In 1932, Albert Einstein wrote a pressing letter to Sigmund Freud. In it, the century's foremost genius asked the century's foremost psychologist, "Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?"  A year later, Adolf Hitler's Nazi party rose to power and war followed.

It is therefore no surprise that, in his reply to Einstein, Freud says that what makes human beings respond to the drums of war is a natural passion for destruction, a primordial urge to reduce life to inert matter. When this death instinct allies itself with the creative drive for a great purpose   ̶   as when war is unleashed to make a country great or to glorify a particular people   ̶   the combined self-gratification becomes just about irresistible.

Freud wonders why anybody should be so intent on ridding humankind of war. Why is it not simply accepted as one of life's odious but inescapable facts, a tragic inevitability?  Of course, some might reply that they cannot, because war violates man's fundamental right to life; because it cuts down young lives right in the middle of their flowering; because it brutalizes the individual by forcing him to murder fellow men; and because, given advances in military technology, we are careening toward the day when war will assure the total extermination of all combatants.

Can we afford the pessimism that war is an irremediable fact of human life; can we be so complacent?  If we have learned the wretched lessons of history with their native lust for cruelty and destruction, then, surely, we must keep alive the hope for peace. Otherwise, resignation to the inevitability of war becomes resignation to the endgame of humanity.  Therefore, optimism regarding the outlook for peace becomes a moral necessity.

"War is not in our genes. What is inevitable is human anger and violence."  So says Jorge L. Tizón, a psychiatrist, in his 2022 book La guerra como campo de batalla. Deconstruyendo mitos y símbolos (War as battlefield. Deconstructing myths and symbols). Tizón reminds us that it is culture that stimulates or represses anger and violence, rather than joy and cooperation in human emotions.

In War Is a Force that gives us Meaning, veteran war reporter Chris Hedges had warned that the problem with the human condition is the power of the myth of war, which compels chaos and violent death, justifying cruelty and human stupidity. "War is necrophilia hidden under the clichés of duty and camaraderie," he writes.

In 1795, Immanuel Kant proposed that war be made illegal on a universal scale.  Some two centuries later, the Seville Statement on Violence took up the theme that "biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come." 

Cynthia Enloe, author of Twelve Feminist Lessons of War, adds that "by acting as if war were not inevitable, we can prevent it."  She warns that claiming that war is inevitable means not holding anyone responsible for destroying peace, when in fact all wars break out due to specific decisions by specific people, each of whom could have acted differently.

We talk of people and countries having become civilised, but the rules by which they interact often remain those of the jungle.  In too many situations, the international fora where disputes can be resolved or adjudicated are ignored. The craving for land or control of the seas, including the resources they contain, often becomes the object of wars, although they may ostensibly have been waged for other purposes. 

Thus, Russia invaded Ukraine ostensibly to protect the Russian minority, but its real purpose was to have a buffer against NATO; Israel is committing horrors in Gaza ostensibly to defeat Hamas, but its real purpose is to make the strip uninhabitable except for its settlers; Trump and Netanyahu attacked Iran ostensibly to prevent the country from building a nuclear bomb but their real purpose was to change the regime in Teheran and make it less of a threat to their interests.

Such events make us wonder philosophically about the juxtaposition of War and Peace, which the mass of mankind perceives as two orders of mutually exclusive things that might constitute, in turn, the natural conditions of the life of mankind.  The issue is, of course, addressed in Leo Tolstoy's monumental War and Peace.  The great Russian writer makes us question whether peace presupposes war and vice versa.  They alternate in the history of countries and peoples as mysterious forces, almost divine, which reflect the tenets of political economy - production and consumption.

It might look crass to think of war and peace in terms of economic transactions, but the current re-armament race is certainly evocative of the notion.  The Russian threat to European borders and EU expansion, the undeclared war between the USA and China to assert superiority in economics and power, and the proxy wars in Africa and the Middle East, are all justifying the re-opening of arms factories and higher expenditure on all kinds of armaments.  Their production makes GDP grow everywhere, but if arms are produced, they are likely to be consumed at some time, not least because if a state concludes that some other state's arms build-up is severely threatening its security, it could strike pre-emptively.

Wars may seem the solution when times are desperate, but they rarely turn out to be definitive.  It is worth remembering that a century ago, H.G. Wells predicted the 'war to end all wars,' but the subsequent 'peace to end all peace' led to the carnage of the Second World War.  Since then, the Cold War, various proxy wars, and other violent conflicts have continued to kill millions of people and cause population displacements all over the world.

So, the risks of a Third World War shouldn't be underestimated.  Nor should we discount the clear and present danger that a Third World War could happen accidentally or unintentionally.  If anybody wants to explore why, I suggest they listen to the excellent and gripping Sky News podcast series The War Game

What can we do to reduce dangers to the fragile peace that exists?  Pray, like the Pope and other religious leaders, invite us to do?   For people of faith, it is certainly one way.  But I doubt that it is enough. 

First of all, appeasement does not work.  Compromises are needed to secure peace, but too many concessions often fuel the appetite of aggressors, and the resulting 'peace' can turn out to be as dark as war.  Watch Noel Coward's famous play "Peace in our time" and you will immediately understand why legitimising violence is ultimately self-defeating. So, giving Putin Ukraine or destroying Gaza and turning it into the Middle East Riviera won't solve anything.  

Another chimera is that a multi-polar world with a small number of powerful nations having their spheres of interest will bring peace and stability. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Yalta Agreement both attest to this, bringing in their wake crimes against humanity, oppressive occupations, and a lack of freedom.  Why should Putin be allowed to re-establish the Soviet sphere of interest or China an equally oppressive hegemony in Asia, or, for that matter, why should the EU become a new superpower?

Assuring peace is not easy and cannot be done for all time, but it will require nations coming together to enhance multilateral institutions, promote dialogue and negotiation, build trust and confidence, tackle inequalities between nations, promote sustainable development, strengthen and extend the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, reduce or even eliminate nuclear weapons, prevent the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction, counter hate speech and extremism, uphold the rule of law, hold perpetrators accountable for war crimes, and strengthen international courts.

Frans Camilleri is an economist. He studied at Oxford and University of East Anglia, is a former corporate head at Air Malta, and has served on various public and private boards.