"Peace" Theories are Bogus

            Democracy and Capitalism are young; perhaps not as theories themselves, but rather in terms of their presence on the international stage.  The Democratic Peace Theory states that democracies do not go to war with other democracies, for a host of reasons.  However, before 1945, you could count the number of legitimate, liberal democracies on two or three hands.  The Capitalist Peace Theory states that states who trade with each other do not go to war with each other, also for a host of reasons.  However, both of these theories come up short in terms of their ambiguity – the words “Democracy”, “Trade”, and “War” are all indefinable terms that make individual peace theories nothing more than foolishly equating correlation with causation.  A combination of peace theories must be employed to come to a conclusion. 

            The DPT is intuitive.  Certainly it makes sense to anyone, regardless of political suaveness, that the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, etc. would never go to war with each other nowadays.  The DPT, however, hinges upon the existence of democracies.  Thus, the DPT is irrelevant prre-1776 and, arguably, until World War 2.  Liberal democracies simply have not existed in this world in large enough numbers for theorists to try to craft a theory around them.  It would even be difficult to consider countries like the UK (then, Great Britain) and France as liberal democracies during World War 2 since they still held colonies across the globe.  Could the United States even be considered a Democracy during the era of Manifest Destiny, where thousands upon thousands of Native Americans and Mexicans were forcibly and violently evicted from their lands, ironically in the name of spreading Democracy and “civilization”?  What, then, are we to make of the Falklands War between the UK and Argentina?  Both are Democracies, yet both had an open, armed, and violent conflict between each other over a few islands.  The DPT’s Achilles Hell lies in its very name – Democracies are difficult to define and, before World War 2, really didn’t exist in large enough numbers sufficient enough to legitimize a theory. 

            The Capitalist Peace Theory, too, runs in to this issue of defining itself.  What constitutes “trade”?  The American Colonies and Great Britain traded with each other from their inception in the 1500s until revolution in 1776 – certainly trade did not stop this conflict.  The Capitalist Peace Theory also fails to explain the relations between the United States and Cuba before and during the Cold War.  Under Fulgencio Batista, Cuba was a premiere destination for Americans.  The US was Cuba’s largest trading partner for sugar which, being Cuba’s main export, meant the US was Cuba’s largest trading partner in general too.  However, upon regime change, economic ties were cut with Cuba and the US repeatedly attempted to overthrow Castro, even by trying to incite an armed revolt.  While it may not have been a formal declaration of war, it was a fight nonetheless.  Cuba and the US were major trading partners and this trade relationship did not stop hostilities from breaking out between the two nations. 

            Both the CPT and the DPT have major flaws stemming from the inability to define the terms used within.  Democracies did not really exist in large enough numbers until after World War 2 - even then, it becomes very difficult to define which countries can get classified as Democracies.  At the same time, trade between nations has consistently proven ineffective in preventing conflicts between nations.  This is all without discussing the largest ambiguity of all: War.  The myriad of questions surrounding war would make an excellent topic for an entire dissertation.  However, it is evident that the Democratic and Capitalist Peace Theories are insufficient in explaining peace and war as a result of their inherent ambiguities.

The War in Iraq: A Look at How Domestic Politics Impact Foreign Policy

When accounting for the causes and factors that contribute to war, international relations scholars often understate the impact of domestic politics on the decisions of leaders to engage in military conflict. The Iraq War serves as a prime example as to how United States internal politics shaped our foreign policy.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people felt both frightened and vulnerable. With these new insecurities, there was also a surge in patriotism as we came to view the existence of our nation as threatened. On September 21, 2001 Gallup measured President Bush’s approval ratings to be at 90%, largely due to the “rally around the flag effect.” Americans viewed the president as someone who could protect them, and for that reason, they were willing to give him their support. When the Bush administration presented the American people with the “evidence” that the United States had the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, Americans first reaction was not to question the president and his actions, but to offer their support.

President Bush was able to force Democrats who would otherwise not have supported the war into doing so through rhetorical coercion. Anyone who opposed the war was considered unpatriotic, and on occasions, a terrorist sympathizer. By creating a dichotomy of being either “with us” or “with the terrorists,” Bush essentially made it so that it was politically inadvisable to vote against the war. Something that is often not discussed today is the fact that the Democratic Party actually controlled the Senate by a narrow majority when the first votes for authorization occurred.  President Bush could not have started the war without Democratic support, thus he needed to frame the debate in such a way that Democrats would vote in favor of authorization. The way in which the president framed the debate is completely independent of the actual existence of the weapons in Iraq. In other words, the reason for originally invading Iraq was because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, but the debate about the war was shaped more by strong and emotional language than solid and concrete facts. If the president had not successfully rhetorically coerced the Democrats into going into war, we may not have invaded. Therefore, the influence of domestic partisan politics played a significant role.

The effects of United States politics on the Iraq War were not limited to the initial invasion. In November 2006, the Democratic Party won control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. Shortly after the elections, Nancy Pelosi wrote an article titled “Bringing the War to the End is my Highest Priority as Speaker.” One of the ways the Democrats attempted to achieve this goal was through withholding funds for the military operations in Iraq until President Bush agreed to a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Republicans again effectively framed the debate so that such actions were equivalent to not supporting the troops. They argued that by not supplying funding, the Democrats were putting the lives and safety of American ground troops in jeopardy, as they would be denied medical supplies and ammunition. Ultimately, the efforts of the Democrats failed, and it was not until December 2008, the “lame-duck” period in President Bush’s time in office, that the U.S.- Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was signed and a plan for withdrawal of combat troops was formed.

In conclusion, there is much more to foreign policy decisions than the realist ideas of power and security and the liberalist notions of economic interdependence and international institutions. Instead, some of the greatest influences on foreign policy can stem from a country’s own internal political system. This understanding is key to explaining different countries’ behaviors.

Sources:

Krebs, Ronald R. and Jennifer K. Lobasz, “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: 

            Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq,”Security Studies 16:3 (July 2007)

Shirk, Mark, Lecture 9: War (October 2014)

Tonner, Robin, “In Trying to Steer the War in Iraq, Democrats Drive in Fits and Starts.” The New York Times (March 2007)

Economic Peace Theory vs Democratic Peace Theory

Economic Peace Theory vs Democratic Peace Theory

            The democratic peace theory is a better theory than the economic peace theory because it is more stable.

The general idea of the economic peace theory is that states that trade with each other do not go to war with each other; and a common indicator that two or more states are going to going war is when they call off trade with each other. (Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk)  However, if evaluating this theory from a realist point of view if one of the states involved in the trade relationship is stronger economically that state could potentially take advantage of the “weaker” state since it would not hurt the stronger state as much. However, if the “weaker” state is providing a natural resource that is necessary for survival and they are the only state that has that natural resources the stronger state is least likely to go to war. Also, since three measurements of power are military strength, reputation, and economic strength, and in order to maintain a strong, effective military strength in war that strains economic strength. The McDonalds theory (Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk)   is absurd because most probably have McDonalds and still declare war on each other having something as small as a fast-food restaurant in common is not going to keep states from going to war with each other.

            The democratic peace theory is more stable because based on history democratic states tended to unite for the common goal for example during the cold war there was the “red scare” and although the United States was the main democratic state involved. World War II The allied powers were mostly democratic states that united for the common goal of spreading democracy and preventing Nazi Germany from being a major power. Also, the Vietnam War United States went to war with Vietnam in an effort to prevent South Vietnam from becoming Communist similar to Korea in the aspect of being half successful because both North Vietnam and North Korea are not democracies but South Vietnam and South Korea are both democracies? War tends to happen because of terrorism which usually occurs because of some type of difference especially cultural differences. Therefore, because the democracies have that in common and have the same agenda of spreading democracy they are more likely to see each other as teammates and therefore will be less likely to go to war with one another.

            Democracies do tend to be stronger than non-democratic states and therefore tend to have different outcomes with audience cost depending on their choices. If a democratic state’s leader publicly announces that they declare on another country and they pull back the public is less likely to revolt? However, with an autocratic state if the leader declares war and the either pull back or even worse lose the war that will make the leader look weaker and more likely lead to uprisings and that leader being overthrown because seeing another state defeat their leader who oppressed them can take away their fear of that leader. For example, after President Obama announced that United States was going to war with ISIS, if he decided to announce that we are leaving there is a fifty fifty chance that the public will be outraged for dropping out on what is seen as our responsibility however, there’s are others who may be fed up with United States jumping into every other states’ affairs.

Great Power In Numbers? A View At The True Strength of the European Union

          The struggle for power is a reoccurring theme in international relations. States want to establish themselves as a strong state both domestically and in the eyes of other states. However, few countries fit the criteria of being great powers. In discussion, the consensus criterion of what constituted a great power was a strong military, strong economy, and vast reaching cultural influence. We look at the world and see few great powers that exist. I believe that it is extremely improbable that any nation of the European Union, with the exception of Germany and maybe the United Kingdom, possess the capabilities of being a great power in todays world or in the future. Other than Germany and the United Kingdom, none of the 25 other nations have all three criteria that would make them a great power. I plan to focus on each area and show that although these states may be strong as an entity, individually their power is weakened. 

            The first area that I will focus on is the lack of strong militaries. One indication of a strong military is based on military spending. A recent pole conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranked the top 15 countries in the world when it comes to military spending. Only four countries in the EU made this list: Germany, the UK, France, and Italy. This may seem probable because these countries are among the largest in the EU. One might argue that the reason so few nations in the EU spend large sums of money on their military is because they do not see that it is needed. Europe has been relatively stable over the past 60 years and theorists do not see that changing any time soon. Rather than invest their resources in building a meaningless large military, many of these nations focus on maintaining economic security.

            The second criterion that many of the EU nations fail to meet is economic strength. The European Union formed in part as a trade union to boost their economies. The Union has grown to be one of the most formidable economic entities in the world. This being said, I do not believe that any country, with the exception of Germany and the UK, could be able to have a thriving economy standing apart from the Union. These countries thrive on the ability of being able to work in tandem with one another, which raises their status as a trading power on the international stage. Without this, many of these nations would not be as successful and in turn lose economic strength. If the EU were to dismantle (hypothetically), I feel that few countries in the EU would maintain the same level of economic prowess. Their strength comes from being able to work with one another, and in a world where they had to stand alone I think that we would see a significant shift in power. 

            Along with economic and military strength, it is important for a country to have a widespread cultural influence. As we discussed in class, the various forms of cultural influence can be culminated into the broad term of “soft power”. According to a Monacle survey of countries with the highest amounts of soft power, Germany tops the list, followed by the UK and then other members of the EU (later on). I believe that one major aspect of this strong cultural influence is because these countries have established themselves as countries with strong hard power, through their economies and militaries. This causes many people to want to emulate their culture, whether it is through setting up company headquarters in the country or have strong educational ties around the world. I believe that no other country in the EU has the capability of attaining and maintaining such cultural influence because they are not looked upon as one of the world’s premier nations, causing a lack of interest in their culture.

            Looking down the road, I do not think most of the members of the EU have the capabilities to grow into a great world power. The lack of need for a large military is one of the strongest leading factors for this. Some nations, such as France will grow in their soft power in the coming years. However, almost each of thee countries economic strength is through connection with one another. The European Union as a whole is a formidable power in the world stage. However, if we had to look at how countries would fare on their own, I believe that the only country who has even a remote chance of joining Germany and the UK as world power is France (albeit highly unlikely). There is a reason why there are so few great powers in the world, because so few states have the capabilities of holding the criteria.