Headline September 26, 2017/ ''' WORLD AT *WARS* '''

''' WORLD AT *WARS* '''

INDIA CALLS  PROUD PAKISTAN :  A FACTORY OF TERRORISM. AND Pakistan hits back calling India : The Mother of Terrorism.   And then the way-

The United States and North Korea daily trade insults in a manner that is beyond any words. I best leave it at that

BUT on the World Students Society, on the greatest of students demand, I delight in the honor of adding beauty to !WOW! and  adding these words of Love and Peace from Alamgir's best song....... 

*Shaym say phelay aana, 

Dhop sari dhel gahee ho, 

Mosaam saray....... lay aa  na*.

With special dedication to the world from Merium, Rabo, Haleema,  Saima, Sarah, Sanyia, Aqsa,  Eman, Seher, Zainab, Zara, Shahbano, Hussain, Ali, Mustafa, Faraz, Umer, Wajahat, Ali Hassan, Furqan .......    and little angels: Maynah, Maria, Harem, Hannyia and Merium.   

COLD WARS - HOT WARS - ANNIHILATING WARS. OF ALL THE  WARS, the worst still remains  -being at War with your very own self.

*Outlawing war?  It actually worked*:

A 1928 pact brought an end to the right of the conquest and changed the way states behave. But when it outlawed war, the Kellogg-Briand Pact changed nearly every rule that states had followed for centuries. 

WITH THE RESEARCH ASSISTANCE of 18 Yale Law students, we found out that from 1816 until the  Kellogg-Briand Pact was first signed in 1928- 

There was, on average approximate one territorial conquest every 10 months. Put another way:

The average state during this period was had a  1.33 percent chance of being the victim of conquest in any given year.

At a first glance, those may seem like pretty good odds. They are not :

A country with  1.33%   annual chance of conquest can expect to be conquered once in a ordinary human lifetime. And these conquests were not small :

The average amount of territory seized between 1816 and 1928 was 114,088 square miles per year.

Since World War II, conquest has almost come to a full stop. The average number of conquests per year fell drastically to 0.26 per year, or one every four years.

The average size of the territory taken declined to a mere 5,772 square miles per year.  And the  likelihood that any individual state would suffer a conquest on average year plummeted-

From 1.33 per cent to 0.17 per cent, or once or twice a millennium.   

In addition, our data suggest that the two decades after the Kellogg-Briand Pact went into effect from 1929 to 1948 -also marked a radical shift in state behavior.

Conquests didn't stop during this period. But those conquests were almost all reversed.

Huge amounts of land that had been seized before 1948 were returned to the countries that had originally held them.

Here's an even more startling fact :

The land returned was not simply territory taken after the beginning of World War II, in 1939. The reversals went back to a year that predated the war by more than a decade : 1928.

So, not only did the United States, Britain and France take no new territory for themselves after the war [aside from a small minor adjustment of the border between France and Italy]-

The Allies also returned Manchuria to China, liberated Ethiopia from Italy and reversed Germany's conquests throughout Europe.

The striking exception was the Soviet Union, the only one of the Allies to gain any significant territory after the war.

Joseph Stalin insisted on several territorial gains as the price of peace.

But the other Allied powers saw these concessions as regrettable deviations from accepted law, not precedents to be followed in the future.

The illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 might seem to prove us wrong. But the seizure of Crimea is the exception that proves the rule, precisely because of how rare conquests are today.

Consider that before 1928, the amount of territory conquered every year was equal to roughly II Crimeas.

In addition, nearly every state in the world has rejected the 2014 annexation as illegal, refusing to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

By crediting the  Kellogg-Briand Pact with changing the state behaviour, we do not deny the importance of many other causes that have been offered for the end of conquest and decline of war, such as the advent of nuclear weapons and the considerable rise in free trade.

But these explanations are incomplete because they tacitly assume the idea of the pact that might no longer makes right.

We see that idea at work when countries use technology and weapons to deter aggression rather than to conquer territory.

We see that idea at work when countries resort to sanctions instead of bullets, when they recognize   -because conquests no longer ''stick'' -that it's more profitable to trade than to annex territory.

The missing element in all these explanations, in other words, is the outlawing of war.

Perhaps the Kellogg-Briand Pact wasn't so foolish, after all. 

With most respectful dedication to Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany, all the Leaders of the free world, and then the  Students, Professors and Teachers of the world.

See Ya all on !WOW!  -the World Students Society and Twitter-!E-WOW! the Ecosystem 2011:

''' Love & Honors '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless