Picking up the pieces after a war has now become an art. People do PhDs in conflict studies and peace brokering. Others get premature Nobel Peace Prizes even if the peace they make falls to pieces.

George W Bush should take a page out of Sun Tzu in which the Chinese praetorian guru wrote that the ideal war is one that is won before the fighting even begins. He could even paraphrase The Art of War to find a lesson in how ill-considered demonisation can lead a country into a war it doesn't really want. Super powers and regional powers all do this: put a face on an external enemy, whip up a frenzy that forces them to unleash the dogs of war. This is probably what Sun Tzu was saying: it is easier to keep a peace than to win a war, so don't start one. We know only too well that once the big guns are unsheathed, and war gathers its deadly momentum it is much harder to stop. If 1990 was Francis Fukuyama's "end of history", then 2001 is turning out to be the end of the end of history.

Americans have called this undeclared war against an invisible enemy "the first war of the 21st century" (Really? How about Macedonia, Sierra Leone and the Congo?) or "a new kind of war". Actually the New War was a phrase used by Mary Kaldor of the London School of Economics long before the terrorist attacks last week. She described the New War that followed the end of the Cold War.

Media is mobilised to mobilise publics to support wars. In this info war both sides will use media equally ruthlessly. Those with a tradition of free press and democracy will do it in a more sophisticated way. Example, of course, is the Gulf War where manipulation of global multimedia was carried out with military precision and on a war-footing. There was no way people were going to be seeing blood on the screen, this was going to be the techno-pornography of a video game war with the public allowed peeps of smart bombs hitting crosshairs.

Kaldor's definition of a New War also looks at how violence against civilians has now become a part of military strategy. In conventional as well as guerrilla wars, no one has time anymore for winning hearts and minds. As we saw in Bosnia and in Kosovo, you rule the population by fear and fear alone: mass rape, massacres, ethnic cleansing. Crimes against humanity now seem to be at the heart of military strategy, not just the side-effect of a war.

Then, there are the ethnic conflicts which get support from the diaspora. Extortion, looting and forced taxation are justified in the name of sustaining the war effort. Civil wars, therefore, are not "domestic" any more. They have become conflicts without borders.

New wars are even more difficult to end than old wars. Once they set in motion the mass killing of civilians, it builds up so much bad blood so quickly that it ensures enough revenge to last generations. Joblessness and poverty find attractive new outlets in fundamentalism, racism and xenophobia-all disguised as nationalism and patriotism. And vested interest groups who profit from the war economy of weapons purchases, the arms dealers and the military-industrial complex all ensure that the fighting never stops.

Wars therefore worsen the conditions that led to the wars in the first place. And it is precisely these conditions that prevention and peace-making have to focus on. Like oil fires that burn out because they starve themselves of oxygen, these virulent conflicts simmer down occasionally as both sides regroup. That is the opportunity to move in to try to work on a truce. There is limited time to try to address the root causes: unemployment, inequality, and meeting basic needs. A strategy for development is a strategy for prevention.

But this is not something that can be implemented in the lackadaisical ways of old government. It needs a Marshall Plan of logistics and delivery through efficient and honest government.

We in Nepal are in the middle of a shaky peace process. A truce has held for two months, it bodes well that both sides know and respect public opinion for an end to the conflict. A peace process is accumulative, each step forward leaves a residue even if it is marred by violence. Leaders need to keep the people on their side, and deliver what they promise. The peace process must include rebels who have the capacity to destroy the process: hardliners must be included otherwise they will spin off into a radical faction that will keep on fighting. There must be post-conflict roles for the militia in the security forces.

A realistic truce is more desirable than an unrealistic peace agreement. But deep down there is only one thing that will make or break a peace effort: both sides must want to end the war.