One thing that has come out of Israel's war on Lebanon: both Israel and Lebanon have McDonald's franchises, so Thomas Friedman's Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention is officially dead. Of course, it was dead long ago - the US bombing of Serbia and the various clashes between India and Pakistan should have put paid to it long ago - but this should be the final nail in the coffin.
It might also put paid to that other old myth, that democracies don't wage war on one another. Fairly clearly, they do - but I suppose defenders of the myth will try and question Lebanon's status as a democracy (when everyone was praising it just a few months ago).
I think that we also need to include trading prior to the word "democracies". That might be a better truism.
ReplyDeleteOf course I mean the word "trading" :)
ReplyDeleteIt's a war between Israel and Hezbollah. Say what you want about the conflict but the govts of Israel and Lebanon are not at war.
ReplyDeleteSerbia was not a democracy at the time.
India and Pakestan are the exception that prove the rule.
Not sure why you're taking a dislike to this view, if one of the benefits of democacy is that it leads to less war then surely a plus for democracy.
The problem with the democratic peace theory is that it's only true if you load it down with caveats and conditions. If it were perfectly clear what a democracy was, and perfectly clear that those states didn't go to war, then the hypothesis might be useful.
ReplyDeleteBut worse than just being wrong, it leads to simplistic assumptions about how democracy promotion would inevitably make the world a safer place when in many cases it can have just the opposite effect.
With regards to the 'democracies don't go to war with each other' 'rule', I'd say it might be better forumulated as democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, which I think is a reasonable proposition*, although it brings with it all sorts of 'chicken and egg' type questions. As for the 'Golden Arches Theory', I'd say that there's a loose correlation, but Freidman always had cause and effect mixed up.
ReplyDelete*it starts looking less reasonalbe when you factor in covert wars like the US's war via proxy with the Sandanistas.
Yes, Lebanon is that odd sort of democracy that (i) doesn't control a significant part of its territory, ceding control of it to a large unregulated militia funded by and possibly under the direction of several foreign powers, hence (ii) accepts no responsibility for the actions of aforementioned militia, yet (iii) takes umbrage when someone else robustly takes on that militia with all the strategic bombing such an action necessarily involves, insisting that such actions constitute an attack on *it*. What a peach of a place.
ReplyDeleteAnon - the vile massacres of civilians you refer to as 'strategic' and 'necessary' are the reason that Siniora and the Lebanese population 'take umbrage' as you put it.
ReplyDeleteStop using weasel words.
The IDF is conducting massacres of civilian populations,on people and places that are(were) at best ambivalent about Hizbollah. The Lebanese, including the Government, are bloody angry, and now willing to back Hizbollah in a way that was impossible a month ago.
I feel ridiculous for having to point out the obvious.
Points one and two are true, but it's only by closing your eyes to the severe violence that you can make conclusions you do in point three.
terence
ReplyDeleteI suggest proxy wars are probably less common in democratic countries too, all else being held equal.
But they are probably more common as countries get more powerful and thus more able to use that tool.
All the trouble is where there are parties with electoral mandates - Palestine Authority, Lebanon & Iraq. Also the unexpected win of the current nut fruitcake in the Iranian presidential election - he wasn't expected to win but has an uncanny ability to be very vulgar and 'touch' voters.
ReplyDeleteThe stability is ebbing away precisely because the old order based on unequal treaties between West vs Egypt, Jordan, Saudia etc. is becoming unsustainable as urbanization means more "ordinary folk" (e.g. Shiia in Saudi Arabia; urban poor in Egypt who love Muslim Brotherhood, and 2/3rds Palestinian population of Jordan) demand an actual say in domestic and foreign policy.
THE PROBLEM IS URBANIZATION AND RISING DEMANDS FOR ELECTORAL CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST...it is simply not compatible with Western control ....
One year ago, almost to the day, we were being told that the Republic of Lebanon was the very most beautiful thing in the entire Arabic world - the rose of the Arab world.
ReplyDeleteToday's news has all the main political leaders in Lebanon - from the Sunni establishment's al-Hoss through to the hero of the Catholics - Michel Aoun - all completely failing to "get it" i.e. they are failing to jump into line, failing to be intimidated by the West's weapons of mass destruction that are falling all over them....
This is what the U.S. said of Lebanon's democracy one year ago:
Statement by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
C. David Welch House International Relations Committee July 28, 2005
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to address the Committee today. I have
just returned from a trip last week to Beirut with Secretary Rice where we met with Lebanon's new leaders, including new Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and
Saad Hariri and Michel Aoun, leaders of the largest bloc in Parliament and the largest opposition bloc, respectively. We also met with President Emile
Lahoud, and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri.
The new Government's policy platform is being discussed in Parliament today and its plans for reform are impressive. It will not be an easy process, but the United States and the international community will stand with the people of Lebanon as they navigate their transformation to a free, prosperous, secure, and fully sovereign country. As Secretary Rice saidduring her Beirut visit, "You'll not find a more supportive partner than the
United States for what Lebanon is trying to achieve. This is a wonderful breakthrough for the
Lebanese people to have control over their future."
We are now entering a new phase in Lebanon's political development. The parliamentary elections held May 29-June 19 were judged to be free and fair by UN and EU
observers. For the first time in 29 years, the Lebanese people voted without Syrian influence and
elected a parliament - with sixty-one new faces - dominated by the anti-Syrian former
opposition. The elections gave the opposition led by Saad Hariri, slain former Prime Minister
Rafiq Hariri's son, an absolute majority of 72 seats of the 128 seats in the Chamber of Deputies.
Christian leader Michel Aoun's bloc received 21 seats and the Shia Hizballah/Amal bloc
captured 35 seats. Fouad Siniora, a former finance minister and a close ally of the Hariri family,
was selected as prime minister.
After three weeks of negotiations, President Lahoud accepted Prime Minister Siniora'sCabinet list on July 19. The 24-member Cabinet retained a two-thirds majority
for PM Siniora's supporters that is essential to avoiding gridlock. It includes three allies of
President Lahoud and five members of the Hizballah/Amal alliance. Michel Aoun's block remained
outside of the government, but Aoun has publicly said his supporters will play the role of a
constructive opposition. One formal member of Hizballah holds a Cabinet position: Mohammad
Fneish is the new Minister of Energy and Water.
...At this time of change in Lebanon, the stabilizing role of UNIFIL continues to be
important. UNIFIL monitors activity along the Blue Line, reports violations to the UN Security Council, and provides assistance to the Lebanese civilian population. UN
Secretary General Annan delivered a semi-annual report to the UNSC on July 20 that called for a
renewal of UNIFIL's mandate..."
bla bla bla
http://libanvote.com/
As of Sunday there are only two parties in Lebanon that are close to the U.S./U.K. position - holding around 25 seats in the 128 seat chamber.
ReplyDeleteThey are the Druze-dominated Progressive Socialist Party (Hizb al-Taqadummi al-Ishtiraki) which has 16 seats and the Maronite Catholic Lebanese Forces with 6
seats.
There is also the Qornet Shehwan Gathering's 6 seats (this is a coalition of the Falangist and National Liberals) but the Qornet is split at the moment because whereas the very pro-French, some of its MPs are very angry with all the damage done to Catholic parts of the country taking out telecoms, electricity and so much material damage to businesses.
Basically the rest of the parties are now at odds with the U.S./U.K. position and these are:
Current for the Future
(Tayyar Al Mustaqbal): 36 seats
(this is Sunni/Greek Orthodox/Greek Catholic bloc led by the Prime Minister who until about a month ago was very pro-U.S.)
Tripoli Bloc: 3
Democratic Renewal: 1
Democratic Left: 1
Independents: 3
Hope Movement (Harakat Amal): 15
Party of God (Hezbollah): 14
Syrian Social Nationalist Party (al-Hizb al-Quami al-Ijtima'i al-Suri): 2
Free Patriotic Movement
(Tayyar Al-Watani Al-Horr): 14
Skaff Bloc: 5
Murr Bloc: 2
Others: 4
(Skaff Bloc - Greek Catholic, its leader Elie Skaff is a New Zealander and former Lebanese Minister of Agriculture).
web.naharnet.com/default.asp
http://www.kibush.co.il/index.asp
What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
ReplyDeleteOf course this is not a war on Hizbollah, it is a war to dismantle a democracy and a whole society - if this was a war on Hizbullah than US/UK and their paid IDF soldiers would be attacking Tehran or Damascus not Faraya, Byblos, Baabda, Sidon etc! (no Hizbullah there!)
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/
Darroch should feel ridiculous for making stuff up. There has been nothing rightly describable as a massacre carried out by the IDF in Lebanon. (just repeatedly saying so doesn't make it so, jackass). Everthing that's happened has been war not war-crime. People have been terrified by strategic bombing not terrorized by terror bombing. And so on. No weasel words - there's a big difference between fighting knowing that 100's of innocents will be killed and setting out to kill lots of innocents. Israel has done the former not the latter. The Fisk's and Darroch's of the world just deny that there is a real difference ("people died.... what's the difference?" they cry) - at least when it suits them to do so - which makes them thick, and ultimately pawns of those who really are interested in doing the latter (to the tune of several 100 missiles per day and backed by an avowedly annihilationist Iran who would and will do much worse as soon as it can).
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world Darroch would one day have to fight across a border to his own standards... no use of air power to cut off enemy supply routes... possibly no use of air power in areas where there were any civilians period.... that's a recipe for losing thousands of troops probably with similar civilian death totals and certainly much greater property destruction in the end. After you, grunt....
Gooner: I think you need to be more specific; it seems to be about economic interdependence (e.g. France and Germany) rather than merely government type. Interestingly, Friedman has modified his rule to more resemble this, but in an effort to be cooler, he talks about "global supply chains" rather than interdependence.
ReplyDeleteNeil: I'm "taking a dislike to it" because it seems to be false. No to mention not necessarily supported by any underlying theory beyond "democracy good!". Democracy is supposed to make government responsive to its people - so it should lead to peace when the electorate generally desire it (but doesn't seem to in the case of the UK, or Australia, or the other western democracies dragged into Bush's "Coalition of the Willing"). But what if you have an electorate of warmongers? In that case, democracy isn't going to lead to peace.
I think the best you can say is that democracies are probably more peaceful than other forms of government (the US being the obvious exception) - but not that they'll never go to war with one another.
As for whether Israel is "at war" with lebanon; they've invaded lebanon, they're blockading its ports, bombing its capital, and killing its soldiers and people (oh, and the odd guerilla too). Call it what you will, but it looks like a war to me.
Anon: I suggest you read this report from Human Rights Watch. It makes a compelling case that israel is being absolutely indiscriminate in its use of force, shown little to no regard for civilian lives or property, and at times have deliberately targetted civilians. These are war crimes, and the people responsible should be held accountable.
ReplyDelete(In the summary, it also points out the stunningly obvious: that lobbing unguided rockets at civilian areas and hiding behind civilians are also war crimes. But that does not relieve Israel of responsibility under international humanitarian law, or provide them with an excuse to commit war crimes of their own).
Idiot, none of your examples are evidence that "democracies don't go to war agianst other democracies" is false.
ReplyDeleteSay what you want about the conflict in Lebanon, the govts of Lebanon and Israel are not at war. (And one might add that democracy in Lebanon has been serverly undermined by Hezbollah. If the Exclusive Bretheren had a militia that dwarfed the NZ army and had usurped the govt's prerogative to make foreign policy and had launched a war against a neighbouring country, then the argument that NZ's democracy was compromised would be strong).
Also, Pakistan is a dictatorship. So strike 3.
But really the this is meant to be a general guide, no one is saying anything more than democracies tend not to fight each other. And for very good reasons. And that it a reason to promote democracy. One could just as well make the argument based on liberal values. Democracies tend to promote liberal values, almost by definition.
neil,
ReplyDeleteindia and pakistan have McDonalds; I think that's what he was refering to.
terence
OK - read the HRW report - the basic list of worries that the report raises doesn't convince except as a series of prima facie cases in which Israel has to eventually explain what they were up to. It's a pain to have to wait for that and there's always the problem that the Israelis could just lie to cover their tracks - i.e., say that they had info about a particular house or that they hit a fleeing ambulance because it did some signature manoeuvre.... when none of this is true. That would be frustrating..... but then that's what it has to come down to and there's a process to be worked through.... HRW's report is an opening bid in that process, a very noisy (in every sense of the word) accusation, nothing more....
ReplyDeleteI suspect that much of it will end up arguable: Israel will tough out some cases and admit mistakes in others... there's simply no utterly undeniable atrocity on the list. People like HRW whose job is victim-centric will always suspect the worst and remain unconvinced . Israel isn't taking "all precautions to protect civilians from harm" if you interpret that strictly. But that's a hell of a high standard to fight under if you interpret it strictly - arguably it's incompatible with any foreseeable killing of innocents (if you can forsee 'em not attacking is the appropriate precaution ...) the story goes - but everybody who fights accepts a much lower standard/less strict interpretation of "all precautions" than this. You hit 20 targets about which you have the same sort of information. You knew that only at best, say 10-15 of them, will turn out to be actual enemy... and that loads of civilians are going to die (there's bound to be a church/hospital in the bunch if the targets are as they are in Lebanon)... that's war - intentional foreseeable killing of civilians that nonetheless isn't trying to kill civilians is grim but OK and probably essential - if the enemy is someone with a very bad bomb then you may have to hit all 20 targets even if you are certain that 19/20 won't have the big bad bomb and are completely civilian.... In all these cases you took all precautions- there was no further timely information available to you....These sorts of horrible calculations are invisible to and probably unacceptable to the HRW's of the world. (Although if you read the report you'll see at various points that HRW claims to be able to do the relevant sort of calculations and so that they accept the legitimacy of such at least for the sake of the argument.... The problem is that in those cases their "sums" look self-serving and that they are necessarily ill-informed. Much of the relevant information is probabilistic and just as you can't confirm or refute a climate change theory by noting the conditions outside your window so the "on the scenes" basic data that HRW has can't confirm or refute their dastardly theory about Israel's goals. Shit people are dumb!)
But if Israel isn't taking "all precautions to protect civilians from harm" strictly interpreted there's also no evidence that Israel is treating civilians as "fair game for attack" either. The summary and to some extent the report itself slips from one charge to the other. It's just a fact that everything the report documents is consistent with strategic bombing. Get back to us HRW, one wants to say, when you've got serious evidence that Israel is bombing civilian targets to degrade Lebanese morale/will etc..
In sum, HRW is deluded about the conclusions its own evidence supports (or even could support), and those who accept those conclusions are even more deluded.
Finally, the methodology is obnoxiously even-handed. HRW relentlessly equates the parties involved, marking it is as one of those ghastly post-moral NGOs that refrains from judging the combatants and just wants to "stop the violence" in abstraction from the character of the agents involved. (Project that methodology back into the past and see what it gets you.) That's a useful perspective to have around on some level or another - it's kind of an anthropologists/historians perspective - but it leaves out something so important (rather like describing crime in a way that treats police and criminals evenhandledly, and would ultimately urge them both to disarm!) that the actual conclusions reached have little value. But I don't expect agreement about that.