8.1 Is the global economy the prime determinant of the character of global politics? 1. To what extent are states' foreign policies dictated by capitalist interests? Those who claim that economic power determines states' capability to project military power have argued that states' military capabilities and research developments are dependent on their economic resources. It is therefore not surprising that those states with highest military capabilities are those economically most powerful. This combined material power is essential in determining their status and therefore actions in the international system. However, many maintain that the balance of power remains to be the most crucial defining factor of international politics: even where one state appears as more materially powerful, this is quickly counter-balanced by a group of other states, who collaborate to keep the dominant power in check. Historically, this has been a key element to international relations and remains to be the most significant factor in determining stability. Furthermore, the reduction of world affairs to capitalist interests does not account for what appears to be genuinely altruistic behaviour, such as debt forgiveness or peace-keeping missions. The counter-argument, of course, would suggest that such 'altruistic' actions are often embedded in precisely those discourses that serve to veil the economic self-interests of powerful states that profit from such actions. Such is the argument, for example, in relation to the US-invasion of Iraq in 2003, where economic and oil interests led to an invasion which was discursively legitimized under the banner of 'humanitarian intervention'. 2. Would a world containing more democratic states be more peaceful? This question is discussed in more detail in the 'opposing opinion section' of chapter 7. Briefly, however, it is the democratic peace theory, fundamentally developed by Michael Doyle, which suggests that historically, democratic states are less likely to engage in war with one another. In contrast, the other side of this argument suggests that democratic states are particularly war-prone in relation to those states perceived to be illiberal and that 'acts of war' in relation to democratic states occur, if not explicitly, then nonetheless in a veiled manner. 3. Which is more likely to cause conflict in the international system: economic crisis or breakdown of the balance of power? Those who perceive economic crisis to be a more determinant factor in the instability of the international system predominantly draw on historical examples to stress their point. Thus, it is claimed that both world wars were driven by economic unrest (the first in relation to competing claims to colonies, which served economic development at home; the second in relation to the Great Depression). The cold war era, by contrast, notes that relative economic stability led to relative political stability, which, in turn, has been shaken by political turmoil following the economic crisis. This argument is contrasted by those who maintain that the balance of power is more influential in the stability of the international order. Here too the cold war is often cited as one of the most stable eras in international relations, albeit for its bipolar structure, where the international system was balanced by two competing super powers that kept each other in check.