The Democratic Peace Theory
(DPT) is a natural result of most democratic states in the world. It notices
trends of war (or lack thereof) between democracies and states of other
governments. While the DPT decreases the likelihood of war in many situations, it
also has unfortunate downsides that are often underplayed.
Since
the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, every American president has used the
Democratic Peace Theory to guide his international decisions. This policy
states that liberal states are less likely to go to war with each other because
of expected norms and behaviors. Two democracies will not go to war with each
other because they will solve conflicts through negotiations and speaking.
However, the same standards do not apply to a democratic state with another
state of a different type of government.
The
DPT, however, is slightly skewed. Democratic states tend to have a relatively
secure economic wealth and political stability, which gives them national
security. Since most democracies are like this, it does not guarantee success
if war to occur; it also increases the cost of war, since the other democracy
would have similarly equal resources and military. In decreasing the value of
war against other democracies, they usually tend to war against weaker states
that consequently tend to have a different forms of government.
I
am not arguing the validity of the DPT, since it has historically proven very
accurate. Instead, I am bringing to light the unfavorable results of the
Democratic Peace Theory. Statistics show that going to war increases the chance
of a democratic leader being re-elected to office. Acting selfishly, reelection
is a motivating factor for invading a weaker, non-democratic state. In doing
this, a leader often enters in the name of “spreading democracy.” The problem
with this is that states with alternative governments do not necessarily want a
change. It is easy for democratic leaders to see democracy as the ultimate form
of government, but not all people view the world this way. Invading in the name
of democracy often creates more upset and unrest than if they hadn’t entered at
all.
An
example of such a case can be seen with the creation of the Truman Doctrine,
which led to intervention of Korea and Vietnam during the Cold War. The
doctrine made it the “foreign policy of the United States to support free
peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by
outside pressures. Leading later the U.S.’ containment policy, the U.S.
attempted to fight dictatorships and assert democracy in countries that did not
ask for it. Korea and Vietnam were both devastating wars, and can be seen as a
result of the Democratic Peace Theory, which aims to assert democracy and only
fight non-democratic states.
While
the DPT does indeed decrease the chances of war with other democracies because
of norms, similar institutions, and leaders, the consequences of DPT can be
severe and forgotten about.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteI think you made an interesting point and though I do agree with certain components of your argument, I disagree with others. I think it's true to consider that democratic nations usually have economic wealth and political stability. I disagree, though, with your comment that politicians are more likely to be re-elected during times of war. This is true to a certain extent because politicians will try and use the argument of "not changing leaders during war" as George W. Bush did in the 2004 election, but I feel that the purposeful encouragement of war without a lot of rational reason for it could backfire with the general public, especially if the politician is more blunt about it. But I do think it is more interesting that you shed more light on other contributing factors to the Democratic Peace Theory.
To address your point about Bush arguing to not change leaders during war, I think he argues it because it's rational. I believe that not only would Bush argue this point, but many other politicians would argue it and many citizens would agree with it. During war, the course of events is a combination of political, economic, and social factors. To have an entirely new leader with a new set of moral and political values would vastly change the war. Yes, it might be for the best, however, huge change is never good in strenuous situations. The new leader would be unaccustomed to the position and what was happening. Additionally, a change in leadership could alter the opposing side's actions. Possibly for better, but possibly for worse. The increase in possibility of destruction is raised with a new leader in the middle of war, so I believe that Bush is not the only person who would believe what he said.
DeleteSo are you arguing that these invasions insinuated by the DPT are not beneficial or they are beneficial?
ReplyDeleteI think it would also be interesting to look at US-Sino relations. The United States is a democratic country, while China is an autocratic country, and there has yet to be a military dispute between them. Rather, we have had a strong relationship due to our relationship over trade. DPT also fails in that it does not explain the relationship between China and the United States as well as the influence of interdependence between countries, particularly concerning trade.