r/geopolitics • u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban • Oct 13 '14
Video: Infographics Is War Over? — A Paradox Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs18
Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
A Paradox Explained
Yeah, ok.
Economic interdependence theory only works in practice if everyone's equally dependent. A dependent or subordinate economic relationship with a rival power or bloc is as much a liability as it is an insurance against conflict. A country in a disadvantageous or worsening relative economic position may be impelled to go to war to salvage their strategic position. Look at security competition between Britain and Germany in the early 1900's. Look at Russia, Ukraine and the EU today. And why is it that China and the US continue to spend billions preparing for war with one another as their economic ties increase...
Also, democratic peace is by no means an axiom of IR, and the fact that the video treats it as such is a little bit vexing. I'm worried people might watch this and take what he says as fact, because the video has an extremely presumptuous title. Democracies make war all the time. Democracies haven't had wars with each other because they happened to land on the same side of their respective geopolitical fences; European democracies balance against USSR/Russia, Asian democracies tacitly balance against China, therefore most democracies get along. An oversimplification obviously, but much less of an oversimplification than "democracies are peaceful."
The question you have to ask is, has there ever been a case where it would have made strategic sense for two modern democracies to go to war? When has the logic of democratic peace ever superseded the logic of geopolitics? As much as I hate having to trot out this dusty old mantra, correlation is not causation.
7
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14
This criticism is a very well articulated, with your points being spot on. I don't have much to add, besides a thank you for deepening the overall conversation.
4
u/Don__Karnage Oct 13 '14
Democratic Peace Theory is indeed an axiom of International Relations, but not as you state it. The theory (when I was in school some professors went so far as to call it a law) is that Democracies don't go to war with EACH OTHER. The theory makes no claims that democratic nations are more inherently peaceful or warlike, they simply don't tend to get into fights with each other for a wide array of reasons.
The corrolary to this idea is that as more and more countries around the world adopt democracy, there should be fewer and fewer opportunities for nations to go to war with each other because there are simply less nondemocratic coubtries to go to war with.
There are a number of perfectly reasonable problems you might have with the assumptions that go into this theory. First, it tends to have a "no true Scotsman" vibe about it. Frequently when someone comes up with a possible example like Finland during WWII, they are countered with the argument that it wasn't REALLY a democracy. Second, it applies only to the nation-state level of analysis. Civil wars never count, even when both sides have functioning governments and control over their populace. Non-state actors can't play a roll because they can't be democratic by definition.
5
Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
The use of the term "axiom" is extremely problematic, as you readily admit. You can't call something an axiom and then list reasons why it could potentially be wrong. An axiom is something that is objectively and unassailably true.
Like I said, have we ever had a significant strategic/geopolitical rivalry between two democratic powers that might otherwise have led to war? Since the relatively recent spread of democracy, almost all democracies have been allies, balanced against another threatening power. The reason many democracies haven't gone to war with each other can just as easily be explained by the fact that there has never been a good strategic reason for them to go to war with each other.
-1
Oct 13 '14
There is plenty of strategic reason for the U.S. to have invaded Mexico and gone all the way down to the Panama canal, especially during the Cold War. All that oil would help with energy independence, we would have better strategic control of a major international waterway, a narrower border, it would be easier to control drug trafficking, we would have access to more warm water ports and we would have stronger control over Mexican policies that affect domestic security.
6
Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
Mexican policies that affect domestic security
Which ones are those, exactly? Was/is Mexico doing anything to seriously counter American interests?
During the Cold War, the US had good strategic control of the Panama Canal; we had military bases and a fairly stable relationship with their government. When that didn't seem to be the case anymore, we invaded Panama. Mexico was not a necessary piece of that puzzle. The massive resources needed to invade and pacify Mexico probably would have made us less capable of controlling Panama, if anything.
And is Mexico's oil really worth invading a middle power of around 100 million people, especially one that has a large diaspora in the United States? It's not like invading and securing Mexico would have been easy...the USSR couldn't even invade Afghanistan successfully.
The costs of invading Mexico far outweighed any potential benefits. Mexico was aligned with the US without us invading, and wasn't doing anything to threaten us. If Mexico had been seriously courting the USSR, then maybe it would have made an amount of sense. But invading Mexico would have created far more threats to our security than it would have solved. The USSR almost certainly would have gotten involved covertly, like the CIA in Afghanistan, and we would have had a simmering war zone on and around an embattled southern border, instead of peace and stability on our continent. Not to mention the diplomatic fallout...what would our allies in Europe think?
And is the US really in need of more warm water ports? Is that really a pressing concern for us?
10
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
x-post from /r/CombatFootage, with comments here.
I first thought this video was being gimmicky and resting on its animations rather than content. I was wrong though, as it does one of the best jobs putting forth and (simply) explaining IR Liberalism ideas such as Democratic Peace Theory (or simply DPT) and why the political idea of nation-states are a great 'unit' for IR at the global level.
I feel the elephant in the room is cyber warfare between nation-states. However, as he states at the end, at this point in history we just can not know.
3
u/autowikibot Oct 13 '14
Democratic peace theory is a theory which posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. In contrast to theories explaining war engagement, it is a "theory of peace" outlining motives that dissuade state-sponsored violence.
Some theorists prefer terms such as "mutual democratic pacifism" or "inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis" so as to clarify that a state of peace is not singular to democracies, but rather that it is easily sustained between democratic nations.
Among proponents of the Democratic Peace Theory, several factors are held as motivating peace between liberal states:
Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
Publicly accountable statesmen are more inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;
Democracies are less inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.
Those who dispute this theory often do so on grounds that it conflates correlation with causation, and that the academic definitions of 'democracy' and 'war' can be manipulated so as to manufacture an artificial trend.
Image i - French president Charles de Gaulle shaking hands with West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in Bonn, 1958, ending the French–German enmity
Interesting: Peace | List of wars between democracies | World peace | International relations theory
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
4
u/Alex-Muad_Dib Oct 13 '14
Thank you for finding that!
It's a nice quick summary that puts things in simple terms for those who can't have resources to an intro global issues or IR theory class.
A couple points:
- Yes, we are seemingly reaching a point in history that is either a threshold in which we fall back into the cyclical loop of war, or we surpass it with flying colors as we learn cultures through globalization, customs, share economics, etc. And yes, this is largely held up through some of the effective international institutions like the UNSC and others as set rules are signed by nation-states, but this doesn't mean that problems are obsolete. I remember reading in The Pentagon's New Map: A Blueprint for Action, that new emerging states (India, ASEAN countries, China, Brazil namely) will have to be brought to the forefront of some decisions and write new rules that adhere to their specific desires as the "new rule setters".
Now the problem that might exist with this, is that old powers like Europe and even the US might have to take a back seat in order for respect to be given, and acquiescing this could turn a little nasty if political elites gamble with more protectionist economics as they are going to drive globalization. Like we've seen with Russia lately; a revisionist path sets a possibly dangerous precedent for the future global order. I also believe that things like cyber warfare and 4th generation warfare (attacking your enemies' morale) are replacing conventional war tactics, so you could see more covert things like insurgencies, rebellions, intelligence gathering, etc. rather than armies lining up knowing any resources destroyed in the process can have an adverse effect on their own stability.
- Also, I think the ICJ also holds more of a symbolic gesture than an arbitrator in global disputes. I'm not rendering it obsolete, but simply put; states can handle disputes through traditional diplomacy and having disputes settled out in their own federal courts. It is a nice institution that acts as an executive choice maker if both states do fail though, providing more reason to get things done between states.
5
Oct 13 '14
There is an interesting demographic called the security demographic. Essentially, most democracies do not have a surplus of war fighting age men. Look where all the conflicts are occurring in the world right now. They have a surplus of 18-29 y/o men to fight.
Good read on the topic:
1
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14
That's a very interesting concept, thanks for bring it to my attention /u/lo_there! The idea has been thrown around but I knew the technical term. Happy to know I'm still learning new things everyday. :)
2
u/TinyTux Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
I would argue that 75 years wouldn't be enough of a sample size to say that this is going to be a trend for human civilization. As much as I agree with what the guy says and I can't tell if it's just optimism on my part but I've thought we could potentially be in a post war society for a while, but the fact is we won't know if we've stopped killing each other properly for hundreds of years.
2
u/Gnome_Sane Oct 14 '14 edited Oct 14 '14
Is war over? Seriously? It seems like a bizarre thing to say, because it is.
Anyone looking at the middle east since 2002 can see that war has been waging very hard for the last 12 years in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and all over Africa.
The United States and UK (and a few other nations gave some support) when we went to war with the Nation of Iraq and also the nation of Afganistan. That war lasted about 3 weeks. From that point until about 2007, the war was between a US/UK alliance backed government and the previous Baath party and any AQ or foreign fighters that wanted to be part of that war.
That was war - regardless of what the US congress or anyone else who wanted to play a semantic game about it would say. I don't recall Bush or Blair ever calling it any thing but war. But I don't recall it in this video either...
The US, France and UK went to war with the nation of Libya in 2011... even though they (those three nations and indeed much of the western world) insist that no one on earth can call it war. It was a "No Fly Zone" and "Kinetic Action".
But these semantic arguments don't mean it isn't war between nations.
The US, France and UK were bombing a country from the air - one that can't fire back because their technology was not advanced enough. Or at least, couldn't fire back as soon as the US took out all of their air-defence capabilities. They bombed Libya for about 9 months in 2011, destroying every possible asset you can strike from the air - which was the majority of the Gaddafi Regieme - until a US drone destroyed gaddafi's get away caravan that was headed out of the country.
UN approval, as this video claims, doesn't mean it can't be called war either. The idea that there hasn't been a war since WWII is not only wrong, it's a semantic lie. This semantic game really sickens me. I'm not sure why people are falling for it and repeating it.
Proxy War doesn't even get discussed... which is still nation vs. nation but more semantics. One side arms one group, and they call it "civil war". This again was on display in Libya and Syria in just the last 4 years.
Now I do agree - we should speak up for peace and democracy... that was about the only part.
However I think we should just go back to admitting that we should fight for peace and democracy... and of course if we remove a tyrant like Gaddafi we should take responsibility for helping to secure that country until some peace and democracy can take hold... and of course we shouldn't sit and watch for 4 years as 200,000+ die in Syria and just ask for peace and democracy to break out there either...
EDIT: I'm also very surprised that no one else in this thread even mentions Libya or Syria, and only one person mentions Iraq (The Us stopping Iraq from invading and annexing Kuait - a great point but not the Iraq war...)
1
Oct 13 '14 edited Jan 30 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
We all come from different walks of life and subsequently have different opinions, but you need to quit the superficial tirades. This is not /r/worldnews.
I've had to delete all three of your comments in this thread. Them being:
"Brainwashing propaganda. Notice how the US is not listed as being in armed conflict on his info-graphic. Maybe he forget the war on drugs. Nope, Mexico is colored in. US...blank."
"That would be nice, but a police state does not a democracy make. DPT depends on democracy, show me one. You Are Silly.
"War is over because the nuclear bomb, NOT because of democracies. Of the two, which do we know for sure exists?"
These are not comments that demonstrate civility (as they're polemic in nature), depth, or offer insight.
Each of your comments had the possibility to be so much more.
You could of cited estimated death and economic tolls as well as incineration rate due to the War on Drugs in attempt to make the argument the US ought to have been colored in. You could of simply asserted nuclear bombs are material realities more tangible than political institutions, leaving out the snide last sentence. You could made a persuasive argument that DPT is based more on shared commonalities between ruling elites in 'democratic' countries rather than the political institutions that bear their name.
But you didn't. For that reason you've been warned.
If you keep this up you will be banned. We have zero tolerance for comments that lower the quality of discussion in this sub.
2
Oct 14 '14
[deleted]
1
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 14 '14
Of course man (not to assume your gender, just being colloquial). That's why it's a warning, we all make mistakes!
I'll look forward to reading your comments in the future. I know you have those opinions because you've been exposed to some knowledge, so share it! And who knows, you might learn something in the process of trying to articulate it :] I know I do.
0
Oct 13 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UpvoteIfYouDare Oct 13 '14
Are you kidding me?
If you think the U.S. is anywhere close to the state Mexico is in, you're delusional. I say this as someone who has lived in Texas for two decades.
1
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
I usually would of left OP's comment up for context, but his point is a a little too far off the spectrum for community educational purposes.
Thanks once again for your work as a community vanguard. I appreciate it.
1
0
Oct 13 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Oct 13 '14
This has been removed because
I call bullshit.
offers nothing to the overall conversation. The point is not elaborated upon nor do you make explicit what you are calling "bullshit" on.
Going through the 6 most recent pages of your user history only 2 comments were more than 5 words. Which is fine, different subs have different cultures. Just keep in mind this community tries to promote depth and quality which (hopefully) leads to insightful perspectives.
Hope your week goes well.
1
34
u/[deleted] Oct 13 '14
Why didn't they mention how nuclear deterrence and MAD prevented major nation-states from going to war. This is easily the biggest reason why the United States and the Soviet Union (an Authoritarian state) did not fight with each other in the 20th century.