughter of the first World War brought about? Can anyone today be sure what will happen if the international crisis moves to an armed conflict in the Middle East. The main victims of war are always civilians.
A more political and philosophical approach is both less dangerous and more certain of success. Rather than soldier, bombs, and bullets, we must export our philosophy of peace and dialogue between different cultures.
It is essential that we, particularly in the richer and more powerful countries of North America and the European Union, uphold the principle of respect for diversity. It is, after all, the strength of our own societies, the secret of our political and economic success.
We must avoid the clash of civilisations and create an international order that accommodates our different cultures. It has to be made clear that the conflict between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations is not a conflict between Christianity and Islam.
Even less so can be it allowed to be seen as a conflict between the affluent north and the dependent south. We must take the political, diplomatic and economic measures necessary to bring about change in Baghdad, to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to give hope to hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere that a better life is possible.
THAT has always been the real basis of the strength and status of America in the eyes of the rest of the world. No one should forget that the victory in the Cold War came, not through force but from the strength and success of American and western European ideas and values.
American leaders should remember that respect for diversity is the basic principle that allowed their founding fathers to create an entirely new and different country. The ancestors of the vast majority of the American people were driven from their homelands by poverty, famine, persecution and conflict.
In shaping the constitution, the founding fathers felt that is was their duty to create a country where these evils could not happen again on the new continent. The philosophy at the heart of the constitution is summed up in three Latin words written on US coins and written on the grave of Abraham Lincoln - E pluribus unum. From many we are one - the essence of unity is respect for diversity.
That is the lesson we learnt in Europe in the last century. For that reason as we enter into the new century, let us hope that that US leaders have the wisdom to export, not war, but the philosophy of the founding fathers of the United States. Let us hope for the first time in history, our new century will be one where we create a world of total peace and total respect for diversity.
We are living through the greatest revolution in the history of the world. Changes in technology, telecommunications and transport have made our world a much smaller place. For that reason we are in a stronger position to shape that world and our objective should be that this will be the first century in which there is no war and no conflict.
Let us create universal and lasting peace and let us appoint a European Commissioner for Peace and Reconciliation in order to play a major role in creating that universal and lasting peace.