Violence, Truth, and Culture

Introduction to IJWP, June 2015
This issue of IJWP looks at the relationship of violence to what might be called “maturity of truth,” or personal and cultural wisdom. “Truth” is both individual and social. It is individual when it refers to a person’s attainment of an awareness of others as equally valuable and worthy of life in a shared world, and the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve a happy and fulfilling life through productive activities that do not harm others. Truth is social when it is embodied in civilization. By civilization, I mean a culture whose language, norms, institutions, and behavior patterns reflect a collective awareness of the worth of all human beings, human rights that apply to all people, and a level of knowledge and social organization that allows all people an equal opportunity to prosper.

The first article is an essay by sociologist Tom Kando that argues “Demography is Destiny,” a statement attributed to Auguste Comte, the father of sociology. In his analysis, Kando concludes that the single variable that correlates most with violence is age. Statistics show that more homicides per capita occur in places where the median age is lower. Further breaking it down, the most violence occurs where there are a high number of unemployed young males. This pattern occurs in data comparing countries where, for example, the homicide rate is higher in Venezuela with a median age of 25.8 than the United States with a median age of 36.9. It is even lower in Japan, where the median age is 44.6. This correlation also occurs within countries where, for example, the homicide rate is higher in Chicago, with a median age of 31.5, than in Plano, Texas, which has a median age of 38. Some commonly discussed factors, like the number of handguns per capita, much higher in Plano than Chicago, do not correspond so directly to the homicide rate. More homicides occur where youth are idle, frustrated, and unemployed.
Continue reading →

Politics or Principles of Good Governance?

IJWP-cover-1-15-1Introduction to IJWP, March 2015

All three articles in this issue of IJWP are concerned with interest group influence on state policy and the negative effects it creates. In On War, Carl von Clausewitz described war as “politics by other means.” In this assertion, he recognized that “politics” is a contest of power over control of governance and resources and not necessarily “governance” itself. Politics tends to be about who controls power and not about how the political system operates successfully. In a realist world, political science often becomes a study about how an interest group can achieve its own end, not how the system can be prosperous, just, and stable.

A working system of governance should be “non-political” in the sense that it is based on universally accepted principles, the way we accept the principle of gravity. Despite ideology, ethnic background, or desire to achieve a specific end, if you walk off a cliff you will fall to your death. A natural principle trumps political will. Inevitably, failed states are those whose rule of law did not respect principles of good governance. This is why good political science should be focused on the principles of functional political systems, rather than the science of how an interest group can assert itself over others. The science of how a particular group can achieve its ends will always lead to collisions with other groups doing the same, and this makes political science the science of deliberate conflict instead of a science of peace or justice. Continue reading →

One Hundred Years of Global War

Introduction to IJWP, December 2014

cover 4-14-webThe year 2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I (WWI), the beginning of modern mechanized war at the global level. WWI represented a watershed in which war fought between traditional kings and their armies was transformed into wars among states whose policies are determined by political parties and bureaucrats. It also represented a huge technological shift, beginning with rifles, bayonets, pistols and calvaries, and ending with mustard gas, tanks, submarine torpedoes, and airplane bombs. Modern weapons of mass destruction do not easily distinguish between soldier and civilian, or confine themselves to traditional geographical borders. Traditional armies were decimeated by new weaponry, and the collateral damage on civilians escalated as well. Nearly 20 million people died in WWI; half were civilians.

The article, “Greece and the Road to World War I” by George Kaloudis, focuses on the nature of nation-state alliances and the configuration of great powers vs. smaller powers. It discusses the impact World War I had on a smaller state. Smaller states were lured into alliances with larger powers both for promises of protection and promises of a share of victory spoils. In the case of Greece, the war divided the nation internally as the king sided with the Central Powers while the democratically elected leader sided with the Allied Powers. The goals of modern democratic states are often determined by large institutional interests, rather than the head of state, as described by outgoing U.S. President Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex.” Continue reading →

Raising Political Consciousness: From Violence to Responsible Actions in a Complex World

Introduction to IJWP, September 2014

front cover 3-14-2This issue of IJWP begins with an article by Norman K. Swazo on the biography of the jihadist Abu Zubaydah, who has spent many years in Guantanamo Bay detention. It is the story of a young man struggling with a conflicted identity rooted in his own upbringing in a rigid Islamic family in Saudi Arabia and his experiences related to more complex and secular Western societies. The meaning this young man came to find in a jihadist movement was only reinforced by the post-9/11 Bush doctrine that advocated the use of preemptive violence against perceived American enemies. The folly of the Bush strategy is discussed by Shah M. Tarzi in our second article.

Violence is an innate biological reaction to frustration that is inherited for self-preservation. We see young babies screaming, kicking, and waving their arms wildly when needs are not met and they know of no other way to get milk or a diaper change. We are also too aware of the fact that most of human history has been about conquest, plunder, and rape—forms of violence employed to achieve personal or state ends. The main focus of this journal, and of the entire field of peace and conflict studies generally, has been to move beyond violence to civil behavior and cooperation. The “Seville Declaration” of 1986 declared that “biology does not condemn humanity to war.… How we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialized.”1 Non-violent modes of interaction can be learned, and can lead to resolving frustrations and achieving human goals.
Continue reading →

Beyond Realism: Values, Interests, Levels, and Spheres in International Relations Theory

Introduction to IJWP, June 2014

From Kant’s influential Perpetual Peace to the social scientific studies of society in the twentieth century many writers argued that cultural values and economic interests needed to be satisfied to achieve a lasting peace. However, Hans Morgenthau, a highly influential professor of international politics disagreed. He wrote in 1948:

The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.1

This issue of IJWP challenges this political realism in several ways, arguing that it fails to hold state actors within the bounds of legitimate and moral use of power, that it fails to integrate economic and cultural “soft power” interests in its simplistic, black and white analyses, and that it fails to address levels of governance other than the state that are integrally tied to subsystems and international systems.

It is more important than ever to advance a more integral understanding of international relations that sees human society in terms of a set of interconnected social systems, beginning at the level of individuals, and moving through family systems and face-to-face community systems to state political economies, and finally to international organization.

There are three major spheres of influence, the political, economic, and cultural. Of these three, the political, which is the sphere of legal power and force, should be the servant of the economic and cultural spheres, rather than their master. But, power corrupts, and elites in any sphere whose powers are unchecked, will abuse that power and, like a cancer, feed off of those they are in a position to serve, creating unhappiness, inequality, and violence. This reversal of dominion is often cited as the difference between a “politician” and a “statesman.” It is what distinguishes a Nelson Mandela from the average power broker.

Continue reading →