Will there ever be another European War?

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.

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.

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.

 Furthermore, the undemocratic nature of the UN extends into the vetoing power of permanent states on the Security Council. This means that France, UK, China, Russia and the US have the power to dismiss any of the other proposals made by the other 10 members. This is made even more problematic as the permanent members of the council are polarized in their ideologies and their stances on global affairs. For instance, when the Security Council led by the United States was voting on the decision of intervention in Syria during the 2013 Civil War, the opposition was led by China and Russia against the proposal. This meant that ideas that may be important to the security of the countries within  the United Nations cannot be upheld with a veto from only one country. This causes a deadlock in decision making which means that motions are difficult to put forward without rejection.

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.

In what ways has Globalization created the recent war against Islamic State?

Islamic State is a Sunni Jihadist extremist militant group who are currently attempting to establish a 'caliphate' in the Middle East, most recently in Iraq and Syria. A 'caliphate' is a state of Islam led by a supreme political and religious leader known as the 'caliph', thought to be a direct descendant of Muhammad. The brewing war in the Middle East is once again a fight initiated by radicalized Muslims to gain state sovereignty and rise to power. However, the United Nations has categorized ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to countries including the US, UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Turkey and Indonesia. IS is led by 'caliph' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who is the forefront of the group which began in 1999 using an array of names linked to the organization and is forcing the implementation of Shariah Law along with the ethnic cleansing of different races including that of Kurdish, Yazidis and Christian population.

October 2014: Current extent of Islamic State's occupation of
Iraqi and Syrian cities.

Globalization is often blamed as the reason for the allowance of the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East and around the world. ISIL are seen as a unique threat to other nations worldwide as they grow in power exponentially with a large pool of resources, weapons and wealth and well as western influences which help to raise the profile and further the Radical Islamist cause. However, is globalisation the real cause for the threat posed by Islamic State?

Firstly, Colonialism is an important term used in reference to the Middle East in past centuries, as great powers in history have moved to colonize and exploit the Middle East for it's opportunities, one of these being the British Empire after the events of World War I left Europe devastated, constant rule over Middle Eastern partitioned states had left the nations to implode and caused resentment of the Middle East upon the Western World. Furthermore, after the ruin caused by three Gulf Wars in the region, Neo-Colonialism was established by the United States and other nations. Neo-Colonialism is an important means of globalisation as it spreads influence and demonstrate power while attempting to exploit a country for it's resources or workers for instance. In the modern day, neo-colonialism is carried out by TNC's and the movement of settlers within an area. This related to Islamic State, as our actions in Iraq, for instance the war in 2003, was largely seen as not to help the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein's oppression, but to exploit the country for our own means. Reasons for intervention in the Middle East, when encompassed in terms of realism sees invasion of Iraq as a selfish action only in Western national interest such as the enormous reserves of oil in Iraq known as the 5th largest in the world or as a method of controlling the volatile country. These events in history have caused a stigma for the United States as well as the UK as the world now questions motives for Western democracies going to war in the Middle East, which is often a considerable topic to extremists in Iraq and Syria who threaten US intervention with acts of violence.

ISIS Fighter flying the Islamic State Flag, the "Black Standard"
which claims "There is no God but God, Muhammad is the
Messenger of God."

Secondly, the Islamic State have been seen as revolutionary in how they spread propaganda and encourage recruitment which has been unseen before even in the largest terror groups in the world including Al-Qaeda who  despite having a large amount of wealth were very much out of touch with Western communications. IS have been reported to use social networking and the internet as a platform to spread their message. For example, part of the reason for the abrupt rise of ISIL is down to it's ability to reach all corners of the globe, using YouTube videos featuring beheading to spread fear among the West, war glorifying propaganda to lure Muslims from around the world to the cause and the use of twitter accounts and other forms of computer technology to further spread the message of IS. This is caused by the advancements in technology and the way it has changed the way we communicate both in local terms and internationally. Also, this problem is furthered by the laws and regulations that communications are bound to in relation to freedom of speech and an uncontrolled forum for a population to voice their opinion and impose their views on others. This technology has been used both to recruit and encourage people towards the agenda as well as instilling shock and horror among democratic, peaceful communities.

Immigration and the prevalence of permeable borders around the world has allowed the free movement of people around the world, from different walks of life to migrate across the planet. Although a major part of globalization in recent decades, particularly following the year 2004, including the boosting of economies, multiculturalism and refuge, there are also significant negative impacts caused by the change in demographic around the world in terms of ethnicity. On a smaller scale, migration can cause a change in cultural identity, ethnic tensions and violence. But on a larger scale, immigration has caused problems in history. For instance, in recent years, young people may go abroad as a tourist or a migrant and while in other nations, is radicalized, an example of this being the perpetrators of the London 7/7 bombings who had recently returned to the UK after being sheltered by groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. This is a common way in which terrorists are able to carry out threats thousands of miles away. Examples of this within Islamic State include the attempted beheading on an Australian Citizen, a threat to the United States Subway System and Street violence in the UK. This works in line with known Islamic extremists working within the states such as the UK. An example being the Cleric Anjem Choudary arrested recently who appeared to be radicalizing Muslims within the UK borders. This shows that there are issues as permeable borders means that ethnic mixing can cause issues along with the unknown origins of the people entering countries of the coalition, the current Islamic State population in the UK is thought to be around 2,500.

October 2014: Where are Islamic State Fighters coming from?

Finally, the spread of democracy over past decades has seemingly gone hand in hand with the spread of globalization, as countries are developing and consolidating their own sovereignty the domination of democratic power has spread with increasing numbers of switched on countries and influencing the public to push for 'people power'. The ideological sectarianism within borders is often detrimental and an instigator of an unstable government. An unrelated example of this is evident in the city of Hong Kong as students protest for introduction of a democratic vote for their leader, this is relevant as it demonstrates how the exposure of the public of an oppressed country are fighting for liberalisation and while they fight for a more fair political system this can cause governmental issues. In the context of the country where IS consolidated it's control in Iraq, the unstable political system faults could be used in the militants' favor. Prime Minister Maliki, the former leader of Iraq is a Shia Muslim who was biased and rewarded the Shia population while pushing down the influence of Sunni Muslims who were favored during Saddam Hussein's rule. Most Sunni's wished for a more balanced cabinet in Iraq, while disenfranchised Sunni fighters became 'freedom fighter rebels' or 'militants'. However, when new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi took office, the government was unstable and unable to fight off the Islamic State fighters. Furthermore, there are also issues in Syria where the Western countries are unwilling to work with President Al-Assad's regime due to recent tensions caused by his dictatorship style of leadership. This shows how the tensions between democratic states, dictatorships and unstable governments are unable to work together due to the gaps in development of their political systems highlighting a deep running disparity.

In conclusion, the rise of Islamic State has empirical evidence that leads us to the idea that globalisation is the key to their success as a foreign terror organization and their current influence over global politics and worldwide issues regarding communications and technology, spread of democracy, impacts of immigration and neo-colonialism which is drawing attention to the problems in the Middle East once again, for possibly the fourth Gulf War in the past century.

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.