Document created: 22 February 05
Published: Air & Space Power Journal - Spring 2005

Violent Peace: Militarized Interstate Bargaining in Latin America by David R. Mares. Columbia University Press (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ cup), 61 W. 62nd Street, New York, New York 10023, February 2001, 398 pages, $70.00 (hardcover), $23.00 (softcover).

During the mid-twentieth century, the United States developed national strategies and policies to deal specifically with the Cold War adversaries of the time. Within the world’s democratic community, the United States was best suited to combat that specific threat. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s opened the eyes of many policy makers and military strategists to the fact that the threat had evolved and a new course of action was needed. Particularly since the attacks of 11 September 2001, there is an incredible emphasis on developing strategies to combat substate actors. Volumes of national policy, military doctrine, and academic literature regarding this new threat inundate the media. Nation-states, however, still form the significant part of the global community, and the complexity of interstate affairs still offers the potential for war. Will the United States be unprepared to counter this threat if it maintains a myo-pic focus on the substate actor?

In Violent Peace, David R. Mares offers a prescriptive model to assess the potential for interstate conflicts and determine policy measures to control them. Using a framework that appears largely founded on Alexander L. George’s models of deterrence and coercive diplomacy, Mares provides a well-researched and compelling argument on how interstate disputes may become militarized and how the scale of the conflict can evolve. He uses a cost-benefit framework for his model that, simply put, says force may be used when the costs of using force are less than or equal to the costs acceptable to the leader’s constituency. The author utilizes the Latin American regional-security arena to support his hypothesis.

Mares hypothesizes that the cost of using force is the sum of the political-military strategy, the strategic balance between the players, and the characteristic of the force employed. The costs that members of a leader’s constituency will accept are also reduced by the lack of accountability they hold over that leader, based on their governmental system. This model also states that policy makers consider employing force only to meet the interests of their constituency. Mares lists five political-military strategies for his model: keep the issue alive, affect bilateral negotiations, defend the status quo, attract the support of third parties, and impose a solution (p. 17).

In chapter 2, Mares provides a historical framework for the development of the Latin American regional-security environment. Although the account is somewhat dry, this chapter is very important to understanding the foundations of Latin American security issues, international influences, and conflict history. Chapters 3 through 5 provide some of the most interesting and compelling arguments in the author’s work. Here he offers both qualitative and quantitative analyses of hegemonic management, democratic peace, and theories on the distribution of power for explaining the presence or absence of interstate conflicts. Mares even admits that the quantitative analysis is somewhat weak due to empirical irregularities in the militarized interstate dispute records. Nonetheless, his use of the data, combined with detailed qualitative analysis, creates a solid argument that these widely accepted conventions do not necessarily correlate with the employment of military measures in interstate conflict.

In the remaining two chapters, Mares puts his model against two case studies from South America: the Beagle Channel dispute between Argentina and Chile in 1978 (as well as a brief comparison of that dispute with the Argentine/British conflict over the Falkland Islands in 1982) and the recurrent border dispute between Peru and Ecuador between 1950 and 1995. These case studies effectively illustrate the complex interaction of domestic factors with military capabilities to determine the level of military escalation in the resolution of interstate conflict. Except for the distraction of an obviously misscaled graph (p. 137), Mares presents his cases articulately and with excellent detail in a process-trace evaluation.

Mares concludes that “the militarized bargaining model ultimately suggests that we may be best off with a combination of policies that affect power and values” (p. 208). Following a single-track policy prescription based on widely accepted yet flawed theories of hegemony, democratic peace, and balance-of-power influences on the development of militarized conflict may create more increased tensions than intended.

Although this model is currently tested only against the Latin American regional-security environment, it may be applicable to other global areas of concern. The model allows for flexible interpretation of the different strategic conceptualizations of various leaders and their constituents’ interests. Areas with strong secular influences, such as East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, still manifest the potential for escalating interstate conflict that could once again overshadow the substate threats currently captivating world attention.

Strategic decision makers, operational military planners, and academic professionals would all benefit from reading Violent Peace. It is probably the most current and applicable work dealing with conflict between nation-states since the events of 9/11. At a minimum, Mares’s model will help maintain awareness of the potential for interstate conflict and the development of a framework on how it is considered in military strategy.

Michael McNerney
Monterey, California


Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.


Book Reviews | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor