Critical Evaluation of the Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace - Essay Example

 Critical Evaluation of the Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace as Discussed in the Literature Introduction There are “nearly two hundred countries” that restrains peoples of different cultures, traditions, developments, civilizations, and religions which are not only extensively apart from one another but also a matter of clash due to their thought, desire, and faith. To realize war, normally, it should be measured that the prototype of war varies on the basis of different situation and place, where depends major power’s influential act a lot. Sometimes this influential act reflects its action both in war and peace. After the ending of ‘cold war’, nuclear revolution played a vital role to set up democratic system and capitalism over the world which is a noticeable point in the “history of warfare” that led the world to the “low-intensity warfare and clash of civilizations” (Huntington 1996). To analyze “causes of war” and “conditions of peace” there are three things that should be evaluated and these are: 1. power evolution theory, which can relate major and minor power (Singer, 1961; Bremer 1996); 2. “minor power regional sub-systems” (Kugler and Lemke, 1996) and its adaptation to power evolution theory; 3. unrelenting dissimilarity among the “regional sub-systems” despite of having sensible extent of resemblance “across the regions” (Lemke, 2002, p. 14). Subjective and Objective Trend In the Theories of War Theoretical studies on the causes of war are widely divergent in terms of which perspectives the cause of wars are being studied from. The cause of war mainly has so far been approached from three different perspectives: subjective, objective and subjective-objective perspectives. Indeed the last approach to the causes of war essentially evolves more a response to the failure of the earlier two perspectives to alone define war and its causes. Consequently this approach does have any pure philosophical basis unless the coalesced or hybrid version of the philosophies of subjective and objective approached (George, 1982; Levy, 1998, p. 141). Therefore to define the causes of war more practically and effectively this subjective-objective approach depends on a complementary bond between the earlier two approaches. Since war is closely connected with intricate interrelationships among the emotions like sentimentality -superiority complex, inferiority complex, sense of justice, revenge, greed, etc- and material interests, the tendency to view war as a phenomenon or construct of human psychology dominates the studies of war. Theoretical Preliminaries and Overview of Case-specific Evidences Apart from philosophical approaches, war is defined by the “international relations theorists” as extensively controlled violence (Gaddis, 1992, p. 49). On the other hand peace is defined as the absence of violence. Political analyst conventionally differentiate global wars from “civil wars”, and throughway wars from colonial, regal, and other international wars that engage non-state performers (Lemke, 2002, p. 19; Kugler and Lemke, 1996). It is matter of question that why war occurs and what makes it possible. In international politics, what is the cause behind the recurrence of war is not tough enough to find out and its fundamental and primary causes may be one major power’s intensity to control over other nation, their politics or to capture their natural resources (Gaddis, 1992, p. 40; Kugler and Lemke, 1996). It is known to all, why the major powers are called ‘major power’ and that is because of the existence of heavy weapons in their hands which can destroy any part of the world within a very short period of time. Since the major power holds these kinds of destructive weapons and power, they often want to attack on the other nation which diminishes peace and causes a lot of damage. The point is that “these factors are constants and cannot explain the variations in war and peace over time and space” (Waltz 1959, Cashman 1993). Anarchic structure in the international coordination, which is another factor related to ‘war and peace’ where anarchy can be defined as absence of a convincing governmental power to control disputes and implement concurrences between states. Even though anarchy may offer one convincing reply to the issue of the compassionate reasons of war, it is usually understood as a structural unvarying and so it cannot account for disparities in ‘war and peace’. Feminist theorizing, which is another factor to out break of war centers to the significance of feminist work. That means to say the gendered personality of states, cultures, and the present system of the world influences over the perseverance of war. Aggression and war continually occur in global politics, although peace is more desired and common than war and it is tough to determine anarchy’s influence to cause war. The “question of variations in war and peace” may be solved by the answer of anarchy theory. “The realist tradition has dominated the study of war since Thucydides, and includes Machiavellians, Hobbesians, classical balance of power theorists, Waltzian neo-realists, and hegemonic transition theorists” (Levy, 1998, p. 145). Though the prediction of different realists produces a disagreement but they contribute to a central part of common statement. The chief role is played by the sovereign states of the world that perform sensibly to secure their mastery, power, and wealth over the world. By the opinion of realists, the cause of war is not only because of some countries preference to war to peace but also because of unintentional penalties of proceedings by those countries that have a preference peace to war (Keohane, 1986; Brown et al, 1995). Even motivated by the ask of their own independence and defense through weapons, association, and pressure are often supposed to threatening and direct to counteractions and clash distortion that are hard to overturn. This may happen by the sanctuary dilemma that possibly leads a country to take actions against the threatening countries. There is an important dispute between classical realists and neorealist where classical realists dispute over that stability is further carried by the existence of a multipolar sharing of power and a supple coalition system (Morgenthau 1967, Gulick 1955). On the other hand neorealists dispute over that bipolarity is more established than multipolarity (Waltz 1979, Mearsheimer 1990). Realists’ Theories of War and Peace The other trend tends, that is in the focus of the realist theories, to view war as a mechanism or function that is intricately interrelated with other mechanisms of human society such state, power, politics, economy, human organizations, religion and culture. According to the realists, war is one of many social institutions and mechanisms that are essential for the formation of a state and a nation. Therefore ‘power’ factor or warring capability is basically one of the components that contribute to the unity and sovereignty of a state both nationally and internationally. Also since war is an institution, like other institutions, its smallest, but the main, component is man. This realist trend implies that state emerges through war and, to a great extent, its existence depends on warring capability or its power to ensure its security against any foreign threat. Indeed, the sense of threat of other anarchical polities emerges from their foreignness (Doyle, 1997, p. 342). Other states as well as their culture, values and norms also are foreign and tend to be characterized as anarchy in a given national context. Therefore states should achieve warring capability to defend a particular nationality -that is the sum-total of culture, values, norms, religions, etc- to be subdued by others, as Levy elaborates the realist trend, For realists, “wars can occur not only because some states prefer war to peace, but also because of unintended consequences of actions by those who prefer peace to war and are more interested in preserving their position than in enhancing it” (Levy, 1998, p. 3). But the ultimate flaw of the realist theorists is that it essentially overlooks the real motivations of others’ invasion considering it as anarchy and man’s proneness to war. Bronson (1997) notes that since it is based on a sense of righteousness against anarchy, and since both parties of war often fight on the basis of righteousness, the realist theories ultimately fail to provide any solution to end war and ensure conditions of peace. Realists argue that there are three causes of war; Man, the State and the System. Realists believe that men are innate in war prone tendencies due to their desire for more power. In turn, as the primary actor in international politics, the state is the primary actor and it is the state’s duty to provide security, which cannot be guaranteed in an anarchical system. On the other hand, Liberalists such as Immanuel Kant believed that democracies are more peaceful as people would not want to use force for war and that, through reason and education, perpetual peace can be achieved. In the realist paradigm, it seems more persuasive that man are more prone to war and that the anarchical system does call for force to be used in some circumstances. However, through enlightenment and international institutions such as the United Nations, the frequency of conflicts can be decreased. Democracies are also less war prone but the realist argument of war being used as a tool for the balancing of power is more persuasive and therefore, perpetual peace cannot be foreseen in the future. Realists believe in the three facets of war; Man, The State and The System. The state is identified as the key actor of international politics and it is its duty to provide security. However, realists view the anarchical system as a hostile environment where safety cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, “...the use of force cumulating in war is a legitimate instrument of statecraft.” (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2008, 92) In such a hostile world, Rousseau argued that “...man being a social animal, one can explain his behaviour in society by pointing to his animal passion and/or his animal reason. Man is born and in his natural condition remains neither good nor bad. It is society that is the degrading force...” (Waltz, 2001, 5) Rousseau considers man’s war prone tendencies as a product of society. However classical realists argue that man is innate with the desire for power and the absence of an international government allow man to pursue their goal. In classical realism, “wars are explained, for example, by particular aggressive statesmen, or by domestic political systems that give greedy parochial groups the opportunity to pursue self serving expansionist foreign policies.” (Williams, 2008, 17) Therefore, “in the absence of an organized power, which as a minimum must serve as the adjudicating authority, it is impossible for men to live together with even a modicum of peace.” (Waltz, 2001, 5) However, since the realist theorists believe in self-help and do not think that states should ensure its security on the supposition that there is a common agreement of interest or morality amongst states, realists also do not suppose that states should depend –for its safety- on the international organizations such as the United Nations. The realist paradigm was supported by the collapse of the League of Nations, which was a fatal blow to the Liberalism. The downfall of the League of Nations showed that states were too interested in their own well being to practice collective security. However, in 1945 the United Nations was born with a more pragmatic and realistic approach. It was learnt that “there is a need for a consensus between the great powers in order for enforcement action to be taken, hence the veto system...” (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2008, 114) and the United Nations has served as a significant global political actor since the end of the cold war. The success of the United Nations not only challenged the realist paradigm as it acts as an example of the decline of the nation state, as the power of a transnational actor increased, but the peaceful conclusion of the cold war also served as an example that war can be prevented. This cancels out the realist argument that “though a state may want to remain at peace, it may have to consider undertaking a preventive war; for if it does not strike when the moment is favourable it may be struck later when the advantage has shifted to the other side.” (Waltz, 2001, 7) Liberalist Approach to War and Peace Unlike realism, liberalists such as Cobden did not find man the cause of war, but the typology of government; “the constant interest of the people is in peace; no government controlled by the people will fight unless set upon” (Waltz, 2001, 8) The democratic peace theory states that democratic states are more peaceful with other liberal states. Including the theory that a state’s population would not choose to fight, liberal states tend to be more wealthy and interdependent on other economies and therefore have more to lose if they went to war. However, when world war one broke out between Germany and Britain, it showed a flaw that economic interdependence would secure peace as they had highly interdependent economies. On the other hand, Wilson argued that “in World War One the militarist and authoritarian character of the German state prompted Germany to seek the war that soon spread to most of the world” (Waltz, 2001, 10). It, in fact, does support Doyle’s argument that “...liberal democracies are as aggressive as any other type of state in their relations with authoritarian regimes and stateless peoples.” (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2008, 113) Therefore, Wilson argues that in order to achieve peace, democracy has to be spread. However, this will not happen anytime soon in the future, especially since states find that it is important to maintain a balance of power. Realists believe that war is used as a tool to ensure that an equilibrium of power is maintained and that no one state or a coalition of states is in a position to dominate all others. An example of this would be the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. The maintenance of the equilibrium can bring about war due to defensive structural realism. As states take steps in order to “preserve status quo” by maintain power or keeping up with developments of other states, other states may take this as a threat and respond, “leading to a spiraling of mutual aggression that all would have preferred to avoid.” (Williams, 2008, p. 22) A possible example could be the arms race pre World War One. As the realist paradigm argues, perpetual peace cannot be achieved due to Man, state and the system. However, as transnational organizations such as the United Nations have grown more important in politics, it shows the decline of the nation state as the UN has helped decreased the number of conflicts. Also in line with the liberalist paradigm, is that democracies are less prone to war due to their interdependence and their representation of the population. Organizations such as the United Nations can bring about education and enlightenment which would decrease the number of conflicts. However, the anarchical society does not guarantee the safety of the states and therefore states would still need to build arms for defense which may lead to an arms race and therefore war. Balance of Power and Hegemonic Theories of War The realist literature does not illustrate the balance between the classical realism and neo-realism rather it shows the balance between the power theory and hegemonic theory. There are abundant variations on the standard pragmatism of Morgenthau (1967) in the balance of power theory and the more systemic structural realism of Waltz. Hegemonic theory, which is called as a structural theory includes power evolution theory and hegemonic constancy theory. This hegemonic constancy theory downplays the significance of anarchy. As the chief aim of states and the preservation of a balance of power in the system as the primary influential aim, balance of power theory conceives the evasion of hegemony, as Levy says “Balance of power theory posits the avoidance of hegemony as the primary goal of states and the maintenance of an equilibrium of power in the system as the primary instrumental goal” (p. 147). The theory predicts that states, and particularly great powers, should have equilibrium against the countries that are directly threat to their security and shows a tendency to protect a hegemonic arrangement. There is an argument among the balance of power theorists about balancing mechanism which comprises both exterior associations and interior military increasing approximately always effectively evades hegemony, whichever because possible hegemony are discouraged by their expectation of a military combination forming adjacent to them. For the configuration of a blocking association, solemn perils of hegemony are a sufficient condition in balance of power theory, which guides either to the withdrawal of the frightening power or to a hegemonic war. Balance of power theory is considered to “more concerned with explaining national strategies, the formation of blocking coalitions, the avoidance of hegemony, and the stability of the system than the origins of wars, which are underdetermined” (Levy, 1998, p. 147). The Concept Third World in the War and Peace No question about that, in the present situation of international relations, the third world matter is a major factor to the war and peace because a great part of world population lives in the third world and most of human civilizations founded there. The developed world gets the material assets that formulates life easier is transported from the third world. So, perceptibly third world is matter about war and peace. In this regard Lemke (2002) notes that “this obviously true normative reaction belies the possibility of a dispassionate appraisal of how important, specifically to those not in the third world, knowledge about the third world might be” (p. 13). Such an unruffled appraisal is at the center of a debate within the solely pragmatist protection studies text about whether the third world matters. There are a large number of researches on that matter where a little number is best including David (1989, 1992/1993), Van Evera (1990), Hudson et al. (1991), and Desch(1996). The combining question in this argument is that the USA should be careful about the matter that closely related to the third world. Van Evera, the theorist, expresses the thought that the third world is basically unrelated to the major powers. On the other hand, Hudson and her co-authors articulate that the third world is not less important than European region. An apparent and restricted pro-third world observation is presented by David (1989), whereas Desch (1996) expresses his thought like that- “some areas in the Third World are very important to the great powers, but primarily as military bases” (Lemke, 2002, p. 13). On the other hand the importance of third world is an issue to the major powers of the world, especially to America, because of their limited security resources. Van Evera (1990) expresses that the major threats to United States do not comes from the third world and for that reason there is no need to spend resources there. The scholars, Muller (1989), Singer and Wildavsky (1993), Holsti (1996), are related to the research work of international relations have recommended that the third world is expected to linger the key locus of interstate clash for the projected future. Lastly, the scholar who is concerned in realizing the inner significance of war or the reasons of war must have interest in clarification of war. Conclusion The theories of war mainly revolve around two philosophical bases: realism and liberalism. Realist theories of war in the first place take it for granted that men are war prone by birth. So since man is the essential component of state and other social systems, one state is more likely to face the threats from others. Therefore, even if a state is peaceful, it may need to initiate war upon any possible threat in order to ensure peace. In contrast the liberalists believe that man is peaceful by birth. But war caused by the typology of governments and by their obedience to a small polity that is driven by its own personal interest. Yet the studies of war are found to evaluate the causes of war and conditions on three different levels: individuals-based-theories, societal theories, and systematic level theories. These two trends of philosophy further dominate these level oriented theories of war. Whereas the individual level studies of war focus on the psychology of man in order to evaluate the cause of war from a subjective perspective, the later two levels of studies investigate into the collective cause of war from a more objective perspective. References Baylis, John., Smith, Steve and Owens, Patricia. (2008) The Globalization of world politics, USA, Oxford University Press. Brown M, Lynn-Jones SM, Miller S. E. (1995). The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 519 Bremer SA, Cusack T. R. (1996). The Process of War: Advancing the Scientific Study of War. Philadelphia: Gordon Breach Bronson R. (1997). Searching for legitimacy: diversionary theory reconsidered. PhD thesis. Columbia Univ. Cashman G. (1993). What Causes War? New York: Lexington Books. 360 pp. Doyle M. W. 1997. Ways of War and Peace. New York: Norton. Pp. 557. Gaddis J. L. (1992). International relations theory and the end of the Cold War. Int. Secur. 17:5.58 George A. L. (1982). Case studies and theory development. Presented at 2nd Annual Symposium. Pittsburgh, PA, Oct.15.16 Huntington SP. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Pp. 367 Keohane RO, ed. (1986). Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Pp.378 . Kugler J, & Lemke D. (1996). Parity and War. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Mich. Press. Pp. 383 Lemke, Douglas. (2002). Regions of War and Peace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levy, S. Jack, (1998) “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace”, Annual Review: Political Science. 1:139-65 Morgenthau H. J. (1967). Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf. 615 pp. 4th ed. Paul D. Williams (2008) Security Studies An Introduction, USA And Canada, Routledge Singer J. D. (1961). The levels of analysis problem in international relations. In The International System: Theoretical Essays, ed. K Knorr, S Verba, pp. 77.92. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Van Evera S. (1990/1991). Primed for peace: Europe after the Cold War. Int. Secur. 15: 7.57 Waltz, K. Neal, (2001) Man, The State and War A Theoretical Analysis, USA, Columbia University Press Read More