Is War an Inevitable Feature of International Relations - Essay Example

WAR AN INEVITABLE FEATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS By Introduction War is the oldest, most salient and prevalent issue in international relations. Despite war being one of the most contentious issues in the modern societies, many international theorists differs over the inevitability of war. The world peace is something that is commonly sought after objective; many people strive for the world that has things settled in a non-violent manner and where war is the absolute thing. But speaking realistically, how likely is the idea of the world peace? From historical, psychological, and even the biblical perspective, violence and war seems to be inevitable. Historically, mankind has engaged itself in bloody conflicts from time to time. Fighting over power, religion, resources, money, and freedom has been the order of the modern world. Some people opine that war is avoidable and unnecessary, but the reality is, war is something that can never be avoided. War is an inevitable occurrence in the modern world economies, where politics, conflicts over resources and supremacy of power has taken centre stage. Propaganda has been heavily used not only in the past but also today. In fact, much of the military propaganda is motivated towards making yourself into a stronger figure that many emulate. This is popularly seen in the ads such as the army slogans, "Not Just Strong, Army Strong", the Marine Corps. Slogan, "Which Way Will You Run?", and "The Few, The Proud" With these types of the ads, they promote the idea of joining the military force while glorifying the idea of going into the battle (Singer, 2011). The media has also contributed immensely in glorifying war today. For instance, the movies that we watch are constantly being produced about the war in the Middle East. Films such as “The Hurt Locker”, the United States is highly glorified because of how they depict the three-man bomb squad and the lone Humvee clearing the buildings (Kamber, 2010). Indeed, when the idea of the battle is being glorified, the idea of the war is even more appealing. Therefore, propaganda is a reoccurring trend, and the conflict is the turning wheel of the violence and tension. If indeed these trends have held the film industry for centuries, can the cycles be stopped? Psychology is the most convincing perspective about how war is the inevitable feature of the international relations. In one of his articles titled, “War Inevitable?”, E.O. Wilson states that, "Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group competition was a principal driving force that made us what we are” (Wilson, 2012). In his psychological view, Wilson points out that war and violence are in our biology. Another vital psychological theme is that of the gender roles. With the males ruling the world, the world is usually controlled in the mind-set of the men. The males are more willing and assertive to fight and engage in the conflicts. Contrastingly, females prefer to talk the problems out and solve the things out in the non-violent manner (Pellissier, 2011). The men are innately wired to be the most assertive owing to the fact that they have to fight for themselves in order to protect their families. This, therefore, proves that war is inevitable because the men rule the world and owing to the fact that the men mind-set is innately wired, war is always seen as the feasible solution. The division of the world into the several individual states highly encourages patriotism, despite the origins of the patriotism being righteous; it can lead to the hostility. Indeed, war is not caused by the socio-political arrangements in the individual states, but rather by the global arrangement of the state divisions that has caused the collective insecurity (Gray, 2013). In fact, the fundamental cause of the war is based on the absence of the international government or the anarchy of the sovereign states. The growth of the socialism and democracy has tended to accentuate this argument by spreading among the middle class the sentiments of the national pride that is confined to the courts and kings (Gray, 2013). In the world of the independent states, the war is seen as the only way that each of them can be able to claim their territory, which is the main reason for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The inevitability of war will continue to exist as long as there are sovereign states that possess the great power. The multiplicity of the nuclear weapons that are scattered all over the world supports this argument, as does the security dilemma, the human nature, the modernity and rationality (Shapiro, 2007). The realists argue that the inevitability of war is due to the biological makeup of the human race and the capacity of the human nature for the anger. From the socio-biological perspective, this violent nature of the human nature impacts on how we execute the international relations. Additionally, from the psychological point of the view war can be inevitable in the international relations. Even in the biblical perspective the war is accepted as being part of the life. For instance, in the book of the Ecclesiastes, chapter 3 verses 1-8, it’s clearly emphasised that there is time for everything. Particularly in verse 8, it reads that, “A time for war and a time for peace.” (The Holy Bible: New International Version). From this quote, it’s, therefore, clear that even the authors of the Bible agree that war is a necessary part of the life. Many of the psychologists theorise that the human aggression can at sometimes develop into the frustration that is aimed at something irresolvable and unobtainable. The World War II is a perfect example of this. It resulted from the apparent Nazi aggression and the frustrations of the failure of the World War I (Buzan, 1984). Additionally, the human nature is inherently conflictual, and the natural differences of the opinions can escalate into the war. Most of the political leaders are usually less influenced by the instinct, though the existence of the disagreements and anger may be investable, the existence of the compassion and treaties negate the notion that the human nature is the main reason for the inevitability of the war (Buzan, 1984). This has made the international playing fields has changed into one of the convert warfare. The security dilemma conjectures that the war is inevitable owing to the uncertainty of another state’s intentions and actions. Mostly, the line between the position of the defense and that of the offense is blurred. For instance, the 1983 NATO exercise that the security system of Russia believed to be real. The misperception like this one is the basic fact of the human life. The perceptions rest on the individual experience, accompanied by the calamitous implications of the international system when they are applied to the war as witnessed in the World War II. For instance, the relationship between the UK and Germany was majorly based on the ignorance; Hitler believed that the UK was incapable of fighting, and Churchill on the other hand underestimated the military clout of Hitler (Vasquez, 1993). Therefore, it’s true that mix of the insecurity and the hypothetically misperceived threat could make the international war inevitable. However, one simple argument exists against the misperception; war is not an ad-hoc decision that can be made rashly. The leaders more often consider and deliberate on many issues, and not making knee-jerk reactions only. Indeed, misperception during the course of the war can be an accelerator for any further action to be taken. However, we cannot cite this as the sole reason for the inevitability of the war. Additionally, one can suggest the existence of the modern intelligence technology makes it able to sweep out the weapons of the mass destruction (Geneva Institute of International Relations, & Walters, 1969). Indeed, many of the states have the power of anticipating the attack, suggesting therefore that war is not inevitable in the practical sense. Von Clausewitz (2004) describes war as the continuation of the political intercourse. The implication of this is that war is inevitable owing to the fact that it’s a political tool that can be used rationally. Indeed, war can be analysed as the cost-benefit equation; increased gains leads to the increased inevitability. The fact that the world has effectively gotten into something smaller, the war could be perceived as being more inevitable. Oil in the Middle East is the perfect example. Despite this, it cannot be concluded that war is not the rational action. Perhaps this type of argument had more bearing in the 16th century, with Henry VII seeing the wars in the Europe as the vital for the filing of his coffers (Von Clausewitz & Graham, 1990). However, in today’s international community, the idea of the cost-benefit analysis is completely obsolete in the context of war. This is particularly applicable in the Vietnam whereby both sides have suffered the damning blows with very little successes. This, therefore, integrates the idea that the war is inevitable owing to its rational nature and the benefits that it’s accompanied by it. The historical context has a strong case for the modernity therefore making war to be even more inevitable. Indeed, the modern world makes it even more conducive to the violence. The modern capitalist society is widely regarded as being inherently violent, as it leads to the promotion of the individualistic society whereby everyone is fighting for the power. In fact, this can result in the trade restrictions and tariffs and the 21st century global trade war. The modern warfare is not only the easiest as compared to the past (with the nuclear weapons that are constantly being deployed), but also vastly superior as evidenced in the evolving technology that is available to the armed forces (Williams, 2010). Additionally, the modern world can be viewed relatively smaller owing to the advanced communications and travel coupled with the lack of the resources and land thereby adding to the tension that is inherent in the modern society. Therefore, if this theory is applied to every state in the modern international system, it’s no stretch to the imagination to the view that war is inevitable. In the modern society, war is considered to be incompatible. Indeed, most countries are now in the intergovernmental groups such as the UN (which have very strict warfare). Wars are considered costly, horrific, and are ultimately not beneficial, for the country’s well-being. Indeed, the war against the terror was met with the anxiety and caution owing to the fact that “Kosovo Wobble” was still very fresh in the minds of the public (Paris, 2002). The move from the honourable European wars of the 16th century to the unfavourable and unwanted wars of the modern world that is reinforced in the newspapers, media that predominantly focuses on the negative side of the war (Paris, 2002). This thereby reinforces the idea that war is not as inevitable as some of the people would argue. A lot of the sufficient evidence exist that suggest that war is inevitable in the international relations, especially when we consider the factors that are present during the deliberation of war. However, looking at the modern international system, it’s clear that war is very costly, not inevitable and most importantly difficult. Most states now offer the support for the wars by other means rather than engaging in, the conflict, themselves. The “stalemate” over the cyber-warfare and the nuclear weapons between countries such as USA and China clearly illustrates this; both are waiting for another to take a move. Conversely, sufficient deterrents exists in the form of the security negotiations, agreements and threat of public dissatisfaction such as the UK public’s reaction to the war in Iraq. Additionally, if we accept peace to be the desired model for the modern international system, the very same notion of war can become obsolete. The liberals argue that the war can only be eliminated through the use of the sufficient efforts and the effective institutions that can end up reducing the chances of the conflicts in the world (Roach, Griffiths & OCallaghan, 2014). Additionally, the liberals argue that the way that the state is governed domestically can play a vital in the reduction of its attitude toward war. On the other hand, the radicals argue that war can only be eliminated through the revolutionary changes in the character of the systems (Roach, Griffiths, & OCallaghan, 2014). These differing ideas from the radicals and the liberals clearly demonstrate the inevitability of the war in the international relations. Since all the evidences clearly point out to the war as being inevitable, states should adept at responding to the conflicts rather than trying to peacefully solve it. For instance, the current conflict between Turkey and Syria. The two countries have been having issues for quite some time now. Turkey being a member of the NATO, in the event that a large-scale conflict erupts between them, Turkey is at liberty to evoke the clause that states that an attack against any member of the NATO country is equal to the attack against the entire alliance (Salhani, 2012). This means the United States and the other states involved with the NATO will be required to respond. This, therefore, shows that we should focus on how to respond and contain the situation rather than focusing on how to solve the situation peacefully. The criticism of the “War on Terror” addresses the ethics, morals, efficiency, and economics and other issues of the War on Terror. The notion of the “War on Terror” has proven to be one of the highly contentious issue and critics are charging that the participating governments have exploited it in order to pursue the long-standing policies or the military objectives, infringement on human rights, and the reduction of the civil liberties (Burin, 1963). However, the appropriateness of the sense of speaking on “War on Terror” has attracted a lot of proponents and opponents. Opponents argue “terrorism” is not enemy but the tactic. Calling terrorism “War on Terror” disguises the differences between the conflicts like international mujahedeen and anti-occupation insurgents. Though it speaks sense to talk of the “War on Terror”, an achievement of zero risks on terrorism is still a fantasy. This because an open society cannot be totally invulnerable; attacks will continue to occur such as the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 painfully demonstrated. Regardless of the treasure or blood that is spent on the operations, terrorist attacks that are usually carried out by the “inspired” terrorists will continue to be virtually unpreventable. Therefore, the key to fighting the “War on Terror” is through building of psychological resilience among the public to make sure that they are less subject to the manipulation of the threats of the attacks. Conclusion So long as so many different states are in existence, so will the balances of power between these different states, also continue to encourage war. One of the vivid explanations being given for increased wars over the past century is due to the “proxy wars” being fought by the superpowers indirectly through other states. This illustrates that the international politics is causing not only an increase in wars, but also is becoming a more complex affair that is attracting more parties. In order to eliminate wars, people must first recognise the flaws of the war, and be able to identify suitable solutions. Ultimately, it is evident as long as the status quo of international politics continues to persist and the fight for supremacy of power continues in the world, creation of a peaceful world will continue to be an illusion. Bibliography Burin, F. S., 1963. The communist doctrine of the inevitability of war. American Political Science Review, 57(02), 334-354. Buzan, B., 1984. Peace, power, and security: contending concepts in the study of International Relations. Journal of Peace Research, 21(2), 109-125. Geneva Institute of International Relations, & Walters, F. P., 1969. War is not inevitable. Problems of peace; thirteenth series. Freeport, N.Y., Books for Libraries Press. Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M., 1987. The political economy of international relations (Vol. 8). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gray, C. S., 2013. War, peace and international relations: an introduction to strategic history. Routledge. Kamber, M., (2010) "How Not To Depict A War." Available at: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/?_r=0 [Accessed 17 March 2015]. Paris, R., 2002. ‘Kosovo and the Metaphor War’, Political Science Quarterly 117/3; 423-50. Pellissier, H., 2011. Women-only leadership: Would it prevent war. Ethical Technology. Roach, S. C., Griffiths, M., & Ocallaghan, T., 2014. International Relations: The Key Concepts 3rd Edition. Routledge. Salhani, C., 2012. "Is a Larger Middle East War Inevitable?". Available at: http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Is-a-Larger-Middle-East-War-Inevitable.html. [Accessed 17 March 2015]. Shapiro, M. J. (2007). The new violent cartography. Security Dialogue, 38(3), 291-313. Singer, P. W., 2006. Corporate warriors: The rise of the privatized military industry and its ramifications for international security. The Holy Bible: New International Version. Vasquez, J. A., 1993. The war puzzle (No. 27). Cambridge University Press. Von Clausewitz, C., & Graham, J. J., 1990. On war. Champaign, Ill, Project Gutenberg. Von Clausewitz, C., 2004. On war. Digireads. Com Publishing. Williams, B., 2010. The war on terror. Mankato, Minn: Arcturus Pub. Wilson, E.O., 2012. "Is War Inevitable?" Discover Magazine. Read More