International Relation that Causes War - Essay Example

Insert Introduction That man is not at peace even with himself is a matter that seems to underscore the fact that war is an inevitable part of social existence. The inevitability of war does not just apply to interpersonal relations among natural persons, but also extends to relations among states. The gravity of this development is that war among or between states has always been as old as the advent of the state concept. Given that there are many variables that come into play in inter-state conflict, it is difficult to give a single and binding theory that explains international conflict. Because of this, not only are there different views that explain causes of war, but the same has also given rise to views on international conflict, with many foreign policymakers and political scientists viewing war as a continuation of politics, and others, as a culmination of a debilitated international systems. The causes are to be discussed in the discourse that extends forthwith. Address Competing Perspectives on the Causes of War Directly According to Kenneth Waltz, one of the principal causes of war is human nature. This aspect of human nature as a cause of war is inclusive of personal characteristics such as personality, activities, opinions and choices which may shape the course of international relations, or eve exacerbate an already antagonistic inter-state relation into a combative outbreak. In this case, such an individual will usually be a political leader, a major actor within an international system, or a decision maker. Just as Waltz posits, leaders who fall within this rubric are likely to take on characteristics that are aggressive, likely to harbour misperceptions that exist among leaders [on matters that are important in the international system] and amiable to the characteristics and aspirations of the public masses. In this light, using this theory means that the causes of war have been placed onto one or several individuals who are involved in a conflict. Waltz seems to extend the ideas of classical thought which held that human beings are naturally predisposed to aggression and violence, so that war is an inevitable phenomenon. History seems to lend credence to the school of thought immediately above and that of Waltz. This is especially the case when one considers World War II whose cause was anteceded by Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ideals. It is a fact that on 31 January, 1933, then German Chancellor Adolf Hitler made it known that if Germany was to be made strong, he would have to ready herself for war. Consequently, in 1933, Hitler began to secretly rearm Germany and made this effort public in 1935. Since the rearmament was against the Treaty of Versailles, Germany broke ranks with the United Kingdom, Russia and France- powerful states which felt that stern actions had to be taken. This development immediately above was also followed by the ratification of Hitler’s policy Lebensraum which entailed taking over countries [such as Russia] that were to the East of Germany. The crux of the matter at this point is that this was an artifice by Germany to unite all German speakers and to get rid of Communists and the Slavs whom Hitler deemed too inferior to engage. Hitler was also aiming at taking advantage of Belarus and Ukraine’s oil wealth. The import of this is that Germany was going to barefacedly apportion itself land which had been taken away from Germany, in the Treaty of Versailles. At the close of 1939, Hitler had taken over Czechoslovakia and Austria with no action stemming from the Allies, even when it was clear that Germany under Hitler was committed to dominate Europe. Nevertheless, it is important to appreciate the fact that Germany’s act of taking over Czechoslovakia served as a turning point between Germany and the Allies. After taking over Czechoslovakia, the Allies warned Hitler of dire consequences if he tried to take over Poland. However, Hitler invaded Poland and the Allies declared war. World War II was therefore a culmination of Hitler’s aggressive mien and policies. It is against this backdrop that one can say that history lends credence to Waltz’s explanation of international war as being a result of human factors. Conversely, there is what political scientists such as Waltz term as the Second Image, n the analysis of war in international relations. In this case, the cause of inter-state war is analysed while emphasis is placed on domestic aspects of the state(s). Thus, under the context of warfare, relevant characteristics of a state, a nation or a nation-state such as political groups, national interests, type of government and the economy may come into play. The type of government may refer to a conservative, radical, liberal or non-liberal nature of the state. The economy may refer to the demand for economic resources and whether a state has adopted capitalism or socialism as a means of production. Even domestic politics may come into play, especially vis-à-vis, political parties and government policies. Ethno-national communities may also come into play in this instance, with the main issue being whether or not the state or nation in picture is meeting the needs of diverse societies. The immediately foregoing together with all the factors therein holds considerable degree of veracity, just as history has served. In the first instance, jogging the discussion down the memory lane elucidates the fact that national economic situation can have spiraling effects on international peace. No sooner had Louis XVI’s regime and his wife Lady Marie Antoinette frivolously dismissed the concerns of the French society than a revolutionary war led by Napoleon Bonaparte broke out. The gravity of the French Revolutionary Wars which began from 1789 to 1799 is that they reshaped politics in Europe. Europe had to convene a meeting under the leadership of Lord Castlereagh, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, Charles Talleyrand and Prince Klemens von Metternich which would then become the Metternich System, conversely known as the Concert of Europe. The main intent of the Metternich System was to: restore political legitimacy; stop the revolutionary wave from spreading to the rest of Europe; and to maintain a balance of power. To attain these goals: France was trimmed to size and to this effect, cities such as Alsace Lorraine were wrested off from France’s control; political and religious censorship were instituted all over Europe; and political espionage and the suppression of revolutionary and nationalist elements were formed and strengthened in Europe, particularly, in the universities. It must be appreciated that as France’s internal economic and political upheavals necessitated the advent of the Concert of Europe, the Concert of Europe culminated into the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885. The problems of Europe [such as the Scramble and Partition for Africa and other colonies] that the Berlin Conference could not solve coalesced together to necessitate World War I. In more recent years, ethno-national issues have come into play to even serve as an antecedent factor to America’s Invasion on Iraq in 1990-1991 and 2003. Particularly, Kurds were heavily persecuted under then President Saddam Hussein’s reign. Saddam had felt that the Kurds were a threat to his political power and he therefore sought to emasculate them. After coming to power in 1963, Saddam’s persecution of the Kurds ranged from withholding of basic human and civil rights from the Kurds, to directly attacking the Kurds. In June 1963 for instance, Saddam’s henchmen under his command rounded up the Kurds in their cities and executed them publicly. On June 19, 1963 [the Martyr Day in Kurdistan], people were rounded up in several cities in Kurdistan and hundreds of them were executed publicly while others had chemical weapons doused on them. Houses were burned, destroyed and dynamited. In 1988, Saddam destroyed more than 4,000 Kurdish cities, villages, towns and gathered Kurds in 81 collective towns. This was an attempt to totally annihilate Kurds totally but this plan was fortuitously nipped in the bud by the Iraq-Kuwaiti War in 1990. It is not therefore fortuitous that the United States joined the war, because of Saddam’s contraventions on human rights and dignity and sovereignty of Kuwait. It is however also true that the US got into war with Iraq because of strategic reasons and Middle East balance. Waltz and other political scientists such as Morgene see the third factor to inter-state or international war as being caused by the third image: the anarchic nature of the world as a political environment. This standpoint analyses political issues from the third image place emphasis on international organisations, international treaties, and forums that nations or states abide by. In this light, key governmental and nongovernmental organisations are studied and analysed, in an effort to understand the causes of conflict and war (Morgene, 75). The foregoing is to the notion that the international system exists in an anarchic environment. However, this anarchic state of affairs in international relations is not so much to mean chaos as it does, the absence of central authority or arbitrator. The same anarchical state of political affairs in international relations is also underpinned by many transitions to power. Because of the absence a hierarchically superior, there is also an absence of coercive power which can resolve disputes, create an order in domestic politics and enforce the law in international relations. In relation to the above, there are political scientists such as Prichard who are of the persuasion that international anarchy came about immediately after World War I given that Germany and the Ottoman Empire had both collapsed. The Austro-Hungarian Empire also complicated the concept of sovereignty at the time. Similarly, Asia, Africa and Latin America were largely anarchic since they rose from being protectorates, colonies and puppets to being sovereign powers. The communist revolutions that had taken place throughout South America and Europe also added to this global anarchy. By extension, this group sees World War I as an event that disturbed the anarchic situation (Prichard, 133). Works Cited Morgene, Grieveaud. Is The Anarchical International System the Cause of War? London: University of London. Prichard, Alex. “Anarchy, Anarchism and International Relations.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 3.4 (2007): 122-150.    Read More