Democratic Peace Theory and Georgia

Democratic Peace Theory and Georgia Georgias decision to launch an offensive attack against Russian personnel occupying the contested regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia seems to contradict the theoretical underpinnings of the Democratic Peace Theory. However, further analysis of Georgias and Russias regimes reveals some of the criticisms of the theory itself and their impact on the Intelligence Communitys (IC) ability to provide warning in the region. The Democratic Peace Theory states that democratic states do not go to war with each other, or at least, are much less likely to. The basis of this theory is two-fold: first, that democracies are like-minded in fiscal and political polices and that democratic political culture makes going to war less likely, and second, that political constraints on leaders of democratic states discourage the use of force as a foreign policy option.[1] In his book, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition, James Lee Ray further describes the cultural and structural explanations of democratic peace: Disputes between states do not escalate to war because the leaders expect, on a basis of common culture, to be able to work out their differences, and that greater decisional constraints [i.e., political structure] on a leader produce a lower probability that a dispute involving the state will escalate to war.[2] Additionally, studies have argued that when dem ocratic leaders do choose to escalate international crises, their threats are taken as highly credible, since there must be a relatively large public opinion for these actions.[3] In August 2008, Georgia and Russia, both democratic countries, went to war over two disputed regions within the borders of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that had long been sources of conflict. South Ossetia and Abkhazia also have established, democratic governments, although Georgia does not recognize the government of South Ossetia as legitimate. Prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, all had coexisted relatively peacefully under Soviet control. Conflict over the desire for independence by the territories and nationalism by Georgia had erupted after the break-up and had been simmering since then, with Russia quietly supporting the regimes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a covert attempt to assimilate first the population, then the territory into the Russian Federation.[4] The conflict impacts stability in the region, which has implications for the safety and control of major oil pipelines, roads and railways between Russia and Armenia and between Georgia and Russia through South Ossetia. Support to Georgia, as an emerging democracy in the region and a member of the coalition in Afghanistan, puts the U.S. at odds with Russia, which is counterproductive to stability in the region and even globally. Given the cultural and structural explanations of the Democratic Peace Theory, the conflict between two democratic states can be explained through criticisms of the theory. First, one of Dean Babsts four indicators of a democracy is the country must have been independent.[5] Georgia was part of the Soviet Union until gaining independence in 1991, and the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not agreed upon by the international community. Georgia, despite its independence, is still in the process of establishing state sovereignty within an ethnically divided nation. Next, the vulnerability of democracy is a criticism of the theory.[6] President Mikheil Saakashvilis election in 2008 was hotly contested, and it threatens to unhinge the real progress Georgia has made towards institutional, democratic and economic reform from 2004.[7] Additionally, the leader of the Georgian Orthodox Church has proposed a constitutional Monarchy to guarantee stability.[8] Therefore, Georgias infant dem ocracy, after it spent years under a communist regime, is far from security. Finally, Spencer Weart stated wars have never occurred between well-established democracies.[9] However, he does not delineate what constitutes a well-established democracy. Georgia has operated as a democracy for almost two decades and fulfills Babsts other three indicators of a democracy.[10] While Russia is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy, Freedom House lists Russia as not free based on the Kremlins stage-managed parliamentary election campaign, Putins move to Prime Minister after two terms as president, and an alarming increase in state power over civil society.[11],[12] The point at which Georgia and Russia can be considered democracies that will not go to war with each other is vague. Therefore, the United States and the IC cannot apply the Democratic Peace Theory to the conflict in Georgia. In order for the IC to assess the threats to U.S. interests in Georgia, analysts must predict Georgias willingness to resort to armed conflict with Russia over the disputed regions. Georgia has troops in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and they are politicking heavily to become part of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).[13] In this sense, they are striving to become part of the international democratic community. If Georgia is part of the EU and NATO, then any action they take against Russia would require support on the part of other member nations. The United States assisted Georgia in their efforts against Russia, specifically through airlift. However, U.S. combat and combat support forces did not deploy to the region due to undesirable outcomes from United States combating Russian forces. While Georgia continues to present itself as a U.S. ally, the IC needs to provide warning to U.S. policy makers of any impending conflict in the Russian occupied regions. President Obama needs to use other national instruments of power to resolve the dispute or stabilize relations between Georgia and Russia in order to avoid going to war with Russia over a civil conflict within a sovereign state. The Democratic Peace Theory seems to be well supported when applied to states which have both the cultural and structural aspects of democracy. However, it falls short of establishing criteria to consider a country truly democratic despite giving indications of democracy. Georgia and Russia, both newly democratic states, cannot be viewed through the lens of the theory, especially in light of the recent trend towards authoritarianism by Russia. With Russia occupying regions in Georgia and declaring them independent states, the IC must continue to analyze relations between the two states and provide warning to policy makers in the United States. References James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition (Studies in International Relations), p. 30, Columbia: Univ Of South Carolina Pr, 1998. Ibid. Democratic Peace Theory , Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory (accessed November 30, 2009). The Georgia-Russia conflict: lost territory, found nation, Open Democracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-georgia-russia-conflict-lost-territory-found-nation (accessed November 30, 2009). Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, p. 12. Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, p. 204. Robert Parsons, Mikheil Saakashvilis bitter victory. Open Democracy (January 2008), http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/mikheil_saakashvili_bitter_victory (accessed November 30, 2009). Giorgi Lomsadze Time for a King for Georgia? Eurasia Net (October 2007), http://www.eurasianet.net/departments/insight/articles/eav 101207a.shtml (accessed November 30, 2009). Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, p. 35 Ibid., p 12. Russia, Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia (accessed November 29, 2009). Freedom in the World Russia (2008), Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/ fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2008country=7475pf (accessed November 30, 2009). Ambassador Batu Kutelia (lecture, National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, D.C., October 5, 2009)

Shakespeares Macbeth - Appearance versus Reality - Quote Analysis :: essays research papers

Fair is foul, and foul is fair, a phrase that has become synonym with Macbeth. It is also the introduction to one of the most important themes of this tragedy: appearance and reality. Shakespeare uses various characters and situations to emphasize this confusion between the real and the surreal, the authentic and the fake, the act and the sincere. In order to discuss this theme, different characters will be looked at : in the first paragraph, the Witches, in the second, Duncan and in the third, Lady Macbeth. The Witches introduce the theme with the infamous phrase â€Å"Fair is foul, and foul is fair† (scene 1, line 11) in the first scene. It’s functional for the Witches to say this in the beginning of the book, as they are the start of all the perplexity. They become the core of confusion when they awaken Macbeth’s ambition and transform his perspective of good and evil, making bad things look good and good things look bad. Ironically in connection with this, Banquo warns Macbeth, â€Å"Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s In deepest consequence† (1/3/125-126). The Witches continue to speak in contradicting language, such as â€Å"lesser than Macbeth, and greater† (1/3/65) and â€Å"Not so happy, yet much happier† (1/3/66) that adds to the sense of moral confusion, by implying that nothing is quite what it seems. Banquo’s warning is fulfilled at the end of the play when the Witches had won Macbeth’s trust with prophecies that became true –‘honest trifles’- and then betray him in the things that really mattered, his life and his country -‘deepest consequence’- to win his spirit for hell. Until his death, King Duncan was misled by Macbeth’s false loyalty. When the Thane of Cawdor had been found guilty of being a traitor and was hanged, King Duncan thought so highly of Macbeth, that he gave the title to him. The Thane then ironically dies with pride while Macbeth dies a foe of Scotland. The King was under the impression that Macbeth was a loyal and brave soldier, calling him â€Å"O worthiest cousin† (1/4/14), but Macbeth was actually already planning to kill the King, â€Å"whose murder yet is but fantastical† (1/3/139). Even when Duncan goes to visit Macbeth, he praises the castle’s pleasant environment and hospitality, â€Å"This castle hath a pleasant seat† (1/5/1), but is totally unaware of Macbeth’s plans to murder him. From the first time we meet Lady Macbeth, we get the impression of a strong-willed and bold person, an ideal wife.

Ancient China Essay

Q1. How did China’s environment help a civilization to develop there? Because of the areas with a good climate and rich soil, China’s civilization was able to flourish. Although most of china is made up of mountains and deserts, there are some places like the river valleys with good climate and soil that is perfect for farming. These river valleys are formed by the Huang, Yangtze, and Xi Rivers. When they knew they could farm there, people began to settling along the Huang about 5000bc. They learned to make dikes and irrigation systems and started jobs like herding sheep and cattle. Sometimes, the dikes created would not be enough to hold the water, and the Huang would destroy towns and crops. The trials and rewards that the Huang River brought gave it its name, The River of Sorrows. Along with civilization came invasion. China’s civilization was invaded many times by nomads from Mongolia and Manchuria. But even if some of these invaders worked their way up to government, they kept the Chinese culture because it was so strong. Q2. What do we know of China’s first historic dynasty? The Shang Dynasty was China’s first historic dynasty. It began in the Huang River Valley at about 1500bc. They started off only ruling a small portion around the city of Anyang, but even though they didn’t rule certain places, they still promised to fight against all invaders. They had bronze weapons and chariots to help in battle. They slowly gained more power as the population grew, and by 1200bc, the Shang rulers became great. Q3. How was China governed during the Zhou Dynasty? The Zhou Dynasty began at about 1027bc and because of their strong dynasty, they ruled for 800 years. They took over the Shang Dynasty with the help of a few Chinese city-states whose leaders where very powerful, so the ruled their city-states independently. The Zhou Dynasty weakened because of small wars within kingdoms. By 400s bc the Zhou Dynasty was so weak the only ruled over their own city state. These years of weakening were called the Years of the Warring States. China’s government developed the Mandate of Heaven which said that each dynasty would have their own government. A dynasty could rule only as long as it kept its mandate. When a dynasty’s mandate was taken by the gods, the new ruler would have to defeat the old to begin his own dynasty.

Thomas Paine s Common Sense - 1512 Words

Unequivocally one of the most historically and culturally-significant pieces of literature, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense has been meticulously analyzed for its effectiveness in eliciting the reaction that Paine himself intended in 1776. At the forefront of Paine’s pamphlet is â€Å"Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs,† notable for its first sentence: â€Å"In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple, facts, plain arguments, and commonsense† (7). Within, Paine â€Å"elaborates† on three main points that strengthen the option of independence: the effects of British rule on the colonies; the plausible relationship with Britain upon reconciliation; and the actual role of England as a parent country as opposed to England’s optimal role. However, upon analysis of the text, I discerned that Paine does not develop his main points to the extent that he does his almost-propaganda-like statements regarding England. Despite this, adding historical knowledge to Common Sense can help one corroborate Paine’s views to an extent. Overall, when expressing his views on the colonies’ relationship with England, possible results of reconciliation, and England as a parent country, Paine does not elaborate, but information regarding the Navigation Acts and mercantilism can assist one in understanding the significance of Common Sense. As one can infer, Thomas Paine is not of the mind that America has prospered as a subject to Great Britain. He writes, â€Å"I challenge the warmest advocate forShow MoreRelatedThomas Paine s Common Sense Essay813 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Paine began writing Common Sense in late 1775 under the working title of Plain Truth. With Benjamin Rush, who helped him edit it, publish it, and suggested the final title, Paine developed his ideas into a forty-eight page pamphlet. He published Common Sense anonymously because of its treasonable content. Rush recommended the printer Robert Bell, promising Paine that, where other printers might say no because of the content of the pamphlet, Bell would not hesitate nor delay its printing. PaineRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense941 Words   |  4 Pages  Thomas Paine, born in 1737 in Thetford, England, came to America in 1774 after meeting Benjamin Franklin and receiving a letter of recommendation. Once he reached the colonies, he became the editor of the â€Å"Pennsylvania Magazine† as well as begin his career as a political pamphleteer. Paine became a major voice for political issues through his works including, â€Å"Common Sense† and â€Å"The American Crisis†. Both of which addressed what the colonies were fighting for, a fresh start as a society and politicalRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense Essay1659 Words   |  7 PagesPamphlet, Common Sense, written by philosopher Thomas Paine in 1776, provided the insight that would soon play out to be a major role in the beginning of the American Revolution. Thomas Paine helped many of the colonists envision a future of control, unity, and self-reliance. He portrayed the colonists to be victims of Great Britain, the land in which most of the original colonists se ttled away from, and encouraged them to begin the war in which they would fight for their liberty. Common Sense caughtRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense1591 Words   |  7 Pagespages of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, he makes it very clear his feelings for the British Government. â€Å"The king is not to be trusted without being looked after†¦,† Paine states (page 6). He is trying to convey that the kind should not be able to make important decisions without someone going back behind him to check and make sure he is not messing anything up. He also goes on to talk about how the common people are wiser and more worthy of confidence than the crown. Expressing that the common peopleRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense Essay720 Words   |  3 PagesThomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense was first published in January, 1776. Paine emigrated to America in late 1774, just a few months before the Revolutionary War began. Upon entering America Paine quickly became involved in American politics. He also edited the Pennsylvania Magazine. The war for American Independence can be traced back to 1763 when the French and Indian war occurred. The British won the war, but also had a substantial debt. Thus, they began to heavily tax the American coloniesRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense887 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense questions the King’s priorities and why American colonists would stay with him, which gave the American colonists the confidence in themselves to separate from the British. In Thomas Paine’s first page of his pamphlet Common Sense, Paine says â€Å"As a long and violent abuse of power.† Now for years the colonists had believed the King had bad advisers and that basically everyone in Britain but the King was the problem. Paine goes on to state â€Å"The remains of MonarchicalRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense795 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Paine’s Common Sense, on t he surface, is a call for the dissolution of British monarchial hold on American society. Upon closer inspection of his rhetoric, historical references, and his concept of independence, his audience witnesses more than just an incitement to revolution. Paine is redeveloping the American concept of rights and, thus, redefining its roots. By eliminating British ties in this pamphlet, he creates a â€Å"rights foundation† that relies on discourse and national institutionsRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense Pamphlet1719 Words   |  7 Pagesfigure to back their frustrations. Radical journalist and political animal, Thomas Paine, was the first to openly ask for liberty, in the Pennsylvania Magazine. Paine’s ordinary language appealed to the common folk, and allowed them to participate in colonial meetings; Their strength would be dependent on numbers. The published piece gave clear reason for the colonists to fight for their freedom. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense pam phlet asserted purpose to the impending ward on England, and inspired allRead MoreThomas Paine s Common Sense Assignment976 Words   |  4 PagesThomas Paine’s Common Sense Assignment Thomas Paine published Common Sense in January of 1776, and it was a motive that pushed for America to gain freedom from British rule. Paine used Common Sense as a way to explain to the Colonist just what Britain was doing to the colonies and what they were stopping them from achieving. Paine used language that colonist used in everyday life so that it was more appealing to them. Being that it was written in an easy to understand language and stated what theRead MoreAnalysis of Thomas Paine ´s Pamphlet, Common Sense846 Words   |  3 PagesCommon Sense Throughout time, events such as wars and assassinations have occurred that people today can describe as â€Å"a turning point in history†. However, not all turning points in history have to be wars, assassinations, etc. In fact, perhaps everybody acknowledges that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense is a â€Å"turning point in history† because it inspired the United States Revolutionary War. Common Sense, a pamphlet, can be credited as to inciting the American Colonies to revolt against Great