Term paper for Mr. Johnson (1st semester)

Topic: Is international conflict inevitable, harmful, and possible to alleviate?

10b3 Seung Jun Kim

<Table of Contents>

Intro

1. The definition and scope of international conflict

2. The importance of resolving international conflicts

Body

3. The brief summary about the history of international conflicts

4. Status quo of international conflict

5. The cause for international conflict

6. Whether international conflict is inevitable or not

-My thoughts

7. The result of international conflict: positive/ negative

8. Solutions for alleviating international tensions in the past

-Whether it was effective

-Some problems in past attempts

9. My own solutions  

Conclusion

-Future prospect of international conflict 

-International conflict is two-sided: according to how we deal with it, human history will change greatly

             When we open our history textbooks, they are filled with vestiges of revolution and conflicts. We can see that international conflicts have lead the world to develop and change greatly. We need to examine international conflicts more closely because they were the driving force of change in human history.  

"International conflict" referred to conflicts between different nation-states and conflicts between people and organizations in different nation-states. Increasingly, however, it also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power (Malek). Also, I define international conflicts in a broader manner to examine them in various perspectives. For example, I include disagreements, tensions and even retaliatory policies as a kind of international conflict (Elliott p27).

If conflicts occur internationally, is there a reason we should care about it? The answer is a definite yes. Why? One thing that we should keep in mind is that we are living in a globalized society. All of the nations are interconnected with some kind of common ground. Economic, cultural and even geographical barriers are vanishing out of thin air. One event that occurs in the other side of the globe appears as one of the top headlines. Protests and humanitarian crises all around the world is no longer an international issue but rather a domestic issue. To give a recent example, the crisis in Libya has a lot of repercussions on various nations. Practically, hundreds of refugees are flooding over to southern Europe. Especially Italy is having a pain in the neck because of enormous spillovers from northern Africa. The illegal immigration problem arises and inflicts harm on Italian citizens. Ideologically, international issues convey a certain message to other countries. The success of revolution in Egypt, for example, partly encouraged the Libyans to revolt against the government in the hope of true democracy. Also, the oppression of the Libyan government sends us the message that violent measures that are against humanity can be justified. Likewise, who knows what’s going to happen in South Korea due to surrounding international circumstances? That is why we should pay close attention to international conflicts; they are no longer far away from us.

 International conflicts have existed throughout history. In the ancient times, tribes from the Old Stone Age started to encroach upon other tribes who had abundant resources. In the medieval ages, conflict among different ethnicities, religions, and nations intensified. The map was constantly changing due to incessant wars and conflicts. Nowadays, however, international conflicts seem to have become more complicated with more interests to consider. Governments all around the world have to take into consideration all the necessary aspects of a nation such as economy, international trade, cultural influence, resources, history and so on. It has become even more difficult to reach an agreement with another nation.

The cause for international conflicts differs from case to case. However, all the causes have a common basis; nations are ultimately pursuing their own interests. Some people claim that issues such as morality play a bigger role. But if we look at each of the cases closely, morality is merely used as a tool to veil the underlying purpose. Let’s look at Cold War for example. At first glance, it seems that the U.S and the Soviet Union are standing for magnificent values, democracy and communism. However, these values were only magical cloaks that seemed to justify individual attempts to acquire political clout (Nye p108). In fact, both of the nations were expanding their sphere of influence and collided with each other. If we examine international relations closely, there is no single case where self-interest is not involved. This issue of self-interest is especially conspicuous in conflicts between the West and the rest of the world. The West is attempting and will continue to attempt to sustain its preeminent position and defend its interests by defining those interests as the interests of the “world community”. Huntington said, “that phase has become the euphemistic collective noun to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the U.S and other Western powers” (Huntington p183). For instance, West is attempting to integrate the economies of non-Western societies into international economic institutions. Also, it promotes its economic interests and imposes economic policies it thinks appropriate on other nations. Non westerners also do not hesitate to point to the gaps between Western principle and Western action. They claim that hypocrisy and double standards exist in Western behaviors (Huntington p184). East Asian societies are well on their way to equaling the West economically. Asian and Islamic countries are looking forward for shortcuts to balance the West militarily. Thus, is pursuing only your interest beneficial for the society as a whole? We will talk about the consequences of international conflict later on.

We now move on to the question on whether international conflict is inevitable. There is no definite answer for this. On one side of the debate, the proposition claims that war is inevitable. There are two main reasons for its claim. First, it’s because mistrust and suspicion among different nations occur. As we all know force plays a big role in politics. In a well ordered domestic political system, the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. On the other hand, no one has monopoly on the use of force in the international realm (Nye p14). Thus, there is always a danger that nations may resort to force. If force cannot be ruled out, this is when mistrust and suspicion arise (Conflict). Next, the cultural and social norms differ from nation to nation. In a well-ordered domestic society, there is a widespread sense of community that gives rise to common loyalties, standards of justice and views of what is legitimate authority. However, in international politics, divided people do not share the same loyalties. They don’t have a sense of common legitimacy and political values. Therefore, most people place national order before international justice. On the other side of the debate, the opposition believes international conflicts can be prevented beforehand. World War 1, for instance, was never 100% inevitable. When there are several causes, each of which could be sufficient, we call it over determined. World War I was, of course, over determined. Does that mean it was inevitable? There was high probability of war, but a high probability is not the same as inevitability (Nye p15). It is easy to understand this concept when I compare this to fire; logs and kindling may sit for a long time and never be lit. In other words, even when there are a lot of potential dangers, they don’t necessarily turn into a major crisis if we take good care of them. Indeed, if it rains before somebody comes along with a match, they may not catch fire even when a Sarajevo incident occurs. As this analogy illustrates, there may be several possible explanations of why the World War I was not inevitable. One possibility is that the growth in Russian strength might have deterred Germany from recklessly backing Austria. Also, even before World War I, German industrial strength would have continued to grow and Germany might have become so strong that France and Britain would have been deterred to fight against Germany, preventing another major clash (Nye p65).

I have provided with two detailed views on whether international conflicts are inevitable or not. Unfortunately, international conflicts are incessantly happening and there is no sign of alleviation. I believe international conflicts are inevitable because all nations have different interests. (Of course, whether international conflicts will lead to war is still debatable) The theory of ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ actually shows that mutual mistrust brings forth conflicts between the two players (Nye p16). At first glance, it is best for each prisoner to cheat and let the other fellow become a sucker. However, as they play the game continuously in a long time basis, they realize that mutual trust will allow them the second best outcomes. Cooperation is difficult to develop when playing the game only once. Playing a game time after time, people can learn to cooperate, but if it is a onetime game, whoever cheats can get the reward and whoever trusts is a sucker. Eventually players find that the total benefit from the game is higher by learning to cooperate. Only when you know you are going to be playing with the same people for a long time, can you learn to cooperate. That is why mistrust in the international realm cannot be resolved. Most of the nations all around the world don’t have enough time to attempt different approaches for a long time. This lack of time hinders the nations to realize that mutual cooperation with others will allow itself the largest benefit possible. This is why I believe conflicts cannot be prevented beforehand. At this point, some people might begin to doubt about the validity of this claim. Why can’t universal values such as morality, justice, and human rights prevent nations from only pursuing their own interests? Law and ethics play a small role in international politics because in the absence of a sense in community, they are not as binding as they are in domestic politics (Nye p18). There are four reasons for why ethics play a smaller role. One is the weak international consensus on values. There are cultural and religious differences over the justice of some acts. Second, states are not like individuals. States are abstraction, and although their leaders are individuals, statesmen are judged differently than when they act as individuals. A president is entrusted by citizens to protect their interests, and under certain circumstances this may require the use of force. Presidents who saved their own souls but failed to protect their people would not be good trustees. Third, complexity of causation weakens the role of ethics. It is hard enough to anticipate the consequences of actions in domestic affairs, but in international relations it is even more difficult because there is another layer of complexity: the interaction of states. That extra dimension makes it harder to make accurate predictions of consequences.

Now that we’ve done with whether international conflicts are inevitable, let’s examine in depth about the consequences of international conflicts. As a coin has two sides, international conflict also has two aspects. The positive aspect is that, in some cases, they bring forth advancements in economy and culture. The Crusade War is constantly criticized by many scholars for its hypocrisy and destruction, but the fact it allowed the West to accept Eastern culture is undeniable. It was a great opportunity for Eastern culture and Western culture to blend into a universal culture. If it were not for this war, the interaction of cultures between two different spheres of nations would have been possible far after this incident. The negative aspect is that international conflicts have detrimental effects on all parts of society. If a war breaks out, all parts of society collapse. Stock prices plunge to the ground, infrastructures are bombarded, and human lives are sacrificed. Even when war doesn’t occur, tensions and diplomatic are enough to make the citizens shudder at unease. We have already seen the best example of ‘tension without war’ in history which is the Cold War. Not to mention that protectionist policies and retaliatory measures created a frigid atmosphere overall.

What have past governments all around the world done to address the negative consequences? Right after World War I, President Wilson from the United States believed that organizing international security could be a practical approach to world politics (Nye p81). He knew that mere paper agreements would not be sufficient; organizations and rules were needed to implement the agreements. This was why Wilson put so much faith in the idea of a League of Nations. If all nonaggressive states banded together, the preponderance of power would be on the side of the good. International security would be a collective responsibility in which nonaggressive countries would form a coalition against aggressors. That is how the League of Nations was established. Unfortunately, this ambitious international organization was a major failure. In the Manchurian crisis, the League of Nations was very ineffective in preventing Japan from seeking its ambition to become a major power (Nye p81). In 1931, the Japanese army staged an incident along the Manchurian Railway where they had the right to station troops since the Russo-Japanese War. Sabotage on the Manchurian Railway gave the Japanese army the pretext to take over all of Manchuria. China appealed to the League of Nations, but Japan prevented passage of a resolution. When almost all nations agreed to sanction, Japan left the League of Nations. In the Ethiopian debacle, it was once again failure. Although sanctions were applied, self-interest within international relations and lack of reinforcement made the sanction very weak. In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia. The invasion was a clear-cut case of aggression, and the League imposed embargo on the sale of all military goods to Italy, prohibition against loans to Italy, cessation of imports from Italy, and refusal to sell certain goods that could not be easily bought elsewhere. Still Italy was allowed to buy steel, coal, oil, diplomatic relations were not broken and the Suez Canal was not closed. Why not more? It was because the anger of Britain and France over Ethiopia was more than offset by their concern for the European balance of power. Britain and France wanted to avoid alienating Italy because Germany was regaining its strength and Britain and France thought it would be useful to have Italy in a collation to balance Germany. This intertwined issue of self-interest made the League of Nations very inefficient and ineffective. After World War II, a new international organization that took into account the errors of the previous one, called the United Nations came into view. Although, it was much more systematic and effective in settling unrest in the international society, there were some limitations as well. During the Cold war, for example, the system did not work. In the cold war, there was little agreement on what was a legitimate use of force, and great problems arose in defining aggression. For example, how should one weigh covert infiltration against forces crossing a border first?

Are there any possible solutions to alleviate international conflicts? Of course there are and there must be. It doesn’t mean that we can’t save the world from conflict just because past attempts to resolve the problem was not effective.

To begin with, I believe internal checks in balance of power are the best way to reach international stability. This phenomenon is already happening in some parts of the globe. For instance, the fragile U.S-China relation is being maintained with various checks. U.S and China is conflicting over two major issues; the influence in Asia and the intervention in Taiwan. First, even when the U.S withdraws troops from Asia, it would not automatically yield Chinese regional hegemony, because Japan and South Korea might then acquire stronger conventional military capabilities and nuclear capabilities of their own, greatly reducing China’s military potential (Galser 85). Thus, U.S can partly cooperate with China. In the second issue, major conflict can be avoided if the two nations consider a war much more devastating. There are two possible scenarios. One is that U.S might yield this issue to China because of the fact that ongoing improvements in China’s military capabilities and the modernization of its nuclear forces may pose a threat to U.S. Second scenario is that China will give up hindering U.S from intervening in issues related to Taiwan because a major war with mighty U.S troops will deter China’s stable growth. As this example demonstrates, internal checks make the cost of war or conflict much bigger than the benefits and thereby prevent further collisions.

Moreover, another possible solution is somewhat idealistic but very important. I believe people in all civilizations should search for and attempt to expand the values, institutions, and practices they have in common with peoples of other civilizations. In the 1950s Lester Pearson warned that humans were moving into “an age when different civilizations will have to learn to live side by side in peaceful interchange, learning from each other, studying each other’s history and ideals and art and culture, mutually enriching each others’ lives. A mutual effort to understand different cultures, ideals and values will help us to get rid of misunderstandings and conflicts. This solution seeks a very fundamental approach because in reality not many people and nations are actually following this. Often times, Western culture and Islam have a hard time understanding the discrepancies between them. This lack of understanding leads to numerous wars and made hatred grow in people’s minds.

International conflict is expected to persist later on. I have already explained to you how it is very difficult to stop conflicts from happening in the global society. International conflict has a dual personality; according to how we deal with it, we are going to either benefit from it and minimize the harms or experience total destruction. However, one thing that is certain is that mutual cooperation, understanding and checks can help us make a more peaceful and a better world for all.

Works Cited

“Conflict within groups.” 13 May 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_conflict>

Elliott, Michael. "Whom to protect, whom to abandon." Editorial. TIME 18 Apr. 2011: 27-28. Print.

Galser, Charles. "Will China's Rise lead to war?" Foreign Affairs March/April 2011: 80-91. Print

Huntington, Samuel. The clash of civilizations and remaking of world order. New York: Touchstone, 1996. 183-184

Malek,Cate. “International conflict.” Colorado U. 5 May 2011

<http://www.crinfo.org/CK_Essays/ck_international_conflict.jsp>

Nye, Joseph Jr. Understanding international conflicts. New York: Longman, 2002