Impacts of Changes on War on Interstate Relations - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Impacts of Changes on War on Interstate Relations Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction The transformation of the nature of war in contemporary society and its impacts on interstate relations is a greatly debatable notion. George (1986) highlights that war involves two forces that stand opposed to each other, whereby each force tries to compel the enemy side to do its will. Jones, etal, (1996) assert that War as an organized activity can best be described by the nature of the communities or states that wage it, rather than the weaponry and tactics applied in fighting the war. In the wage of advancement in the possession of nuclear weapons among certain states and increased terrorist activities, it is evident that the change on the nature of war in modern has impacted inter- state relations. This particular presentation seeks to analyze the impacts of the changing nature of war and how it affects inter-state relations. It begins by evaluating the basic changes on the nature of war in modern society, and further analyzes how the transformation has impacted inter-state relations. Significant Changes on the Nature of War Historical classification of war was established in 1648, it was characterized by Napoleonic wars and the two world wars, and this period lasted up to the end of the 1990 Cold War .Historians assert that the central concept of war within 1990 up to the 21 century has been revolutionized by social, political and economic factors which continue to change as time progresses. Clausewitz (1948) agreed to the fact that the essence of war is political; he described historical war as a means of resolving disputes among political groups. Rivalry among states can be perceived as the major products of war. He further acknowledged that wars basically differ from one another across aspects of space and time. Clausewitz describes war as a chameleon that slowly adapts to the characteristics of a particular social, political environment. As a phenomenon it is dominated by tendencies such as violence, enmity and hatred (Lind 1997). One of the schools of thought advocates that the economic rationale has influenced the changing nature of war. Here the main argument is that incentives based on the economy usually determine the conduct of war. The linkage of the nature of war to the economy does not imply that most wars are caused by economic shortcomings but rather the continuation and conduct of war is determined by shortcomings within the economic framework. Globalization has greatly influenced the war trends to great extents, for instance the 1978-1988 Iran- Iraq war shepherded by conflict based oil reserves, the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in the 1990’s with claims that the Kuwait was one of its provinces was due to the presence of oil. Most of such notable conflicts were caused by economic incentives that are linked to wealth and also power. Clausewitz’s argued that the rising importance in warfare is also reflected by the technology and culture of the existing age. Kagan (1995) also highlighted the contribution of the economy to the nature of war by stating that the manner in which a society organizes its war reflects on the manner in which it makes wealth, thus the capacity of a state to tactfully organize warfare will influence economic strength. Starting with industrial advancement every revolution that occurs within the state system basically triggers a corresponding revolution in the war making system. As a result the emergence of new information economic and economic advancement within states results to a parallel or an equivalent revelation in the system of warfare. The classification of war in modern society has also been greatly revolutionized. In early years the most typical dynamics of war between neighbors or states was territorial. This is whereby neighbors were fighting over a proportion of an area which they claim to be their property as a result of the area having certain strategic resources of interest. Kacowicz (2000) highlights that 57% of the wars that occurred in 1900-1997 were territorial. Some of the territorial interstate conflicts include; Assam Sino-Indian war in 1962, Paraguayan territorial claims against Brazil and Argentina, Indian-Pakistani rivalry over Kashmir and the Palestinian and Israel conflicts which persist even today. It is also essential to take note of the fact that the aspect classification wars has been transformed in a manner that if territorial wars are eliminated or removed what is left of wars among states are the policy wars which Kacowicz(2000) highlights that they constitute of 34.2% of the interstate wars. The issues of dominance relating to shared policies or certain policy questions among states may be the cause policy wars. Policy wars include the 1846 and 1937 Sino – Japanese War which involved neighboring states fighting against imperialist moves, multiparty wars in different parts of the world during the 1940-1990s also intensified policy types of war. (Horn 1987)In the most recent years that is the 21st centaury the dynamics of war has been shifted in that we witness not much of territorial wars but rather policy wars, for instance the U.S invasion of Iraq in 2003 can best be described as a policy type of war. The changes in the nature of war has also been influenced by increased terrorist activities experienced over the recent years, for instance the 2001 September 11ataacks on the U.S resulted to intensification of inter-state warfare .In 2003 March 20 the U.S- led its forces to invade Iraq with the objective of disarming and locating suspected weapons of mass destruction .The U.S conducted an intense campaign which resulted to the collapse of armed forces in Iraq and the capture of Bagdad, however in despite of President Bush calling for a termination of the combat operations adverse effects have been since witnessed. By 2007 spring a total of 3,500 deaths of solders were recorded and 24,000 Injuries. The estimated death of Iraq citizens was a maximum of 650,000 people. What is evident is that within the wave of increased terrorist activities inter-state conflict continues to be a matter that is prevalent in modern society. Terrorism has to great extent influenced major aspects of inter-state warfare in the 21st centaury (Dwan & Holmqvist 2005). The nature of war in modern society has also been transformed whereby the concept of military victory has been greatly revolutionized. The aspect of success in war in contemporary society is no longer measured in terms of defeating the opponent armed force but rather by the conditions under which the main strategic objective can be attained. In most cases the main strategic objective of war within the current society is attributed to the enhancing peace, military victor is basically linked to the aspect of better enforcement of peace. This implies that war has to use some integrated approaches that can assist in peace enforcement such as diplomatic approaches, humanitarian, political and military aspects which must be integrated in order to plan and deliberate how War is going to be undertaken. In a practical manner the implication is that Civilian and military aspects must be integrated in order enforce the modern military doctrines in the operations inter -state wars. This has been the mission of the United Nations that inter-state warfare be eliminated through military peace keeping. Armed forces in modern society have become multinational tailored operations; as a result warfare has no longer become a business to be undertaken by one single state. The era signified by national armed forces or state military forces is actually over in contemporary society. It is through the pooling of resources that states are able to exert influence, this implies that national armed forces have to acquire specialized skill in order to be well tailored for increasing the spectrum of its operations in war. On the other hand if a state chooses to specialize it operations during warfare it must use increased integration of being assisted by other states. According to political analysts the notion of multinationalizing war fare is aimed at enhancing flexibility, efficiency and the distribution of burden defense evenly. For instance the British troops have been working collaboratively with the U.S in Afghanistan. Sir Jock the British Air Chief Marshal admitted that the decision by the British government to deploy its forces to Afghanistan in 2006 was a mechanism of enhancing multinationalization of military activities however he admitted to the fact that the British forces were actually overstretched ( Blair 2007). Technological advancement has also transformed the nature of war in contemporary society. Iran has time and again denied the allegations that she is involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Yet many international states remain skeptical. In 2007 the U.S intelligence made findings that Iran had put to as stop its program of nuclear weapons manufacture in 2003. Analysts state that the Iranian ability to advance its weaponry can actually change the nature of war in the entire world in the coming years. As a result much pressure has been put on Iran by the United States and the E.U nations to put a halt on its operations however Iran continues to defy these calls (Diehl & Gary 2000). Impacts of Change in the nature of War on inter-state relations The aspect of transition of the nature of war has resulted to a number of effects in the general relations of the nations. These include both negative and positive impacts and concerns all the areas including the political, economic and social hence some of the nations enjoy the outcome of the war while others are living to regret. Realism as one of the theories of international relations proposes that the relationship between states is governed by power struggles that occurs between self interested states which in may further result to war. It is therefore essential to analyze the impacts of change in nature on inter-state relations. Globalization which is often interpreted as liberation has to great extents revolutionized inter-state relations, especially on the phenomena of war. Political Analysts highlight that the aspect of liberalization at the global level has resulted to reducing the prevalence of inter-state conflict. Since 1970 the rate of inter-state conflicts that are military based have remained constant, on the other hand activities of global trade have been doubled. Diehl & Crescent, (1998) highlights that the period marked by the cold war was signified by the collapse of World trade and an increase in interstate conflicts. Diehl & Crescent (1998) concludes that based on extensive empirical research, inter-state conflicts between the years 1959-2000 have been reduced by the intuition of globalization which increases inter-state relations through activities such as trade. He further highlights that if states obtain high trade flows within the bilateral trade framework they are less likely to get into military conflict with other states, in order to generate more economic gains as opposed gaining more military power against the neighboring states. Due to globalization the nature of war has been transformed as a last resort to solving modern challenges such as insecurity and terrorism however in most cases most countries prefer economic expansion rather than expanding their military power. The fact that warfare in contemporary society is no longer termed as a business of one particular state has greatly impacted interstate relations. In addition due to the fact that the armed forces operations are undertaken as multinationals, many states are able to collaborate through integration of skill from various countries. For instance, the invasion of Iraq involved both the British and United States troops. What was evident at this particular period is that inter-state relations between the U.S and Britain were actually very close due to the fact they were both entangled in the disarmament process in Iraq .President Bush the then U.S president and Tony Blaire former British prime minister had developed close interactions as opposed to historical years when Britain and the U.S had opposed each other for instance during the first world war (Kalyvas 2001). Technologies like jet engines, electronic computers and nuclear fission invented in modern society for war purposes have negatively influenced inter-state relations. If a state expands its military capability due to its weaponry expansion, they can use this particular power to terrorize or exploit other nations which may be termed to as their rivals. For instance in the 1990s the Soviet Union and the united States were referred to as the superpowers. This led to discrimination of the minor nations especially during the process of revision of borders and the transfer of the population (Evans 2005). Due to the new borders drawn by the nations which were known as victorious, many people were displaced hence being forced to settle in the squatter sectors while others found themselves in hostile territories. Those who benefitted in these revisions were states such as the Sidipset Estate which was also known as the Soviet Union whose border was expanded at the expense of the other states like Germany, Poland, Japan, and Romania among the others. The Soviet Union also acquired Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia; independent states which had acknowledged their impartiality at the eve of World War II. In general Germany lost almost a quarter of its territory and several Germans were expelled especially from the German territories and Sudetenland leading to the death of many people and countless Poland’s and Japanese were also affected. The above factors led to enmity between many States and especially those known to be established. In addition politicians from the rivalry countries could not share their leadership skills neither support any international activity like trade which can lead to benefit of each other but rather they worked hard on issues which can bring down the development of their rivals. Others went to an extent of setting bombs on their neighbors so as to revenge for what happened either during the wars or after the war. Diplomatic ties among states have also been disrupted as a result of changes in the nature of war. For instance individuals against the invasion of Iraq by the U.S highlight that in despite of the fact that the aim of the U.S was to rescue the Iraq people from a tyrannical regime and enhance disarmament, the opponents of the war assert that the Iraq war resulted to permissible acts of violence which can make up the international delinquencies between the aggressive States. This led to the interruption of the consular and diplomatic inter-relations between the two states. Diplomatic relations are also disrupted when powerful states arise as a result of military superiority , hence the powerful states suppress the less powerful states through invading there political system thus the weaker states survive at the mercy of the strong states. The kind of relationship between the nations is mainly based on subordination of the weaker state. As a result of this particular situation, diplomatic relations between states are greatly affected (Kalyvas 2001). With the advent of development of nuclear weapons tremendous industrial and scientific resources available for the disposal of modern state warfare have decisively changed, as a result it possible for one side to utilize the combination of guile and force in order to achieve victory. However political analysts have highlighted that nations that posses such nuclear weapons generally begin to take good care of the relationship they have with other states that posses powerful nuclear weapons as they do, by a large extent this means that this powerful nations tend to be very careful in order to not act in a manner that will result to conflict between each other. This is because incase one of the states unleashes their nuclear weapons against the other then the impacts on both states would be adverse .Therefore states involved in nuclear weapon development tend to collaborate and their interstate relations tend to be much stronger. For instance the Iranian nuclear weapon manufacture program has been steadily advanced due to support from Russia. Iran operates a huge facility of Uranium enrichment, Iran’s sole nuclear power plant is alleged to be operated by Russian technicians who are claimed to have almost completed testing the enriched Uranium. In addition Moscow agreed to provide all the enriched uranium that is required by Iran for period of ten years. What is evident is that inter-state relations between these two countries can be described as a collaborative partnership with an aim of improving their nuclear weapon capacity (MacFarlane 2002). Conclusion It is evident from the above analysis that the change in the nature of war has greatly revolutionized interstate relations both positively and negatively. Since the termination of the cold war the world security environment has been more complex. A number of factors have been added within the traditional concerns of war which further affect inter-state relations. These issues include terrorism, global inequalities, weapons proliferation, failed states and internal conflicts. What is evident is that the dominant issues that led to initiation of war in modern society are not similar as those in historical periods of the Napoleonic war. In conclusion it can be in despite of changes in the nature of war in modern society, war can still be described as a threat to inter-state relations. Bibliographies Blair, T, 2007, “A Battle for Global Values,” Foreign Affairs, London, Oxford University Press. Clausewitz, V, 1948, On War, ed. M.E. Howard, P. Peter, B. Bernard, and W. Rosalie Princeton, Oxford, Princeton University Diehl, P& M. Crescent, 1998, "Reconfiguring the Arms Race-War Debate." Journal of Peace Research 35(1): 111-118. Diehl, Paul & Gary Goertz, 2000, War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dwan & C. Holmqvist, 2005, “Major Armed Conflicts,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2005, Stockholm International Peace Freedman, 2005, “The Age of Liberal War,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 31, Supplement. George C, 1986, Dictionary of Wars. New York, Doubleday. Huntington, F, 1996, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order .New York: Simon & Schuster. Holsti, K. (1991). Peace and War: Armed Conflict and International Order 1648-1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horn, M, 1987. Arms Races and the International System. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Rochester. Jones, D etal, 1996, “Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 15:163-213. Katowice, M, 1994, Peaceful territorial change. Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press. Kacowicz, A, 2000, Stable peace among nations. Lanham, Littlefield Publishers. Kagan, D, 1995, On the Origins of War. New York, Doubleday. Lind, S, 1997, “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” Marine Corps Gazette,. Kalyvas, N, 2001, “New and Old Civil Wars, a Valid Distinction?,” World Politics, New York , Sage. MacFarlane, N, 2002, Intervention in Contemporary World Politics, London, Oxford University Press . M. Evans, 2005, “Elegant Irrelevance Revisited: A Critique of Fourth-Generation Warfare,” Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 26 Read More