The United States of America proudly presents itself as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the leading liberal architect whose role, which has become more significant in the post- Cold War, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the establishment of the so-called “New World Order”₁ combined with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy on a global scale and pursue “(…) the ideals of America - – freedom, democracy and peace”. ₂In this essay, after defining some crucial concepts, such as peace, liberal and democratic governments, I will present arguments in support of the idea that liberal democratic states are not intrinsically more peaceful than other states, but that they are, in fact, more likely to create conflicts between different nations and political systems. Attention will be given to U.S. policies and historical events that support the idea expressed above. The concept of peace leads to it being accepted as a “state of tranquility, quiet, security and order provided by law or custom”₃ (Webster dictionary) and is also known as “a state of freedom from civil disorder or conflict guaranteed by a mutual agreement between governments”₄ (Oxford dictionary). Linked to this ancient concept is the definition of liberal government: a form of representative democracy based on the recognition of individual freedoms and the belief that people should govern "in which decisions form direct or representative processes prevail in many areas"₅ (Collins dictionary) . As Fukuyama says, liberal democracy is “the final form of human government”₆ (ver obra). According to John Ikenberry (referir obra e tal) constitutionalism, open markets, international institutions, cooperatives......middle of paper......do they increase internal insecurity? The answer to these questions, according to Chomsky, concerns the Americans seek global expansion and military dominance in foreign policy. Nations must be on the same page as US interests and must allow for capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If it refuses, the nation becomes a potential target of U.S.-backed aggression or labeled as a threat or even a terrorist state. When Indonesia declared in 1965 that it wanted to develop its country without any Western influence, the result was almost a million deaths and the establishment of a dictatorial regime led by General Suharto. On the other hand, if a nation accepts and decides to align (Turkey, Israel), it becomes a client state and is entitled to American monetary and military aid and protection.2010 palavras-war as a political tool