The article, “The Future of Peace” was written by Annabel Hertz for the huffingtonpost.com on February 26th, 2015. It analyzes the various conflicts that are going on around the globe and the trends towards the future they represent. Hertz argues that a shift has occurred from trying to promote peace to a goal of conflict management. Governments are not looking for ways to promote peace as much as they plan what their responses will be if and inevitably when conflict breaks out. Media attention is much more heavily focused on wars rather that movements toward peace and this Hertz believes is a big part of the problem. The article portrays conflict in the world as something that is unavoidable and has been constant in the world throughout history.
While there is still conflict in the many corners of the world, I believe that it has gone on a downward trend. There has not been a major conflict between two of the world powers since the last world war and the introduction of nuclear weapons has significantly stabilized world politics. No nuclear country wants war with another nuclear country. While conflicts involving third world countries still continue to happen all over the globe as these countries keep advancing and modernizing less and less of these conflicts will exist. With consolidated states there may never be a time when no conflicts exist, the trend has been toward fewer and smaller scale conflicts throughout the world.
You should put a link to your article in the post...
ReplyDeleteDoes a movement away from interstate conflict and large scale warfare signal a more globalized world or that we have learned how to live within the fractured world of sovereign states.
There has been an overall decrease in the wars in the world since WII. I think part of this is do to a globalized world and the growing of shared interests and problems. It doesn't make sense for countries in the EU to fight against one and other. You bring up an interesting point with nuclear weapons. Theories like MAD, second strike capability, etc, offer an incentive not to go to war with a nuclear nation. Since you credit nuclear weapons to stabilizing world politics, do you think that nuclear proliferation is a good thing?
ReplyDeleteThough it is true what you said about two nuclear power nations not directly waging war on each other I do believe that some nuclear power nations take opposite sides of each other in various developing nations conflicts/ smaller nations. Following that would you agree that these smaller nations and their conflicts have become almost like puppets to some of the larger nuclear power nations?
ReplyDeleteMuch like Julie, I do agree the trend towards large-scale conflict has decreased over time, yet the smaller conflicts tend to gain strong coverage due to the media. From what you are saying in the second paragraph modernization of technology and increased globalization is the major cause of a decrease in conflict. What would you characterize the recent conflicts related to ISIS? They are certainly gaining a lot of media attention but are even becoming more of a large-scale conflict as well.
ReplyDeleteI would actually argue that, though "great power" wars have certainly decreased in the last century, conflicts have actually increased and are continuing to increase. In the past four or five years alone, there have been wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine/Russia, etc. and with the rise of extremism, states can now use extremist groups to do their dirty work for them. The prime example of this would be Iran who uses proxy groups to conduct attacks throughout much of the Middle East. I do not think that nuclear weapons stabilizes international conflict because states with nuclear weapons will flaunt their power over non-nuclear states, forcing them to pursue nuclear weapons as well. In the end, it's only a matter of time before nuclear weapons end up in the hands of someone willing to use them to get their way, causing all out nuclear war. I would like to echo Valerie's question and ask if you consider proxy wars a threat to the interstate system and if powerful countries will continue to become more powerful at the expense of lesser nations?
ReplyDelete