Pevenhouse Ch.3: The Waning of War PDF

**Pevenhouse Ch.3** **3.1 The Waning of War** In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend towards fewer and smaller wars. Despite the frequent images of violence on televisions and phones, which make the world seem more war-prone, the current period is less warlike compared to past periods....

**Pevenhouse Ch.3** **3.1 The Waning of War** In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend towards fewer and smaller wars. Despite the frequent images of violence on televisions and phones, which make the world seem more war-prone, the current period is less warlike compared to past periods. Over the long term, the trend in warfare has shifted significantly. In the first half of the 20th century, world wars killed tens of millions and devastated continents. During the Cold War, proxy wars killed millions, and there was a constant fear of nuclear annihilation. In the early 21st century, conflicts like those in Ukraine and Syria result in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. While the fear of terrorist attacks remains, the scale of destruction has decreased. The world has gradually moved from tens of millions killed, to millions, to hundreds of thousands. Although the impacts of war are still catastrophic, understanding and sustaining this trend could potentially lead to the end of major wars, even if minor wars and terrorist attacks continue to cause casualties. In the post-Cold War era, the trend towards smaller wars continued. The late 1990s and early 21st century saw the end of lingering Cold War-era conflicts in places like Angola, Northern Ireland, Guatemala, and southern Sudan. Wars that erupted after the Cold War, such as those in Bosnia, Kosovo, Algeria, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda, have also concluded. Liberia and Ivory Coast established power-sharing governments and brought in international peacekeepers, like Sierra Leone. In 2005, the Irish Republican Army dismantled its weaponry, and in 2015, Colombia reached a peace deal with its largest rebel group, which was approved by parliament in 2017. Most of today's conflicts involve skirmishes rather than large-scale battles. However, Russia's invasion of Ukraine resembles early 20th-century wars with large troop movements, aerial bombardment, high civilian casualties, and great power involvement. This war is particularly upsetting because it breaks the trend of the past 100 years away from large-scale land invasions. In 2023, the Ukraine war was the most destructive international conflict. Russia initially invaded Crimea in 2014 and supported pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. In February 2022, Russia launched a larger invasion but faced strong Ukrainian resistance. NATO countries provided significant military and economic aid to Ukraine. By late 2022, Ukraine had halted the Russian invasion and recaptured some lost territory. Civilians in Ukraine have suffered greatly during the conflict. Eight million refugees fled to neighboring countries, and infrastructure such as roads, power plants, and water supplies were targeted. Urban areas faced bombing campaigns. By mid-2023, Western countries continued to provide aid to refugees and weapons to Ukraine, but the war showed no signs of ending. The Syrian war, the world's second most destructive conflict, has claimed 200,000 lives over 12 years. The conflict spread to Iraq, where Islamic militants captured and then lost significant territory to government and Kurdish forces. From 2015 to 2017, military forces from several countries, including the United States and Russia, extensively attacked the militants. In Yemen, over 10,000 people have been killed in a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan's long war continues without international troops, with ongoing fighting between the Taliban and rebel groups. Ethiopia's conflict from 2020 to 2022 led to a humanitarian crisis in Tigray due to a blockade. Nigerian troops are combating Islamist militants in the north. Historically, these are small wars, but the Russia-Ukraine conflict has the potential to become a large one. War-related deaths, including those from shelling, car bombs, and airstrikes, have significantly decreased over the past 70 years. Despite fluctuations in annual battle-related deaths, the overall trend has been downward since the end of World War II, indicating a movement towards less war globally. Although conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine have caused a slight increase in casualties over the past decade, we are still experiencing a period of relative peace. **3.2 Liberal Theories** While realism primarily offers dominance solutions to the collective goods problems in international relations (IR), alternative theoretical approaches focus on reciprocity and identity principles. These approaches are generally more optimistic about the prospects for peace compared to realism. Realists view the laws of power politics as timeless and unchanging, while liberal theorists believe that international relations (IR) rules evolve gradually, becoming more peaceful over time. This evolution is driven by the buildup of international organizations and mutual cooperation (reciprocity), as well as changes in norms and public opinion (identity). Theories discussed suggest that a more peaceful world is achievable. Liberal theories of domestic politics and foreign policy making emphasize the importance of domestic and individual levels of analysis in explaining state behavior, unlike realism. **Kant and Peace** Liberal theories of international relations (IR) aim to explain how peace and cooperation are achievable. Over 200 years ago, Immanuel Kant proposed three explanations. The first, based on the reciprocity principle, suggested that states could create organizations and rules to facilitate cooperation, such as a world federation like today's United Nations (UN). This idea forms the basis of modern liberal institutionalism. Kant's second explanation for peace focuses on the internal character of governments. He argued that republics, with checks on the monarch, are more peaceful than autocracies. He also argued that citizens of any country deserve hospitality in any other country. These ideas align with the reciprocity and identity principles, as it considers social interactions within states. A variation of this idea, that democracies do not fight each other, forms the basis of democratic peace theory. Kant himself distrusted democracies, viewing them as prone to mob rule rather than rationality, influenced by the French Revolution. Kant's third explanation suggests that international trade promotes peace by increasing the wealth and prosperity of states. Trade makes interstate conflict less likely because conflicts can disrupt trade, and governments are reluctant to harm interactions that enhance their wealth. As trade increases, states become mutually dependent on each other, known as economic interdependence. Scholars distinguish between sensitivity, where a state can find alternate suppliers for important products, and vulnerability, where there are few or no alternatives. **Interdependence**: A political and economic situation in which states are mutually dependent on each other for products. The degree of interdependence can be assessed based on \"sensitivity\" or \"vulnerability.\" Realists are skeptical of the argument that trade promotes peace. They believe that one state's reliance on another can create short-term tensions, as states may worry about the leverage others have over them. This is especially true for strategic minerals needed for military purposes (e.g., minerals and alloys for aircraft production and uranium). Leaders are concerned about vulnerability and the potential for other countries to gain leverage in conflicts. Realists also note that similar arguments about interdependence and peace were made before World War I, yet war still occurred. **Liberal Institutionalism** Kant's first answer to how peace can evolve focuses on states developing and following mutually advantageous rules, with international institutions to monitor and enforce them. Liberal theories suggest that rational actors can prioritize long-term community well-being over short-term individual interests, indirectly benefiting themselves. The principle of reciprocity is central to this approach, as international institutions rely on reciprocal contributions and concessions among equal members. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Union (EU) require consensus among all members, ensuring equal governance. Kant argued that autonomous states could join a global federation like the UN and adhere to its principles, even if it meant sacrificing short-term individual gains. He believed international cooperation was more rational than war. In realist views, war seems rational as it advances short-term interests, but in liberal theories, war is seen as irrational and harmful to the collective, long-term interests of states. The neoliberal approach acknowledges several realist assumptions, such as states being unitary actors pursuing self-interests in an anarchic system. However, neoliberals argue that even with these assumptions, states often achieve cooperation because it benefits them. They believe states can use institutions to facilitate mutual gains and reduce the chances of cheating or exploitation. **Neoliberal**: Shorthand for \"neoliberal institutionalism,\" an approach that stresses the importance of international institutions in reducing the inherent conflict that realists assume in an international system; the reasoning is based on the core liberal idea that seeking long-term mutual gains is often more rational than maximizing individual short-term gains. See also economic liberalism. Despite numerous sources of conflict in international relations (IR), states generally cooperate. Neoliberal scholars argue that even in a world of unitary rational states, the neorealists' pessimistic view on international cooperation is not valid. They believe that states can establish mutual rules, expectations, and institutions to foster behavior that promotes cooperation. Reciprocity in international relations (IR) facilitates cooperation even without a central authority. It enforces norms and rules through mutual exchange rather than a world government. In international security, reciprocity supports the gradual improvement of relations through arms control agreements and peacekeeping missions. In international political economy (IPE), reciprocity incentivizes compliance with rules and norms by threatening trade restrictions in response to unfair practices. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), operate on this principle, punishing states that increase tariffs by allowing others to impose tariffs on their goods. Neoliberals argue that reciprocity can effectively foster cooperation even in conflicting situations. When one side shows willingness to cooperate and promises to reciprocate actions, the other side is incentivized to negotiate a cooperative agreement. Reciprocity is straightforward to interpret, often not requiring explicit statements. For instance, in 1969, after 20 years of strained relations, the U.S. slightly relaxed its trade embargo against China. In response, China released three U.S. citizens. This reciprocal exchange led to further cooperation, culminating in President Nixon's visit to China in 1972. Neoliberals use the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) game to argue that cooperation is possible. While individual defection can benefit each actor, mutual defection results in losses for both. In international relations (IR), states often have conflicting and mutual interests. The dilemma can be resolved through repeated interactions, where a strategy of strict reciprocity (tit-for-tat) after an initial cooperative move can lead to cooperation. This is because any defection will provoke a similar response, encouraging sustained cooperation. While reciprocity can foster cooperation, it also carries the risk of escalating hostility. If both sides reciprocate without establishing a cooperative foundation, it can lead to prolonged, tit-for-tat punishments. This is exemplified by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where negative actions by one side provoke negative responses from the other, and vice versa for positive actions. Over time, this reciprocity has not sustained high levels of cooperation, as periods of agreement eventually give way to conflict. Building on the reciprocity principle, many norms mediate states' interactions, such as diplomatic practices and participation in international organizations (IOs). These norms help states avoid self-defeating outcomes from pursuing narrow, short-term self-interest. Neoliberals study historical and contemporary cases to understand how institutions and norms can overcome dilemmas and achieve international cooperation. They emphasize that international institutions are key to achieving superior rational outcomes that consider long-term self-interest, not just immediate self-interest. **International Regimes** Achieving desirable outcomes in conflicts is challenging due to contradictory interpretations by the parties involved. Resolving conflicts often requires a third party to arbitrate or an overarching framework to set common expectations. These considerations are fundamental to the creation of international organizations (IOs). An international regime consists of rules, norms, and procedures that align the expectations of actors in specific issue areas, such as arms control, international trade, or Antarctic exploration. This convergence means that participants share similar ideas about the governing rules, expecting mutual adherence. This concept of regime differs from the domestic government context, such as regime type or regime change. **international regime**: A set of rules, norms, and procedures around which the expectations of actors converge in a certain international issue area (such as regulating the oceans or trade policy). Regimes can address collective goods problems by increasing transparency, making cheating riskier. The revolution in information technologies enhances transparency in many regimes. Improved international communication helps states identify conflicts and negotiate solutions more effectively through regimes. The common conception of regimes combines realism and liberalism, viewing states as autonomous units maximizing their interests in an anarchic international environment. Regimes do not influence issues where states can achieve their interests on their own. Instead, regimes help overcome collective goods dilemmas by coordinating state behaviors. States create frameworks to coordinate actions with others when necessary to realize self-interest in collective goods dilemmas. Regimes do not replace states' basic cost-benefit calculations but offer new possibilities with better cost-benefit ratios. They do not significantly constrain states but empower them to address collective goods or coordination problems. Regimes act as intervening variables between the basic causal forces in international relations and outcomes like international cooperation. For realists, regimes do not negate power effects but often codify and normalize existing power relations, such as the nuclear non-proliferation regime maintaining the status quo of nuclear-armed states. Regimes rely on state power for enforcement, and some scholars argue they are most effective when power is concentrated, such as under a hegemon. However, regimes do not always decline with the power of their hegemons. Hegemony may be crucial in establishing regimes, but it is not necessary for maintaining them. They can become self-sustaining as actors' expectations align with the regime's rules, realizing it serves their interests. Working through the regime becomes habitual, and leaders may not consider breaking the rules. This persistence was evident in the 1970s when international economic regimes survived despite the decline of U.S. hegemony. The survival of regimes partly depends on their integration into permanent institutions like the UN, NATO, and the IMF. These institutions embody shared expectations and coordinate international actions. In international security, the UN and other international organizations provide a stable framework for dispute resolution. International Political Economy (IPE) is even more institutionalized due to the high volume of activity and the wealth generated from cooperation. Institutions are more stable and influential than noninstitutionalized regimes. With staff and headquarters, they actively promote rule adherence in their political or economic areas. However, these bureaucracies can also advocate for policies not intended by the founding states. Liberal institutionalism values international law. The European Union (EU) is the pinnacle of liberal institutionalism. After centuries of wars, European states now enjoy stable peace with strong international institutions. **Collective Security** The concept of collective security, rooted in liberal institutionalism, involves forming a broad alliance of major international actors to jointly oppose aggression by any actor. Kant proposed the idea of a federation (or league) of the world\'s states because he observed that past treaties ending great power wars had failed to achieve permanent, lasting peace. He believed that by forming such a federation, many states could unite to collectively punish any state that committed aggression, thereby safeguarding the collective interests of all nations and ensuring a more stable and lasting peace. **collective security**: The formation of a broad alliance of most major actors in an international system for the purpose of jointly opposing aggression by any actor; sometimes seen as presupposing the existence of a universal organization (such as the United Nations) to which both the aggressor and its opponents belong. See also League of Nations. After World War I, the League of Nations was formed to promote collective security but was flawed due to incomplete membership (e.g., the United States) and members' unwillingness to oppose aggression in the 1930s starting with Japan and Italy. After World War II, the United Nations was created as its successor to promote collective security. Several regional IGOs, such as the OAS, Arab League, and African Union, also perform collective security, economic, and cultural functions. The success of collective security relies on two key points: members must honor their alliance commitments and not free ride on others' efforts. Additionally, powerful states may find it costly and not in their immediate interest to confront a determined aggressor attacking a weaker state. A second requirement for collective security is that enough members must agree on what constitutes aggression. The UN Security Council's definition of aggression requires agreement from all five permanent members and at least four of the ten non-permanent members. This system is ineffective against great power aggression, as these states can veto Security Council resolutions, as seen with the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, the US mining harbors in Nicaragua, and France exploding the Rainbow Warrior incident. Collective security succeeded in 1990-1991 to reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait because it united all the great powers, who were willing to bear the costs of confronting Iraq. This was the first instance since the UN's founding where one member state invaded, occupied, and annexed another, blatantly violating Kuwaiti sovereignty. The Security Council easily labeled it aggression and authorized force by a multinational coalition. The threat to the world's oil supplies provided additional incentive for coalition members to contribute resources. In 2002-2003, the Security Council debated Iraq's failure to disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction, as agreed at the end of the Gulf War. The great powers were divided, and a U.S.-British resolution for military force was withdrawn after France promised to veto it, with Germany, Russia, and China also opposing it. Global public opinion, especially in predominantly Muslim countries, opposed the war. When the UN did not act, the U.S., Britain, and Australia overthrew Saddam Hussein by force, comparing the UN to the ineffective League of Nations. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found, leading to a prolonged and unpopular counterinsurgency war. This situation highlighted the dangers of bypassing the world's collective security system, despite its flaws. The concept of collective security has expanded to include failed states, which have weak control over their territory and can become havens for drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorist bases. Somalia is an example, with a weak government unable to control large areas, becoming home to terrorist organizations and pirates. Some approaches argue that the international community has a duty to intervene in such cases to restore law and order. **The Democratic Peace** Kant argued that lasting peace would rely on states becoming republics with legislatures to check the power of monarchs or presidents to make war. He believed that checks and balances in government would act as a brake on the use of military force, unlike autocratic governments where a single individual or small ruling group could make war without considering the population's effects. **Public Opinion and International Relations** **The United States and the United Nations** The United Nations embodies collective security and global peace efforts. Despite the United States' key role in creating and hosting the UN, American public opinion has always been divided. A core frustration for some Americans is that the UN does not always promote U.S. interests. They argue that if the U.S. hosts the institution and pays extensive dues, the UN should support American foreign policy goals and those of its allies. Supporters of the UN in the United States argue that it is an independent institution serving the interests of all countries, not just the U.S. They acknowledge that the UN sometimes acts against U.S. interests but point out that it also challenges other major powers like China, Russia, and France. Regarding public opinion in the U.S., there have been some changes over the past 35 years, but none are particularly large. The most common opinion has been "somewhat favorable," which declined from about 55% in the late 1980s to 45%, before rising to around 50% in 2022. Those with a "very favorable" view increased from around 12% to nearly 20% and then fell to about 10%. We can draw a couple of conclusions from these data. First, opinion about the UN has not changed very much over time: There are no cases of massive shifts in how people view the UN despite continued debates in the United States over the role of the UN in American foreign policy. Second, it appears that while U.S. citizens do share some frustrations with the UN, on balance, they are still supportive of the institution and its mission. Over time, the percentage of Americans who view the UN as somewhat unfavorable has increased from around 8% to nearly 25%, while those with a very unfavorable view have decreased from about 18% to around 13%. Overall, a clear majority of Americans hold a favorable view of the UN, with slightly over 60% viewing it favorably and just under 40% unfavorably. From this data, we can conclude two things: 1. Public opinion about the UN has remained relatively stable over time, with no massive shifts despite ongoing debates about its role in U.S. foreign policy. 2. While there are some frustrations with the UN, Americans generally remain supportive of the institution and its mission. International Relations (IR) scholars have explored the idea that democracies have a fundamentally different foreign policy compared to authoritarian regimes. One theory suggested that democracies are generally more peaceful, engaging in fewer or smaller wars. However, this theory was disproven, as democracies fight as many wars as authoritarian states. Notably, the three most war-prone states over the past two centuries were France, Russia, and Britain. Britain was a democracy throughout this period, France was a democracy for part of it, and Russia was not a democracy at all. However, it is true that democracies rarely fight one another but rather authoritarian states (known as democratic peace). This appears to be historically proven. It is unclear why, but some reasons include that they tend to be capitalist states with economic interdependence and citizens tend to sympathize with other democratic state citizens. Conversely, authoritarian governments are antagonistic in comparison. Democratic peace empirically substantiates the liberal claim that opposes the realist claims that the most important explanation is at the systems level (democracies are at the domestic level). **democratic peace**: The proposition, strongly supported by empirical evidence, that democracies almost never fight wars against each other (although they do fight against authoritarian states).