Blog #8

Political Violence in Paraguay

            Political scientists often struggle to properly define key concepts in the social sciences, and they often struggle to define certain forms of political violence. Because political violence ranges from interstate war to terrorism, it is often difficult to provide sound definitions that reflect the true nature of each form of political violence. David Samuels, a political scientist, defines interstate warfare as “the use of violence by states against states to achieve political goals” (Samuels 2012). In order to determine the validity of this definition, I analyzed a specific interstate war in Paraguay, the Chaco War. Although the definition needs to be adjusted slightly, ultimately Samuels provides a concrete definition that clearly defines what interstate war represents.

            The Chaco War, 1932-1935, was an interstate war between Paraguay and Bolivia where both Paraguay and Bolivia fought over a large piece of land, called the Chaco, which contains precious resources such as natural gas and oil (Hughes 2005). Also, the Chaco contains the Paraguay River, which serves as a connection to the Atlantic Ocean, and this land was vital to each country’s economy and trading because each state is an interlocked country that needs the river for the transportation of goods. Because both countries claimed historical rights to the property of the Chaco, the citizens of each state rose to the call of war in order to defend their national territory. Ultimately, this war led to one of the bloodiest wars in South America with 100,000 soldiers dead: 57,000 Bolivians and 43,000 Paraguayans over the course of three years. After a truce was called, Paraguay was awarded with three-quarters of the Chaco, but the cost of many men’s lives has devastated both nations as the consequences are seen even today (Hughes 2005).

            As one can obviously infer from this description, the Chaco War fits perfectly into the definition of interstate war described by David Samuels. Both states used violence against each other, and each state was fighting for a political goal, the possession of a resource-filled land. Also, the citizens in each state were largely influenced by a national identity to protect the lands that rightfully belonged to them, especially for Paraguay, which ultimately led to their victory. For this reason, I believe the definition that Samuels provided needs to be modified. Although interstate war includes the use of violence between states, there must be more than just violence in order to define this type of political violence as interstate war. A better definition would be “the use of violence by states against states to achieve political goals that protects a national identity.” Because national identities play such a crucial role in the support of interstate wars by its citizens, this needs to be included in the definition.

            Also, the definition provided by Samuels lacks any specifics on the time length or number of deaths needed to define political violence as “interstate war.” As seen by the Chaco War, many wars last several years and many people lose their lives for a national cause. Yet, Samuels fails to address the situations of violence by states against states where political violence is shorter and not many lives are lost. One act of violence against a state should not be qualified as interstate war. For this reason, the definition should also include a specific time length and a number of people killed in order to qualify other acts of state violence as interstate war. Obviously, the Chaco War was an interstate war because it lasted for three years and 100,000 people lost their lives, but it would have been even clearer had Samuels given more specifics of time and deaths.

            Although Samuels could have modified his definition of interstate war as mentioned above, ultimately he provides a good definition that defines the composition of interstate wars. One can clearly identify any instance of political violence as interstate war if one state uses violence against another state for a political goal. Living in Paraguay for two years, I know that interstate war has affected the lives of thousands of people, for the good and the bad, even after eighty years.

REFERENCES

Hughes, Matthew. 2005. Logistics and the Chaco War: Bolivia versus Paraguay, 1932-1935. The

Journal of Military History 69, no. 2 (April): 411-37.

Samuels, David J. 2012. Comparative politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.