History has seen wars come and go. For centuries, civilizations have had the constant need to dominate those beneath them. Man’s happiness is measured by what he has, but he is never satisfied by what has. The greatest imperfection of the humans is the thirst for power (Junger, 2011). This statement perhaps defines why countries are in constant wars with each other.
The twentieth century saw its fair share of wars. Hitler’s ambition in world war two was to conquer the whole of Europe. The best political minds always have war as their end game. The key to understanding why nation-states go to war may lie in the politics of anarchy. Democratic states display reluctance to destabilize that condition by going to war (Nozick 1971).
The theory of security dilemma perhaps best brings out the situation of war vis-à -vis anarchy. The theory underlines the fact that, a country’s strength or weakness may lead to agitations in others and or aggression from other countries. Territories seem smaller as aggressors find new ways of warfare, which include economic wars. Super powers will fuel wars as longs as they get ahead economically.
Guns are no longer the only weapons for battles; economic mind games also integrated into the system of anarchy. The losers are always the weak states who are at the mercy of super power; depending on them for economic support.
Countries with the same interests and goals are bound to keep checks on each other. If the United States of America feels the need of protecting its territory by accumulating nuclear weapons; its competitors like Russia and China will be obligated to do the same to match any aggression that may come from the US. This phenomenon, ultimately defines the spiral model. Therefore, a country’s desire to be powerful even when it has no intension of aggression; causes security threats to others.
States constantly exist in a context of souring political relations as a result of international anarchy. As the strong nations secure their territories, the weak countries prepare for the eventuality of war.
The security dilemma is predisposed by two variables; the offense and defense realisms. The defense realism views states as security maximizers that avoid participation in wars, so that their securities are not threatened. This was the case for the US in the First World War.
Offensive realism on the other hand, preys on the fact that; weaker states are in constant fear of the strong nations. The strong nations have a predatory nature as they are constantly hungry for power. These variables work best to support the spiral model.
Taking a historical example, Israel has been for a long time in conflict with Palestine. The conflict dates back to the 1800s when a group of Jewish extremists called the Zionists, wanted to colonize and convert the Palestine to a Jewish land. Palestine was a multicultural land with a majority of the population being Muslim. Small fractions represented the Christians and the Jews.
Hitler’s persecution of the Jews saw an increased immigration into Palestine. The situation worsened when in 1947, the UN awarded more than half of the land to Israel. While the Palestinians want to have their own separate Muslim state, the Israelis want it as a part of their country.
There exist border issues, curtailed Palestinian movement within their own land, security of Palestine occupants and the issue of who gets to control Jerusalem. This is a battle of supremacy that has a substantial stake for each of the two parties.
This conflict still persists even as the international community keeps a watchful eye. At the moment Israel seems to be in control over the Palestinians; as many of them are captured and detained in the Jewish prisons. Israel has military capabilities of any superior states like the US.
Palestine on the other hand, struggles to raise an army that is ill-equipped. It lacks the necessities to actively defend itself from Israel. Moreover, civil wars and poor leadership inhibit any efforts to fight the Israeli.
Talks to secure a peace deal are constantly declined by both parties, even though more innocent civilians are losing their lives each day. Wars take precedent in this anarchical system as diplomatic negotiations become mirages that never seem to come true. While the UN and other countries try to forge a peace deal, key issues are not addressed.
For instance, no one is asking the Israelis to stop constructions of settlements in Palestine (Gelvin, 2007). The reason being, Israel is a major ally to the US and therefore the US feels obligated not to interfere; but only offer shadow diplomacy. This is a key element as super powers always gang up to oppress the weaker states; offering sanctions as threats if they do not get their wishes.
This historical example is in line with the hypothesis; that war is necessitated by anarchy. Even with the presence of international bodies like UN and other regional bodies like the EU; the super powers continue dictating the rule to the weaker states. There is no fairness in the distribution of power.
The UN might be an international body that is supposed to be impartial; but it is a tool used by the super powers to intimidate the weak states. The composition of the Security Council is made in a way that only the super powers have permanent seats. This means that they dictate the terms. Wars will never end; they are simply means to an end.
Super powers seem to be investing in war, as they strive to come up with new technologies to improve warfare. It would seem hypocritical, when super powers accumulate weapons of mass destruction; while on the other hand barring other countries from doing the same (Harms, 2005). The arms race might be over on the surface, but deep down into the mountains; there are top secret military experiments going on.
The Israel-Palestine conflict can only be resolved if military action is taken off the take and both parties are willing to have diplomatic compromises. Policies should lean towards diplomatic options. The international community should not be watching as thousands of people are denied freedom and hundreds of others lose their lives over wars they know nothing about.
Future leaders should not use war as a platform for coming into power. It is not who fights the best war but who keeps the best peace that matters. The stability of the weaker states largely depends on the ability of the supers to maintain the status quo of peace. Freedoms of all men, women and children should be equal for all regardless of where one may come from.
Works cited
Gelvin, James. The Israel-Palestine conflict: One Hundred Years of War. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print
Harms, Gregory. The Palestine-Israel conflict: A basic introduction. London: Pluto Press, 2005. Print.
Junger, Sebastian. War. New York: Twelve Hachette Book Group, 2011. Print.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New Jersey: Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.