We often comfort ourselves with the idea that the world has progressed — that wars are rarer, international law stronger, and diplomacy the new weapon of choice. Yet, a closer look at global conflicts suggests something disturbingly primal: we are still ruled by the logic of survival of the fittest.
The recent Indian provocation at the Line of Control and Pakistan’s calculated military response have once again highlighted the hard truth that peace is not always born of goodwill, but of deterrence. Despite spin around diplomatic gestures, the facts remain unambiguous: Pakistan’s preparedness — from air superiority to credible nuclear deterrence — imposed restraint on a belligerent adversary.
Peace, in this instance, was secured through demonstrable strength, not idealistic notions of morality or dialogue.
This raises a disquieting question: what happens to nations that don’t have such power?
A glance across the globe tells us. Palestine is bombarded with impunity. Ukraine, despite billions in aid, is being carved and consumed. Yemen and Syria are battlefields where the weak are buried beneath proxy wars. Across parts of Africa, armed groups, external actors, and economic predators strip nations of stability. What unites them? Their inability to project military power, to defend themselves on the raw battlefield of international relations.
These are not failures of diplomacy. These are failures of a system that still worships strength. In theory, the international order is built on human rights, law, and institutions. In reality, the muscle still matters more than morality.
This echoes what neorealists have long argued — that in an anarchic international system, power is not just a means to peace; it is the price of survival. We may wear suits instead of skins, and speak in resolutions instead of roars, but our core instincts as a species haven’t evolved much. The jungle, it seems, has simply been redesigned — with more rules, but the same predators.
Even the most developed civilizations, armed with the most sophisticated technologies, return to primitive calculations of power when under threat. It’s why nuclear weapons remain relevant, and why arms races persist. Why does “security” continue to be defined in terms of guns, tanks, and deterrence, not justice, dignity, or diplomacy?
This is not just a cynical observation; it is a call for realism. For all the optimism surrounding multilateralism and the rules-based order, it is vital to confront this uncomfortable truth: we are not yet beyond the law of the jungle. We have merely rebranded it.
Until we find ways to equalize not just opportunity, but security, the global order will continue to reflect the darkest side of Darwin’s theory. And the weakest, no matter how righteous, will remain at the mercy of the strong. Pakistan’s survival in this unforgiving order rests not on moral appeals but on its refusal to be weak.
- Survival of the Fittest in a Nuclear Age: Why Might Still Makes Right - 21/06/2025
- The Unseen Toll of Degree Verification: A Call for Systemic Reform - 12/11/2024
- Democracy Has no ‘Hope’ Here - 07/09/2022
