Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Peace and Conflict Studies, Page: 291-313 David P. Barash &Charles P. Webel, 2002 LONG KimKhorn, PUC, MA.

IRs-Diplomacy, ID: 61283 Summary: Peace through Strength? Date: Feb 6, 2013 Most people including the statesman believe the best way to maintain peace is military power. When there were many determining military force is a part of problem, not the solution, others believe mass murder is their specialty and peace is their profession. Historically, agree or disagree, military strength was being conceptualized as the best way to prevent war through out the 20th century, especially, after the World War I &II. Peace through strength is the new terminology and concept instead of the Latin Vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war). Henry Kissinger said a geopolitical balance of power is obtained when the primary contending states are roughly equal in their military strength and, in fact, balance of power is the precondition of peace. In Realpolitik, to some extent, the Cold War involved maintaining a balance of power between the nuclear forces of the United States and the Soviet Union, especially, in 18th and 19th century. Balance of power, here, refers less to arm races than to a constantly shifting system of alliances whereby states arranged themselves to keep any one from being too powerful. For example, during the 1930s, Winston Churchill sought to rally Britain against the growing might of the rising Nazi Germany. Another example, in 16th century, when Spain was strong and threatening, England fought Spain then when France under Louis XIV appeared capable of dominating Europe, England joined military alliances against it, repeating the process against Napoleon. When balance of power is a mean to prevent war and make peace, it is a problem maker also because wars, often, occur when rival states disagree about their relative strength and they end when both sides agree. Evidence also suggests that wars tend to break out when there is a slight imbalance, especially, if one side has grown rapidly but has not yet reached the power of its opponent and then the window of opportunity will become to the window of vulnerability. Theoretically, in the balance of power - the weaker states will be attacked by the stronger states. Furthermore, balance of power also increases the involvement in wars when the wars broke out because a larger number of states ally themselves with one side or the other. As for relative balance is never static and may generate instability. Efforts to upset the balance, on the part of an ambitious ruler or state, may readily succeed and lead to war. For example, Soviet Union and the Prof. Dr. Raimund Weiss Student: KimKhorn LONG

Peace and Conflict Studies, Page: 291-313 David P. Barash &Charles P. Webel, 2002 United States on the Cuban Missile Crisis. And military alliance also be pointed out that crucially important to any balance of power system do not promote war either. Collective security is the system that states promise to refrain from using force against other members of the collective, except that they agree to band together against any member who attacks any other within the group. Beside this advantage, there is disadvantage such agreements are only as good as the will of the participants to abide by them and states may be understandably reluctant to meet their treaty obligation that they may face with boycotts, trade embargoes and other economics sanctions. In history, given the uncertainties of maintaining peace through balance of power or collective security, unsurprisingly, many government leaders focus on national security via military force standing by itself avoiding military alliances. There is a primitive logic to the notion that one is better off being strong than weak. For example, United States was victorious in essentially every major military engagement in the Vietnam War. The worlds strongest military power dropped 8 million tons of bombs (making more than 20 million craters) and nearly 400, 000 tons of napalm, killing approximately 2.2 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, maiming and wounding about 3.2 million more, and leaving more than 14 million homeless but was defeated. Some country maintains their national security through superiority. Fearing to be seen as too weak, too accommodating, too easily pushed around, government leaders are prone to use threats of military force in efforts to coerce an opponent. For example, China made it clear that it would respond militarily to any unilateral assertion of independence on the part of Taiwan, which the Chinese maintain is an integral part of One China. Typically, national security is seen as deriving from military strength but it is often a two-edged sword, evoking less security rather than more. This security dilemma arises because states, trying to enhance their security via military forces and alliances, succeed only in making other states less secure, which is turn militarily themselves. Some state tend to thing of security as an exclusive, competitive accomplishment security for me can be purchased only at the cost of insecurity for you and so their quest for national security, government leaders may intentionally or no actually create enemies. Other countries use the benefits of armaments as the bargaining chips to provide leverage in disarmament or arms control negotiation with the other side.

Prof. Dr. Raimund Weiss

Student: KimKhorn LONG

Peace and Conflict Studies, Page: 291-313 David P. Barash &Charles P. Webel, 2002 Supporters of peace through strength like to point to the fact that no U.S.-Soviet war took place in the nuclear age, even during periods of intense rivalry and antagonism. We can look at the context of world events: the 45 years from World War II to the end of the Cold War was not really all that long. More than 20 years separated World War I and II; before that, there were more than 40 year of peace between the end of the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, and 55 years had elapsed since the previous major war, which ended with Napoleons defeat at Waterloo in 1815. The point is that periods of peace are not unheard of, even in war-torn Europe. Advocates of peace through strength often maintain that states have no choice. They must maintain and even increase their armament because if they relied less on military force, they would be at the mercy of another state that continued to arm heavily. This situation called the Prisoners Dilemma, basically, it occurs when the payoffs are in the following relationship: T>R>P>S. In this case, the players are tempted to get T, fearful of getting stuck with S, and so they wind up getting P (a punishing arms race) when the best mutual payoff would have been R, the reward for cooperation or mutual restraint. So the Prisoners Dilemma can be useful in clarifying our thinking, and indeed, variants of it are used extensively by analysts in the pro-military strategic community.

Prof. Dr. Raimund Weiss

Student: KimKhorn LONG