Are Liberal-democratic States Inherently More Peaceful than Non-democratic Ones?

The United States of America proudly present themselves as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the main liberal architect whose role, became more significant in the post-Cold War world, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the institution of the so called “New World Order”₁ paired with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy in a global scale and pursue “(…) America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace.” ₂

In this essay, after defining some crucial concepts, such as peace, liberal and democratic governments, I’ll present arguments that support the idea that liberal democratic states are not inherently more peaceful then other states, but that they are, in fact, more likely to create conflicts between nations and different political systems. The focus will be attributed to U.S.’s policies and historical events that corroborate the idea expressed above.

The concept of peace leads us to accept it as a “state of tranquility, quietness, security and order provided by a law or a custom”₃ (Webster dictionary) and is also known as “a state of freedom from civil disturbance or conflict guaranteed by mutual agreement between governments”₄ (oxford dictionary). Linked to this ancient concept is the definition of liberal governments: form of representative democracy based on the recognition of individual freedoms and the belief that people should rule “in which decisions form direct or representative processes prevail in many areas”₅ (Collins dictionary). As Fukuyama puts it, liberal democracy is “the final form of human government”₆ (ver obra). According to John Ikenberry (referir obra e tal) constitutionalism, open markets, international institutions, cooperative ...

... middle of paper ...

...ncrease domestic insecurity?

The answer to these questions, according to Chomsky, relates to the American seeking global expansion and military dominance foreign policy.

Nations have to be on the same page that U.S. interests and need to allow capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. In case of refusal the nation becomes a potential target of U.S. backed aggression or labeled as a threat or even as a terrorist state. When in 1965 Indonesia declared its desire to develop its own country by itself without any Western influence the result was nearly one million deaths and the instauration of a dictatorial regime lead by General Suharto.

On the other hand, if a nation accepts and decides to align ( Turkey, Israel), it becomes a client state and is entitled to American monetary and military aid and protection.

2010 palavras

-war as a political instrument