Are Liberal-democratic States Inherently More Peaceful than Non-democratic Ones?

Throughout post-WWII history, the United States has taken on the role of the world’s police. They feel the obligation to ensure the spread of their ideals for selfish and self-righteous reasons. John Mueller and Odd Arne Westad share their arguments as to what the United States’ actions have produced during the Cold War in Eastern Europe, Korea, and Vietnam and during the post-9/11 period in the Afghanistan and Iraq. While some of their arguments are valid, others are flawed.

The second World War brought untold suffering to million across the globe, but it also launched the United States into the position of a superpower for the next 50 years. With the utter destruction of nations across Europe, Africa, and Asia, both winners and losers, America easily assumed a dominant position in the coming international system and captured the ability to reconstruct the world using its high democratic ideals. The United States was the most powerful nation in the world. It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and with postwar America it was no different. Given the unilateral power to spread its ideals of self-determination, liberty, equality, and individualism; America instead effectively subverted these principles not only around the world, but domestically as well. The unlimited global power and Cold War paranoia of the postwar years to the assassination of John F. Kennedy proved a fatal mixture to American ideals. As World War II came to a close, the United States gained the world as the most powerful country on earth; But to maintain this power it sadly reverted to the imperalism abraod and the Red Scare at home; its reversion made her loose her soul. These hypocritical actions and policies shaped a new world not set by democratic and liberal ideals of FDR’s “Four Points,” but by the power motivated creeds of repression, greed, and violence. In the race to fill the power vacuum created by World War II, the United States abandoned its civic

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

While there are many variables that constitute to the increase in peace or decrease in violence throughout history; many argue that democracy has a direct correlation with global peace and some say there is not enough there for a causation. However democracy is an important factor that should be considered when evaluating the state of human relations. In a Democracy, leaders are elected to represent the will of the citizens on how the country should be ran, and are held accountable for the success or detriment they may bring to the country. Citizens of a democracy are less likely to want to engage in costly wars as they will be the ones to inevitably subsidize it by using up valuable resources and lives."Most

The United States, it seems, serves as the unofficial international police. We attempt to impose our views on the world and then correct anyone that strays from our “status quo”. Through our diplomatic actions, America tries to preserve our national beliefs in exchange for the deterioration of another country’s. We were formed by the “global forces” who were attempting to create a global empire, but once we became our own nation, we became one of those forces (197).

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

The Democratic Peace theory states that countries that are democracies will not go to war with each other. (Mitchell 2015) It is believed that two democracies would not go to war with each other because the people within each country would prefer peace. It is also unlikely for two democracies to go to war because they share some of the same values. It is also believed that democracies tend to have more wealth and vital infrastructure, standing to lose more if they go to war.

To truly grasp the idea of Kant’s theory and whether or not it is attainable, it is important to understand that there is more to look at than the true meaning of perpetual peace. Strictly by definition, perpetual means “lasting forever; never-ending,” and peace means “the absence of war or other hostilities”. He painted a picture of the “perfect” ideal world in which all states worldwide would submit themselves to democracy and would obtain peace in the process. It is simply hard to have all states view war as a natural conflict and as a last resort. As enticing the universal “world peace” Kant believes is achievable in perpetual peace is, the conception is ultimately unattainable and too idealist resting on the idea of “world citizenship” (James,

While it is well known that democratic states are just as likely to go to war as their non-democratic counterparts and that no two major democracies have been involved in war, no one has been able to offer an explanation for why democracies are better suited for peace. Dixon attempts to offer his own narrowed explanation due to previous arguments being rendered invalid.

Consequently, US democracy promotion of course does matter at all according to all individual theoretical approaches. Under Realism approach, with the strategy of democracy promotion as part of foreign policy, US has sought to replace authoritarian governments with the West’s political system of democracy, regardless of traditional values and without concern for the consequences (Cox et al., 2000). It thus seems like “mission” rather than “promotion.” And this may somehow cause negative international relations between US and its “missions.” For Liberalism approach, US democracy promotion has been surrounded by a liberal culture that supports the rule of law, human, and freedom of expression as well as other core civil rights (Markakis, 2012). And a consequence of this has been a considerable focus on civil society strengthening while establishing democracy. This approach hence suggests US democracy promotion initiatives which are likely to establish positive international relations between US and its allies, rather than causing negative

Economic interdependence, or globalization, can produce agreements on certain norms and will lead to more peaceful outcomes. Global markets as well as international institutions compel states to cooperate. By participating in institutions, states are given the opportunity to facilitate rules and norms and bring adversaries together without the use of force. Liberals also believe that powerful states should act with restraint when using their power and find ways to show their commitments to other states.

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

Liberal internationalism by its very essence is the idea of peaceful co-operation in order to maintain both world order and create harmony for its state to live in by democratic means. In R Gardner’s The Comeback of Liberal Internationalisms he defines this by very similar means, suggesting this political tradition relies on “the necessity of leadership by political democracies” . Following the onset of the 20th century the international political sphere has been characterised by the creations of institutions which have sought to establish a democratic peace and in many ways often failing to do so. The inability to prevent some of the most violent conflicts of the last 120 years is perhaps central to the critique that liberal internationalism should be deemed as far too idealistic in a modern world. In an increasingly familiar landscape of tyrannical, dangerous leaders it is perhaps unsurprising that the realist school of thought has come to dominate academic analysis of the current world situation. It would be hard to disagree with the notion that liberal internationalism is simply not the solution for the problems which still exist within the world today when you consider the level of ideological disagreement which is consistently played out upon the world stage. While all

U.S. policies aim to boost the spread of liberal democratic values. In the nineteenth century, the U.S. didn’t play an important role in global governance, as the geographical reach of the United States’ political influence expanded, liberal democracy promotion turned into a major part of U.S. foreign policy, the aim of promoting democracy abroad had been a core element in how the United States exercises its international power. “Moral Universalism”, introduced by America’s project of liberalism during the twentieth century, is an ideology based on the liberal

Democratic governments have spread quickly around the world since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy has become one of the most desired regime types amongst states and is contributed to fostering wealth, stability, and even peace. Dan Reiter and Allan Stam argue that democracies are the most successful in war or military combat. In their book, Democracies at War, Stam and Reiter argue that after observing conflicts since the 1800’s, democratic governments tend to be more selective in choosing conflicts to participate in and democracies also have a propensity to win more often than authoritarian regimes.