After somehow surviving perhaps the bloodiest 100-year period in all of human history, is the peace process finally going to work in the 21st century?
by John Ross Schroeder
A noted British author and journalist,
A.N. Wilson, observed recently, "The history of the twentieth century
is the history of death and slaughter on a scale [of] which our forebears
could have had no inkling. The millions killed by the folly and wickedness
of politicians far outstrips the numbers in Africa and Asia who died of
unnecessary starvation."
Yet, about halfway through 1999, the Anglo-American
media was generally optimistic in its judgment of the peace process.
For instance, the writers of The Economist summed up prospects
on the last day of that July. "On the face of it, this has been a good
season for peace, and a good one for intervention. Over the past few
weeks, agreements have been reached to end three of Africa's nastiest
wars-in Congo, in Sierra Leone and between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
"And restraint has prevailed, with some
help from outsiders, in the dispute between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir. And in Kosovo the West has put a stop to Serb ethnic cleansing. All
of a sudden the world looks quieter. Those who have worked to end
the violence-whether by diplomatic means, as in Kashmir, Congo, Ethiopia
and Eritrea, or by military intervention, as in Kosovo, Sierra Leone-may
feel encouraged. Blessed are the peace-makers" (emphasis added throughout).
That Economist article did not mention
that considerable progress had apparently been made in the long-running
dispute in Northern Ireland. And even more importantly, the Middle
East peace process had taken a decided turn for the better with the "olive
branches" offered by Ehud Barak, prime minister of Israel.
Where are we today?
But where are we now? Reading the
morning papers at the time of this writing was not encouraging. Several
stories indicate that progress toward peace is not as advanced as the
above analysis suggests.
