Ronald Regan quoted ‘‘the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. The world does not work the way we have been led to believe - by our mainstream media, by our politicians, by our corporations, by our financial institutions, by our military, by our schools. We are bombarded daily with so much misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, half-truths, and outright lies, that it takes a persistent individual to sort through the fog of information to find the truth.. This paper seeks to determine if rogue states are more aggressive in challenging other states’ claims to territory in comparison with non-rogue states. Rogue states are defined as those, which methodically violate accepted international human rights norms of gender and ethnic nondiscrimination and protection from state repression. Suggestions suggest that states that regularly violate international human rights customs are more likely to challenge other states’ territorial claims while rogue states are more likely experience territorial disputes.
The United States Government until today remains the active supporter of the ‘’rogue state’’ expression; the term has received much criticism from those who disagree with the United States foreign policy. ‘’Rogue states’’ clearly means any state or land that is a threat to the United States. Author William Blum, has expressed that the term is also applicable to the United States. In Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, William Blum claims that the United States of America, because of its foreign policy, is itself a rogue state.
William Blum states ‘’ over the years, SOA has trained...
... middle of paper ...
...United fruit and over threw the government by using a coup. Parentis states ‘‘under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequently assisted by the sword’’. We see that any country trying to relieve itself from such western powers are being forced into economic debt and tough sanctions, and if economic debt weren’t an issue the issue of military action would be used.
I have come to understand that the United States is a country, which uses capitalism only on its soil that its laws and regulations abide only on its land and that other people of foreign countries have no importance. Those vulnerable countries are being used constantly by major western powers and taken advantage of till the second all their resources are used and exterminated. The United States Government have started a never ending lie which likely will never end.
The U.S. has been sending troops to over-sea countries to aid the needy, and take certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent lives, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything. Power is what controls the world, and without it, you become weak. When we help other countries, that shows how powerful we are, and how strong we are to stand on our on and help! The U.S is considered to be the superpower in the world. Therefore, it should use its power to help other countries in need. Yes, we have a lot of problems with our government,
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones (kinzer.215). These factors were the reasons behind America’s intervention in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile to control and protect multinational companies as well as the campaign against communism with little or no knowledge about these countries.
As reported by the White House, women, on average, earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Writer and activist, Rebecca Solnit addresses such issues of gender inequality, as well as violence against women, in her 2014 essay, “The Longest War.” Solnit’s purpose is to shed a light onto the inequitable and detrimental treatment of women and to emphasize the need for change. She utilizes a compelling, matter-of-fact tone to optimize the effect her words will have on her readers, both male and female. “The Longest War” by Rebecca Solnit employs the rhetorical strategies of substance and delivery to highlight gender issues worldwide, evoke the audience’s rational and emotional sides, and inspire people to act toward equality.
John Dower's War without Mercy describes the ugly racial issues, on both the Western Allies and Japanese sides of the conflict in the Pacific Theater as well as all of Asia before during and after World War II and the consequences of these issues on both military and reconstruction policy in the Pacific. In the United States as well as Great Britain, Dower dose a good job of proving that, "the Japanese were more hated than the Germans before as well as after Pearl Harbor." (8) On this issue, there was no dispute among contemporary observers including the respected scholars and writers as well as the media. During World War II the Japanese are perceived as a race apart, a species apart referred to as apes, but at the same time superhuman. "There was no Japanese counterpart to the "good German" in the popular consciousness of the Western Allies." (8) Dower is not trying to prove how horrible the Japanese are. Instead, he is examining the both sides as he points out, "atrocious behavior occurred on all sides in the Pacific War." (12-13) Dower explores the propaganda of the United States and Japanese conflict to underline the "patterns of a race war," and the portability of racist stereotypes. Dower points out that "as the war years themselves changed over into an era of peace between Japan and the Allied powers, the shrill racial rhetoric of the early 1940s revealed itself to be surprisingly adaptable. Idioms that formerly had denoted the unbridgeable gap between oneself and the enemy proved capable of serving the goals of accommodation as well."(13) "the Japanese also fell back upon theories of "proper place" which has long been used to legitimize inequitable relationships within Japan itself."(9) After...
John Dower's War Without Mercy describes the ugly racial dimensions of the conflict in the Asian theater of World War II and their consequences on both military and reconstruction policy in the Pacific. "In the United States and Britain," Dower reminds us, "the Japanese were more hated than the Germans before as well as after Pearl Harbor. On this, there was no dispute among contemporary observers. They were perceived as a race apart, even a species apart -- and an overpoweringly monolithic one at that. There was no Japanese counterpart to the 'good German' in the popular consciousness of the Western Allies." (8) Conservative readers, don't fret - Dower isn't making this argument to exonerate the Japanese for their own racism or war crimes -- after all, "atrocious behavior occurred on all sides in the Pacific War." (12-13) Rather, Dower is exploring the propaganda of the US-Japanese conflict to delineate the "patterns of a race war," the cultural mechanisms of "othering," and the portability of racial/racist stereotypes. For "as the war years themselves changed over into into an era of peace between Japan and the Allied powers, the shrill racial rhetoric of the early 1940s revealed itself to be surprisingly adaptable. Idioms that formerly had denoted the unbridgeable gap between oneself and the enemy proved capable of serving the goals of accommodation as well." (13)
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
The Brink of War In 1914, there were many things that placed Europe at the brink of war. Nationalism, militarism, imperialism, social Darwinism, and Jingoes are five of the main forces that were pushing Europe to the brink of war. Another main force was the development of Alliance systems. These ideas and systems threatened the balance of power, which could then cause a major war to break out. In Europe at the time, there were many ideas which were causing friction.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
The Declaration of Independence can be used to justify America 's heavy handed foreign policy overseas that is examined in Rogue State.
American Imperialism has been a part of United States history ever since the American Revolution. Imperialism is practice by which powerful nations or people seek to expand and maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples. Throughout the years there has been many instances where the Americans have taken over other people countries, almost every time we go into we have taken over a new piece of land. The Americas first taste of imperialism came about five hundred years ago when Columbus came to America. We fought the pleasant inhabitants and then took over their land making them slaves. Americans over the years have been known to become almost selfish, no matter how much we have we will never be happy until we control the free world.
...ows that contrary to the U.S. claim of being defenders of democracy, liberty, and justice, the U.S. has been perfectly willing to squash the attempts of other countries to attain these ideals if doing so would prevent the U.S. from exploiting said country. The concept of the 1st world and the extravagant economic prosperity of 1st world countries has come into existence through the creation of 3rd world countries. Their deficiency produces U.S. opulence, and the U.S. has been very aware of this, which is why the true extent of U.S. intervention in the governments of Latin America has only recently been uncovered. If the American public had been aware of the nature of our actions in any number of sovereign states, it is doubtful the U.S. government would have been able to carry them out without inviting immense criticism and dissent from the American people.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Atzili, Boaz. (2007). When Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors: Fixed Borders, State Weakeness, and International Conflict. International Security. 31 (3), p139-173.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.