Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Colonialism and the Rwandan genocide
China's human rights issues
Extended essay on rwanda genocide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Colonialism and the Rwandan genocide
The international community has undergone extensive change in the last century. We have seen atrocities like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and more recently, the violence of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Each time a new tragedy strikes, the world is asking “Should we help?” or “Who will help if we do not?”. In an era and globalization and interdependence, these questions need to be considered carefully. As Adam Roberts points out “It is sometimes suggested that the changes in the world in the past decade require exponents of the academic subject of international relations to go back to the drawing board.” (Roberts, 3). In the end, it comes down to the fact the United States, along with the rest of the international community, needs to intervene …show more content…
One argument against intervention is that other countries are sovereign and we do not have the authority to impose our moral standards on the rest of the world. While this may be true for some minor cultural aspects, I do believe there should be some standards when it involves unnecessary suffering or death for a large group of people. Another argument against intervention is that countries tend to rush into conflicts in order to protect the citizens’ human rights without knowing exactly what they are getting involved in, and this can make the situation worse. Historically, in my opinion, the United States has been slow to react to human rights violation, specifically the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. If other countries had stepped in sooner, millions of lives could have been saved, which I would think is more important than causing some political turmoil for a genocidal …show more content…
Even Chinese ambassador Qiao Zonghuai echoes this point when he addressed the United Nations: “The United States is used to pointing fingers at other countries ' human rights situations, but back in its own country, there exist gross violations of human rights: notorious racial discrimination, police brutality, torture in prison, infringement on women 's rights and campus gun killings. A country like the U.S.…has no right to judge other countries.” (Human Rights, 4) While I definitely agree the United States has had a less than pleasant history of human rights violations, that does not excuse the actions of other countries now. The U.S. has (hopefully) learned from their past mistakes and is now able to recognize atrocities in the present, and should be capable of handling them or assisting other countries. The United States is not the only country to have a scarred past. Nearly every other country in the world has a shameful history. It is not exclusive to individual countries, instead it is a characteristic of humanity as a whole. We need to continue moving forward and healing from our past transgressions instead of pointing fingers. If we focus on our ability to come together to prevent human rights violations we can have a future
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
As seen by the terrorist attacks of September 11th and afterwards this is not an easy approach, if even possible, and it asks for a unreserved commitment, the clear definition of interests within the international system, it asks for the use of force if necessary as well as the clear distinction when not, and it asks for a transformation of institutions and policies. Since this was not done early on, the examples provide the reasons of failure as well as a demonstration of a slow learning process in U.S. foreign Policy.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The American attack against Afghanistan that was triggered by the September 11th tragedy once again raised the question of US role in the world. The current military intervention also touched the issue of the major factors, defining the course of US international policy. In the globalized world today the ratio of “soft power” (the ability to attract through cultural and ideological appeal) to “hard power” (a country’s economic and military ability to buy and coerce) used in solving international conflicts is constantly increasing (Nye 2). However, military campaigns still provide a way out of deepening international crises. Should America, then, engage in indiscriminate humanitarian interventions, advancing its ideas of democracy, human rights and liberty, or should it be militarily concerned only with international affairs that have a direct bearing on US vital national interests?
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, challenges conventional wisdom and argues that the United States should not seek to remain the indispensable nation in the international system in “Delusions of Indispensability”. Carpenter depicts the concept of the U.S seeking to remain the indispensable nation as “dubious” and a “blueprint for strategic overextension” of resources leading to a “failed paradigm” (Pg.19). Carpenter frames his argument against the indispensable nation thesis around the following topics: unilateralism versus multilateralism, U.S. engagement as binary light switch, the failure to acknowledge that U.S. engagement can take different
The history of the US’s relationship with the UN is complex, seeming to vacillate between warm cooperation and abject disdain as the national interests of the US and the rest of the world, and the short- and long-term interests of the US itself, align or oppose each other. The UN was originally the vision of US president Franklin Roosevelt and the product of US State Department planning and diplomacy. It was designed to forward the national interests of its strongest members, the P-5, to reflect and channel the geopolitical power structure rather than twist it into an unnatural and unsustainable hierarchy of weak nations trying to dominate strong. Because the Charter is based in a realist view of the world, during the Cold War, when the national interests of the two world powers diverged, the UN was paralyzed to deal with any of the world’s conflicts. When the Cold War ended it gave rise to the first war that should have been authorized by the Security Council—the Persian Gulf War from later 1990 to early 1991. Many hoped for a “new world order” after the success of the Gulf War, but the interests of the US and the rest of the world, primarily the rest of the members of the Security Council, soon divided again. Today, the world is still struggling to cope with the blow dealt to the UN by the US’s use of force in Iraq, including the US, which has not even begun to feel the long-term negative effects of its unilateralism. However, the war in Iraq could have been less detrimental to the UN and the US in particular, and by extension to the rest of the world, if the US had argued that it was acting to uphold resolution 1441 under the authorization of the Security Cou...
The Treaty of Versailles was a treaty created at the end of World War I, in hopes of establishing peace among nations. Although it sought after harmony, the United States’ Senate refused to ratify the treaty due to the distasteful idea of the United States’ involvement in the League of Nations, and Woodrow Wilson’s unwillingness to compromise with Henry Cabot Lodge’s revisions of The Treaty of Versailles.
When people read about foreign aid they immediately think of food and water. However foreign aid involves one nation giving resources to another nation that is struggling. Based on the country’s situation the aid can be financial, military, or simply food. The problem is there have been several of unsolved issues with these nations receiving their aid. Several of events has happened where our donations or the money the government gives have been misused or stolen.
Globalization. Everyday you hear it on the news, you read it in the newspaper, and you overhear people talking about it- and in every single instance the word globalization seems to have a different meaning. When I hear of globalization I think of the whole world coming close together in all phases. I tend to think that we as human beings are breaking down barriers that have been protected or guarded. For instance, I initially thought of the progress we are making in the communication aspect. So what its globalization and its effects on the United States?
Globalization is a broad concept and the angle taken to define it can lead us to interpret the idea in many different ways. There is much controversy about what globalization actually means and many definitions fail to encompass social, cultural and technological exchanges between world systems. John Pilger suggests that "it is a jargon term which journalists and politicians have made fashionable which is often used in a positive sense to denote a 'Global village' of free trade, hi-tech marvels and all kinds of possibilities that transcend class, historical experience and ideology." (J.Pilger 1998:63). Taking a broader point of view, Bilton et al defines globalization as "The process whereby political, social, economic and cultural relations increasingly take on a global scale, and which has profound consequences for individuals, local experiences and everyday lives."
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
Zhu, Y. (2009), International Business Strategy ,2nd Edition, Middlesex University Business School, McGraw Hill Publications, ISBN : 9780077127015, pp 3:36
Globalization can be defined as the system of interaction among the countries of the world in order to develop the global economy. It also refers to the integration of economics and societies all over the world (http://hotbabefatchicks.hubpages.com/hub/Definition-of-Globalization).
Globalization, a great number of people regard it as a chiefly economic phenomenon, necessitating the additional integration, or interaction, of nationally based economic entities through the development of international trade, investment and monetary flows. Also included in this view is the rapid advances in sharing social and cultural values as well as new technologies as the world grows together. Globalization can be defined as a procedure in which geographic distance is a diminishing factor in the formation and sustentation of international economic, political and cultural relations. Proponents of this process believe that free trade and integration of world markets will facilitate growth in economies both old and new. Proponents also believe that globalization will stimulate the spread of democracy and in turn improve the condition of human rights so intrinsic to the values of democracy. Critics of globalization see globalization quite differently, portraying it as worldwide push toward a globalized economic system under the control of global corporate trade and banking institutions that are not responsible to the democratic system or governments. Many questions surround globalization. What are the costs and benefits of free trade? Does globalization exacerbate global inequality? What impact does globalization have on the environment? Are industries in developed nations being weakened by industries in developing or third world countries that have a lower standard and therefore cost of labor?