⚔ MOD 13: U.S. Foreign Policy — The International Politics of Civil War

I. Overview

A. Focus of the Module

• Examines the international politics of civil war and how domestic conflicts are influenced by bargaining failures, commitment problems, and foreign intervention.

• Uses the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865) as a case study to understand broader patterns in international and domestic conflict.

B. Central Questions

• Why do wars occur when peace would make both sides better off?

• What are the political and structural challenges that prevent settlements?

• How do shifts in power and credibility issues fuel civil conflict?

• How can third-party interventions help—or hinder—peace?

II. The Bargaining Model of War

A. Basic Puzzle

• War is costly, yet it continues to occur.

• The bargaining model of war explains conflict as a failure of negotiation rather than irrational aggression.

B. Logic of the Model

1. All wars have costs → peace settlements should, in theory, be preferable.

2. Wars arise when actors fail to find or commit to a peaceful bargain.

3. Two primary sources of bargaining failure:

   • Private Information

   • Commitment Problems

III. Private Information and Misrepresentation

A. Definition

• When one side possesses information about its strength, resolve, or external support that the other side doesn’t know.

B. Implications

• Incentives to misrepresent capabilities lead to unrealistic demands.

• The opposing side may underestimate risks and choose to fight rather than concede.

• This dynamic applies to both interstate and civil wars.

IV. The Commitment Problem

A. Definition

• The inability of parties to trust each other to uphold future agreements.

• Occurs when one side cannot make credible assurances about its future behavior.

B. Key Mechanism

• Arises when:

  • Power between sides is shifting or expected to shift.

  • The stronger side may exploit the weaker once balance changes.

  • Fear of this future imbalance leads to preemptive conflict.

C. Implications in Civil Wars

• Civil conflicts are prolonged because no neutral third party exists to enforce peace.

• Agreements are fragile; one side’s disarmament or democratization can create vulnerability.

V. Sources of the Commitment Problem

A. Internal Power Shifts

• Domestic political or military changes alter bargaining positions.

• Examples:

  • Withdrawal of external support (e.g., U.S. from Iraq).

  • Democratization processes.

  • Rise of social movements or ideological parties.

B. Ethnic Divisions

• Ethnicity often shapes alliances and mistrust in internal conflicts.

• Minority groups fear tyranny of the majority.

• Majority groups fear secession or power loss.

• Result: Both sides lack confidence in future political inclusion.

C. Security Dilemmas in Postwar Settings

• One side’s disarmament creates vulnerability if institutions (courts, police, armies) are weak.

• Fear of exploitation prevents long-term peace.

VI. The U.S. Civil War and the Commitment Problem

A. Background

• The U.S. Civil War exemplifies how domestic commitment problems can escalate into violent conflict.

• Core issue: inability to reach credible, enduring compromises over slavery and state power.

B. Structural Power Shifts

• Industrial and demographic change (1850–1860):

  • North controlled 85–90% of industrial capacity.

  • Population growth: North +40%, South +27%.

• Economic expansion and immigration in the North strengthened its position.

• The South feared permanent political marginalization.

C. Failed Political Compromises

• Missouri Compromise: Tried to balance slave and free states.

• Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854): Repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing territories to decide slavery status themselves → “Bleeding Kansas.”

• These policies deepened distrust and intensified sectional divides.

D. Secession and the Confederacy

• Southern states seceded in early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America.

• The South lost faith that the Union would honor past promises protecting slavery.

E. Lincoln’s Response

• Lincoln aimed to preserve the Union through defensive rather than offensive means.

• The Fort Sumter Crisis (April 1861):

  • Lincoln’s decision to resupply the fort was seen as aggression → triggered open warfare.

VII. International Dimensions: Britain and the U.S. Civil War

A. Britain’s Economic Interests

• British textile industry depended on Southern cotton.

• Economic incentives created sympathy for the Confederacy.

B. Diplomatic Considerations

• Recognition of the Confederacy would strengthen its position and pressure the Union.

• Lincoln’s administration prioritized preventing British recognition, fearing a strategic disaster.

C. Outcome

• Britain remained officially neutral, influenced by:

  • Northern battlefield successes.

  • Moral and political opposition to slavery.

  • Concerns about long-term relations with a united U.S.

VIII. International Intervention and Civil Wars

A. Why Civil Wars Are Hard to End

• Civil wars rarely end through self-negotiation.

• Disarmament creates vulnerability — once a group lays down arms, it cannot enforce compliance.

B. Role of External Intervention

• Intervention can enforce agreements or prolong conflict, depending on motive and credibility.

• Successful intervention requires:

  1. A self-interested third party.

  2. Willingness to use force if peace is violated.

  3. Clear, credible commitment to long-term peacekeeping.

C. Barbara Walter’s Argument

• Great power intervention can stabilize post-conflict peace only if:

  • The intervening power has its own stake in peace.

  • It is willing to enforce compliance militarily.

  • It signals credible commitment through sustained presence.

IX. The Commitment Problem and Intervention Outcomes

A. Positive Outcomes

• Third-party guarantees reduce fear of exploitation.

• Allow disarmament and institutional rebuilding (police, courts, governance).

B. Negative Outcomes

• Intervention can distort power balances and delay peace.

• External support emboldens factions and discourages compromise.

C. Case Example: Syria

• Ongoing foreign involvement (U.S., Russia, Iran) prolonged conflict by:

  • Altering battlefield dynamics.

  • Undermining trust between factions.

  • Preventing credible long-term peace commitments.

X. The Moral Hazard Problem

A. Definition

• When actors expect outside help, they take greater risks or prolong fighting.

B. Application to Civil Wars

• Rebel groups or governments anticipate international rescue or aid.

• This reduces incentives to negotiate or compromise early.

• Example: Groups may escalate conflict to attract humanitarian intervention.

C. Policy Implications

• Well-intentioned interventions can inadvertently worsen conflicts by altering incentives for local actors.

XI. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

A. Definition

• International norm asserting that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities.

• If a state fails, the international community has a moral and legal obligation to act.

B. Relationship to Sovereignty

• Challenges the traditional notion of non-interference.

• Sovereignty becomes conditional on a government’s protection of its citizens.

C. Implications

• Expands grounds for humanitarian intervention.

• Creates tension between humanitarian duty and respect for sovereignty.

• Example: NATO intervention in Libya (2011) invoked R2P principles.

XII. Applying the Commitment Problem to the U.S. Civil War

A. Commitment Breakdown

• Southern leaders believed Northern promises to protect slavery were no longer credible.

• As the North grew stronger, its future commitments to protect slaveholding institutions weakened.

B. War as the Result

• The South chose secession and war rather than risk future domination under Northern control.

• Illustrates how shifting power dynamics and mistrust can lead to preemptive conflict.

XIII. British Non-Intervention and International Commitment

A. Strategic Calculations

• Britain weighed:

  • Economic reliance on cotton.

  • Political costs of supporting slavery.

  • Risk of future hostility with a reunified U.S.

B. Relevance to Commitment Theory

• The Union’s ability to signal future power and stability deterred British recognition.

• Shows how credible commitment and signaling shape international responses to civil wars.

XIV. Summary and Key Takeaways

1. Civil wars are bargaining failures — caused by information problems and inability to commit to peace.

2. Commitment problems make peace fragile by undermining trust and credibility.

3. The U.S. Civil War demonstrates how domestic power shifts and political distrust can lead to conflict.

4. International intervention can either solve or worsen civil wars depending on its credibility and motives.

5. The Moral Hazard Problem shows how expected aid can unintentionally fuel conflict.

6. The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P) expands global obligations but challenges sovereignty.

7. Great Power involvement, like Britain’s during the U.S. Civil War, highlights the global dimensions of domestic wars.