A Time for Peace, Peter Calvocoressi, Hutchinson, 1987, £12.95
| Author | Anthony Parsons |
| Published date | 01 April 1987 |
| Date | 01 April 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/004711788700900108 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
87
A
Time
for
Peace,
Peter
Calvocoressi,
Hutchinson,
1987,
£12.95
It
is
a
fact
that
contemporary
politicians
are
so
preoccupied
with
meetings
and
in-trays
that
they
have
neither
the
time
nor
the
inclination
to
read
anything
except
summaries;
in
certain
cases
even
these
have
to
be
reduced
to
strip
cartoon
form
to
be
understood.
It
is
therefore
sad
that
this
excellent
book
will
not
be
studied
in
full
by
those
who
direct
our
destinies.
Perhaps
it
is
not
too
much
to
hope
that
some
of
them
will
read
the
concluding
chapter.
It is
only
sixteen
pages
long
but
is
so
packed
with
good
sense
that
it
cannot
be
boiled
down
to
a
series
of
cue
cards
without
risk
of
misunderstanding.
On
the
first
page
of
the
first
chapter,
Peter
Calvocoressi
states
&dquo;This
book
is
about
one
of
the
most
important
ideas
evolved
by
man,
the
idea
that
killing
and
war,
which
is
multiple
killing,
are
wrong.&dquo;
He
goes
on,
starting
from
the
Sermon
on
ahe
Mount,
to
describe
how
this
notion
has
made
little
headway
against
the
homicidal
proclivities
of
society,
in
particular
the
nation
state,
and
how
theologians,
philosophers,
individual
pacifists
and
peace
movements
have been
either
co-opted
or
ignored
as
technological
and
political
advances have
respectively
enhanced
destructive
power
and
the
ability
of
governments
to
mobilize
even
democratic
communities
to
support,
indeed
to
clamour
for,
warfare.
However,
he
makes
the
point
that,
in
the
late
twentieth
century,
two
factors
have
combined
to
swell
public
protest
against
violence
and
increase
public
pressure
on
governments
to
perform
more
responsibly:
first,
the
fear
of
nuclear
war,
and
second,
the
growing
disrespect
for
the
competence
of
so-called
statesmen.
Calvocoressi
writes
of
the
&dquo;decline
of
the
American
presidency
into
a
chilling
ineptitude
and
curdling
vapidity&dquo;
and
of
ruling
classes
everywhere
being
portrayed
&dquo;as
an
elite
with
the
wrong
values
and
the
wrong
priorities&dquo;.
I
suppose
I
am
attracted
to
Calvocoressi’s
arguments
because
they
are
so
close
to
what
I
myself
have
been
saying
and
writing
in
lectures
and
articles
over
the
past
few
years!
Let
me
paraphrase
a
few
of
the
conclusions.
Peace
is
not
threatened
by
the
existence
of
weapons
but
by
the
behaviour
of
those
who
have
them.
The
prevention
of
wars
lies
chiefly
in
the
hands
of
those
who
govern
states,
who
have
a
duty
to
prevent
those
states
from
coming
to
blows,
and
who
need
standing
machinery
(this
is
the
crux)
to
support
them
in
this
task.
It
is
a
mistake
to
pay
more
attention
to
arms
control
and
disarmament
than
to
monitoring
the
causes
of
war
and
taking
steps
to
settle
these
conflicts
before
they
turn
violent.
The
United
Nations,
for
all
its
defects,
is
the
only
machinery
we
have
got
and
the
great
powers
could
improve
its
performance
if
they
so
wished.
Instead,
by
their
own
lamentable
behaviour,
they
are
ensuring
its
impotence.
I
believe
that,
if
a
third
world
war
breaks
out,
it
will
do
so
not
on
the
Central
Front
but
in
one
of
the
regional
conflicts
of
which
we
have
seen
about
150
since
1945,
and
in
which
about
15
million
people
have
been
killed
(none,
Peace
Movement please
note,
by
nuclear
weapons).
Had
the
super-powers
set
an
example
themselves,
by sticking to
international
law,
which
they
so
freely
invoke
against their
adversaries
by
insisting
that
others
did
the
same,
and
by
co-operating
in
the
UN
machinery
of
peace-keeping
and
peace-making
instead
of
using
it
to
slang
each
other,
many
of
these
wars
could
have
been
prevented.
Would
Vietnam
have
invaded
Cambodia
if
it
had
not
been
confident
of
the
support
of
the
Soviet
Union?
Did
the
American
bombing
of
Libya
entourage
President
Botha
to
raid
neighbouring
African
states
at
will?
Has
South
Africa
been
encouraged
to
remain
in
Southern
Angola
by
the
substitution
of
’constructive
engagement’
for
UN
pressure
to
settle
the
problem
of Namibia?
Would
Israel
have
invaded
Lebanon
if it
had
not
been
confident
of
US
acquiescence,
or
Iraq
invaded
Iran
without
being
sure
that
the
Soviet
Union
would
not
react?
The
list
could
be
extended
indefinitely
to
include
the
example
to
aggressive regional
powers
of
the
overt
US
attempts
to
overthrow
a
recognised
government
in
Nicaragua.
Surely,
with
the
nuclear
threat
looming
on
the
horizon,
our
leaders
could
do
better.
-Sir
Anthony
Parsons
The
Third
World
and
International
Relations,
Philippe
Braillard
and
Mohammad-
Reza
Djalili.
Frances
Pinter,
London,
and
Lynne
Rienner,
Colorado,
1986,
pp
xii,
301, £29.50.
The
place
of
the
&dquo;Third
World&dquo;
in
international
relations
today
and
its
development
is
not
always
understood.
The
aim
of
this
book,
by
two
teachers
at
the
Graduate
Institute
of lnternational
Studies
at
Geneva,
which
was
first
published
in
French
in
1984,
is
to
give
&dquo;an
overall
presentation
of
the
Third
World’s
vision
of
To continue reading
Request your trial