As far as I know, Mark Leonard is the first to coin the word “unpeace.” I do not pretend to have read everything he wrote, and so I cannot tell if he gave a formal definition for the word.
But Marc Leonard wrote an article recently
under the title: “The Afghan Tragedy and the Age of Unpeace,” which triggered
my interest to probe deeply into what he has to say on this subject. His
article was published on September 3, 2021 in the online publication, Project
Syndicate.
Peace is the absence of aggression.
Therefore, the word “unpeace” is meant to convey some kind of aggression but
with nuances that must be understood so that we may formulate a clear picture
of what the writer wishes to convey. To that end, we ask: How did human aggression
begin? And the obvious answer is that we inherited the trait when we evolved
from the lower primates.
Studying the trend that aggression goes
through as it evolves from the playfulness which takes place naturally among
the young of the lower primates such as cats for example, and trace it all the
way to the mass killings that human beings are capable of inflicting on others,
such as obliterating a city the size of Hiroshima for example, we detect 4
distinct stages of aggression. They are as follows:
There is the early playfulness of the young
among the primates as well as the human toddlers. The purpose of the
playfulness is to sharpen the reflexes of the young, strengthen their muscles
and coordinate between the two. The purpose is to learn how to become alert to
the dangers that may lurk unseen in some places, and defend against them when the
young will no longer have the protection of their parents. This is an exercise
that’s closer to peace than it is to aggression. We must therefore classify the
early playfulness as a first level unpeace.
When the young approach the peak of their
physical prowess, they get into sports where they take on real adversaries (who
pretend to be mortal enemies) and fight them according to a set of agreed rules.
What the sports do is simulate combat without the players hurting each other.
In theory, this prepares the players (combatants) to defend themselves and those
who depend on them, if and when a real enemy attacks. For this reason, sports
too are exercises closer to peace than they are to aggression. They are, however
rougher than childhood playfulness, and must be classified as second level
unpeace.
Beyond the stage of playfulness that
simulates real combat, there exists the competition in business that is true
combat, and where “dog eat dog.” There is supposed to be internationally
accepted rules to regulate this kind of competition, but the referees are often
deceived and blinded from seeing the infractions. And even when they see the
infractions, the referees are often powerless to do anything about them. This
kind of competition, be it at the domestic or international levels, is not a peaceful
exercise to be sure, but it cannot be called aggression either because
officially, it is not supposed to be this rough. We must therefore classify it
as third level unpeace.
When failure to resolve such issues, reach
the boiling point, nations get into a real combat. This usually begins with a
small attack by one side to warn the other side that things have reached a
serious level. The problem, however, is that the small attack by one side,
causes the other side to respond. This can trigger a back and forth that often
escalates to become the ultimate form of aggression. Such a situation cannot be
classified as unpeace and must be classified for what it is: war.
Whereas all of the above define the word
unpeace as can best be understood, how does Mark Leonard use it to describe the
new world he says will ensue as a result of the Afghan War coming to an end?
Well, the following is a condensed version of the passages from Leonard’s
article that answer the question:
“US President Joe Biden faces a new world in
which countries attack each other by weaponizing the very things that connect
them. Vindictive geopolitical partners turn to trade, finance, migration,
pandemics, climate change, and the internet. Some countries withhold access to
trade, face masks, vaccines, global finance, or minerals. Others resort to
cyberattacks or disinformation, or weaponize cross-border refugee flows. These
modern methods do not meet the textbook definition of war. Thus, the end of the
war in Afghanistan will not bring peace. The US will try to re-establish
its sway over Afghanistan by manipulating aid flows and access to the dollar.
This is not war as we knew it, but it is not peace, either. Rather, the world
has entered an age of unpeace, or perpetual competition among powerful
states, with the US-China rivalry at its core”.
This is neither playfulness nor sports. So, it cannot be first or second levels unpeace. It is in some ways a third level unpeace, but because people do get hurt and die as a result of this low-level combat between nations, it can also be said that the exercise resembles war. We must therefore classify that situation in a new category as being part third level unpeace and part war.