This is a review of the ‘Book Real World Order’, an article composed by Singer and Aoron Wildavsky and first published on November 1993.
It points out the issues that regard to international relations addressing the need to shift from the old ways of dealing with issues relating to international affairs whereby countries around the globe especially the most powerful ones should put together their efforts in order to enhance peace and democracy as well as ensuring developments as opposed to war. The authors maintain that the post-cold war times will see different approaches adapted to achieving peace and democracy on one hand. However, it also puts forth issues dealing with problems of conflicts and issues pertaining development. The key ideas postulated by the authors of this book are that the real world today is driven by or separated into to categories or zones. One of these zones features countries characterized by peace and democracy while the other contains those characterized with turmoil and development. The countries in the peace zone like Western Europe, US and Canada will have to witness total peace and enjoy freedom of peace and war whereby issues dealing with ethnicity will be forgotten. On the other hand, countries like China and Somali will mature and develop their political standings hence leading to development of democracy. There is need to help these nations towards good governance In analyzing the article, the authors explain how international relations need to be carried out putting in mind the rapid changes globally.
To some extent, I disagree with the thinking of the authors that, these countries like Somali will soon come to be independent embracing democracy. This assumption does not hold water since it is not automatic building on the ever chaos the country experiences since time immemorial. Written by Yahya Sadowski ‘The Myth of Global Chaos’ article was published in the year 1998. The main idea about this article is about the Chaos Theory, as postulated by American well-known political scientists. The theory gives a variety of dimensions about the causes of conflicts. The article majors on bringing people to the end of the Cold World War whereby America assumed the role of a superpower after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
America was then in control of the global nationals issues involving security for instance in bringing sanity in the countries like Somalia and Bosnia. Conflicts that resulted from ethnicity were less chaotic as opposed to other types of conflicts. Furthermore, the authors argue that chaos in most cases is not a strategic threat, a case where most people will never come to terms. Break of cultural wars are attributed to lack of political stability and structural propensity in the various countries.
Further more the author is concerned about the global complexity, which needs careful planning from the policy makers for them to engage in better planning to be abed to deal with various issues amicably. These arguments propounded by the authors holds some truth and this fact about conflicts is to some extend true. After assuming the role of super power, the US was supposed to engage in good policymaking strategies in order to face the problems, which the countries around the globe faced. For instance, the author has tried to explain the Chaos Theory in line with the cultural conflicts with an idea of how to solve them standing out clearly. I do therefore support the opinion of the author that even if it has achieved its mission in bringing peace to countries like Bosnia and Kuwait, there is much more still needed to ensure the achievement of security and good governance.
‘Kant or Cant’, the myth of the democratic peace is the title of the article authored by Christopher Layne, and published in 1995. The main idea of the article is the theory of democratic peace, which stipulates that in international sense, democratic countries behave in a manner that is in opposition to those countries that are not democratic. There are two perspectives when it comes to the democratic sense whereby most countries, which do not engage in war, do so because of the already established structure and institutions that deter occurrence of conflict. In addition, because of the culture of democracy, norms and shared commitments, instances of conflict are avoided. The key ideas postulated by the author is that there are various dimensions which have been taken or adapted by various political scientists relating to democracy and the behavior of countries towards each other. In democratic peace theory, an instance of war between democracies is constrained because of the fact that the government will be authoritative to its citizens. Furthermore, it is illegitimate under the law for such democracies to enter into war. Democratic norms and perceptions also play a role in ensuring that there is no war outbreak.
On the other hand, the realism theory is opposed to the democratic theory whereby it postulates that it is difficult for one national to establish a political structure in all the states since each state has its own system of governance and political structures. Therefore, it is much difficult to ensure that every state adheres to the rules practiced or observed by another state. For instance, these two theories vary in that the democratic theory says that changes in a state are able to transform the nature of the international politics while realism is opposed to it by stating that the structure of the international politics will remain the same even if there are internal changes of a state. In the four cases presented, for instance the France war of 1923 used military since it believed that it had strategic interests.
The war ended through withdrawal. In addition, though democratic reasons played a part, realism theory held a more vital position in the end of these conflicts. As these theories advance, it is advisable for policy makers to have a wide scope of thinking and reasoning rather than basing their reasons of any outbreak of conflicts on the democratic theory. Different states have their own structures and it may not be possible to base on the assumptions that democratic countries do not engage in conflict or war. The real situation on the ground is that international politics should put in mind the nitty-gritty issues and aspects of different states so us to be able to provide good governance.
Therefore, I am in agreement with the fact that in most instances realism theory has been the core cause of conflicts because of the different structures and interests among different countries. Another article is ‘In Search of Democratic Peace; Problems and Promise’, which forms part of Steve Chan’s works, published in 1997. The main idea of the article is whether democracy exists in various states and on the global or foreign relations bases or stage.
The main idea advanced by this author is about how peace can be forged out in various democracies or states and how the international politics influence peace. For instance, the author is of the view that democracies rarely engage in any form of war or conflicts. Various political specialists who attribute this to similar norms ideologies have supported this.
The author has also tried to bring in his discussion the issue or realism, claiming that it is important for it to be considered especially in forging peace and security when it comes to international affairs. The author has also noted that democracy is in some occasions could hinder good governance for instance pubic influence on certain issues or abstract international agreements. This is illustrated with the example of Ukraine’s in its efforts of no proliferation efforts of its nuclear weapons. Furthermore, nations involved in trade ties may not engage in war as opposed to those with no ties. Therefore, in conclusion, I concur with the point of view of authors on the issue of democracy.
He acknowledges the various factors that enhance peace and democracy some of which are structural resemblance, public influence, and trade ties among others.