Michael W.
Doyle believes that liberalism translates into peace and therefore states
should promote it. Liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism and liberal
internationalism are the three types of liberalism perspectives discussed by
the author. Though I agree with some of his points, but there are certain
claims which are hard for me to accept.
The writer claims
that war machines which are initially made to maintain peace in a country end up taking control over the state. He backs his
argument by giving the example of ancient Egypt army. It was created to drive out Hyksos from Egypt but ended up taking control over the state. A similar situation is experienced
Pakistan, where the army has intervened in the state businesses several times.
However, he also claims that capitalism and democracy are forces for peace. He does
a fairly good job of explaining the ways in which the combination can lead to
harmony, but fails to give concrete examples which can back his argument. Also,
capitalism suggest that production continues for which resources are required. And
the mere desire to acquire more resources compels the states to go to war. Then
how can capitalism act as a shield against war?
Moreover, Robert
O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin talks about Institutionalist theory and highlights
the erroneous belief behind realism. Afterwards, they point out the work of
Mearsheimer with regards to realism pointing out how his earlier works have
contradicted his later contributions. They do a fairly good job critiquing it
but fail to acknowledge that a person’s beliefs and ideas can be molded with time.
Amidst all the realism discussion, the point regarding NATO interested me the
most. Mearsheimer believed that “institutions have no independent effect on
state behaviour” and stated that the balance of power had succeeded in
preventing the third world war and not the institutions. Though, I have not
further delved into the topic but it was something that caught my eye and I would
like to investigate.
Good post and you know Mearsheimer's point is interesting is because he really doesn't believe in institutions. Institutions do play some role in regulating international affairs and they cannot simply be dismissed.
ReplyDelete