It has been debated for millennia whether or not conflict should be used as a foreign policy tool. Wars are tools; like any tool, they may be utilized for good or evil. Humanity agrees that some of these war aims are worthy and that conflict serves some necessary functions for any civilization. As such, it has served the essential purpose of resolving conflicts, upholding rights, and correcting wrongs. War is sometimes required to safeguard national interests and peace.
In contrast, others contend it is never justifiable and always leads to needless casualties and devastation. Policy, which involves perpetuating the conflict by other means, has primarily supplanted war as the preferred method of achieving political goals. However, these two formulations are the same in theory. Both depict an ongoing rivalry in which aggressive and peaceful strategies coexist to achieve similar goals. In this essay, the examination will be based on the question, “to what extent is war a justified instrument of foreign policy?”
The realistic view of war as a tool of statecraft stresses power and the need for states to defend their interests in a world with no overarching authority. A chaotic international system is one in which no central body can impose standards or mediate conflicts (White 46). Because of this, individual nations must look out for themselves and vie for control over available resources. When diplomacy and other methods of dispute settlement have failed, or when a state’s national security is threatened, the battle may be the only option left (Tilly 121). Realists contend that diplomacy and negotiations are only sometimes successful when working with states that do not share the same goals or principles. Furthermore, realists claim that national security should be a state’s top concern and that conflict may be essential to defend against external threats or aggression. Similarly, realists stress the value of caution in avoiding conflict (Biden Jr). This view holds that states can prevent attack by showing they are prepared to use force if required by displaying their armed strength. Possible enemies may be dissuaded from taking harsh measures; this lessens the prospect of conflict.
Some contend that the realist viewpoint can only lead to more bloodshed and devastation as states vie for control and resources (Wigell 257). There is a risk that, in pursuing national interests, people will disregard international humanitarian and human rights concerns. It has been argued that realism policies could prove detrimental because they raise hostilities and foster an even more hostile international atmosphere (Bērziņš 368). Despite these concerns, realism arguments continue to be considered when discussing international issues. Especially during the Cold War, realist views influenced U.S. foreign policy. Military action, nuclear proliferation, and excellent power rivalry are all topics on which the realist viewpoint continues to shed light.
War is a last resort, according to the liberal view of foreign policy, and instead, diplomatic efforts should be made to prevent and resolve disputes. In this view, military action is never justified unless all other options have been exhausted (Biden Jr). To liberals, war results from a broken international system, given the significance liberals place on international law and organizations for settling disputes and fostering peace. Liberals believe that the use of force should be restrained and thoroughly weighed. Military involvement is justified only in self-defense or reaction to a prominent and imminent danger to international peace and security (Tilly 129). As a means of dispute resolution, liberals place a premium on international collaboration and concerted action. The United Nations and other foreign organizations play a role in facilitating negotiations and mediating peaceful resolutions to conflicts.
Liberals’ detractors say their outlook is to cope with the realities of today’s complicated and violent disputes. They contend that using force is sometimes required to safeguard national interests and avert social catastrophes. Further, critics of the liberal viewpoint point out that its emphasis on international collaboration and collective action can make its adherents care less about the safety of individual states (Bērziņš 371). Despite these arguments against it, the liberal viewpoint continues to play a significant role in discussions of international relations. Foreign policy in the United States has been partly shaped by liberal ideals, especially in the decades following World War II (Chin 768). Human rights, humanitarian action, and international law are some topics where the liberal viewpoint is still influential. Before resorting to military action, the justifications for doing so should be thoroughly examined, and nonviolent means of dispute settlement should be seriously thought out.
An emphasis on the logical use of military action is placed on the view that war is an instrument that foreign policy employs to accomplish its goals. According to this view, conflict can be a suitable means for a state to achieve its political goals if used sparingly and for a specific goal. Although it acknowledges the significance of armed factors in formulating foreign policy, it does not give them privileged status (Wigell 261). War, in this view, is merely a means to a goal rather than an aim in and of itself. It is a means by which policy aims to accomplish its goals, be they purely pragmatic or idealistic or more protective of national security, economic interests, or other people’s freedoms (Tilly 134). From this vantage point, fighting is seen as a last resort because of the costs and risks involved. Even though this view acknowledges the significance of military factors, it also stresses the importance of knowing the boundaries of the tool you use to make policy. This involves knowing not only the capabilities of one’s military but also the political, economic, and societal contexts in which one’s military action might be implemented (White 50). The possible human and material expenses and risks of military action must be considered when formulating policy. This view has been criticized because it can cause people to ignore more pressing issues, like human rights and humanitarian aid, in favor of pursuing a limited policy goal. Recognizing the possible benefits and costs of military action, it is essential to thoroughly assess the reasons for using military force and consider alternative methods to conflict settlement.
Seeing conflict as a continuation of politics highlights that it is a political and military activity. As such, it acknowledges that conflicts are never waged for their own sake but rather to further some political goal (Wigell 268). From this vantage point, political disagreements are said to be at the heart of every conflict, with armed forces merely one of many possible solutions. Wars have a political logic, waged over things like land, resources, and political control (Albert). These problems have a political dimension, and the threat or use of coercion is sometimes used as a political tool. Conflicts usually have a political component, even when waged for allegedly moral or humanitarian reasons like stopping atrocities or spreading democracy (Chin 775). As an extension of politics, war is a reminder that armed conflict never occurs in a void. Instead, they are part of more significant political and social circumstances determining the conflict’s trajectory and result. Wars are waged and settled in various settings, some of which include past complaints, economic circumstances, and societal differences.
Even though conflict is inherently political, the prompt suggests that there are times when policy lacks command of its instrument. This is a possible outcome when conflicts become out of control or when the expenses of military action exceed the benefits (Wigell 272). However, the political rationale of conflict persists even in such circumstances. The political problems that sparked the war remain, regardless of whether or not the policy can manipulate the instrument at its disposal (White 54). Given that conflict is inherently political, the lines that run through it will always be political, even if policy loses control of its weapon. Understanding the political context in which battles are waged is essential for policymakers, as is considering alternative methods to conflict settlement that account for the broader political and social circumstances in which conflicts occur.
The just war theory includes the concept of reasonable success, which holds that a military operation’s costs and rewards must be considered before making a decision to go to war. As the name implies, this guiding principle is consequentialist in nature, as it requires a comparison of the possible gains and losses from a military campaign (White 58). Nonetheless, ethical and practical issues can arise when considering weighing advantages. Should a state, for instance, still declare war or assist a people if there is zero chance of success? Important moral questions regarding the responsibility to safeguard and intercede in situations of gross human rights violations or humanitarian disasters are raised by this inquiry (Chin 781). The moral obligation to safeguard human life and dignity may necessitate intervention even when there is no realistic possibility of success. It is a similar moral conundrum whether or not to give in to violence when the costs of resisting are too high. This dilemma illustrates the conflict between the right to self-defense and the obligation to safeguard harmless bystanders. If you give in to aggression, you might escape the trouble and expense of conflict, but you might also help keep the oppressor in power (Bērziņš 377). There are serious moral questions raised by the idea that it would be justifiable to utterly destroy a powerless adversary because doing so would have almost no adverse consequences. The conflict between the nondiscrimination and balance concepts is brought to light by this inquiry. Even though a feeble foe can be defeated with little effort, force should be used only when necessary and against those who pose an actual threat rather than innocent bystanders.
The debate over whether or not conflict can ever be a legitimate method of achieving national security objectives is nuanced and intricate. War is a last resort that should never be used if other peaceful options exist for resolving a dispute. However, some contend that defending national interests and keeping international order is sometimes essential. War’s morality can be assessed using the standards laid out by the just war theory, which include cause, proper purpose, proportionality, and discrimination, among others. However, despite these criteria, choosing to go to war is still complicated, as it involves weighing the pros and cons and the moral ramifications of resorting to force. Peaceful means of dispute resolution should be prioritized whenever feasible, so policymakers must strike a careful equilibrium between these factors.
Works Cited
Albert, Mathias. “The justification of war and international order: from past to present.” (2021): 1259-1260.
Bērziņš, Jānis. “The theory and practice of new generation warfare: The case of Ukraine and Syria.” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 33.3 (2020): 355-380.
Biden Jr, Joseph R. “Why American Must Lead Again: Recusing U.S. Foreign Policy after Trump.” Foreign Aff. 99 (2020): 64.
Chin, Warren. “Technology, war and the state: past, present and future.” International Affairs 95.4 (2019): 765-783.
Tilly, Charles. “War making and state making as organized crime.” Collective violence, contentious politics, and social change. Routledge, 2017. 121-139.
White, Brian. “Foreign policy analysis and European foreign policy.” Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy. Manchester University Press, 2018. 45-61.
Wigell, Mikael. “Hybrid interference as a wedge strategy: a theory of external interference in liberal democracy.” International Affairs 95.2 (2019): 255-275.
write