In today’s international community, seeds of anxiety are pervasive; one only needs to look at the news to see reports of war, trade friction, poverty, and discrimination within our domestic societies. Many people hope to eliminate or at least reduce these sources of unrest, struggling to build a society where everyone can live in peace and security.
In the midst of this, I find myself wondering: is “peace” truly achievable? By peace, I mean a society devoid of conflict. While war and trade friction are conflicts in themselves, discrimination and poverty serve as the very seeds that sprout into conflict.
Perhaps peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather a state of society where measures can be taken when conflict arises. Is it not true that we only desire peace because there is a state of “non-peace”? When war breaks out, we wish for its absence; when trade friction occurs, we seek a state without it. Even if poverty and discrimination do not always manifest as immediate fighting, they breed inequality and hatred, which inevitably trigger conflict.
It goes without saying that it would be best if these conflicts did not exist at all. It would be better if there were no war, no trade friction, and no poverty or discrimination. However, even if we were to eliminate war, it does not mean that bloodshed would cease. Lives might still be lost to terrorism or violent crimes. Similarly, ending trade friction does not guarantee that trade will always proceed smoothly. Trade friction arises from unequal benefits in commercial transactions, harboring issues similar to those of poverty and discrimination. Poverty is a state where obtaining the bare necessities of life—particularly food, clothing, and shelter—is difficult. Discrimination primarily manifests as gender inequality or racial prejudice. Eliminating these forms of poverty and discrimination does not automatically erase inequality or hatred.
The reason trade friction shares the same roots as poverty and discrimination is that all these issues converge at a point of “inequality caused by structural imbalance.” Furthermore, if trade friction benefits only certain countries or industries while leaving others behind, it creates confrontations—nation against nation, or person against person. This, in turn, becomes a breeding ground for new forms of poverty and discrimination.
Such structural imbalances are ever-present. Even if one problem is solved, it reappears in a different form, bringing various imbalances, inequalities, and the resulting divisions and hatred. That is precisely why we must ask: how will we face and resolve the sparks of conflict when they arise? I believe that this proactive stance is what is truly required of us.
