A Just and Lasting Peace: More than the Absence of War

The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace
depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace
treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved
without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances
which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated
their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly
came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole. 1 Both territorial
questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the
framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in
1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of
the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of
the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of
war.
How do the terms or implementation of treaties determine peace or conflict decades
later? Efforts to build a just and lasting peace are complicated not only because past grievances
must be addressed, but future interests must be anticipated-even when such future interests were
not identified as the cause of war in the first place. Edward Teller, discussing the Manhattan
Project, observed, "No endeavor which is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be
simple in retrospect."2 Only if a nation perceives that continuing observance of the treaty will
sustain the state over a long period of time and in changing circumstances, the peace and security
promised by the treaty will endure. Machiavelli observed that ". . . fear of loss of the State by a
prince or republic will overcome both gratitude and treaties."3
The Treaty of Ghent supports the notion that the essential long-term national interests of
both parties are the most important factor in peace treaty success. Both the United States and
Great Britain clearly perceived that they had real grievances and cause for war in 1812.
However, within a short time, both nations realized they had a greater interest in peace without
regard to most of the issues that provoked the conflict.
The United States, initially focusing on the infringement of its maritime rights and
customs and commercial trade, specifically objected to impressment of its merchant seamen, and
worried that the nation might be forced to fight a second war of independence if Britain did not
recognize the rights of its citizens. The English sought, primarily, to "rectify" 4 the border
between Canada and the United States, establish a native American buffer around the Great
Lakes, and secure Canada from invasion by land-hungry Americans.5
The Americans initiated mediation through a third party, Czar Alexander I of Russia,
who organized delegations to both countries while hostilities were in progress. Direct
negotiations began in 1814. By the time the Treaty was negotiated, Americans refocused on
territorial security as their principal concern, while the British conceded any jurisdiction over
American commerce and merchantmen to concentrate military resources in Europe. The initial
demand of the Americans, the end of impressment, was also conceded without proclamation. The
territorial settlement restored the status quo ante bellum despite the fact that the British had
captured Washington and the Americans had achieved naval supremacy on the Great Lakes.
Arrangements to pay for destroyed property were included with ambiguous terms for
reparations.6 Both countries agreed to work toward abolishing the slave trade, and agreed to
respect Indian rights. Most importantly, boundary commissions were established by the treaty,
which made possible the peaceful and rapid resolution of future conflicts.7
In 1815, the Treaty of Ghent stood a good chance of success because neither side could
gain more by continuing the military conflict in view of other pressing interests. Despite the fact
that Great Britain maintained the strongest navy in the world and could have reduced America to
its former status as a de facto colony, the English remained concerned about the threat by the
French to shipping in the English Channel. By the time the treaty was ratified, only six weeks
after it was signed, Napoleon was on the march again and the Americans had won the Battle of
New Orleans. The strategic picture had changed for both countries in a matter of weeks. Both
nations, however, recognized mutual benefits, and what became the essential goals of each
nation dictated that the Treaty of Ghent be ratified and enforced.8
Perhaps most interesting, shortly after the War of 1812 was resolved, the British
mercantile interests in the West Indies began to decline in relative terms and that nation's
commercial interest in American cotton became more significant. 9 Boundary issues and Indian
rights became less important than a source of raw materials for industries in England. 10 This was
a change in the parties' interests that was not anticipated, but explained their willingness to settle
on a stable national boundary.
In comparison to the Treaty of Ghent, the Treaty of Sevres can only be described as a
short-term success and a long-term disaster. Signed in August 1920 by the representatives of
Ottoman Turkey and the Allies of World War I, the treaty dismantled the Ottoman Empire for
the benefit of various groups indigenous to the area and, not least of all, British, French, and
Italian interests in the Middle East. France received a mandate in Syria, and Britain in Palestine
and Iraq. Italy demanded Montenegro as a buffer between its territories and Serbia. Turkey gave
up its rights to North Africa and the Arabian peninsula. Kurdestan and Armenia became
autonomous. Greece dominated eastern Thrace, the Anatolian west coast, and most Aegean
islands. The British, French, and Italian governments controlled the Turkish treasury.
The peace imposed on a captive Sultan did not demand indemnities, but the Turks
believed the Treaty of Sevres was so unfair that Mustafa Kemal threatened to overthrow the
Sultan. As Allies debated the use of military force to guarantee the Treaty, the United States
refused to participate.11 The Sultan refused to ratify the Treaty, believing his government could
not survive if he signed. In 1921, Kemal signed an agreement with Bolshevik Russia which
crushed Armenian independence. The Treaty of Sevres rapidly crumbled.
The Treaty of Ghent, unlike the Treaty of Sevres, met the mutual national interest of warring
parties, avoided onerous provisions, and was quickly implemented. In 1920, however, the
diverse interests represented by the Allies and groups within the old Ottoman Empire 12 made it
impossible to identify essential interests and satisfy the most disaffected parties. France sought
terms for a greater Syria and signed a separate treaty with Kemal, acting as foreign minister of
Turkey. Great Britain supported the Sultan's government, but questioned the borders between its
mandate, Iraq, and Turkey.
The Turks, unlike the Americans in 1815, viewed the treaty imposed on them as unfair.
Although the Sultan attempted to finesse the Treaty he was dethroned. His successor, Kemal,
also known as Atat¸rk, the father of modern Turkey, commenced hostilities against the Greeks to
recover lost territories. Mediators provided little or no assistance or intervention. Perhaps the
Allies didn't have the manpower, the money, or the will to supervise and enforce an imposed
peace.13 The principal issues left unresolved by the Treaty of Sevres remain sources of regional
disputes and potential world conflict to this day.
On the other hand, the British and the Americans initially used Russia as a third-party
mediator and relied on a boundary commission to set the precedent for successful resolution of
twelve subsequent disputes between the United States and what became sovereign Canada. 14 The
Treaty of Ghent has never been challenged.
In the future, peace treaties must provide for a great deal more than the absence of war.
History has taught us that treaties must represent a "shared willingness" 15 to identify the long-
term, as well as the short-term, interests of all parties. Effective treaties must accurately identify
such interests, not leave ambiguities or set onerous terms. To that end, in the twenty-first century
nations must wage peace more creatively and aggressively than war in the twentieth century.
Leaders committed to peace must receive support.16 A process for mediation, monitoring, and
enforcement by a third party, or a mechanism for the resolution of disputes, will preserve the
mutual interests of the parties in face of changing circumstances. Initial implementation should
be rapid, before national interests, or the perceptions of those interests, changes. The Treaty of
Ghent satisfied most of these criteria. The Treaty of Sevres did not.