Introduction and Background
War is the term used to define a state of armed conflict between states, governments, societies, and paramilitary groups within a country or between countries. According to Speier (1941), three types of pure war are highlighted as follows. The first type is absolute war. This is an unrestricted and unregulated type of war. Due to the presence of the UN and thus international law and international humanitarian law, conflict and violence have been transformed, and this kind of war is not the norm. The second is instrumental war, which might or might not involve restrictions and regulations based on convenience and practicality. Finally, an agonistic war is regulated according to the norms and laws. This is the kind of war in the contemporary world due to the efforts by the United Nations to reduce the amount of suffering in a state of war.
This paper draws on and builds upon concepts of international diplomacy and foreign policy to examine the history of the war through time. Thus, the paper assumes a realist position and argues that war is the ultimate form of foreign policy implementation, which nations who believe they are capable of winning will use to implement their foreign policies. As such, the paper will argue that national interests are the causes of contemporary war, and nations will favor war regardless of international law or sanctions as long as the war has more benefits than consequences. To achieve this aim, the paper will begin by highlighting foreign policies, national interests, and their relation to war. This will be followed by indicating how nations result to war if the perceived benefits outweigh the risks by using contemporary wars. Finally, the paper will analyze the effectiveness of war as an instrument of implementing foreign policy before drawing conclusions.
Origin and Causes of War
War has been there for centuries and has been used as a method of conflict resolution. The first war is believed to have been fought in Mesopotamia in 2700 B.C. between Sumer and Elam (Wonderopolis, 2020). Sumerians were led to victory by Enembaragesi, the King of Fish. While the cause of this war is known with absolute certainty, it is thought that the war occurred due to increasing competition for limited agricultural resources after humans began to farm instead of hunting. The constant in wars is that there is something limited that is worth fighting for.
Wars result from selfish and aggressive misdirected impulses. In the general sense, there are several causes of war. According to Amonson (2018), the following are the major motivations of war. First, Human nature. People are generally more likely to seek situations that maximize the gratification of their physiological needs while minimizing suffering. War might be an extent to which they can go to achieve these goals. Second, human nature at the state level. Similar to the case of an individual, a state is prone to want to be secure. A nation can only be secure if it can maintain its values and is in no danger. As such, war results from a threat to a nation’s beliefs and values. Realists believe that the common goal in all nations is survival. A common belief for this has been that as long as the enemy has not been defeated, there is a chance that they can defeat one, and then they lose their sovereignty. Third, for power. Nations might opt for war to defend their position in the global society when threatened. Fourth, territorial and economic gain. This refers to wars brought about by some nations pursuing to increase their territories and economic value by resources. Fifth, religion is engraved deep into the values of the nation. Such states might believe in religious purity where only one religion is accepted, and violence is waged on all the other religions. Another cause of war is a war for civil causes and revolutions. This is a war usually brought about by failing governance systems where there is a lot of poverty, inequality, and accompanying issues. This is common within a nation.
Foreign Policy, National Interests, and War
Foreign policy’s mission and definition are tied closely to national interests. National interests, a fundamental concept of international relations, encompass political, security, cultural, religious, economic, and security interests (Liu, 2014). According to Liu (2014), national security is the most fundamental of national interests, and due to the sovereign nature of the nations, political interests embody national interests. Further, the author argues that the nature of national interests is largely influenced by the values of a nation along with the given nation’s ways of thinking, ideologies, and culture. As a result, there are differences in the nature of national interests across nations. These values are unlikely to be eroded for truly sovereign nations.
The definition and description of national policies set the ground for introducing the foreign policy. Foreign policy refers to the vehicle that is used to realize national interests. According to Folarin (2017), foreign policy is the rational pursuit of national interests which means that there are steps that are followed. Folarin (2017) sees foreign policy as a means to an end that is highlighted and defined by national interests. Thus, foreign policy is the strategy that is adopted by the nations vis-à-vis other states when pursuing the sum of their national interests. Foreign policies of a nation are created to maximize the advantage of the said nation.
Power is a significant tool in foreign policies. According to Machain et al. (2017), power plays a significant role in foreign interests. A nation with great power is expected to be more active in foreign policy than nations with less power in the international system. Power in the international arena is used through provision aids, alliances, and involvement in conflicts where in all instances, the nations will great power use this as an opportunity to push forward their national interests and maximize their advantages. However, this misuse of power grows resentment since the national interests might not be suitable for the collective society. In these instances, such nations are seen as bullies and hypocrites.
An analysis conducted by Nuechterlein (1976) offers a critical analysis of national interests, which do not vary much from the traditional causes of war. The first is defense interests, meaning nations aim to protect their sovereignty and citizens. The second is economic interests, where all nations seek to maximize their economic gain and well-being. The third is a world order where some nations are invested in ensuring that their position in the world does not change and thus maintains the world order. The fifth factor is ideological interests, where the nations seek to protect and further a set of values that they believe are universally good. This is most common in the contemporary world.
A significant factor in these instances is the intensity of interests. Not all interests are equal between two nations. This means there is a continuum for each national interest that determines the extent to which a nation is willing to go to protect it or, instead, the foreign policy a nation chooses to employ. According to Nuechterlein (1976), this continuum has the following levels. First, there are survival issues that come into play when the nation’s survival is at stake. The second is vital issues that cause harm and are critical for the nation’s well-being but not existence. The third is major issues that might affect the well-being of a nation unless there is a set of actions that are set to negate the danger. Finally, there are peripheral issues where that are important, but there is no risk of the nation’s well-being being affected.
Depending on the intensity and the issue of national interest, a nation might opt for the following foreign policy tools. First, diplomacy includes holding or calling off diplomatic exchanges. Second, aid, economic development, and trade might involve coercion. Third, military influence, power, and force might involve employing force. War as an instrument for foreign policy usually happens under several conditions.
Factors Considered Before War is Used as an Instrument for Foreign Policy
The economic costs of conflict
It is apparent that war has a great cost for nations participating regardless of the instigators. Indeed, an example can be illustrated by the US, which lost 4.6 trillion dollars in the war succeeding 9/11 (Boston University, 2019). In this calculation, human lives lost have not been factored in. As such, some factors must be met before a nation enters into war. Berinsky (2007) states that the public support war if the benefits, including values, of the war, outweigh its cost. Thus, the intensity of the issues leading to war must be sufficient to justify the economic cost of the war. For example, there have been sanctions on oil coming from Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine. Thus, Russia must have considered the consequences and weighed against NATO’s expansion to the East to deem war a viable solution.
The Number of Troops Needed to Service the War and Alternatives
As mentioned above, war happens only when there is a vital issue that rational policymakers have considered before committing human resources in a case where there will be casualties. For this, a nation must have sufficient troops otherwise, they must seek other alternatives to satisfy the deficit. There were examples of this just before world war I. Between 1906 and 1914, there was a race for the creation of dreadnaughts which were deadly naval ships with greater guns offering more threat on the water than the other ship (Seligmann, 2016). This race was instigated by the fact that Britain understood that its troops on the mainland were limited compared to the German troops, which was a risk to the nation’s security at a time when there were threats from Russia, France, and Germany (Seligmann, 2016).
Thus, Britain opted to improve its position as the maritime ruler by being more innovative in the naval field. Britain used its influence in water as a foreign policy to deter Germany from invading its borders by making more dreadnaughts 29 vs. 17 between 1906 and 1914 (Seligmann, 2016). Thus, Britain understood the number of troops needed to win a war against the Germans and knew that this would have been close to impossible, which influenced its act to increase its innovation to make up for the shortage of mainland troops. Indeed, Britain, by then, had a policy that required it to make and have more ships than the sum of the nations that followed (Seligmann, 2016). This foreign policy worked to an extent because it deterred Germany, which understood that its marine power was limited to instigating a war. Thus, nations must consider whether they have sufficient, relevant troops to win the war before instigating it.
The Probable Duration of the War
There is a direct proportion between the costs of war and the time taken in the war. According to Nuechterlein (1976), the longer the conflict, the more casualties and the larger the number of soldiers required to sustain the war. It, therefore, follows that a nation will only employ force when it feels that it can use it for a short period and achieve its purpose. For example, the US withdrew its soldiers from Afghanistan under Trump’s leadership due to the immense cost of servicing the presence of many soldiers and the pressure coming from stakeholders. In 2014, the US had around one hundred soldiers in Afghanistan in a war that began in 2001 (Military Times, 2022). It is apparent that the US did not anticipate occupying Afghanistan for almost two decades. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the expansion of China as a great power globally, the US realizes that it has to realign its national interests. In summary, a nation cannot employ war as an instrument for foreign if there is a chance for the war to run for an extended period.
The Chances of Success
A nation is less likely to be engaged in conflict if it feels it has no chance of success unless attacked. For example, Kenya cannot start a war between itself and the USA because that would be a losing battle where the cost outweighs the benefit by default since there is no benefit after losing. However, where there is the ultimate risk of losing sovereignty, the incentive to take part in the conflict increases. A perfect example is the war between Ukraine and Russia, where Ukraine defended its sovereignty even when it could not match the Russian troops and nuclear power. However, the price to pay if it loses is the ultimate, so it opted to participate in the war. Thus, nations start conflicts in which they can win but also participate in wars when the price for conceding is almost as bad as attempting to win. This is closely related to the risk of allies joining in the fight.
The Risk of Enlarged Conflict
Nations consider the risk of an enlarged conflict before engaging in a war. If a nation has solid allies and is invested in the war outcomes, the policymakers might opt for other measures and tools for implementing foreign policy. Consider the case of Taiwan vs. China and Russia vs. Ukraine. There have been strong ties between the European Union and Ukraine; it became one of the EU member states last year. In comparison, Taiwan lacks international support that would match that of Ukraine. Thus, there is more risk of an enlarged conflict in Russia invading Ukraine than in China invading Taiwan. Indeed, NATO took the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an invitation to make defense plans that included deployments of four battalions in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia to deter Russia’s practice (NATO, 2023). Thus, for Russia to have understood the risks of an enlarged conflict and opted to go ahead with war, there must be a great cost it was unwilling to forego. Thus, Nations use war as an instrument of foreign policy only when the loss is great to bear, or there is minimal risk of an enlarged conflict. An enlarged conflict minimizes the chances of winning and therefore discourages participation in the war.
Domestic Public Opinion
Politicians lead the nations and shape their political policies. Also, politicians are elected by the public, making public opinion on political leaders a critical factor in determining the use of war as a method of conflict resolution. The rational choice theory argues that individuals will use self-interests in making decisions where they take the option that maximizes their benefits while minimizing suffering (Herfeld, 2021). For a politician, this means taking all the measures available to ensure they are reelected. Thus, politicians can gather popularity and increase their chances for reelection. Thus, when the public demand war, the nation is more likely to go to war. Revisiting the case of Britain and Germany makes this argument more apparent. During the construction of the dreadnaughts, the English policymakers wanted fewer dreadnaughts because they were expensive and demanding to be made, but the British public demanded, “We want Eight, and we will not wait” Morgan (2021). During that period, the UK was not a democracy, but the support of the public, especially in military endeavors, was welcome. Eight dreadnaughts ended up being made. Thus, war is used as a foreign policy implementation instrument when the public accepts it and the benefits of the war outweigh the risks of what is to be lost.
World Opinion
This might seem like a minor factor to be considered when considering war as an instrument for implementing foreign policy, especially when there is minimal risk of losing. However, in world politics and the position of different nations relative to others determine the extent the nations can pursue their national interests. For example, the USA fancies itself as the leader of the free world after defeating the communist powers (Venus, 2023). For this reason, the US is more liable to scrutiny on how it uses its power. As such, it would be unlikely for the US to invade another nation without justifying the action as Russia did or how China attacked the sovereignty of Taiwan. Thus, the world’s opinions determine the extent to which some nations, but not all, can use war as an instrument for implementing foreign policy.
War as an Effective Instrument of Foreign Policy Implementation
It would be hard to argue for the effectiveness of war as an instrument of foreign policy without considering what the nations stand to lose. When the alternatives are considered, war becomes an effective tool for foreign policy due to the following advantages.
War Reduces Terrorism
When the cost of not engaging in war is great, war becomes an effective tool if the objectives are met. An example is the case of Kenya and the Al Shabaab in Somalia. While the existence of Kenya was not at risk per se, there was a major risk for the nation in terms of loss of values, economic well-being, and the national security of several counties. Moreover, the abduction of tourists along the border and the travel advisories of the major states were hurting the Kenyan economy (Muna, 2016). Further, Muna (2016) believes the following were the costs of terrorism in Kenya; civilian and military casualties; psychological and emotional suffering for visitors and the hosts; trauma and anxiety; the rising cost of living; and the increased cost of running businesses. As such, the cost was great enough since there was the risk of intensification of the Al Shabaab attacks. However, was waging war on Al Shabaab an effective way of pursuing national interests?
Indeed, it was, and war can be easily justified. Three significant indicators can be used to come to this conclusion. First, the terrorism index shows that Kenya’s terrorist activity peaked in 2015, with volatility generally seen between 2013 and 2014 (see Appendix 1). The graph shows that terrorist activity has decreased significantly and progressively from 2017 to 2021, the latest data point. The second indicator is tourism. Appendix 2 shows that if one considers the trend of tourism between 2011 and 2019, there was a gradual decline in terrorist activity progressively since 2011, with the trough being in 2015 when terrorism peaked. Since then, there has been an increase in tourism up until 2019, the latest data point. The final indicator is Kenya’s GDP. Kenya’s GDP hits the trough almost every time an election or disturbance is expected. Appendix 3 shows this trend in 1992, 1997,2002, 2008, and 2020 as a result of Covid 19. When the stretch between 2010 and 2020 is considered, one can observe a general decline from 2010 to 2013, when operation linda nchi was started, and in 2012, they joined Amisom. This paper concedes that this is evidence of a correlation but not a causal relationship. However, this remains essential evidence of what Kenya stood to lose and how the indicators changed after the nation declared war on the Al Shabaab. The USA also reduced terrorism within its borders by invading Afghanistan. Thus, war is an effective tool for implementing foreign policy when warranted.
Maintaining Order
Maintaining order has been a major consistency in the effectiveness of war in implementing foreign policy. The UN, EU, AU, and other organizations can influence and impose order through several foreign policy tools, such as diplomacy and economic sanctions but suppose this fails; what do the international organizations do? Suppose Russia continues invading neighboring sovereign states westwards. Since there are sanctions in place and diplomacy has failed, the only option is to use force to influence and reduce Russia’s advancements.
An ideal example is world war II, which officially began when Hitler’s troops invaded the sovereign state of Poland in 1939. France and Britain, immediate neighbors, understood the risk posed by Germany and the risk for Nazism, not to mention that they were allies of Poland and had treaties in place (Gratale, 2015). The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor as a preventive action against the USA, but it served the opposite purpose. The US joined WWII. There was also a major risk of the spread of Japanese rule, which had invaded China, threatening the USA aimed to take captive the oil-rich regions of Indochina. Thus, the was a risk of the end of sovereignty for many nations in the West. This brought the need to restore order with the USA bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the first atomic bombs forcing the Japanese to surrender as had the Germans earlier (Tomonaga, 2019). While there have been debates about whether this was the right cause of action because of the human suffering and number of lives lost, it is apparent that this cause of action restored world order, making it effective (Tomonaga, 2019). Thus, war is an effective instrument of foreign policy when maintaining world order.
Instances When War has failed to be Effective as an Instrument of Foreign Policy Implementation
Just like there are instances where war has been an effective foreign policy tool, some wars have not achieved this aim and purpose. These situations arise when the cost of war outweighs the potential benefits of the said war. In some cases, war has been used as an Instrument of foreign policy implementation and failed to yield the desired results.
An ideal example is the US invasion and declaration of war against Iraq. After the events of 9/11, which were because the US supported governments against “the establishment of world order under Islamic authority,” the US began creating a narrative to justify its war on Iraq. According to the US narrative, Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda for decades, and the two shared a common enemy: the USA. Further, the narrative claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, that supported indiscriminate murder of the human population (Doherty et al., 2023). Weapons of Mass Destruction are especially discouraged by the UN, which promotes the disarmament of WMD (UN, 2023). Thus, this was an avenue for gathering support for the invasion.
Compared with the previous examples, the US was not as effective by any standards. The war was instigated by fear of WMD and an “Islamic order.” However, none of the WMDs came to be discovered in Iraq (Doherty et al., 2023), and rather than attacking Al Qaeda, which threatened it, the US attacked a nation, Iraq. This destroyed some of its foreign relations due to the perception that it was playing favorites and simultaneously making itself a moral authority (Doherty et al., 2023). Suffice it to say that the US destroyed its relations with Islamic nations. In fact, several researchers, including Hinnebusch (2007), argue that even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it posed no real threat to the US because it could have been contained. Thus, there was no reason to wage preventive war on Iraq on account of having weapons that the US contained. As such, the intensity of the national interests, in this case, was very low on multiple aspects, and the risks were very high since the war expanded to other Islamic nations such as Afghanistan and Libya. The US incurred high costs of 6.4 trillion (Boston University, 2019) and over four thousand deaths by the US forces. What the US stood to gain was preventing the use of WMD, which never was, and the rise of an “Islamic order” that cannot be proven. In this case, the costs of the war significantly outweigh its benefits, and the use of war was an ineffective and unnecessary approach to show power, as per Hinnebusch (2007). Nonetheless, albeit unsuccessfully, war was still used to implement foreign policies.
Conclusion and Implications
In conclusion, war is the ultimate form of foreign policy implementation, which nations who believe they can win will use to implement their foreign policies. Further, national interests are the causes of contemporary war, and nations will favor war regardless of international law or sanctions as long as the war has more benefits than consequences. National interests have been the root cause of war for decades. Whether fighting for land or values. In the contemporary world, nations have used war as an instrument of foreign policy implementation on many occurrences, some warranted and some not. What determines whether war is warranted also determines the scale used to determine whether war is effective. This is the national interests and the intensity of the national interests. When nations have an intense need to implement a foreign policy that might be critical for survival, war is warranted if all other means of implementation fail. Thus, war is an effective tool only if there is a critical survival risk and other means fail.
References
Amonson, K. (2018). Causes of War: A Theory Analysis. Small Wars Journal. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/causes-war-theory-analysis
Berinsky, A. J. (2007). Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for Military Conflict. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 975–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00602.x
Boston University. (2019, June 25). Cost of Post 9/11 Wars: $4.6 Trillion | The Brink | Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/cost-of-post-9-11-wars/
Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & Nadeem, R. (2023, March 14). A Look Back at How Fear and False Beliefs Bolstered U.S. Public Support for War in Iraq. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/#:~:text=Neither%20Bush%20nor%20senior%20administration,that%20took%20nearly%203%2C000%20lives.
Folarin, S. (2017, December 31). Student Feature – Foreign Policy. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/12/20/student-feature-foreign-policy/
Gratale, J. M. (2015). G. Kurt Piehler, ed. The United States in World War II: A Documentary Reader. European Journal of American Studies. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.10453
Herfeld, C. (2021). Revisiting the criticisms of rational choice theories. Philosophy Compass, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12774
Hinnebusch, R. (2007). The US Invasion of Iraq: Explanations and Implications. Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 16(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669920701616443
Liu, Z. (2014). The Concept of National Interests. China’s Diplomacy, 121–189. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781938134395_0003
Machain, C. M., Kaye, R., & Oestman, J. (2017). Great Power and Foreign Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.432
Military Times. (2022, August 17). A timeline of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan since 2001. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/a-timeline-of-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-since-2001/
Morgan, D. (2021). “We want eight and we won’t wait!”: Democracy, Strategy and the Navy on the eve of the First World War. Royal Museums Greenwich. https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/online/we-want-eight-we-wont-wait-democracy-strategy-navy-on-eve-first-world-war
Muna, W. (2016). The Cost of Terrorism in Kenya. Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 42, 289.
N. & NATO. (2023). Deterrence and defence. NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm
Nuechterlein, D. E. (1976). National interests and foreign policy: A conceptual framework for analysis and decision-making. British Journal of International Studies, 2(3), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500116729
Seligmann, M. S. (2016). The Anglo-German Naval Race, 1898–1914. Oxford University Press EBooks, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735267.003.0002
Speier, H. (1941). The Social Types of War. American Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/218692
Tomonaga, M. (2019). The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Summary of the Human Consequences, 1945-2018, and Lessons for Homo sapiens to End the Nuclear Weapon Age. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(2), 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2019.1681226
UN. (2023). Weapons of Mass Destruction – UNODA. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/
Venus, D. (2023, April 5). What Does the “Leader of the Free World” Mean? Historical Index. https://www.historicalindex.org/what-does-the-leader-of-the-free-world-mean.htm
Wonderopolis. (2020, March 25). How Long Have There Been Wars? https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-long-have-there-been-wars#:~:text=The%20remains%20have%20been%20dated,forces%20of%20Sumer%20and%20Elam.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Figure 11 Kenya’s Terrorism Index Retrieved from Kenya Terrorism Index – 2022 Data – 2023 Forecast – 2002-2021 Historical – Chart (tradingeconomics.com)
Appendix 2
Figure 2 Kenya’s Tourism Trend. Retrieved from. Development and importance of tourism for Kenya (worlddata.info)
Appendix 3
Figure 3 Kenya’s GDP Trend. Retrieved from GDP growth (annual %) – Kenya | Data (worldbank.org)
