A couple of months ago, during a Senate debate, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni asserted that the pursuit of peace is also predicated on rearmament and the establishment of a robust defence system. In making her statement, she invoked the Latin adage: si vis pacem, para bellum (if you wish for peace, prepare for war). This remark was intended as a counter to critics of rearmament policies who argue that such strategies contribute to past, present, and future armed conflicts. Certainly, the Prime Minister’s viewpoint, along with that of anyone who shares her sentiments, is absolutely legitimate. However, several facets of this rationale warrant further contemplation.
Historically, states, empires, and nations have predominantly adhered to this logic, believing that to ensure their own security and survival as independent and sovereign entities, bolstering military power was essential (Waltz, 1979; Mearsheimer, 2001). This perspective aligns with the so-called realist theories in International Relations (IR) —notable for being termed ‘realist’ rather than ‘realistic’—which have regained prominence in political discourse in recent years, following a period of decline after the Cold War. Yet, it is precisely these realist theories that issue warnings against the politics of rearmament.
Firstly, political realism does not advocate for a completely achieved peace, as this is viewed as a temporary state dependent on the balance of power among states, particularly among the strongest ones (Mearsheimer, 2001). Additionally, the realist thinker Robert Jervis (1978) illustrates how policies intended to enhance one state’s security are often perceived as military threats by neighbouring states. This perception triggers defensive reactions from those states, which attempt to protect themselves from perceived threats, giving rise to the well-known security dilemma. This dilemma is closely related to another realist theory known as Thucydides’ trap. The security dilemma arises from misunderstandings and the uncertainty surrounding the true intentions behind states’ political choices. The only certainty is that, thus far, these misunderstandings and uncertainties have not led to greater security but to increased insecurity. Recent examples include Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and instability across the Middle East. This raises the question: Is there an alternative way to foster peace and security for all peoples?
If Jervis is correct in asserting that armed conflicts can arise from the security dilemma and its accompanying misunderstandings—evidenced by the Kremlin’s statements regarding the invasion of Ukraine—then this issue must be addressed. How can we do that? Generally speaking, misunderstandings can be resolved through continuous dialogue and a functioning diplomatic system (e.g., Lederach, 1997), which, coincidentally, is currently in serious crisis. But why is diplomacy in such a crisis? While various factors contribute to this situation, one clear reason stems from understanding peace as a temporary condition reliant on the balance of power among states, especially between the Great Powers.
Dialogue has been downgraded and subjected to the logic of power (e.g., Mancini, 2025). Meetings are held not to listen to the other side and their reasons, and to find a compromise (I use this term, “compromise,” although there could be another discussion to be had on this point), but simply to impose one’s own. If the other side doesn’t accept them, then the actors continue fighting until the strongest prevails. Thus, according to this dynamic, peace itself is subjected to the logic of power. Again, this is an utterly legitimate opinion to hold and promote, and it is the logic that has shaped politics, both nationally and internationally, for most of human history. Nevertheless, this is not the only existing logic. There are other possibilities that can be explored and attempted, especially given that historically, the si vis pacem, para bellum logic has been extensively applied. We also know what kind of international system this logic has created.
Finally, Italy’s current government, rightly, occasionally reminds its citizens and the whole of Europe of their Christian roots. Therefore, both individually and collectively, we should engage in an urgent reflection on what these Christian roots truly mean and what they signify for our politics and our community. Be it clear, though: this is not meant to imply that Italy and Europe should become a contemporary Church-State; otherwise, we would remain within the very same logics that have led us to our current situation. Rather, reflecting on our Christian roots means thinking about alternative ways that can be explored to guarantee true security for all individuals and genuine peace for all peoples, and giving substance to words that otherwise simply volant, as the Latins used to say very well.
References
Jervis, R. (1978) “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, 30(2), pp. 167–214.
Lederach, J.P. (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Mancini, R. (2025) “Fanno un DESERTO e lo chiamano PACE! Se vuoi la PACE prepari la GUERRA?” Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4KBcyAPa4&t=14s.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (Addison-Wesley series in political science).