War and Peace in the Middle East - Essay Example

 War and Peace in the Middle East Introduction War is a multifaceted concept with no specific definition. According to Hedley Bull, it is organized violence between different political entities. As such, war is organized aggression wielded by a political entity against another. War is one of the most pressing problems of the contemporary world. In fact, it is the oldest and most salient issue in international relations. Peace in mainstream IR has both dystopian and utopian views that relate to contemporary and foreseen threats calculated from the point of view of officials and states. The aforementioned peace is concerned with balance of power between states. However, peace is still a heavily contested concept and is seen more as a process and a goal in IR in the avoidance of war (DUNNE, KURKI, & SMITH, 2013:30). There are various categories of war in the international system: interstate wars, which involve two or more states and have caused the most damage. Secondly, there is intrastate wars that involve different groups within a state sometimes with international participation. Third, there is total war that involves multiple hegemonic powers. It entails massive destruction and loss of lives like was the case in World War II. However, the number of countries participating in such wars has fallen. Lastly, there is limited war whose objective is not to occupy territory but has rather limited goals like the Gulf War. This essay will focus on the political behavior of the Middle East countries especially Iraq and the relativity of peace in the region through mainstream IR theories on war (CASHMAN, 2000:62). The Middle East political plethora is characterized by fighting raging from Syria and its spillover effect felt in Lebanon Bahrain and Iraq. There is no denying the sectarianism is commonplace in the Middle East politics with religious identity the most vital end in defining the political life of the people. Therefore, war in these countries remains a familiar factor in the pursuit of national interest of the individual countries in the oil rich region (CASHMAN, 2000:45). Various ideas, theories, and values shape policy and motivate the political behavior of citizens in certain countries. International relations theorists disagree over the inevitability of war. To classical realists and neo-liberalists, war is inevitable. They posit that each state is compelled to harm the other in pursuit of their interests and to avoid the worst possible outcome. This follows with states increasing their defense capabilities thereby increasing tension and chances of war. Realism has evolved into the dominant paradigm in explaining state behavior and the eruption of war. Neo-realists hold that state behavior is driven by the need for survival in the international system. States try to survive by maximizing their power and shifting the balance of power in their favor. Mearsheimer’s ‘Offensive Realism Theory’ asserts the rationality of states in an anarchic world system. This leads to a security dilemma where a defensive action taken by one state in the verge of survival is a threat to another. Realism fronts war as one of the best strategies for states to maximize their power and ensure their survival. In other cases, the threat of force may be used to maximize power. According to the theory also, other states may insight war between rival nations in a bid to reduce their power and eventually increase their own (DUNNE, KURKI, & SMITH, 2013:79). A good illustration is Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, at an individual level; Saddam Hussein may have calculated that his actions on Kuwait will not provoke military response from the international community due to his originally ruthless nature. However, at the state level Iraq is pursuing its own national interests and attempting to regain oil fields that were previously annexed by the British (CASHMAN, 2000:79). According to Mearsheimer’s theory also, the polarity between states or the possibility of war depends in the number of hegemonic powers within a system. A balanced polarity ensures a stable system. The cold war that involved the USA and USSR bipolar system is a relevant example. However, an unbalanced multi-polar system encourages the possibility of war and instability. Realism explains certain aspects of foreign policy adopted by Middle East countries pertaining to war and involuntary participation in external quests for security and power. Realist emphasis on continuity and inevitability of military competition and war continues to gain credence despite the end of the cold war. This is evident in the symbolic move by President Bush to target Iraq rather than Libya, North Korea or Iran whose clandestine weapons of mass destruction were more advanced and elicited greater potential threat to US and its allies. This connotes the fact that the incentive of war is not to resolve conflict with enemies or appease allies. Thus for realists this invasion was a rational act to assert power and military superiority. This realist ration choice perspectives holds that leaders choose war when they believe it is necessary for national security. This notion has sustained the Israel Palestinian war. Liberals on the other hand takes the optimistic view on war and IR. They hold that war is only evitable with sufficient efforts and effective institutions and that the way in which states are governed domestically can change the attitude towards war. Liberal IR theory also accepts that the internal nature of the state is a key determinant of its behavior towards other states. Their assumption therefore is that peace within states is a quality achieved by civil society while external relations between states remain an arena of potential conflict. The fact that citizens are within a potentially threatening world of hostile states is the liberalist central argument. Within the liberal school of thought, the rights and freedoms of individuals are guaranteed to citizens of a civilized and pacified society. Liberal states are said to be those that incorporate representative principles and constitutional restrictions while exercising power (DUNNE, KURKI, & SMITH, 2013:115). According to liberals also, the decisions on war are derived from the internal characteristics of states. Like realism, liberalism subsumes other related theories such as Wilsonian and kantian idealism that believes that democracy equals more peace. As such, crusading liberals believe in application of force to remove dictatorships a contributing factor to the Arab spring. Henceforth therefore, the liberalists could deduce the cause of the Arab spring as a war to overthrow to irresponsible leadership. The demonstrations in Egypt were to remove an undemocratic leader- Hosni Mubarak. The revolution saw the removal of Zine El Abadine Ben Ali of Tunisia and replaced him with a unitary government. The Libyan civil war, Egypt revolution and the latest Syrian revolution are a vindication of this liberalist view of forceful removal of dictatorial and undemocratic regimes. Mature democracies do not fight among themselves but are also prone to war with non-democracies; this is evidenced in the decision of the US to invade Iraq. Accordingly, liberalisms’ main principles are that state behavior depends on the type of regime; whether it is democratic or otherwise, interdependence of states through trade and international institutions that foster cooperation and standard norms. Here, the relative power of states is not the motivator of state behavior but rather the states can rise above power politics. The primacy of liberal motives in the Arab spring cannot be downplayed especially in the forcible implanting of democracy in the Middle East (WALTZ, 2001:80). Radicals posit that war is only evitable through revolutionary change. They believe that the main cause of war was capitalism, that capitalists’ states fought each other in their incessant struggle to accrue profits and saw socialist states as seeds of destruction. These were drawn from the orthodox Marxist theory and neo-Marxist theory. Constructivists argue that war is but a process of socialization where conflict is assumed to exist and is evitable when this mindset is changed. The realists hold that the international system is anarchic and war is inevitable because there is no one to control it and that states are the final arbiters of disputes. The realist ‘Power Transition Theory’ fronted by Organski argues that changes in state capabilities lead to war. Therefore, war occurs when dissatisfied competitor state begins to attain hegemonic capabilities through the regular cycles of power where old powers decline as new powers arise (CASHMAN, 2000:127). According to the diversionary theory of war, revolutionary regimes find external enemies politically viable and may go to war for the sake of self-legitimization and suppress domestic dissent. Building on this the leaders’ prize their individual political survival higher than their national interest. This is evident in the fact that leaders’ characteristics and personalities have continuously affected their relations with other states, as was the case with Mubarak and his counterparts whose ruthlessness was the source of all other disagreements. Citizens’ commitment to the well being of their states is also heightened by nationalistic principles especially in the Arab world where leaders to manipulate citizens to support their goals use religion, specifically Islam. Moreover, most Middle East countries use war as a tool to deflect public attention from the apparent administrative obliviousness and mishandling of threats from terrorists. War was used by President Bush to cover up for the administrative inability to find Osama Bin Laden and the inability to avert the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan (WALTZ, 2001:98). Bureaucratic incentives of war also stem from the preference of military leaders to undertake offensive strategies as opposed to bureaucratic leaders. The goal of regime changed in Iraq Post-cold war Europe and Middle East; A Comparison. The end of the cold war has had a dual impact on international relations. There has been a reduction of conflict that was motivated by superpower ideological differences. With the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the elimination of the polar political system, many changes have occurred. The Berlin wall no longer divides Europe and Germany is now reunified through the iron curtain. However, there is still some division between western and Eastern Europe with citizens from the richer western countries clearly resenting the free movement and immigration from east to west. However, the clash is not as overt as in the cold war. There are also many positive steps towards the integration of Europe through the euro zone and constant meetings between different economic powers. Many of those eastern nations believed to be stubborn are now part of the respected members of the community. A key factor is that there is no longer external involvement of the US or Russia and Europe is now responsible for its fortunes. On the other hand, Arab rivalries have not changed but the dimensions have greatly changed even following the cold war. The term new Middle Eastern cold war is common among academia and was fronted by American scholar Malcolm Kerr who published the Arab Cold War. At one level, the conflict is between Palestine and Israelis but in many respects, it is a façade for a Middle Eastern cold war with a rising Iran and Syria pursuing its own ends. Iran’s role in this new order has introduced a sectarian and ethnic division within the region. Syria has been Iran’s only loyal Arab ally even during the Iran-Iraq war. Syria has also been a crucial economic lifeline for Iran. Unlike Europe, the Arab regimes of the Middle East still maintain close ties with the US. Assad’s regime in Syria still depends on weaponry advantage from the Obama regime to acquire political hegemony over Lebanon and bargain favorably with Israel over the Golan Height (WALTZ, 2001:130). The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas still collaborates with America to contain Iran and Syria and consolidate the future of Gaza. It is therefore evident that the Middle East has barely changed its fortunes in the years following the world war. In conclusion, it is evident that the political landscape of the Middle East is largely shaped by conflict or lack thereof. The applicability of the various IR theories is also seen in how the individual leaders and states regard the premise of war. It is evident however that liberalism and realism are the frontline IR theories in the determination of the reasons for war or lack thereof. References CASHMAN, G. (2000). What causes war?: an introduction to theories of international conflict. Lanham, Lexington Books. DUNNE, T., KURKI, M., & SMITH, S. (2013). International relations theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford [etc.], Oxford University Press. WALTZ, K. N. (2001). Man, the state, and war a theoretical analysis. New York, Columbia University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=461136. Read More