Civilizing Peace Building

Twenty-first Century Global Politics

Wendy M. Sargent

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754670407
• eBook ISBN: 9781317165392
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Relations internationales

Highlighting the high price paid by the United Nations and international peace builders that under-utilize the reflexive new paradigm approach to international relations (IR), this study develops an overview of IR theory, relied on by governmental and diplomatic communities as a guide to peace building. Especially significant is the development of IR theory in relation to religious extremism and tendencies towards barbarism with modernities. It discusses outcomes such as the exponential growth of international enmity between diverse populations and public demonization of the religious or ethnic other, expressed most recently through the War on Terror. Central to this research is the emerging debate on the impact of religious and cultural identity on IR and peace building. While many IR books continue to research positivist approaches, Sargent looks at the concept of structural violence as identified using post-positive approaches. This book rethinks peace building outside the limits of ideological difference.

SECTION ONE
Approaches to Building Peace

Chapter One

Approaches to Building Peace in State Centric International Relations

Introduction

In the first half of this book, in three chapters, three different approaches to international relations and peace building, state-centric, cosmopolitan and intercivilizational approaches are discussed. These are explored in relation to the focus of the book, ‘the theory, and practice for building peace in international relations’.

Chapter One takes up the three core themes of the book.Part One, called Theories of State Centric international relations, takes up Theme One. This search for better international relations theory is developed in a review of the philosophical foundations and practical outcomes of state-centric international relations from the point of view of peace building.

There are three main state-centric approaches, the first is traditional realism, the second is neorealism, and the third is the realist theory of international society. The state centric approach places sovereign states as the key actors in international relations. Realists in this case focus on the goal of security rather than peace. Morgenthau is a seminal theorist of realism. According to him, ‘the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power … statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power’ (Morgenthau 1962, 5).

The second realist approach explored is neorealism, understood as a theory that underlines balance of power as the key to international order. According to neorealism, creating international systems that ensure continuity of the balance of power is the main task of international politics. The neorealist looks for the systemic attributes that bring about conflict, and affect the behaviour of the states. This contrasts with the traditional realist for whom the motives of individual states are the driving force behind conflict. In the view of the neorealist, the international system of states is anarchic and depends, for its stability, on a balance of power between states. These two realist approaches are compared for effectiveness and emphasis in relation to peace building.

The third realist approach examined is the Grotian International Society approach. There is a discussion on how this approach acts as if states were a part of an international society that is as if they were limited and controlled by common rules and institutions. Unlike the previous two approaches, interactions of states are seen to be founded on more than just war and conflict, but also on economic and social relations, institutions of ethics and morality, that allow for coexistence and cooperation.

Part Two is titled Institutions of State Centric International Relations and takes up Theme Two and Three of the book. Theme Two is developed in relation to the role of religion and metaphysics in present state centric institutions of international law, diplomacy, conflicts of cultural difference and the analysis of the ‘War on Terror’. Theme Three, opening thinking spaces between diverse others is also developed in Part Two, especially in the discussion on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the Gandhian approach to peace building.

I. Philosophy and History of State Centric Relations

Realist theory comes out of the European philosophical traditions. With a history of three painful and all encompassing wars (Napoleonic, World War One, and World War Two), and the continuing conquests of colonialism, Europe emerged after World War Two with a pragmatic and power oriented view of interstate relations. Pragmatic realism is sometimes described as power politics or Realpolitik, and is founded on centralizing power in the nation-state. Central aims of realist politics are to maintain order and stability.

The European history of war essentially forms the foundation of developing realist theory and practice. The practical experience of war and interstate relations in Europe was seen to offer insight and understanding that could be used by countries outside Europe. However, the question remains whether the theory of realism, fully interprets the European experience of war and in turn peace building. This question will be explored further in this chapter.

The philosophers drawn on by the realist European tradition come from as early as Greek and Roman times. The Melian Dialogue of Thucydides is often quoted. One of Thucydides more famous sayings speaks for itself. ‘[A]ct with realism on the basis of what we both think, for we both alike know that in human reckoning the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it … . He continues, the powerful exact what they can and the weak grant what they must’ (Thucydides, ‘The Peloponnesian Wars’ translation by Jowett 1963, 181).

This conversation was about a war between the two states of Athens and Melos. For Thucydides power rather than justice was the major influence in interstate relations. The principle is that the weak, and in this case powerless, have no alternative other than to bow to the wishes of the powerful.

As with all sources of realism, Thucydides is contested as a realist source. Critics such as Alker and Garst question the assumption that Thucydides is an example of a traditional Realist. They say that further readings of The History of the Peloponnesian War, find Thucydides rejecting the idea of general laws explaining international conflict. Garst points out, ‘Thucydides reminds us that power and hegemony are above all bound to the existence of political and social structures and the inter-subjective conventions associated with them. [Nothing] could be more foreign to Thucydides’ way of thinking than neorealism’s a-historical treatment of these concepts’ (Garst 1989, 25).

Alker (1984, 817) further claims that Thucydides’ status as a scholar is ignored by Realism. A better outline of his position would be as one who invokes a contextually appropriate practical-normative standard of just conduct and institutional worth rather than, as claimed by realists, a source for universalised a-historical truth.

A more recent classic source of inspiration for realists was Machiavelli. Machiavelli, a Florentine from the seventeenth century, wrote a book called The Prince, used by realists as a classic example of the art of leadership and the use of power. Again, justice and morality are shown by Machiavelli to take second place to the power game needed for each state to survive (Machiavelli 1952, 77). The expectation of self-sufficiency led nation-states or city-states of Machiavelli’s time to develop their own armies, as a means to defend themselves. Machiavelli was concerned with war, morality, and the way power ruled over ethics. The world for Machiavelli was not moral, and thus the principles by which people lived in such a world were by default amoral. In the Prince and the Discourses, Machiavelli states the following,

How we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation. A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good (Machiavelli, 1950: XV, 56).

Realism relies on the linear credibility of its homogenized image of history. This makes Machiavelli, as the Renaissance voice of realist wisdom, important. Machiavelli’s writings are sourced as an example of realist narrative, in which power is described as reigning over ethics in the decisions of states. Realists point out that for Machiavelli, all behaviour is rationalised for reasons of state power, and ‘the end justifies the means’.

In the 1980s, critical theorists criticised the realist interpretations of Machiavelli readings. First, as Walker (1989, 30–40) pointed out, chosen realist readings from The Prince exclude areas of other texts by Machiavelli that do not support the realist position. Machiavelli’s other works such as The History of Florence and The Art of War reveal his complex concern with Greek ideas of polis. A critical inquiry approach taken by Walker of Machiavelli’s work reveals the textual certainty of power politics in the writings of Machiavelli as problematic. The problem Walker highlights is the manner in which the discipline of International Relations, bases itself on textualism and representation, which it then supports by historical facts or political economic certainty. The revelation that the critical textual approach reveals Machiavelli’s texts can be read in a different way, in turn leads to the drawing of different conclusions from those of the classic realist interpretations.

Thomas Hobbes is also used as a classic text source for realists. Hobbes was from England and was born in the seventeenth century in the same era as Machiavelli. Hobbes was a royalist and at the time, he wrote his book Leviathan, the English Parliament was in conflict with the royal family. Hobbes’s main aim was to support powerful, centralized political rule. Hobbes’s ideas of human nature are founded on Puritanism and in his most famous work, the ‘Leviathan’; he summarizes what humans would be like in a state of nature. Hobbes’s description of the state of nature is both memorable and graphic. He speaks of a ‘continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man (as) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ (Excerpts from Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes 1965: Book 1, 13).

Hobbes believed the only way to escape from this state of nature was to give power to a leviathan. Realists usually interpret leviathan as meaning an absolute state, hegemonic power, or ‘great power’. However, more recently, interpretations state that, in Hobbes’s time, it is more likely that leviathan referred to a wise and priestly king or Christian sovereign. Much controversy surrounds the orthodox interpretation of Hobbes’s view. It is possible that his Leviathan performed a religious as well as a ruling role. As Hobbes (1651) states in Excerpts from Leviathan the Leviathan was not just to prevent the rule of the state of nature, but also to ‘keep them all in awe’ (Hobbes (First Ed 1651)1965: Book 1, 13, 103–65). The realist assumption was that there was an inevitable and endless war between states. This assumption called for the development of rules of war. Realist theory developed certain rules for war.

Another source for realists was Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831), who was defined as a realist because of his emphasis on national security and strategy. During the Cold War, Clausewitz became popular in the USA and Europe as well as the Soviet Union. He was a Prussian officer who became a general and served in the Napoleonic Wars. Clausewitz realized the importance of the military but recognized its subordination to political, social, and economic factors. For him war was ‘a continuation of political activity by other means’ (Clausewitz On War, translation by Michael Howard and Peter Paret 1976, 87).

One of the last of the important classic sources for realism, but also for liberal internationalism (See pluralism Chapter Two) is Grotius. Grotius lived at the same time as Hobbes and Machiavelli, in the seventeenth century. Grotius was a social contract theorist. His ideas of international society are developed in his works Mare Liberum (1609) and De Jure Belli a Pacis, and its translation On the Law of War and Peace (1625). The ideas are further developed by Hedley Bull (1977) and Martin Wight (1974) who both belong to the English School of International Relations.

There are important differences between the classic realist, and the realist international society approach, of Grotius and Bull. The English School includes values and norms as significant elements in international relations. Grotius is classed as a realist, since he accepted the central realist assumption that states in anarchy are in a state of war. His main concern was to set up a world order in which the rights of states to go to war could be ordered through institutions, rules, and laws.

In the twentieth century, realism was developed further by two central figures, those of Carr and Morgenthau. Edward Hallett Carr, as with Grotius, has been acclaimed by both realists and liberal pluralists as a source of theory and understanding. Carr’s famous work, The Twenty Years’ Crisis was an attempt to

analyse the underlying and significant, rather than the immediate and personal, causes of the disaster [World War Two] (Carr 1962: ix). His aim was to help ensure the continuity of peace. He had a realist view of the causes of war. The exercise of power always appears to beget the appetite for more power … Wars, begun for motives of security, quickly become wars of aggression and self-seeking (Carr 1962, 111–112).

Mostly Carr is known for his criticism of idealist and utopian thinking. Idealism was a doctrine that assumed a harmony of interests where each state actor sought to establish their own national interest as well as the assumed interest of the international community as a whole. Carr criticizes the idealist ‘assumption that every nation has an identical interest in peace, and that any nation which desires to disturb the peace is therefore both irrational and immoral’ (Carr 1962, 51).

However, although critical of the naivety of idealism, Carr also disagrees with the extremes of realism, which divorced morality from politics. Carr’s way of resolving these extremes is outlined,

Any sound political thought must be based on elements of both utopia and reality. Where utopianism has become a hollow and intolerable sham, which serves merely as disguise for the interests of the privileged, the realist performs an indispensable service in unmasking it. But pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of international society impossible (Carr 1962, 93).

Carr also develops the idea of morality in international relations, through treaties, law, and ideas of a new international order. Carr was instrumental in encouraging the establishment of the League of Nations, but as a means to collective security founded on treaties and law. He recommended that structures and systems of world order be managed by the League of Nations.

The other important central figure in twentieth century realism is Hans Morgenthau (1948), who wrote Politics among Nations, referred to, by realists and neorealists, as a ‘great text’. ‘Politics among Nations’ outlines the basic principles of power politics. Morgenthau, a central realist theorist, defined the problem of relations between states with different religions and cultures as a part of the divide between idealism and realism. Morgenthau dismissed the influence of religion as weak and insignificant in comparison with that of nationalism.

The supranational forces, such as universal religions, humanitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and all the other personal ties, institutions, and organizations that bind individuals together across national boundaries, are infinitely weaker today than the forces that unite peoples within a particular national boundary and separate them from the rest of humanity (Morgenthau 1955, 312).

Morgenthau based his norms on the realities of politics, not in the ideals and ambitions of politicians. This analytical, and to some extent dogmatic approach, has helped inform state policies. For Morgenthau, ‘Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim’ (Morgenthau 1955, 312). This was taken up by US foreign policy makers and became, in the minds of some critics, a self-fulfilling prophecy. US realist driven foreign policy during the Cold War was primarily about power, not ideals. As Morgenthau noted, ‘politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature’ (Morgenthau 1955, 4).

Morgenthau believed that, in an anarchical system of states, survival was and had to be the ‘bottom line’ of state policy. This overview of the philosophy and history of those who act as sources for the realist approach to international relations forms the basis for the following sections.

1. Traditional Realism Versus Neo-realism

In order to identify contributions of realism and neorealism to present international relations, their differences in relation to the main assumptions will need to be examined. Traditional realists work from the assumption the state is the most important actor in international relations. The international state system dates from 1648, when the Treaty of Westphalia was made between the defeated Catholic Hapsburg rulers and the Protestants. The institution of balance of power, a foundation stone for state power versus interest group power, was set up to prevent the Habsburg royal family from trying to create a universal monarchy in Europe, in the sixteenth century. Since The Treaty of Westphalia, international politics has been about the relations between sovereign states. The key feature of relations between the states was the common recognition of each other’s sovereign realms. Several core assumptions of realism are related to building peace in international relations.

The first assumption to be discussed is that nation-states are in a state of anarchy, and that there is no authority above that of nation-states. Nation-states are the sovereign entity; they exercise complete authority over their own territory. Here the distinction between the function of authority and the function of power is important. A hierarchy of power exists among states but not a hierarchy of authority. The lack of any such outside authority is why states, according to realists, have come to rely on power. This emphasis on power in turn creates a lack of trust between states. This means that states have to rely on self-help, rather than rely on another state too heavily for security matters.

The anarchical state had to be ready to fend off its neighbours, who were driven inevitably by their desire for power to commit acts of war. This resulted in the security problem of having to remain armed and ready to defend one’s state borders. Kissinger elaborates, ‘Balance of power is the classic expression of the lesson of history that no order is safe without physical safeguards against aggression’ (Kissinger 1964, 317–8).

Balance of power also refers to what is called bipolar or multipolar balances of power. Waltz (1993), a neorealist, defines balance of power in multi-power terms, proposing that the twenty-first century will become multipolar, with the USA, Europe, Japan and Russia as the main poles. As Waltz points out,

States do not even enjoy an imperfect guarantee of their security unless they set out to provide it for themselves. If security is something the state wants, then this desire, together with the conditions in which all states exist, imposes certain requirements on foreign policy that pretend to be rational. The departure from the rational model imperils the survival of the state (Waltz 1959, 201).

A second assumption of realists is pointed out by Viotti and Kauppi (1993, 35). In the international system, each state speaks with one voice, although internally the state may be made up of many voices. The state is assumed to act as a unit, rationally controlling its direction and goals. However, realists grant that this is a simplification of the state’s internal complexity of parties and interests. However, they justify this by pointing out that simplification allows theorists to look at the international picture, rather becoming concerned with just domestic issues of the state actors.

A way of understanding this is through the traditional realist definitions of high versus low politics. The unified voice of the state is expressed in the concern for high politics of security and geo-strategic issues in international relations. Low politics are often termed domestic politics, which include economic and social factors and issues of the nation state. In realism, high politics dominates the agenda on an international level. This is because realists regard international relations as endemically hostile and security as the main priority in international relations.

In traditional realism peace, as an ideal, seems rather unreachable since the assumption is that security is achieved by gaining power, not by developing peace. The state with more military power inspires fear in would be attackers, preventing them from making war with the ‘secure’ state. Low politics includes the issues of economics, human rights, poverty, and environment. These are not regarded in traditional realist theory as being a priority.

By contrast, the neorealist gives the highest importance to issues of economics, human rights, poverty, and environment when they are related to power and security. For example, a state’s participation in, and interdependence in, the world economy is note...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Section One: Approaches to Building Peace
• Section Two: Institutions and Initiatives for Building Peace
• Bibliography
• Index