Introduction:
Peacebuilding to rebuild societies torn apart by armed conflict and break the cycle of violence has generated international debate and controversy. Peacebuilding is apart of the fourth stage of achieving peace and security. Its main aim is to reduce the chances of relapse into conflict and establish the foundation for sustainable peace and development (Busumtwi-Sam, Module 7). International organizations, like the UN, assist countries emerging from conflict in transitioning their social, economic and political structures. Liberal internationalism guides most international organizations in their peacebuilding operations. It involves pacification through political and economic liberalization. However, the very process of political
…show more content…
The concept of liberal peace theory was first introduced by Emmanual Kant in the late eighteenth-century, in which he was mainly referring to democratic states (Tziarras,2012,1). This theory asserts that liberally constituted societies tend to be more peaceful than illiberal states, it both their domestic and in their international affairs (Newman,et Al., 2009,11). There is another variant of this theory called democratic peace theory. According to this “countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another” (Diamond,1995,22). In fact, it is often argued that democracies result in more accommodating or rule obeying behavior by states (Campbell, Chandler, & Sabaratnam, 2011,114-114). There is danger in this assumption and while Western democratic culture is the most dominant and pervasive it is not universal truth (Moss,1995,203). The core ideas that underpins liberal peace theory are; democratization, economic liberalization, neoliberal development, human rights and the rule of law (Donais,2009, 5). In particular democratization and economic liberalization has hindered the process of peace. In some cases, these processes threatened to reignite fighting (Paris,1997,58). While political and economic liberalization are not the only causes of insatiability in post-conflict countries, it is a fundamental flaw in the the design of international liberal peacebuilding (Paris,1997,58). Attempts at peacebuilding through the instilment of democratization and neo liberal forms of marketization have been implemented in cases including Cambodia, the Middle east, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Timor-Leste (Newman,et Al., 2009,59). However, in 2006 political and socioeconomic problems led to the complete collapse of the liberal state in Timor Leste (Newman,et Al., 2009,60). Additionally, in Bosnia nationalists threaten the unity of Post Dayton
In countries where conflict has raged, but where the political will has developed to work towards a non-violent state of being, DDR has been a policy to aid the sustainable development of peace. Ana Cutter Patel writes that DDR is an integral part of peace building; it tries to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate former combatants in order to establish security which is one of the key components of peace. According to Sandra Pogodda et al. DDR is also part of a state building practice, for demobilization and disarmament of ex-combatants ensures the state's monopoly on the use of force. The intervening organizations that practice DDR, often but not exclusively the UN, are assisting the government to ensure security in the country. Should these interventions be considered political? This essay will argue that because DDR processes take on an important role in the political sphere of a country and influence the distribution of power by taking away the physical power of rebel groups, the DDR process should be considered political. Organizations conducting DDR will have their own interests, and directly influence political will in a country. Furthermore, lasting demobilization will likely depend on the distribution of political and socio-economic power, which will be assessed by DDR, being closely linked development processes.
Peacebuilding only became prominent in the Post-Cold War period and is the newest in the measures for achieving peace and security (Busumtwi-Sam, Module 7). It rests on the premise that democratization, liberalization and pacification are idea for long term peace and security (Tziarras,2012,3). This premise is considered the liberal peace or democratic peace theory. However, liberal democratic polity and a market oriented economy have the potential to impede the consolidation of peace. These two practices paradoxically encourage societal completion as a means of achieving political stability and economic prosperity (Paris,1997,57). Policies related to market liberalization lends itself to sever inequality, which generates violent political polarization. War shattered states are expected to effectively complete a transformation that took several centuries in the oldest European states all while emerging from the tumultuous situation of a civil war (Paris,1997,78). It is unrealistic to expect war shattered states to become democracies and market economies in such a short time frame. There are examples throughout history that showcase the short coming of liberal internationalism as a strategy of peacebuilding. For example, in Rwanda and Angola political liberalization contributed to the resurgence of violence and in Mozambique, El Salavdor, and Nicaragua, the effects of
This essay will answer this question through a variety of means. In order to measure the question posed, we must first define the concepts of democracy, international peace and security. After having defined these, we must apply the promotion of democracy, using examples from the past to consider whether this is a worthwhile endeavour, and if so, how should we approach it to ensure we achieve what we set out to. This essay will give reference to, but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of, the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’.
Pillars of Peace, an annual report published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, consistently indicates that nations with high levels of development, democracy and economic prosperity are unlikely to engage in interstate conflicts. This provides the framework for yet another crucial argument in favor of free trade and globalization. In his article, The Capitalist Peace, Eric Gartzke (2007) does a rigorous statistical analysis into how free trade effects a variety of sociological metrics such as development, democracy, prosperity and peace. Gartzke found a high correlation between each of these factors. Most notably, he found a mutually causal relationship between free trade and each sociological metric. That is, free trade causes development, democracy and peace and vice versa. Acemoğlu and Robinson (2011) give insight into the mechanisms of this mutually causal relationship. They claim that elements of the global economy and by extension, affluence, will make their way into any country that recognizes property rights and has some form of democracy. Thus, one can say that the policy of governments have an effect on their likeliness to engage in international conflicts. This point is illustrated by Thomas Freedman(1999 ) who came up with the “Golden Arches Theory of Peace.” Freedman discovered that no two countries in which
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and most importantly republican constitutionalism.
The democratic peace theory stems from the generally optimistic liberal tradition which advocates that something can be done rectify the effects of an anarchical system, especially when it comes to war or conflict. For democratic peace theorists, the international system should be one in which there is cooperation and mutual benefits of the states are taken into consideration. The theory depends on liberal ideologies of civil liberties, democratic institutions and fairly elected governments and claims that liberal democracies are different from other systems of government as they do not conflict with other democracies due to the very nature of the liberal thinking and the pacifying role that democracy itself plays. According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that...
Liberalism has contributed to the understanding of International Relations as an academic discipline and through organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the League of Arab States, and others in what many consider to be a very influential manner.
Liberalism and democracy are closely tied together in international politics. They have a central bond which brings out the notion of democratic peace. Today much of Latin America and the European Union practices democracy. The chances of these nations getting into an armed conflict are very scarce in today’s standards. Liberalism promotes the idea of human security and equality and democracy reinforces that idea into the political framework of governing bodies and their higher authorities. Liberalism leads to democracy which promotes democratic peace preventing conflict between nations. This article will look at how liberalism leads to democratic peace through the process of creating democracy.
Why and how did globalization occur? Different perspectives have different explanations as to why and how globalization evolved. Realists argue that international trade is most effective when there is hegemony in the world market, whereas liberalists believe that it is a matter of how countries use the idea of reciprocity in their decision about trade. I agree with the realist perspective because hegemony allows the global economy to enhance and international trade functions the best when a hegemon dominates the world market.
Kegley, Charles W Jr., and Raymond, Gregory A. From War to Peace. New York: St. Martins Press, 2001.
Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm: How aid can support peace—or war. London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers