Why Do Wars Happen - Essay Example

?Why Do Wars (and Peace) Happen? War has been a permanent feature in man’s existence. To end all wars, if it is possible to end all of them, it is important to understand why wars and peace takes place. History and political science offers key insights on how wars and peace may be comprehended. Adopting the framework of Henry Nau, the basic insights offered to understand why wars and peace can happen are the realist, liberalist, and identity perspectives (Humphreys, 180). The class lectures of our course heavily used the book of Henry Nau and, thus, this discussion heavily used the lecture materials. The realist perspective holds that states must protect themselves and that the best protection will be found wherein states balance each other, meaning that no state is in a position to bully the other states because all states have the capability to subvert a bully either alone or with allies (Lecture 3, Slide 2). However, holding the other states in check so that no one would be in a position to bully or conquer another, require that states must arm themselves (Lecture 3, Slide 3). In addition, states will be unable to tap allies if they themselves are not armed (Lecture 3, Slide 3). For realists, transitional peace is possible if countries disarm. Yet, if a country disarms and others do not, the country that disarmed will not be in a position to defend herself. The country will be vulnerable to attacks and will be vulnerable to being conquered by the country that did not disarm. If on the other hand, all countries arm themselves to the teeth, a situation is created wherein a war scenario or an armed standoff can emerge (Lecture 3, Slide 6). This means there is a potential for war with an armed standoff (Lecture 3, Slide 6). There is a dilemma: if a country does not arm, she risks being bullied or conquered. If a country arms, she will risk a war or an armed standoff (Lecture 3, Slide 6). For a realist, countries will usually consider subjugation unacceptable. On the other hand, a country can consider peace to be too fragile and vulnerable to become a situation in which one country could re-arm to conquer the other. Thus, for realists, the “realistic” or appropriate situation to target is a situation of stand-off or parity of power (Lecture 3, Slide 6). On the same dilemma and situation confronted by realists, liberalists or liberalism holds that peace remains possible if institutions are created to make negotiations work better (Lecture 4, Slide 2). Liberalism argues that peace can be enforced if countries or states unite to punish states that fail to disarm (Lecture 4, Slide 2). Liberalists hold that another route towards peace is available if states who are disarming implement the disarmament by stages wherein participants to the disarmament observe each other (Lecture 4, Slide 3). Each country can implement the disarmament proportionate to the goodwill or initiative of each other (Lecture 4, Slide 3). A country can also reduce her arms in a manner calculated to inspire reciprocation from other countries to reduce their arms. In doing so, all countries in a disarmament program can reduce arms until the disarmament becomes full and complete (Lecture 4, Slide 4). A country can initiate goodwill reducing arms in the expectation that other countries will reciprocate the goodwill by implementing a proportionate disarmament. In the liberalist perspective or liberalism, institutions play an important role in the disarmament process because they can serve as third parties that can help countries involved in the disarmament (Lecture 4, Slide 4). The forerunner of the United Nations, for example, the League of Nations provided a mechanism whereby countries involved in international disputes are able to submit their dispute to the league for arbitration (Lecture 4, Slide 4). If the league finds or has come to believe or has deemed that a country is guilty of aggression, the league can enforce peace by imposing economic blockade or sanctions against the assumed aggressor (Lecture 4, Slide 5). For liberalism, universality is required for peace to be possible. This means that states or at least the most important or most relevant states remain parties to the institution(s) established to enforce peace. Unfortunately, universality was lacking in the old League of Nations. Japan withdrew after the League of Nations condemned Japan’s invasion of China in 1933. The Soviet Union became part of the League of Nations only in 1933. Germany withdrew its membership from League of Nations and the Soviet Union became part of League of Nations only in 1933. Italy withdrew from the League of Nations after the latter condemned the former’s invasion of Ethiopia. Because of the said withdrawal of membership and also because some countries who were important for peace had not been participating in the League of Nations, the league failed to acquire universality and became irrelevant (Lecture 4, Slide 8). The narration implies that institutional breakups, discontinuities, irrelevance, and decay can be a source of war. For institutional mechanisms to be effective in avoiding war, international institutions must be solid, continuous or continuously existing, vibrant, and relevant. These characteristics imply so much on what characteristics the United Nations must have to be more effective in avoiding or eliminating war. The world is changing. The United Nations Charter was a product of World War II. Perhaps, the rules that the United Nations has established immediately after World War II are no longer be appropriate today. If this is the case then reconfiguring the United Nations would probably serve the cause of peace. Of course, we know that the United Nations has introduced amendments to its 1948 chapter. Nevertheless, a radical configuration of the United Nations may be required to promote peace better. In the liberal perspectives, treaties or agreements among countries play a crucial role in war and peace. For example, in the Versailles Treaty of 1919, the League of Nations facilitated an agreement between the Allied and Associated Powers on one hand and Germany on the other as well as France and Great Britain. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 required that Germany to return to France two provinces that Germany annexed 50 years earlier, demilitarization by Germany of certain areas, and ceilings on her armed force and prohibitions against the possession of certain weapons and war materials (Lecture 4, Slide 10). Thus, for liberals, building and strengthening institutions and institutional arrangements promote peace and war takes place either because the institutions and institutional arrangements are no longer relevant or none exists. In contrast, for realists, the Versailles Treaty actually brought the countries closer to war because the treaty promoted militarily vulnerable states given Germany’s inclination to go to war. For realists, the fundamental solution to the problem should be the build-up of the military strength of smaller countries (Lecture 4, Slide 13). In summary, while realists would propose measures to strengthen a country’s military’s strength as the country’s ticket towards peace, the liberalists would rely on building and strengthening institutions for peace at the global level. Viewed from the identity perspective, wars take place as a result of how states perceive their identity and the identity of other countries. For example, the cold war although it is more of military stand-off than a war, is interpreted to be a product of how state actors perceive themselves (Lecture 5, Slide 3). For instance, in the cold war, the US image of the Soviet Union is that it is a country that has ambitions similar with the ambitions of Nazi Germany (Lecture 5, Slide 7). On the other hand, the Soviet image of the US is that it is also a country similar to Nazi Germany (Lecture 5, Slide 8). One can also add that the US has perceived herself as a or the global defender of democracy while the Soviet Union may have perceive herself as a defender of socialism. Both countries see each the other as the aggressor. Thus, war can emerge based on how countries perceive their identity and the identity of other countries. The solution to this type of problem may lie in reconfiguring how countries view their identity and the identity of other nations. Building peace can take off via reconfiguring each country’s notions of herself and that of other countries. From this perspective, cultural exchange can contribute significantly to world peace. Perhaps, a good way to promote peace is to learn from the three perspectives. The realists say that lack of military strength or power imbalance is the source of war. The liberals say it is a lack of relevant and appropriate international institutions and agreements for peace. The identity theorists say that wars are the result of how countries construct their image as well as that of other countries. The conclusion section of Nau emphasized that democratic nations do not make war with each other and perhaps this point is a strong support for the identity perspective. Word Count: 1,494 Work Cited Humphreys, Adam. “Book Review: Henry Nau, Perspective on International Relations.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 36 (2008): 180-181. Lecture 3. “World War I: A Realist Account.” PowerPoint Slide. University of California-Los Angeles: Political Science 20-1, Summer 2011. Lecture 4. “World War II: A Liberal Account.” PowerPoint Slide. University of California-Los Angeles: Political Science 20-1, Summer 2011. Lecture 5. “The Cold War: An Identity Account.” PowerPoint Slide. University of California-Los Angeles: Political Science 20-1, Summer 2011. Nau, Henry. Perspectives on International Relations: Power Institutions and Ideas. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications (2008). Versailles Treaty. Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany and the Treaty Between France and Great Britain. Done in Versailles: 28 June 1919. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Available: http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth10_doc_1919.pdf (accessed 14 July 2011). Read More