1 / 54

Fighting Over How to Build Peace

Fighting Over How to Build Peace. Ionia Workshop Workshop 2011 Gary Armstrong, Ph.D. William Jewell College. Why is Ending a War so Hard? What Makes Getting to Peace so Difficult?. Paul Kecskemeti, Strategic Surrender (1958) The Problem Illustrated: Dollar Auction The Problem Elucidated

aulii
Télécharger la présentation

Fighting Over How to Build Peace

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fighting Over How to Build Peace Ionia Workshop Workshop 2011 Gary Armstrong, Ph.D. William Jewell College

  2. Why is Ending a War so Hard?What Makes Getting to Peace so Difficult? • Paul Kecskemeti, Strategic Surrender (1958) • The Problem Illustrated: Dollar Auction • The Problem Elucidated • Kecskemeti’s Solution

  3. What is Peace? • Negative/Positive Conceptions • St. Augustine’s Classic Conception: • “The peace, then… • of the body lies in the ordered equilibrium of all its parts; • the peace of the irrational soul, in the balanced adjustment of its appetites; • the peace of the reasoning soul, the harmonious correspondence of conduct and conviction; • peace between mortal man and God in “ordered obedience, guided by faith, under God’s eternal law”; • peace between man and man consists in regulated fellowship. • peace of home lies in ordered harmony of authority and obedience between members of family living together; • peace of political community is ordered harmony of authority and obedience between citizens. • peace of Heavenly City lies in perfectly ordered and harmonious communion of those who find their joy in God. • “Peace, in its final sense, is the calm that comes of order.” • Order is an arrangement of like and unlike things whereby each of them is disposed in its proper place. City of God, Book XIX, Chap 13

  4. Levels of Rational War Terminations Truce = Minimal Balance of = Medium Power Liquidate = High Conflict Reorientation = Ideal

  5. “The Hinge”Of Modern US Foreign Policy

  6. Woodrow WilsonPresident 1913-1921 • 1856-1924 • Only President to know personally what defeat in war was like • Only President with PhD in Political Science • Second President to win Nobel Prize • President Princeton University, 1902-1912 • Domestic Policy Accomplishments: • Federal Reserve created • First graduated income tax • Labor legislation • Massive Stroke, 1919

  7. Theodore Roosevelt • 1858-1919 • War with Spain, 1898 • US President, 1901-1909 • First US President to win Nobel Peace Prize • Breaks with Republican Party, 1912 • Reunion with Republican Party, 1916 • Expected Nominee, President 1920

  8. Clash of Basic Principles • Political Morality = Civilian Morality • US Exceptional • Peace from Liberal Democracy • Peace from International Law Political Morality = Special Morality US Normal Great Power Peace from Balance of Power Peace from Spheres of Influence

  9. Wilson’s War AimsComplex or Contradiction? Feb 1917: Peace without Victory April 1917: War to Make World Safe for Democracy July 1918: Force, Force, Force to the Utmost! August 1918: Overthrow Every Arbitrary Power November 1918: Insists Germany be beaten, but accepts negotiations

  10. Wilson’s War AimsComplex or Contradiction? “…it must be a peace without victory. It is not pleasant to say this…Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor’s terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last.” Woodrow Wilson February 1917

  11. Inferring Wilson’s War Aims • Defeat but do not crush Germany • Precipitate Internal Revolution in Germany • Make British Empire and France dependent on US

  12. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge1850-1924 • Among first Harvard PhD in History • US Senate, 1893-1924 • Becomes Senate Majority Leader & Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair after November 1918 elections • Detested Wilson: “That might fly at Princeton, but certainly not at Harvard!”

  13. Lodge on Peace …My view is a simple one. Nelson once said that the best diplomatists in Europe were his hundred-gun ships. Mr. President, the best diplomatists in Europe at this moment are the armies of France and Italy, of England and the United States. The best men to carry on discussion with Germany are Haig and Pershing and Diaz, and over all the great commander, Marshal Foch. Those are the negotiators with whom I would leave the question of peace. They will win it. They will win it on German soil. They will bring back the peace which the whole American people desire, for they desire, I believe, unconditional surrender, and unconditional surrenders are not obtained by clever discussion and exchange of notes. They are won by armies in the field. Lodge, Senate Debate on War Termination, October 10, 1918

  14. Comparing Peace Lodge “10 Irreducible” August 1918 Wilson “14 Points” February 1918

  15. “The Lamb From the Slaughter”

  16. Surprises in Wilson’s War Termination Diplomacy • Wilson never called for republic in Germany and effectively gave up on German democratization • Wilson demanded “regime change” to catch up to American domestic opinion • Wilson lost control of armistice policy • Wilson opposed key military components of armistice

  17. Wilson on Regime Change & Bolshevik Problem • "The spirit of the Bolsheviki is lurking everywhere, and there is no more fertile soil than war-weariness. • "There is grave unrest all over the world. There are symptoms of it in this country -- symptoms that are apparent although not yet dangerous. • "We should consider too the condition of Germany. If we humiliate the German people and drive them too far, we shall destroy all form of government, and Bolshevism will take its place. We ought not to ground them to powder or there will be nothing to build up from. William Wiseman, British envoy, Notes of a Conversation, Oct. 16, 1918, in Fowler, British-American Relations, p. 284.

  18. Wilson: Problem of Regime Change • Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels (diary for October 21): "Why don't you Senators sometimes give me credit with not being a damned fool?" When the Senator persisted, Wilson finally asked him, “Had you rather have the Kaiser or the Bolsheviks?” • Interior Secretary Franklin Lane (diary for Oct 22 1918): President told Cabinet he "was afraid of Bolshevism in Europe, and the Kaiser was needed to keep it down -- to keep some order. He really seemed alarmed that the time would come soon when there would be no possibility of saving Germany from the Germans. This was a new note to me." Sen. Ashurst, D-AZ PWW, 51: p.403, 415

  19. Different War, Different Peace Wilson Lodge & TR Cause of war” Tragedy & Stupidity German drive for power US entry? German outrages US cannot tolerate German-led Europe Main US war aim Reform World Politics Balance of Power Moderate Victory Unconditional Surrender Regime Change w/o Regime Change Revolution America as Mediator America & Allies

  20. Wilson vs. Lodge WilsonLodge Liberal Internationalist Realist Internationalist Reform World Politics Contain Germany National Self-Determination Barrier States Democracy Whatever Collective Security Alliances Strong Multilateralism Weak Multilateralism Strong International Strong Alliances Organization Stop Lodge! Stop Wilson!

  21. Kecskemeti: Levels of Rational War Terminations Truce = Minimal Balance of = Medium Power Liquidate = High Conflict Reorientation = Ideal

  22. US Political ContextWilson’s 1916 Coalition

  23. US Political Context: Balance of Power in Congress

  24. Geopolitics: 1914

  25. Situation: Fall 1918

  26. Geopolitics: 1920

  27. Dead States / New Statesafter World War I Dead: New:

  28. Military Deaths in World War I Total Killed Total Killed Total Killed % of armed % of % of Country forces men 15-49 population Scotland 26.4 10.9 3.1 France 16.8 13.3 3.4 Britain 11.8 6.3 1.6 Russia 11.5 4.5 1.1 Serbia 37.1 22.7 5.7 Germany 15.4 12.5 3.0 Turkey 26.8 14.8 3.7 USA 2.7 0.4 0.1 Ferguson, Pity of War (1999), p. 299

  29. Versailles Treaty, 1919 • Create League of Nations • Article 10 • Recognize New States: Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Baltic Republics • Create Mandates in Middle East, Africa, Asia • German war guilt (Art 231) • German war reparations • German disarmament • War Crimes Trials (Art 228)

  30. Congress of Vienna, 1815 • Include all GPs • Stability (not Justice) is Job 1 • Balance of Power is route to safety • Stay out of Domestic Politics • Elites run things best

  31. Signing Versailles

  32. Versailles Peace Treaty Debate • First US President going abroad for diplomatic negotiations • First proposed League of Nations • First proposed treaty requiring US to end “isolationism” • First time US Senate invoked cloture • First time US Senate rejected a peace treaty

  33. Wilson’s 3 Great Reformsto World Politics • National Self-Determination & Democracy • Collective Security • International Organization

  34. The Liberal DemocraticPeace • No Two Liberal Democracies have ever gone to war against each other • No Liberal Democracy has suffered famine • No Liberal Democracy has committed genocide

  35. Humans less violent WSJ, 9/24/2011

  36. Fate of Democracy Democratic Democratic State Founding Regime Collapses Italy 1925 Germany 1919 1933 Czechoslovakia 1918 1938* Poland 1919 1926 Austria 1920 1933 Hungary 1920* 1932 Estonia 1918 1934 Latvia 1920 1934

  37. Wilson Reform #2:Collective Secrurity • League of Nations in first 26 Articles of Treaty • Collective Security & Article 10 • Controversies • Shantung Peninsula • Danzig Corridor • Fiume • Sudetenland

  38. League of NationsCollective Security & Art 10 “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."

  39. Versailles Controversy: Shantung Peninsula • Germany acquired extensive rights in 1898 • Treaty gave Germany’s area to JAPAN, not China

  40. Contradiction in Self-Determination: Danzig Corridor • Danzig: 65% German • Corridor outside Danzig: Germans 45%

  41. Sudetenland • 3 M Germans • 1 M Hungarians • 0.5 M Poles • Total Pop: 15 M Red areas indicate > 80% German in 1930 census

  42. Collective Security: Pro/Con • Pro • All states have interest in stopping aggression • Deter aggression • US now has vital interests around world • Con • Great Powers won’t go to war without vital interest • CS makes world politics rigid by freezing territorial status quo • Cannot Define “aggression” • Endangers US constitutional system

  43. Lodge’s Strategy • Assume 3 camps: Irreconcilable, Reservationist, Pro-League • Death of a thousand cuts • Q: Will League have its own military or authority to summon military of members? • Q: Is Art 10 obligatory? Will the US be obliged to fight for ____ and ____ and ____? • Q: Does Art 10 supercede authority of Congress to declare war? • Q: “What will your League amount to if it does not contain powers that no one dreams of giving it?” (Senator Borah)

  44. Some of Lodge’s 14 Reservations • US can withdraw from League on moment’s notice • US assumes no obligations under Art 10 • US has exclusive authority over its territory • US refuses Art 156-58 (Shantung) • US will not provide any funds to League without Congressional approval • US reserves the right to increase armaments if threatened, even if League has disarmament requirements Vote on Lodge Amendments: 39 Yes, 55 No Vote on Versailles Treaty (with no amendments): 38 Yes, 53 No

  45. Enduring Debate about Versailles • Versailles “Too Hard” • Severe peace terms created climate for Nazis • Had US joined, GB+France+US could have stopped Hitler • Versailles “Too Flawed” • Collective Security would not work • Treaty contradictions undermined moral confidence in new international order • Even if US had joined, appeasement and war still highly likely Link: Pro-Wilson

  46. Margaret MacMillan • B 1943, Toronto • Great grand-daughter of David Lloyd George • D.Phil., Oxford • Professor of History and interntational relations, University of Toronto • 2007: became Warden, St. Anthony’s College, Oxford U • 2002: Paris,1919 • 2007: Nixon & Mao

  47. MacMillan’s Evaluation • A Bad Argument: “The final crime of World War I was the Treaty of Versailles, whose harsh terms would ensure a second war.” (The Economist) • Her view: This excuses actions and inactions of all leaders, 1919-1939 • Hitler did not make war because of Versailles. He found it convenient to claim so.

  48. Kissinger’s Evaluation • Framers of Versailles achieved the opposite of what they intended: a stronger Germany. • German grievances were bound to grow as balance of power inexorably shifted in Germany’s favor. • Locarno Treaties (1925) showed the future.

More Related