Welcome to Week 5 everyone! We are so close to the finish. 

Overall, it can be difficult to determine the strongest and weakest explanation for the democratic peace but I believe that the realist perspective is the strongest because it argues that both democracies belong to the same union and have good international relations without the threat of war. This can be demonstrated by the Summit that happened today in Helsinki. President Trump met with Vladimir Putin this morning to discuss the state of affairs between the two countries. Both the United States and Russia are both strong, established countries and some may say they would be competitive, however, the open lines of communication may prevent a future war (Nau, 2017). 

A weaker argument for democratic peace may be the liberal perspective because it affirms that trade between two strong democracies is too important to wage war. An example of this would be the United States and China who are both strong countries but have important trades. Currently, China has a Trade War going on and President Trump imposed higher tariffs on Chinese imports to keep the American Economy running smoothly. Even though these countries have trades, there is still feud making this argument weaker than the realist perspective (Nau, 2017). 

I believe that democratic peace may be a long-lasting phenomenon but it depends on who the international leaders are. If a communist country like China became a democracy, that could skew the results of peace, for example. However, if our President wants to cut ties with EU and NATO, then there could be less peace as well. Overall, in my opinion, it depends on who is in charge. 

The United States could encourage democracy to international partners but I believe that may not be efficient. 16 Russian actors have been indicted with election meddling. I know they are innocent until proven guilty, however, if it is true that other countries have an influence on our elections, is the United States really a representative democracy? In turn, our elections are no longer free and fair, so how can be a democracy? This goes without saying if the United States does not have a democracy, how can we spread the United States foreign policy? My thought is that the United States should fix its own system before trying to be an example to others. 

What are your thoughts?

Nau, H. R. (2017). Perspectives on international relations: Power, institutions, and ideas (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.