Since the late
1700’s, many have looked at the Democratic Peace Theory as an outline of steps necessary
to follow for a peaceful world. But while many agree with this theory, many
also see flaws in it. Initially DPT made a lot of sense to me as it assumed
that republican governments were essential to a world without war. The theory
argued that since republican rulers are acting in the interests of the public,
they are more likely to make decisions which avoid conflict whereas autocratic
rulers are really only worrying about themselves since the public has no voice
or say in the matter. However, when I began to think about the current conflict
between the US and the Middle East, I began to question this theory.
The
point of DPT is that if we, as a successful, democratic state go in and
help weaker states stabilize their government and instill a democratic
foundation, it will benefit us in the long run, due to the fact that “secure
nations are more likely to support free trade and maintain democratic structures”,
eventually leading to a world free of conflict. However, isn’t that exactly how
we got into the conflict we find ourselves in now? In 2003 we invaded Iraq with
the goal of training their army and leaving them with a democratically elected
government. We succeeded in this task, only to leave Iraq in 2011 and have the
entire foundation come crumbling down due to a group of radicals gaining support
from those who felt unfairly treated/ represented in the democracy. Now, as
they are revolting, America finds itself back in the midst of conflict, with
increased involvement in Syria through air strikes. Now, from my perspective,
it seems that with aims of peace in war torn countries, we ended up only
contributing to more conflict years later.
Now,
I do believe that if we want any sort of shot at a peaceful world, weaker
countries need to be stabilized. Most of the conflict that seems to be going on
today revolves around weak central governments and the people not having a
voice. However, at what cost can we fix this? In her article “Democratic Peace Theory: An
Appropriate Guide to Foreign Policy”, Jennifer Jackson mentions the philosophical
gap between the long-term goal of world peace and the short-term goal of
national interest. I feel this is the most important idea to look at when
establishing the appropriateness of DPT. It’s no secret that stabilizing a weak
country takes time. But the problem is,
while we are devoting our time and resources to helping weaker countries build
a foundation, we are involving ourselves in conflicts we really have nothing to
do with. To me, the idea of getting ourselves involved in all these wars for
the purpose of one day not being in wars seems kind of ironic. Nobody in
America wants to be in war right now if we don’t need to be, however I do
recognize that if we want to even potentially have hope for a peaceful world
one day, actions like this are necessary. I think the real issue just comes in
us, as a nation, deciding how far we are willing to go in order to ensure this
possibility. As one of the strongest, most stable countries in the nation, I
see how we have a sort of obligation to help weaker states. However I think
there has to come a time where we put our foot down, and say enough is enough.
The Democratic Peace Theory lies a nice foundation for a globally stable future. However, the more we involve ourselves in other countries’ conflicts,
the further away the possibility of peace seems. So until a time comes when all
countries are stable, I think we need to find a better way to involve ourselves
in other countries’ issues than what we’ve been doing, because judging by how
well it worked out when we invaded Iraq, it seems some serious change is
necessary.
Jackson, Jennifer,
“Democratic Peace Theory: An Appropriate Guide to Foreign Policy?
Lauren, I think an important thing you mention here is the gap Jennifer Jackson notes between the long-term goal of world peace and the short-term goal of national interest. I think this is one of the major issues that major international conflicts come back to, (for example, US v. ISIS) because though individuals are living for today, a huge goal of major states (in my opinion) is to prepare for the future and think about the big picture. But often times, as you mentioned, these are not cohesive and create many conflicts on interests. Individuals naturally want instant results, and those in charge of the states want to make the people happy while also want to stick to their duty of thinking long-term, and thinking in terms of the interest of the well-being of the world. This is what makes international conflicts so difficult, in particular our involvement in Syria. Though finding a balance between short-term and long-term interests may seem impossible, it is the only way to begin to find the best solution to the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Lauren here, that while it may appear to be in our long-term benefit to stabilize these countries and set up democracies it is consuming to many resources and certainly not in the short term goals. The US has been in a near constant state of war since it became a nation and this has been a huge boon when these wars are successful but it has dragged them down as of late. There is no sense in continuing these wars particularly when, as I wrote in my blog post, the Democratic Peace may not even stand up as a real reason for the current relative peace.
Delete