WAR ON IRAQ IN THE LIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
WAR ON IRAQ IN THE LIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY Ece DINCASLAN Izmir University of EconomicsABSTRACTThe democratic peace is one of the best explanatory theories. The roots of this theory go backto Philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Perpetual Peace, 1795. The foreign policy of the UnitedStates, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq is predicated on the democratic peace. Bushadministration, tried hold and help Washington in order to achieve a peaceful, stable, andprosperous Muslim world as, following Iraqs example, democratize.September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam‟s use of chemical weapons were started andinducing the war in Iraq. The United States justify itself by enhancing global human securityand decreasing internal political violence. 1. IntroductionAt a first glance, Iraq War and occupation which is so called by United States and alsoUnited Kingdom „Operation Iraqi Freedom, happened on March 20, 2003. It was composed ofa US-led coalition of nearly forty- nine 49 countries. War on Iraq is not an attack on theUnited States to a free and civilized society, "the defence, was adopted under the umbrellaof the Euro-Atlantic. Wars not search the alliance. They will continue to struggle the mostauthoritative, one-sided in the mouths of 2002 the new National Security Strategy of theUnited States (National Security Strategy of the United States), the transmission powerof "fighting terrorism "to pursue the strategy to use and will feature the absolute sovereigntyof authorized. Thus democratic peace analysis has conclusions and predictions that go farfrom other international relations theories of conflict. Democratic peace systems theory guessthat if two such states are democratic, they will not or are very unlikely to go to war with oneanother during the time they remain democracies. France-Britain, France-Germany, andGermany-Russia are the certain examples. However, the Iraq War or so called Operation IraqiFreedom can be seen as scientific point of view is questionable. The theory holds and willhelp US to achieve a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Muslim world as, over time, Iraqsneighbours, following Iraqs example, in order to democratize. The United States real causesor aims for attacking Iraq may have been really hard to examine, but regime change or the
replacement of Saddam Husseins governance way with a democracy was central to USsrhetoric by the time it began bombing Baghdad. Commonly, Iraq war is closely linked withpower and mostly oil or energy politics, also Middle East is a great area which served hugeopportunities rather than the potential Western threats. US governance needs to takepreventive assumptions in the cases of strategy, military and economy because US believeSeptember 11 deteriorated American democratic life style. In addition, President Bush isdeclared that: „Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists‟, many countries areconcerned about US hegemony in general and administration of the war on terrorism inparticular. Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom, related with the struggle against the nuclearproliferation weapons of mass destruction and the try to establish the democratic politicalculture and enhance human rights‟ status. They have become the central elements determiningthe dynamics of the US foreign policy in the Iraq. Kants theory of democratic peace can beachieved in an environment of peace for the policies followed are to begin. In the system ofdemocratic states which would create the basis for a peaceful international basis, the mostimportant recent formulations are the claims that democratic states are more peaceful thannondemocratic states. So that, democracies are more peaceful with respect to one another thanother states are. New strategy of deterrence, multilateral cooperationand strategic partnership ratherthan as pre-making policies, emphasizing the new strategy willfollow the policies revealed. The identity of terrorism, describing the geography and thegeography of terrorism hosts declared the U.S. to act alone, after Afghanistan, "OperationIraqi Freedom" code known as the heart of the Middle East, Iraq, next to taking astrategic ally, the United Kingdom, „Without UN Security Council resolution 20 March 2003‟started to attack. 2. Transparency Issue If the fundamental transparency issue concerned that US usually shows it as a proof in thesense of human rights abuses; transparency in states is defined as “legal, political andinstitutional structures that make information about the internal characteristics of agovernment and society available to actors both inside and outside of the domestic politicalsystem.”1 Because it allows informed action on the part of both citizens and other institutionsof government, transparency is fundamental to democratic in practice. Most analyses of1 Bernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudies Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June1999): 315–39. See 316.
transparency use very general measures to track the degree of transparency in a governmentoverall.2 3. Opponents and Proponents of Iraq War Because of this war, thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers have died. Many opponents arguethat Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, thus Bush administration only wanted Iraq‟s oiland it‟s an excuse for the intervention. On the other hand, after 11 September, US declaredSaddam as an international law violator and killed many civilians. This occupation makingthe US safer from terrorism in a post 11 September, world all justify the war in Iraq.Moreover, proponents support the liberalization process of Iraq while showing human rightsabuses as a proof. Iraq War is an important subject matter for the political Democratic PeaceTheory as indicated the below, and democratic peace theory is often disputed since, even ifthe theory is accepted, it does not imply that the „peace‟ has the key characteristics of a„democracy‟ among countries. Some critics argue that it would be more accurately labelled asthe „inter-democracy nonaggression hypothesis.‟3 Even in highly sensitive policy arenas, the United States has procedures such as theFreedom of Information Act which is guarantee public access to information expected to berelevant to the public interest. The situation for contractors in Iraq is quite different. Not all ofthis is a matter of restriction. In many areas, the government simply does not or whether didnot collect data on contractors, so information about which Program Management SystemsCommittee (National Defence Industrial Association) (PMSC) personnel are deployed, where,and in what ways is or was de facto not available. Until quite recently, neither did thegovernment collect information about the overall number of contract employees, the numberof casualties, or how much it spends on contracts.4 That information is now collected, thoughit is not as available as information about troops.5 For instance, when journalists sought accessto information about Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root‟s work to repair oilfields in Iraq, significant portions of a Pentagon audit sent to the international monitoringboard were blacked out. The firm claimed that it was permissible to black out not only2 See for instance, Freedom House, available athttp://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or TransparencyInternational, available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.3 Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, 20084 Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Improve Use of PrivateSecurity Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.5 The Department of Defense is now required to keep regular census numbers of contract employees in Iraq but thatinformation is not publicized. See Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41,“Contractor Personnel Authorizedto Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.
proprietary information but also statements “that we believe are factually incorrect ormisleading and could be used by a competitor to damage KBR‟s ability to win and negotiatenew work.”6 Even when they are not abused, proprietary limits on information can reduce thetransparency of government policy. The government, in concert with PMSCs, hassuccessfully restricted the release of a wide variety of information.7 4. Democratic Culture and Society There is an emerging question to understand that: „How do people will examine thisnonviolence, peaceful nature of democracy issues?‟ Democracy can be the answer of it, butsometimes there can be challenging or hard decisions to ignore this situation. There are twoother alternatives which explain the democracy issues. One is that with democratic institutionscomes a democratic culture of bargaining, compromise, and indulgence. And two, there is acivil society of independent and interlinked institutions and groups that commonly composedof churches, businesses, schools, and social, political, and recess groups which not only bondlikes chain with democratic society together, but also makes pressure on interests so that theenvironment of a conflictual related things are not high, and they decrease the heavy burdenare isolated. Such a democratic culture and society also encompasses democratic nations,enfolding them in a dynamic democratic field of cross national governmental andnongovernmental organizations, multinational businesses, trade, cultural and educationalexchanges, which are similarly bond the nations together and cross pressure interest thatmight favour violence. Moreover, the basic norm of negotiating and tolerating differences isshared among democracies, which is one reason democracies cannot well negotiate withdictatorship, to whom it is only war by other means. 5. The Cost of Democratic Peace Theory and Iraq War The democratic peace theory, and US which show as a confirmation, sometimes it does notexactly tell or show the use of force to Iraq into a democracy. Primarily, by itself, the basicmatter that democracies do not fight one another does not have any useful implications for theforeign policymaker. Because it needs an additional premise, like the US can make Iraq into a6 Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.7 The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents by contractors but received only aheavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names of the security team members as well as the names of armedforces members and government employees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to theinformation. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2006, for one ofmany similar stories.
democracy at an acceptable cost, but which? The most important for why democracies do notdeclare war is accountability. Indeed, in a liberal democratic government whose officialselected must be answered to the people in the form of free elections, which forces officials toconsider alternatives to war. 5.1. How Democratic Peace Theory Extended and Criticized ? Iraq can be a good example of liberal states not being more peaceful than despotic countries.The war may be understood as a measure of self-defence. Nevertheless, liberal states weretaking aggressive steps towards a foreign country invading it. The liberal democratic peacetheory can therefore in its extended form be criticized. Also, Kant depicted a war outside ofthe foedum pacificum „league of peace‟ which should be distinguished from and so his theorymay be violated in certain points but not altogether. Several explanations have been offeredwhy democracies rarely fight with each other, because democratic leaders must haveaccountability to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives; thatsuch statesmen have practice settling matters by discussion or negotiation process, decide onfor the outcome of this process not by arms, and do the same in foreign policy; thatdemocracies view non-democracies as threatening, and go to war with them over issues whichwould have been settled peacefully between democracies; and that democracies tend to bewealthier than other countries, and the wealthy tend to avoid war, having more to lose, sincehere again, it was not a liberal state fighting another one. On the contrary, the US has arepublican constitution and also was a member in the liberal pacific union which Kant argued8the US domestic population and their institutions were not able to prevent the invasion. There should be a republican constitution in order to prevent war and established a stabledemocracy. It lightens the way or creates the framework of democratic peace theory. Becausegovernors need the consent of its citizens in order to gain legitimacy and citizens is requiredin order to decide that war should be declared. On the contrary, which US show this as a proofthat, if a country do not have a republican constitution and the environment of the citizenship,it will belonged to the ruler‟s decision. Despite the fact that US use this theory for justifying the war, the democratic peace theoryis based on an abundance of historical evidence that democracies almost never go to war with8Immanuel Kant, „To Perpetual Peace‟ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals/ ImmanuelKant; Translated, with introduction by Ted Humphrey
each other. With the war in Iraq, however, democratic peace theory is facing major criticism.For instance: although the UN did not confirm a resolution, the US together with its allieswent to invade Iraq in 2003 within the so called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although themilitary campaign was defended in the beginning with the threat of weapons of massdestruction and the will to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, the non-interference principlewas violated. What‟s more, UN as a powerful liberal institution was not able to prevent theUS to invade Iraq being also a member. 6. President Bush, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Bill Clinton President Bush‟s speeches, it in the National Security Strategy, says, „„Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birth right of every person or in every civilization.‟‟The strategy is so emphatic because the administration embraces the theory of a „„democraticpeace‟‟ the notion that liberal democracies are unlikely to use weapons of mass destructions,sponsor terrorism, and undertake other activities that threaten their neighbours and the UnitedStates. Therefore, the United States has a pivotal stake in enhancing the spread ofrepresentative government.9 It describes as a real and true way of embracing andimplementing a theory is really a far more violent process. But, he does point us in the rightdirection, namely, that democratic peace theory or more accurately the democratic peacetheory and its suitable theories lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine‟s emphasis on democracypromotion. So, which stated the above the reason why US fighting in Iraq and encourager democraticfreedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, and demonise, and tominimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.Surely, this is worth fighting for. US‟s foreign policy has been claimed on the democratic peace theory. SecretaryCondoleezza Rice and Bush expressed their ideas by implementing and mentioningdemocracy and democratic peace in their speeches. Moreover, Bill Clinton also givesimportance democratic peace while implementing his foreign policy.9 Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The Weekly Standard, May 5, pp. 27–33.
The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: „After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that the status quo in theMiddle East was stable, beneficial and worth defending? How could it have been prudent topreserve the state of affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; wherethe proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better; where authoritarianregimes were projecting their failures onto innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanonsuffered under the boot heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authoritycared more for its own preservation than for its peoples aspirations; and where a tyrant suchas Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his citizens, destabilize his neighbors andundermine the hope of peace between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assumethat the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged stability. Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we would have missed injust the past year: A Lebanon that is free of foreign occupation and advancing democraticreform. A Palestinian Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace withIsrael. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty elections. A Kuwaitwhere women are now full citizens. And, of course, an Iraq that in the face of a horrificinsurgency has held historic elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and willgo to the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional government.‟10 “Democracy and the hope and progress it brings are the alternative to instability and tohatred and terror. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance,” the Americanpresident underlined in a speech at London‟s Whitehall Palace in November 2003 followingthe fall of Baghdad. If democratisation and peace promotion supported by capitalism by US, there can be severeproblems of implementation occur. As the United States is finding currently in Iraq, but atleast politicians may pick the target countries. If capitalism spreads by the sheer power ofexample, then this implies that the locals and their usually autocratic rulers decide the pace ofevents. The democratic peace proposition may be married to a crusading sprit, as has beendeplored by the most famous proponent of the democratic peace.11 7. Democracies Do not Start Wars10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html11 Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 6,No. 4 (2005).
Another important link between the war in Iraq and the Democratic Peace shows the ideathat USs military intervention somehow shows the idea that democracies do not start wars.the threat was real or only perceived, a majority of the American population and the officialsthey elected believed in good faith that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to American security.All available evidence most gruesomely the videos of Kurdish refugees having been gassedby weapons of mass destruction-tends to support that idea, and the evidence is still beingcollected. Despite this threat, despite possessing the most lethal military in the history of theworld sure to win a relatively easy victory, despite the raw wounds in the American psychestill left open since September 11, and despite an electorate generally supportive of the wareffort and a unified-party government, America still deliberated for almost eighteen monthsbefore a single soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Even then, it was not a unilateral action but aneffort of contributions to varying degrees by nearly fifty nations. Steps taken to ensure thesafety of innocent Iraqi citizens were unparalleled in the history of warfare, and while not fail-proof they rightly preserved untold numbers of people. Indeed, far from refuting theDemocratic Peace, the war in Iraq might be one of the best offers of proof for its underlyingtruth. 8. The Purpose for Foreign Policy of US The final and most important of these observations is that the promoters of democracy mustnot yield in the face of setbacks, be they military, political, or theoretical. There will alwaysbe bad persons who wish to ignore human beings the freedom they were granted by birthright. Those who wish to see them claimed again and again that freedom must not relent.There will always be honest and well-meaning scholars, indifferent moral relativists, and self-interested tyrants who will for different reasons dismiss the idea that democracy is inherentlyjust and peaceful. Adherents to the Democratic Peace in whatever future incarnation it mighttake must not give the floor, so to speak, but dictate the terms of the debate. The purpose for foreign policy of US is straightforward. Indeed, The United States and alsoother international actors who try to establish democracy or human rights need to continue topromote democracy. However, they must seek to help democratizing states implementreforms in the correct order. In particular, popular elections should not to precede the buildingof institutions that will control the bad intention incentives for politicians to call for war.In still democracy in the whole world on the basis of American foreign policy isshaped. Democratic peace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according to
this thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composedof democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy on a foundationof American foreign policy is shaped in still democracy in the whole wide world. Democraticpeace theory, democracies do not fight with each other and according tothis thesis emphasizes on the basis of a peaceful world is to create a world composedof democratic countries. Which form the basis of American foreign policy? America, forthe market economy places great emphasis on the promotion ofdemocracy, because peace, democracy and the economy‟s integrated relationship betweenthem is absolute. Contemporary discourse on the democratization process of the region is inthe fact that the heart of the Middle East problem. Moreover, democratization trends inthe countries of the region is consisted on a phobia and terror in the name of theworld peace and world order in Americas increasing interest in the region. Inthis framework, announced by the Bush administrations "Greater Middle East Initiative" inthe set as the ultimate goal of regional democratic reforms. Understandingthe differences in the implementation of democracy and the small pieces by the force of thegeneral situation. Iraq Government adopted the draft which stated Iraqi Oil Law in Iraq hasbeen accepted by the Assembly, so the Iraqi democracy will be successfully passed examwhen it passed. 9. Conclusion In summary, it can be said that war, external influences and the economically moreadvanced in terms of the democratic community of nations, the possibilityof diminishing, even as an extension of the legitimate policy consideration is the shape of aphenomenon, even harder. War in these countries as a last resort, but will never be allowed tooccur is perceived as a way of life. On the other hand, scholars such as Barry Buzan, suchassisting on top of that, "area of peace" policies beyond being "state of war" may havestarted to resemble. What‟s more, Democratic peace theory, states would be deprivedof political disputes, not only for their relation is not based on perception of war is farfrom advocating violence. Insome democratic countries,more weak and authoritarian countries such as Iraq, regime change, even if they are prone to use force to go to their own citizens tojustify the intervention of their obligation to hear the multilateral consent.
REFERANCESBernard Finel and Kristin Lord, “The Surprising Logic of Transparency,” International tudiesQuarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1999): 315–39. See 316.Boot, Max. (2003) What Next? The Bush Foreign Policy Agenda beyond Iraq. The WeeklyStandard, May 5, pp. 27–33Bruce Russett, “Bushwacking the Democratic Peace”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol.6,No. 4 (2005).Daniele Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward CosmopolitanDemocracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.Erik Eckholm, “Now You See It: An Audit of KBR,” New York Times, 20 March 2005.Government Accountability Office (GAO), report to Congress, “Rebuilding Iraq: ActionsNeeded to Improve Use of Private Security Providers,” (GAO-05-737), July 2005.Kant, I. (2007) Perpetual Peace Minneapolis: Filiquarian PublishingKant, „To Perpetual Peace‟ In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, andMorals/ Immanuel Kant; Translated, with introduction by Ted HumphreyRAY, JAMES LEE. (2003) A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace ResearchProgramme: Does It Falsify Realism (or Neorealism)? In Progress in International RelationsTheory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.The Department of Defence is now required to keep regular census numbers of contractemployees in Iraq but that information is not publicized. See Department of DefenceInstruction (DoDI), no. 3020.41, “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S.Armed Forces,” 3 October 2005, Section 4.5. and 6.2.6.The Los Angeles Times requested access to the data on reports of violent incidents bycontractors but received only a heavily redacted version of the data that omitted the names ofthe security team members as well as the names of armed forces members and governmentemployees. The newspaper filed suit in November 2005 but was unable to get access to theinformation. See David G. Savage, “U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data,” Los AngelesTimes, 27 July 2006, for one of many similar stories.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.htmlhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16, or Transparency International,available at research/surveysindices/cpi/2007.