Introduction
Nowadays world’s ‘multipolarity’ creates the great conglomerate of interests and world views, which are of great importance, when they arise on the international arena. According to the main principles of the UN, they are to be respected and balanced so as to achieve so-called sustainable development. Otherwise, the consequences could be rather negative for the rest of contemporary multipolar world. According to Mearsheimer, multipolarity is more likely to cause potential conflict dyads, that the previous bipolar world, when the conflicts could be generally caused by two great existing powers (Brown, 1998). That makes the study of the causes of wars and conflicts the issue of great importance, which has to be analyzed.
The previous century has shown that act of aggression, from domestic conflicts to inter-continental wars, was used as a tool to achieve certain state’s goals. It is usually said that this happened due to lots of authoritative and totalitarian states, which ignored the democratic principles and sovereignty of other states. Their main vision consists in such state of affairs, when ‘the end justifies the means’.
Theoretical Background
These circumstances were the basis for establishment of democratic piece theory, which states that democracies are no less war-prone than non-democratic states, since they must answer to their citizens, who could later by the price for war in blood and treasure (Layne, 1994). However, the theory has shown its insufficient character and disability to cover lots of examples, when democracies took aggressive measures so as to achieve their goals. Those are several examples of conflicts between Great Britain and France in 1888, France and Germany in 1923 and so on (Layne, 1994).
Additionally, this theory is divided into certain subtheories, including economic liberalism, peace-loving democracies, and obsolescence of war (Mearsheimer, 1990). All of them from the very beginning are built on such thesis that ‘there could be exception from the theory’ and the universal theory for the modern society cannot be created.
The last hypothesis is thought to be the explanation why wars have stopped being a means for achieving national goals, meaning the consequences of the WW II have influenced the collective consciousness to such extend that people realized how destructive the war is. Though, our target is to cover the issue of the reasons for wars taking place, but not to explain the sustainability.
In contrast, realism theory has been used to explain war conflicts at different levels since the creation of political science. It is preferred by lots of scholars working in this field. According to this concept, the war is inevitable feature of the international relations, and it cannot be omitted only thanks to the state’s form of ruling (Brown, 1998). The reasoning for war is usually following: states make decisions for war or peace on the basis of changes in the distribution of capabilities in the international system (p. xii).
Even if the state has changed, the international relations according to realism theory remain the same, namely anarchy (Layne, 1994). Anarchy per se refers to the fact that there is no central authority capable of making and enforcing rules of behavior on the international system’s units (p.11).
Offense-defense theory proposes 10 main war-causing effects, which will be taken into account in this paper. Those are following: arise of war, when the offense dominates, for instance, when there was a period of empires, which used to build their policy on hegemony and interventions (Evera, 1998). It will be denoted as conquest as well.
Among other war-causing factors there are: first-strike advantages are larger, raising dangers of preemptive war; windows of opportunity and vulnerability are larger, raising dangers of preventive war; states more often adopt fait accompli diplomatic tactics, and such tactics more often trigger war and so on (p.6).
At each level of war there are its specific causes, which we will be dealing with. In my opinion, there is always some background behind the wars, certain lasting and lingering malice, which was ignored and then it arises. In general, it could be stated that there are five main reasons why wars start, namely lingering sentiments, status quo, public outcry, conquest, ideals or religion.
Main Body
Causes of Internal Wars
The first level or type of war is internal, which is often referred to civil wars or revolutions. For the analysis of this type of war the following historical examples will be taken: Russian Civil War in 1917, Cuban Revolution, the Korean War etc. They will be looked at through a prism of the mentioned five principles, highlighting which of them demonstrates the conflict comprehensively
The formal cause of the Korean War was, according to historical data, the willingness of Syngman Ree, the President of South Korea, to unite the whole country by force, which was divided into two parts by the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Hickey, 2011). It can be concluded that in this case we can distinguish certain reasons from those, which are being proven as the main ones in the paper. At first, the status quo reason can be highlighted. Concerning Korea as a single state, which is not divided into two states, different only ideologically, it can be understood that political elites struggle for establishment of status quo. Democracy peace theory, in contrast, claims that democratic states on mutual respect establish status quo due to the negotiations procedure (Layne, 1994). In our case democratic South Korea preferred military campaign.
Second cause of war, namely conquest, was also present. It should be analyzed in context of the intervention on the territory of Korea by the previously mentioned two powerful states. Thus, the formal struggle for uniting Korea concealed the desire of the two powers, which have already started the Cold War, to show their strength or merely to conquest. That is why this war is often called a civil war with foreign participation on both sides, incorporating two causes – conquest and status quo (Hickey, 2011).
Behind the Russian Civil War there were many reasons leading to its occurring. Among them we should mention the existing monarchy regime, which was a barrier for people from enjoying their liberal rights, such freedom of speech and thought, freedom assembly etc. Particularly, those, who performed their liberal rights, including Bolshevik leaders, were persecuted. Lots of people were imprisoned as well as executed.
That was the basis for massive public outcry, combined with lingering sentiments and conflict of ideal (monarchy versus the power of working class), since the peasants and other representatives of the mass’ issues, including poverty, lawlessness, and misery, made them support ideology, contrary to the existing imperial one. Thus, lasting antagonist statuses of different classes of that time Russia led to the long-lasting war. In context of defense-offense theory it is stated that ‘unpopular regimes are more vulnerable to subversion or revolution inspired from abroad. Subversion is a form of offense, and it affects international relations in the same way as do offensive military capabilities’ (Evera, 1998)
Spanish Civil War taking place in 1936-1939 was the arena, in which two ideologically different sides fought so as to define the future of their states. Here the ideals played important role, when the nationalists, ruled by Franco, defeated the republicans, having established dictatorship in Spain.
Nationalism in context of war-causing factor is analyzed by Brown (1998), who says that nationalism provides an inspirational liberation doctrine that can be used to mobilize strong popular resistance to conquest. The main theories of war do not pay much attention to the issue of nationalism, which, in fact, could be looked through such reason as ideals, identified in this paper. Additionally, Hitler’s conquest ambitions and the plans of invading other European states played important role as both cause of war and the condition, which led to Franco’s victory.
The Cuban Revolution, inspired by Castro brothers, is another example of internal conflicts, which was based on a number of catalysts for it. Public outcry, caused by limitation of their rights and liberties by the President Batista, who, inter alia, cancelled the elections and imprisoned lots of activists (Schleisinger, 1973). As far as it is known, the Cuban nation is aggressively customized to the Americans, since the former organized different military intervention to their state. Thus, Batista, who was supported by the U.S., also led to appearance of general sentiments of the citizens, who desired to overthrow him.
Mexican Revolution, which took place in 1910-1920, is another example of population’s struggling for their rights, freedoms, which are not secured, guaranteed, or merely foreseen. Paramo and Cruz (2016) characterize this revolution as the most important in the previous century, since it was a revolution led by simple men rising up and asserting their fundamental rights, and succeeding. It was the public outcry, response to the previously established authoritarian and repressive regime.
Causes of Interstate Wars
Among the reasons why certain wars occur between the states the following could be mentioned: border disputes, expansion, and lingering ill sentiment. It could be also done’ in context of extending democracy and market economics hold sway in other nations, our own nation will be more secure, prosperous and influential’ (Layne, 1994).
The first example of such type of war is Arab-Israeli wars, which all resulted in Israel’s defeating a number of Arab states. The first war, which is also known as the War of Independence, which could be explained in terms of offense-defense theory as self-defense, which, in fact, is ‘more difficult because others' forces have more inherent offensive capability’ (Evera, 1998). Though, Evera’s concept explains only one side of the conflict, though it was started by the Arabs, who were ruled by religion reason and desire to conquest the territory, which they thought was theirs, hence, border conflict arises.
During Six-Day War, started by Egypt, the basic principles of democracy peace theory, i.e. diplomatic approach and negotiations, international mediation, have shown their ineffectiveness. Egypt’s desire to establish status quo by returning the Sinai Peninsula, lost during the previous war (Lorch, 2016), and to rehabilitate their military power, were the reasons for the war to occur.
Russo-Japanese War, if it is explained in terms of offense-defense theory, had to be resulted in Japan’s victory, since ‘moving first, as Japan did, is more rewarding, since the incentive to strike first is larger because a successful surprise attack provides larger rewards and averts greater dangers’ (Evera, 1998).
Though, the theoretical basis of the theory is insufficient in this case, since it cannot predict the outcomes of war. Dealing with the causes of war, we should also mention conquest reason (in order to broaden its own territory), which inspired the Russian Empire to conduct such activity on the east, which made Japanese authorities anxious and in need for self-defense.
Falkland’s War between the UK and Argentina has many reasons to occur. Besides Argentina’s invasion as a part of border dispute between the state, the problem consists in, additionally, diplomatic failure to prevent the conflict, since there were no formal diplomatic relation between the states.
The proof of such conquest reasoning can be extracted from Argentina’s President quote, when he said: ‘The war will not be finished for us, because after the defeat of our enemies in the Falklands, they must be blown away from South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and all Argentine Austral archipelagos’ (La Prensa, 1982).
The democracy peace theory proposes that war cannot occur in case there are democratic mechanisms to prevent it, when it can be negotiated, when the government is responsible for its actions before the nation, however in this case this thesis is denied.
Indo-Pakistan War arising in 1965 proves that conquer motivation of using the war is almost a universal reason. Pakistan started the war against India in order to annex Kashmir, a part of India’s territory. That resulted in the greatest tank battle since the WW II. The Pakistani invasion was supported by mass’ support, which democratic or not, according to realism concept, can become deeply imbued with nationalistic or religious fervor, making them prone to support aggression, regardless of costs (Mearsheimer, 1990).
The conflict between Chad and Libyan forces took place in 1978, which was followed by a series of interventions, made by Libya. It was done in order to spread the civil war in Chad to the north and to gain control over certain parts of the territory of Chad.
Reasons for Inter-Continental Wars and Conflicts
Among the examples of such conflicts, which involved more than two states, Indochina wars deserve mentioning, in which states pursued different goals, however, they can be united under the title ‘conquer’. Here the so-called syndrome of previous metropolis occurs, when the desire to obtain the previously owned colonies appears. France, for instance, was aimed to return its former colony of Indochina (Thuan, 2012).
The French leaders believed that that ‘Vietnam was the “backdoor” to China; that the Mekong River and the Red River could lead them to Yunnan province in South China to expand France’s trade with China. In the end, they found that this approach was too dangerous and cut across treacherous terrain and therefore was definitely not a “backdoor” into China’ (p.28).
Korean War, if we talk about it in context of the UN’ reaction, but not limited by the civil war, which was already discussed, can be called the inter-continental war conflict. The target of Security Council reaction was to establish status quo, having recommended all the member states to provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea.
Suez crisis is another conflict, which provoked lots of states to participate in it. At first, the President of Egypt Nasser announced nationalization of the Suez Canal Company to provide funding for the construction of the Aswan High Dam (BBC).
Having had own interests in the Canal, British and French governments pursuing their own political and economic goals, the states demanded Israelis and Egyptians to withdraw their forces to a distance of 10 miles from the Suez Canal and demanding that Egypt allow British and French forces to temporarily occupy key positions guarding the canal (Barlow, 1997). This is how status quo and conquest simultaneously affect state’s decision-making.
There is simultaneously a need for the previous state of affairs, when the Canal was controlled by the above-mentioned countries, and, secondly, when the methods of democratic states do not correspond with democratic ways of conflict resolution and it is more likely to be called conquest.
Conclusions
Thus, it can be found out that existing theories are insufficient and they cannot manage to describe the reasons for war comprehensively, even though they benefit the theoretical background for further exploration of issue of causes of war. They fail to analyze the experience of interstate relations, which often could be the basis for war conflict, as we have seen in the examples of Pakistan and India, Cuba and the U.S. etc.
Additionally, it is necessary to highlight that it cannot be generalized that certain war conflict is caused only by one reason. Moreover, it shouldn’t be said that there was one main reason, which led to the final consequences. It is thought that the reasons for war have to be analyzed in more complex way so as to understand the nature of war and to find out which steps are to be made so as to prevent wars in future.
References
Barlow, J.G. (1997). Answering the Call: Carriers in Crises Response Since World War II. Retrieved from:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/suez.htm
Brown, M.E. (1998) Theories of War and Peace: An International Security Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1998. Print.
Evera, S.V. (1998). Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War. International Security 22(4), pp.5-43.
Hickey, M. (2011). The Korean War: An Overview. BBC News. Retrieved from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_hickey_01.shtml
Layne, C. (1994). The Myth of the Democratic Peace. International Security 19(2), pp. 5-49
Lorch, N. (n.d.) The Arab-Israeli Wars. Retrieved from: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/the%20arab-israeli%20wars.aspx
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War. International Security 15(1), pp. 5-56.
Paramo, P., Cruz, A. (n.d.). Mexican Revolution 1910-1920. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jlago/fl380/source3_02.htm
Schlesinger, A.M. (1973). The Dynamics of World Power: A Documentary History of the United States Foreign Policy 1945–1973. McGraw-Hill
Thuan, D.D. (2012) The Federal Republic of Germany and the First Indochina War (1946 - 1954). Justus-Liebig-University of Gießen.
