The late historian John Keegan (1934-2012) posed the question in 1998. More specifically, is war-making required of a state? Of course, few reading this article live in a country that has not experienced war in its recent history. Even peaceful countries like Canada received their identities from the performance of their militia and regular soldiers during the War of 1812 and World War I. Then there are countries like Costa Rica that have sworn off war and abolished their military via their constitution. Still, in order to establish that constitution, the Costa Ricans fought a bloody war. Countries such as Samoa abolished their armies, but they still rely on alliances for defense, as well as geographic seclusion.
With so much war in the past few hundred years, modern examples are not ideal. Keegan points to Ancient Egypt, which existed in a seemingly peaceful era from 3000 to 1700 BC. During that time, Egypt benefitted from a hard fought unification, geographic isolation, and a slave system that did not require the leaders to build defenses or conduct wars. It was not until 1900 BC that Egyptians began building fortifications to protect against potential Nubian raiders. By 1600 BC, the pharaohs were conducting campaigns. ((John Keegan, War and Our Word (New York: Vintage Books, 1998), 34-36.)) Regardless, the state enjoyed at least 1000 years’ worth of peace. Of course, their government would unlikely be one we could tolerate today with its absolute monarchy and slave system.
Again, does war-making define a state? While Egypt had to fight for its unification, after hundreds of years of peace, it would be difficult to imagine war as the defining factor of the state. Anyone who travels through Costa Rica sees a beautiful country unmolested with armed forces and fortifications, giving hope. Conversely, southern Mexico has a similar jungle-like terrain, but armed soldiers at checkpoints sprinkled throughout major roads are enough to make any tourist nervous and remind us that war is very much a part of Mexico. It is difficult today to believe war-making defines Costa Rica, especially with more than 60 years of peace and no military. Yet, this short period pales in comparison to a state able to avoid war for a millennium.
An aerial shot of San Jose, Costa Rica. Photograph by Dawn Manning.
Now we ask the question on whether Costa Rica can avoid war for 1000 or even 100 years. Given the track record of humanity over the past three millennia, it is difficult to imagine. The small dukedom of Luxembourg was not an aggressive nation and Germany consumed it twice in the last century. Egypt enjoyed its lengthy peace for lack of competition. Likewise, Costa Rica is not currently concerned with an aggressive Nicaragua or Panama. These states are required to play part in the warless existence of Costa Rica, because if they become aggressive as Germany did with Luxembourg, then Costa Rica has no alternative but to succumb or fight. Luxembourg chose to fight.