: THEORIES ON THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT: People, Structure, and System

1. :THEORIES ON THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT: People, Structure, and System Bambang W. Nugroho

2. We begin with a basic point: conflict ranges from minor disagreements, feuds, and spats over national policies, to various forms of violence including terrorism and multiple kinds of war, the worse being total nuclear war. We should ask why is war waged?

3. Q. Why is it that most French citizens did not fear the re-unification of Germany, even though in WWI and WWII Germany was responsible for hundreds of thousands of French casualties? What would it take for the states like France, Germany, UK, Japan, and the USA to fight each other today? Realists would say it is bound to happen.

4. Individual Level Factors: Image 1 • Decision-makers may change history • Hard-wired for war? • Is violence innate or learned? • Public opinion? • Do people always want peace? • Power of ideas?

5. State Level Processes: Image 2 • States vary by foreign policy. How? • Varied degree of democracy • Varied degree in economic interdependence • Varied degree of international social interactions and interconnectedness • Varied degree of trust in international institutions

6. System Structure: Image 3 • Distribution of power (# poles) may influence global stability • Neo-realists argue a bipolar system is most stable – less uncertainty, more effective alliances. • US-USSR did not fight in Cold War • Hegemonic Stability Theory – one great power orders and manages the system. Hegemon is more likely to reduce conflict in system, unless their own power erodes and is then challenged.

7. Other processes • Role of ideology, cultures, religion • Level of development – maybe some states are more expansionist in their history but out-grow it.

8. Other basic facts about war (Geoffrey Blainey) • Most states think they will win war, increases willingness • Anything that increases optimism, is a cause of war • Most states think war will be short • Thus, most wars result from uncertainty and miscalculation of who is more powerful–people keep repeating same old errors.

9. Blainey continued • It takes two states to fight a war • War is never an accident – it is an intentional choice. The same is true of peace. • Why are there no names for periods of peace, when the causes of war and peace spring from the same roots?

10. Let’s think of war in terms of probability. What increases or decreases the probability of war? Kenneth N. Waltz: Probability of War = System structure + state/domestic factors + individuals

11. System Structure • Multipolarity seems to raise chance of war • Balance of power became too rigid and polarized • Alliances spread threat – Who to ally with? • Combination of factors made it feel that war was inevitable

12. State/Domestic Factors • Ideology – Lack of democracy important? • Nationalism – fuel poured on the spark, even people of democracies pro war • Threat of collapsing Empires: Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman • Optimism regarding quick, victorious, glorious war

13. Belief war was inevitable • In the end, the war was not an accident but was a culmination of a series of decisions ending in the mobilization of troops and commitment to combat. • Were their other options not considered?

14. The end result was a very destructive war that may have been avoidable. More than 15 million people died. • Resulted in collapse of Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian Empires and accelerated the Russian Revolution. • Some believed the sophisticated states of Europe would never again engage in war since it was barbaric. They were wrong. • Sowed the seeds for World War Two • WWI was known as the “Great War”, the “War to End All Wars.” • What was learned from this experience?