PEACE DOES NOT MEAN SECURITY Bernard Smith The sign in the car window in Jerusalem read, "Peace is my security." This mantra, recited by Israeli peaceniks, refutes the need for strategic territory, depth, and, presumably, a large army or even nuclear weapons, because once peace is established, there simply will not be any more war. As Shimon Peres said at the United Nations last year, peace with Syria "will be the end of war in the Middle East." What could be more naive--and dangerous? War is so frequent that it has occurred in one or more places in 3,179 of the last 3,449 years. During that period, the world was free of war 8% of the time. The same percentage is valid when speaking only of the past 50 years. 1 Armed conflict has so permeated history that some, seeking an explanation, theorize an innate human drive to destroy. More undeniably, countries, like individuals, have interests that are to be protected and furthered. National interests and the influences which act on them and emanate from them are not static. A primary interest can be overridden by a stronger one. For example, a nation heavily involved in economic development may find this need superseded by the drive toward nation building and expansion. As interests or the factors which affect them change, a country elects war or peace. Both are tools to advance national interests. The essential point is that there is no reason to assume that war cannot occur because a country is at peace. History is instructive on this matter. It is worthwhile to review three of thousands of examples. POLAND AND RUSSIA During the early 17th century, Polish and Russian expansionist designs and Russian irredentism--not to mention traditional Russian enmity towards Poland--kept the two periodically at war. The conflict was interrupted when overwhelming factors forced a peaceful interval: Russia exhausted economically and militarily by internal upheaval and strife; discord between the Polish king and Diet (assembly); the Turkish menace to Poland's southern border. Finally, Czar Michael concluded an "eternal" peace with the king of Poland in 1634. The eternal peace lasted for 19 years. It is sometimes difficult, and even unnecessary, to separate ideological from self-serving motives for war. Such was the case with Czar Alexis' decision to end peace with Poland. The second Romanov certainly wished to free the Orthodox from the yoke of Catholic Poland and Moslem Tartar. And, like his father, Alexis found the borders of Muscovy too confining. The spur to war was the rebellion of the

Zaporogian Cossacks against Poland in 1649. In 1653, Alexis acceded to the Cossack appeal for Moscow's protection, knowing it meant war. The conflict ended with a truce in 1667, resulting in territorial acquisition for Russia. In 1686, the Russian gains were solidified by another "permanent" peace, the Orthodox Russian regent and the Catholic Polish king going so far as to form an alliance against the "infidel" Turks. Peace with Poland was an expedient, which allowed Russia to utilize its expansive energies to drive south against the Turks and toward the Baltic, colliding with Sweden. Peace built on expediency offers little promise of permanence. By 1733, Russia's pro-Austrian foreign policy would not abide the election of an anti-Austrian to the throne of Poland. Fifty thousand Russian troops terminated the reign of Stanislas Leczynski. Politically and geographically weak (her plains inviting invasion), Poland's sovereignty was limited when Catherine II ascended the Russian throne in 1762. While still at peace, she turned Poland into a virtual Russian protectorate in 1767. Between 1772 and 1795, Russia participated in three partitions of Poland, the last resulting in its disappearance. In 1939, reconstituted Poland, at peace with its neighbors, was invaded by the expansionist Soviet Union. NORWAY AND GERMANY Norway learned a cruel lesson in the instability of peace a year later. For over 100 years, Norway was at peace with Prussia and then Germany. In 1907, Germany agreed to recognize and respect Norway's integrity. During World War I, the two countries carried on a sizeable and important trade. Following the war, Norway sheltered thousands of German children. During the 1920s and 1930s, however, the forces of German history dictated new relations between Germany and the rest of Europe. "German natonalism and the exaltation of the Machtstaat, the Power state," in the words of the historian Alan Bullock, propelled Germany into aggressive relations with Europe, giving "expression to the long-smouldering rebellion of the German people against the defeat of 1918 and the humiliation of the Peace Settlement." 2 Germany embraced a leader whose vision of the future could only be realized through war. By the end of 1939, Germany's strategic interest was to defeat Great Britain as quickly as possible. To accomplish this, Berlin was determined to prevent a likely British occupation of Norwegian ports, insure the supply of vital Swedish iron ore transported safely along Norwegian coastal waters, increase projection of its naval and air power into the Atlantic Ocean through use of bases on the Norwegian coast, and secure passage of its ships from the Baltic into the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. 3 These required an unavoidable revision in relations with Norway based on the changed German national interests and the necessities which emanated from them. April 8-9, 1940, Germany made what historian T. K. Derry called a "brutally abrupt transition from peace (Continued on p.8)

October 1996               - 3 -               Outpost