(With an informative explanation from ChatGPT) 687 words.
In the current tense and fierce worldwide rundown, where wars, battles, fights, clashes and combats dot the globe, a question arises: who are the people igniting all this, creating destruction, deaths, miseries, torture and torment for the general population as well threatening the world peace?
The transparent answer is that nations and their peoples don’t initiate or opt for wars; rather, their rulers do. That is my unyielding assertion.
However, to comprehend this concept clearly, I asked ChatGPT to provide an explanation so we could grasp the statement more precisely.
ChatGPT replies:
“This statement highlights an important distinction between the actions of nations and their leaders in the context of warfare. Let’s break it down:
The statement (nations and their peoples don’t initiate or opt for wars; rather, their rulers do) suggests that a nation’s decision to engage in war is not made by the entire populace but rather by its leaders. It implies that the responsibility for initiating conflicts lies primarily with those in positions of leadership, who may have their own motivations, agendas, or strategic considerations driving their decisions.
This perspective acknowledges that the people of a nation may not always have direct control over whether their country goes to war. While public sentiment, societal values, and political pressures can influence leaders’ decisions, ultimately, it is often leaders who make the final call on matters of war and peace.
However, it’s important to note that the relationship between leaders and their populace can vary widely depending on the political system, the level of democracy, and the degree of transparency and accountability within a nation. In some cases, leaders may be more responsive to the will of their people, while in others, they may act with greater autonomy or even against the wishes of their citizens”. (End of ChatGPT explanation.)
In the world today, no matter what political system nations undergo, it all boils down to the chiefs who run the systems. The purity and the fundamentals of these systems, democracy or socialism, have been eroded with the entry of autocratic and dictatorial leaders becoming insane with the greed for power, where wars and battles are the strategic games for them, often with a vested interest in the armed industries’ profit bonanza.
Can we elect and de-elect or reject our rulers who control the war buttons?
It is still possible in some surviving democracies. However, recent times show that even in the remaining democracies like the United States, pseudo-democracies like India, and autocratic regimes like Russia and China, it is up to their leaders in power when to trigger the war.
After all, nations and their peoples don’t initiate or opt for wars; rather, their rulers do.
However, there have been instances where neighbouring countries or groups of countries have faced enmity among themselves, and wars have been fought to settle disputes; with the change of leadership or political systems, hostilities are resolved, establishing peace and cooperation among the governments.
When friendly leadership changes occur, belligerent nations immediately become friendly. For example, Japan and the United States have the most cordial ties after World War 2, thanks to Japan’s leadership change. Another example is Germany, the rest of the now-called Western Bloc, and the USA, which became friends again after the war because the German leadership changed. Vietnam’s ties with the West are another example.
The world will be a better and more peaceful place if the elected leaders shed their egos and establish friendly relationships through frequent dialogues among themselves.
-Promod Puri
Promod Puri.com 