The relations between political institutions and war have been the the subject of extensive theorizing and academic endeavor within the field of political science. It is widely accepted that political institutions, in this case Democratic and Autocratic governments, have specific characteristics that render them more/less likely to make certain decisions regarding war and peace. In a theoretical sense, what we have come to learn is that democracies do not readily engage in military conflict with other democracies. In fact, there have been no documented cases of such a conflict occurring (unless I have been led horribly astray). Additionally, democracies have only ever gone to war with non-democratic nations.
Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations published two articles that speak to this theoretical framework. The first article asks the question, "Is there a possibility of a future military conflict between China and the US?" Clearly the theoretical issue here is: would a democratic state, such as the United States, ever go to war with China based solely on the fact that China lacks democratic qualities. The article categorically states that the likelihood is slim to none based on the fact that economic ties between them are so close.
This does not mean, however, that conflict is altogether impossible. China has the fastest growing military on Earth, and has territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and India, all of which are American allies. This raises the question of the Power Transition Theory.
The second article that was recently published by the CFR was titled "The US-Japan Security Alliance." This article describes the importance of the US-Japanese alliance in the context of America's so called "Pivot to South East-Asia." It discusses the role of China in the new world (economic) order, as well as North Korea's Nuclear ambitions, and how Japan fits into the picture. Having been WWII enemies, and now post-war democratic allies, this provides a useful juxtaposition to the Chinese issue.
One question to consider is: Should conflict arise between the United States and China, will it be due to the difference of political institutions? Or will it be due to factors associated with the Power Transition Theory?
In response to this blog post, I would first like to say that this post is an interesting one that I think many people bring up time and time again. The reason I think Social Scientists keep bringing up this idea is because of the points that Ben highlighted in his post. One being that China has the fastest growing military and basically the largest army as far as numbers goes. Another reason being China’s growing position in the new world economic order that was pointed out in one of the articles. However in response to the final two questions, I think that if China and the US enter into conflict then I don’t think it will be the result of one sole reason. Rather I think it will be a combination of both ideas. On one hand there is the good point that no modern day democracy has gone to war with another (unless I have been led astray as well) so there seems to be a potential for conflict between the powers. Another idea is something we have talked about in class about polarity, e.g. Soviet Union and US during the time of Bipolarity when neither country wanted to enter into any conflict for the fear of losing their pole of power in the world. This then begs the question: is China considered a pole of power in the world today? The answer to this question I think holds the most weight to deciding if China and the US enter into conflict. If history repeats itself and if the world is considered to be in a time of Bipolarity with China and the US then it seems that there will not be any conflict in the near future. This is my take on Ben’s blog post, however it could have been just me rambling thoughts off the top of my head but then again blogs tend to be the thoughts of others on a certain topic to spark conversation.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the theory of Democratic Peace, it is important to note that the theory places a lot of emphasis on the structure of governments. Autocratic governments concentrate a lot of power into one individual whereas democratic governments diffuse power among many different systems. The powerful individuals in autocratic governments have a strong potential to abuse their power and it is when these individuals abuse their power that democratic vs autocratic state conflict typically occurs. Obviously there is a lot more to the theory of Democratic Peace and the operation of autocratic states. This is merely a crude explanation. When looking at the possibility of conflict between China and U.S. because of institutional difference I believe there is little reason to believe that conflict will emerge. This is because China, although not democratic, has coexisted relatively well in the international community. The communist party has not really displayed an abuse of power that warrants U.S. attention, or, in other words, China doesn't really seem to pose any substantial threat to U.S. interests. It is also important to note that lately China has displayed movement towards more democratic trends, both in economic and political terms. In short, unless there is a radical change of events in how the communist party rules China, there seems to be negligible reason that conflict between the U.S. and China would occur solely because of a difference in institutions. When addressing the idea of power transition, I believe the article you referenced on the possibility of conflict between the U.S. and China provides a very valid point by comparing Soviet-U.S. relations with China-U.S. relations. During the Cold War the U.S. did not have substantial economic ties with the Soviet Union. The fact that China's economy is greatly intertwined with the United States' is a very important factor in considering future conflict. It's as if power is shared between the two states in a mutual relationship where the U.S. is an important consumer and China is an important supplier. Nye's explanation of soft power and global interdependence seems to apply here. There may be more incentive for a peaceful relationship due to economic ties rather than violent conflict because of a perceived threat of losing power as a global pole. In the case that conflict were to occur I think it would involve economic separation of the U.S. and China paired with perceived threats to each other's interests or security. I, however, find this highly unlikely mainly because China's growth is a result of the U.S.'s business.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Democratic Peace has been strongly supported through observation, it is only one of a series of factors that contribute towards maintaining peace. Personally, it seems more likely that democracies don’t only provide stability, but rather their relationship in the economy, which can sometimes extend beyond democratic institutions towards authoritarian regimes. For example, it is largely shared that “a U.S. – China war can be avoided is based largely on their strong economic relationship” (Keck). Therefore, the capitalist peace expresses that economic development, free markets, and shared interstate interests can all anticipate the retraction of militarized disputes or wars. According to Erik Gartzke of Columbia University, “war is a product of incompatible interests and failed or abortive bargaining, peace ensues when states lack differences worthy of costly conflict, or when circumstances favor successful diplomacy” (Gartzke). For Gartzke, this is because war is de-incentivized when democracies contain the three necessary attributes of a mature capitalist economy and later replaced with peace. These three attributes are the “rising importance of intellectual and financial capital… substantial overlap in the foreign policy goals of developed nations in the post-World War II period [which] further limits the scope and scale of conflict… [and] the rise of global capital markets creates a new mechanism for competition and communication for states that might otherwise be forced to fight” (Gartzke). Inevitably this creates an international financial system where countries are dependent upon eachother because conflict is too costly. Therefore, democratic institutions possibly create an environment of international economic dependence, which incentivize democracies and authoritarian regimes to incentivize because war would drastically diminish the country’s standard of living.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
DeleteGartzke, Erik. "The Capitalist Peace." Columbia University, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
Zachary, Keck. "Why China and the US (Probably) Won't Go to War." The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 12 July 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.