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.
Firstly, war is initiated by country having more power and wanting to expand their territory or to gain more resources. For example, in the essay The Ecstasy of War (1997) by Barbara Ehrenreich, she stated “that wars are designed, at least ostensibly, to secure necessaries like land or oil” (Ehrenreich 43). Therefore, countries wanting to have more land or important resources will initiate a war if the other country is not in accordance in willing to
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.
Almost every state on Earth desires peace, so why do countries go to war so often? Between World War I and World War II alone, there were an estimated 81 million casualties (Primary Megadeaths). Each state has different values and desires and many are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure those values remain in their state as well as spread to others. War results in a failure of states to successfully bargain with one another. The most common reason for wars to occur is territorial control. Of the 155 wars in the past three centuries, 83 of them dealt with territory (Holsti). Adding more territory will often add more wealth to the state. One way it can do that is by providing goods, resources, or industries that a state needs, such as oil or minerals. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-1988 partially because Iraq sought to take control of Iran’s southern oil fields, according to World Politics. Military strategy can also play a role in why states seek new territories. Finally, states can be interested in territory for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. A prime ex...
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.
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.
The third theory within Liberalism, Ideational Liberalism, is based on the idea that that the ideological preferences can determine the actions, peaceful or not, taken by states, citizens, and domestic actors. In John M. Owen’s essay, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” Owen examines this theory using the democratic peace theory. He argues, due to liberal ideology and liberal democratic institutions, “that liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to tend away from war with one another, and that the same ideas prod these states into war with illiberal states “(Owen 1994). His reasoning is that liberal democracies share an interest in promoting freedom, equality, self-preservation, and material well being, but conflict would act counterproductively
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.
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.
The liberal paradigm contrasts the realist’s view of the state being the main actor in the international sphere, as liberalists argue that humans have ‘fundamental natural rights to liberty consisting in the right to do whatever they think fit to preserve themselves’. Although Liberals accept that humans and states both have the desire to increase their own personal interest and power, they also strongly believe in international cooperation, which can be made possible through organisations such as the United Nations. Humanitarian intervention is evidently better understood through the lenses of the liberal paradigm due to the moral obligation humans have to prevent mass killings and human rights violations resulting in humanitarian intervention,
Currently, liberalism is a political ideology that explains foreign policy by interpretation of individual thoughts and how these thoughts are espoused (Doyle, 2012) According to this approach spread of democratic institutions worldwide is seen as inseparable action to promote peace internationally. The implementation of peaceful tough and an isolated peace have been achieved by the liberal states. So...
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.
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
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
War is an interaction in which two or more opposing forces have a struggle of wills. It is by no means a stranger to us, even if we have not had the tragedy of having to live through it. Whether in movies or real life accounts or war experiences, we are well exposed to the horrors of human crimes, suffering and destruction. Many feel that such depictions are usually sensationalized in order to get an audience, but in my opinion, war can never by justified. Despite the common argument that war brings about liberalism, it saddles along economic problems, a loss of lives and sufferings.
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.