Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[GePap]

You are talking about demonizing the PEOPLE, not individuals, as we did the Japanese in WW2.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perhaps you could make a case for the US and Britain and France by around 1900, but it would be a very close thing.

Not under your set of definitions. Switzerland, the "poster boy" for peaceful democracies, wouldn't pass even the most basic of your tests until 1971.

it is EXTREMELY RARE that democracies fight compared to the rest of governmental dyads. Is this not so?

The sample you're dealing with is WAY too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from. (even today)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't disagree that the facts are there, but I do greatly disagree with what you claim is the mechanism, if only becuase this constructivist claim you make (and that is what it is) has not been proven.

How do you make sense of the data? Even if you say democracies rarely fight, based on the most loose definition, how does that square with other dyads that fight incessantly?

All IR claims are constructivist... I don't see how you'd go about proving any of them.

democracies (those you are wlling to call that) are relatively rare.

Even democracies that you are willing to call are relatively rare to human experience, but seem to be spreading greatly as of late... and they don't seem to fight wars much among themselves.

This is an incredible phenomenon, and one that has puzzled IR scholars. The only thing they can really decide from this is that there is something significant about relationships between two democracies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are talking about demonizing the PEOPLE, not individuals, as we did the Japanese in WW2.

It can still be done under the greater good. Remember both FDR and Truman were humanists, believed greatly that all men were equals, yet could still demonize. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you are hamstrung by it in all situations. You aren't thinking like a politician.

Switzerland, the "poster boy" for peaceful democracies, wouldn't pass even the most basic of your tests until 1971.

Why not? Could women not vote?

The sample you're dealing with is WAY too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. Even with small samples we can draw meaningful conclusions... especially when something doesn't seem quite 'right'.

[GePap]

Not all IR claims are constructivist: try telling that to a buch of IR professors, and their PolSci buddies.

How do you make sense of the data? Even if you say democracies rarely fight, based on the most loose definition, how does that square with other dyads that fight incessantly?

They don't fight excessively, those non democratic states. You want a way to get the same evidence with a different method? I could claim that until all outstanding issue have been resolved, between a state and some, if not all, of its neighbors, relative democracy is not capable of taking hold, since given internal political forces have too many crisises to manipulate internally and stiffle democracy. After all, it could say that until the US had solved all outstanding concerns with it neighbors and the biggest ones within, true democracy did not take hold (1865). In this way, democracy is not the cause of peace, but the effect of it.After all, democracy is spreading now only becuase the great crisis of the Cold war is over.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It can still be done under the greater good. Remember both FDR and Truman were humanists, believed greatly that all men were equals, yet could still demonize. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you are hamstrung by it in all situations. You aren't thinking like a politician.

And I don;t have to. Your claim is that the PEOPLE oppose war wityh other democracies, because they have internalized democractic values. Wjho is in power would and should be irrelevant. If it is not, what stops a demagoge from coming to power, and starting a war with another democracy, specially if they don't plan to, who knows, ever hold elections again. That possiblity can;t exist in the argument you are giving me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not all IR claims are constructivist

Which aren't?

In this way, democracy is not the cause of peace, but the effect of it.After all, democracy is spreading now only becuase the great crisis of the Cold war is over.

I seriously disagree that democracy is the effect of peace. If that were the case, you'd see democracy spread over Europe after the Peace of Westphalia. You also had democracy spread during the Cold War, especially from colonies breaking off and deciding they were independant. It was ONLY because of the Cold War that this really could have happened. Because the West getting involved in colonial wars would have had a damaging effect on its defense against Communism. Much easier to let them go and bribe them. If they strayed towards communism, send in some black ops.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your claim is that the PEOPLE oppose war wityh other democracies, because they have internalized democractic values. Wjho is in power would and should be irrelevant.

Yes... and they look upon those peoples who have democracy to share their own democratic values. Those that don't have democracy do not have their own values and therefore are not seen in the same positive light. Therefore, perhaps, the people can be demonized because they aren't as 'civilized', though they may be able to be in the future with some work.

Internalized democratic values of civil rights and letting people have a say are disgusted by societies where dictators rule and also where people are brainwashed into letting the dictators rule over them. They need to be cleansed and infused with the virtues of democracy (another brainwashing perhaps).

[GePap]

Which aren't?

Any that have nothing to do with the notion of values, speically the self-internalization of them. The reason for why you get arm races, for example.

If that were the case, you'd see democracy spread over Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.

The peace of Westphalia in no way solved all the outstading issue of power in Europe. All it did was end the notion of a single Soverign being able to rule all of Europe (or at least the HRE) and accorded soverignty to local leaders. It did nothging to end the ambitions of either the Habsburgs, Swedes, French, or Ottomans.

You also had democracy spread during the Cold War, especially from colonies breaking off and deciding they were independant

Where, pray tell? most of the countries that became independent as the European colonial powers fell (from ehxaustion) did not become democracies, and if anything, the superpowers and local groups manipulated the Cold war dynamic to stiffle democracy. The evry notions of bribery and special ops units, the very notion of fighting communism, specially if it was winnign electorally, is ANTI-democratic. (and goes even further agains the idea that dmeocratic man, for example in the US, self-internalized such vaues).

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason for why you get arm races, for example.

The Conflict Spiral? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding constructivist, but taking the root of construct, it seems to me this might fit as well. Seeing things happening and then putting a theory on top of it.

The peace of Westphalia in no way solved all the outstading issue of power in Europe. All it did was end the notion of a single Soverign being able to rule all of Europe (or at least the HRE) and accorded soverignty to local leaders. It did nothging to end the ambitions of either the Habsburgs, Swedes, French, or Ottomans.

That it didn't. But after the 30 Years War, you didn't have warfare for a while. Surely some democracies should have flourished in that time of peace, no?

Where, pray tell? most of the countries that became independent as the European colonial powers fell (from ehxaustion) did not become democracies, and if anything, the superpowers and local groups manipulated the Cold war dynamic to stiffle democracy.

India became a democratic state during this time. South Korea and Taiwan eventually became democracies during the Cold War. Some states in Africa, such as Algeria (of course recently Algeria is having problems)...

The evry notions of bribery and special ops units, the very notion of fighting communism, specially if it was winnign electorally, is ANTI-democratic. (and goes even further agains the idea that dmeocratic man, for example in the US, self-internalized such vaues).

You don't believe that students in the US internalize values such as the US is spreading democracy and that is a good thing? If not, when did you stop paying attention?! The US is what I've been mainly using as an example of people who have self-internalized democratic norms.

You seem to be trapped in this rut that if you internalize democratic values, you cannot do things that are anti-democratic in the present, but in the long run will help spread democratic. You seem to believe that internalization of democratic norms leds to pacifist sheep (or zombies) that cannot be but good. Why can't someone who has internalized democratic norms not say the ends justify the means? Why do you handicap him so? So that your point is easier to make?

[Drake Tungsten]

How in the hell did you guys get off on this tangent? Popping in once every few days just isn't sufficient for keeping up with the threadjacks around here, it seems.

BTW, democratic peace theory is a bunch of BS. I wouldn't even call it a "theory"; unproven hypothesis would be the more correct term.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How in the hell did you guys get off on this tangent? Popping in once every few days just isn't sufficient for keeping up with the threadjacks around here, it seems.

BTW, democratic peace theory is a bunch of BS. I wouldn't even call it a "theory"; unproven hypothesis would be the more correct term.

hi ,




have a nice day

[GePap]

Lets start:

Drake: the main line was getting nowhere, the tangent more fun.

imran:

frst of all, "constructivist" reffers to a general line of thought in IR, as opposed to, lets say, reaslism or institutionalism. A Constructivist believes that International relations can be, or completely are, ruled by ideas and values, specially the ideas and values of the people. A Realist could not give a damn whether the people's of two places "like" each other or not: to them the notion is irrelevant since they feel there are fundamental limits set by , well, something, that force a set of common behaviors on all states. Constructivist think that if you were to change the belieefs of individuals, well, you change the behavior of states. that is why I say your theory is constructivist.

That it didn't. But after the 30 Years War, you didn't have warfare for a while. Surely some democracies should have flourished in that time of peace, no?

Oh, yes, dmeocracy was just waitning to happen, here in pre-enlightenment Europe..... I didn't say peace was the only pre-requisite, just a prerequisiet, of my nacent little theory (which exiss right now only to show that this explination is not the only possible).

You seem to be trapped in this rut that if you internalize democratic values, you cannot do things that are anti-democratic in the present, but in the long run will help spread democratic. You seem to believe that internalization of democratic norms leds to pacifist sheep (or zombies) that cannot be but good. Why can't someone who has internalized democratic norms not say the ends justify the means? Why do you handicap him so? So that your point is easier to make?

And you know Imran, everythign you say above would point directly to why the answer you give for why democracies don't go to war is absurd. What would stop a leader from telling his people that while this war we are about to wage agaisnt our fellow democracy might seem undemocratic...well, trust us it will lead to an even better democracy for them in the future! Would the people not support such an act, out of their whish to give their fellow democracts a better democracy later, after all, it will only cost them a few hundread, or a few thousand lives..but in 20 years you will thank us! Yes, people in democracies do not become brainless pacifist zombies, they do think in "end justifies the means" ways, and that they do shows that your notion of why a leader could simply not sell them a war is silly!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What would stop a leader from telling his people that while this war we are about to wage agaisnt our fellow democracy might seem undemocratic...well, trust us it will lead to an even better democracy for them in the future!

How will it lead to an 'even better' democracy in the future? And who would believe him? If the democracy is already there and they are electing individuals to power and believe in democratic ideals of rights, how can a leader sell the people on an 'even better' democracy? How will he be prevented from being laughed out of the room? That's the silliest thing you've said.

John M. Owen, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford, wrote an incredibly interesting piece that you should read, "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace". It also defines 'democracy' in a way you may like better as well.

Owen looks at the theory of liberalism (which basically created democracy) and says that within it there is a disdain for war, except in certain cases against those who are unenlightened. Liberal theory says that to be free the people must be enlightened and they must live under enlightened political institutions so that they are enlightened. Illiberal states are viewed as unreasonable, unpredictable, and dangerous. One of the main tenants of liberal foreign policy is you don't attack other enlightened peoples! How are others enlightened? If they live under a democracy... and there is no such thing as a 'better' democracy. If they elect their leaders and have liberal ideas (rights and such), they are a liberal democracy and under the liberal theory, you ain't supposed to fight 'em.

Liberal norms and structures perpetuate this democratic peace. Because liberals believe that you aren't supposed to fight other democracies who share your liberal views, they will prevent it, even when an illiberal is in power. However, they will attempt, if they can to enlighten those who are not.

Now, he has a looser definition of democracy. He defines it as having free, fair elections and liberal ideas. HOWEVER, the country must be percieved by its enemies to be a democracy and it must be percieved by the world (or system at the time) of being a democracy. It's why I refer to it as Perception Democratic Peace Theory. Perceptions matter under Owen's theory. If you percieve your counterpart as a democracy, then under liberal theory which creates and guides democracy, you are live with him in peace. If he is not percieved as a democracy, then you may war with him because they are unenlightened. Of course, a Realist might counter, you can always call him a dictator! This assumes that people are sheep. If the country was called a democracy and fulfills the criteria of a democracy (by the IR definition) then it would be almost impossible for it NOT to be a democracy.

The two forces of liberalism and power politics work together to fight for self-interest of the country, but also constrain a democracy from fighting his own kind.

You asked when did people stop and say no we cannot fight because the other is a democracy? Look no further than the history of the US. Owen points out two distinct times of this. In 1873, when the US almost went to war with Spain over the Virginius affair, many Americans, including the Secretary of State, argued for peace because they believed Spain was a republic (this perception would of course change later). Likewise in 1892, when President Harrison was thinking about war against Chile over the Baltimore affair, many Americans, including liberals in Congress (such as Representative Breckinridge) opposed the proposed war, because Chile was a republic (Breckinridge himself said that war should not be used against a fellow republic during session). So, yes, the fact that the other country is a democracy is an important thing that is weighed upon. Even if the leader is an illiberal, liberal opposition to him will prevent war mongering because of fears of reelection.

frst of all, "constructivist" reffers to a general line of thought in IR, as opposed to, lets say, reaslism or institutionalism. A Constructivist believes that International relations can be, or completely are, ruled by ideas and values, specially the ideas and values of the people. A Realist could not give a damn whether the people's of two places "like" each other or not: to them the notion is irrelevant since they feel there are fundamental limits set by , well, something, that force a set of common behaviors on all states.

Ah, another reason why I think Realism is bunch of bull**** .

[GePap]

Well, it sounds like Owens arguement is much better developed. As you say, he thinks what matters is the conception of the other state, not whether it actually is a democracy. Under such circumstances though, what is to stop a change in either 1) the belief that the other being a dmeocracy should matter and 2) the ability for those who want war to portray the other as NOT as republic, and hence, an enemy to be fought?

I tend to perhaps disagree abou the "enlightening" values of liberal notion.

But at leats imran we get a good argument out of you