War and International Statecraft - Essay Example

War and International Statecraft Name: Course: Tutor: Date: War and International Statecraft Introduction International relations concern the diplomacy that goes on between nations in order to ensure that people in the different countries are well and secure. In the past, peace between nations, especially those that shared common interests in human or natural resources was hard to come by. As such, diplomatic relations and war were treated as fundamentals of utilitarian statecraft as evidenced by the persistent wars that prevailed in the past. The state of affairs in the current times is slightly or largely different. In the twenty first century, international diplomacy favours the use of mediation, adjudication, conciliation and the use of international law to preserve peace between nations as opposed to the use of war. In fact, war is so infamous that it is only used as a last resort, when every other arbitration channel has failed. Yet, it is common knowledge that most of the powerful nations in the world spend millions of dollars in militant activities, arguably preparing themselves for any eventuality of war. One therefore wonders, are we really seeing the end of war as a rule of good governance between nations, or is the world just sitting on a time bomb? This paper is based on an argument that we cannot completely rule out that countries will engage in war in the future. However, it also seeks to prove that the critical causes of war in the past are on a decline as systems of governance the world over seem to have a firmer grip on international and national processes, unlike the past where governments had little control over such processes. A dark history According to Inayutullah (2003), war is the darkest blemish on the human race’s history. The past century (20th century) goes down in history as one of the bloodiest centuries in the world’s history. Raising the question on whether we are seeing the end of war even in the globalised society that the world is today may seem ridiculous to most political analysts. In fact, it may look as if suggesting that world wars are over is tantamount to saying that human beings are over being human. Nature predisposes human beings to violence, greed, selfishness and self-centred habits (Inayutullah, 2003). But is war really natural? Hough (1986) states that in man’s unconscious being are murderous instincts, which are unknown by his conscious being. Psychologists further state that man has inherent inclination to destructive tendencies and violence. This suggests that the absence of war is an unnatural phenomenon, which goes against the very nature of human beings. For man to function in a society without going into war time and again, Hough (1986) suggests that the inherent violent and destructive nature of man must be repressed. According to the analogy stated above, war is a direct result of man having sacrificed his nature and adopting the evil being. As such, eliminating war would need man to perceive himself as an end to himself, rather than the sacrificial being who looses out every time war happens. A critique of this description however suggests that since man regards the destructive nature as reprehensible, then it beats logic that man could be inherently evil. As such, the suggestion is that man is inherently good and worthy of happiness and security (Hough, 1986). In an ideal voluntary society, human diversity would play a more uniting role than being the source of conflict as is the case today. In such a case, human beings would use their different abilities to build a stronger world, full of mutual advantages for everyone. However, the case today is based on competition, immigration barriers, and conscription- issues that either directly or indirectly contribute to war. The war is then a result of unnatural institutions both on domestic and international platforms, which subdue the nature of man. The “new” unnatural man is therefore forced in to submissiveness and selfish ways by institutions put in place by governments (Hough, 1986). According to (Koskenniemi, 2009), man is naturally capable of loving himself more than anything else, and as such, engages in activities that promote his self-preservation, especially in moments when he is pathetically weak. Because man is an intelligent creature however, reason dictates that whenever a situation or the environment requires so, he will engage in artificial and arbitrary human behaviour in order to become sociable. As such, self-love commanded the level of sociability portrayed by man. To this effect, this paper is of the opinion that war is a natural occurrence that will become inevitable as population soars in most parts of the world and man is forced to compete for the scarce natural resources. However, seeing that man needs fellow men in war, Pufendorf, 1991 (cited by Koskenniemi, 2009) states that guided by the concern for self-preservation, man is a needy being, incapable of protecting his interests without help from others. Accordingly, this leads to the building of alliances where groups of men organise themselves with purposes of mobilising and fitting the provision of benefits within their organised groups. Before reaching any conclusions about the probability of war in the future or lack of the same, it is important to re-evaluate the causes of some of the major wars in the past century namely the World War I and World War II. This is the only way to get close enough to an answer on whether we are witnessing an end to war or not. A look into the causes of World War I (WWI) reveals that the developments of alliances, competition, militarism, nationalistic beliefs were the core causes (Shaw, 2002). The present world’s scenario point to the reality that a possibility of war in the world today is as real as it was in 1914. Alliances Competition was connected to imperialism in the years before the WWI. Countries were trying to beat each other to set up imperial colonies in Africa. During this period, the alliances were a means of consolidating power and wealth amongst the involved nations. Today’s scenario is no different. According to Henrickson (2002), the world has a power system concentrated within the G7 (now G8) countries. Unlike in the World War I however, today’s power is concentrated within economic boundaries, which is unlike the situation in the military-related pre-WWI. With the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in place to arbitrate any economic misunderstanding or economic conflicts between nations, it is becoming more and more convincing that economic-related wars between the G8 countries is most unlikely. Political theorists however believe that the emergence of terrorism in the 21st century is a result of the disappearing wars between nations (Franck, 2001). Terrorism is therefore a reaction by individuals or groups of people who are aggrieved by other countries, and who do not trust the governments in their respective countries to wage war against the perceived “distressing” countries. This means that even though the world may not be experiencing war in the traditional form, individual governments may have to wage military action on militias or terrorist groups targeting them(Callahan, 2004). A good example of this is the American anti-terror campaigns against terrorists groups targeting not only America but also its interests in other parts of the world. To the terrorism world, there is no denying that America looks like the enemy. As such, the last decade has seen calculated terrorist attacks. The most vivid attacks by terrorists were the 1998 attack on American embassies in East Africa, closely followed by the September 11 attack, which happened on America’s soil. From these experiences, America declared war on terrorism, and subsequently set up a series of invasions in the Middle East (Liu et al, 2001). Another example of such “small” wars is the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that has been going on for decades now. In this conflict, the alliances that are similar to the alliances that were prevalent in the pre-WWI, but less intense, have taken shape. While the US watches Israeli’s back, the Arab world is in full support for the Palestinian cause (Berman, 2001). This conflict is following the 20th century patterns. Unlike the pre-WWI scenario however, Islamic fundamentalists and Arab nationalists have taken the positions held by the anti-liberal movements in the 20th century. Military wise, there is no denying that the United States of America today stands as the military hegemony that no other country in the world is able to challenge (Liu et al, 2001). USA spends billions of dollars each year on its military, and the military technology is improving by the day. The country dominates the seas and the airways in a way that other states can merely dream of. While the United States and the European Union seem to spend equally huge amounts of money on military expenses, the capabilities of the EU countries’ military combined is still weak compared to the US (Liu et al, 2001). Despite this, the world has no assurance that the US military powers will not be challenged in future. This is especially so considering that with time, the European Union is proving that it is an economic equal to the US. On the other hand, developing countries like China and India are gaining more economic strengths as the industries in the respective countries grow and the GDPs of the countries grow. As such, there is no assurance that the military hegemony currently held by the United States will not be challenged in future. Militarism Nationalistic beliefs were also major contributing factors to the world wars. In many countries, people were strong believers in the cause that their countries stood for to the extent that when war declarations were made, many people were more than willing to go to the battle fields (Liu et al, 2001). This rings a bell about the state of affairs in the planet today. Like the 20th century, the idea that the society, were it not for the infestation of a few bad elements, still exists today. This paper is of the suggestion that the Arab nations’ belief that America and her allies represent the ‘bad element’ without whom, the world would be a better world. Americans on the other hand associate terror with the Arab nations. For this, one can conclusively state that the bad feeling is mutual between America and her allies and the Arab nations and its sympathisers. According to Liu et al (2009), history serves as an essential resource for many governments. From historical events, societies justify the legitimacy of their political systems and political actions. Governments also use historical resources to mobilise people to support their agenda. Nationalistic movements use history to justify the existence and obligations to a country or a group of people. It appears as if one side of the divide feels that it is more worthy than the other (Veith, 2002). In the past two World Wars, some countries recognised each other as main enemies. This was the case with Britain and Germany, when Hitler, guided by his personal grudges against the Britons led his country to perceive Britain as the enemy. Veith (2002) notes that some of the hard feelings against Britain by the Germans were partly because the latter admired and envied the former in equal measures. Despite this, the German Reich succeeded in painting the Britons as everything that the ordinary Germans abhorred. As a result, the Germans seeking to protect their nationalism saw the Englishmen as the enemy. The Germans therefore learned to develop radical nationalism. According to Mearsheimer (1990), nationalism by itself is beneficial to the concerned society since individual citizens learn to value good leadership and virtues that contribute to the common good of the country. However, hyper- or radical nationalism poses threats to world peace. In such cases, a country has a strongly held belief that other countries are inferior, or that they pose a threat to its sovereignty (Mearsheimer, 1990). Nationalism among the major causes of the two World Wars and could easily contribute to war in the future. The situation is most likely if a political leader with a wide following demonises other nations. In the two World Wars, nationalism found a fertile ground on the military systems that heavily relied on mass armies. The contemporary military operations in the developed nations portray a changed approach of operations. Instead of the ballistic munitions that were used in the past, countries have developed smart and precise munitions. Examples of such were the munitions used in the 1991 Gulf War (Franck, 2001). The importance of non-militarism to world peace was evident after WWII, when the bipolar sharing of militant powers occurred in Europe. Also in this time, the Soviet Union and the United States acquired an almost equal military power. In addition, the super powers acquired nuclear arsenal. This in turn means that states are more than ever before prepared for war. Weapons of mass destruction In the 20th century, the arms race was sighted among the main reasons that triggered the World War I and World War II as well (Inayatullah, 2008). Today, countries that have nuclear weapons are the powerful nations. These weapons are perceived as security weapons more that war weapons. Mearsheimer(1990) notes that although the nuclear weapons are on every one’s bad books, they may contribute to peace more than anything else that the world has ever had. However, this only applies if none of the nuclear armoured countries decides to use the same. If this ever happens, then these weapons of mass destruction would have horrendous implications on the world. Although there have not been any conflicts in the recent past to justify the use of nuclear weapons, most political analysts see the weapons as nothing more but a show of power. Mearsheimer (1990) adds that they should a real war occur any time in future, it would be a battle of will. Just who among the nuclear armoured countries would dare use their nuclear weapons first? As it stands now, nuclear weapons are providing the super powers with a reason to bolster peace, since each of this country has a nuclear arsenal. To bolster togetherness about the use of these nuclear weapons, countries with nuclear armament have to stand up to each other in order to leave little doubt about the powers that each hold and therefore earn respect from the others. Despite the notion that the nuclear weapons pose possibilities of a non-warring world more than they do the possibility of war, the prospects that they still can be used to bring much harm to targeted populations and even further still lingers. As more countries attain economic powers, the prospects that they would acquire their own nuclear weapons increase by the day. For example, it is assumed that a nuclear Iran would prompt Saudi Arabia to acquire the same because the latter would be strategically at loss and desperate to protect its vast wealth (Lippmann, 2008). Even though the super power countries would try stop the proliferation of nuclear arsenal, the North Korea case is a perfect example of how determined the perceived “ weaker” countries can be. As it is now, nuclear weapons generate caution among countries, give a sense of security to countries that have them, impose a sense of equality among countries and create a clear but relative sense of power (Mearsheimer, 1990). However, with the proliferation of the weapons to more countries, there is no way of telling what the different countries can do with their nuclear weapons; the prospect of another even deadlier war remains real. According to Inayatullah (2008), the prospects of war remain as long as the arms industry remains vibrant. Are there possibilities that this industry can stop the production and export of arms? Well, not really. Here is why. The economies of United States, Britain, China, Israel and nations have a sizeable dependence on the trade of arms (Inayatullah, 2008). For this strategy to work however, countries that depend on the arms to secure their interests would have to find an alternative measure to do the same. This would only be possible if an international governance structure that would assure security to such nations was put in place. A weak United Nations The United Nations’ mandate is to give a humanitarian turn to global politics. The UN addresses four major areas namely, peace making, preventative diplomacy, peacekeeping and peace building (Holliday, 2003). Although the UN does not advocate for wars, it has been accused of watching as human rights abuses and injustices are perpetrated. In 1994 for example, the UN is accused for failing to act as the Rwanda genocide took place (Taylor, 1999; Pushkina, 2004). This raises the question; just what capacity does the UN have to prevent bigger wars? The UN situation is even further worsened by the organisation’s incapacity to act against perpetrators of wars, despite going against the UN Charters (Choedon, 2005). In response to Iraqi aggression, America evoked the just war theory that justified war against the aggressors because according to the use of the clause “it was for a just cause, and the war was only taken up as a last resort after diplomacy and sanctions against Iraqi had failed” (Choedon, 2005). Albeit reluctantly, the UN articulated its authority, allowing the US to go into war and justified the same with the argument that the war in Iraq would assure the world of collective security. The UN is further accused of failing to ensure that the US held its end of the bargain in the just war in Iraq. According to the 1977 Geneva Protocol that codifies the Just War theory, a country that initiates a just war in another country should stay within that framework until normalcy is restored in the country (Elshtain, 2001; Mednicoff, 2006). In the US-Iraqi case, Elshtain (2001) notes that the US failed to ensure that normalcy in the governance Iraqi was restored once the anti-US hostilities began fading. This illustration suggests that the UN cannot hold some of the powerful countries to account over their failure to abide by the UN conventions. This then raises the question about its capacity to manage aggression of bigger magnitude. Concerns from the UN about laxity from the western contributions towards its peace operation (Bellamy & Williams, 2009) further indicate that the organisation may not after all, be as uniting as its name suggests. Different reports written about the organisation indicate that the UN’s roles regarding world peace and security are minimal (Bellamy & Williams, 2009). As such, it can be argued that the UN has no capacity to prevent a war, especially now that the personnel input from the western countries is dwindling by the day. Although everything discussed above suggests that the world will most likely see another war before long, it is rather obvious that man is capable of averting the same from happening. As such, it cannot be conclusively stated whether we are seeing an end to war or not. This is why in every war in the past, two distinct identities were involved in the decision leading to war and the actual execution of the war. These are the individuals and the states. Inayatullah (2003) states that although the phrase “peace starts in the hearts and minds of individuals” may sound cliché, it holds true especially as a tool to avert the possibility of future wars. The corollary of this is that each person needs not prefer war to other means of conflict resolution. States are led by people who have the tendencies of irrational human responses. As such, Inayatullah (2003) suggests that the world cannot entrust the responsibility of upholding peace and refraining from war with individual states. As such, there should be super-ordinate governance structures that have more powers than individual states. The super-ordinate structures should work towards creating equal powers among nations because as Mearsheimer (1990) notes, peace is more likely when power is distributed evenly between nations. Power inequalities are a precursor for war as was evident in Europe in the past whenever any major power emerged. Such include the Nazi Germany, the Napoleonic France and the Fascist Italy. The main way to ensure that nations have equal power is to equalise their military. The smaller the military power gap between countries, the less likelihood that war would occur. On the other hand, larger gaps in the capacity of military between two countries presents a higher probability of war (Mearsheimer, 1990; Inayatullah 2003). Could studies on war play part in infusing young minds with the notion that aggression is okay as a means of settling disputes? Inayatullah (2008) thinks so. Further ways through which the world can be assured of no more wars in the future include combining idealism and realism in order to achieve international relation policies that treat nations as co-equals in statecraft (Doran, 2003). According to Echevarria (2007), the world should engage more policy than war in order to maintain world peace. However, the success of how well such policies manage to prevent war depends much on the political activity perpetuated by leaders. Pretorius (2008) on the other hand is of the opinion that war can be deconstructed as an institution in the contemporary society. Specifically, this should be achieved by stopping any further research about how to improve new strategies in warfare. This would involve stopping technology use in the tactics and organisation of the military. Much as this seems like an impractical strategy, it would work if all countries agreed to halt further military training. To halt further military training would be tantamount to demilitarization, which is not entirely a new concept considering that countries like Grenada, Costa Rica and Dominica have done so in the past. The Costa Rican example is especially evidence that countries can indeed survive without the military forces. The only guarantor of public order in the country is the border guards and the police, who operate within the country. Overall, Costa Rica depends on international institutions to guarantee her safety from external aggression (Brysk, 2004). Conclusion Before WWI, the world was full of optimism. Countries all over the world were indulged in the conviction that everything that happened was a sign of progress to modernisation of the world. As days went by however, anti-liberal movements arose even in civilized Europe. The commonly share ideas between these movements pointed to the fact that the world was ailing and its healing would only be found by uprooting the cause of the ailment. Uprooting the same took the shape of internal struggles and bloody massacres. This was in an attempt to fight foreign invaders who the movements perceived as the main cause of the ills that had befallen their respective societies. Gauging by this and the combination of factors as seen in this paper, there is no assurance that we are seeing the end of war. In any case, there is much opinion that we are very close to a third World War III. As it has been discussed, a common opinion is that the world today is at war with the terrorists and vice versa. While the terrorists wage warfare and small scale explosive against perceived enemies and the non-sympathetic public, the anti-terrorist governments react by using insurgent models. As such, wars in future could be different from war as it has been known in the past; different from the militant insurgencies, different from the cold war; and free from attrition. As such, war in future could as well take a psychological turn, which means that the countries or warring blocks that lack capacity of political endurance lose the battle. References Bellamy, A. & Williams, P. (2009). The West Contemporary Peace Operations. Journal of Peace and Research, 46(1): 39-57. Berman, P. (2001). Terror and Liberalism. The American Prospect, 2(18). Brysk, A. (2004). Costa Rica’s Human Rights Foreign Policy. Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2004/files/BryskAlison_xCD.pdf. Callahan, W. (2004). Remembering the Future –Utopia, Empire, and Harmony in the 21st century International Theory. European Journal of International Relations, 10 (4): 569-601. Choedon, Y. (2005). China’s Stand on Un Peace Keeping Operations: Changing Priorities of Foreign Policy. China Report, 41 (1): 39-60. Doran, C. (2003). Power Cycle Theory in Perspective. International Political Science Review, 24 (1): 13-45. Echevarria, I. A. (2007). On the Clausewitz of the Cold War: Reconsidering the Primacy of policy on War. Armed Forces & Society, 34(1): 90-109. Elshtain, J. (2001). Just War and Humanitarian Intervention. Grotius Lecture Series, 17(1): 21-30. Franck, R. (2001). Book reviews: the Pursuit of Power, Technology, armed Force and Society since A.D. 1000; The Future of War: Power, technology and American World Dominance in the 21st Century: War, Economy and Society, 1939-1945; War and Economy in the Third Reich. Armed Forces and Society, 27 (3): 477-500. Henrickson, A. (2002). Distance and Foreign Policy: A Political Geography Approach. International Political Science Review, 23 (4): 437-466. Holliday, I. (2003). Ethics of Intervention: Just War Theory and the Challenge of the 21st Century. International Relations, 17(2): 115-133. Hough, M. (1986). Natural Ethics and the Origins of War. Liberation alliance journal. Philosophical notes No. 6. Inayatullah, S. (2007). Does War have a Future? Journal of Futures Studies, 8 (1): 11-114. Koskenniemi, M. (2009). Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 15, 395-422 Lippman, T. (2008). Nuclear Weapons and the Saudi Strategy. The Middle East Policy Brief. No. 5, 3-4. Liu, J., Paez, D., Slawuta, P., Cabecinhas, R., Techio, E., Kokdemir, D., Sen, R., Vincze, O., Muluk, H., Wang, F. & Zlobina, A. (2009). Representing World History in the 21st Century: The Impact of 9/11, the Iraq War and the Nation-State on Dynamics of Collective Remembering. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(4): 667-692. Mearsheimer, J. (1990). Why we will soon miss the cold war. Atlantic Monthly Online. Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://peace.concordia.ca/pdf/cold.war.pdf. Mednicoff, D. (2006). Humane Wars? International Law, Just war Theory and Contemporary armed Humanitarian Intervention. Association for the study of Law, Culture and the Humanities. 375-398. Pretorius, J. (2008). The Technological Culture of War. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 28: 299-303. Pushkina, D. (2004). Towards Successful Peacekeeping: Remembering Croatia. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 39 (4):393-415. Schaffer, M. (2007). A Model of the 21st Century Counterinsurgency Warfare. The Journal of Defense Modelling and Simulation: Applications, methodology, Technology, 4: 252-263. Shaw, M. (2002). Risk Transfer Militarism, Small Massacres and the Historic Legitimacy of War. International relations, 16 (3): 343-359. Taylor, C. (1999). Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. New York: Berg Publishers. Vieth, E. (2002). A Glamorous Untouchable Elsewhere. Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(1): 22-40. Read More