Peaceful means might be the best and most practical way of settling

conflicts but this is only applicable if we speak of conflicting states with

diplomatic minds. Ladies and Gentlemen, what if one of the parties does
not want to engage in peaceful settlements? History would tell us that it is
in these situations the states would resort to war in order to bring the
opposing party to surrender or submission. Let me tell three events in our
history that would justify this.
Adolf Hitler was the founder and leader of the Nazi Party and the most influential
voice in the organization, implementation and execution of the Holocaust, the
systematic extermination and ethnic cleansing of six million European Jews and
millions of other non-aryans. 1 In order to stop him, the United Nations was created
in order to wage war. The United Nations fighting team was put together by
Winston S. Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to win the war both militarily and
politically, and to create the foundations for a lasting peace. It might sound ironic
but yes, they used war as means to create the foundations for lasting peace. During
the World War II, representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to
continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. The result of the war was
the Surrender of Enemy States to the United Nations.2 By winning the war,
we now have the Charter of the United Nations which was signed on 26 June 1945.
Another is example is 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama which was the first American
use of force since 1945. It ended with the capture of Manuel Antonio Noriega,
Panama's head of state, who was then brought to the United States and tried for
criminal drug operations. Noriega was a corrupt dictator of Panama involved in drug
trafficking, arms smuggling, money laundering, and the ruthless oppression of his
people. He also systematically violated the American-Panamanian Canal treaties
and harassed U.S. forces and institutions in Panama. Now, do you think this
leader would go through peaceful settlements? Definitely, NO. He was
creating chaos within his state, how much more in relation to other
countries.
As my last example, let me tell you how the Gulf War came about. There was a longrunning war between Iran and Iraq which had ended in a United Nations-brokered
ceasefire in August 1988. It appeared that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was
prepared to dissolve that conflict but two weeks later, Hussein delivered a speech
accusing neighboring nation Kuwait of siphoning crude oil from the Ar-Rumaylah oil
fields located along their common border. Alarmed by these actions, President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt initiated negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait in an effort to
avoid intervention by the United States or other powers from outside the Gulf
region. Hussein broke off the negotiations after only two hours, and on August 2,
1 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html
2 History of the United Nations < http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/>

1990 ordered the invasion of Kuwait. Husseins assumption that his fellow Arab
states would stand by in the face of his invasion of Kuwait, and not call in outside
help to stop it, proved to be a miscalculation. Two-thirds of the 21 members of the
Arab League condemned Iraqs act of aggression, and Saudi Arabias King Fahd,
along with Kuwaits government-in-exile, turned to the United States and other
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for support. 3 As can be
gleaned from the Gulf War, they actually engaged to peace settlements but to no
avail due miscalculated assumptions of Hussein and his obvious refusal to
participate in the peace settlements.
Again, peaceful settlements are really the practical way of settling
disputes but in the cases I have cited, war must be fought. We emphasize its
necessity because if not for the wars, Nazi leader Hitler dictators Noriega and
Saddam Hussein and other defeated incorrigible, unruly and selfish leaders will
continue to exist and will challenge the international order. Peaceful settlement
with them is clearly impossible. These are situations where nations
necessarily have to engage into war to bring opposing parties into
submission or surrender in order to finally settle conflicts.
To end my speech, let me remind you ladies and gentlemen, that states have no
general obligation to settle disputes but the UN Charter calls for a peaceful
settlement in conflicts which endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security. But what if parties do not want to resort to peaceful settlements? In order
to protect its own interests, do think states would not resort to Darwins theory of
Survival of the fittest? How far would you go to settle conflicts in peaceful means
when your opponent is causing threats and havoc to your state?

3 http://www.history.com/topics/persian-gulf-war