2. 职称英语
  3. The 1990s have witnessed a striking revival of the idea that liberal democra

The 1990s have witnessed a striking revival of the idea that liberal democra

游客2023-12-21  52
问题     The 1990s have witnessed a striking revival of the idea that liberal democratic political systems are the best basis for international peace. Western statesmen and scholars have witnessed a worldwide process of democratization, and tend to see it as a sounder basis for peace than anything we have had in the past.
    Central to the vision of a peaceful democratic world has been the proposition that liberal democracies do not fight each other, that they may and frequently do get into fights with illiberal states, but not with other countries that are basically similar in their political systems. The proposition appeals to political leaders and scholars as well.
    Yet it is doubtful whether their proposition is strong enough to bear the vast weight of generalization that has been placed on it. Among the many difficulties it poses, two stand out: first, there are many possible exceptions to the rule that democracies do not fight each other; and second, there is much uncertainty about why democracies have, for the most part, not fought each other.
    Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American politics and international security by John M. Owen is an attempt to explain the twin phenomena of liberal peace (why democracies do not fight each other) and liberal war (why they fight other states, sometimes with the intent of making them liberal).
    Owen’s analysis in the book strongly suggests that political leaders on all sides judged a given foreign country largely on the basis of its political system; and this heavily influenced decisions on whether or not to wage war against it. However, he also shows that military factors, including calculations of the cost of going to war, were often influential in tipping the balance against war. In other words, democratic peace does not mean the end of power politics.
    Owen hints at, but never addresses directly, a sinister aspect of democratic peace theory: its assumption that there would be peace if only everbody else was like us. This can lead only too easily to attempts to impose the favored system on benighted foreigners by force — regardless of the circumstances and sensibilities that make the undertaking hazardous.
    Owen’s central argument is not strengthened by the occasional repetition nor by the remorselessly academic tone of the more theoretical chapters. However, most of the writing is succinct; the historical accounts are clear and to the point; and the investigation of the causal links between liberalism and war is admirably thorough.
    There are several grounds on which the book’s thesis might be criticized. The most obvious is that some twentieth-century experience goes against the argument that liberal states ally with others, above all, because they perceive them as fellow liberals. In our own time, several liberal democracies have maintained long and close relations with autocracies. However, Owen’s argument for a degree of solidarity between liberal states provides at least part of the explanation for the continuation and even expansion of NATO in the post-Cold War era.
选项 A、ambiguous.
B、objective.
C、doubtful.
D、hostile.
答案 B
解析 此题为快速浏览题。从第4段起作者对Liberal Peace，Liberal War：American politics and international security一书进行评价。据第4段及后几段的主题句可见作者对该书的优缺点都进行了心平气和的讨论。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3293146.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)