The Use of Military Force for International Conflict

Use of Military Force for International Conflict

Although making war is not a popular way to solve an international conflict, it is a fact of history that nations are never really free from wars since the time of ancient Greek. The 20th century seemed to be the most blood-sheding century of many conflicts, either inter-state or intra-state, ended in wars. The wars that took place early in the century and the 1940’s had given us lesson that mankind should build an international defence system to prevent from such war tragedies manifested by UN Treaty. That is why the world we live in can be maintained in good stability since 1945 through the merit of UN although there are still wars every here and there in certain scale but these had never yet involved all the nations as it had in the World War. Yet no expert could be 100% optimistic that this stability could be maintained forever and the economic issue of interdependence among the nations is more interesting and dominant after the Cold War rather than the conflict issues.

The process of nuclearisation of both countries Iran and North Korea has emerged the global defence issues once more and this phenomena could be the beginning of snow ball effect into nuclear weapon proliferation. Besides, the rising budget of China military force in parallel with their economic growth has risen to certain extent. The need to worry especially for the East Asia region because of the potential for conflict in this regions. Conflict among nations may also take place from the control of energy and the consumptions of it that has been far more used up for the sake of their industrialization especially by developed and advanced countries like China and India and also by other developing countries. Every state is now preserving how they are able to guarantee their energy security for long term planning strategically for their survival or to win against global economy competition. For example, China has now committed an aggressive approach to the Middle East and Africa for an effort to cope with the scarcity and limits of energy sources from South East Asia.

War between nations may also arise from the inside conflict of a state which is known as intra-state conflict. This conflict may involve the neighbouring countries that are compelled under the situation to feel unsafe nationally. Many efforts of this types had happened once too many already. For example, the Palestinian conflict escalated to cause battle between Arabic countries and Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973. If there is no solution for peace to the side of the Palestinian, this type of war will happen again and again and will lead to a nuclear war in Middle East. Another case of the type in Khasmir region between Pakistan and India which are also triggered to start war at all time and develop into the nuclear war since the both countries possessed nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another case seems imminent to the United States presently is the linkage of collaboration among the terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda with the so called “rogue states”. The suspicion as much as an accusation by the President George W. Bush of the United States and England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair that Saddam Husein regime—Iraq had joined the Al-Qaeda to develop the strategic weapons was the main reason why the U.S. had made an invasion and had the government under their control until now. But the accusation had not been supported by the facts that they had been seriously opposed by the public in their own countries and overseas. There has been tendencies that the U.S. will foster the sovereign regime in the countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Arabs due to everlasting terrors towards these countries without considering whether they have imply the democratization and ideology of human rights. At the same time, the supports economically and militarily has widened the gap between the countries rulers and their people; they always assume that their leaders have thus far followed only the global interests of the U.S. So far the status quo regime had everything still under control, but if there is a shift of power to new government that is not willing to cooperate with the U.S., then there will be new tension even new open conflict with the U.S.

By using the military forces by statesmen of a country does not occur in the time of war only. As we understand it, there are at least as many as four functions of military forces in international politics. Firstly, as prestige power to show their military superiority of their new technological weaponary aiming at vast destroyable ability to win over in the presentation during an independence day, for instance to remind their enemies about the military force that they have. Secondly, as deterrent power to defend and to assume the enemy of the consequences if attack is made. Such credibility effect is influential against the ignition to attack. The U.S.-Taiwan military exercise, for example, can bring about the presentation effect of China’s use of military force to solve their conflicts with Taiwan. Thirdly, solely as defence power to protect home country against the enemies, known as defensive power. China has always defended themselves that the increasing budget for military courses is subject to their defence programs from the enemies’ invasion (the U.S.-Japan Treaty). Lastly, as coercive diplomacy to press a country to follow a wish or not to do something, a certain contradicting action against them as compellent power.[1] In this case for instance, as U.S. military exercise in Middle East to imply an emphasis so that the Iranian government be reluctant to continue with the uranium project for weaponary purposes.

From another point of view, as economic crisis in 1997 had affected to decline the Indonesian military force in terms of the budgets that the records showed it as the most minimum military budget among the South East Asia. As a result, the abovementioned functions are not able to be performed optimally. Parallelly, after all, a country’s military upgrades is bound to follow its economic growth. This is very obvious in the case of China’s advancing militarily, because everyone should admit that China has made fantastic economic growth in the last three decades.

According to the international relations, the use of military force of a country in order to achieve its foreign diplomacy is subject to the international rules. After the First World War, all the countries are trying to prevent from another World War which will cause war tragedies and bring agony to millions of people. The Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928 in Paris was set to ban the use of military force for solving an international conflict. Later, there was this new concept of collective security under the umbrella of UN. But all these efforts had come to failures because many countries had trespassed against the pact. The invasion made by the German in Europe and the Japanese in Asia was the sparks of the World War II. Now based on the tragedies of the World War II and the merit of the UN, the countries had again formulated leagues of military force for international relations purposes.

Basically the UN had agreed to use military force in unilateral action for self-defence, for the security recovery process through an authorization by the UN defence councils multilaterally and for the purpose of international security and peace-making under multilateral action for regional collective defence service.[2] These three rules have been underlined by the UN principles which aim at the sovereignty of each and every member of it. The success of the UN Treaty as normative system to manage the military forces for international relations to prevent global-scale war and maintain the stability in Europe in order to create the possibility of developing the joint ventures in the European Union regionally for all. Although the UN had failed to stop minor and limitable wars here and there especially caused by the intra-state conflicts during the first half of the 20th century, but it has after all maintained the world for peace after the Second World War that the modernization and industrialization could advance elsewhere. But ironically, during such peaceful period, men have created and invented even more powerful and leathal massive weapons which cause more horrible threat to the future of mankind. Apart from the successful multilateralism, it is very essential for every member of UN, especially those who carry the nuclear weapons to hold fast their upmost commitments in order to create a peaceful and a safe world for all. An international effective law is not a guarantee for peace forever. Education service for peace and etiquette for school all are the world must be upgraded to change the inner way and internal soul digest to reach a successful transformation so that the wish to destroy other’s human rights can be replaced by the care and love on behalf of humanity universally.

❖ Nuclear Proliferation Issue in Global Practice

In the international relations literature, the nuclear proliferation issue is discussed as traditional security issue which attracts international community due to the facts of tendency that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime is no longer effective to prevent a number of countries from developing nuclear weapons. There has been growing temptation for a number of countries to own nuclear weapons both for the security reason to catch up with its neighbouring country that already has nuclear ability or for the reason that by possessing nuclear weapon means increase of influence against other countries in global politics. For example, even though Pakistan is grouped as “developing country”, it is quite influential in South Asia because Pakistan owns nuclear weapons. During George W. Bush presidency, the U.S. has special connection with Pakistan not only because it is the U.S. alliance in fighting the terrorism in Afghanistan but also because the states can take control of Pakistan nuclear order closely. From the vintage of Iran, Israeli’s nuclear weapon can bother the balance of power in Middle East. Thus the country now also search for the uranium technology to build nuclear weapon for them. The issue of nuclear weapon in global politics was marked by the dualism that weakens the performance of NPT regime effectively. Meanwhile a number of countries openly develop and maintain their nuclear weapons whereas on the other hand, other nations are prohibited to do so. By this dualism we may conclude from the realist ideas that at the end, the international regime may lose their influence against the strong determination of powerful countries that are trapped in the security dilemma.

Recently the U.S. has made a joint venture with India to develop nuclear power for peace making projects. According to George W. Bush, the venture with them will raise incentive to India to have more responsibility like other Top 5 nuclear-powered countries; The U.S., France, England, Russia, and China. The government that opposed the U.S. policy for this case said that the concession given to India (who had not signed for NPT) would weaken the practice of NPT itself. On another case, Japan has become a good example for other countries because Japan has obeyed the NPT Treaty even though the country has high ability in nuclear industry.[3]

Another reason why the U.S. approach India for nuclear joint venture is firstly, that India is the largest democratic country in the world therefore it is accountable to be U.S. partner for the security sector. They assume that the chance to make open conflict with India is lower than that to other bigger power such as China. Secondly, they can encircle China together with Japan and Australia. Thirdly, their venture with Pakistan under the President Musharraf was a kind of loose because of the resistence against Musharraf government from the radical Muslims. This altogether are attracting factors for the U.S. to be closer with India including the nuclear technology for peace-making purpose. This way the U.S. has more alliances to fight against Iran who is also ambitious for nuclear weapons.

Overall, there has been a few terms practiced in respect of the strategy by the countries that own the nuke weapons in order to keep their existence and to reach other strategic purposes. Both the U.S. and Soviet Union had used several strategies against each other during the Cold War to reach superiority of quantity and quality of their nuke power. The strategy was introduced as “deterrence” which means that the nuke weapon was made to prevent the opposing country to practice it negatively. This deterrence strategy was determined by its threat credibility. Such strategy was practiced against North Korea by setting a massive “retaliation”. Another deterrence was mentioned as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which implies that the counter fight back enables equal destruction consequences by terms of “first strike” and second strike capability.[4] Another strategy used was called “compellance” by forming a momentum to compel the opponent to reverse. As in the case in 1962 when Cuban missile crisis arised, the U.S. had aggressively blocked the Soviet Union efforts to place their nuke in Cuba for attacking the states.[5]

Facing the 21st century of much uncertainty, the world needs the performance of NPT and other agencies to prevent a nuclear war. The use of nuclear bomb will trigger another to use the same for battle. After the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the politics of the world has changed drastically and dynamically that the nuclear technology does not belong to the U.S. only but instead belong to some other countries and these so called UN defend councils have never signaled for nuclear disarmament. So far, the world is still under the threat of nuclear distraction. But nevertheless, there are still hopes arising from the facts that other regional commitment to free their zone from the nuclear proliferation for example, the so called South East Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) to free the ASEAN zone from nuclear weapons. Great countries like the U.S. and the Republic of China are still reluctant to take part in this agreement and they assume that they are not bound to such regional agreement.[6]

The NPT regime is basically made by those who have and those who have not the nuclear weapons. Those who have, promised not to use the proliferation vertically which comply to keep the level of the nuclear capacity. They are prohibited from exporting or transferring the technology to those countries who have not such weapon yet. At the same time, those who have not are prohibited from developing the nuclear technology so that the opportunity of nuclear proliferation does not take place horizontally. Those who signed for NPT yet still interested in developing the nuclear technology for the peace-making purpose and subject to the standard fixed and supervised by IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency that is situated in Vienna, Austria.[7] In 1995, the NPT was prolonged unlimitedly and has become a direction for handling the nuclear issues.[8] After a series of his tour of duty in Iraq before the regime of Saddam Hussein fall in 2003 and furthered with Iran’s nuclear inspection, the Director of IAEA, Mohammad El Baradei had won a Nobel Prize for peace in 2006. This agency had gained more respect and authority in supervising the modern technology for peace. Their duty and responsibility is supposed to be more accountable and heavier for facing the tendency of nuclear interest in alternative power resources to anticipate such issue like global warming. According to the report made by “The Economist”, 6th edition of September 2007 that there have been nuclear revival recently for alternative power although there is no guarantee that they will not repeat the mistake by Chernobyl. The revival of this technology will bring new chances for further nuclear proliferation for military purpose not mention the danger exposed by the terrorists who may take over by capturing the nuke station, which may lead to a global disaster out of it.[9] Therefore the U.S. and Australia together establish Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) aiming at stopping and preventing such leathal items from transportation by vessel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amstutz, Mark R. International Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to World Politics. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark, 1995, 235-236

Connors, Michael, Remy Davidson and Joem Dosch. The New Global Politics of the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge, 2003, 78

Mansbach, Richard. Global Puzzle: Issues and Actors in World Politics. Boston and New York: Houghton Miffin Company, 1995, 402

The Economist Intelligence Unit. World Investment to 2011. written with the Columbia Program on International Investment. London, 2007

Viotti, Paul R. and Mark Kauppi. International Relations and World Politics: Security Economy and Identity. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997, 152-153

-----------------------
[1] Mark R. Amstutz. International Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to World Politics. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark, 1995, 235-236
[2] Paul R. Viotti and Mark Kauppi. International Relations and World Politics: Security Economy and Identity. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997, 152-153
[3] The Economist August 30, 2007. The Economist Intelligence Unit. World Investment to 2011. written with the Columbia Program on International Investment. London, 2007
[4] Paul R. Viotti and Mark Kauppi. op.cit. 204
[5] Richard Mansbach. Global Puzzle: Issues and Actors in World Politics. Boston and New York: Houghton Miffin Company, 1995, 402
[6] Michael Connors, Remy Davidson and Joem Dosch. The New Global Politics of the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge, 2003, 78
[7] Richard Mansbach, 1995, op.cit. 391
[8] Paul R. Viotti and Mark Kauppi, 1997. op.cit. 205
[9] The Economist, September 2007

Bibliography: Amstutz, Mark R. International Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to World Politics. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark, 1995, 235-236 Connors, Michael, Remy Davidson and Joem Dosch Mansbach, Richard. Global Puzzle: Issues and Actors in World Politics. Boston and New York: Houghton Miffin Company, 1995, 402 The Economist Intelligence Unit Viotti, Paul R. and Mark Kauppi. International Relations and World Politics: Security Economy and Identity. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997, 152-153 ----------------------- [1] Mark R. Amstutz. International Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to World Politics. Dubuque: Brown & Benchmark, 1995, 235-236 [2] Paul R [3] The Economist August 30, 2007. The Economist Intelligence Unit. World Investment to 2011. written with the Columbia Program on International Investment. London, 2007 [4] Paul R [5] Richard Mansbach. Global Puzzle: Issues and Actors in World Politics. Boston and New York: Houghton Miffin Company, 1995, 402 [6] Michael Connors, Remy Davidson and Joem Dosch [7] Richard Mansbach, 1995, op.cit. 391 [8] Paul R