Topic 3: Causes of War and Peace Flashcards
Kenneth Waltz
“Man, the State, and War”
What are the strengths and limitations of each of the three images that Waltz presents?
First Image: Individual level.
- Causes of war found in the nature and behavior of man. - - Education or redirection of energy as a remedy for war. - - Men are led by their passions and drawn into conflict.
Waltz discounts the first image because what we make of the evidence depends on the theory we hold (is man inherently violent or inherently peaceful?)
Realist: human agression; urge to dominate
Liberal: mostly good if given the chance
The nature of man is constant but war is inconstant, so the answer cannot lie here.
Second Image: State level.
- The internal organization of states is key in understanding war and peace.
- States with internal strife seek war to promote internal unity. Bad government produces tensions which lead to war (e.g. perceived slights such as territorial or economic deprivation). Government reform can lead to peace.
Waltz discounts the second image because there are varying definitions of what a “good” state is. Democracies go to war to promote democracy, communists do the same, etc.
Waltz does not believe that increasing the number of liberal states will reduce war. He is critical of the view that a specific kind of state can bring peace.
Third Image: Anarchic International System.
- Due to the anarchic international system, each state is free to judge its grievances as it desires, so conflict is bound to occur
- Therefore states must be primarily concerned with relative power
- Self-interest is king. War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it.
Balance of Power: States which increase in power will be challenged by other states/alliance of states to maintain the relative power dynamics of the system.
The BoP is “imposed by events on statesmen.”
Rousseau hunter and stag: In cooperative action, even when all parties agree on the goal, one cannot rely on others. E.g. it requires four hunters to catch a stag. They are all hungry. One hunter sees a rabbit and knows that he can catch it if he gives up the stag hunt. He will betray the other hunters, even though the result is that they will go hungry, so that he can eat.
Kenneth Waltz
“Man, the State, and War”
What are the strengths and limitations of each of the three images that Waltz presents?
REAILIST
First Image: Individual level.
- Causes of war found in the nature and behavior of man. - - Education or redirection of energy as a remedy for war. - - Men are led by their passions and drawn into conflict.
Waltz discounts the first image because what we make of the evidence depends on the theory we hold (is man inherently violent or inherently peaceful?)
Realist: human agression; urge to dominate
Liberal: mostly good if given the chance
The nature of man is constant but war is inconstant, so the answer cannot lie here.
Second Image: State level.
- The internal organization of states is key in understanding war and peace.
- States with internal strife seek war to promote internal unity. Bad government produces tensions which lead to war (e.g. perceived slights such as territorial or economic deprivation). Government reform can lead to peace.
Waltz discounts the second image because there are varying definitions of what a “good” state is. Democracies go to war to promote democracy, communists do the same, etc.
Waltz does not believe that increasing the number of liberal states will reduce war. He is critical of the view that a specific kind of state can bring peace.
Third Image: Anarchic International System.
- Due to the anarchic international system, each state is free to judge its grievances as it desires, so conflict is bound to occur
- Therefore states must be primarily concerned with relative power
- Self-interest is king. War occurs because there is nothing to prevent it.
Balance of Power: States which increase in power will be challenged by other states/alliance of states to maintain the relative power dynamics of the system.
The BoP is “imposed by events on statesmen.”
Rousseau hunter and stag: In cooperative action, even when all parties agree on the goal, one cannot rely on others. E.g. it requires four hunters to catch a stag. They are all hungry. One hunter sees a rabbit and knows that he can catch it if he gives up the stag hunt. He will betray the other hunters, even though the result is that they will go hungry, so that he can eat.
Kenneth Waltz
“Man, the State, and War”
Why does Waltz favor the Third Image?
3rd image - Anarchy in International System - no govt or enforcement system and no hierarchy; permissive cause and underlying cause - self interest is key and states should be concerned about relative power [look at other viewpoints]
Helps explain war if realist bc > there is no enforcement power > when there is anarchy there are diff balances of power which will help determine if there is war (waltz only discusses anarchy; balance of power need to back up with diff author)
Example: Iraq 2003 (can view as human nature, can also view through domestic structure, anarchy - didn’t actually have international system behind them)
Kenneth Waltz
“Man, the State, and War”
What does he see as the valid or useful elements of the other two images?
No single image is adequate:
The 3rd image explains the system as a whole (permissive cause), the 1st and 2nd can explain the efficient causes of specific conflicts.
Example: internal factors are not unimportant and apply to spesific wars like War in Iraq with Bush domestic policy with war on terror (international politics and foreign policy are very different things and leaders can make dumb mistakes
Thucydides
“The Melian Dialogue”
REALIST
Sparta goes to war with Athens because Athens is a rising power. Spartan alliance ultimately defeats Athens, but is weakened and then falls victim to the Persians.
Relate to Gilpin, hegemonic v. rising powers. Also an example of classic BoP politics.
Classic realist argument: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
- The Melians are Spartan allies. At one point in the dialogue they tell the Athenians that should they be attacked, their allies will come save them. The Athenians reply that they will not, because they know they will lose.
- The Melians claim they will fight for their honor, the Athenians reply that because they are significantly weaker they should not do so because they will lose.
- The Melians reject the Athenian peace offering and are defeated. The men are killed and the women and children enslaved.
Niccolò Machiavelli
“Doing Evil in Order to Do Good”
REALIST
- Power is what matters.
- It is better to be feared than loved.
- The rule of law is insufficient unless the prince has recourse to force. There is no law without force.
Thomas Hobbes
“The State of Nature and the State of War”
REALIST
- Human nature is chaotic and violent, the fear of death drives people to come together and form a social contract. - They surrender their weapons and some freedom for security.
- People need a central authority (the Leviathan), which is government.
E. H. Carr
“Realism and Idealism”
REALIST (right?)
Norms are created by those in power to maintain power.
- They are not instituted for the greater good.
- Economic forces are political forces.
- The belief in the common interest of peace is a mask to maintain the status quo by those in power.
- Those defending the status quo may be more culpable than those trying to change it.
Geoffrey Blainey
“Power, Culprits, and Arms”
Power dynamics explain war.
Conflicting estimates about the nature of relative power lead to war.
Blainey is not a fan of the balance of power because when you have 2 or more equal powers it is unclear who the top dog is and states will fight.
He prefers hegemony. A clear stratification of power leads to peace.
E.g. the 7 Year War, French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars all happened in quick succession because the power balance was uncertain.
Margaret Mead
“War is Only an Invention — Not a Biological Necessity”
CULTURALISM
Argues against Hobbes.
War is an invention, not part of our nature - It is a custom, like marriage, which has developed over time, and it is possible that we can replace it with another custom.
Uses the example of the Eskimos, who do not have a word for war, and the Lepchas of Sikkim
Richard Ned Lebow
“Spirit, Standing, and Honor”
The realist perspective is based on fear. The Marxist and liberal perspectives are based on appetite.
However, reason and spirit also drive human action. The spirit is what causes war, as groups seek self-worth.
- Honor is a higher value than survival. States will fight to defend their autonomy in the name of honor even if it is certain they will be defeated.
- A refutation of the realist perspective in that material power is not the only thing that matters.
This argument takes the Melian side of the Melian Dialogue: they tell the Athenians that even if they will most likely lose a war, they will still fight for their honor.
Immanuel Kant
“Perpetual Peace”
There is a separate peace among liberal states. However liberal states will go to war with illiberal states.
THE PERPETUAL PEACE: relies on (amongst other things):
- Republics: separation of powers, representative legislature (gov responsive to citizens, which reduces the chance of war)
- Signed peace agreement: credible because of the character of the states which sign it
- Universal hospitality: common human dignity is respected. A peaceable, voluntary contract which will lead to cooperation in trade, etc.
No covert action against other liberal states: liberal states must trust one another.
Kant did not talk about a democratic peace but a liberal peace. There were no democracies at the time he was writing.
Immanuel Kant
“Perpetual Peace”
LIBERALISM
There is a separate peace among liberal states. However liberal states will go to war with illiberal states.
THE PERPETUAL PEACE: relies on (amongst other things):
- Republics: separation of powers, representative legislature (gov responsive to citizens, which reduces the chance of war)
- Signed peace agreement: credible because of the character of the states which sign it
- Universal hospitality: common human dignity is respected. A peaceable, voluntary contract which will lead to cooperation in trade, etc.
No covert action against other liberal states: liberal states must trust one another.
Kant did not talk about a democratic peace but a liberal peace. There were no democracies at the time he was writing.
Norman Angell
“The Great Illusion”
ECONOMIC POV
War is in decline because it is no longer economically profitable or capable of spreading ideals. (Angell is writing in 1913.)
- Due to the economic interdependence of the world, political and economic borders no longer coincide. Taking a state by conquest destroys its economic value, and so it is now of no value to the state which conquered it.
- War disrupts commerce, and so is not advantageous.
- War cannot have idealistic ends either, because the lines of division on moral questions are within the nations themselves, not between the public powers of rival states.
E.g. no state is completely Catholic or Protestant.
War, even when victorious, cannot achieve those aims which it intends.
Geoffrey Blainey
“Paradise is a Bazaar”
Arguing against economic interdependence.
Blainey disagrees: interdependence states that: Nations grow richer through commerce than through conquest.
The Manchester Creed: The ‘long peace’ in Europe in the 19th century is explained by increased international commerce and economic interdependence. Industrial and technical innovation brought peace. Free trade has replaced war and mercantilism as the road to prosperity.
Blainey does not believe that this is true:
- States who benefit from geographic security, such as Great Britain, will naturally espouse the Manchester creed because their physical security is not at stake
- People think that the Manchester Creed was the cause of peace, really it was the effect.
BUT “the very instruments of peace…were conspicuous in the background to some wars.”
Countries depend on threats and force. Threat systems are the basis of politics, as exchange systems are the basis of economics.
Examples:
- The Suez Canal: means of international exchange, but the French and British both wanted to control it, leading to Egyptian War of 1882.
- Trans-Siberian Railroad: Connected Europe and Asia, yet fueled the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-5.
