POSC 2200 – International Security, War and Strife Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

Unit Six: International Security, War and Strife “Causes of War” Required Reading: Mingst, Chapter 8. Mingst, Chapter 8. Mueller, The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World, Mingst and Snyder, pp Mueller, The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World, Mingst and Snyder, pp Outline: 1. Introduction 2. Practical Causes of War 3. Theoretical Causes of War 4. Is War “Justifiable”

Unit Analytical Questions: 1. Is conventional “general war” becoming obsolete? a. Number of “wars” declining since 1991 b. Number of deaths declining 2. What is the impact of the advent of WMD’s on the nature of war? 3. Why is modern war a mainly “southern” phenomenon? a. Material or ideological factors? b. Power?

1) Introduction: “War”: Sustained inter-group violence in which at least one side includes state militaries What causes war? =Most important concern in IR Practical: Decisions by one or more states (or groups) to use violence as a political strategy War highest form of bargaining and diplomacy? (von Clausewitz) War highest form of bargaining and diplomacy? (von Clausewitz) Caused by underlying conflicts over resources, lands and ideas Caused by underlying conflicts over resources, lands and ideas Theoretical: Many different answers, but all theories only explain some wars and not others Need to think about all three “levels of analysis” Need to think about all three “levels of analysis”

2) Practical Causes of War: What do states and groups fight over? What do states and groups fight over? What motivates them to bargain through violence? What motivates them to bargain through violence? Material versus ideological factors Material versus ideological factors However, most causes are multifaceted – involve mix of practical considerations However, most causes are multifaceted – involve mix of practical considerations

A) Material Motives: Conflicts over competing “interests” =Territory, resources and people Disputes over borders Disputes over borders Traditional cause of war.... Traditional cause of war.... However borders more “settled” then in past However borders more “settled” then in past Norm against violent changes to borders Norm against violent changes to borders Exception: International Waters (?) Exception: International Waters (?) E.g. Lybia

Disputes over people and territory Disputes over people and territory Main cause of war in 19 th and 20 th centuries Main cause of war in 19 th and 20 th centuries Central to both sovereignty and nationalism Central to both sovereignty and nationalism Often “draw in” other states Often “draw in” other states Disputes often intractable = Long-term low- intensity conflict Disputes often intractable = Long-term low- intensity conflict E.g. Break up of Yugoslavia E.g. Break up of Yugoslavia Practical reasons? Practical reasons? Theoretical reasons – often domestic civil conflicts not in international jurisdiction Theoretical reasons – often domestic civil conflicts not in international jurisdiction

Disputes over control of government within states Disputes over control of government within states Modern wars often about changing governments not borders Modern wars often about changing governments not borders Methods: Methods: Invasion and insertion of friendly government Invasion and insertion of friendly government E.g. Afghanistan 1979 & 2002 E.g. Afghanistan 1979 & 2002 External support for dissident groups External support for dissident groups Use of diplomatic leverage to support one faction Use of diplomatic leverage to support one faction

Disputes over economics and resources Disputes over economics and resources Oil Oil Conflict “blood” diamonds Conflict “blood” diamonds Pastries Pastries

B) Ideological Motives: Often hard to separate from material considerations Disputes over nationalism... Disputes over nationalism... Disputes over religion Disputes over religion Micro level – intertwined with ethnic/nationalist conflict Micro level – intertwined with ethnic/nationalist conflict E.g. Yugoslavia E.g. Yugoslavia Macro level – “civilizational” conflict” Macro level – “civilizational” conflict” Christian West vs. Islamic East Christian West vs. Islamic East

Disputes over ideology? Disputes over ideology? Clash between political values and economic systems? Clash between political values and economic systems? E.g. The cold war – hard not to see ideology as key component West’s view of Soviet Union framed by aggressive revolutionary understanding of communism West’s view of Soviet Union framed by aggressive revolutionary understanding of communism

3) Theoretical Causes of War: Many different theoretical explanations for war – however all are incomplete Many different theoretical explanations for war – however all are incomplete Some explanations work in some cases but not others Some explanations work in some cases but not others “Levels of Analysis”: draws attention to range of factors that make war over “practical concerns” more or less likely “Levels of Analysis”: draws attention to range of factors that make war over “practical concerns” more or less likely

“Individual Level” - factors that make war & conflict more likely Character of individual leaders Character of individual leaders E.g. Realist view of human nature E.g. Realist view of human nature Many examples.... Many examples.... However, aggressive behavior may be “natural” and yet not all leaders decide to go to war.... However, aggressive behavior may be “natural” and yet not all leaders decide to go to war.... Misperception Misperception E.g. Suddam Hussein and the invasion of Kuwait E.g. Suddam Hussein and the invasion of Kuwait Thought US would let him do it Thought US would let him do it Thought UN was ineffective Thought UN was ineffective

“State Level” - factors that make war & conflict more likely Political, social and economic factors internal to states Political, social and economic factors internal to states a) Ethnicity – Multination states = more civil war b) Political Structure – Democracies more peaceful to one another E.g. Liberal Democratic Peace Theory

c) Political Structure – Governments lacking legitimacy more likely to engage in war E.g. “Diversionary War”: Theory that leaders start war to divert attention from domestic problems “Scapegoating” - Milosevic in Yugoslavia “Scapegoating” - Milosevic in Yugoslavia National unity in event of international conflict National unity in event of international conflict Argentina (Falklands War 1982) Argentina (Falklands War 1982) Pakistan (Wars with India) Pakistan (Wars with India)

d) Economic Structure – Capitalist states more...? Radicals = Capitalism makes states violent Radicals = Capitalism makes states violent Liberals = Capitalism makes states peaceful Liberals = Capitalism makes states peaceful

“International System Level” - factors that make war & conflict more likely Realism – focus on anarchy Realism – focus on anarchy =Makes disputes over practical concerns more likely to lead to war No authority to resolve practical problems (border deputes or ideological conflict No authority to resolve practical problems (border deputes or ideological conflict “Power Transition Theory”: War occurs when challenger states acquire more capabilities relative to existing powers “Power Transition Theory”: War occurs when challenger states acquire more capabilities relative to existing powers Many “general wars” seen to be caused by this dimension Many “general wars” seen to be caused by this dimension E.g. Japan’s wars in Asia E.g. Japan’s wars in Asia Russo Japanese War (1904-5) Russo Japanese War (1904-5) First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars (1895 & 1931 & First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars (1895 & 1931 &

“Security Dilemma”: Security is zero sum game. Means that any increase in ones states security automatically translated into decreased security for others. “Security Dilemma”: Security is zero sum game. Means that any increase in ones states security automatically translated into decreased security for others. Rationality suggests others must respond by acquiring new capabilities Rationality suggests others must respond by acquiring new capabilities Leads to spiral of insecurity Leads to spiral of insecurity E.g. Arms races which ultimately may cause a war E.g. Arms races which ultimately may cause a war

“Security Dilemma”: British- German Naval Race 1906 – 1914! Makes existing navies obsolete Makes existing navies obsolete Creates opportunity for Germany to challenge British naval dominance Creates opportunity for Germany to challenge British naval dominance 1906: Great Britain builds first “Dreadnaught” 1906: Great Britain builds first “Dreadnaught”

“Security Dilemma”: British- German Naval Race 1906 – 1914! By 1914: Great Britain had 38 dreadnoughtsGreat Britain had 38 dreadnoughts Germany had 24 dreadnoughtsGermany had 24 dreadnoughtsImplications: Britain less secure then before HMS Dreadnaught (!)Britain less secure then before HMS Dreadnaught (!) British state and public become increasingly anti-German – contributes to WWIBritish state and public become increasingly anti-German – contributes to WWI

No explanation works in all cases.... Most wars caused by variety of factors Most wars caused by variety of factors WWI not caused by “Security Dilemma” alone... WWI not caused by “Security Dilemma” alone... Theoretical perspectives do help explain why some states chose war and others do not... Theoretical perspectives do help explain why some states chose war and others do not...

4) Is War “Justifiable”: Historically there have been many attempts to morally and legally regulate war Historically there have been many attempts to morally and legally regulate war When is war “justifiable”? When is war “justifiable”? What is the proper moral conduct during war? What is the proper moral conduct during war? “Just War Tradition”: Defines criteria that must be met to make the decision to go to war ethical. “Just War Tradition”: Defines criteria that must be met to make the decision to go to war ethical. Also suggest conduct of the war should be guided by moral rules. Also suggest conduct of the war should be guided by moral rules. Grotius & Micheal Waltzer Grotius & Micheal Waltzer

Conditions that justify war: Conditions that justify war: Cause: Cause: Self defense Self defense Defense of others under attack Defense of others under attack Major violation of human rights occurring Major violation of human rights occurring Process: Process: Must be approved by relevant international institution (UN – Security Council) Must be approved by relevant international institution (UN – Security Council) All other means of resolving the disputed must have been tried All other means of resolving the disputed must have been tried Forces must be removed once goal is accomplished Forces must be removed once goal is accomplished

Rules for proper moral conduct during war: Rules for proper moral conduct during war: 1. Combatants and Non-Combatants must be treated differently Non-combatants must be protected from harm Non-combatants must be protected from harm 2. Violence should be proportionate to end goals 3. Undue violence must be avoided Use of indiscriminate weapons... Use of indiscriminate weapons... Strategic bombing? Strategic bombing? “Geneva Conventions”: “Geneva Conventions”: Guarantee treatment of prisoners and civilians Guarantee treatment of prisoners and civilians Ban the use of some weapons - Gas Ban the use of some weapons - Gas

Most ambitious effort: “Humanitarian Intervention” & “Responsibility to Protect” Most ambitious effort: “Humanitarian Intervention” & “Responsibility to Protect” Conditions outlined in “Just War Tradition” do not just justify war, they make it morally necessary! Conditions outlined in “Just War Tradition” do not just justify war, they make it morally necessary! E.g. Massive human rights violations mean a state is failing to provide benefits of sovereignty – other states should intervene E.g. Massive human rights violations mean a state is failing to provide benefits of sovereignty – other states should intervene Technically difficult? Technically difficult? Hard to get self interested states to run these risk for outsiders Hard to get self interested states to run these risk for outsiders Usually only possible when intervening states have something to gain.... Usually only possible when intervening states have something to gain.... Unpopular in newly sovereign states of the south Unpopular in newly sovereign states of the south Imposition of western morals Imposition of western morals Reminiscent of colonialism Reminiscent of colonialism However.... However....

Current Wars =Just War’s? =Humanitarian Intervention? NATO’s war with Serbia (Kosovo) 1999? NATO’s war with Serbia (Kosovo) 1999? US led invasion of Iraq 2003? US led invasion of Iraq 2003? NATO occupation of Afghanistan 2001? NATO occupation of Afghanistan 2001?

Risks? “Just war tradition”, “humanitarian intervention” and “responsibility to protect” do more harm then good “Just war tradition”, “humanitarian intervention” and “responsibility to protect” do more harm then good Make war more likely? Make war more likely? Ideals used badly, to justify aggression? Ideals used badly, to justify aggression?

5) For Next Time... Unit Six: International Security, War and Strife “Nature of War” Required Reading: Required Reading: Mingst, Chapter 8. Mingst, Chapter 8. Mueller, The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World, Mingst and Snyder, pp Mueller, The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World, Mingst and Snyder, pp