War has plagued society for as long as society has existed. While preventing the outbreak of war is a stated goal of the international community, wars continue to rage on. I think that the best way to avoid the outbreak of war is to subscribe to a liberalist theory. The key assumption of the liberalist theory is that the principles of liberalism, freedom, tolerance, progress, privacy, and scientific rationality, must be accepted universally (Ferraro, 03 Mar 2014). If these principles are implemented on a universal level, they will significantly reduce, if not eradicate, war. For example, the Rwandan genocide would not have occurred if the country subscribed to the liberal values. With tolerance for one another, the Hutu and Tutsi would not have resented one another as adversaries in the power structure of the country (Ferraro, 15 Apr 2014). Also, by approaching the problem with scientific rationality, they would have come to the conclusion that killing each other over a power system established by a foreign power was not attending to the root of the problem (Ferraro, 17 Apr 2014).
While it is impossible to implement the principles of liberalism on a universal level, there are several practical steps countries can take to prevent the outbreak of war, the first being to avoid imperialism. The practice of imperialism causes not only war, but also resentment between countries. Unmitigated war occurs when two or more counties are fighting over a territory. While France and Britain did not go to war over Fashoda, the race to this part of Africa exemplifies that both countries were willing to fight for the region, even though it had no known value (Ferraro, 20 Feb 2014). Resentment is created when a dominant country takes over a weake...
... middle of paper ...
...24 Feb.
2014. Lecture.
Ferraro, Vincent. “The Evolution of Liberal Society.” Thompson 104, Amherst. 11 Mar. 2014.
Lecture.
Ferraro, Vincent. “Inter-War Period.” Thompson 104, Amherst. 1 Apr. 2014. Lecture.
Ferraro, Vincent. "Non-Proliferation." Thompson 104, Amherst. 10 Apr. 2014. Lecture.
Ferraro, Vincent. “Idea of the Nation-State.” Thompson 104, Amherst. 15 Apr. 2014. Lecture.
Ferraro, Vincent. “Mass Atrocities.” Thompson 104, Amherst. 17 Apr. 2014. Lecture.
Maclay, Kathleen. "Warmer Climate Strongly Affects Human Conflict and Violence Worldwide,
Says Study." UC Berkeley NewsCenter. UC Regents, 1 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Waltz, Kenneth. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better." Kenneth Waltz, “The
Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London:
International Institute F. Mt. Holyoke, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
On this planet there is only the one sure way to ensure peace, government. Luckily throughout history there have been big societies that helped countries establish governments of their own. One of the biggest and well shaped government is the democracy of the United States of America. The U.S. had two societies in particular to look to for guidance, and those two were ancient Greece and ancient Rome.
Some americans say that nations hinge on each other, while others say they also compete with one another. This gives rise to rivalry, which sometimes leads to war. Some wars emerge from differentiation in race, religion and culture. Due to the evolution of technology in an accelerated pace, highly sophisticated weapons are now available for use in wars. Wars also bring about widespread destruction, disrupt communication and hamper commerce. Thus, they cause heavy financial loss and great suffering to people. The effects of wars often affect countries that are not involved in the conflict. The threat of war can pressure a nation to waste immense amounts of money on defense instead of spending on developmental works like creating roads, hospitals, schools, and much more. War can halt a countries development. Some countries try to achieve political desires by using terrorism as a weapon against other countries. Terrorism spreads fear in civilians through acts of violence like killings and hostages. This intimidation has transformed into worldwide threat.
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five is a satire on the behaviors of man. Often characterized as an anti-war novel, Slaughterhouse-Five tries to show that war and destruction are a part of the human life cycle. Humanity is highly conflict prone; conflict resolution often manifests itself in the terms of war. Vonnegut attempts to show that war results in widespread death and destruction; therefore, war and death are inevitable. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut explores the inevitability of war, shown through the examination of color usage - such as blue and ivory - in order to symbolize the interminable presence of war.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
War is an organized and often prolonged conflict by a leader that is carried out by states or non-state actors and is generally characterized by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction. Now, some may say that war is needed for a country to succeed as would the Italian philosopher by the name Nicollo Machiavelli who explains characteristics and plans that these war leaders must follow in order to succeed. However, some also may say that war is a path of evil and a country should live in peace as taught by an ancient Chinese philosopher by the name of Lao Tzu. Equally important that these two different ideals may be, countries can use some of the ideas from both philosophers to help in times of battle.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Modern liberalism concentrated around the use of the state for the gain of society as a community. It is generally related with social welfare programs and a assortment of other methods that are utilized to sustain society via the use of programs. Humanitarian wars are also commonly related with modern liberalism; these wars are fought with arguments, different from other wars. They are intended to assist support the people who cannot support themselves and to stand up for the power of individuals to use the state to their benefits. Modern liberals are also fond of the ideology of mixed economies; they believe that there should be less definitive class separation and that there should be a strong mixture of people from different kind of backgrounds mixed together in an economical community.
The best way to end arguments is to talk but when you have been brainwashed for years, you have no desire to work it out in a peaceful manner; you want to win the argument hands down without any strings attached, which is why most all genocides happen. When powerful words are used it can lessen catastrophic events. Genocide can be prevented in the very beginning when the argument is just commencing, without any build up, but genocide-the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation- cannot be stop. Approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were slaughtered in a carefully organized program of genocide over 100 days, making history as the quickest killing spree the world has ever seen. This genocide was one to shock everyone for ages, there was no assistance in ending the genocide, some countries had no desire to get involved in another african conflict. The UN was in Rwanda but the UN mission was not to stop the killings; once their members were getting killed they pulled their forces out from Rwanda. If the UN had been given permission to use their forces against the killers in Rwanda the genocide could’ve been impacted by decreasing the lives lost in that dark time; preemptive measures should’ve been
Imperialism is also as a primary cause of conflict to a liberal. This is as a result of countries in the position like that of the USA extending its’ hegemonic state to justify unnecessary use of its’ military forces. This extension of power and influence leads to a breakdown in the balance of power- what a liberal believes is the ultimate cause of war. A liberal sees the balance of power as fragile and risky, making the world susceptible to international conflict at the slightest imbalance.
The democratic peace theory stems from the generally optimistic liberal tradition which advocates that something can be done rectify the effects of an anarchical system, especially when it comes to war or conflict. For democratic peace theorists, the international system should be one in which there is cooperation and mutual benefits of the states are taken into consideration. The theory depends on liberal ideologies of civil liberties, democratic institutions and fairly elected governments and claims that liberal democracies are different from other systems of government as they do not conflict with other democracies due to the very nature of the liberal thinking and the pacifying role that democracy itself plays. According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that...
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.
War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.