Introduction
The terrain of history is in bad shape because of the extent to which man has waged war. Both large scale and small-scale wars are commonplace. The destruction of property is alarming, and the number of people who have been killed blood chilling. The First World War claimed its share of human lives. The Second World War followed with its own share. Both of them led to the destruction of property worth billions of dollars.
The Vietnam War was fought, and men and women lost their lives. The Cold War had its share of inconveniences to humanity despite the fact that no shots were fired. The Iran-Iraq war claimed its share of lives too in the form of men, women and children. The Kuwaiti attack by Iraq saw the torching of oil fields, the death of several Iraq and Kuwaiti soldiers as well as the citizens of the two countries. The Djibouti –Ethiopia war also led to several deaths. The recent Iraq war has claimed the lives of thousands of American soldiers, Iraq civilians, and Iraq soldiers too. The same story rings true for the recent case of Russian attack on Georgia.
Main Body
As the deaths continue and the property destruction goes on, the question that has been the subject of debate for a long time now is: Why do wars happen? In this essay, three perspectives, namely; the liberal perspective, the realist perspective, and the identity theorists’ perspective will be explored. The perspective that has the most convincing ideas will be pointed out. In this case, it is the liberal perspective as we shall see in this essay. The essay will end with a brief summary of the main ideas. The various wars mentioned above such as the First World War will be used as examples in clarifying important areas of the various perspectives.
To start with, the first perspective that has tried to explain why states go to war is liberalism; a theory whose backbone is the idea that peace in the world is a possibility so long as states are provided with a platform on which to sort out their problems. The argument is that differences will always exist but that is not a reason to fight. All that is needed is an organized forum or platform where the states that are in disagreement can have genuine and honest discussions with a deliberate intention to not only avoid war but also work towards lasting peace. There is a clear reliance on the assumption that human beings are driven by both rational instincts and the understanding of a shared destiny. What are the platforms that liberals think can assist in the provision of the chance to amicably solve international problems?
The first platform that liberals point at is the one that is availed by internationally recognized organizations such as the United Nations. Through such organizations, states that have differences can be able to have mediation in well-organized negotiations that can eventually lead to peaceful resolution of their differences. The United Nations was formed after the Second World War, after the League of Nations that was formed after the First World War failed to prevent the outbreak of another war. Has the United Nations faired any better compared to the League of Nations? Has it achieved as much as the liberals would want everyone to believe? Compared to the League of Nations, the United Nations has done a commendable job. This is as far as the prevention of the third world war is concerned.
The second platform that liberals have in mind when they talk about platforms for conflict resolution is the one availed by regional organizations such as the European Community which is currently known as the European Union, the African Union and the Organization of American States. These regional bodies are supposed to be at the forefront in trying to bring disagreeing states together so as to enable them carry out candid negotiations that can avoid armed confrontation. Such regional organizations are now found in all the continents and have all sorts of objectives ranging from peace cultivation to harmonized trade.
Liberal theorists in international relations also point in the direction of non-governmental organizations or non-state actors whose agenda is not politics but have an interest in a peaceful world. Such organizations include the faith-based organizations such as the World Council of Churches. The liberals suggest that these organizations can also be used as platforms for negotiations that are geared toward conflict resolution and peace cultivation. How workable is this liberal perspective? How successful has it been in the practical world of politics?
To begin with, the liberal perspective has seen much success in the number of conflicts that the United Nations has been able to avert in various parts of the world. For example during the cold war, the United Nations acted as a comfortable platform which the president of the United States invoked from time to time while addressing the belligerence or aggressiveness of the Soviet Union. The fact that there has not been a third world war is evidence that the United Nations has been successful to some extent. Thus with more effort, the liberals can be vindicated.
Secondly, the regional organizations have been instrumental in creating harmony among states that have traditionally had conflicts. The regional organizations have therefore created not only a platform for negotiations but also the connectedness that makes conflicts unprofitable. For example, the tight bond that is now developing in Europe through the European Union has helped lower tensions between the various states that locked horns in the First World War and Second World War. Is it possible for these states to go to war with each other? It is possible but unlikely. Therefore platforms for conflict resolution where the shared destiny of human beings is emphasized can be a successful way of avoiding war as pointed out by liberal theorists. What about the failures of this perspective?
Since the end of the Second World War, the world has witnessed several other smaller wars that have been deadly too. First, there was the Cold War where the two large states, the United States and the Soviet Union had a standoff that the United Nations would not diffuse for a long time. This is evidence that the platforms the liberals talk about can be impotent in moments of conflict. Maybe the liberals are wrong and war is inevitable.
Then there was the Vietnam War where many lives were lost followed by the Iran –Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and most recently, the inability of the United Nations to successfully handle the conflict between the United States and Iraq over weapons inspections. The result was the invasion of Iraq by the United States, a move whose outcome has been the devastation of Iraq as a nation and the death of thousands of soldiers. All these have happened in the presence of not only the international organs of diplomacy such as the United Nations that liberals have immense confidence in but also the more manageable regional organizations that are supposed to be more successful due to their small size and reach in terms of objectives.
The United Nations has also failed to address numerous interstate conflicts in Africa such as the continued Ethiopia-Djibouti standoff and the Sudan-Chad conflict. To make matters worse, intra-state disorder which is largely responsible for interstate conflict has been elusive for the United Nations. This is an organization that finds it difficult to bring two warlords together. The basic idea here is that if two warlords in a country clash, the opposing militias will spill into neighboring states leading to interstate military conflicts. A successful United Nations should be able to deal with these small-scale intrastate conflicts before they give rise to the larger and more complicated interstate issues. But the fact that this has not been achieved may refer to the weakness of the liberal perspective on war and international relations.
Far from liberalism, the realist perspective takes the position that due to the fact that conflict is inevitable, arms are part of the international security system. Therefore states that pursue arms are the ones that are bound to survive in the long run. Why then do wars happen? The realists argue that wars are as a result of an arms race whereby states that pursue arms reach a level where they feel that they are threatened by fellow states that are also engaged in an arms race. They therefore attack leading to a war. In international relations, states are allowed to engage in war if it is for self-defense. It is also justifiable if the state has decided to engage in a war to defend a friendly state otherwise referred to as an ally. All these positions can only be taken if a state has been arming itself as the enemy state has been doing too.
The realist perspective does not necessarily envision wars as states pursue arms. Arms can be prevented. In this context, if a state pursues weapons, then it reaches a level where other states will not attack it since the retaliation can be devastating depending on the level of weaponry strength the state has achieved. This way, security is maintained. But what if a nation that is weaker in military strength makes a choice that the stronger state does not consider acceptable? The temptation for the stronger state to use its military might to coerce the weaker state to do what it does not want is a sure way that can lead to conflicts and eventually war. Depending on the outcome, the weaker state may or may not accept the position and the war may end in peace or occupation. Realists take the position that active arms acquisition will help foster military strength which will create a balance. The absence of weaker and stronger states in terms of the strength of arms will then lead to a peaceful world. Has this perspective been successful? Does it explain why we have wars?
In modern times, military bullying of the smaller states by the bigger states is commonplace. For example, Iran is under immense pressure from the United States to stop its pursuit of nuclear activity. The military strength of the United States gives it the power to engage in this kind of coercion. The case would be different if Iran had the same power as the United States. The likely scenario is that if the tough-talking Iranian leadership continues, the United States will handle it militarily as a way of preventing a nuclear race in the Middle East, which according to Washington strategists, is bad for both the region and the world. But as it has already been noted, if Iran had more arms strength, the United States would not have bothered to coerce it as it would have feared a retaliatory strike.
The immense respect that the United States is developing for the People’s Republic of China is based on the idea that China is a military power whose strength cannot be underestimated. It has the largest standing army in the world and its weaponry strength is rising too. The same case applies to Russia, whereby the Russian state has behaved in a way that the United States has considered improper in the recent past such as the invasion of Georgia and the United States has not threatened military action. This is because Russia’s arms strength is equally immense.
On the other hand, the realists have fallen flat on their faces as far as the prevention of war or the avoidance of war is concerned. The First World War and the Second World War witnessed active arms races with Germany, France, Russia, Italy, and the United States pursuing arms. But in the long run, there was war and the devastation would not be escaped. This is evidence that arming does not necessarily prevent war. Wars therefore happen for other reasons such as the absence of a means of sorting out differences. Also, the international order is in such a way that a balance of arms between some states does not foster world peace. Russia, the United States, and some European countries are all nuclear powers, and yet this has not led to peace. What about the identity theory?
Conclusion
Identity as a theory simply moves with either the liberal position or the realist perspective depending on the choices made by individual states in relation to other states. This, according to me does not give a tangible reason for war. Which explanation for war makes more sense between these three perspectives?
The liberal perspective reinforces the current trend of shared interests and globalization. Non-state actors such as terrorism that affect all states and the recent financial crisis have brought states together. This is a sign that in the presence of well-organized platforms for dealing with interstate conflicts, war can be avoided. Therefore the wars we are witnessing are due to ineffective diplomacy and inefficient conflict resolution platforms.