The analysis of the state-system brings contradictory answers, when one seeks the causes of wars. Waltz thinks that the states, which are internally despotic and non-democratic are prone to war, and those who engage in political dialogue and possess democratic institutions remain peaceful. However, one tends to question the validity of this claim on grounds, such as why American government has waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq even though the former is a democratic country. One believes that the nature of political system does not explain the inclination of a country for war. Rather, the economic motives i.e. to capture the resources or to use the infrastructure of a weaker country to develop industries and reap profits are the causes of such contemporary wars. I base my claim on the assumption that capitalism requires the investment and re-investment of capital in various countries to remain active and working. This means the production process cannot afford to be stagnant and must remain intact. However, one can object this notion as well because wealthier states could make financial agreements with other countries and hence afford to run the world capitalist economy. If the latter argument attains more weight, then it seems that the engagement of states in wars is a matter of mere dominance over another territory and does not elucidate any practical reasons and concerns. For our two examples, it is patent that American intervention has brought nothing but chaos in both countries and their economies and political structures dismantled. Hence, it becomes perplexing to imagine why stronger democratic states intervene into weaker states if they do not have to follow the democratic ideals they cherish in their societies.
Good question raised however, you should have broken your post into a few paragraphs in order to make it easier to read.
ReplyDelete