1. Chapter Four © 2012 Pearson Education

2. War and Violence in World Politics: The Realist’s World JOHN MEARSHEIMER “... all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power and are destined to compete for power among themselves.” JOHN MUELLER “Unlike breathing, eating, or sex, war is not something that is somehow required by the human condition or the forces of history.” © 2012 Pearson Education

3. War and Violence in World Politics Throughout human history, war and threat of war have been a constant part of international life and central to understanding how the world works. – Structural realist explanation for the persistence of war: rooted in fundamental assumption of international anarchy – No effective and reliable higher authority to impose order, so states, according to realists, must assert and protect their interests through the use of force and violence But wars, particularly interstate, have been on the decline in recent years. – The great powers have not warred against each other since World War II. – Conflicts of interest remain, but war as a means of settling them has become “increasingly discredited.” © 2012 Pearson Education

4. War in World Politics Prevalence of War and Violence U.S., in its brief history, has fought in a dozen major interstate wars and countless smaller-scale military conflicts. – Average number of years in between major conflicts has been less than two decades. – Every generation has experienced war. – Over a million American soldiers have died in battle. Global record is worse. – Correlates of War Project (COW) has identified 401 wars during the period 1816–1997 – Defines war as a conflict with at least 1000 battle deaths. Types of wars – Interstate wars – Extra-state wars (involves at least one non-state actor) – Intrastate wars, or civil wars American view of conflict Scholars suggest that Americans tend not to be natural-born realists. Americans view war as an exceptional state of the world. Probably due to location: No war fought on American soil since the Civil War No foreign troops on American soil since War of 1812 © 2012 Pearson Education

6. Prevalence of War and Violence Collectively, there is an average of 2.22 new wars per year. Other forms of military war and violence – Coercive diplomacy: since 1816, more than 4,000 cases of coercive diplomacy (called Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) by COW) Mobilization of forces, raising military alert levels, warning shots, small- scale skirmishes Most never escalated to war Human cost of war and violence staggering. – From 1816 to 1997, more than 53 million battle deaths – Civilian casualties have been high as well. Estimated 87 million combined military and civilian deaths from conflict in 20th century alone © 2012 Pearson Education

7. War and Morality The realist view is that war is sometimes necessary. – Realist view does not imply that war is always the preferred option for protecting national interests—sometimes war should be avoided. – Realists argue that the cost of war should be weighed against the potential benefits before deciding to use force. The philosophy of pacifism opposes all use of force. – Any use of violence employed with the intent to kill or do physical harm to other human beings is morally unacceptable. – Thou shalt not kill. – Leo Tolstoy: military = murderers Critics of pacifism argue that it is an unacceptable position for two reasons: 1.Denies any right of self-defense 2.Denies the right to use violence when needed to defend other innocent lives An approach that accepts war but places limits on it is just war doctrine. – Accepts, in contrast to pacifism, that war can sometimes be both necessary and just – Allows, in contrast to amoral realism, that ethical and moral considerations must be part of determining when and how to fight © 2012 Pearson Education

8. Morality and War Jus ad bellum: justice of war Six criteria 1.Just cause 2.Right intention 3.Last resort 4.Probability of success 5.Limited objectives 6.Legitimate authority © 2012 Pearson Education

9. Morality and War: Jus in bello: justice in war Two criteria: – Discrimination – Proportionality Just war has its critics – Difficulty reaching consensus when applying the criteria – Constructivists: norms against war – Mueller: increasing psychological and physical costs of war © 2012 Pearson Education

10. The Evolution of Modern War: The Emergence of Total War While past wars were devastating, the pace and efficiency of killing have increased dramatically in the 20th century. – Change related to the evolution of technology (new battlefield weapons such as machine gun as well as weapons used from afar such as aircraft). – The nature of war also evolved; civilian population now more involved in conflict. Total population involved in war effort. War must thus be fought “against” the total populations. Net result: 22 million dead in WWI; 50 million in WWII. Majority were civilian casualties. © 2012 Pearson Education

11. The Evolution of Modern War: Enter Nuclear Weapons August 6, 1945 – bombing of Hiroshima, Japan – Combined effect of initial bombing and residual effects of radiation led to 200,000 deaths. No longer necessary to have massive army to inflict massive harm on an adversary – Perfect weapon for war “against total population” Though such weapons are efficient, they are not the only way to kill mass amounts of people quickly. Rwanda 1994: 800,000 people victims of genocide in only 100 days killed by machetes, knives, clubs, and guns. © 2012 Pearson Education

13. The Evolution of Modern War: Enter Nuclear Weapons Can nuclear weapons bring peace? – Some scholars argue that concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented war between the superpowers. Based on deterrence: ability to dissuade another state from acting against one’s interest by the threat of harm one might do in response. Necessitates second strike capability: ability to survive initial attack and have sufficient retaliatory nuclear capacity to respond. – Critics point out that during the Cold War, conventional war continued. U.S. lost almost 100,000 soldiers in Korea and Vietnam Stability/instability paradox © 2012 Pearson Education

14. The Evolution of Modern War: Enter Nuclear Weapons Shift in philosophy in 1980s: Nuclear Utilization Theories (NUTS) – Under Reagan, effort to devise ways to use nuclear weapons effectively – Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Trying to control proliferation – Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 Israel, Pakistan, and India are not members and have nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are in violation (but Iran does not yet have weapons). – Is proliferation stabilizing? Fear of loss of command and control of weapons Could they fall into the hands of terror groups? © 2012 Pearson Education

15. War in Decline?: The Post–Cold War Era Recent trends: post–Cold War decline in interstate war Scholars have found that the world is less violent, less warlike. – Since 1991 the trend in interstate war has been consistently downward. – The trend has been toward avoidance of the most destructive kinds of wars (direct clashes between the great powers). Security communities – A group of countries that no longer threaten or fear war from one another © 2012 Pearson Education

17. Explanations of Peace A Realist Explanation of Peace Distribution of power – Bipolar and unipolar systems may be more stable. – In the Cold War, bipolarity may have limited war. – In the 1990s, U.S. hegemony may have limited war. Power transition theory – Argues that war is most likely when one or more states is surpassing the power of another major power. Realists note that current downward trend may not last. – There have been other periods with limited war. – If the unipolar system goes away, violence could return. View of realists: recent downturn in interstate war can be explained within the parameters of the realist paradigm. © 2012 Pearson Education

18. Explanations of Peace A Liberal Explanation of Peace Democratic peace theory: democracies do not fight one another. Democracy defined by three essential elements: 1.Participation 2.Contestation 3.Civil liberties When the definition of democracy is applied most strictly, the observation that democracies do not fight with one another appears close to absolute law. Number of democracies has increased over time. – Democratic waves – Fukuyama’s “end of history” argument Liberal view Kantian triangle suggests three potential sources of peace in world politics International institutions Economic interdependence Domestic regime type: spread of democracy © 2012 Pearson Education

19. A Liberal Explanation of Peace Critics of democratic peace theory (realists and others) – Contend that even if one accepts that democracies tend not to fight one another, the world still has a significant number of nondemocratic states, and that democracies routinely fight nondemocracies. – They point to the prospect of backsliding among countries currently categorized as democratic. – Argue that the core assumption that democracies will not fight one another, through largely true to this point in time, has not been sufficiently tested. Historically, nondemocracies have outnumbered democracies. Significant numbers of democracies have not been around very long. © 2012 Pearson Education

21. Explanations of Peace Constructivist Explanation of Peace Mueller argues that the long peace after World War II reflects a fundamental change in state behavior. – Realists theories cannot account for changing state behavior. – Liberals confuse cause and effect: economic interdependence and international institutions are effects of this change, not causes. – Individuals and states are coming to believe that war is an evil to be avoided. – States have developed a stronger common identity. If this common identity breaks down, a return to a violent system is possible. Constructivist’s view on peace Gives more attention to changes in global norms © 2012 Pearson Education

22. The Future of War Asymmetric Warfare – A war in which there is a fundamental difference (or asymmetry) in the nature of the participants, and in their goals, capabilities, and tactics – Van Creveld, “... War will affect people of all ages and both sexes. They will be affected not just accidentally or incidentally... but as immediate participants, targets, and victims.” – Can be states versus nonstate actors, states with dramatically different capabilities, and/or actors with very different weapons. – Examples of Kosovo and Gaza © 2012 Pearson Education

23. The Future of War: Terrorism Terrorism is politically motivated violence aimed at civilian targets in order to spread fear and alarm. Terror may be a rational, purposeful activity toward a strategic end. – A tactic often used by military weak groups to achieve certain objectives – This does not make it moral. – Frequently unsuccessful in achieving objectives Impact of terrorism – Relatively few casualties (more likely to be killed in a car crash, or struck by lightning, or drowning) – Generates exaggerated reactions due to the dramatic nature of the attacks – New technologies could increase the impact of terrorism. © 2012 Pearson Education

24. Conclusion Declining trends in interstate wars, BUT few scholars are prepared to argue that war is likely to disappear completely from the world No agreement on the trajectory of violence in the 21st century Realists argue, however, that not much has changed. © 2012 Pearson Education