Summary
Summary War and Peacebuilding (Bsc Security Studies, Leiden University)
- Course
- Institution
Summary War and Peacebuilding (Bsc Security Studies, Leiden University)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
summariesforyou
Reviews received
Content preview
War & PeacebuildingLecture 1: War, what is it and what is it good for? (Dr.mr. E.E.A. Dijxhoorn)
This course is about the relationship between humanity and war, and the relationship between societies and war. It is about the efforts of humanity to ban
war and the attempts to build peace. To a certain extent, it deals with the consequences of war. How do we study war? How do we study peacebuilding?
What are the trends? Trends in the study of war and peace have been heavily influenced by the reality of war, the experiences of civilians and soldiers and
the way society thinks about war is based on a collective idea of war which in itself is based on individual experiences of people. But how does this course
fit into this program? The relationship might be obvious. The field of Security Studies emerged within the Cold War and stems from International
Relations. Security Studies as an academic field is about how to employ organised violence and on how to protect societies from organised violence. Two
important questions: 1) Is war an essential part of being human? and 2) War, what is it good for?
Security is a combination of 1) a physical condition, in the sense of being able to prevent others from inflicting harm, and 2) a mental condition in the
sense of confidence that this this capacity to prevent others from inflicting harm is indeed in place. Threats to security may be real or imagined.
Vulnerabilities might stem from geography (e.g. lack of resources or population that wants to change system). There are a lot of vulnerabilities that
contribute to a feeling of insecurity. Not all of those have to do with force, violence or war. Some might be economically, naturally or socially based.
Why should we study war? Human societies go to war, purposely, and that they are actually quite good at it. It requires organisation, and humans are
good at organising themselves. This is what sets them apart from other primates. One may argue that we have to study war because we live in dangerous
times. We are currently in the middle of a global pandemic, that might result in that countries become more isolated and might even cause the rise of
nationalism. At the same time, we live in a world with different power centres (end of Pax Americana means that the rule of the US as the ‘policemen’ of
the world has come to an end (withdrawal from Syria). We are now experiencing a global crisis for the first time in 100 years where the US did not take a
leading role. This leads to a so-called ‘power-vacuum’ which can be filled by for instance China or Russia. There are also other factors as to why we should
study war: 1) We can learn how to fight more efficiently based on past experiences (e.g. the Coronavirus), 2) Very little of human affairs can be understood
without referencing war(s) and thus 3) the study of war is both instrumental and instructive. Some scholars argued that war is becoming less important. For
example, Steven Pinker argued that we as human species became less violent. However, it is still important to study war.
War shaped society (physical + non-physical): This can also be seen as another reason why war must be studied. Individuals speak from their own
perspectives and each come from different countries, backgrounds (religions) and generations. Additionally, war shaped the borders of our country and
the language that we speak. Remanence of war is everywhere. Peace treaties that were signed are often seen as the basis on sovereign-statehood (think
for example about the Peace of Westphalia). Even the sovereign state system was shaped by war. Different questions, such as is war ever justified? Or are
all wars immoral? Does war create a special context in which people are justified to killing each other? What is allowed within the special context in war
and what is not (legally)? And what does the future of war hold? come to mind. However, before answering them, setting a definition is of importance.
Three philosophies of war:
Political Eschatological Cataclysmic
Clausewitz Teleological view of history War as a major disaster
Instrumental/ rational perpsective Grand design: materialist, metaphysical Epidemic
Legitimate instrument of state policy Mesianic or global Happens to us
Balancing act: people, forces, gov’t Inevitable Ethnics cleansing/ genocide
e.g. e.g. AQ, communism, fascism e.g. Rwanda
Some de nitions of war:
- War is merely the continuation of policy by other means — War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale — War is an act of force to compel our enemy to
do our will (Carl von Clausewitz)
- War is the absence of peace
- War is organised violence carried on by political unites against each other (Hedley Bull)
- A conflict between or among sate and state like entities for political control over people, territory or resources
The last definition covers the question of who, what and why but not the how. War is not just conflict, war is when conflict turns into violence. It is the
element or the threat of violence that turns political conflict into war. However, the who is also very important when defining war. A single individual using
force is often not considered as a war, but rather criminal (as societies go to war). Within war, individuals are fighting for something larger than themselves.
The point is that waging war requires organisation, discipline, support, equipment, leadership and followers. States traditionally do this. By definition
states should enjoy a monopoly of violence within its borders. When this monopoly of violence is threatened, it can consider themselves at ‘war’. External
aggression, or sponsored by another state leads to interstate war, whereas it can also be threatened by an internal threat, causing them to be at civil war.
Leiden University 1
fi
,Is humanity destined to wage war? Is it an integral part of humanity? These questions caused a debate that has been going on for ages. According to
Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature was famously describes as nasty. While Rousseau, believed that nothing was as gentle as a man in its primitive state.
With the development of organised society (states) and property, people began to become more violent. Nowadays, the creation of states provides us
with some security (end of state of nature). Steven Pinker and others argued that the development of organised human society which on the one hand
made it possible to fight each other (more organised) and on the other hand also made it possible to stop violence within a particular political unit. The
development of a power government (leviathan, a government with monopoly on violence) was considered positive because it provided a minimum of
law and order.
Thomas Hobbes: Yes, we are destined to wage war Rousseau: No, we are not destined to wage war
We are condemned to fight. Either by biology or culture or society, but Humanity is not, we can war
humanity is condemned to fight wars.
State of nature is nasty, brutish and short. The original sate of human kind The natural state of mankind is peaceful until societies became organised
is a war of everyone against everyone. there was no war.
Within the Roman Empire for example, people were living longer and happier than outside of the empire. The creation of such empires had a positive
effect on individuals, despite the purpose of those who created it. Organising empires leads to a decrease in violence between individuals, but at the
same time also leads to an increase of political violence (as Charles Tilly argued that the war made the state, but the state made war). War can be at the
same time a product of economic development as well as a continuous progress. If we again look at the Roman Empire and the question “War, what is it
good for?” It can be seen that the Romans built infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) to travel easily from one place to another, also when invading other
countries. This creation of infrastructure however, was also greatly used by the public and had a positive impact. Ian Morris: Author of the book “War,
what is it good for? The Role of Conflict in Civilisation, From Primates to Robots”. States that war “is the only invention that allowed us to construct
peaceful societies”
Long term effects of the phenomenon of war:
- The National Health Services (NHS): was established after the war. Free health care for everyone. However, the reasoning behind it was that young men
were healthy so that they could fight for their country.
- Development of statistics, so that governments knew how many resources they had, how many people they had available, etc. (e.g. the diagram by
Florence Nightingale)
- Women’s rights. Women were not able to vote, work, take part in society like men did, etc. It was only after WW1 that they gained rights.
- Other examples mentioned: tampons, trench-coats, jeeps (and other SUVs), sunglasses, plastic surgery, abolishment of serfdom, etc.
- War is also a great leveller, it made the gaps between rich and poor smaller, as war is very expensive (Thomas Piketty & Walter Scheidel).
“War, what is it good for?” It can be said that war:
- Caused changes in technology and society
- Shaped modern state system
- And on individual level: freed oppressed people, ended colonialism, Nazism, etc.
Functions of war. Beyond victory, war can be fought to 1) limit violence, 2) for immediate gain(s) 3) and for weakening political oppression.
Course lab 1: Concepts, trends and causes of war & case studies (B.F.H. Erinkveld, MA)
j
Afghanistan (post 9/11) Rwanda (1994) Current conflict in Ukraine
The Ukraine crisis is a struggle between different
Briefly put: the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. Between April and June 1994, an estimated
factions. Some want to align with EU and others
During the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda 800,000 Rwandans were killed in only 100 days.
with Russia. In March 2014, the crisis erupted
was allowed to have their training camps in Most of the dead were Tutsis - and most of those
when Russian special forces occupied Crimea
Afghanistan. After 9/11, the United States who perpetrated the violence were Hutus. A
peninsula. Between 2014–2018, a military conflict
believed that Osama Bin Laden was the man group of Tutsi exiles formed a rebel group, the
between Ukrainian soldiers & Russian-backed
behind these attacks. There was international Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which invaded
separatists continued. Bottom line: Ukraine’s
pressure on Afghan leaders to hand over Osama Rwanda in 1990 and fighting continued until a
desire to open its markets to the EU and to
Bin Laden. When the Taliban didn't do this, the 1993 peace deal was agreed. The genocide was
collude with US companies to develop its natural
United States decided to use their armed forces. sparked by the death of the Rwandan President
gas reserves were perceived by Russia as huge
In October 2001, the United States began Juvenal Habyarimana (a Hutu). Hutu extremists
threats to its economy. So Russia invaded
bombing Afghanistan. They targeted bin Laden's blamed the RPF and started a well-organised
Crimea. Since then, relations between the United
al-Qaeda fighters and also the Taliban. It was ten campaign of slaughter. The RPF said the plane
States and Russia have continued to deteriorate.
years after the war in Afghanistan began that had been shot down by Hutus to provide an
Efforts to reach a diplomatic settlement have
Osama bin Laden was shot and killed in Pakistan. excuse for the genocide. An estimated 5 million
failed. In April 2016, NATO announced its
British troops and forces from other countries people died as a result of the conflict which
deployment of battalions to Estonia, Latvia,
remained Afghanistan, trying to help the lasted until 2003, with some armed groups active
Lithuania, and Poland to deter further Russian
government build a stable nation. until now in the areas near Rwanda's border.
aggression especially in the Baltic region.
Leiden University 2
,Trends, Modes of warfare:
I. Industrial warfare
II. Total war (WWI, WWII)
III. Cold war/ nuclear deterrence & decolonisation wars
IV. Intra-state wars & peace operations
V. ‘New Wars’/ ‘Hybrid Warfare’
Causes of war
- Philosophy (Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, Sigmund Freud): Not all people think the same. Is there such thing as one human nature? As human beings, we
are reluctant to kill. We have developed mechanisms for this (e.g. the use of drones.). This lead to the dehumanisation of our components. This also
meant the rise of ‘The Declinist Debate’, where institutions play an important role (e.g. UN, EU, etc.).
- Human nature: ”We used to wonder where war lived, what was it that made it so vile. And now we realise that we know where it lives, that it is inside
ourselves” (Albert Camus). & “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, war. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him
and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out . . . and help to slaughter
strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. . . . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the
blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man”—with his mouth” (Mark Twain).
- Education: Education has a general pacifying effect on conflict. Inequality between individuals (level of education) does not matter for conflict, but inter-
group inequality does. Curricula with nationalist ideology could have an impact on inter-group animosity.
- Greed vs. Grievance: Greed: combatants that are motivated by a desire to better their situation and perform an informal cost-benefit analysis in
examining if the rewards of joining a rebellion are greater than not joining. Grievance: People rebel over issues of identity rather than over economics
Trends and causes
Afghanistan (post 9/11) Rwanda (1994) Current conflict in Ukraine
Causes Weak institutions (failed state), ideology, ethnic/ Grievance amongst disenfranchised Hutu + Nationalism and Putin's geopolitical &
sectarian/regional cleavages & education Polarisation Ukraine's EU ambitions
Trends Insurgency/asymmetric warfare, reluctance for Ethnic conflict, peace operations. Pledge to Proxy warfare + Hybrid warfare (?)/
boots-on-the-ground missions & state-building prevent similar atrocities in the future (e.g. Information warfare
efforts R2P)
Lecture 2: Clausewitz and the Changing Character and Eternal Nature of Warfare (Dr. B.W. Schuurman)
Who was Carl Von Clausewitz? Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz was born in 1780 into a military family and entered the Prussian military at 12. He
was therefore experienced with the consequences of war already from a very young age (first-hand knowledge). He was considered to be introverted,
solitary and arrogant. He experienced the French Revolution and Napoleon, before he went to the Military Academy in Berlin. Von Clausewitz was
captured at the battle of Jena-Auerstadt against Napoleon. He later became a Prussian general and military theorist who stressed the "moral" (meaning,
in modern terms, psychological) and political aspects of war. His most notable work, Vom Kriege (On War), was unfinished at his death. That is why there
are some contradictions in the book. Clausewitz was a realist in many different senses and, while in some respects a romantic, also drew heavily on the
rationalist ideas of the European Enlightenment. Famous quotes about Clausewitz can be seen on the slides of lecture 2: what can be seen from the
quotes is that there are a different opinion on his work. Some think it is awful, while others see what he is trying to convey.
Napoleonic warfare: As this was the ongoing war during Clausewitz upbringing, this war shaped society (and him). The French Revolution and
subsequent Napoleonic Wars revolutionised military strategy. The impact of this period was still to be felt in the American Civil War and the early phases
of World War I. With the advent of cheap small arms and the rise of the drafted citizen soldier, army sizes increased rapidly to become mass forces. This
necessitated dividing the army first into divisions and later into corps. Along with divisions came divisional artillery; light-weight, mobile cannons with
great range and firepower.
Both the French Revolution (1789-1799) and Napoleon shaped 19th century warfare with the uprising of nationalism. This lead to the citizens feeling
proud to be part of their nation and simultaneously conscription (dienstplicht). In 1812, France its so-called ‘Grande Armée’ consisted of approximately
600.000 soldiers, by far the largest of its day. As aforementioned, Napoleon changed nature of warfare (1490-1790: ca. 9 battles a year vs. 1790-1820 ca.
23 battles a year). The aforementioned conscription was controversial: soldiers would have duties but no rights. A sense of fear of revolution hampers
Napoleon’s opponents.
Clausewitz and the reformers: Throughout his life, he had a love-hate relationship with Napoleon. On the one hand he was inspired by him because he
recognised a military genius. On the other hand, he hated him because he was responsible for his imprisonment and the annexation of Prussia. When he
became a Prussian general, you can see that he slowly began to adopt similar strategies; Prussian reforms mirrors the French military successes:
- Promotion: merit over birth
- Inspiration: nationalism/ duty over ‘cadaver discipline’
- Personnel: limited conscription replaces professionals
Leiden University 3
, Intellectual context of On War: Clausewitz was influenced by the Enlightenment (18th
1810: Clausewitz to Military Academy in Berlin, begins
century), Romanticism (ca. 1750-1850) and also by Machiavelli’s amoral perception of war. writing his book On War
Where the Enlightenment thinking focuses on the rational analysis, clarity, scientific 1812: Clausewitz offers services to Russia to fight Napoleon
1813: Reformed Prussian Army declares war on France
method and ‘laws’ of war, Romanticism focuses on the psychological, emotional and
1814: After he returns to Prussia he is reinstated as Colonel
intuitive factors, subjectiveness, chaos, chance, friction and luck. He has a foot in both of
1815: Fights close to Waterloo (Napoleon defeated)
these traditions. Clausewitz also has a dialectic method of presentation; meaning that he 1815: Return to the War Academy, continues his book On
shows two sides of the concept. Examples can be found in ‘Absolute vs. Limited War’, War (his experiences changes his mind)
1827: First draft On War complete; revision begins
‘Theory vs. Practice’, ‘Means vs. Ends’, Offensive vs. Defensive’, Action vs. Inaction’,
1831: Clausewitz dies of Cholera (he was not able to revise
‘Reason vs. Emotion’ and ‘Physical vs. Moral factors’.
everything, main reason for debates)
1832: On War published posthumously and unfinished
Enlightenment thinking of war: Scientific method inspires quest for laws of human (unrevised, with contradictions)
affairs, including war (strategic studies). In the 18th century, there was a plethora of books
on warfare (e.g. by Heinrich von Bülow [Lines of Operations and his ‘optimal angle’], Frederick the Great and Maurice de Saxe). They were prescriptive,
limited on their empirical basis and had a strong focus on immutable principles. These authors tried to make war a science and find a sometimes
mathematical solution; however, this is not the ultimate way to look at it. What sets Clausewitz apart from contemporaries, is his 1) approach, 2) longevity.
1) Clausewitz’s Approach. Clausewitz too, wanted to be as scienti c as possible:
1. Intellectually rigorous and precise & 2. Historical examples as case studies
- Method: firstly Verstehen: seeing events from the object of study’s perspective — interpret events as one’s other point of view. Secondly, Critical
Analysis: much more removed analysis of decisions made — remove subjectivity of his assessment. Thirdly and lastly: role of ‘Military Genius’ (Frederick
the Great and Napoleon) and his own military experiences.
- Result: Strong combination of history and theory and multidisciplinary: political science, social science, philosophy, strategic studies — empirical basis is
different than his colleagues
2) Clausewitz’s Longevity: He sought to explain essence of war, not warfare (essence rather than implementation). He also wanted to stimulate strategic
capacities readers, not tell them what to do. Above all: war is neither purely art nor science, it is a social phenomenon
1) Influence psychological, emotional and moral factors
2) Action-reaction cycles
3) Information is always incomplete/ uncertain
4) Chance and luck
On War’s initial reception: Even-though we main see Clausewitz as a main theorist, his book was not well received initially; hard to read, not as practical
as Jomini (his rival), no good French translation. It was often poorly studied, misunderstood and selectively quoted. However, interest was later aroused by
Helmuth von Moltke (Prussian military victories; Lenin & Engels). Broader interest following WWI and WWII in the Anglo-American world.
Baron Antion-Henri Jomini (1779-1869): French-Swiss businessman, military analyst, Clausewitz Jomini
Napoleon’s biographer and rival to Clausewitz. In 1838, he published Précis de ‘art
Basis for knowledge History and genius Theory and science
de la guerre. He is considered to be the founder of modern strategy and used
Aim Non-prescriptive Practical guidelines
Napoleon’s successes as a basis for how-to approach to warfare. He is more
prescriptive and practical. His main take-aways: 1) Maintain numerical superiority, 2) Stronger form of war Stronger form of war Offense
Concentrate mass at the decisive point, and 3) Importance of the offensive and
Politics and strategy Politics and strategy Strategic primate
initiative.
Brief overview of on war:
- Aims: 1) Uncover fundamental nature of war and 2) Stimulate readers’ intellectual capacity
- Drawbacks: 8 ‘volumes’, only 2 revised (Idealist vs. Realist)
- Contradictory arguments with dense, even inaccessible language
- Dialectical method of presentation (unquotable)— thesis: proposition A —> Antithesis: proposition B —> Synthesis: product of A and B
Absolute war:
Clausewitz looked for war’s fundamental nature. What is this?
1) Absolute or ‘ideal’ war: “War is an act of force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force”
- Search for war’s ‘ideal type’ (Plato)
- Unlimited escalation of violence and the use of all means, no holds barred
2) War in Reality: “Move from the abstract to the real world, and the whole thing looks quite different”
- Multitude of factors restrain escalation of violence (political purpose, superiority defence, friction)
- War is not an isolated phenomenon: politics sets goals and boundaries
Leiden University 4
fi
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller summariesforyou. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.72. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
76462 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now