Theory and Practice of Peace - Essay Example

In the past, powerful nations used their power and wealth to acquire territory and dominate the internal affairs of less wealthy nations. As one would expect, this usually led to conflict. Though peace can be defined as the absence of war, the cold war taught the world that conflict was not only physical but could include other tactics such as trade animosity and bad foreign relations. According to Qadri (2008), peace is disrupted when the society fails to balance rights and responsibilities between individuals therein. When encroachment of rights goes on abated, and when responsibilities are not fulfilled Qadri (2008) argues that a rift occurs between parties, regions,s or governments and this can lead to a full-fledged war. According to Qadri (2008), justice is at the center of peace restoration and always requires that rights and responsibilities be restored to the aggrieved party (see appendix).

There are several peace theories that try to explain the prevalence of peace witnessed in most parts of the world today. The capitalist peace theory and the democratic peace theory are the two most cited theories in academic circles (Weede, 2004). However, it is obvious that the two fail to fully explain the concept of peace. As such, this essay observes that future trends for international peace in the future will involve more than democratic practices and capitalism. Lasting peace will most likely be attained through pluralism, where the major world powers will champion other states in the world to embrace the culture of tolerance for other cultures and religions. When this happens, countries will have a better understanding and will avoid the use of violence as a mode of conflict resolution. Instead, they will embrace dialogue and other noble ways that are devoid of violence.

CAPITALIST PEACE THEORY
Capitalist peace theory suggests that free enterprise is one of the viable tools that encourage peace (Gartzke, 2005; Weede, 2004). This theory accordingly argues that capitalism creates a positive interdependence among countries in regard to trade, thus making it hard for them to take any actions that would jeopardize their trading relationships. This theory bases its arguments on the assumption that the political class in individual countries cannot initiate war with countries considered important trading partners, since by doing so, they would be destroying the economic benefits accrued from the trade relations.

According to Gartzke (2005), economic freedom for countries contributes to peace in two ways: 1) free markets in different countries provide a “sounding board” for the political class therein. This argument is informed by the reaction of markets to interruption in peace; investments are discouraged in the non-harmonious countries and the domestic economic conditions deteriorate as a result. Knowing the likelihood of such scenarios, politicians or local leaders avoid the disruption of peace in their respective countries, especially where the interest in domestic investment or capital outflows are ranked highly in governments. 2) Conventional economies unlike what used to be the norm in the past are based on intellect and financial capital (Gartzke, 2005). This then means that economies are no longer agriculture-based. Consequently, there is little interest by powerful nations to occupy foreign territories.

In the past, countries with big arable lands were considered wealthy. That explains the setting up of colonies and the scrabble by colonial masters to gain as much land in foreign territories. Conquest and emancipation wars arose as the result of foreign occupancy. In contrast, conventional wealth creation is less dependent on agriculture; instead, entrepreneurship and innovation are the new means of wealth creation (Gartzke, 2005).

Vayrynen (2005) asserts that capitalism has two different political aspects that complement each other. They are the aggressive aspect and the peaceful aspect. The world experiences these phases at different times depending on the prevailing economic conditions and their relations with the political systems. This means that Vayrynen (2005) refutes the bracket claim that capitalism breeds peace between countries. In his opinion, capitalism may result in either peace or aggression.