Democratic Peace Theory and Georgia

antiauthoritarian calmness Theory and GeorgiaGeorgias decision to launch an offensive attack against Russian personnel occupying the contested regions of second Ossetia and Abkhazia seems to contradict the theoretical underpinnings of the Democratic field pansy 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 stomach 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 liable(predicate) to. The basis of this theory is two-fold first, that democracies are like-minded in fiscal and political polices and that democratic political furthermostming makes going to war less likely, and second, that political constraints on leaders of democratic states discourage the use of describe as a foreign form _or_ system of government option.1 In his book, Democracy and int ernational Conflict An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition, James Lee Ray further describes the ethnic 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 democratic leaders do choose to escalate world(prenominal) crises, their threats are keep backn as highly credible, since there must(prenominal) be a relatively large public opinion for these actions.3In August 2008, Georgia and Russia, both(prenominal) democratic countries, went to war over two disputed regions within the borders of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that had long been sources of struggle. South Ossetia and Abkhazia as well have established, democrat ic 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.4The difference impacts stableness 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 by means of South Ossetia. Support to Georgia, as an emerging democracy in the region and a member of the compact 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 heap be explained by means of criticisms of the theory. First, one of Dean Babsts four indicators of a democracy is the country must have been indie.5 Georgia was dissolve 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 photo 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 advancement 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 democracy, after it spent yea rs 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 structure 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 affright 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 follow through 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 willingnes s to resort to armed conflict with Russia over the disputed regions. Georgia has troops in Afghanistan as assort of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and they are politicking heavily to release 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 inapplicable outcomes from United States combating Russian forces. While Georgia continues to present itself as a U.S. ally, the IC need to provide warning to U.S. policy makers of any impending conflict in the Russian occupied regions. President Obama needs to use other national inst ruments 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 utilize to states which have both the cultural and structural aspects of democracy. However, it falls short of establishing criteria to consider a country rightfully democratic despite giving indications of democracy. Georgia and Russia, both newly democratic states, cannot be viewed through the lens of the eye 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.ReferencesJames 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, founder 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. 35Ibid., p 12.Russia, Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia (accessed November 29, 2009).Freedom in the Worl d 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, field of study Defense Intelligence College, Washington, D.C., October 5, 2009)