More War or Less?

Well, after reading through some of the day's latest headlines regarding the growing war in Somalia (one that seems to be much overlooked, much like most of Africa's conflicts), I have decided that it is time for me to share the links that I have been perusing off and on for the last year. I have been attempting to collect data on conflicts across the world, as I was hoping to assemble a 2005 version of the book New State of War and Peace. That plan is on hold.

2006 has been, in my un-scientific impression, a pretty rough year as far as peace goes. I would go so far as to argue that there has been a real uptick in both civil and international conflict this year: Lebanon and Somalia fought new wars, wars continued unstopped in Iraq and Darfur, a potential end to war still looks some ways off in Uganda, an insurgency is growing in Nigeria and a war under cease-fire in Sri Lanka has recommenced.

It is, of course, too soon for 2006 to be evaluated entirely by political scientists, and so it remains to be seen what the effects will be on their theories. I wish to point out three major sources of studies that I have perused: George Mason University's Center for Systemic Peace, the University of Maryland's Peace and Conflict studies, and the University of British Columbia's Human Security Report (this latter has garnered the most press coverage, in the BBC, the Economist and the Atlantic, among others). All three of these academic studies attempt to define what a conflict is, and by their definitions to chart the course of conflict since 1945. All three have arrived at similar conclusions (judging by their charts, perhaps even suspiciously the same conclusions): there was a marked increase in conflict and crisis in the 1980's up to 1992, and then an inexorable decline since then, all headlines to the contrary.

The authors of these reports also reach similar conclusions: the decrease in violence has largely been the result of the international system (meaning the Great Powers and such international organizations as the United Nations) working in concert to end conflicts. Arguably this was true in the 1990's, although it would appear that such a will is diminishing now (look at the North Korea and Iran crises to see potential fissures between powers, to say nothing of Iraq!). Another theory posited for this trend (although not as strongly by the above-mentioned reports' authors) is the democratic peace theory, which depending on its flavor states that war between democracies is either less likely or will not happen at all. I will not go into the details of these theories here, except to state that I am strongly skeptical of such a theory (as is the historian Donald Kagan, who states in his On the Origins of War that war is the more common human condition, rather than peace). A lot of the democratic peace theory would appear to hinge on what is a "democracy" and what is a "war", as Matthew White relates in his humourous and insightful article on his website.

I believe that the democratic peace theory is a major example of what is wrong with political science in academia today. It takes historical events, creates a tautological argument out of them and then attempts to apply it universally as a law, as if it were a physical science. Most people consider true democracy a 20th century invention, and most democracies are considered to be stable societies and economies located in the West (which happen to be allied to each other), therefore, stating that these countries do not go to war with each other seems to be the obvious, and taking this further by stating that no two democracies will ever go to war borders on the irresponsible. It also ignores inconvenient details, such as elected leaders in Cyprus and Turkey being at war with each other in 1974 (there was a military coup attempt in Cyprus, making it "unstable"), Northern Ireland hosting a low-level insurgency, and other small examples. Further, considering that war is by its nature an unstable act that leads to corruptions or curtailments of democracy (Britain was arguably more totalitarian, if also more benevolent and more democratic than Nazi Germany in 1940-1945), it seems to me that proponents of democratic peace theory have defined any case of war out of their study sample!
Historians will remain sceptical of a "science" that has the control group act as the variable group, as they will remain skeptical of a panacea espoused by President Bush as a reason for war, ie the US should invade Iraq and democratize it because no democracies go to war with each other.

The "hard " theory is espoused by R.J. Rummel, who has a blog addressing the theory here (note the nazi atrocity artwork, perhaps he is not being fully objective). The increasingly more accepted "soft" theory recognizes that unstable societies are the most likely to go to war, followed by authoritarian states with anyone else and finally by democracies with each other (meaning that democracies can war with each other, its just the least likey variant). Once again, if stability is the issue, one wonders why we should bother with democracy. Robert Kaplan himself pointed out in a prescient article that democracy is a particular phase in a society's development, hard to attain but able to be passed-by. It seems irresponsible to create policy based on a premise that peace can be achieved by forcing disparate societies to act as if they have experienced the 18th century Englightenment. Some can, others will not.

Finally, I promised to link to the Defence Academy of the UK's reports site. It has a good deal of useful studies on conflicts in the world today. Better to study these and keep an open mind on the future.