Introduction
The most defining characteristic of the modern state is its exclusive ability to use violence. Although the general understanding of the social contract is that states protect their populations, in reality, states also abuse their monopoly on force. It may take the form of domestic atrocities and wars. Countries engage in military conflicts and wars while pursuing their own interests. All subsequent state-making procedures result from the decisions made by states at some point. The histories of the United States and Belgium are appropriate for understanding how their past policies determined their current political and military challenges.
Emergence of the Modern State
In historic measurements, the modern state is a relatively young type of political organization since its appearance is traced to the sixteenth century. Up until the 1500s, European nations had lived in strict feudal structures that presupposed the use of violence by each individual lord (Tilly 173). Monarchs were dependent on their vassals to rally to their cause and bring their own forces with them. The sixteenth-century bore witness to the growth of authority of kings over the application of violence by their subordinate lords. This tendency was started by England’s House of Tudor and continued by France’s Richelieu and Louis XIII (Tilly 174). The ultimate result was the overall demilitarization of vassals and the delegation of the right to exert violence solely to monarchs.
The state’s monopoly on violence has not led to the cessation of war-making in international relations. Instead, conflicts between countries became more organized due to rulers’ exclusive right to direct violence. Tilly believes that it was a continuation of earlier state-making procedures – “a local lord extended or defended the perimeter within which he monopolized the means of violence, and thereby increased his return from tribute” (185). As these perimeters increased, nations were formed, but the initial mentality of competition remained.
Colonialism and capital accumulation were subsequent developments of the concentration of power in the hands of monarchs. Tilly writes that “behind every successful dynasty stood an array of opulent banking families” (179). They enabled rulers to centralize royal resources and hold control over subordinate lords. Expansion of countries required greater accumulation of resources and wealth. Since fighting other kings on the European plane did not produce meaningful results, states turned to colonization, where the same state-making process was used albeit on a larger scale. Colonies provided kings with more resources and abilities to exercise their monopoly on violence.
Case Study for War-Making
Although the United States is not a monarchy, the principle of the state’s monopoly on violence applies to it as well. The US is able to project power throughout the world due to the extensive network of military bases. Starting with World War II, the US has been steadily increasing its military presence in various regions with “around 750 bases in at least 80 countries as of July 2021” (Hussein and Haddad 5). These bases are used for deterring adversarial forces, maintaining stability, and waging wars. It is well-known that the US is “the largest military spender in the world and more than the next 10 countries combined” (Hussein and Haddad 17). The monopoly on violence allows the US Government to decide where to deploy forces and against whom to use them.
With some exceptions, the US presence has remained in countries even though the corresponding war is long over. The end of World War II has left Japan with a substantial US contingent still present to this day. Meanwhile, formerly owned by Japan, Korea was divided into two countries, with South Korea becoming a permanent host of US military bases. Vietnam is a rare example of a country that the US forces have actually left. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait has led to the permanent deployment of the US bases. A decade later, Iraq itself would lose a US-led war on its own soil, which resulted in the proliferation of American bases in the Middle East. Afghanistan is another example of a region that has been abandoned by the US forces despite a twenty-year-long war.
As a result, the US military forces are present in almost every region of the planet. Aside from engaging in military operations, these bases also serve as pressure points on hosting and neighboring countries. Tilly defines state making by agents of the state as “eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside those territories” (181). The most prominent current example of a country that the US actively attempts to influence via military force is China. Geographically, it is apparent that the US pursues military encirclement of China (“The Coming War on China” 2:26). America has been prioritizing this direction since the communist victory, which signified the prevalence of American rivals in China. Subsequently, all Chinese state-making procedures revolve around countering the threat, the American bases pose to China.
Case Study for Colonialism
Modern state-making procedures are influenced by historical colonialism. European nations used distant lands to extract enormous revenues and exercise their authority on them, which is particularly evident in Africa (“AFRICA Episode 3” 14:44). The most prominent correlation between extraction of resources and growth of wealth in another economy is evident in Belgian rule over Congo. For more than seven decades, Congo was exploited by Belgium, which took the form of forced labor, punishments by death for refusing to work, and destruction of villages (“Atrocities in the Congo Free State” 2). In essence, Belgium was exercising its monopoly on violence against the population of Congo in order to profit from rubber and ivory.
However, the same colonialism that made Belgium rich has also caused modern Congolese outcry against Belgian historical atrocities. Ranging from destruction of monuments of King Leopold II to campaigns for reparations to victims of colonization, the extent of Congolese dissatisfaction is wide enough to influence the current state making of Belgium (Munshi 10). It is peculiar that today the situation is reversed, with Congo attempting to extract resources from Belgium to fund their own development. In any way, historic colonialism has shaped the state-making of Congo, which now views reparations from Belgium as one of its national priorities.
Conclusion
Altogether, it should be evident that the way a certain state uses its monopoly on violence will inevitably affect its future state-making processes. The United States chose to project its power via military means whenever possible. Belgium decided to exploit the Congolese for their natural resources. As a result, the US has to increase its military presence near any potential threat, such as China, while Belgium is forced to deal with Congo’s criticism regarding its historic colonial policy. Ultimately, abusing the monopoly on violence allows the state to solve current urgent issues but may lead to greater problems in the long-term perspective.
Works Cited
“Atrocities in the Congo Free State.”Wikipedia.
“AFRICA Episode 3 Caravans of Gold Written & Presented by Basil Davidson Executive Producer Mic.”YouTube, uploaded by Ousmane N’diaye, 2016.
“The Coming War on China – True Story Documentary Channel.”YouTube, uploaded by True Story Documentary Channel, 2020.
Hussein, Mohammed, and Mohammed Haddad. “Infographic: US Military Presence around the World.”Al Jazeera, 2021.
Munshi, Neil. “Belgium’s Reckoning with a Brutal History in Congo.”Financial Times, 2020.
Tilly, Charles. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol. Routledge, 2017, pp. 169-187.