Security Before Peace

by Robert J. Romano

September 27th, 2004

*Updated September 28th, 2004

Freedom -» Security -» Peace

In laying out an historical transition through the periods of independence of sovereign states (and the international anarchy that results from this), international structuring of the states system (which is the inevitable result of bringing order to anarchy), and inevitably peace between nations (which is both the practical and moral goal of such a system), if such a transition is to be considered plausible, it must be established whether or not a particular sort of freedom and independence of a singular nation-state is required.  If a state is too free to pursue her own interests, and worse, possesses the power to commit herself to a rigorous foreign policy, wars and conquest by such a state are likely.  If a state is too weak to protect her own interests, and thus is rife with internal strife, then it is likely that such a society would be subject to the imperialistic designs of others.  What is necessary in the first stage, in order for a state to neither be considered a tyrant nor a slave, is domestic independence of the kind in which neither the citizens of the state nor the rulers are slaves to another.  For, in the situation of a tyrannical society, while such a state might be considered powerful inasmuch as the ruler(s) neither answer to the citizens nor any law of nations, it is likely that such a state would seek tributary domains beyond her own lands.  In reaching out for new lands and peoples to conquer, wars and upheaval are inevitable.  All who fall to the tyranny become her subjects.  Conversely, if a state is so weak that she cannot protect her own interests from such tyrants and predators, then no domestic independence can be thought to exist.  In short order, both the rulers and citizens of such a conquered state become subjects and lose their freedom.  

       However, such conquests can only be temporary in a state of international anarchy, even if the tyrant is both powerful and wise:

Tyranny -» Anarchy -» War

        Eventually, the dictatorship would find itself embroiled in the system of international anarchy, and without permanent alliances nor the law of nations as any protection, wars over the allocated conquests would become inevitable.  Either the peoples of such nations would unite with the intent to overthrow the hegemon, foreign intervention would overthrow the regime, or both.  In fact, after the recurrence of such events, it is likely that either the interventionists would exert similar control over the conquests, or assuming that those countries saw the ill in subjugating the sovereignty of another state, would choose instead to liberate the state for the purposes of independence.  The insecurity of a hegemon occurs in that others will seek to overthrow the state on top, and as such, hegemony for a tyranny can only be thought of as a temporary and unsafe path.  

        The secular nature of empire would result in better forms of government eventually being implemented.  States that have been conquered could seek out their own independence as the means to preventing arbitrary coercion from a hegemon.  A state so contrived would avert the drawbacks of a tyranny, in that the citizens would also be free, and could also through a strong constitution avoid being easy prey for other states.  A free and wise people, in establishing independence against tyranny, would find security from both foreign and domestic sources.  Through equal rights, civil war may be prevented, and through limited government, tyranny may also be avoided.  As a result, the state would not be so powerful as to overpower her citizens nor would she violate her neighbors.  

        The drawback of removing a tyrant from power is that this does not necessarily solve the problem posed by anarchy.  In order to achieve sovereign independence, freedom from danger and political violence must be maintained.  Internal discords must be removed, and instead a form of government must be instituted which solves this problem.  The republican form of government, as we know it, constituting three separate and yet equal branches of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, is perhaps the best means yet devised of maintaining equal liberty under law.  In such a way, a state may be both powerful enough to protect her interests, and yet limited enough not to harm the rights of her citizens.  

        With a multitude of independent states, not necessarily tyrannical in nature, the question of leagues or of union inevitably arises.  By separating from the British Empire, the American colonies managed to form a confederation that could win the war by providing for the common defense of the independent States, and through this common end against a common enemy, constitute a government that would prevent the problems and dangers posed by tyranny.  Since America covered a large swath of territory, and it was thought inevitable that she would expand, a means of settling land disputes was necessary for the new confederation.  Eventually, a standard means of dividing new territories, and constituting new States was necessary, and as such, the Federal Constitution was agreed upon in 1787.  Federalism as devised shared sovereignty between both the national and State governments, and the concept of dual-sovereignty emerged for the citizens of the Union.  A federal republic meant that each state and the national government were guaranteed a representative form of government - which was the best at protecting rights.  Through this transition, the United States won her independence, established security between the several States under the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and maintained peace because of the Union itself.  Thus, a people could maintain their freedom and independence without having to worry about the other States from violating the sovereignty of a single State, and through this guarantee assure that relations between the States would be coordinated through the branches of government so devised.  Potential disputes between the States now had a just arbiter which could adjudicate between the competing claims either between a pair of States, or a State and the Federal Government, or either the State or Federal Governments and the citizens.  

        As opposed to tyranny, which guarantees anarchy both within and without, a federal republic guarantees security (See: Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace by Daniel Deudney) from foreign dangers and also [ensures]* domestic peace [between several states]*.  As such, a republic has to be considered safer than would a tyrant['s rule]*, if such a republic is [considered]* both strong and limited.  

        There is evidence to support such claims.  Judging by the position of strength [by which]* the United States operates, it is important to note that her citizens live under a standard of freedom not known in human history.  This would not always be the case.  Typically, a government must exert more control the larger a population is.  Instead, by being limited in powers, the citizens enjoy a greater degree of liberty than they would under a tyrant, and by being strong, the state itself enjoys a greater degree of security than would a dictatorship which did not respect the law of nations.  

        Thus, it can be said that tyranny does not offer its citizens liberty nor the world security.  Instead, it only leads to anarchy, wars, and eventually the overthrow of the regime.  For very practical reasons, independence, when properly protected, offers security for the state and liberty for the people.   In a world where freedom is on the march, the outcome of history can and will always be more peaceful.  It is incumbent upon all states to consider the practical advantages of a world safe for democracy.  The alternatives to freedom and democracy appears to be discord within and without in the forms of tyranny, anarchy and war.  Freedom and democracy instead offer security and peace.  In conclusion, peace is incumbent upon security, and security is incumbent upon freedom.