TALKING WITH THE ENEMY vs. WHAT?

History may teach the leaders of nations that being a "winner" in a war means determining future relations with the "loser." But wars have neither winners nor losers; that the fact of going to war means that everyone loses except the people who make money from war. Even the winners of territory are hard put to declare themselves winners unless that territory historically belonged to the winners. Death and destruction of property, including war materiel, makes populations losers by deprivation of the needs of life and the destruction of the quality of life.

So, given that wars are always between losers regardless of who gives up the fight and who is declared "winner," how can wars be averted? First, by insulating conflicts from acquisition-of-wealth influence and second, by the disputing parties talking with each other even when wealth is at stake.

All wars have an economic base. No war is ever fought if nothing of value is at stake. History and religion provide the fastest and surest bases for war. Possession of land and natural resources, slaves, populations, and religious adherents and religious space, access to ports, trade routes, and the means of production of wealth, and, believe it or not, for the destruction of wealth, are all good reasons for going to war.

However, populations are persuaded to march off to war for patriotic and religious reasons, for reasons of perceived injustice or for the security of their nations. Whatever mechanism is used to persuade, the underlying motivation for the war propaganda remains economic.

So how can talking cure the lust for wealth in a particular conflict situation? First and foremost, by removing wealth production from the causus beli. Second, by talking with the "enemy." Only then, is there a real possibility for arriving at solutions to conflicts between nations and ethnic groups. And so long as talking goes on, war goes off.