War is a chronic part of Human History. It existed a thousand years ago with the Peloponnesian War and exists today in different forms such as the Syrian War. Jack Levy does an excellent job by dissecting the causes of war and how there is a need for scholars to study it because they want to prevent it's occurrence, reduce it's frequency and mitigate it's consequences. However, is it possible? International Relations provides diverse understandings and interpretations of war. Perhaps what stands true in all these interpretations is the fact that War is used as an instrument to advance political interests and is intrinsically political. From the interpretations provided in this peace, perhaps the most interesting was that of Realism as it provides a holistic understanding of the phenomenon of war.
War can be best understood through the Realist lens because at the end of the day war is perpetuated because of offensive or defensive reasons. Power is the underlying factor when it comes to war as countries want to retain some form of power whether it is in the economy or in the military. When we talk about power and war, perhaps the understanding of the distribution of power is the most important aspect because when there is a fear that one country is gaining too much power, it automatically inculcates a sense of fear and agitation in the World. The most obvious examples of this is in the narrative of the Two Great Wars that were fought in the twentieth century. However, even before that War was seen as a way to retain power, expand power or eradicate a threat to power. Hitler and Stalin used this as their excuse to invade countries they saw as a threat and we see that War became such a popular tool to gain power that large funds were diverted for this. Levy talks about this in his reading where he states that even though in recent ages the frequency of war has decreased exponentially, the severity of these conflicts has increased. Why is this so?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that with the advent of technology and the start of the Nuclear Revolution, we see that countries that possess nuclear powers do know that they have an advantage. With the fear that war with a great nuclear power will lead to a catastrophic war, there is less war between two or more states. However, when war does happen it is on a large scale as demonstrated in the Great War where ultra violent means such as carpet bombing, fire bombing and chemical bombing took place, leave millions both physically and mentally scarred.
What is interesting is that with the start of the twenty first century, there is a rise in civil wars within countries over political and ethnic problems. This brings to the forefront an important question: can war completely be eradicated? The answer is no. Scholars are correct to claim that war is a non zero constant that has always existed in the international realm. Conflict cannot be completely removed and there is always some form of war that is taking place because at the end of the day the Realist argument stands true that there is a mesh of problems and factors that are politicized and find expression in the form of war, and so man can never truly be at peace.
However, it is not possible to completely disregard the Liberal perspective and the importance of institutions in shaping the global arenas. In war and conflicts the intervention of organizations such as the United Nations have played a cardinal role in ensuring that some form of peace is ensured. However, my contention with this theory is that even though institutions do play an important role, it is impossible to divorce the fact that these organizations are made of individuals who sway decisions in favor of one country or the other. An example of this can be seen in the UN where the veto power was used time and time again in order to ensure that there was no intervention in Korea (1950) and Vietnam (1968). These vetos were passed by the countries in the Security Council, and both camps in the Cold War were part of this. How can institutions then be trusted? The people who fund organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF then dictate the way that these organizations act; this ties in with the fact that at the end of the day, it is power that matters when deciding the course of war and how much and what type of intervention there is from international organizations.
The article was interesting because it made one wonder about war and how there is web of factors that lead to conflict breaking out. It would be too far fetched to assume that war can be prevented because human nature coupled with politics will ensure that there is some form of conflict and war present, though the form might differ.
War can be best understood through the Realist lens because at the end of the day war is perpetuated because of offensive or defensive reasons. Power is the underlying factor when it comes to war as countries want to retain some form of power whether it is in the economy or in the military. When we talk about power and war, perhaps the understanding of the distribution of power is the most important aspect because when there is a fear that one country is gaining too much power, it automatically inculcates a sense of fear and agitation in the World. The most obvious examples of this is in the narrative of the Two Great Wars that were fought in the twentieth century. However, even before that War was seen as a way to retain power, expand power or eradicate a threat to power. Hitler and Stalin used this as their excuse to invade countries they saw as a threat and we see that War became such a popular tool to gain power that large funds were diverted for this. Levy talks about this in his reading where he states that even though in recent ages the frequency of war has decreased exponentially, the severity of these conflicts has increased. Why is this so?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that with the advent of technology and the start of the Nuclear Revolution, we see that countries that possess nuclear powers do know that they have an advantage. With the fear that war with a great nuclear power will lead to a catastrophic war, there is less war between two or more states. However, when war does happen it is on a large scale as demonstrated in the Great War where ultra violent means such as carpet bombing, fire bombing and chemical bombing took place, leave millions both physically and mentally scarred.
What is interesting is that with the start of the twenty first century, there is a rise in civil wars within countries over political and ethnic problems. This brings to the forefront an important question: can war completely be eradicated? The answer is no. Scholars are correct to claim that war is a non zero constant that has always existed in the international realm. Conflict cannot be completely removed and there is always some form of war that is taking place because at the end of the day the Realist argument stands true that there is a mesh of problems and factors that are politicized and find expression in the form of war, and so man can never truly be at peace.
However, it is not possible to completely disregard the Liberal perspective and the importance of institutions in shaping the global arenas. In war and conflicts the intervention of organizations such as the United Nations have played a cardinal role in ensuring that some form of peace is ensured. However, my contention with this theory is that even though institutions do play an important role, it is impossible to divorce the fact that these organizations are made of individuals who sway decisions in favor of one country or the other. An example of this can be seen in the UN where the veto power was used time and time again in order to ensure that there was no intervention in Korea (1950) and Vietnam (1968). These vetos were passed by the countries in the Security Council, and both camps in the Cold War were part of this. How can institutions then be trusted? The people who fund organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF then dictate the way that these organizations act; this ties in with the fact that at the end of the day, it is power that matters when deciding the course of war and how much and what type of intervention there is from international organizations.
The article was interesting because it made one wonder about war and how there is web of factors that lead to conflict breaking out. It would be too far fetched to assume that war can be prevented because human nature coupled with politics will ensure that there is some form of conflict and war present, though the form might differ.
I agree that there is always a tendency towards war because states are in conflict with other states at some point in time. There hasn't been a time when the world has existed in harmony.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the notion that war can never really be eradicated - it is uncertain till today what it will take to reduce war. Nuclear weapons are said to be deterrents but to what extent?
ReplyDeleteHowever, Looking at it from a different perspective, Randolph Bourne states "War is the Health of the State" which makes our endless deliberation on how to end war redundant in the end.
Good post. I agree that war is used to advance political ends and is a highly destructive force. War has been around since time immemorial and although it may not be eliminated, hopefully its worst excesses will be mitigated.
ReplyDelete