INR 2001 Exam 2 Book Notes Chapter 11: The Transformation of Armed Conflict War is merely an extension of diplomacy by other means- ?a form of communication between countries.? War is an instrument for international actors to use to resolve their conflicts. Conflict regularly occurs when actors interact and disputes over incompatible interests arise. Conflict is not necessarily threatening, because war and conflict are different. War can promote social solidarity, creative thinking, learning, and communication- all factors critical to the resolution of disputes and the cultivation of cooperation. Scientists who study war quantitatively from the perspective of behavioralism have attempted to estimate the frequency of armed conflicts and to ascertain if trends exist in the global system?s level of violent conflicts. The general trends of armed conflict between and within states show that: The proportion of countries throughout the globe engaged in wars has declined Most wars now occur in the Global South, which is home to the highest number of states, with the largest populations, the least income, and the least stable governments The goal of waging war to conquer foreign territory has ceased to be a motive Wars between the great powers are becoming obsolete; since 1945 the global has experienced a long peace-the most prolonged period in modern history in which no wars have occurred between the most powerful countries. Theories of the Cause of Aggression: Individuals? Human Nature- all wars originate from the decisions of the leaders of states or nonstate actors such as terrorist organizations; humans are one of the few species practicing intraspecific aggression (routine killing of its own kind), in comparison with most other species, which practice interspecific aggression (killing only other species, except in the most unusual circumstances); humans are born with an innate drive for power that they cannot avoid, and this instinct leads to competition and war. Darwinian survival of the fittest realist theory overlooks the fact that ?the moral sense must have adaptive value; if it did not, natural selection would have worked against people who had such useless traits as sympathy, self-control, or a desire for fairness in favor of those with the opposite tendencies.? Most social scientists now strongly disagree with the realist premise that humans are essentially selfish and aggressive and that people murder and kill because of their innate genetic drives to act aggressively. Instead, war is interpreted as a learned cultural habit. Aggression is a propensity acquired early in life as a result of socialization (the processes by which people learn to accept the beliefs, values, and behaviors that prevail in a given society?s culture) Human nature is not a direct cause of armed conflict; humans, like animals, are compelled by instinct to possess and defend territory they believe belongs exclusively to them. The territorial imperative has been resurrected as a theory to account for the ethnic wars that rage across the globe in so many regions today. War most often occurs because of the choices leaders make, not the preferences of their entire societies. To generalize from the whole to the part is to commit what demographers and statisticians call a logical ecological fallacy; because unless all members of the same group are exactly alike, the characteristics of the collectivity (the entire state or culture) do not safely predict the beliefs and behaviors of the individuals in the grouping. Individualistic fallacy is also a mental error, we cannot generalize safely about the beliefs or behavior of individual leaders (Adolf Hitler, George Bush, Joseph Stalin) and ascribe them to the prevailing preferences of the collective cultures and states that each of them head. These individuals are symbols, not samples. States? Internal Characteristics- an assumption that differences in the types or categories of states determine whether they will engage in war; there are certain domestic factors that have an affect on this likelihood Duration of Independence: new states are most likely to experience civil wars and engage in foreign wars; often face periods of political unrest, and often see intervention from the Global North Cultural Determinants: most countries are strongly influenced by the cultural and ethnical traditions of their peoples; most governments encourage their populations to glorify the state and to accept whatever decisions their leaders claim are necessary for national security, including warfare against adversaries. Poverty: Underdevelopment is a statistically significant predictor of war; however most impoverished countries have been the least prone to start wars with their neighbors. States are likely to initiate foreign wars after sustained periods of economic growth, once they can afford them. Geography: increased competition over access to major sources of oil and gas, water supplies, and valuable export commodities has caused resource flows rather than political and ideological divisions to constitute the major fault lines. Militarization: As Global South countries concentrate their budgets on equipping their militaries, many worry that war will become more frequent before it becomes less so; militarization has not led to peace in the Global South. Between 1816 and 1945, 3/5 of all interstate wars took place in Europe, this happened when the developing states were most energetically arming in competition with one another. As European countries moved up the ladder of development, they moved away from war with one another. Economic System: Marxists believe that the best way to end international wars is to end capitalism, commercial liberalism states that free market systems promote peace, not war; they believe that free market countries that practice free trade abroad are more pacific. That commercial enterprises are natural lobbyists for world peace because their profits depend on it; war interferes with trade, blocks profit, destroys property, causes inflation, consumes scarce resources, and necessitates big government and counterproductive regulation of business activity and high taxes. Globalization has intensified the debate about the relationship between trade and international armed conflict. Global South countries maintain that under interdependent globalization the wealthy profit disproportionally from trade, at their expense. The relative gains argument insists that conflict is produced because the benefits of economic exchanges are distributed unequally (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer), and trade-war disputes and even wars are likely to undermine world peace. Type of Government: when citizens are given basic human rights (choosing leaders through ballots) and civil liberties (free speech, free press), these democracies would be far less likely to initiate wars than would countries ruled by dictators and kings. Democracies resolve their differences with one another at the bargaining table rather than the battlefield and they are more likely to win wars than nondemocracies. Nationalism: love of and loyalty to a nation, the tendency of the vast majority of people to center their supreme loyalties on the nation-state is a powerful catalyst to war; nationalism is widely seen as perhaps the most powerful force in today?s world, an idea and ideology that animates the constructed images of many; nationalistic sentiments promote the outbreak of war Cycles of War and Peace in the Global System: war is a product of the decentralized character of the global system that requires sovereign states to rely on self-help for their security; the key actors in world politics are sovereign states that act rationally to advance their security, power, and wealth in a conflictual international system that lacks a legitimate authority to regulate conflicts or enforce agreements. Security Dilemma- the possibility that a state?s actions to provide for its security may result in a decrease in the security of all states, including itself. Bargaining Model of War- sees war as a product of rational choice, the decision to engage in warfare is part of the bargaining process that occurs between adversaries to settle disputes and disagreements over scarce goods, placement of a border, composition of a national government, control over national resources Power Transition Theory-an even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities. When advancing and retreating states seek to cope with the changes in their relative power, war between the rising challenger and the declining power has become more likely. The chances of the initiator being victorious are shrinking, in the 1980s only 18% of the initiators were victorious Long-Cycle Theory- cycles of world leadership and global war have existed over the past 5 centuries, with a general war erupting approximately once every century, although at irregular intervals. During their reigns, hegemonic powers monopolize military power and trade and determine the system?s rules; but not previous hegemonic power has retained its position perpetually. As challengers to the hegemon?s rule grew in strength, a global war has erupted after a long period of peace in each century since 1400. War Weariness Hypothesis- a country at war will become exhausted and lose its enthusiasm for another war, but only for a time; alternating periods of enthusiasm for war and weariness of war appear to be influenced by learning and forgetting over time With some level of violence almost always present, there may be certain periodic fluctuations in the amount of that violence; although the disappearance of war between states may be possible over the long run, armed conflict and violence persists inside established states. Civil Wars- has become increasingly frequent over time and they all stem from similar emerging conditions, share defining characteristics, and center around several issues: Ethnic groups seeking greater autonomy, or want to create an independent state (Kurds, Chechnya) Internal battles fought to gain control of an existing state Religious conflicts ?Failed states,? where the authority of a national government has collapsed and armed struggle has broken out between the competing ethnic militias, warlords, or criminal organizations seeking to obtain power and control the state Impoverished states, low-income countries face greatest risk of civil war-about 15x that of high income countries Countries that have experienced one civil war have a tendency to undergo 2 or more subsequent civil wars Genocide and mass slaughter aimed at depopulating entire regions have become commonplace in recent civil wars (Rwanda); also have a great resistance to negotiated settlement. Making peace is difficult among rival factions that are struggling for power, driven by hatred and poisoned by the inertia of prolonged killing that has become a way of life- this is why civil wars often resume. Causes of Civil Wars: Relative Deprivation- people?s perception that they are unfairly deprived of the wealth and status that they deserve in comparison with advantaged others; when people?s expectations of what they deserve rise more rapidly than their material rewards, the probability of conflict grows Demographic Stress- high proportions of young adults, rapid urban population growth, diminishing per capita supplies of cropland and freshwater, and high rates of death among working-age adults; particularly influential as a catalyst to civil war is the presence of many young men Geopolitical Environmental Factors- low supplies of cropland and freshwater, the geographic location of rich natural resources, countries that depend heavily on natural resources for their export earnings Domestic Cultures Acceptant of Gender Inequality- cultures where discrimination, inequality, and violence toward women are a way of life and women?s rights are not defended Secessionist Revolts- most rebellions have been driven with the quest to win broad public support, create a political wing, present an alternative system of governing, and build international legitimacy; violence has often been the means through which states have been given-or denied-birth. Nationalistic Ethnic Hatred- much internal revolt and ethnic warfare is inspired less by political motives and economic aims than it is by deeply rooted ethnic hatreds; extreme ethnonationalists are people who are prepared to kill and die in large numbers. Much evidence indicates that intense identification with one?s own nationality or ethnic group provokes civil war against government, especially if it is repressive Failed States- mismanagement by governments lacking authority and unable to meet the basic human needs of their citizens is a global trend causing an epidemic of failing states throughout the globe; failed states share some key characteristics: Democracy generally lowers the risk of state failure, autocracy increases it Poor democracies are more unstable than either rich democracies or poor nondemocracies, and poor democracies that do not improve living standards are exceptionally vulnerable Elections can serve as a lid to state failure and civil violence A strong predictor of state failure is poverty, but extreme income and gender inequalitiy within countries are even better warning signs Failing states most vulnerable to internal rebellion are ruled by corrupt governments widely regarded as illegitimate and ineffective Population pressures exacerbated by internally displace people, refugees, and environmental degradation Governments that fail to protect human rights Particularly evident in the high-risk, weak, and impoverished states in Africa ?Petrostates? which rely on oil and gas for income are shaky, especially if the governing authority is weak and permissive of huge gaps in the distribution of political power and wealth High infant mortality is the best predictor High levels of trade openness are beneficial, states that have fair rules allowing a high degree of international trade gain stability ?Youth budge?-a large proportion of young adults in the population- increases the risk of state failure through war Economic Roots- civil violence often erupts in countries where conditions are improving, not deteriorating; when modernization generates rising expectations that governments are unable to satisfy, civil war often follows International Dimensions of Internal War- internal wars affect the international system and the international system affects internal wars; outside intervention in civil wars has become common Diversionary Theory of War- Domestic conflicts become internationalized because leaders who experience internal opposition are inclined to provoke an international crisis in the hope that their citizens will become less rebellious if their attention is diverted to the threat of external aggression; when leaders suffer conflict at home, they are prone to attempt to contain that domestic strife by waging a war against foreigners-hoping that the international danger will take citizens? attention away from their dissatisfaction with their home leadership. Diversionary wars are undertaken by desperate leaders in desperate times, such as in an economic recession or a re-election that the opposition appears likely to win. Terrorism: the use or threat of violence, a method of combat or a strategy to achieve certain goals, its aim is to induce a state of fear in the victim, it is ruthless and does not conform to humanitarian norms, and publicity is an essential factor in terrorist strategy. Terrorism is a tactic of the powerless against the powerful. Any action is terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population, or compelling a government or international organization to do something, or not to do something Terrorists now seek not simply to coerce changes in enemies? policies but to annihilate enemies: they now want a lot of people dead; their purpose is now to kill as many as possible for the purpose of instilling fear in as many people as possible Chapter 12: Military Power, Coercive Diplomacy, and National Security After the end of the Cold War, the great powers began to revise their strategic doctrines in the light of new global threats: Compellence: countries that possess military preeminence often think of weapons as instruments in diplomatic bargaining; a method of coercive diplomacy usually involving an act of war or threat to force an adversary to make concessions against its will. The US doctrine of compellence used nuclear weapons as tools of political influence, not for fighting but for convincing others to do what they wished. Whereas compellence contains an offensive coercive threat aimed at persuading an adversary to relinquish something without resistance, deterrence seeks to dissuade an adversary from undertaking some future action. Preemption:
Want to see the other 7 page(s) in Exam 2 Book Notes?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!