War And Peace Coursework Example

War and peace
By (name)
Tutor
Course
Institution
City
Date
War and Peace
Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) is a theory of peace that restrict a democratic nation from engaging in war with another identified democratic country. However, DPT tends to tolerate war between democratic and non-democratic countries. Immanuel Kant initially formulated the concepts of democratic peace theory in the 18th century. However, development of DPT and its relation with the American nation can be traced back to the year 1823 when USA announced the Monroe doctrine which discouraged Europeans aggression towards the USA. From that period the USA has dramatically championed for democracy hence bringing out the difference between democratic and nondemocratic nations. DPT was formally established in the early 1970s, and it happened that USA was the one heading the democratic countries against the authoritarian USSR. The essay will argue that after the World War II, democracies are peaceful in their relations with other republics and the reason of the democratic peace is based on the US’s power. Nations that have embraced this theory develop an essential link between USA’s security and an opportunity to maintain their unity even when democracy fails to resolve the conflict between the nations. However, some of the counter-argument that will be used in this essay include; peace between democratic nations is facilitated by the rules of DPT, the shared beliefs and interest these nations have between themselves and benefits that arise from democracy such as electing effective leaders.

Democratic countries tend to co-exist peacefully because they share common beliefs and share interest which reduces any possibility of conflict. The other reason why there is peace between democratic nations is that the public elect’ leaders, therefore, these leaders are more accountable when dealing with issues such as wars.
Arguments on this issue of war and peace cite that democratic nations can achieve peace because of US power over the issue. However, this isn’t the case because other issues such as collective interest between these nations have a fundamental influence on that peace. One of the primary reasons why democratic states are unlikely to wage war against each other is the fact they share shared ideas, beliefs, and interest. Most democratic nations aim to achieve the welfare of the citizens hence will aim at balancing power, maintaining stability and focusing on the economic importance of the country. Also, democratic states have a common interest in achieving connectedness which will lead to the development of their nations (Hirst 2001, p 160). However, studies can support that claim that US power over the issue of war and peace is the one that leads to peace between these democratic nations. For instance, before the onset of WW II, most governments were under colonial regimes. Hence they were under authoritarian rule. However, after the war ended democracy started to be implemented in most countries, and it was much influenced by USA policies. Therefore this great success in political changes in many nations from the authoritative government to democratic government under US policies which has affected peace between democratic states can be attributed to the power US nation has. Despite the fact that US effort aimed at not only benefiting these nations but also to achieve the welfare and interest of Americans one can justify that the peace that has been produced afterward is due to their effort. Most of the democratic nations aim at achieving economic growth, promoting liberty and preventing disasters such as drought. On a close look at the logic of DPT, it’s evident that USA nation aimed at achieving a democratic world where countries would benefit from the democracy. Nevertheless, the US will have accomplished its interest such as having few threats, it will have fewer immigrants, and it will have better trading and economic partners (Anderson 200, p7). In many instances, US has achieved to intervene between nations that are waging war against each other with the example of Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it has ended up that the US has taken that opportunity to benefit itself economically.
Democratic nations have been able to achieve peace due to other factors such as a need to maintain power rather than US power over the issue as some studies prove. With democratic peace theory, democratic nations can protect their power because they are united. It’s straightforward that countries are competitive and acquisitive as well. Also, it’s clear that a nation aim’s at maintaining its power as well as its statutory interest hence the safety and stability of a nation are integral. Therefore it’s only power which can achieve this safety, and the best way to maintain that power is for a country to be under democratic peace theory. Security and power can either be obtained through waging wars against enemies or through becoming defensive. Therefore the need for nations with similar ideologies and same interest to be under a coalition to protect their power is a significant reason behind US power that has influenced peace and safety among democratic nations. DPT is an essential theory that promotes international peace by changing the democratic countries not to engage in war with each other. This theory can be used to explain past events as well as predicting future international behavior. For instance, during the cold war, democratic nations were able to unite to control the spread of communism. Due to their shared interest to control communism there were able to achieve a common goal which is peace and was able to form NATO.
The other primary reason why democratic states don’t engage in wars with one another beside that notion of US power over the issue is that of the rules of the democratic peace theory that promote peace between democratic states but allow the democratic and non-democratic nation to engage in war. The unity that exists between democratic countries is facilitated by rules that bound DPT. One of the rules is that of ensuring peace between sovereign states; the second rule is that which formulates ways in which war should be conducted and thirdly there is that rule which requires states to engage in battle only under a just cause (Hedley, 182). Such rules aim at minimizing any possibility of war and that the reason why those under it can exist in peace. Moreover, peaceful co-existence between democratic states is promoted by the ideology of liberalism which supports freedom and interdependence. With liberalism, the democratic nations will be able to share some socio-cultural aspects and will be able to use a standard language which will promote transnational social bonds. Moreover, the countries will be able to achieve safety which will influence both political and economic development. Therefore the integration and cooperation that exist between these nations help them in controlling wars.
The other reason why democratic nations can achieve peace amongst themselves is that benefit they derive from exercising democracy. Democratic countries are unlikely to engage in war because of democracy limits the possibility of war. With freedom, the citizens are empowered to elect their favorable leaders, and the power in the nation is assigned to different bodies hence minimizing that possibility of a leader to lead a country to war. And it’s from such situation that democratic nations can maintain peace (Mandelbaum, 26). Also, democracy has a natural attraction to order whereby it allows a democratic nation to peacefully resolve their disputes moreover it allows democratic politics to be exercised in a country hence facilitating peace which is enjoyed by democratic nations. Therefore that state of nations being under democratic peace theory it promotes peace among the nations whereby even the smallest government feels secure because it is assured of support from the other democratic nations in case of any security. Due to this situation, nations can reduce that notion of purchasing or manufacturing weapons to protect themselves hence ends up achieving international peace by even reducing fear and tension in other countries. Despite the fact that no country can achieve total disarmament that state of being under democratic peace theory minimizes that urge of a government to purchase nuclear weapons.
The primary reason why studies acknowledge US power as the dominant factor that influences peace between democratic states is role USA plays in being the police of the world after WW II. However, US role on the issue isn’t the sole reason why democratic nations have achieved peace because other matters such as the effectiveness of leaders in those democratic nation play a great part. According to Mandelbaum (1998), it’s clear that war can be controlled and that nation can achieve peace when a hegemony exists to watch over the other nations. The USA has reached to use its power to promote peace all over the world and more efficiently among the democratic countries. As history proves when there is when there is one world hegemony the chances of war are very low because any other smaller country can’t stand to go against what is stipulated by the head nation. From 1880-1945 there have been several hegemonies which have rose and fell with time, but since WW II the US has proven able to maintain peace and to control war due to factors such as power it possesses. With the defeat of USSR, there has been a tremendous drop in the number of individuals died due to war. Despite the fact that the USA has accomplished efficiently it role than any other hegemony the world has ever had the nation has continued to benefit significantly from its function because it has been able to control the number of threats it had. It’s due to the character the USA plays that the democratic peace theory is still at the place and nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Israel aren’t waging war against each other like in the previous years. USA dominance in the world has allowed it to promote freedom and peace all over the world especially in the last 25 years. It’s straightforward if the USA wouldn’t be the hegemony of the world autocratic nations such as Russia and China would presume their previous dominance over other countries which would lead to war between nations. It’s undoubted that battle in this 21st century can be the most disastrous war ever and this can be justified by the sequence gotten from WW I and WW II. Whereby in WW I about 10 million people died whereas in WW II approximately 50 million people died which means another world war can be very disastrous (Mandelbaum 1998, p 21). Therefore there is an excellent essence of US being the police of the world because it has been able to facilitate peace by intervening war-like situation. Nevertheless, other vital factors such as effective leadership in these democratic nations have a significant influence on the peach achieved in these nations. Each leader in a democratic state aim at fulfilling matters that will meet the benefits of the citizens otherwise he/she stands a chance of not being elected (Rosato, 2003, p 587). Also because these leaders engage the citizens and other stakeholders such as the opposition leaders when making an international affair the leaders end up making an ethical decision which significantly influences peace among the nations.
In conclusion, US power over other nations and the national role in influencing democracy that eventually leads to peace is the primary reason why some studies justify their conclusion that the peace achieved between democratic states is due to US power. Also, US‘s role as the police of the world is much influenced by its power, and it’s due to this role that it’s able to intervene between warring nations and to end up promoting peace internationally. Nevertheless, this isn’t the sole reason why democratic countries have achieved peace amongst themselves because of other factors such as active leaders who make effective decisions and benefits that a nation receives after exercising democracy play a lot in influencing peace and harmonious co-existence.

References
Anderson, P. ‘Force and Consent’. New Left Review, New Left Review 17, September-October 2002, pp5-30.
Hedley Bull – Ch 8 War and International Order
Hirst, P. War & Power in the Twenty-First Century, (2001), ‘Introduction’ and chapters 2-3.
Mandelbaum, M. ‘Is Major War Obsolete?’ Survival 40/4 (1998-99), pp.20-38.
Rosato, S. ‘The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,’ American Political Science Review 97/4 (2003).
Shaw Review of Kaldor