Peace in World Politics - Essay Example

The idea that back the notion that liberalism can be a force for peace in world politics has aroused a heated debate on the relationship between peace and democracy, with claims that they are like a double-edged sword. Liberal theorists have espoused the idea that liberalism is the key to world peace and have cited examples of despotic leaders and tyrannical systems as having the nose for war. A liberal system is founded upon individual rights that include the freedom of speech, right to own ownership of property, equality before law and freedom of association election and other liberties that are inherent to each person by virtue of being human. Government systems founded on the respect for human rights and civil liberties normally employ self-control and peaceful intent in their foreign policy. Particularly, there have been arguments that assert that when citizens of a country who elect their representatives to the government, eliminate occurrence of war. This is because civilians in any country bear the greatest burden whenever there is an outbreak of war. Therefore, liberal nations that include countries in Western Europe, United States amongst others, makes for peace (Kinsella, 2012, p. 453). As a result, peace and democracy is like a double-edged sword. Literatures in international relations and political science on the assertion that that liberalism and world peace go in tandem have risen. This paper argues on that plausibility i.e. liberalism being a force in realizing world peace, by considering the liberal pacification and in the context of world politics will look into liberal pacification; liberal imperialism and liberal internationalism. The paper will consider different theoretical backgrounds and perspectives advanced by the proponents of the argument as well factors overlooked by them and the shortcomings of the theories. Capitalism a Catalyst for World Peace The utopian idea of a liberal society is that where individual liberties such as private ownership, respect for the rule of law, democratic elections amongst others exist when these conditions are met. In addition, democratic governments have advance the argument that a liberal society cannot existence without free markets and thus capitalism is an essential component of the liberal society. Capitalism unlike state control economies opens the door for greater interaction amongst individuals and amongst nations. According to these arguments, the society becomes automatically peaceful and when different societies exhibit similar such characteristics then world peace follows. A perfectly liberal society where the individual liberties are observed is impossible even the United States a highly liberal nation has its own flaws that create a barrier to achieving the perfect picture. McDonald (2009 p 272), postulates that capitalism has lead to democratization of the world to a large degree and further this has lead to promotion of peace. The argument that these two principles; capitalism and democracy have an effect of liberal pacification of the world holds. Free trade and capitalism can lead to world peace when considered in different perspectives. Capitalistic principles dictate that individuals will be focused in production of that that enhances their well-being and therefore the populace concentration will be on production, leaving little room in engaging in warlike activities. And as a result this will lead to democratic, individualized and a rational society whereby capitalism acts as a catalyst for a peaceful nation and peaceful coexistence amongst nations. Gutiérrez and Schonwalder (2010 p 51) question the notion that capitalism leads to peace but argue that economic globalization increases the incentives for trade in legal and illegal commodities and these in turn leads to escalation of world conflicts and at times wars. Such a disposition is misguided; corruption and intolerance coupled with economic globalization might be the leading cause of illegal merchandise, which in turn causes armed conflicts. In fact, in the world where capitalism reigns, there are frequent civilian led demonstrations advocating war like activities advanced by the states. Modern forms of capitalism are closely linked to with peaceful negotiations so as not to hurt economic activities. Modern industrial model worker can put up spirited campaigns against imperialism and that the capitalist nations have created and ratified institutions aimed at addressing world conflicts, the example is the International Criminals Court that targets perpetrators of conflicts. Therefore, commercial interactions between liberal states promote interdependence and cooperation this aids in building of peace amongst such nations. Thus such ties put together leads to prolonged peace relations among the liberal states, hence a pointer towards achievability of world peace through civil liberties to all the nations of the world. Economic theory asserts that market forces only rewards the individual who works hard, hence capitalism coupled with democracy of nations is the foundation upon which liberal pacifism rests. Democratic Peace Theory Democracy is part of the component that defines liberal nation; however, it refers to the process through which citizens elect their representatives in the government. Hypotheses postulating that an increasingly democratized world will experience fewer armed conflicts among nations, have been put forth from the times of Kant. Nonetheless, needless to say, democracies are not the fundamental reason that keeps nations peaceful considered to other forms of political systems. Considered intuitively, democratic principles are neither the necessary nor the sufficient reason that may prompt peaceful coexistence amongst states. in modern political international arrangement, liberal sovereign states have never waged war with one another. These nations whenever faced with disputes which range from territorial disputes to diplomatic relations always resort peaceful negotiations involving supra national institutions on the table. Moreover, democratic nations are institutionally wired to act in response to the wills of the electorate. Therefore, chances that such electorates will support armed conflicts are rare. A government that is founded upon democratic principles guarantees their citizen’s equality before the law, justice and platform to achieve their individual potentials. Thus, such a system is peace leaning and might be replicated across nations, thus being leading to world peace. In a purely democratic system, it is the citizens who decide whether a nation goes to war and not the leadership, who perhaps provide directions. Therefore, to encourage peace in the world, liberal principles need to be adopted by nations across the world as it has been shown that democratic and liberal countries are liberal and very peaceful. This is in steep contrast to undemocratic states and the best cited example of a nation steeped in communism and devoid of free market is the self-balkanized state of North Korea. The country has always threatened to attack other liberals’ nations such as their neighbour, the Republic of South Korea. Liberal countries that are constantly threatened by non-liberal countries that do not exercise restraints only fight wars to defend their own sovereignty and integrity. According to proponents of the democracy peace theory, the use of force in resolving disputes goes against the grains of democratic principles, and therefore unacceptable in such nations. Democratic principles are shared values between nations such that a demand that a country A observes the principle of equality and justice amongst the citizens should be reflected in a country B that observes similar principles. Hypothetically, if all the states in the world were to be democratic and these values and principles shared across the board then instances of armed conflicts would never arise. The universality of such shared principles among nations therefore will prompt peaceful coexistence amongst nations. Theoretically, the plausibility of peaceful relations among countries observing liberal principles is obvious, but the reality on the ground confirms a very different scenario. States are complex and the internal dynamics of countries and their relations to other countries might negate advancement towards peaceful coexistence. In fact, realist point out that such propositions are merely idealistic thinking and that results from the ground paints a very different picture. Currently countries such as the United States, Germany and Brazil are embroiled in disputes over claims that the United States has spied on their highest offices. Since these nations are very democratic and liberal, instances of armed conflicts can be a far-flung idea. Internationally, fear and distrust is not uncommon and this is the real picture, there is no even a single self-defining state that has the capability of exposing its states secrets to other nations, irrespective of the cordial relationship, which such States enjoy. While the democratic peace debates have shown that democratic peace theory is attractive and mythical (Layne, 1995, p. 5), it does not necessarily explain peace due to a number of factors such as the assumption that liberal democracy is in the final stage in the changing nature of governments (Doyle, 1983, p. 30). Further, the legality given to liberalist’s view of democracy-by-democracy peace theory liberalism has developed to be a basis of violence and intimidation in the world stage. Democratic peace theory relies on a hypothesis divided into three parts as it relies on the externalization of liberal norms of how states relate internationally (Rosato, 2003, p. 586). This means that democracy is usually concerned with the representation of the individual person mostly through an electoral system that enables them participate in how a state is formed (Hobson; 2009, p.640; Barkawi and Laffey; 1999, p.412). However, the tendency of officials who have been elected to act without the approval of those whom they represent at times bring about the criticism of the democratic peace theory according to Rosato (2005, p.595). Slantchev et al defend the theory of the democratic peace process by suggesting that any theory can be proven depending on how the theory can be manipulated or not which in one way is a criticism of the theory by Rosato (2005, p.462).  Conclusion Therefore, whether or not the democratic peace process is applicable is a debate but what ca be seen is that super powers such as the United States legitimize their international relations activities on the need to have a democratic peace process for it to have legitimacy. This has been made possible due to the ease with which international relations has embraced the democratic peace theory , Reference list Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M. (2006). The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization. Globalization and Violence. 1, 103-131. Gutiérrez Sanín, F., & Schönwälder, G. (2010). Economic liberalization and political violence utopia or dystopia? London: Pluto Press. McDonald, P. J. (2009). The invisible hand of peace: capitalism, the war machine, and international relations theory. New York, Cambridge University Press. Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace. American Political Science Review. 99. Hobson, C. (2009). Beyond the End of History: The Need for a `Radical Historicisation of Democracy in International Relations. Millennium - Journal of International Studies. 37, 631-657. Kinsella, David Tood. (2012). No Rest for the Democratic Peace. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Layne, C. (1995). Kant or Cant: the myth of the democratic peace. The Perils of Anarchy : Contemporary Realism and International Security / Edited by Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller. Rosato, S. (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review. 97. Rosato, S. (2005). Explaining the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review. 99. Slantchev, B. L., Alexandrova, A., & Gartzke, E. (2005). Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review. 99. Read More