War and Peace and such things

Part One of a primer on international politics

Even a cursory scan of human history is enough to reveal conflict is a recurring theme in it. Humans have been fighting each other for millennia. We have two major wars going on right now, one between Russia and Ukraine, and another between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. Less than a hundred years ago, European nations fought two major wars amongst themselves killing millions. Before that, colonial imperialists like Britain and Spain fought bitter wars all over the world in India, South America and so on.

Why do we fight wars, especially in the modern world? I have been reading up on this, as I am wont to do from time to time. Here’s what I have learned. Just so you know, a lot of this will seem self-evident when you read it.

There is a reason why the Palestinians are at loggerheads with the Israelis. There are explanations for why Putin invaded Ukraine. Before we get into them, let’s zoom out and examine the rationale for war in the first place.

Before anyone accuses me of pretending to be a foreign policy and international relations expert, let me state the obvious: Duh, I’m no expert. I’m just another guy. However, I feel the need to share what I have learned for the important reason that we are all voters. We must understand what leads to war so we may elect leaders accordingly. In 2024, both India and the US will go polls to elect their heads of state. We must evaluate the candidates on their proclivity for war (and peace). If we elect reckless warmongers, we doom ourselves. It is in this spirit that I write. I may be just another guy, but I have a couple of things going in my favor - I am a quick learner and once I have learned something, I am good at explaining it to others.

What sort of thinking drives war (or peace) in the modern world?

A lot of the modern Western thinking around war, conflict and power can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes, whose 17th century book “Leviathan” argued that the pursuit of “the greatest good for all” was futile and would only lead to war “by all against all.” Hobbes laid the foundation for what has now come to known as “realism” in international relations. Hobbes argued that without a strong, central authority, the result would be chaos. It is pertinent to note that Hobbes wrote his book at a time when England was in the middle of a bitter civil war. He argued for the establishment of a strong and powerful hierarchy (called “the Leviathan”) to promote peace in war torn England.

What distinguishes hierarchy from anarchy? Hierarchy is essentially governance by a powerful central authority. In an emergency, we call 911. If there is a dispute, we call the police. In a hierarchy, the central authority plays that role. In countries, governments are the central authorities. However, in the world, there is no such central authority. When the Gazans plead for help, there is no one listening. Yes, the United Nations was designed to do that. In reality, it lacks the power to respond. Anarchy is merely the lack of a central authority. Nations have hierarchies but the world is anarchic. It’s just the way things are.

It is easy to believe that hierarchies are essential for peace and stability. This is not always true. A hierarchy is no guarantee of peace since it’s quite possible that the central authority can be dictatorial and oppressive, leading to rebellion. Similarly, anarchy does not automatically guarantee war or chaos since it’s quite possible for equally powerful groups to peacefully negotiate with each other.

There are two competing schools of thought in modern international politics: Realism and Liberalism. Broadly, they differ in terms of how they view power and survival. The realists aim for accumulating as much power as possible and maximizing the chances of short-term survival. The liberalists tend to shoot for maximizing economic prosperity. To realists, being the most prosperous nation is a secondary goal. With liberalists, being the most powerful nation is a secondary goal. There are few “empires” in the history of the world who have been both the most powerful and the most prosperous simultaneously. The most current example is, of course, that of America.

The basis of liberalism is that democracies tend to trust each other. Ergo, the liberals believe that if the world was filled with ONLY democracies, then the chances of war become slimmer. Also, they tend to argue for economic interdependence and trade among nations in the hope that ideals of prosperity will deter war. Finally, liberalists tend to build institutions such as the United Nations in the hope such central bodies can help arbitrate disputes peacefully.

The realists believe that it is impossible to govern the world through central institutions, given the any number of differences in opinion that may arise over time. Which is why perhaps they call themselves realists. “The world is a chaotic place by nature, and nothing will ever change that. Our best bet is to be as powerful as possible.” There are sub-divisions within realists. One sub-group believes that human nature is predisposed to conflict and a “will-to-power,” and all wars are a consequence of such a tendency. The other sub-group of realism believes that wars are “structural” in nature. Structural realists believe that wars are created by an inherent world structure in which there is no hierarchy possible. Therefore, wars are inevitable. Since wars are inevitable, the wisest course would be to acquire as much power as possible.

To summarize, here’s what I have said: The two competing schools of thought are realism and liberalism. Realists favor the accumulation of power. Liberalists favor the accumulation of prosperity.

It is not hard to see that the realists are not averse to wars, and the liberalists tend to favor diplomacy and trade. This is not to say that realists are de facto war mongers. Indeed, many of them are. But there are also the “defensive realists,” who favor the accumulation of power not to exercise it but to deter threats.

At first glance, it is natural to want to believe in the liberalism credo. After all, who wants war, except for a handful of depraved, blood thirsty psychopaths. Most of the time, nations do tend to be liberalists, and try to promote peace, trade, diplomacy, and such. They change course only when their survival is threatened. In other words, survival almost always trumps prosperity. Security threats are usually why wars start in the modern world. A war these days is almost never a result of religion or language, or a trade deal gone bad, as once used to be the case. If a nation is attacked, it will certainly respond. In other words, it’s all fun and peace and trade and prosperity until someone does something to threaten someone else.

The question then arises: why would someone do something to threaten someone else out of the blue? The answer is not a simple, linear one, but it is almost always because there has been a group of military strategists sitting out there whether in post-world-war-2 America or Nazi Germany or colonial England who are scouting for ways to accumulate more power. When they sense weakness in the world, they tend to take advantage. The English established the East India Company in Calcutta, which they claimed was a peaceful trading entity. Before long, they sensed weakness and Robert Clive made his move in Bengal. Hitler did likewise in Europe with Poland and France. The Americans did the same in Vietnam, and Iraq.

It is not like liberalism works all the time either. Siraj-ud-daulah, the Nawab of Bengal naively assumed that trade with the English would be to the benefit of both parties. The dude lost his head and kingdom over this bad assumption. The loss in Bengal was costly. The English never looked back. They ruled India for two centuries. Strategic errors are expensive in geopolitics.

We can argue all day long about what is more effective – realism or liberalism. Are humans so incorrigible that we can’t learn to negotiate with each other? Or are we better off embracing this sordid reality and waging wars so we can police an anarchic world? I’ll leave it to you to decide where you land on this one. Suffice it to say that there is no blue pill that cures all ailments.

However, we can use this framework to identify why wars start and who is responsible when they happen. Who started the Russia-Ukraine war? Was it Putin as the West claims, or was it America that instigated the war? We can use the framework to identify bad actors when they arise. Is Hamas the only bad actor in the Israeli war on Gazans? Or, does Netanyahu also bear culpability? We can use this structure to choose leaders more aligned with our personal philosophy. Do Joe Biden and Narendra Modi deserve to be world leaders? What kind of foreign policies should India have? What is America’s role in the world? The answers will depend a lot on where you stand on the realism vs liberalism debate.

In the next installment, I plan to examine the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine wars and offer my opinions on Biden’s and Modi’s foreign policy approaches. Stay tuned.

Have a great new year and a terrific week ahead.