Since the events of World War II (1939-1945) there has been very little prevalence of war between the borders of Europe. Complete Introduction
To begin, the devastation of the Second World War has led to measures being taken by nation states to prevent the occurrence of war within Europe. This was mostly achieved by the creation of Inter Governmental Organizations (IGO's), mostly regarding The United Nations (UN). However, there can also be seen to be tactics to combat conflict between states in institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which through both trade agreements and military alliances help to further the liberal approach to negotiating peace through cooperation, For instance, the United Nations was set up in October 1945 to promote international peacekeeping and collective security, At it's conception, the UN has a total of 51 member states, which in 2014 has risen to 193 member states with 2 observer nations. This body comprises of four major organs; The General Assembly; The Security Council; The Secretariat and The Social and Economic Council (ECOSOC) which collectively ensure; international peacekeeping, social and economic development around the world, the value of fundamental human rights and create a platform for international cooperation. This has evidently been a much greater success than the failed League of Nations established after World War I, which failed at preventing the following World War in 1939. This, I believe has prevented tensions in Europe as the nations develop a harmony of interests and therefore gain a common ideology based on the need for democracy and capitalism.
Furthermore, the idea of trade liberalism to ensure peace and stability between nations has resulted in the creation of the EU, the replacement of the EEC (European Economic Community) formed in November 1993. The EU bases it's operations on the deterritorialization of borders between European states, now complete with 28 member nations. The most prominent policies of the European Union include free trade with no taxes or tariffs on imported goods, furthered through the free movement of labour and people. This means migration between the states has some of the highest rates in the world. Finally, the common international laws provide a basis for legal justice, for instance, 50% of UK laws stem from the EU while Germany's laws are 70% derived from the trade bloc. This shows the political stronghold of the European Union's power over European countries.
According to Samuel P. Huntington, there is an emergence of a new scale of conflict centred around the world's primary civilizations. In his book "The Clash of Civilizations", published in 1993, Huntington claims that wars were no longer based on regional powers but fought over society, culture and religion. By this understanding, it can be surmised that wars between less powerful states are considered historical or as proxy wars with the rise in ideological conflict; for instance, the Iraq War (2003-2011) can be seen as a struggle between the USA and the Middle East, while the Cold War has been the only conflict in recent decades that has torn the composition of Europe by Eastern Bloc and the West. This shows how wars are not fought on a regional scale any more, but on a global scale. Furthermore, Europe is a group of solely democratic nations in past decades which align with conditions of the "Democratic Peace Thesis" that state that two democratic countries have never been to war. This further emphasises the unlikelihood that there will ever be tensions among Europe that will ever again result in war.
Ultimately, there are strong conclusions to be drawn that indicate that the nation states of Europe will never go to war again, at least on the scale that was the World Wars, if not due to wars between civilization, the spread of democracy and the fall of communism and IGO's furthering of international cooperation, then also due to the changing nature of war which dictates an escalation in weapons and terms of warfare, meaning that wars do not evolve to the point of "mutually assured destruction" any more. This leaves us with the idea of peace among European states for now, if not the long term.
Showing posts with label united nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label united nations. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
How did US involvement with the creation of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank lead to it becoming a global hegemon?
A global hegemon is a supreme leader of world order emphasizing leadership and dominance over other nations. The United States is the most current and prime example of a global hegemon today. Mostly using techniques of 'hard power' through dominance of global economies and military power. Some of these hegemonic qualities can be related to the nations involvement with Intergovernmental Organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Firstly, one of the most important relationships in answering this question is between the US and the United Nations. The UN was set up after the victory of World War II by the US and European states and agreements were signed by 51 states including China, UK, India, USSR etc. This was set up with the aim of maintaining peacekeeping, now with 193 member states. US involvement in the UN is also what makes it controversial, with the UN headquarters located in Manhattan. For instance, the US has one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means it has phenomenal power in terms of international decision making and vetoing decisions made against their national interest. This IGO is considered the creation of the US, with then President claiming "Roosevelt saw the United Nations as his crowning achievement of his political career." The Bretton Woods Conference was also held in 1944 to establish a monetary and trade regime which was stable and predictable, upholding Western values of opening world markets, providing liberal economy and privatization which are principle factors of the IMF and World Bank.
The International Monetary Fund is an organization of 188 countries which contribute funds to a global banking system with the ability to then borrow money and other resources. Despite evidence of aiding economic stability and reducing poverty, the IMF has been controversial due to it's biased nature towards rich core countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan, with these countries holding most of the voting power, with the US voting share being at almost 18% while other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all possessing less than 1%. This means that the IMF is set up to further the ideas and values of countries like the US. This also furthers it's status as a global hegemon, promoting Neoliberalism. This allows the US and other developed nations to have a dominance over other less developed countries, IGO's such as the IMF can be criticized for furthering elements of Neo-Colonialism.
In terms of the World Bank, there are striking similarities to the biased nature of the World Bank, with the US leading international decision making as they have the largest percentage of voting power, followed once again by countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Japan. The World Bank has been highly criticized by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) arguing that the system was set up promoting inflation and a world in which international trade is state dominated, with the free market ideology possibly leading to policies which are damaging to the weaker global economies which is seen as a way in which the US holds powers over other nations via. exploitation of economies. The introduction of the conditional loaning system offers loans to less developed nations on the basis of high interest rates, opening up trade and privatizing businesses to global TNC's (often those of the United States). The interest of the World Bank is dominated by a small group of the most economically powerful nations.
Ultimately, the United States involvement in the creation and agendas set by these Intergovernmental Organizations such as the UN, IMF and WB is very strong, it's emphasis on the United States role in international decision making and the dominance of global economy consolidating the nation's role on the world stage as the most influential global hegemon, furthering their status as a uni polar superpower.
Firstly, one of the most important relationships in answering this question is between the US and the United Nations. The UN was set up after the victory of World War II by the US and European states and agreements were signed by 51 states including China, UK, India, USSR etc. This was set up with the aim of maintaining peacekeeping, now with 193 member states. US involvement in the UN is also what makes it controversial, with the UN headquarters located in Manhattan. For instance, the US has one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means it has phenomenal power in terms of international decision making and vetoing decisions made against their national interest. This IGO is considered the creation of the US, with then President claiming "Roosevelt saw the United Nations as his crowning achievement of his political career." The Bretton Woods Conference was also held in 1944 to establish a monetary and trade regime which was stable and predictable, upholding Western values of opening world markets, providing liberal economy and privatization which are principle factors of the IMF and World Bank.
The International Monetary Fund is an organization of 188 countries which contribute funds to a global banking system with the ability to then borrow money and other resources. Despite evidence of aiding economic stability and reducing poverty, the IMF has been controversial due to it's biased nature towards rich core countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan, with these countries holding most of the voting power, with the US voting share being at almost 18% while other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all possessing less than 1%. This means that the IMF is set up to further the ideas and values of countries like the US. This also furthers it's status as a global hegemon, promoting Neoliberalism. This allows the US and other developed nations to have a dominance over other less developed countries, IGO's such as the IMF can be criticized for furthering elements of Neo-Colonialism.
In terms of the World Bank, there are striking similarities to the biased nature of the World Bank, with the US leading international decision making as they have the largest percentage of voting power, followed once again by countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Japan. The World Bank has been highly criticized by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) arguing that the system was set up promoting inflation and a world in which international trade is state dominated, with the free market ideology possibly leading to policies which are damaging to the weaker global economies which is seen as a way in which the US holds powers over other nations via. exploitation of economies. The introduction of the conditional loaning system offers loans to less developed nations on the basis of high interest rates, opening up trade and privatizing businesses to global TNC's (often those of the United States). The interest of the World Bank is dominated by a small group of the most economically powerful nations.
Ultimately, the United States involvement in the creation and agendas set by these Intergovernmental Organizations such as the UN, IMF and WB is very strong, it's emphasis on the United States role in international decision making and the dominance of global economy consolidating the nation's role on the world stage as the most influential global hegemon, furthering their status as a uni polar superpower.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?
A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.
Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.
Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.
Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.
Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.
Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.
Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.
 |
| Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020. |
Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.
 |
| Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States. |
Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.
Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.
Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Is the UN an outdated body?
The United Nations is an Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) set up in 1945 to maintain international peace and security after World War II (1939-1945) and was committed to by 51 countries to promote social progress, human rights and higher living standards, which has gradually evolved into a political forum of 193 member nation states in 2014. The UN was founded on the basis of the outdated and unsuccessful League of Nations in 1920 after the events of World War I, the goal being the same as that of the United Nations.
 |
| The United Nations logo, based on the Olive Branch which represents the co-operation of member states in terms of its security and peacekeeping around the globe. |
There are 5 current components of the United Nations; the General Assembly is a proactive deliberative organ, being the only body of the organization whereby every member state has equal representation; the Security Council is made up of 19 members with 5 permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and the UK) which formulate resolutions to peace and security issues, international sanction and military force, a problem being the permanent members ability to veto any resolution; ECOSOC or the Economic and Social Council which co-ordinates the management and activity of the 14 UN socio-economic agencies; the Secreteriat provides results to the UN based on research, studies, information and facilities and the International Court of Justice - the primary judiciary body responsible for the trial of war criminals.
The effectiveness of the UN is frequently called into question by critics, but is the United Nations outdated? Firstly, with a emphasis on the spread of democracy, and more countries embracing the ideology, it's become ever apparent that the United Nations do not operate to reflect this form of co-operation. An example being Jacob Zuma's claims that the IGO is "undemocratic" and might have "by now outlived it's usefulness." There is also significant evidence supporting it's undemocratic nature in the modern day, post World War II. For instance, the only democratic organ of the UN being the General Assembly, all other parts of the organization are based on an unfair voting and power system, mostly criticizing the powerful role role of the US in decision making to flex it's muscles, taking a vitally important stance on international decision making.
On the other hand, the United Nations has been successful in it's contribution to humanitarian aid and initiatives providing help for those in countries with high rates of poverty and struck by disaster with the help of ECOSOC and the World Food Organization (WFO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this is a way in which the UN is still effective in solidifying the interdependence and co-operation of it's member states, as it promises to provide help to any country within it's sovereignty. Also, the 'Millennium Development Goals' look to help the population and peoples of individual states rather than maintaining power and influence with all countries agreeing to achieve goals by 2015 of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and ensure a global partnership for development. This helps to further develop the support network for the rise of human rights in countries suffering from humanitarian issues, poverty and civil war, spreading the ideology of democracy.
 |
| An image showing tents provided by the United Nations to Syrian Refugees in 2013, as they described humanitarian aid is required for over 7,000,000 people who were under threat by the Al-Assad regime. |
The United Nations is also a basis for which all countries are interconnected and still interdependent with other countries emphasized by the Cobweb Model, and from a Liberalism viewpoint, this can help to create a harmony of interests within a global scale and reduce the risk of war and conflict, instead looking to negotiations, debates, discussions and sanctions. The UN also benefits from it's status of extraterritoriality which means it's exempt from any local laws which makes for an ease of decision making in some respects and the judiciary of war criminals means that this body works in a way that can help, where local laws cannot.
Ultimately, it is evident that in most instances the United Nations has been unsuccessful or not fulfilled it's goals, clear in the ever increasing prevalence of wars between both civilizations and member states, showing that the main goal of peacekeeping is largely ineffective as involvement in conflict is based on realist ideas of egoism, selfishness and nationalism. However, it could be argued that the UN is still a significant power and constantly evolving in terms of it's regards to soft power and how we must adapt with the rise of globalization and democratization. For instance, the success of the body in terms of it's humanitarian aid, efforts in human rights, equality, education, world hunger and poverty cannot be denied. Based on these aspects is could be surmised that the importance of the hard power of the UN has been taken away by military alliances such as NATO but left a platform for human development.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics
Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.
Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.
Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).
In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.
Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.
Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.
Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).
In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.
Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.
What is the political status of Palestine? (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)
Gaza has been a popular topic in recent news regarding the conflict between Palestine and Israel, this is a long standing fight based on religion and territories, particularly since the creation of Israel and has been a global political issue for on and off for decades.
Palestine has been a part of global political history as a place of conflict and turmoil, being the birthplace multiple conflicting religions, cultures and political ideologies over recent years and past centuries. The region has been in a tug of war of control since it' conception. In most recent times, the territory has been controlled by Israel and Judaism. Israel was created in May 1948 as a home place for the Jewish settlers, but was not internationally recognized until 1st May 1949.
The United Nations, dominated by the United States is responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel and came up with the original partition plan that separated Israel from the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank. In the past, before World War I, the Turkish Ottoman Empire had control of Palestine which was eventually taken over by the British Empire, however, this caused problems due to the ongoing conflict between the Jewish and the Arabs. Eventually, it was decided by the United Nations after World War II against the condemnation of the Arab leaders, that Palestine would be split between the two factions, with Jordan occupying the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza, this caused the original declaration of war.
After the Six Day War in 1967, Palestine lost it's political status even further as Israel gained both the West Bank and Gaza. In 1987, uprisings began once again in the Palestinian areas in response to Israeli occupation and attacks. But as an effect of international efforts in the early 1990's, agreements were made in co-operation leading to the Oslo Accords of 1993. This was successful as it allowed the birth of the Palestinian National Authority which meant that Palestine had gained a certain amount of sovereignty over it's own population.
However, in the year 2000, conflict began between the Israel Defense Force and the Palestine National Authority due to rising tensions and the increase of radicalism on both sides, this lasted around 5 years and caused thousands of fatalities. The Hamas leadership in Gaza since 2006 after the 2005 disengagement caused sanctions against Gaza, eventually leading to rocket attacks and violence on the ground using tunneling.
The recent Gaza-Israel conflict broke out on the 8th July 2014, sparking bombardments and attacks between the states which resulted in over 2000 deaths, mostly that of Palestinians. The war was based around an Israeli crackdown on Hamas, attempting to destroy the underground system connecting the countries with an eventual ceasefire on 26th August 2014.
To conclude, it is evident that despite it's Observer Nation status to the UN, Palestine is very much subject to discrimination as a nation-state and has very little political influence or sovereignty anymore, Israel being favored on an international scale and in terms of political status.
Palestine has been a part of global political history as a place of conflict and turmoil, being the birthplace multiple conflicting religions, cultures and political ideologies over recent years and past centuries. The region has been in a tug of war of control since it' conception. In most recent times, the territory has been controlled by Israel and Judaism. Israel was created in May 1948 as a home place for the Jewish settlers, but was not internationally recognized until 1st May 1949.
The United Nations, dominated by the United States is responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel and came up with the original partition plan that separated Israel from the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank. In the past, before World War I, the Turkish Ottoman Empire had control of Palestine which was eventually taken over by the British Empire, however, this caused problems due to the ongoing conflict between the Jewish and the Arabs. Eventually, it was decided by the United Nations after World War II against the condemnation of the Arab leaders, that Palestine would be split between the two factions, with Jordan occupying the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza, this caused the original declaration of war.
After the Six Day War in 1967, Palestine lost it's political status even further as Israel gained both the West Bank and Gaza. In 1987, uprisings began once again in the Palestinian areas in response to Israeli occupation and attacks. But as an effect of international efforts in the early 1990's, agreements were made in co-operation leading to the Oslo Accords of 1993. This was successful as it allowed the birth of the Palestinian National Authority which meant that Palestine had gained a certain amount of sovereignty over it's own population.
However, in the year 2000, conflict began between the Israel Defense Force and the Palestine National Authority due to rising tensions and the increase of radicalism on both sides, this lasted around 5 years and caused thousands of fatalities. The Hamas leadership in Gaza since 2006 after the 2005 disengagement caused sanctions against Gaza, eventually leading to rocket attacks and violence on the ground using tunneling.
The recent Gaza-Israel conflict broke out on the 8th July 2014, sparking bombardments and attacks between the states which resulted in over 2000 deaths, mostly that of Palestinians. The war was based around an Israeli crackdown on Hamas, attempting to destroy the underground system connecting the countries with an eventual ceasefire on 26th August 2014.
To conclude, it is evident that despite it's Observer Nation status to the UN, Palestine is very much subject to discrimination as a nation-state and has very little political influence or sovereignty anymore, Israel being favored on an international scale and in terms of political status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)