The world is unlikely to repeat the catastrophe of past great wars because of new communication channels and diversified interests

2014 has already been a significant year. With the Ukraine face-off between Russia and the West, the world is now a very different place. What makes 2014 even more remarkable is the fact that it might also be the year of historical analogies. While some in the West drew parallels between Nazi Germany’s annexation of territories in the 1930s and the on-going situation involving the Crimea, in the East, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe claimed that current tensions in East Asia are akin to those between Britain and Germany on the eve of the First World War. Will 2014 be a repeat of 1914? Will China's re-emergence threaten a new world war?

Modern China has WWI to thank. China, right after the revolution that overthrew the imperial dynasty, and barely organized enough to stand on its feet, joint the WWI in 1917 and declared war on Germany. It was thousands of miles away from the European theatre but the Allies wanted China, perhaps, to stop Germany from siphoning off its resources and assets in the Qingdao (Tsingtao) colony in Shandong to help finance its war in Europe. Germany was defeated and in the Paris peace conference in 1918, China participated as equals for the first time but only to be humiliated by the allies when the former German colony of Qingdao in a China was returned not to China but to Japan. That resulted in the May fourth movement in 1919. It started as a student movement, and then developed into a youth movement and ultimately a movement among the Chinese intelligentsia to search for an ideological basis for China's future development. They chose Marxism. And in 1921, the Chinese Communist Party was formed in Shanghai. And the rest is history.......

With changes in the balance of power, unresolved territorial and maritime disputes, arm races and nuclear proliferation, it is not surprising that the memory of 1914 may trigger the most concern in East Asia. However, a closer look at this region suggests that fundamental conditions today are in fact nothing like those in Europe in 1914.

Seven reasons for peace

First are the new channels of communication between nations which largely reduce the possibility of war due to misinterpretation and miscalculation. One hundred years ago the telegraph was relied on mostly for long-distance messages. Communication of the news to the general public was limited to newspapers and magazines. Today, even in the most remote parts of the planet, people can easily communicate with any other part of the world with the smart phones in their pockets. Prime-ministerial hotlines were installed, intended to diffuse tensions between countries during crises.

Moreover, in contrast with Europe in 1914, where there was no effective multilateral institution to settle disputes and maintain world order, we now have plenty of supranational organizations and unofficial channels for dealing with different matters, to resolve disputes, to enforce justices and to promote cooperation, either through Track-One or Track-Two platforms. Apart from the League of Nations and the United Nations which were established after the two world wars in an attempt to preserve collective security, Asia is seeing new progress in regional cooperation in terms of economics and security. FTAs and security cooperation projects were proposed by China’s new administration, such as the Silk Road Economic Belt, the establishment of an Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the China-ASEAN community of common destiny, and most recently, enhancing the capacity and institutional building of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), turning it into a security dialogue and cooperation platform covering the whole of Asia. Miscalculations are always possible, but the risk of this can be minimized by efficient and effective communication.

Secondly, unlike Europe on the eve of the First World War, where the quest for national prestige strengthened imperial motives, in today’s Asia, personalities, face and shame, humiliation and honor, play second fiddle to cold hard reasoning and analyses. Nationalism may grow in the area where historical resentment and territorial disputes remains, but no country is so bellicose or confident to want even a limited war, let alone a full scale total war. Media and separation of powers among government branches constitutes a system of check and balance which holds politicians more accountable for their words and actions, and more significantly, discourages inappropriate, aggressive and risk taking actions.

Third – wars are costly. The number of casualties in the First World War was about 9.4 million: an average of roughly 6,000 deaths for every day of the war, making it one of the deadliest wars in human history. In economic terms, the First World War - fought at an estimated cost of $208 billion - caused the greatest global depression of the 20th century. Given the high cost of wars, looking back, none would have entered the war if given a second chance.

Fourth – due to the peculiar characteristics of mutually assured destruction, nuclear weapons have greatly reduced military conflicts between major countries in the last 60 years and provided a unique stability in the Cold War as shown in the Cuban missile crisis. As Joseph Nye argued, nuclear weapons give political leaders the equivalent of a crystal ball that shows what their world would look like after military escalation. “Perhaps if the Emperor, the Kaiser and the Czar had had crystal balls showing their empires destroyed and their thrones lost in 1918, they would have been more prudent in 1914.”

Fifth – interests are too diversified to engage all sections of society and all the countries to lead to a "total war" or "world war". In fact, total war is a particularly demanding form of international conflict which requires a strong sense of collective identity in addition to shared interests. Unlike 100 years ago, when rivalries for colonies as well as colonial trade and trade routes developed among European powers, globalization has bound all countries closely together, greatly diminishing major countries' desire to opt for confrontation. With our interests so intertwined, we rise and fall together, and there is either security for all or security for none. War is not the answer to settling disputes in the 21st century.

Sixth – international tensions can be easily escalated through the alliance system. It was argued that European alliance systems in the early 20th century were responsible for the outbreak of the First World War by allowing a small conflict between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to quickly expand and involve other great powers such as Britain, Germany, Russia and France. However, unlike the alliance systems we saw in Europe 100 years ago, where fears and envies among countries had been accumulating, political alignments and regional security today is distinguished in two important ways. One is that the ideological differences among countries are much weaker nowadays. In addition, security alliances are loosely bound, in which each has its own consideration and best interest in mind. As seen in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, the United States and its allies may have different positions on military intervention and economic sanctions due to their differing interests in those regions. Escalation of a regional conflict into a total war involving opposing alliances is impossible.

Seventh – security takes on a different perspective and context, distinguished from a century ago when military conflict was the only form of confrontation available between nations. The security concept today has been extended to economical, informational, social, cultural, digital, health, food, water, and other unconventional securities, as well as color revolutions. The use of the military is an extreme case.

History does rhyme

Therefore, in answering the question “Will 2014 be a repeat of 1914?”, I shall quote an old proverb by Mark Twain, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

It depends on what scenario you are talking about. A future total war or a full scaled world war? No. War? Unlikely. Regional battles? Maybe. Local skirmishes? Yes.

Today, much has been discussed about power transition and the “Thucydides Trap.” Yet historically, it seemed inevitable for major countries, especially emerging powers and established powers, to engage in competition and end up in confrontation or even conflict. In fact, many people argue that the First World War was inevitable because of the rise of Germany and the fear that this created in Britain. They claim that it was a deliberate preventive war by Germany against Britain. But it was also made more probable by Germany’s fearful response to Russia’s rising power. Along with this logic, a rising but still weaker state is inclined to avoid provoking a declining hegemon. In contrast, a declining hegemon may prefer to escalate the conflict now in order to prevent a worsened situation in the future.

The only fear of a future total war is rooted in a declining hegemon's “Samson option”, a “last resort” strategy to destroy its enemies, and itself, by massive offensive means which may include nuclear weapons. This is because nations in decline feel increasingly insecure and become more susceptible to fantasies that promise to restore their rightful place by a bold stroke. Will the decline of a hegemon be slow and reasonably dignified? or will the whole world be dragged down with it?

Still, with no endgame in sight, I will keep my eye on four issues which are basic elements for the future world order: 1) The US abetting the deconstruction of its own unipolar world order, pivoting to Asia and Europe and everywhere else. 2) Russia pivoting to Asia. 3) China pivoting itself across the world. 4) BRICS hard at work trying to bring about the new Eurasian Century.

Achieving sustainable and long-lasting security will be the world’s overriding challenge in this century. War is never inevitable, though the belief that it is can become one of its causes.

On this earth, the greatest enemy is not one another or among ourselves, but is that part of human nature that has rendered our existence on this earth unsustainable. This should be our number one enemy. This should be our common foe. Joining hands together we still might have a chance, but not divided and acting alone. We have different pasts, but we do have a common future to face.

If we want to prevent a repeat of the tragedy of great power politics a hundred years ago, it is important for great powers to develop a new model of major-country relationship and renew the concept of security. As President Xi Jinping said a few days ago, “One cannot live in the 21st century with the outdated thinking of the Cold War and zero-sum games… We need to innovate in our security concept, establish a new regional security cooperation architecture, and jointly build a shared, win-win road for Asian security”.

This article summarizes the key points made by Dr. Patrick Ho in a panel discussion on “The European Tragedy of 1914 and the Multipolar World of 2014: Lessons Learned” which took place in Belgrade on 30/31 May 2014. Ho, being the only Chinese panelist at the conference, discussed the lessons of WWI and the 21st-century East Asia with former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Pakistan Shaukat Aziz, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia Nur Hassan Wirajuda, and former Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations Tsuneo Nishida.

The author is director of Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies; deputy chairman and secretary general of China Energy Fund Committee, an independent think tank on energy and China-related issues.