A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Liberal Accounts of the Causes of War (Research Paper Sample)

A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Liberal Accounts of the Causes of War
Name
University
Causes of War
Several theoretical arguments have been advanced to explain the cause of war among nations. The realist perspective, advanced by Hans Morgenthau in 1948 postulates that states’ behavior is largely determined by the “human nature,” the desire to posses more resources and military power than others (Morgenthau, 1948). Thus, war results from the desire by states to increase their relative powers by demonstrating their military might. The core tenets of realism rest on the assumption that “international conflicts are driven by states’ self-interests, such as competition for power and resources. Neo-Realism, a version of classical realism that was advanced by Kenneth Waltz in 1979 contends that war and conflicts are caused by the pressure exerted upon states by the anarchic nature of the international system. The anarchical nature of the international system creates constraints upon states, which in turn compels them to counter threats to their security and political stability. States achieve this by seeking to increase their power and regional dominance, which may lead to military conflicts with other states. The liberal theory, in contrast, argues that war result from the lack of freedom and democracy among states. It contends that dictatorial and despotic systems are more likely to go to war than democracies. This is because democratic systems create a fair play-ground that satisfies the needs and interests of all parties in an impersonal way, such as the free market (capitalism). For instance, Joseph Schumpeter’s view on liberalism contends that liberal ideologies pacify nations by eliminating the need for war. He argues that “capitalism produces an unwarlike disposition; its populace is "democratized, individualized, and rationalized" (Schumpeter, 1955; 68). This paper presents a comparative discussion of the causes of war in light of the realist and liberal schools of thought.
Realism is rooted in the ideas of Machiavelli, who observed that “in politics we must act as if all men are wicked and that they will always give vent to the malignity that is their minds when opportunity offers” (qtd in Donnelly 2009: 32). Machiavelli emphasized on human beings’ imperfect nature, which conditions their actions. Thus, war is a result of that imperfectness, whereby human beings are, by their nature, seek to exploit opportunities for self-aggrandizement. The U.S. invasion of Iraqi may fit within this explanation, in that the U.S. used its military might and the excuse of nuclear weapons to attack Iraqi, whereas the real objective was to gain access to oil resources in the Middle East.
Realism often refers to the sovereignty of states as a crucial factor in the causation of international conflicts. In offering an explanation for the occurrence of wars, the various realist perspectives converge on the common argument that “the key actors in world politics are sovereign states that act rationally to advance their security, power, and wealth in a conflictual international system that lacks a legitimate governmental authority to regulate conflicts and enforce agreements” (Levey, 1998, p. 145). This argument suggests that states are on their own in the anarchic international system. Waltz attributes war to anarchy due to the absence of a universally accepted and legitimate authority to enforce agreements and prevent wars. Consequently, left on their own for survival, states seek to promote their self-reliance by strengthening their militaries, political and economic stability. However, these efforts often end up in the competition for power and resources, thereby creating a perfect environment for rivalry and conflicts.
Realism focuses on power as the commodity for which states compete on the international scene. Because there is anarchy in the international system, states are suspicious of each other, and this state forces them to engage in power-balancing struggles, leading to conflicts and wars (Nye 1988; 584). States actions, therefore, are rational and in response to the incentives created by the environment in which they exist– defined as “the international system of states” (Nye, p. 585). The realist explanation of the causes of war is analogous to microeconomic theory in explaining market trends, in which business firms respond to market forces of supply and demand by adjusting prices accordingly. Waltz’s Neo-Realist perspective contend that states always act in ways that counterbalance the power of other states (particularly those perceived to be enemies) in order to preserve their independence and security under the anarchic situation of the international system. The series of military spats between North and South Korea demonstrate this reality, in that each nation regards the other as a threat to their security, hence their competition in nuclear armament and forging alliances with friendlier states (the North Korea-China alliance vs. the South-Korea- U.S. axis). In this light, war can result from actions whose original intentions were to discourage it. War can occur not simply because some states would prefer to go to war, but as a result of “unintended consequences of actions by those who prefer peace to war and are more interested in preserving their position than in advancing it” (Levy, 1998, 145). This is the case with South Korea, whose military expansion and alliance with the U.S is meant to serve as a warning to North Korea and discourage it against launching an attack. Thus, even defensive actions by states aimed at guaranteeing their security through military expansion and armament, forging alliances with friendly states, and issuing deterrent warnings can sometimes be perceived as provocations for war and lead to counteractions by rival states and eventually lead to international conflicts that may be difficult to resolve other than through military means. For instance, South and North Korea have in the recent past raised their military alerts severally, but these actions may provoke one to launch an attack against the other. This is what has been labeled as the security dilemma in international relations; “the possibility that a state’s action to provide for its security may result in a decrease in the security of all states, including itself” (Jervis, 1978). That is why Washington gets concerned whenever other states test their nuclear missiles, even if the U.S. may not be in direct and immediate danger.
However, realism has been criticized as being static due to its failure to consider the dynamic nature of the international system. Chiefly, realism cannot accurately account for the varying factors in war and peace, for example during the first and second world wars (Nye, 1988; 585). This necessitates the need for alternative viewpoints to account for variations in the occurrence of war. Waltz recognizes this limitation, particularly with regards to Neo Realism in offering a general explanation for the causes of war by conceding that “although neorealist theory does not explain why particular wars are fought, it does explain war’s dismal recurrence through the millennia” (Waltz, 1988, p. 620).
Liberalism offers this alternative by attributing the occurrence of war to the structure of economic relationships. For instance, liberalism posit that “free trade promotes economic efficiency and prosperity, which in turn promotes peace” (Levy 1988; 663). Any measures that interfere with the unrestricted functioning of the market, such as imposing trade constraints, reduce profits and increase the chances of conflicts. The origins of the Cold War during the 20th century between the U.S. and her capitalist allies on the one hand and the USSR and her communist allies on the other demonstrate th...