Why do wars happen? How can we prevent them? If there is no war, will there really be peace?
Questions. Questions. Questions. And still no answers. The phenomena of war has haunted every individual who has pursued any form of education in the discourse of international relations. The realists have their own explanation, the liberalists their own, and the constructivists their own. What each theory fails to do is to find an equilibrium meeting point where each theory can amalgamate to come up with some form of a solution. Does the fault lie in the theorists or the theories? In my opinion, both the theory and theorists are not to blame, rather, it is the complexity of the non-complex concept of war. Motivation for war is not something that can be constant throughout the system. Is that not why we as individuals are so different? This gap exists because our decisions are opposed to what others would say. That same way, can you associate war with only the selfishness of man? Can you assume that every state will cooperate with an institution? My answer to these questions is no. Coming back to the starting point of our Pol230 class, Jack Levy's piece, 'War and Peace', aims at providing us readers with one final critical explanation of the different lenses war and peace can be analysed from, giving us a sort of choice in the ideology we would like to believe in.
Levy's views on realism and war rest on the basis assumption that human nature is evil. This, coupled with the anarchic international system, has left all states desperately trying to maximise their power, to the point of no further maximisation. The absence of a centralised authority gives states even more power; the power to make any decision they seem fit. Realism, like other theories, has grown over time with the advent of Neo-realism, Offensive Realism and Defensive Realism.
Economic interdependence. For liberalists, these two simple words are the only way states can avoid war and achieve peace. Liberalists argue that the presence of cooperation between states would fight off the possible advent of war. If everyone is benefitting from global trade and cooperation, what could possibly cause a war? This is what the liberalists like to believe.
Till the point where i had to read Levy's views on war and peace through a liberal and realists lens, i was very disappointed. Just like all other theories, he was assuming that war and peace follow some sort of an order. First there will be cooperation, then there will be friendship, and if both countries gain, there will always be peace. And on the other hand, humans are selfish, and everyone is a power maximiser, so there can not be peace. How can something so complex follow something so basic? This is why i was glad to go on to further read Levy's 'multi-method approach', where war and peace should be analysed by incorporating both realist and liberal beliefs about the topic. Even though much attention was not paid to lenses such as social constructivism, which could have explain how humans have internalised a role of selfishness through society, rather than it being inherent in us, Levy's attempt is commendable.
In Levy's defense, he has tried to incorporate the two major schools of thought, realism and liberalism, which can go on to the change the entire scope of how international relations is studied.
Excellent post. I particularly liked this comment, "In my opinion, both the theory and theorists are not to blame, rather, it is the complexity of the non-complex concept of war." And then the highlighting of "economic interdependence" as the two words that can cause peace according to liberals was well put.
ReplyDeleteThis was your best post from the entire semester - good job!