Introduction
The subject of whether or not states must be adversaries has generated much controversy and continues to be highly debated. The issue may be traced back to 1914 when the First World War broke out due to hostility between Serbia, the United States, France, Italy, Britain, Russia and Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary (Cebula, 2020). These conflicts resulted in the loss of life and the damage of property. However, with them, governments were compelled to innovate, creating advanced technology as a defense. According to De Jaegher (2020), these battles and early indications of hostility are primarily responsible for the industrial revolution and shaping the world as it is now. However, Leal Filho et al. (2022) argue that although enmity has increased creativity and innovation, these outcomes would have been attained without the expenditures incurred by the former. All of these are fair reasons for and against enmity. Therefore, the states do not have to be enemies due to enmity’s contribution to property destruction and loss of lives, economic disruption, political instability, damaged reputation, climate change, and limited diplomatic relations.
Discussion
Primarily, animosity between nations is a recognized cause of war, leading to irreparable property devastation and loss of life. This dynamic has occurred throughout history and has been the fundamental reason opponents of state-on-state conflict have maintained their stance. In World War I alone, over 9.7 million military members and 10 million civilians perished, with millions more suffering severe injuries or going missing (Cebula, 2020). Approximately sixty million people were killed during World War II (Cebula, 2020). Even more recently, the animosity between Russia and Ukraine has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people and the moderate to severe injury of thousands more (Pifer, 2022). The lives lost in these battles are irretrievable, and those injured remain long-term liabilities to their states, which is expensive for families and nations. Moreover, some of the lives sacrificed in these pointless enmities are often those of the brightest minds, capable of making contributions that modify the world’s status and steer it toward considerable progress and achievement.
In addition to the loss of life, nations at war are a significant cause of property destruction. It is estimated that World War I cost around $151 billion in indirect expenditures and $186 billion in direct costs (Martin, 2021). Similarly, approximately 300,000 homes were destroyed, along with thousands of schools, industries, churches, woods, and agriculture (Martin, 2021). According to the World Bank, the economic cost of armed war between 1980 and 2016 was around $14.3 trillion (Cebula, 2020). This astonishing sum of money might have been invested in healthcare, education, and infrastructure to enhance the lives of people throughout the globe. In addition, Martin (2021) estimates that World Wars I and II’s damage set back world innovation and development by almost 50 years. This might have been averted if the nations had turned to friendship and sought more peaceful means of resolving their differences rather than allowing their hatred to develop into war.
Moreover, hostility is detrimental to governments because it causes economic disruptions that impair global economic activity and contribute to employment losses. This may adversely affect firms, employees, and consumers, reducing financial performance. This may lead to trade obstacles such as tariffs, quotas, and embargoes. These policies make it more difficult for enterprises to do business with one another, which may result in a decline in economic activity. According to a World Trade Organization (WTO) assessment, commerce obstacles may restrict the amount of trade by as much as 50 percent (Le et al., 2022). This may severely affect enterprises that depend on exports and can also result in increased consumer pricing.
Besides, governments becoming foes enhances the implementation of economic penalties. These actions might include freezing assets, blocking imports and exports, and limiting access to financial systems. Sanctions on the economy may wreak havoc on economic activity and injure innocent firms and persons caught in the crossfire. According to research by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the economic sanctions placed by the United States on Iraq between 1990 and 2003 contributed to the deaths of at least 500,000 children under the age of five (Le et al., 2022). Moreover, governments becoming adversaries restricts prospects for economic progress and employment creation. According to World Bank research, foreign investment may result in enhanced productivity, better living standards, and the innovation of jobs (Le et al., 2022). Moreover, firms may also suffer security concerns while working in or near hostile nations since they may be targeted for assault or abducted. This may lead to more significant expenses and lower production, disrupting economic activity.
Political instability may result from hostility between nations, both inside the states and in areas where they exert influence. This may negatively affect political systems, societal cohesiveness, and security. First, hostility between nations might result in an arms race. When governments are adversaries, they often boost their military budget to guard against possible assaults. This might result in an arms race in which one state attempts to outspend the other to acquire an edge. According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2020, military expenditures hit $1.9 trillion worldwide (Le et al., 2022). This substantial sum of funds might have been allocated to social welfare or education. Additionally, this might worsen political instability in the area since neighboring nations may feel threatened and raise their military expenditures.
Furthermore, governments that are adversaries undermine their political climate. This is because when governments are adversaries, they may use nationalistic language to explain their hatred against one another. This may increase division and extremism within the nation, threatening political stability and social cohesiveness. In 2020, according to research by the Pew Research Center, the median degree of national pride was higher in nations with more political division and unfavorable opinions of the opposition party (Ouedraogo et al., 2021). Enmity adds to political instability by accelerating the development of proxy conflicts.
When governments are adversaries, they may assist opposite parties in a dispute in another country to undermine their adversary without actually participating in combat. This may result in protracted confrontations, and the participation of several parties might make a peaceful conclusion difficult. According to research by the International Crisis Group, proxy wars have increased the number of non-state armed organizations and extended hostilities in Syria and Yemen (Ouedraogo et al., 2021). These are nations that have remained war zones due to senseless hostilities, and no state wants any association with them due to their state of political instability, which would not exist if the countries had engaged in dialogue and focused on building mutually beneficial relationships based on cooperation and understanding, as opposed to hostility and mistrust.
States becoming adversaries also adds to a nation’s bad image. This may have a domino effect on different parts of the country, beginning with the international community’s poor image of the government. When a nation is known to be antagonistic towards other nations, it may be considered unreliable or untrustworthy. This may hinder the nation’s ability to create and maintain strong ties with other countries in the short and long term. A nation’s reputation is strongly connected with its capacity to recruit and retain talent, investment, and tourism.
Tourism is also negatively impacted by a damaged reputation, leading to its decline. When a country has a reputation for being hostile toward other nations, it may be seen as dangerous or unwelcoming. This might result in a reduction in tourism, which can have a substantial economic effect on the government. According to statistics from the World Tourism Organization, international tourism declined by 70% in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Le et al., 2022). This decline may be related to the negative image of countries having hostile relations with other nations. In addition, a wrong perception of a country’s image might result in a reduction in investment since hostility makes countries seem to be dangerous investment destinations. This might result in a decline in foreign investment, which can considerably affect the nation’s economic progress.
The consequences of climate change may be felt worldwide, making it one of the most severe global challenges today. In a variety of ways, animosity between nations may worsen the situation. One of the primary methods is through increasing the usage of fossil fuels. Countries in a hostile state may engage in energy-intensive military activity. This energy is often derived from fossil fuels, a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, nations in a condition of hostility may have greater emission levels than those not in a state of hostility. According to Koubi (2019), China, the United States, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Canada were the top ten emitters of carbon dioxide in 2019. It is important to note that some of these nations have been or are currently in a hostile state or have had contentious relations.
Destruction of infrastructure and ecosystems may also contribute to climate change due to hostility between nations. Infrastructure such as power plants, roads, and buildings may be damaged during times of war, resulting in more significant emissions until the infrastructure is restored. In addition, the degradation of ecosystems such as forests and wetlands may result in the release of carbon trapped in these regions, worsening the situation further (Koubi, 2019). Due to its role in the collapse of international collaboration on climate change, unfavorable climate change is also linked to hostility. Countries in a hostile state may be less willing to collaborate to solve the problem, making it more challenging to accomplish the required emission reductions to reduce the consequences of climate change. This lack of collaboration is seen in the failure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions to produce a legally enforceable agreement to cut emissions.
In various ways, animosity between nations may result in restricted diplomatic ties. One of the primary methods is the deterioration of diplomatic relations between nations. When two or more countries are in a hostile relationship, they may sever diplomatic ties, making it difficult or impossible for them to negotiate or communicate. This might make it difficult to settle conflicts and manage global challenges like climate change and terrorism (Darnton, 2019). Furthermore, hostility between nations may impede diplomatic ties by creating an unfriendly climate for diplomats and other country officials. In such a scenario, ambassadors and other representatives may not feel secure and cannot perform their duties properly, which might further impede diplomatic relations.
In addition to negatively impacting the worldwide community, the restricted diplomatic ties caused by animosity between governments may also negatively impact international relations. When nations cannot correctly communicate and negotiate, it may be more challenging to handle global concerns such as poverty, terrorism, and climate change. Additionally, it may make regional and international stability more difficult to sustain. The historical ties between the United Government and Cuba are a prime illustration of this consequence of states becoming adversaries. (Darnton, 2019) During their more than fifty years of hostility, the two nations severed diplomatic ties and implemented economic penalties on one another. This resulted in limited diplomatic connections between the two nations, making it difficult for them to discuss problems of shared importance.
Despite the apparent consequences of governments having adversaries, some still believe that hostility is a necessary evil for nations. According to De Jaegher (2020), hate promotes self-sufficiency by compelling states to depend on their resources and capabilities rather than those of other nations. During the Cold War, for instance, the United States and the Soviet Union were adversaries. Consequently, both nations created space programs and nuclear weapons rather than depending on one other (Darnton, 2019). This independence enabled both nations to preserve their military and technical dominance and prevent their adversary from striking. Innovation is also seen as a benefit of governments being adversaries since proponents of this perspective feel it encourages countries to create new technologies and techniques to obtain an edge over their adversaries. This perspective is supported by the example of World War II, during which the United States and Germany were adversaries. Consequently, both nations produced new technology, such as radar and jet engines, for civilian and military purposes.
Those who share this perspective also believe that hostility leads to independence by forcing states to become self-reliant and independent of other nations. During the Cold War, for instance, Eastern Bloc nations such as the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba built their own economic and political systems. Furthermore, it is said that the animosity promotes economic sustainability by forcing states to create their industries and resources rather than be dependent on other nations. During the Cold War, for instance, the Soviet Union built its heavy industry and natural resources, allowing it to sustain a robust economy while being cut off from the rest of the world (Darnton, 2019). This was significant for its independence back then, making it even more vital.
While animosity between states may likely result in some of the benefits listed above, it is crucial to recognize that these advantages come at a high price. Antagonism between governments often results in increased military expenditure and arms competitions, which may siphon funds from domestic priorities like education, healthcare, and infrastructure (Darnton, 2019). In addition, animosity between governments may result in trade embargoes and economic penalties, damaging home sectors and impeding economic progress. In addition, animosity between governments may result in heightened tensions and potential conflict, which can have terrible humanitarian effects and result in the loss of people, infrastructure and further economic expenses (Leal Filho et al., 2022). Furthermore, the touted advantages, such as self-sufficiency, creativity, independence, and economic sustainability, may be exaggerated. Even throughout the Cold War, countries depended on commerce and cooperation with other nations (Darnton, 2019). Much technological advancement during this time was the product of international collaboration and cooperation rather than hostility.
In addition, it is necessary to underline that states may accomplish self-sufficiency, innovation, independence, and economic sustainability via diplomatic measures, trade agreements, and peaceful cooperation. These are the four pillars that make up the “four pillars of economic sustainability.” Rather than relying on hostility to achieve these goals, this approach may be more productive and time-saving. During the Cold War, instances of nations refusing to cooperate were the exception, not the rule (Darnton, 2019). Most countries are interrelated, and to some extent, they depend on international collaboration to satisfy their needs in terms of both their economy and security.
Conclusion
In conclusion, governments do not need to be enemies since it is highly expensive for the states and the global community. The negative factors such as property loss, climate change, reduced diplomatic connections, economic upheaval, and even tarnished reputation as characteristics that nations struggle to recover from as causes of the battle. Even though some people believe that countries can only achieve economic sustainability, self-sufficiency, and creativity while at war, this view is heavily flawed. In contrast, these goals may still be accomplished more effectively and efficiently via diplomatic efforts and friendly relations between nations. As a result, it is of the utmost importance to evaluate the benefits and downsides of this method, in addition to considering other approaches that might achieve the same goals. Countries should also direct their resources toward working together cooperatively and collaboratively to promote global wealth, peace, and mutual benefit.
References
Cebula, A. (2020). The legacy and consequences of World War I. Journal of Military Ethics, 19(2), 118–120. Web.
Darnton, C. (2019). Public diplomacy and international conflict resolution: A cautionary case from Cold War South America. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(1), 1–20. Web.
De Jaegher, K. (2020). Common‐enemy effects: Multidisciplinary antecedents and economic perspectives. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(1), 3–33. Web.
Koubi, V. (2019). Climate change and conflict. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 343–360. Web.
Le, T.-H., Bui, M.-T., & Uddin, G. S. (2022). Economic and social impacts of conflict: A cross-country analysis. Economic Modelling, 115, 105980. Web.
Leal Filho, W., Wall, T., Barbir, J., Alverio, G. N., Dinis, M. A., & Ramirez, J. (2022). Relevance of international partnerships in the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications, 13(1). Web.
Martin, J. (2021). Globalizing the history of the First World War: Economic approaches. The Historical Journal, 65(3), 838–855. Web.
Ouedraogo, R., Mlachila, M., Sourouema, W. S., & Compaoré, A. (2021). The impact of conflict and political instability on banking crises in developing countries. The World Economy, 45(6), 1937–1977. Web.
Pifer, S. (2022). The Russia-Ukraine war at three months. Brookings. Web.