Complete Theory of the Origins of War
Just like majority of the historians, many scholars have been skeptical and always found it hard to establish a theory that would eventually define the international events, war notwithstanding. In this regard, there have been a number of remarks that have been produced by many scholars in a bid to explain instances or event of international importance in history. In fact, the ideal position held by majority of the scholars has been inexistence of any theoretical perspectives in defining aspects of international importance as far as political history is concerned. This paper therefore seeks to unveil the concerns the incidences and causal agents of war. In this regard, this paper will focus in the analysis of the theory of neorealist or the concepts of realism and liberalism in order to understand war.
According to this theory, liberalism mainly comprises of three main features. In particular, these features are positive freedom, negative freedom and the representative government. The collision in pursuit of these freedoms is the essential cause of war. In the domestic environment, liberalism may experience concrete variances across different source. For instance, it may vary between liberal and conservative liberalism. These aspects differ grossly while seeking to emphasize on both positive and negative freedoms. However, both features are artistically in agreement on matters pertaining to four distinct institutions as follows: equality among all citizens and therefore bound to enjoy equal rights, private property rights and freedoms, representation of the government and the economic controlled by the distinct forces of supply and demand.
Furthermore, the theory also posits an argument on the existence of liberal peace in which case no war persists. According to realists’ point of view, this form of liberal peace cannot be accounted for. Neither does wealth and environment nor other forms can be accounted for. Indeed, there exists a real democratic case of peace. On the other hand, some liberals also try to express the liberal peace challenge. In this regard, the implication of the latter is that most of the liberal states are pacific in nature though cannot explain why such states could still eventually break into war with other non-liberal states. Indeed, this entails the features for liberals’ states such as the facts that there exist consistent liberal norms concerning citizens who may never vote in war since they have the utmost reality of bearing the full cost of the commotion unlike their monarch’s counterparts.
Another divergent view us the liberal peace is grounded on three main factors namely: states must always be republics, they eventually make peace within themselves through the enlargement of their pacific union’ while at the same time all states should respect the current cosmopolitan legislations regarding the manner in which they regard foreigner coexisting amongst them (natives). However, liberal democracies are said to be established due to their best features in being able to meet foreign threats, though the liberal democracies often disregard and eventually tame aggressions and individuals’ selfish interests an aspect that leads to the establishment of universal peace worldwide. In this regard, this implies that, the violence created by the non-liberal states automatically pushes such states towards peace.
Indeed, there are generally three main forces that push liberal states towards embracing peace. In particular, Citizens within liberal states often must individually bear all the costs attributable to warfare. The fear of these costs makes precedent coercion into which the states must embrace peace in order to skip the losses attributable to it. Secondly, the liberal states also respect other states and also anticipate respect from other states thus reducing any instance of potential threats or commotion that may lead to warfare. Thirdly, the indulgence into the ‘spirit of commerce and industries’ and the unique incorporation of the cosmopolitan laws also lead to a scenario of embracing peace among different states in their dealings. As a result, these conditions together create a sufficient establishment and resultant enhancement of the said, ‘pacific union’ which might not be necessarily formally established or governed through any institutional frameworks and eventually prevents any fight between such states. The impact of the latter forces is that they develop certain forces where liberal states anticipates other liberal counterparts to behave similarly and accommodative as they do and therefore very willing to engage in any form of negotiation that would eventually yield peaceful coexistence between the member states. However, there exist none of the cases in instances of non-liberal states as would be expected.
However, as observed in these cases, Liberalism often fails relative to other states. For instance, when dealing with severely strong non-liberal states, the liberal states are subjected to multiple failures to secure advantage over their counterparts. As a result, the involved liberal parties do not eventually accrue to a beneficial negotiation and are often subjected to loss. For instance, in negotiations between China and USSR since the negotiations are not purely based on real politics but rather fighting over what one side proposes, in this case the non-liberal state and subsequent violation of human right for the victim country. While dealing with such non-liberal states, there has been potential result into non-liberal policies such as the case of imperialism in Africa which resulted in the establishment of a hook of dictators even after successful electoral posts at the time of cold war.
Indeed, liberal states also accrue to miserable record of assisting the developing countries recuperate in their economy and other problems. Indeed, the liberals also become furious concerning the oppressors who take their subjects for grunted and therefore demands for cut off business engagement with them. On the other hand, the conservative liberals also get furious about failure to get support such as the liberals defending liberalism worldwide. As a result, these aspects often fuel hatred and potential wars between states or inter-state ignited wars. Consequently, the liberal states often shy off engaging in any business with their counterparts, non-liberals an aspect that is often perceived a detrimental to the economies of the liberal states while the tyrants remains superfluously successful by virtue of economy and securities. This is the case especially when the liberal states are developing at the expense of non-liberal ones which are already developed with a stable economy.
The theory also posits that people are often obsessed with the notion of how to give out the surpluses with a view to crating ‘positive freedoms’ of development and opportunities among the third world nations. Indeed, some of the success that has rocked most liberal states arises from the high emphasis on the human rights and the general promotion of free trade or investments with the third world countries while such cases still records insignificant figure as an attribute for successful gains. In resolving all potential liberal challenges, it may not be easily accomplished without duly threatening the success of the liberal situation itself as Doyle, states since such would imply a demand for incorporating pure realists at the top most position or as the heads of states which may demand an independent move into enhancing the dictatorial move. In this case, Doyle prescribes a singularly essentially mechanisms for the implementation of a liberal foreign policy.
Essentially, Doyle makes an appeal for the upholding of theoretical pluralism through focusing on the three elements of intellectual traditions namely: realism, socialism and liberalism as pointed out earlier. In this regard, creates perspectives on the global views of the essential thinkers across different ages. In order to establish the tenets of realism, he evaluates thycydides. Besides, he also incorporates the perception of others such as Smith and Kant in order to understand the in-depth concept of international liberalism. Doyle also examines socialism via the perspectives of Marx and Lenin. In this regard, he reviews the manners in which each of the theories benefits from the comparative advantage in expressing the various instances of historical events and potential indulgences of foreign policies such as the motives of liberal states in engaging in aggression against authoritarian regimes or the less progressive in the states.
In his bid, Doyle also appraises the direction that three distinct construct may offer towards some of the global knottier challenges particular, interventions that are made in the name of safeguarding human rights or enjoying ones rights. The focus on the real impacts of economic aid in facilitating les developed states to secure an opportunity for industrialized powers or else a measure to enhance democratic institution and eventually eliminating poverty. In essence, these aspects are all potential sources of war or even peaceful coexistences among different states and internal social groups. The future of geopolitics is also of high emphasis as per Doyle. This is the case as political situation also dictates the peace coexisting among the various residents of a given locality. According to Boyle, past is a major learning point in the sense that it teaches on the possible containing of its eventuality, extended peace and established revolution wherever possible. The development of a world class and accessible discourse on the part of abiding powers with concrete political appeals which could provide essential guidelines to electorates is pivotal in creating a serene environment towards promoting peaceful coexistence.
Indeed, while establishing the theory defining international politics neorealisms basically reserves the main basis of realpolitik although the means and end points are perceived differently as mere causes and effects. In studying international politics, there have been major inferences about outcomes which are deduced from prominent features of the players producing them. For instance, Marxist have been taken to produce a link between the break of war or its counterpart, the prevalence of peace as attributable to the internal attributes of a state. Various features or aspects such as the governmental forms, economic frameworks and the political ideologies are some of the main elements that contribute to war in a state. This is particularly the case when there are potential disharmonies in the agreement between the different stakeholders in the economy in addition to other partisan interests that may arise from other foreign destinations with specific interests especially in a situation of liberal-illiberal states’ dealings.
On the other hand, system theory of international politics often incorporates systematic forces that exist mainly at the international level as opposed to localized national level elements. All system theories of international politics work to explain the organization of realism acting as constraining and disposing assertions on the forces operating inside them. These theories care solid inferences on the forces that states and other integral regions of political influence are subjected to. Essentially, it is the force that states are subjected to that is responsible for piling up pressure to the extent of creating a pronounced level of dismal play and potential source of conflicts. This foul play may result from an unbalanced dealing between two states where one embrace liberalism at the expense of the other.
Essentially, for the vantage perspective of the neorealism theory, the sense of competition and subsequent confluent is directly a function of twofold conditions of life under the shield of anarchy. Indeed, states within the shield of anarchy are entitled and mandatory supposed to provide for their own security and other seaming threats to their won security about. As a result, such nations are always engaged in exploring potential dangers and seeking mechanisms of neutralizing them at the expense of development. In this regard, this aspect becomes the new way of life of such nations and they are therefore subject to destabilized peace. In this regard, the players are filled up with suspicion and hostility may be the ultimate result which may impact very negatively to the economic performance of the states in the long-run due to severe hostility and instability. In this regard, the unstable state of affairs swells the already worsened security challenge while any technical effort to enhance one country’s security implies increased hostility towards other international players who are mainly treated with escalating suspicions all the time.
In an anarchical setup, any state that is enjoying comfort is perceived as potential threats to others. This implies that, when a state begins to amass potential armory for its own defense regardless of having any ill motive against the others is secluded from others and perceived as potential threat to its counterparts thus demanding an immediate and careful attention. This occurrence may fuel potential war and conflicts among the states involved. As a result, the already armed state now begins to strictly reconstitute its armory as it confirms its reasons to worry about its own defense as a result of the other states rising against it. What may result is a war instigated from mere allegations based o suspicions.
Some nations may become purely hungry to rising into power. Nevertheless, according to the neolistic theory, it is unnecessary to make limitless efforts to clinch regional or global powers with a view to enhancing individual capability for waging fierce competitions which characterizes the international zone. Similarly, in anarchical condition, war-laden states are in existence purely as a result of having all the states craving for power. In essence, in any spirit of competition, there must be a winner as well as a potential loser. Indeed, theorists do not however illustrate or explain the reason as to why certain wars are fought. On the contrary, the neolistic theorist explains the reasons for the recurrence of certain wars. In fact, theorist considers the incidences of structural occurrence of war based on designed or accidental happenings that punctuates open clashes between different arms. Indeed, the repeated incidences of war are based upon the existing international systems. In any case, war is considered normal and can be evaluated based on the incidences that are considered developmental as opposed to studying the international political systems in order to understand war or its cause.
Lastly, in the case of multipolar world, all the states are enshrined in equal power influence. Technology, particularly the development of nuclear weapon also dissuades states to go into wars than other conventional weapons. Consequently, such states must endeavor to contain their policy under a single denominator. In such an instance, these states risks finding the least denominator which would eventually render them mutually worse off than their counterparts outside their bracket of commonality. On the contrary, in bipolar world segment, the alliance chief can design all the strategies that primarily focus into enhancing their own interests at the expense of others while creating very minimal benefits to their allies. For instance, neither US not the Soviet Union is entitled to seeking their allies’ approval in establishing certain policies and guidelines although both have to cope with one another for establishment. In conclusion, these differences between clusters and individual states results into potential differences that may eventually yield conflict or war between the loser and the gainers. In essence, the latter cases are only instantly definable as no actual loser may exist or otherwise.