OLD WARS vs. NEW WARS

SPECIAL LECTURE SERIES IKey Issues in International RelationsSemester OneA History of Views on War

Ralph PettmanGakushuin University2015

Week 1

Old Wars versus New Wars How different? How much the same?The Apotheosis of War by Vasily Vereshchagin (1871) for all conquerors past, present, & to come

First of all: why is there any kind of war old or new? . there are many answers to this question, however, they all depend .. on the context in which such answers are provided, and .. on the assumptions analysts and decision-takers make?

4

As to context: there have been many human systems in history where war has occurred; these include ones where tribes, empires, cities, corporations, castes, classes, and religions and religious sects are the predominant feature . today we live in world where the main politico-strategic antagonist (and therefore the main unit of order/disorder) is the state (though others do persist) and . most (but not all) of these states have standing armies (not militias or mercenaries) To understand the state-centered nature of world affairs we have to understand how there is a history to this that goes back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648) . imagine the map of the world you see on the wall of any primary school class-room, i.e., the kind of map that has .. state borders clearly defined .. capital cities clearly marked. this map did not come into existence overnight; it was the product of a 300 year-long process: .. first came the creation (in Europe) of the concept of sovereign (i.e., autonomous and formally equal), territorially bounded, centrally administered and governed, strategic, economic, and civic territories .. second came the age of the European empires .. third came the collapse of these empires and the making of a world in Europes original image

As to assumptions: there are many ways analysts and decision-takers see human nature, e.g., imagine standing above Shibuya about to throw a suitcase into the crowd; what chance do you have of hitting a bad person? . 0 - 49% ? . 51-100% ? . 50% (or perhaps you want to argue with me about this whole thought experiment)? . if you think 51 - 100%, then you are pessimistic about human nature

. nor are you alone since most analysts and decision-takers think like this; moreover . if you put these two together the result is the (so-called) realist approach to world affairs . realism describes the world in a dog-eat- dog, I-win-you-lose, zero-sum, Wild West way . it does this because it sees the world as being firstly, anarchic, and secondly, bad . it sees leaders as having to live in a self-help environment as a result; one where there is no global authority to keep the peace and impose the rule of law

. most leaders respond to global anarchy by maintaining armies, air-forces and/or navies . these are the equivalent of the weapons carried or worn by those who lived on the American frontier before it was made less dangerous, moreover . there is enough evidence that peace is never more than a lull between wars to encourage states (with notable exceptions) to arm in this way . this evidence includes the fact that since the end of WWII (in 1945) there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 m. people have been killed; millions more have also been injured: . in wars history the 20th c. was the worst .. in part because of an increase in the number of states . 3 times more people were killed in wars over the last 100 years than in the previous 500 .. since 1945, 90% of these casualties were women and children (compare this with 50% in WWII and 10% in WWI)

. as well as being killed in war, many women and children were - and still are - raped and sexually abused . also: 300,000 children currently serve as soldiers in 30 countries around the world (many are recruited at the age of 10 or less) . this is one reason that in the past 10 years 2 million children have been killed in armed conflicts and 4 to 5 million disabled (this is more than adult soldiers)

. the most important example of a realist world i.e. constant vigilance and eternal suspicion is the continuing existence of nuclear weapons . some states would be irrelevant without them .. E.g. North Korea would it be taken seriously if it did not have such weapons and did not continue testing rockets that can carry these to South Korea, Japan, and even the U. S.?

. the key point is that 20 yrs. after the end of the Cold War there are 4,000 strategic weapons .. n.b. one such weapon can be 20 times bigger than the Hiroshima one .. the U. S. and Russia have over 3,000 .. France, China, the U.K., Pakistan, India and Israel have 1,000 more . many of these weapons are on missiles . 2.000 of them the U. S. and Russia continue to have on high alert [nuclear] high alert

... high alert means they can be launched within 30 seconds to 3 minutes . new scientific research makes it clear that nuclear warheads are still a radical danger, i.e. they could still be used to end all human life (see Steven Starr, Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, INEESAP Bulletin 28, April 2008)

. a local exchange of nuclear warheads, e.g., one between India and Pakistan, would have serious climactic and human consequences . it would cause a regional or global nuclear autumn . humanity would survive such a catastrophe, albeit in a rather reduced state . for a graphic example see Cormac McCarthys The Road plus the movie that was made of it

. the biggest threat today, though, is a global exchange of missiles and nuclear warheads, i.e., one between the U. S. and Russia . the result would likely be a catastrophe . it would likely be world-wide nuclear winter; huge firestorms would send smoke into the stratosphere where it would block the sunlight reaching the earth (an estimated 70% in the Northern hemisphere and 35% in the Southern one)

.. av. temperatures would become colder than 18,000 yrs. ago at the height of the last Ice Age.. av. rainfall would decrease by 90%.. growing seasons would cease for a decade n.b.: this concept was critiqued for 20 years because of the uncertainty of the models used to describe it, however, we now know these models seriously underestimated how quickly soot from nuclear fire-storms would take to block sunlight, and how mid-day would be as dark as night

.. unlike global warming (which is more of a frog-being-cooked-in-a-pot-over-a-fire sort of scenario) these drastic climactic changes would be manifest in a matter of days

As the Report of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament says: combining the blast, radiation and ... nuclear winter effects ..., life on earth would, under these circumstances. be destroyed many times over (my italics and emphasis); and recent reductions in such weapons (down from 65-70,000 in the 1980s) are not enough to prevent this, i.e., . the threat of species suicide continues to be ever present and very real

Nuclear weapons were used before - once in Hiroshima (6 August, 1945) and once in Nagasaki (9 August, 1945) . these bombs were relatively small, however . a large number of civilians were killed due to their being co-located with Japanese military/industrial targets . throughout the Cold War the U.S. and S.U. used the same targeting strategies . they are still used today

It is worth noting here the words of the mayor of Nagasaki to the UN International Court of Justice in 1995; the bombing there, he said, created a city of death where not even the sound of insects could be heard. After a while, countless men, women and children began to gather for a drink of water at the banks of the near-by Urakami River, their hair and clothing scorched and their burnt skin hanging off in sheets like rags.

What does this mean for why war? . it means that mutual assured destruction (MAD) is not the logic of a conflict that can be won because the weapons would not only cause mass murder but would kill everyone . preparations for the pre-emptive use of such weapons, e.g., by having them on high-alert or launch-on-warning is insane (mad) . yet to realists it is the logic of the balance of terror (i.e. it may be extreme but it is necessary)

mutual assured destruction (MAD)

There are other assumptions about human nature, e.g., people are basically opportunistic . put this together with a statist perspective and we get the liberal internationalist alternative to the realist approach . we get, in other words, the tit-for-tat, you-be- nice-to-me-Ill-be-nice-to-you perspective . it is this approach that lets leaders create .. international laws (despite no government) & .. international organizations (like the U.N.) Liberal internationalists say that even in a realist world, peace is possible, i.e., there is analternative to conflict and war, e.g., by putting enacting international treaties and laws

Those who are optimistic about human nature go even further; they see the world in hail-fellow-well- met terms, i.e., as a place of friends not enemies . in a state-made world this suggests there are even better prospects for peace than either pessimists or opportunists allow, e.g., the governance provided by the European Union

There is more to world affairs that the politico-strategic map allows, however; behind this map lies another: . this is the politico-economic one with its production chains, trade routes, finance and investment centers, tax havens, owners and managers, and workers each selling his or her labor for a wage

finance and investment centersThose who are pessimistic about human nature are economic nationalists here; they believe in the need to protect domestic markets from foreign predators, which is why they . erect tariff and regulatory barriers . subsidize home factories and farms and . refuse to exchange their currency freely Where there are beggar-thy-neighbor policies, the result can be war, e.g., WWII

Economic nationalism, in other words, can make peace more fragile and war more likely . both the fear of war and preparations for war, in other words, can cause protectionism . e.g., the main imperialist powers of WWII (Germany and Japan) were economically nationalistic: one welcomed war as a way to further industrialize (Germany); the other was afraid of becoming cut off (Japan)

What about those who see human beings as basically opportunistic? In politico-economic terms . they promote economic liberalism, i.e., they promote the freedom of the world market where .. trade and investment can flow easily across state borders, .. firms and their production chains can be multinational and .. workers can move globally as wellIt is this (economic liberals believe) that will bring about peace rather than war, . e.g., the famous German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who argued in his book, Perpetual Peace (1795), that

The spirit of commerce, which is incompatible with war (my italics), sooner or later gains the upper hand in every state. As the power of money is perhaps the most dependable of all the powers states see themselves forced, without any moral urge (my italics), to promote honorable peace and by mediation to prevent war wherever it threatens to break out In this manner nature guarantees perpetual peace (my italics) ... making it our duty to work toward this end

What about the optimists? They see global political economy in terms of economic socialism . this is to say they see people as being able to live peacefully enough to distribute the wealth of the industrial revolution more equally . they see the world as a place where everybody gets enough food to eat, basic medical care and shelter, and primary education at least (see the Millennium project) . this in turn will help, they believe, to promote world peace

Behind the politico-strategic and politico-economic maps of the world lies the politico-civicone; on this map are nations, individuals, and global social movements, e.g., . those who are pessimistic about human nature see this dimension in terms of nations, that is, in terms of competing tribes and ethnic groups . it is these competing modern identities that they believe cause wars

. those who see human beings as opportunistic see this dimension in terms of individualism .. as a result they highlight human rights in general and democracy in particular .. they also believe that democracies do not fight each other (although they do fight non-democracies) - this is known as the democratic peace thesis and is the closest the discipline comes to a scientific theory

. those who see human beings as optimistic see this dimension in collectivist terms . they join global social movements that try and create the conditions for not-war, for example, by promoting (trans-nationally) nuclear non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament . they also promote causes that address some of the side-effects of waging wars, like .. the use of land-mines and .. the spread of small arms 58

Despite what has been said so far, there are analysts and policy-makers who do not see human nature as essentially anything; they see human beings not as what they are born to be but as what they learn to be . the key difference here is between those who see nurturing practices as determined by .. materialist .. mentalist or .. mixed materialist-and-mentalist factors . materialists see war either in geo-political terms or historical materialist ones, e.g., marxism . marxism is the more important approach . it sees history in terms of class struggle . war is therefore class war, i.e., war between those who own and manage the means of production and those who (under capitalism) must sell their labor for wages . n.b. this is very different from realist pessimism and state-centricity

. marxists also explain war in terms of capitalists need to continually expand, i.e., . capitalism is so productive it has to become imperialistic to find markets, sources of raw materials, and investment sites . in this regard it is like a running man leaning forward who has to run faster and faster or end up falling flat on his face . in the process capitalists causes wars all over the world

. mentalists see war in terms of the ideas, values and norms that make war happen, e.g., .. the U.S. cannot imagine going to war with Canada and has never done so .. it can imagine going to war with Cuba and has done so (though this is changing now) . why this difference, since they all live in an ungoverned world? . is anarchy, indeed, what they make of it? . in short it is: anarchy does not apply to the one mental relationship, but it does to the other

. mixed materialists-and-mentalists see the ruling ideas of the day as being those of the ruling class . if the ruling class wants war (for example, to increase its profits) it will promote it . at the same time it will distract the working classes from the fact that they are exploited by creating cultural smokescreens (for example, Hollywood movies, reality TV programs, and soap operas) .

All the above approaches are ways of talking about the dominant culture today, i.e., modernist rationalism (in the Cartesian sense) . this culture is objectifying and detached . it looks at why war in these terms too . it looks, for example, at the statistics of deadly quarrels (Lewis Fry Richardson) or the correlates of war (J. David Singer) . it looks, that is, for numerical patterns, in the hope that these will explain why war?

Modernists/rationalists marginalize those they see as not being rationalistic enough, e.g., . women: who highlight the gender war and wonder, if they had more of the powerful positions in the world, if thered be more peace . environmentalists: who highlight the war on the life-chances and choices of those unborn and wonder if caring better for the earth might result in people taking better care of each other (and being less war-prone)

. indigenous peoples: who highlight the (on-going) conflict with those who stole their land . post-colonials: who highlight the (also on-going) assault on their global racial status . the poor: who highlight how the gap between them and the global rich is growing, how development policies make this worse, and how hypocritical rich-world governments are in this regard

Modernist/rationalists are also now critical of the whole scientizing project, e.g.:

. they ask what the reasons are for prioritizing reason (e.g. post-modernists question the analytic certainty of all the approaches modernists articulate, thus helping create thinking and speaking spaces for the marginalized) . post-structuralists, meanwhile, ask about the biases built in to the languages analysts use and the identities that result from using them

. psychopathologists highlight our unconscious needs and drives and how mentally ill leaders can cause whole peoples to be killed (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot) . phenomenologists want to complete the rationalist project by finding out what war is as a thing-in-itself (i.e., by using intuition) . romantics want to compensate for the limits of rationalism by writing novels or making movies about war (i.e., by using emotion) . sacralists meditate on war or pray

Having talked about what causes war, what is the difference between old wars and new ones?The main theorist here is Mary Kaldor (e.g., seeIn Defense of New Wars Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 2[1] 2013) . here she defends the concept of new wars saying they are the wars of the era of globalization

She argues that the distinction is breaking down today between: . state and non-state affairs . the public and private realms . the external and internal realms . the economic and the political and even . war and peaceMoreover while old wars, she says, were fought: . between the professional armed forces of states . for geo-political and ideological reasons . using battles to capture territory and . spending state taxes in the process (i.e. only the state had enough revenue to pay for a standing army)Others have noted the development of formal agreements about how war should be fought, e.g.

.. by soldiers, in uniform, carrying their arms openly, observing truces, and leaving civilians alone; drawing on just war theory, states from the mid-19th century also developed codified laws of war, e.g., the 1864 Geneva Convention, the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration, the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conferences, and the 1908 London Conference (dealing with the treatment of prisoners, the sick and wounded, and banning certain weapons); this allowed states to claim to represent the collective interest as the main public body making the law (and therefore making what was not law)

Kaldor says that new wars, by contrast, are fought . by state and non-state actors, i.e., armies plus private security contractors, gangs, mercenaries, jihadists and warlords . for identity (ethnic, religious, or tribal) being an idealised nostalgic idea of the past . to control populations (e.g., by displacement) . using predatory private financing, e.g., looting, kidnapping and smugglingOthers have noted the widespread, deliberate useof advanced weapons, e.g., precision-guided ones;an upsurge in civil wars and wars between non-state entities; the lack of respect for the laws of war (making the new wars notable for their barbarism [and] violence), including force being directed against civilians rather than other armed groups, e.g., the ratio of soldier to civilian deaths . by 1900 was 9:1 . by 1945 was 1:1 . by 2000 was 1:9 (see Kaldors displacement) [old wars vs. new wars]

As a result (Kaldor says) while . old wars tended to extremes as each side tried to win .. they were associated at the same time with state-building By contrast (she says) . new wars tend to spread and persist - or to recur (since each side gains from violence itself rather than from winning) .. they are associated at the same time with state-dismantling 94

These ideas will be discussed throughout the rest of the course meanwhile, do you think this is a distinction without a difference?

There is certainly a debate about this: . some say new wars are not new, e.g., atrocities and forced displacement are features of all war . others say civil wars, rather than increasing, have been decreasing . others again say we do not have enough reliable information to generalize like thisWhat then about Afghanistan? The war on terror? Thank you for listening

and I hope to see you next week