TEXT H

　　First read the following question.
　　34. The reviewer’s attitude towards the books is ___.
　　A. ambiguous
　　B. objective
　　C. doubtful
　　D. ho stile

　　Now go through TEXT H quickly and answer question 34.
　　The 1990s have witnessed a striking revival of the idea that liberal democr atic political system are the best basis for international peace. Western states men and scholars have witnessed worldwide process of democratization, and tend t o 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 bas been the proposit ion that liberal democracies do not fight each other; that they may and frequent ly do get into fights with illiberal states, but not with other countries that a re basically similar in their political systems. The proposition appeals to poli tical leaders and scholars as well.
　　Yet it is doubtful whether the proposition is strong enough to bear the va st weight of generalization that has been placed on it. Among the many difficult ies it poses, two stand out: first there are many possible exceptions to the rul e that democracies do not fight each other; and second, there is much uncertaint y about why democracies have, for the most part, not fought each other.
　　Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American politics and international security b y 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 sta tes, sometimes with the intent of making them liberal).
　　Owen’s analysis in the book strongly suggests that political leaders on a l l sides judged a given foreign country largely on the basis of its political sys tem; and this heavily influenced decisions on whether or not to wage war against it. However, be 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 democrat ic peace theory: its assumption that there would be peace if only everybody else was like us. This can lead only too easily to attempts to impose the favoured s ystem on benighted foreigners by force-regardless of the circumstances and sensi bilities that make the undertaking hazardous, Owen’s central argument is not st r engthened by the occasional repetition nor by the remorselessly academic tone of the more theoretical chapters. However, most of the writing is succinct; the hi storical accounts are clear and to the point; and the investigation of the causa l 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 argu ment that liberal states ally with others, above all, because they perceive them as fellow liberals. In our own time, several liberal democracies have maintaine d long and close relations with autocracies. However, Owen’s argument for a deg r ee of solidarity between liberal states provides at least part of the explanatio n for the continuation and even expansion of NATO in the post-Cold War era.