Order 607332: Read this paper and answer the question

War in Developing Countries

For nearly forty-five years that nations were surrounded by cold war, its primary cause was seen to be at the center of global politics (Leffler & Painter, 2005). The war dominated foreign policies of two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States and the outcomes much impacted their economies, military and political institutions and the societies at large. Besides, the war shaped most of the domestic politics of several nations across the world and their foreign policies. Since the war took place immediately after the Second World War, understanding its origin is central to events that took place during the first half of the twentieth century. Therefore several historians have had a conflicting interpretation of its outbreak grounded on the philosophical and ideological differences some of which were influenced by the cold war that was ongoing. In one of the articles, inequalities in economic political and social levels between different groups are seen to be the primary cause of conflicts in the developing countries (Stewart, 2002). In that article, the author presents that out of the ten states that are poor across the world, eight of them suffer from violent conflicts at higher levels. He adds that in developing countries, war leads to severe a social and economic cost which in turn is viewed as the primary cause of underdevelopment and poverty in such countries. The conflicts that these nations engage in due to their differences escalate to wars and the results impacts their social lives in a negative way, for instance, the Germans and Rwanda where their countries were involved in conflicts, which had severe repercussions.

Intrastate Conflicts Causing Interstate War

The interstate war in most cases is fueled by the conflicts and rivalries that exist between the intrastate nations (Elhefnawy, 2011). This can be seen in several instances whereby countries that are rivals joining together with other nations to form an alliance that will enable them to encounter their enemy. Therefore in explaining the causes of interstate war, there is need to also look at the intrastate factors since they are the primary cause. In this, four hypotheses regarding economy have been put forward in explaining the origin of intrastate wars. The first explanation is group motivation, and in this, since conflicts mainly involve people from different groups, their sentiments, ambitions, and motives generate the motivation to engage in war. Such teams may be divided along religious, class, geography or cultural lines but, the fight becomes worth to participate if there exists other relevant differences such as the exercise and distribution of economic and political powers. In such situations teams are expected to seek redress or they are persuaded to do by leaders and in case redress becomes impossible, they will resort to war (Dreyer, 2012). The groups that are relatively privileged may also be motivated to engage in battle to protect their privileges from being attacked by the deprived individuals. The group differences even have the political social and economic dimensions. The second hypothesis is own motivation hypothesis and in this wars are seen to confer benefits and costs on the involved parties which motivate them to fight. For example, the young people may benefit from war by securing employments though recruitments as soldiers. Besides, engaging in combat create the opportunities to loot and profit from activities such as participating in trade in illicit products like timber, diamond, drugs, firearms and many others. Therefore in cases where there is the likelihood of enrichments from war, despite lack of employments and low incomes, the benefits shall dominate and that the durations in which countries will engage in battle will be higher. For instance if a leader maintain his position due to war, there is likelihood that it will last (Chiozza & Goemans, 2004). In this hypothesis, therefore, countries tend to engage in war because of the benefits that will accrue from that war either regarding employment or participating in illegal activities. The third hypothesis talks of social contract failure which is derived from the fact that, social stability is dependent on a social contract that binds the people and its government together. In this, the people will accept the state authority if only the government provides reasonable conditions concerning incomes and employment. Therefore when the economy of a nation declines or stagnates, resulting too reduced services, the contracts breaks causing violence and war to erupt. The implication on this is that “as poverty levels rise, and the state services decline, individuals resort to a conflict which in turn causes war” (Elhefnawy, 2011, p.11). On the final hypothesis which is green war, this refers to poverty being the result of environmental degradation causing war. Therefore there are three variables to consider, environmental degradation, poverty, and conflict.

US Invasion of Iraq

To further understand other factors that may have fueled war and violence between nations, one of the cases that shall be discussed is that of United States invading Iraq. This invasion can only be understood through analyzing it at three different levels. The US grand global strategy, its position across the middle east that was termed as strategic and the interests that surrounded the ruling of George Bush and its coalition (Heinrich, 2015). Once this is understood, the war is seen to expose the inner mainsprings of the Middle East policies of the United States as well as its pivotal role in the US strategy globally.

To understand the Iraq invasion, the focal point to begin on is the strategy that the US had under the leadership of Bush that forced them to undertake the coercive assertion of the global hegemony. The doctrine of bush and national policy on security for 2002 that was formulated as a response to the 9/11 attacks made it explicitly a turn to advocate for dominance on the full spectrum. This called for a strategy for dealing with the resistance to the US though preventive wars instead of the traditional containment (Hinnebusch, 2007). This was one of the strategies that resorted to unilateralism whereby they only dealt with those willing to form the coalition to fight. The claim, therefore, was that the only legitimate model was that of US with the sovereignty exemption that no nation will demand it to confirm. This reflected a change from policies based on traditions with threats that hegemony is rooted from a deviated consent. On this system, diplomacy was given priority over the military force. For one to define the reasons behind that war and the government thinking of invading Iraq as a solution to US problems, a shift towards the US strategic position in the Middle East about oil market is paramount. The first point is that vulnerability of oil was on the rise, with the import independence of US rising in the competitive oil market and its global production increasing, therefore the need to shift power balance to the producers of oil (Harasymiw, 2010). Such conditions could put the US vulnerable to oil and the capitalists of the economy worldwide. Therefore the only option to secure the US oil market was them attacking Iraq because of its large reservoirs of oil with a lower cost of production placing it at the second position in the world with largest oil-producing nations. However, the ruling of Sadam at that moment could not allow their resource to be used for the benefit of United States. Bush believed that containing Sadam would imply that their oil would be placed on market and that in case he manages to overcome them, he would use it to gain political advantage similarly as he had done before. He would earn the political power through making access to oil difficult to the foreign policy of US in conflicts between Israel and Arabs. However, the administration of Bush was in the mainstream of dominating the policy-making coalition that comprised of militarists’ wings and the oil lobbies (Rampton & Stauber, 2003). The halls were traditionally opposed to the Middle East policy while the oil and arms lobbies believed that accessing arms and oil would be of benefit only if they had good relations with the Arabs. The extremists under bush thus resorted to dropping that traditional agenda to embrace that of Zionists. Therefore his coalition had similar interests that the only solution would be engaging in war. The Middle East conflict would lead to high oil companies generating profit with some men seeing it as an opportunity to restore the higher oil prices through private ownerships as well as the privatization of Iraq oil.

The invasion of Iraq, therefore, was fueled by various reasons from political to economic interests. Other scholars believed that the war was not about the oil while others were agreeing to the fact that the oil reservoirs in Iraq are what make the area relevant and influential in the Middle East. Administration of bush, therefore, believed that removing Hussein would create a domino effect where all Middle East regions that were hostile to the United States would be intimidated into cooperating (Rampton & Stauber, 2003).

Interstate War Caused By Territorial Boundaries

Other people argued that interstate conflicts occur as a result of regional boundaries. Since the beginning of nineteenth-century boundary disputes have been experienced between the neighboring American states that lead to deployment (Domínguez, 2003). The incidents involved ten out of the nineteen independent nations of central and South America. The territorial and border disputes are however perceived as unnecessary because they hinder the social and economic developments of countries, especially across the western hemisphere. In most of the wars that have been experienced, countries have undergone a drain of finances and resources with regular frustrations on the “international cooperation on security, law enforcement as well as environmental conservation” (Vasquez & Henehan, 2001, p.133). It is claimed that American nations have tried to trace the cause of their wars since independence from Portugal and Spain yet they have several unresolved boundary and territorial disputes. The Dutch Caribbean and Anglophone countries on the other hand and the United States are also faced with several disputes unresolved, although they rarely involve military forces. Therefore conflicts and wars have a history, and thus for one to understand the primary cause of a particular war, disputes over territories and boundaries should not be ignored.

Formation of Coalitions

In most wars that have occurred such as the cold war, Second World War, and many others, nations were seen to forming alliances to create stronger military armies to encounter their enemies. In considering the triangle relationship that existed between China, Russia, and the United States, the three nations formed a new framework. Their relationship existed since the ruling of the Bush, but it followed a new trend after the end of the cold war when the status of Chinese began to rise and the strategic position of Russia declining (Mao, 2003, p.110). After the September attack that shocked the country, it led to the United States changing its foreign policy to China and Russia. The need for the US to cooperate with other powerful nations to execute a war in Afghanistan to fight terrorism has converted China and Russia into its partners from strategic and adversaries competitors. The new framework was also necessitated by the similar views between China and Russia regarding a post-cold war situation internationally. They both realized that there can never be the fundamental rivalry between two nations and that the nation’s interests in global affairs are parallel or coincidental. Both are therefore willing to cooperate at the international level. This cooperation between Russia and China, therefore, did not intend to antagonize the US but defend the country’s interest, an action that was pushed by the US itself. The other factor that surrounded the framework is the strategic cooperation between China and Russia which is viewed as a flexible agreement that is directed to the US hegemony strategy (Colaresi & Thompson, 2002). It aims at forming a multipolar configuration which is critical to the emergence of new hegemony worldwide. The strategic cooperation between the two, therefore, does not disrupt the peace trend and developments of the current world. The three nations maintain the interests they share that are common to all. As durations of cold war came to an end, therefore, governments sought to seek for more powers by forming coalitions to fulfill their needs regarding political positions or controlling resources that dominate economies of several countries.

Effects of War

The invasion of Iraq by the United States resulted in severe consequences, some of which were predicted and others not. One of the effects was the Middle East radical empowerment. With neocons, they expected Iraq to conquer, a result that would lead the transformation of the Middle East, empowerment of pro-US, marginalization of the radical forces as well as the reinforcement of Israel power. The Middle East leaders had warned the US that starting a war with Iraq would have disastrous and unpredictable consequences in regions of Middle East. For instance, al-Asad predicted that “it will be impossible for united states to control Iraq” (Hinnebusch, 2007, p.20). These words turned out to be true when the consequences of us invasion turned to be the opposite of what was planned. At the beginning of the war, the rise of power by Shia in Iraq gave Iran the most significant influence that enabled them to tie down the troops for the United States reducing the threats that they would attack them. The increased price of oil that was seen to accompany the war instilled confidence on Tehran. The pro-US forces were therefore weakened by the war by catching up all the Middle East regimes and its population that opposed the alignment of the US leading to erosion of legitimacy. Other authoritarian regimes also benefited in a manner that the chaos in Iraq reflected a forceful democracy whereby the majority of the people preferred an order that was authoritarian.

Conclusion

Before nations engage in rivalries, conflicts that escalate to war, there are various factors that play significant roles on how and why wars must prevail. In most of the sources that have been reviewed the major factors are narrowed down to political social and economic agendas despite other reasons such as the need to dominate other nations while holding certain positions. Territorial boundaries also play a significant role in fueling conflicts. Many scholars have focused on looking at the causes of war, thus, there is need for future researchers to narrow down to the impact that international war has on individual nations.

References

Chiozza, G., & Goemans, H. E. (2004). International conflict and the tenure of leaders: Is war still ex post inefficient?.  American Journal of Political Science,  48(3), 604-619.

Colaresi, M., & Thompson, W. R. (2002). Strategic rivalries, protracted conflict, and crisis escalation.  Journal of Peace Research,  39(3), 263-287.

Domínguez, J. I. (2003). Boundary Disputes in Latin America.

Dreyer, D. R. (2012). Issue intractability and the persistence of international rivalry.  Conflict Management and Peace Science,  29(5), 471-489.

Elhefnawy, N. (2011). Twenty years after the Cold War: a strategic survey.  Parameters,  41(1), 6.

Harasymiw, B. (2010). Russia, the United States, and the New Cold War.  Journal of Military and Strategic Studies,  12(2).

Heinrich, M. A. R. K. U. S. (2015). One War, Many Reasons: The US Invasion Of Iraq.  E-International Relations Students.

Hinnebusch, R. (2007). American invasion of Iraq: causes and consequences.  Perceptions.

Jackson, M. O., & Morelli, M. (2011). The reasons for wars: an updated survey.  The handbook on the political economy of war,  34.

Leffler, M. P., & Painter, D. S. (Eds.). (2005).  Origins of the Cold War: an international history. Psychology Press.

Mao, H. M. (2003). The US–China–Russia strategic triangle relationship since the beginning of the Bush administration.  Tamkang Journal of International Affairs,  8(3), 77-114.

Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. C. (2003).  Weapons of mass deception: The uses of propaganda in Bush's war on Iraq. Penguin.

Stewart, F. (2002). Root causes of violent conflict in developing countries.  BMJ: British Medical Journal,  324(7333), 342.

Vasquez, J., & Henehan, M. T. (2001). Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816-1992.  Journal of Peace Research,  38(2), 123-138.