How Can International Peace Be Achieved - Coursework Example

INTERNATIONAL PEACE by Date Introduction The world has experienced periods of war for centuries beginning with ancient Greece to contemporary society. Most notable are the Napoleonic wars 1815, Franco-Prussian war of 1870, Spanish-American war 1898, the World War I and II, and Cold War not forgetting the war in Iraq and the recent conflicts in Israel and Palestine. Numerous theories of conflict (war) and peace have tried to explain why nations go to war and how peace can be achieved but so far none has been able to give a definitive answer as obstacles to peace are still apparent. For realists war is inherent in nation-states as they are rational self-interested actors in an anarchic international system while for liberalists peace is possible through cooperation and representative governments. On the other hand, critical theories believe in the world inequalities as the cause of war hence the solution to this problem is ensuring equality in the international system by eliminating poverty and other factors necessitating this condition. In order to understand the possibilities for peace in international relations, it is essential to understand why war keeps reoccurring in the history of nation-states as well the factors that cause nations to be hostile or make peace and cooperate with other nations in the international system. The debate in international relations has centered on human freedom and independence versus the establishment of the state and its survival and trying to discover which is more important. Two theories that have been prominent in this regard are realism and liberalism. This essay will be to discuss how peace can be achieved in the international system using these two international relations theories and also a critically analysis of these solutions to peace. Firstly, the core features and assumptions of each of the theories will be outlined as well the solutions they offer for peace. This will be followed by a critical analysis of the solutions given and their implications in the international system. Liberalism is one of the dominant theories in international relations and puts more emphasis on the freedom of individuals and independence hence is centered on human rights, individual rationality and progress.1 It also emphasizes on equality under the protection of the law and universality hence private property ownership is encouraged. It is based on the ideals of free trade whereby government intervention is rarely welcome hence leaving the market to be guided by rational individuals. The form of government envisaged by this theory is the representative government where the leader’s power is derived from the consent of the governed.2 As such, military power is not necessary as nations cooperate for mutual benefit. Cooperation in this case is enhanced by norms, regimes and institutions. According to this theory therefore, various options for peace in the international system do exist especially if the Kantian’s concept of perpetual peace is something to go by. Liberal internationalism a branch of liberalism believes that peace can be achieved through international rules and organizations. For example, after the First World War, the League of Nations was established with the help of President Woodrow Wilson of United States and Winston Churchill of Britain. This was based on Kant’s perpetual peace concept which believes in the power of institutions such as the judiciary and representative governments. The Perpetual Peace article (1797) put emphasis on the constitution as a safeguard of freedoms of citizens and a federation of liberal states to ensure war was prevented.3 As such, liberal institutionalism is associated with thinking and actions of President Woodrow Wilson of U.S. President Wilson was of the view that it was the duty of U.S to spread the liberal gospel to the rest of the world especially due to its position as the world power. This is the main reason why U.S entered the Great War in the first place. Liberal internationalism since then has created a framework of international cooperation and spreading norms such as “respect for human rights, non-intervention, anti-imperialism, freedom of commerce and exchange and religious and political tolerance.”4However, liberalism did not originate with Woodrow Wilson but with thinkers such as Adam Smith, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. For liberals, respect for human rights which are deemed to be universal offers possibility for peace. Though the League of Nations failed in the end, it was crucial in ensuring peace prevailed in the world and so do other organizations such as the United Nations and its security council, security organizations such as NATO and regional organizations such as African Union, European Union, Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). These institutions just like Kant stipulated have a moral obligation to ensure peace among states whether voluntarily or through use of force hence maintain world order. For example, the purpose of UN is to offer security, ensure economic development and observance of human rights and its International Court of Justice arm is the legal authority mandated to ensure non-violation of rules.5 In essence, these institutions offer collective security. The neoliberals or liberal internationalism on the other hand, deals with the effects of institutions on state behavior in the international system. Just like neorealists, neoliberals believe that states are engaged in security competition but that they can be made to cooperate in economic terms. This is because cooperation is not a zero-sum game as realists believe but entails mutual or absolute gains obtained through interdependence among nations. Once countries become interdependent, they are unlikely to go to war as it would jeopardize their economies hence reduced risk of war. For example, America during the reign of Roosevelt was at a loss whether to engage in war with Japan due to its economic ties (Japan exported 80% of its oil from the U.S). It was not until the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1941 that the U.S decided to engage in war with Japan during the Second World War. Liberalism also is centered on the democratic peace theory prevalent in the post-Cold War period and whose foundation is based on Kantian tradition. According to this theory, democracies are inherently peaceful hence it is rare for two democracies to engage in war and they have fewer conflicts.6 For Doyle, war between democracies is a rare occurrence due to the indirect rule provided by the representative form of government in such democracies.7 Since the citizens are the ones that give consent to the governors, they expect much from him especially in safeguarding their security and if war was to occur, they are the ones who would suffer the consequences. This is supported by Jervis who argues that since power is not concentrated on one individual, different veto groups can reverse harmful decisions like going to war thus reducing the likelihood of war and promoting peace in democracies.8Furthermore, if the leader does not maintain peace, he risks losing his seat in the next elections as it is the electorate who decide on who is to lead them. As such, the citizens’ interests become his interests too leading to a peaceful environment. Another merit of democracies is that they embrace free economic activity leading to increased trade both local and international and consequently interdependence hence minimal chances of war.9 These nations cannot wage war against each other since both economies would suffer enormously. Moreover, interdependence means nations are not self-sufficient and this is a prerequisite for war. The trade is also governed by institutions and rules hence conflicts can be resolved in other ways other than war. One example is the World Trade Organization (WTO) that ensures free and fair trade among countries by setting up rules for trade and mechanisms for resolving conflicts in the world market thereby establishing peace. Liberalism also entrenches the hegemonic stability theory as a solution for peace. A hegemon is a nation which is more powerful than others due to its economic and military capabilities.10 Since the end of Second World War, the United States has been playing this role as it the world’s only superpower after the fall of Russia. While realists believe that the international system is anarchic since there is no overarching authority, liberalists solve this problem through hegemonic power. This hegemon is believed to set the agenda for global institutions by actively engaging in international politics.11 The best case is the U.S which for decades has been actively engaged in world politics and ensuring the world is safe. It has been acting as the policing authority of the world thus engaging in conflicts such as in Iran, Iraq, and the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. It also plays crucial role in dealing with terror gangs like Al-Qaeda and Al-shabaab in Somalia who are a menace to world peace. The other theory dealing with conflict resolution is realism. Realists do not offer much assistance when it comes to finding peace as they believe nation-states are inherently conflictual and that “genuine peace, or a world where states do not compete for power, is not likely.”12 States are viewed as unitary rational actors who constantly pursue self interests for self-preservation and security reasons. Power is the solution to all problems of nation-states in this case especially military power. This is because nations are in constant security competition such that even increasing a nation’s security is viewed with suspicion and can lead to arms race.13 Unlike liberalists who believe in international rules and organizations to bring peace, realists believe there is no overarching authority to enforce such rules hence cooperation is impossible.14 The only way to preserve themselves is through nasty and brutal politics and follows Niccolo Machiavelli’s advice (in The Prince) of using deceit and violence as moral goals are dangerous. Amidst all these misgivings, realism does give some solutions for relative peace. One of the possibilities for peace is the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory. In this case, two nations build up their nuclear power if they sense tensions thus making sure none of them would go to war with the other as it would lead to massive destruction of both.15 This was evidenced by the nuclear build up of U.S and Soviet Union during the Cold War. This was very effective especially in Cuba missile crisis as it allowed the two nations to compromise rather than destroy each other. The balance of power theory also does allow nations in a realist world to cooperate hence peace. Mearsheimer argues that this balance of power forces nations to cooperate and form alliances against a common enemy or gang up on a thirst state.16 An example of such cooperation is the various arms control agreements signed by superpowers during the Cold War. This in the end ensures survival and preservation of the nations as they are on equal footing. However, they must accept the restrains that come with such alliances for peace to prevail. Though realism and liberalism do give possibilities of how peace can be achieved in the international system, they also have some criticisms. One criticism concerns the role of a hegemon in international politics. More often than not, a hegemony instead bringing peace results into violence. For example, the U.S has to use military threats or force to force nations to uphold peace or it sometimes may be driven by self-interest. Despite public outcry over U.S involvement in the Ira war, the U.S continued waging war on Iraq in 2003 after the September 11, 2001 attacks by the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. It is also aggressive to those nations who do not conform to liberal principles.17 As concerns MAD solution by realists, it is clear that although states may shun way from nuclear war, upcoming terrorist groups may not be as rational as states hence may use such means. Nuclear proliferation may not be a good solution after all. Conclusion This essay has discussed how international peace can be achieved using liberalism and realism theories of international relations. According to liberalists, peace can be achieved through use of international organizations which may be supranational, regional, global, or security organizations such as the League of Nations, UN, NATO, AU, EU, ASEAN, and APEC among others. These organizations ensure security in the world either through voluntary means or use of military force. The UN is one example of global organizations whose function is to ensure security, economic development and human rights observance since human security is vital part of ensuring security in international system. Liberalists also believe in the potential of hegemons in ensuring stability as well as the ability of democracies to maintain peace. Realists on the other hand, believe in the power of good policies in bringing about peace in an anarchic world of security competition. They also view balance of power as enhancing stability and so does mutually assured destruction theory whereby nuclear powers are assumed to be at peace. References Copeland, Dale (1996) Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations, International Security, Vol. 20( 4): 5-41 Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3): 205-235. Goldstein, JS., Pevehouse,JC and Sandra Whitworth,S (2013). International Relations, 3rd ed. Canada: Pearson Jervis, R (2002). Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace. The American Political Science Review, 96(1):1-14 Mearsheimer, JJ (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3):5-49. National Research Council (2000). International Conflict Resolution after Cold War. Washington, DC. Williams, A. (2006). Liberalism and War: The Victors and the Vanquished. New York: Routledge Read More