United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: I NEVER claimed that democratic peace theory was simply wrong. I said your claim that it is proven is simply wrong.

quote: The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other.

Don't seem to match, eh?

Well, I received this in my email today (thanks to Co_Sinus):

quote: *This e-mail was sent to CIVNet, but I thought maybe you could find interest in it too* Hello. Pardon my English, since it’s not my native language. I was just reading your post on Apolyton Net, where you stated the following: “Norway was NOT under Nazi rule but AS A DEMOCRACY declared war on the Western Powers.” Since this is somewhat different from my education (I’m Norwegian by the way), I’d like to tell you what we learn in school. 8. April: Norway was a monarchy under king Haakon 7. The king had chosen a Prime Minister (I dont remember his name), witch had support in Stortinget (The Norwegian parliament). In this way you could say that Norway was democratic. 9. April: Nazi-Germany attacks Norway. In the morning the nazi ship “Blücher” is sunk. Onboard Blücher, there were Nazi special forces, who should secure the royal family and the cabinet. However as the ship was sunk. An emissary from the Nazi-Germany negotiates about surrender with the foreign minister. He declines after a consultation with the rest of the cabinet. The royal family, the cabinet and the parliament escapes to Elverum by train. On the same morning (9. April) Vidkun Quisling declared himself Prime Minister over the radio. Quisling was the ledader of NS (Nasjonal Samling) a small fascistic party, who supported Nazi-Germany. 10. April: In Elverum there is new negotiations. One of the demands is that the king should acknowledge Quisling as Prime Minister, but the king declines. On Elverum, the parliament gave up its right to the cabinet*. Later the king and the cabinet escapes to England (A Western Power). *Some of the formalities was wrong, however all of the members in the parliament agreed to this. NOTE: History is not my best subject, so the details might be somewhat inaccurate. You could of course say that the illegal Prime Minister Quisling (With support from about 25 000 people) ruled as democracy. You could say that even through Norway was occupied by Nazi-Germany it was not under Nazi rule. You might be right and almost every Norwegian citizen wrong. About the democratic peace vs hegemony thingy, I don't have clue. Yours sincerely Co_Sinus

That hopefully proves my point on Norway.

Next time, please choose your words with care. I don't like getting mad at people, but when I'm called unscholarly, etc. then I get a tad bit angry.

[Dienstag]

Wow, that was quite a read up to this point. I hope everybody's calmed down by now. Thanks to korn469 that it's just a game and meant to be fun.

I'll say right out that I'm a junior in college majoring in Physics (if anyone wants to start a physics fight, bring it on) so I don't pretend to know much in this field. When you guys are discussing theories like Democratic Peace, Hegemonic Stability, and Balance of Power, what's the point? Sorry for the apparent irreverence, but they can't all be right (and they could very easily all be wrong). Physics has a hard enough time agreeing that some theory is sufficiently sound to be called a Scientific Law, and that's after years of carefully controlled laboratory experiments. You guys are dealing with HISTORY, a bunch of recorded and relatively indisputable facts, and still have trouble coming up with a theory for how nations relate to each other. It seems to me that either arguing about it or waiting for more data isn't going to help (both have been done enough already), and if there _is_ a single, over-arching theory of international relations, then someone probably would have come up with it by now and it would be plainly obvious (due to lack of counter-example) that it was right.

So my suggestion is, come to an agreement on the things that are absolutely NOT possible, and let Civ III do whatever's left. The remaining possibilities could be weighted to reflect history, or we can go under the assumption that history was just a random sequence of stuff, or find a happy place somewhere in between.

Incidentally, I don't see how the Norway thing could be considered a war between democracies either, thanks mostly to the quote from Co_Sinus.

-Dienstag

[NoviceCEO]

Imran, in just a few minutes you'll receive my e-mail. I would only like to comment that, discussions (when well-paced) are healthy. I enjoy to read about these theories, even though I can't be good enough to understand them sometimes.

I do think that korn469 made a good point, but if the game can be more accurate, fine. If not, this is a public forum and discussions are healthy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Diesenstag, I thank you for your post. I hope things are calm as well . However, I do believe that it was WAY to easy to conquer the world, especially in a democracy (no way, no how!). So, I thought about the democratic peace. In fact, it was I that first put that in the list of ideas. So blame me . In International Relations democracies are no less willing to fight other nations, however, they almost never (if ever) fight against other democracies! I'd like to see this modeled. For if you have democracy (the best science government in the game), you shouldn't be taking over the world, which includes other democracies. You should be in peace, or else your population should get a little more mad when fighting against a democratic nation (if you fight against a dictator, the people are less angry about going against an authoritarian).

I hope that made sence .

And Novice, thanks for the email. I shall tell you what I find in this thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey! I actually found something pretty quick!

quote: Triple Alliance, War of the 1865–70, fought between Paraguay on one side and an alliance of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay on the other. Brazil's military reprisals for injuries to Brazilian subjects in Uruguay's civil war brought a declaration of war against Brazil from Francisco Solano López, Paraguayan dictator, who favored the Blanco regime in Uruguay. Imprudently, he also declared war on Argentina after Bartolomé Mitre refused to allow Paraguayan troops to cross Argentine territory. A secret alliance, made by Brazil and Argentina with Gen. Venancio Flores of the Colorado faction (traditional enemies of the Blancos), brought Uruguay into the war. The heroic defense of Paraguay against powerful invaders lasted five years until the final stand at Cerro Corá, where the entire populous rallied around López. By the end of the war Paraguay was devastated and a considerable part of its male population killed. The war was the brutal consequence of López's provocations as well as of the abusive aggressiveness of the larger powers. It nevertheless opened the way for a development of constitutional government in Paraguay. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.

So, the Paraguayan leader was a dictator it seems. Man, I tell ya, I love the internet!


[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 06, 2000).]

[korn469]

Imran

you are completely right, in civ it is much too easy to conquer the world. the AI is completely inadequate in handling military operations, and in multiplayer conquest is even more important.

how exactly does the senate work in civ2? it has been years since i have played civ2 and i never really figured it out when i used to play it. i know how things work in SMAC but i am rusty on civ2...

korn469

[Sirotnikov]

Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations. The US is used to issuing bannings of all sorts on countries that don't play along. How about banning Iraq or Libia? How about the Kosovo incident? I'm not saying it was wrong to do so, but US does that. Russia is now fighting in Chechnia to get rid of terrorists and the US doesn't like it. So they cancel financial aid to Russia. What is the excuse? Russia has every right to persue the terrorist parties that had planted bombs through out Russian cities. Didn't the US do the same after terrorist actions in it's own back yard? Shooting missiles at other countries?

It did. And what right exactly did the US had to try to take over cuba? and what is the reason? It was a threat to close to home.

So we see the hegemonic powers (in present: USA, UK, China and Russia is slowly losing it's status) do use their political power and army to force their terms. And i quote from a quote in a war guide for civ 2 called "fire" : war is an extension of diplomacy (or something like that).

But still remember our main goal is to discuss the game, no matter how interesting and inviting history and politics are (at least to some people including me). I have no intentions to hurt anyone and I understand that I might be wrong.

[CivNation]

Imran,

You are being highly irresponsible. You are imposing your views as fact on people who are ignorant of the specifics. Folks don't fall for it. Democratic peace theory is NO WHERE NEAR PROVEN, and whole universities are oppossed to the theory. Based upon paltry evidence over a 30 year time period, when many democracies are finally actually in the world (and even then the definition of democracy is vague) they go and spout off these ridiculous propositions that democracies NEVER fight each other. Its ludicrous and completely unproven. Before the 20th Century democracies, depending on how you define the term, fought each other often. Most scholars would see the current era of peace not the result of many democracies (heck only 15 years ago half the world was communist!) but of a hegemonic power known as the United States providing a single defense umbrella thereby fostering open economic and peaceful relations.

To put it succinctly- Imran is completely wrong when he says democratic peace theory is proven and that "democracies simply don't fight each other!" Imran please read all of the viewpoints and stop spouting off this kind of ignorance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh uh huh... *waves hand in front of CivNation's face*

You have not said a SINGLE case of democracy fighting against democracy! Not ONE! Where is your proof? I have proof! Political scientists have proven it. Hell, in my political theory class, the teacher said "it is the closest thing to a law in international relations". And she's right! Be a naysayer if you wish. You are just obstructing the facts.

Every example you gave has been slammed back down into your face. The Democratic Peace is highly respect and as close to being a law as you'll find in ALL of the political science.

Furthurmore the number of democracies before the 20th century was minimal. The definition that I've provided seems EXACTLY like what a democracy! HELL, you'd call Serbia a democracy today, knowing you. Name me ONE example. You can't do it, because the Democratic Peace is correct no matter what your dogmatic professors will have you believe!
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 07, 2000).]

[NoviceCEO]

Sirotnikov:"Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations."

That couldn't introduce me better to talk about the Paraguayan War. Imran, I'm surprised. Your encyclopedia did had a mention on this War and it did it ok, but forgot some very important aspects:

1-Paraguay had an impressive growth those days and it was just about to become a superpower. The percentage of people who couldn't read was smaller than Brazilian's current. Paraguay had became a country that didn't need external help, that had its own industry.

2-The "official" reason for the War was the tensions for the control over Rio del Plata ("Silver River", literally translating, it's a river that enabled Paraguay to have a "sea-contact", it is, through the river they could reach the sea.)

3-Brazil was a monarchy I believe and was the country that actually fought against Paraguay, Argentina and Paraguay had only a small part on it. After the war, Brazilian's economy was devastated.

4-We Brazilians get ashamed of our past everytime we hear about this War.

You're probably wondering "What the heck this got to do with democracy?". Well you said that UK was a democracy by those days.

The hidden part of this war is that UK was in full strength ahead in the Industrial Revolution. The British wanted to sell their new products. But read again topic 1. Paraguay wasn't buying anything and the British were getting worried with the growing power of them.

So they had to find a way to slow down Paraguayan's progress, and that way was Brazil. Financed by the British money who we used to buy British war equipment. With superior weapon's and British support, we found a reason to declare war on Paraguay and killed not only nearly all of the men in that country, but children, women and old people, with no mercy.

The result: of over 1million inhabitants, only about 200 hundred Paraguayans survived the war, mostly women and children. Brazil ruined its economy and received as a prize the task to pay back the money we had borrowed from England.

"Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations. "
And so did England...

[Dienstag]

Regarding NoviceCEO's last post, can we all agree that even if democracies don't outright declare war, they do have a tendency to be very influential in the wars of others when they wish? This proxy-war idea seems like something Civ III should include that I haven't heard much about yet. And thanks for the insight, NoviceCEO.

CivNation-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to second Imran's appeal for proof that democracies have ever fought each other. The few examples I've seen seem to have been pretty well invalidated, so although I agree that any instance of such a war would immediately disprove the Democratic Peace theory, it seems only fair to say that this hasn't happened yet. Please provide an example, or at least conceed that the Democratic Peace theory is _not proven_.

CivNation and/or Imran Siddiqui-
As I said I'm a Physics student, and I'm guessing that Physics has somewhat different requirements for "proof" than does International Relations. Could either or both of you explain what you think it takes to "prove" a theory such as these? I only ask because I have trouble believing that no examples of a war between two democracies is proof that such a war can't and/or won't ever occur. If we can agree on what it takes to prove/disprove something, that might be a good start to settling what has become a rather heated and unreasonable debate.

-Dienstag

[MadWoodster]

How about a multi nation alliance system.
This would be more realistic as if you ally yourself with one nation shouldn't you be allied to all their allies as well, this way you would have more realistic alliances such as the axis and allies in WW2. Also this would solve most of these problems as each alliance could pass non-nuclear treaties and the like.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: As I said I'm a Physics student, and I'm guessing that Physics has somewhat different requirements for "proof" than does International Relations. Could either or both of you explain what you think it takes to "prove" a theory such as these? I only ask because I have trouble believing that no examples of a war between two democracies is proof that such a war can't and/or won't ever occur. If we can agree on what it takes to prove/disprove something, that might be a good start to settling what has become a rather heated and unreasonable debate.

Ah, good point. You see, almost no theory in International Relations has been able to stand up to history's exceptions, except one, the Democratic Peace. In fact, there is a Democratic Peace Project that went/is going through all of history and found that there is absolutley no case of two democracies going to war. I think that is sufficent to prove a theory of International Relations.

[pauli]

"If you claim to know something on the basis of hearsay, or on happening to see it in a book, you'll be a laughingstock to those who really know."
- K'ang-Hsi (emperor of china, quote taken from book of the same name).

i just read that a minute ago, and i thought it was relevant enough to post. granted "those who really know" is a group that can't really exist in this case, unless there are some omniscient beings who play civ and are going to show up and correct me .

all these theories... how about if you take the discontent caused when a democracy goes to war, and multiply it by four if the other civ is a democracy, three if it's a republic, and two if it's a parliamentary monarchy? would that settle things enough?

[Jon Miller]

Hi all,

While I am also a physics student I would like to have my say.

1. I think that Imran has succeded in proving that the DP theory has not been proven false.

2. I think that CN is right in that 30 years of democracy is not near enough time to declare DP fact, when comparing that with how long human civilization has lasted. Any previous years can be declared unusable since most countries were not democratic and so democratic nations not fighting each other would be statistical.

3. CN, your initial statements against Imran were too harsh. Imran your replies got to harsh.

4. I think democracies are government by the people. And if the people want war with a nation it will not matter if it is democratic or not. Most wars WW2 and previous were fought over resources, it has only been since then that the advanced nations have solved their resource shortfalls and wants by trade and not war. Thus wars fought by these nations since WW2 have been idealogical. Democracies have no idealogical reason to fight eachother. If there was a resource shortfall that could not be solved by trade or other methods we would start seeing a demand for war, even in democracies. Of course if there was a nonsolvable resource shortfall the democracies might fall into dictarorships anyways.

5. Question, were not some Indian tribes democracies?

Jon Miller