Wars and Territorial Expansions - Essay Example

PSC 1003: Introduction to International Politics History is full of wars and other deadly conflicts but there has always been a cause for every effect. Each conflict has a cause which brings enmity in the peoples of two or more nations. I am in partial agreement with the statement that wars and territorial expansions are caused by an effort to be secure. But, in many cases, this reason cannot explicitly be the sole motive of invasion. There has to be a reason as to why a particular country feels unsecure or threatened by another country. History tells us of numerous territorial expansions where the motive of invasion was to explore and utilize the natural resources of another land. The Middle East is still very enticing for invasion for oil. Invasion of Afghanistan by the United States in the last decade was a consequence of 9/11 and the US claims to have invaded Afghanistan because it felt insecure and wanted to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future. The Middle East, on the hand, claims that the US invaded Afghanistan to cement itself in the Middle East and take control of the oil resources. The statement in discussion can be more true and applicable if the word “secure” is widened in its meaning. It instantly gives a meaning that a country invades another to secure its freedom. In the context of war, the security may also refer to security from economic declines, poverty and hunger. It may be argued that many wars during the past 300 years have taken place to achieve a “balance of power” among the European countries as they had made various colonies in different parts of the world. The motive of supremacy is in the basic human nature but it always sets in when the basic necessities of life are attained with ease. The European territorial expansions were triggered by the motive of attaining economic security as the resources are limited and wants are unlimited. The resources become abundant for a particular country when it explores that of another. As a result, the will to become the supreme power sets in. There is another reason for war which is the supremacy of religion. The Saracen territorial expansion was done in the name of the religion Islam and security had apparently no part in it. But a detailed discussion can lead us to raise the fact that Islam was threatened by its enemies very much during its flourishing years and invasion of its enemies made it secure. The Peloponnesian War was fought between Athens and Sparta. They had formed an alliance to defeat the Persian armies. Sparta was looked upon as a leader of that alliance among the states which are now called Greece. Athens emerged as a formidable maritime power as a result of the war against Persia. This gained Athens a great amount of respect and many sought Athens’ help for their protection and security. Sparta did not take it very well as its dominance was threatened by Athens. Athens made progress in many fields which celebrated the Greek states’ alliance too but the enmity between Sparta and Athens was growing increasingly. Megara was a small state that was a Peloponnesian ally. It decided to form an alliance with Athens instead because of its strained relations with Corinth, a strong Peloponnesian ally and a friend of Athens. Corinth was not expecting that Athens would accept Megara’s alliance. Athens did and this resulted in the First Peloponnesian War in 461 BC. Both Athens and Sparta had formed separate alliances. This war was brought to an end by the Thirty Years’ Peace treaty but the peace lasted for only 14 years. Athens had conflicts with Corinth that grew more and more intense with time. Corcyra was a colony of Corinth and was deeply connected with it due to a similar religious background. The relations between the two states were on a decline and years of enmity towards each other strained them more. Corcyra anticipated an attack by Corinth and to secure itself, it formed an alliance with Athens. Athens, on the other hand, accepted this alliance because it did not want Corcyra’s navy to fall into Peloponnesian hands. If Peloponnesian alliance had taken control of the Corcyra’s navy, it would have become a stronger maritime power than Athens. Therefore, the alliance between Athens and Corcyra had the motive of security for both the parties. As a result, Corinth and Athens had another bone of contention. Megara had returned to the Peloponnesian league due to the terms of the Thirty Years’ Peace treaty. Athens had many disputes with Megara and had barred them from trading in the ports of the Athenian confederacy. This made Megara helpless as most of the trading was done in those ports. Athens claimed that their actions were within the confines of the Thirty Years’ Peace but the Peloponnesian alliance believed that Athens was imposing such restrictions as a reaction to the impending disputes with Megara. In March 431, Thebes attacked Plataea, an ally of Athens, which was an explicit violation of the Thirty Years’ Peace and a war broke out between the two alliances. (Kagan, 1989) It is clear from the causes of the Peloponnesian war that security was one of its primary motives. For Athens, it was very important that it continued to be the most dominant navy as it was one of the biggest reasons of its prestige among the Greek states. It also secured Athens as the other states and the oppositions were vary of Athenian naval strength and did not contemplate an invasion. For Peloponnesian alliance and particularly Sparta, it was very insecure if the balance of power had tipped in the direction of Athens. They had been threatened by the growing strength of Athens and their supremacy among the Greek states had been challenged. They had a fear that if Athens became stronger, it might would have attempted to invade and conquer Sparta. Therefore, both oppositions had reasons which were somewhat based on security. In the late Nineteenth century, Europe had suffered from a severe economic depression. The resources that they had grown dependent on industrially and were accustomed to were on the verge of depletion. At that time, Africa lured the European powers for colonization as it was very resourceful and little investment in that land reaped big profits. The European nations colonized almost the entire African continent. These lands were rich with copper, cotton, rubber, palm oil, cocoa, diamonds, tea, and tin (Hunt, 2009). The major European powers were in a constant struggle to achieve Balance of Power in Europe and colonization had a deep impact on this. It became of paramount importance that key positions like trade routes and strategically beneficial regions like military and naval bases were occupied as these ensured an authoritative power. For instance, it was very important for Britain to get control of the Suez Canal as it was the key waterway between the East and the West (Cowie, 1982). The colonizers of Africa did not believe and follow similar ways of government. Imperialism, Nationalism and Socialism were applied in various mixes in various colonies (Langley, 1973). This brought tension in the inter-relations of the European colonizers which eventually culminated in World War 1. The Scramble for Africa is a classic example of territorial expansion for security reasons. The security was sought from two dangers. The first danger was, obviously, an economic crash which could have brought those nations on their knees. They required the resources that could revive their industries and could fulfill the lifestyle that they were accustomed to. This is one of the biggest dangers for any nation and colonization of Africa seemed to be the perfect solution at that time. The second danger was that of losing the Balance of Power in Europe. This was a very rational fear as becoming inferior to another nation is tantamount to losing one’s independence and freedom. The colonization was very important at that time as the occupation of key areas that ensured safe trade and military protection meant the strengthening of the nation as a whole. This reason for colonization was implicit since the very beginning of the Scramble for Africa. My partial agreement to the given statement is not because I support war for such reasons. It is because the historical facts show that security was one of the reasons for war. But the nations that fought wars on this basis were, of course, wrong. It is because in order to ensure their own security, they put another nation’s security in jeopardy and snatched their freedom and independence. This is very unfortunate that such beliefs are still in human nature because a closer look reveals that this is what snakes do. They attack another creature because they fear it and have no intentions to devour it. I disagree that war for one’s own security is a “rational effort”. There are many nations that claim that their wars are fought for their own security but it can be rightfully argued that security is a veil that is put on the reasons of ambition and lust for supremacy. It is because there is hardly any war in the history in which both sides fought for good reasons. There has always been the case that one of the nations involved in war is an aggressor. Even if that nation claims that it attacked another for its own security, it is still an aggressor because actions of a few influential people of a nation do not define the overall disposition of the whole nation. Whenever a war begins, the aggression wreaks havoc on the innocent people unnecessarily. There is a need to learn that it is almost impossible to define security of oneself as the reason to attack another References Kagan, Donald. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. New York: Cornell University Press, 1969. Print. Hunt, Lynn. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, Vol. C: Since 1740, Bedford/ St. Martin. 2008. Print. Langley, J, Ayodele. Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, 1900-1945; a study in ideology and social classes. London: Oxford. 1973. Print. Cowie, H.R. Imperialism and Race Relations. Oxford. Nelson. 1982. Print. Read More