Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY 2
3 DEMOCRATIZATION PROCESS 4
3.1 HOW TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY 4
3.2 SECURITY INTERESTS IN SEEING DEMOCRATIZATION SPREAD 5
3.3 DEMOCRATIZATION PROGRAMS 6
4 REASONS FOR NOT SPREADING DEMOCRACY 8
4.1 INTRODUCTION 8
4.2 POLITICAL ASPECTS 8
4.3 ECONOMIC ASPECTS 10
4.3.1 CHINA 10
4.3.2 MIDDLE EAST 11
5 CONCLUSION 12
REFERENCE LIST 13
1 Introduction
In the last century the number of democracies in the world increased significantly (Smith & Hadfield & Dunne, 2008: 53).
In 1900 just 14 countries could be described as democratic whereas 103 states have been liberated in 2000 (Smith, et al., 2008: 53).
The liberal democratic peace theory claims that liberated countries never go to war against each other (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
Therefore, it could be assumed that as more countries in the world change into democracies the more peaceful the world would become .By making this deduction all liberal countries in the world should have a strong security interest in spreading democracy to all authoritarian countries. However summits like the recent one between US-President Barack Obama and Chinas President Hu Jintao, where Obama just made small efforts to criticise the democratic deficits of China (Wolf & Hall, 2011), suggest the assumption that democratic states hardly interfere in the internal affairs of authoritarian countries.
The Term Paper on Brave New World Introduction
BRAVE NEW WORLD Introduction This novel was written by Aldous Huxley in 1932. It is a fable about a world state in the 7 th century A. F. (after Ford), where social stability is based on a scientific caste system. Human beings, graded from highest intellectuals to lowest manual workers, hatched from incubators and brought up in communal nurseries, learn by methodical conditioning to accept they ...
The reason for the just small interventions could be that democratic states prioritise other topics in foreign affairs like economic reasons or the fight against terroristic groups.
This assignment will describe and scrutinize the theses mentioned above. Therefore, the first part will describe the democratic peace theory, put this into relation with the scholarship of liberalism and look for evidence for this thesis. The second part of the assignment discusses the peace theory and why or why not liberal countries should espouse democratization processes in non-liberal countries. The third section shows which avenues exist to spread democracy and which programs democratic countries establish. Finally, the last section will scrutinize the reasons for the restrained behaviour in spreading democracy in today’s world.
To examine the relations between all democratic countries to all-authoritarian countries would exceed the dimension of this assignment. Therefore, this work will concentrate on the United States of America and the European Union on the democratic side and on China and the Middle- East on the side of the authoritarians.
2 Democratic Peace Theory
The democratic peace theory can be described by two characteristics. The first one is that liberal states stay in a peaceful relationship (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
The second thesis is, that the “relationship between liberal and non-liberal countries however is characterized by many conflicts” (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
The assertion that democratic countries never fight against each other, was made first by the liberalist Emanuel Kant (Sørensen, 1993: 91).
In Kant’s essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ from 1795 he gave inter alia the following reason for the assumption that liberal states be peaceful against each other (Sørensen, 1993: 91).
On the one hand, Kant argued from the moral perspective (Sørensen, 1993: 91).
Sørensen (1993: 91) suggests that democratic countries have similar morals and understandings of how to legitimate power. These understandings result from the scholarship of liberalism and the definition of democracy (Sørensen, 1993: 91).
The Essay on True Democracy Majority Democratic System
Complete and true democracy is almost impossible to achieve, and has been the primary goal of many nations, beginning from ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman Empire, all the way to the government of the United States today. In any system, which claims to be democratic, a question of its legitimacy remains. A truly democratic political system has certain characteristics, which prove its ...
The main idea of liberalism is “the freedom of the individual” (Smith et al, 2008: 50).
According to Baylis & Smith (2005:186), Smith et al (2008:50) and Sørensen (1993:50) liberalism means the equality of all citizens, the freedom of press, speech and worship. Additionally, it stands for the protection of the private property and that the economy should be led by the market with no regulations (Baylis & Smith, 2005: 186).
Finally, liberalists demand that the people rule the power of the state (Baylis, et al. 2005: 186).
The last point mentioned connects the idea of liberalism with democracy. That means that democracy is a part as well as a requirement for liberalism.
Democracy means the rule of the people (Sørensen, 1993: 3).
This derivation can be made because the term is a combination of the Greek words demos, which has the meaning “people” and kratos, which stands for “rule” (Sørensen, 1993: 3).
However, although this is the most significant characteristic of democracy, there are other important features. The research has shown, that a single definition does not exist. Nevertheless, a summary of the most common features of democracy can be found in Sørensen (1993: 13).
There democracy is described with competition, political participation and civil and political liberties (Sørensen, 1993: 13).
Competition signifies that groups, especially political parties, and individuals are content with the positions of governmental power without the use of any force. The second point stands for fair elections on a regular basis under the condition that no “major (adult) social group” (Sørensen, 1993: 3) is left out. Finally, civil and political liberties imply liberties like the freedom of expression, press, and forming and joining organisations, which links democracy again with liberalism.
The last two paragraphs highlighted the close connection of liberalism and democracy. For that reason and for the fact that almost all democracies are liberal states and almost all liberal states are democracies (Lynn-Jones, 1998), in this assignment the terms liberal state/country and democratic state/country are used as synonyms.
By coming back to the democratic peace theory, Kant argued that these common morals and understandings of how to legitimate power results in transparency between the liberal states and that let understand each other better (Sørensen, 1993: 94).
The Term Paper on Nigeria And Democracy North South Democratic
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of truth - John Locke. Nigeria is Africa's most populous state and one of it's wealthiest. For this reason alone, Nigerians should know the truth about their country so that they can know the roots of their problems which would help them in finding a solution. Nigeria consists of a fascinating collection of ...
This transparency again lets the people choose negotiations instead of voting for violence (Sørensen, 1993: 94).
Kant called the lack of violence a “peaceful zone”, which was not based on a treaty but on similar attitudes a “pacific union” (Sørensen, 1993: 94).
Kant just made the assumption that liberal countries never fight against each other without any evidence (Baylis, et al., 2005: 189).
Therefore, it should be demonstrated that liberal states really go not to war against each other, which was not possible, because different researchers found wars between democracies in history (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
For example, Great Britain and the United States of America went to war in 1812, even though they were both democracies at this time (Smith, et al, 2008: 52).
Nevertheless, according to Sørensen (1993: 93) the empirical investigations found out that liberal countries enter into war with each other less frequently.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that democratic countries are more peaceful than other political systems, which lead to the second characteristic of the democratic peace theory (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
Namely, that there is a high potential for violence between liberal and non-liberal states, which Smith et al. (2008: 54) calls “imprudent aggressiveness”. In 24 of 56 cases between 1816 and 1980 liberal countries have been the initiators of interstate wars, which supports this statement (Smith, et al. 2008: 54).
The reasons for this behaviour, which totally differ from the principles of liberalism and democracy, are diverse. One reason is, for example, that a democratic country is attacked by an authoritarian state (Smith, et al., 2008: 54-56).
Another cause is that a democratic country wants to democratize an authoritarian country, as it happened when the USA attacked the Iraq in 2003. (Smith, et al., 2008: 54-56).
This section showed that democratic countries are not be more peaceful than other political systems, but however empirical researches have demonstrated that war between democracies is seldom if ever. If consequently liberal countries have a security interest in seeing democratization spread to authoritarian countries will be discussed in the following section.
The Term Paper on Democratic World Government An Outline Structure
Democratic World Government - An Outline Structure Introduction - problems and benefits of World Government The idea of world government has not received a good press for many years. It tends to make most of us think of Stalinist dictators and fascist domination of the globe. I wish to argue, though, that there is a viable form of democratic world government which could bring many benefits. A ...
3 Democratization Process
3.1 How to Spread Democracy
Liberal foreign policy analysts offer different possibilities to promote democracy to absolute regimes. Nelson and Wallace make a good approach to classify these possibilities. They distinguish between two opportunities (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 7).
The first one is to spread democracy with direct interventions, which includes military actions, but also the peaceful deployment of “troops for monitor elections” for example (Nelson and Wallace, 2005).
That such a ‘aggressive’ method works, show the example of Serbia, where a military intervention results in the establishment of a democracy (Craner, 2006).
A second possibility is to convince democratic reformers in an authoritarian country that their efforts are desirable and possible (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 7).
Nelson and Wallace gave as example that this could be made by governmental organisations, which support Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) in the authoritarian country.
Liberal foreign policy analysts show a third avenue to bring non-liberal states to become a democracy, namely by inspiring them (Smith, et. al. 2008: 66).
They advertise the principles of liberalism to the citizens from the authoritarian states and show them how good and successful the people in these countries live, how well their economy works, and how much freedoms they have (Smith, et. al. 2008: 66).
The inhabitants on its part become more unsatisfied with their living conditions and they start to protest against the national government. This process will be speeded up by transnational contacts, which could be tourism or especially important today, the Internet (Smith, et al., 2008: 66).
3.2 Security Interests in Seeing Democratization Spread
Firstly the reason why democratic countries should intervene on authoritarian countries can derivate theoretically from the democratic peace theory. Because if democratic countries never go to war against each other, an increasing number of democratic countries would means less conflict (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
The Essay on Middle Class Countries Poor Liberals
There is no guessing where the oligarchs stand. 'All power and wealth to the oligarchy' is their motto. Those existing in the lower ranks of poverty are of no concern to the upper class, exploiting other members of society are what they do best. The tory we find at the other end of the scale. In tory society tradition rules; taking the group's well being rather than the individual is primary. ...
As soon as all countries in the world are liberal there would be no war anymore, which could result in a peaceful world. (Sørensen, 1993: 93).
However it has to be added, that since the terrorist attacks on 11th September 2001 in the USA a new form of violence came to the fore, namely terrorism. How far this influences ‘promoting democracies ‘will be discussed in the fourth section.
The second point refers to the characteristics of democracies. In democracies it is necessary that the majority of the people, or in a representative democracy rather the majority of the ruling body, vote to go to war. However in an authoritarian state, a single person or a group can decide to send the military forces to attack other sovereign countries. The first consequence with this is that it takes much longer in a liberal country to decide to go to war, because the question has to go through the whole decision-making process (Baylis, et. al. 2008:190).
In this time the democratic state is obliged to look for other solution like negotiations. Furthermore the majority of the people would almost never decide for a situation that could mean danger and violence (Baylis, et. al. 2008:190).
This both aspects have been of significance during the recent years. Because with China an authoritarian country becomes a counterweight to the US, which could serious endanger them. The literature offers many other reasons, which are not subject of this essay, why authoritarian countries should become liberal, like welfare and freedom in several aspects for the people, or an empirical proved better economy resulting from a free trade. (Baylis, et. al. 2008:190).
For security reasons and the others democratic countries uses different methods and established several programs to promote liberal rights which are discussed in the following part.
3.3 Democratization Programs
Firstly it has to be pointed out, that it has given several efforts from liberal countries to promote the basic liberal ideas throughout the authoritarian world during the last decades. For instance, for the United States promoting democracy was a major part within their strategy against communism and the Soviet Union (Craner, 2006).
The Essay on Democracies Republic Democracy Citizens State
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn't work. The Romans called their ...
On the one hand they saw in democracy the superior political system and on the other hand it have been the critical question to beat the Soviets at bringing countries into communism like it happened in the Philippines in 1986 (Craner, 2006).
However, after the end of the cold war, the United States was the single world power, other powerful countries have been allies and therefore spreading democracy fade into the background of US foreign policy (Craner, 2006).
Furthermore, it became for the US government more important to secure peace between Israel and the Arabian World than forcing political reforms and democratization (Baylis, et al., 2004: 5).
Nevertheless, after the attacks on 11th September 2001 by Al-Qaida, the Bush administration shared the conviction that promoting democracy is the main instrument to stop terrorism and put this target back in their focus of foreign policy (Craner, 2006).
Most recognized have been the military interventions in Iraq, but the US also implemented programs on lower levels (Craner, 2006).
For instance Craner (2006) explains, that they found the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in 2002. This program is characterized by not aiding on a government-to-government level, but giving small amounts of money to NGO`s (Craner, 2006).
Furthermore, the US Agency for international Development (USAID) invests more than 700 million US- Dollar in Democracy promoting projects (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 1).
The European Union have established a body as well, namely the European External Action Service (EAS) to spread democracy and human rights to authoritarian countries by supporting non-governmental institutions in this country (European External Action Service , n.d).
Therefore the EU estimates a budget of € 1.1 billion between 2007 and 2013 for this issue (European External Action Service , n.d).
Additionally the International Monetary Fond (IMF) and the World Bank have also introduced methods to spreading democracy (International Monetary Fund, n.d; The World Bank, 2011).
According to the liberal foreign policy analysis it is one of the central task of those organisation to preserve end promote the liberal ideas. (Smith et al., 2008: 64).
The IMF and the World Bank are multinational organisations with each 187 countries, which have the task to reduce poverty, unemployment as well as promote a growth, which is sustainable. (International Monetary Fund, n.d; The World Bank, 2011).
Even if the members of these two are also authoritarian countries, they could be seen as liberal alliances because the democratic countries have a majority of votes with major influences of the US which has about 17% of the votes in both bodies, whereas China for example just has 4%.(Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, n.d).
These two organisations give loans in particular to poor and over indebted countries (International Monetary Fund, n.d; The World Bank, 2011).
However, they attach conditions on such loans especially conditions linked to political liberalisation like human right issues, traditional economic targets and less corruption (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 4-5).
The IMF and the World Bank hope that this condition result on the one hand in less poverty for the inhabitants and on the other hand in more liberal freedom for the people (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 4-5).
Nelson and Wallace, who just scrutinized the IMF program, came to the conclusion that this program has in average a positive impact on democracy whereas it has to be made a distinction between the regions (2005: 29).
For example in Africa and former – communism countries it was mainly a success, whereas it in Latin America and East Asia “suppresses democracy” (Nelson and Wallace, 2005: 29).
Finally, it can be said that the democratic community made efforts with different instruments to promote democracy to authoritarian countries.
Some may could argue that spreading liberals ideas is either futile or means even a threat for the promoting countries. This will be discussed in the next section.
4 Reasons for not Spreading Democracy
4.1 Introduction
The last section has demonstrated that liberal states made some exertions to expand the “liberal zone of peace”(Sørensen, 1993: 91).
Nonetheless, there exist also disadvantages of promoting democracy towards non-liberal states. These bad impacts could be divided into political and economic aspects.
4.2 Political Aspects
The political point raise especially the question for liberal states, how effective the current instruments of promoting democracy in times of terrorism are.
Because after 9/11 the liberal community became aware, that with terrorism a kind of threat came in the focus, which does not necessarily have to be related to a specific country (Bajoria and Bruno, 2009).
However, most instruments to spread democracy are related to a specific government. In cases of 9/11 and afterwards most terroristic attacks were caused by radical Islamist group, whose members act from various countries (Bajoria and Bruno, 2009).
This countries have been also democratic countries like Germany (BBC NEWS, 2005).
Nevertheless, the Bush administration had the opinion that establishing liberalism in Afghanistan and Iraq will spread democracy in the whole Middle East and that will “undercut” the support for the terrorists (Craner, 2006).
And this would improve the security situation for democratic states. Therefore the US and later their allies intervene in both countries and spent about $ 1 trillion until the end of 2009, sent over 180,000 soldiers and more than 6000 soldiers died (Reuters, 2010; usatoday, 2011).
However, just establishing democratic constitutions which guarantee liberal rights but which is not enshrined in the society or rather whose infringements will not be punished, cannot reduces terrorism (Nye, 2005).
It is more the result of the democratization process, like “openness to the world”, better education or liberty and justice that could reduce the support for terrorist activities by the inhabitants (Nye, 2005).
That a sustainable democracy development takes its time were shown by past experiences. For instance, US democracy promotions in South Korea, Chile and Ukraine took seven to ten years until the citizens revolt against their authoritarian regimes (Craner, 2006).
In the short run the invasions in Afghanistan an Iraq forms a situation in which the potential for terrorist attacks increases instead of becoming smaller (Nye, 2005).
The western states are seen as enemies and therefore nationalists and terrorist groups getting an increasing response (Nye, 2005).
Furthermore it has to be noticed, that a sustainable democracy could result in a smaller support in US foreign policy priorities, which are security for Israel and in the “Persian Gulf” and a steady oil supply (Lightfoot, 2011).
Because democratic governments in the Middle East have to answer the willingness of the people and the majority have less ambitious to support the US priorities in contrast to the authoritarian countries (Lightfoot, 2011).
In the case of China a military intervention to spreading democracy is unimaginable today just because of the capabilities they have. For example the Peoples Republic plans to spend $ 91 billion in their defence in 2011. (Simpson, 2011).
To sum up it can be said that the reasons for keeping from doing more in promoting democracy, especially by direct interventions result mainly from the bad experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because on the one Hand most of the US military capacities are bounded in those two countries so that the US would have no possibilities to make big other interventions. On the other hand the liberal states have to accept that, attacking states does not reduce terrorism but let the potential for terrorist attacks increase.
4.3 Economic Aspects
4.3.1 China
Democratic countries do not exert pressure on China to establish more liberal rights, because of the economic dependence of these states from the Peoples Republic. By showing exemplary the economical dependence of the United States from China can prove this thesis.
China is the second largest economy after the USA had an economic growth of 10% whereas the US just had a growth of 2,6% in 2010 (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011), The dependence result of the fact that the US imports most of its goods from China (Sultan, 2009).
A second dependence results from the high foreign currency reserves, which China holds in US Dollar. Two third of Chinas foreign currency reserves are US-$, an amount of two trillion Dollar (Knight, 2010).
To connect these two facts with the reserved behaviour of the USA to demand for more democracy, it can be said that this demand would probably result in a huge bad economic impact. The cause for that is, that if the US would use any means to force Chinas government establishing more economic rights, the Asian state could use economically restrictions, which would make imports more expensive for the US. The result would be a smaller consumption by the United States. The Chinese economy would not suffer that much because of a the higher economic growth and of exporting to many countries (Steingart & Wagner, 2009).
The second fact can harm the US economy if the Peoples Republic would start to sell a high amount of their US- Dollar reserves, because of promoting liberalism activities, there would be a significantly increasing supply of this currency on the market. As consequence the Dollar price would decrease (Knight, 2010).
The result is that importing goods become more expensive for the States. Therefore economists use the term ‘Currency War’ when speaking about the situation mentioned above. (Knight, 2010).
Even if the currency problem does not occur for the European Union, the dependence from China exists as well, also causing from the high volume of trade between this two areas.
4.3.2 Middle East
In cases of the Middle East the main dependence results from the oil. For example 17% of US’s total Oil import came from the Middle East in 2006 (Cohen, 2006).
Because of the importance of oil for the economy and the huge consumption , democratic countries are interested in getting their oil from a region with stable governments (Lightfoot, 2011).
And this stability will be rather reached with totalitarian leaders, especially because of huge military funds democratic countries gave to the Middle East (Lightfoot, 2011).
For example the US estimated an amount about $4.75 billion to spent to the countries in the Middle East for military purpose in 2011 (Lightfoot, 2011).
The dependence from the oil is also applicable for the European Union. But especially for the EU occurs another economic threat . in regards to a unstable Middle East, which is the trade trough the Suez-Canal. Because 7.5% of the world trades volume goes through this Canal, which is controlled by Egypt, and therefore it is essential for a trouble free world-trade (BBC News, 2006).
So far this section explained the dependence of the most important democracies on
the Middle East. The question asked now is would a movement to democracy of these countries result in a more instable situation for the economy. The current political unrests in the Middle East give the answer for that, namely that it has a bad impact on the economies. For instance after Libya stopped exporting oil, the prices increased by 15 % (Fridley, 2011).
If now Saudi Arabia would come in problems to supply oil, causing of unrests, the world’s economy would suffer significantly. For example, about 12 % of the US Oil imports came from Saudi Arabia in 2005 (Cohen, 2006).
This development is the reason why democratic states did not have a huge interest in forcing democracy in the Middle East. Even if the people there suffer from a high unemployment level, high food prices and a widespread poverty (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011), as well as a lack of human right issues (Armitage, 2011).
The democratic countries set their priorities on economics and not on ethical questions.
5 Conclusion
The contemporary history of international relations gave the proof of Kant’s 1795 claim that democratic countries never go to war to each other, but went in peaceful allies among themselves. Therefore liberal countries had a strong interest in promoting their political system to authoritarian countries, especially in the times of the cold war where with communism an authoritarian counterweight to the liberal zone of peace existed. The liberal community chose several methods to spread democracy. In some cases they intervene with military forces, whereas in other cases they established programs, which worked on a government to government or even to a non – governmental level.
However, after the end of the cold war democracy promotion democracy fade into the background and came only back into the focus after 9/11. But the negative development in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the economical dependence from China and the Middle East in a globalized world result in less interference by the liberal union
The work in hand has shown that the classical instruments for spreading democracy not working well today, because they are mostly related to a regime but the biggest threat comes from terrorism. Because of this ineffectiveness, liberal states non-interference instead of promoting democracy. How far this could reject the democratic peace theory will show the future.
Reference List
Armitage, D. (2011).
Middle East brings a reminder of democratic rights. [Online].
Available from: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/middle-east-brings-a-reminder-of-democratic-rights-15095733.html [Accessed: 17 March 2011]
Bajoria J. & Bruno G. (2009).
Backgrounder – al-Qaeda (a.k.a. al-Qaida, al-Qa’ida)[Online]. . Available from: http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda-k-al-qaida-al-qaida/p9126 [Accessed: 14 March 2011]
Baylis J. & Smith S. (2005).
The Globalization of World Politics. An introduction to international relations. New York. Oxford University Press In
BBC News (2005).
The Hamburg Connection [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2349195.stm [Accessed: 16 March 2011]
BBC News (2006).
The Suez Crises: Key Maps [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195068.stm [Accessed: 16 March 2011]
Bundeszentrale für Politsche Bildung (2009) Globalisierung [Online]. Available from: http://www.bpb.de/wissen/ECOO8M,0,0,IMF_%96_International_Monetary_Fund.html [Accessed: 16 March 2011].
Central Intelligence Agency (n.p).
The World Factbook [Online]. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
[Accessed: 12 March 2011].
Cohen A. (2006).
Reducing U.S. Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil [Online]. Available From: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/04/reducing-us-dependence-on-middle-eastern-oil [Accessed: 14 March 2011].
Craner L. (2006).
Will U.S. Democratization Policy Work? [Online]. Available from: http://www.meforum.org/942/will-us-democratization-policy-work
[Accessed: 12 March 2011].
European Union External Action. (n.p).
The EU and human rights [Online]. Available from: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/_human_rights/index_en.htm [Accessed: 16 March 2011].
Fridley D. (2011).
Middle East Unrest And Its Economic Impact [Online]. Available from: http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell110311.htm [Accessed: 14 March 2011].
International Monetary Fund (2011).
About The IMF [Online]. Available from: http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm [Accessed: 10 March 2011].
Knight L. (2010).
What’s the currency war about? [Online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11608719 [Accessed: 16 March 2011].
Lightfoot J. (2011).
US interests in a democratic Mideast [Online]. Available from: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/23/us_interests_in_a_democratic_mideast/ [Accessed: 13 March 2011]
Lynn – Jones S. (1998).
“Why the United States Should Spread Democracy” [Online]. Available from: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html [Accessed: 5 March 2011]
Nelson S. Wallace G. (2005).
Conditional Credibility: Explaining the Impact of the IMF on Democratization [Online]. Available from: www.cis.ethz.ch/publications/publications/wp62_Limpach_Michaelowa.pdf [Accessed: 14 March 2011]
Nye J. (2005).
Can Democracy Defeat Terrorism? [Online]. Available from: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1463/can_democracy_defeat_terrorism.html [Accessed: 16 March 2011]
Reuters (2010).
Q+A-Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan tops $1 trillion [Online]. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/26/afghanistan-iraq-usa-cost-idUSN2611591520100126?pageNumber=2 [Accessed: 16 March 2011]
Simpson S. (2011).
China to Boost Military Spending. [Online]. Available from: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/China-to-Boost-Military-Spending-117394943.html [Accessed: 18 March 2011]
Smith S.& Hadfield A. & Dunne T. (2008).
Foreign Policy Theories – Actors – Cases. New York. Oxford University Press Inc.
Sørensen G. (1993).
Democracy and Democratization. Colorado. Westview Press
Steingart G. & Wagner W. (2009).
US Grows More Dependent on China [Online]. Available from: financial-crisis/story?id=9062103 [Accessed: 14 March 2011]
The World Bank (2011).
About Us [Online]. Available from: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,pagePK:50004410~piPK:36602~theSitePK:29708,00.html [Accessed: 10 March 2011]
USATODAY (2011).
Americas Casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. [Online]. Available from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/casualties.htm#afghan [Accessed: 18 March 2011]
Wolf & Hall (2011).
Obama, Hu Jintao discuss human rights, economic ties [Online] Available from: http://www.usatoday.com/new/Washington/2011-01-19-obama-hu-us-china-relations_N.htm [Accessed: 18 March 2011]
