"It is not enough to talk about peace, one must believe in it; and it is not enough to believe in it, one must act upon it." What are the ethical considerations of the powerful nations in today's international arena to stop continuation of ongoing conflicts?
Based on 38 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Arms Trade Treaty (2014) as the binding mechanism for arms exporters, which few aspirants cite
- Military-industrial complex and arms lobbies shaping foreign policy, with Eisenhower's warning or SIPRI data on top arms firms
- Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as the ethical framework for intervention decisions
- Sovereignty versus non-interference dilemma, including when intervention is justified
- P5 dual role as UN peacekeepers and major arms exporters
- Concrete cases: US arms to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Russia's aggression in Ukraine versus arming Ukraine, Rwanda 1994
Common mistakes
- Listing dilemmas without stating what powerful nations should actually do to stop wars
- Citing general ethical theories (Kant, Gandhi) without linking them to arms exports or ending conflicts
- Using outdated or unverifiable examples such as the INF treaty as a current instrument
- Ending with a generic call for peace instead of concrete obligations that answer the belief-to-action demand
What the better answers did
- Using the quote's belief-to-action progression as the structure of the answer
- Naming ATT, R2P and UN Charter Article 2(4) precisely and explaining what each requires
- Pairing each ethical principle with a specific case such as Yemen, Ukraine, Myanmar or Rwanda
- Separating ethical principles from their practical consequences so the argument stays clear
Introduction
Open by stating that the quote's progression from belief to action is the test, and that a powerful nation's ethics is measured by its arms transfers and its enforcement of peace.
Conclusion
Close with two or three concrete obligations, such as ATT compliance, veto restraint in humanitarian crises and sanctions in place of arming opposing sides, rather than a general appeal for peace.
Model answer
Gandhi's maxim asks for belief to be converted into action. For powerful nations, peace is tested less by declarations than by what they sell, shield and enforce. Their ethical duties therefore lie in restraining arms that prolong wars, using lawful tools against aggression, and resisting the pull of strategic and commercial interest.
1. Responsibility as arms exporters
- The Arms Trade Treaty (2014) obliges signatories not to authorise transfers where weapons are likely to be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
- US arms sales to Saudi Arabia during the Yemen war, and the EU's embargo on Myanmar after the 2021 coup, show the gap between rhetoric and practice.
2. Acting on the Responsibility to Protect
- R2P, endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, makes protection from mass atrocities a collective duty. The failure to act in Rwanda (1994) shows the cost of inaction.
- Intervention must be proportionate, multilateral and authorised by the UN Security Council, avoiding the selective use seen in Libya.
3. Respecting the UN Charter
- Article 2(4) bars the threat or use of force, and P5 members must use their veto with restraint in humanitarian crises.
- Sanctions on aggressors, rather than arming opposing sides, keep pressure on the wrongdoer without escalating the war.
4. Diplomacy over profit
- Camp David (1978) and South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission show that sustained mediation and accountability can end conflicts.
- Dependence on defence exports and the influence of the military-industrial complex often override peace concerns, so ethical states must invest in conversion to civilian industry.
Powerful nations must therefore translate peace rhetoric into binding restraint on arms transfers, sanctions that target aggressors, and diplomacy backed by the UN. Only action that places humanity above strategic and commercial gain makes peace credible.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerMore GS Paper 4 (Ethics) questions
- 'Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.' - Dalai Lama
- Is conscience a more reliable guide when compared to laws, rules and regulations in the context of ethical decision-making? Discuss.
- The application of Artificial Intelligence as a dependable source of input for administrative rational decision-making is a debatable issue. Critically examine the statement from the ethical point of view.
- What really matters for success, character, happiness, and lifelong achievements is a definite set of emotional skills—your EQ—not just purely cognitive abilities that are measured by conventional IQ tests. Do you agree with this view? Give reasons in support of your answer.
- In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so. — Immanuel Kant
- Probity is essential for an effective system of governance and socio-economic development. Discuss.
