International Conflicts - Case Study Example

International Conflicts Name Institution Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 International Conflicts 3 Introduction 3 View of International Conflicts 3 Assumption of conflict 5 Causes of conflicts 5 Assumptions of conflicts 6 Recommendation and Conclusion 8 International Conflicts Introduction A conflict is a disagreement upon which the parties involved identify a peril to their needs, welfare and concerns. International conflict is thus a platform of differences, antagonism or incongruity involving nations. It involves differences amongst firms, people and intergroup conflicts between states. On the other hand it may involve group conflict within a country in which one group is fighting dominance targeting increased social, political and economic supremacy. View of International Conflicts International conflict comes in two forms; private and public international conflicts. Consequently a private international conflict is conflicts which involves disputes between business enterprises or citizens who are from completely different countries. On the other hand public international conflicts is a conflict as a result of ethical conflicts which eventually spills across borders and societal movements whose objective is to change the existing condition. The world politics has now shown light into international conflicts which are prone in today’s world (Heinz-Jürgen Axt, 2006). An example of a private conflict is a case where there is a conflict between a computer firm in the US and a computer firm in China which supplies motherboards for the US firm. When the Chinese firm breaches its contract or conversely it will cause a private international conflict in that the parties involved are privately owned by individuals or group of people. Therefore the conflict will have to be handled by an international tribunal. In contrast public international conflict involves two states such the US and Iraq. The US tries to aid Iraq gain political stability and tranquility through its citizens living in peace and harmony. The US thus triggers a conflict in that it seeks to gain sovereignty. In this case apart from solving the country’s situation the US is doing it for its own benefit that is self gain emphasizes Ashton (2007). Religion is yet another cause of public international conflicts. For instance the Palestinian and Israel conflict is a kind of public international conflict. Maher (2002) blames religion for conflicts amongst the countries. In this case war is an extension of aggression, in a large scale involves more than two states. The participation of the military changes the phase of a conflict into a war. In a broad spectrum consequences of war are due to worsened conflicts in involved nations. Stoessinger (2004) depicts war as an ineffaceable part of human personality. He further asserts that the blame should be directed towards the heads of states who are engaged in the conflict. For instance in World War I, it is seen that statesmen and generals were the major causes of conflicts which eventually resulted to war. In this case conflict is seen as a kind of sickness which develops progressively to its severity; war. None wants ‘sicknesses’ however it is impossible to completely eradicate this from the society apart from reducing its severity. Conflicts are also caused by nations that want to test and demonstrate their hi-tech and martial development. War can also be regarded as a form of conflict but at a heightened scale, though it is characterized by brutal violence. The causes of war are diverse though it can be singled out that reasons for war and conflict is the potential to display defensive mechanism on ones moral beliefs and grab whatever it wants (Fernando & Imbush, 2011). There are therefore some states which use this for their own self gain, through sparking a conflict and the engagement impacting to war. For instance the US went into war with Iraq all because the former president thought that Iraq fully supported terrorism. In the eventual end its cause was tainted when the president kept US troops in Iraq all because he wanted to overthrow the countries current leadership that is Saddam Hussein. It was then speculated that the president kept the troops in Iraq for his own self gains in the oil mines within the country. Moreover, bringing the troops home would also mean that the states will leave its tail between its legs. Frequently there would be conflicts between nations which are impossible to manage or rather avert (Juliet, 2004). Assumption of conflict Humanity must not let war transform into war. This is because conflict could be easily solved and on the other hand very hard to reduce and control war. There are various theories which try to explain why humans usually engage in conflicts and eventually war. The assumptions are thus based on the nature of humans and individual leadership. The nature of mankind is based Sigmund Freud notion that is part of human nature is stemmed from the genetic programming and psychological makeup. Therefore violence and international conflict is as a result of bad human nature however, there is no proved solution towards eliminating that tendency in humans. The nature of humans is composed of an instinctive characteristic conflict nature. Nonetheless the general public plays a very negative role in expansion of this tendency. Aggression is an element of nearly everything, which makes it obligatory our reception and practice of conflict leading to violent behavior. Since it is hard to eliminate such habits which lead into conflict state leaders are to blame for all misfortunes as a result of wrong choices on international and domestic matters (John, 2004). Causes of conflicts Stoessinger (2004) suggest that a leaders’ perception concerning international conflicts is the relevant element which could either plunge the state into war or otherwise. The decision made by leaders to indulge into a conflict with the other party does not only involve the leaders. For a leader to start up a conflict with the other party there must be a provocative cause and an approval of an existence of breached contracts and support from political figures. However Fisher, (2000) suggests that most countries that are involved in both conflicts and eventually war are states that are characterized by poverty. Most impecunious nations are deficient of military and economic assets to engage into war as a result of conflicts that have arose. Conversely this is not the case asserts Ray, (2004). For instance during the World Wars most of the advanced nations were among the first parties to trigger the conflict between the nations and as result the wars. It is therefore completely absurd to think that impoverished countries are the ones which cause international or domestic conflicts. Assumptions of conflicts Government type determines the likelihood of a country or party to confront the other nation in a conflict. Therefore in a system exemplified by an anarchic system of leadership conflicts are geared towards everyone is non-existence. The type of the leadership is the determining factor in a conflict as differences in views amongst the leaders are the root causes of conflict. For instance the US which is a self-governing state is in a conflict with Iraq which has no stable government entities. The US declared war as an event of frequent conflict due to terrorism, though after the conflicts and war the nation’s military support still pitched camp to fortify its sovereignty within the foreign country. Most self dependent nations stooping into conflicts are a rare scenario. Another point of view of conflicts and war causes is attributed to the world wide level system. There are various theories which best illustrates global level system: long cycle theory and power transition theory. The long cycle theory postulates that the emergence and the collapse of immense parties, conflict sessions and peace. The assumption puts forward that the global system undergoes distinct and exclusive phases or spectrum of character. This is usually between a given gross periods of time of both appreciation and depreciation. A conflict usually tends the blot the eventual end and the commencement another phase (Ray, 2004). On the other hand power transition theory suggests that power discrepancies that are differentials in their martial potential, army size and defense spending enhances peace and harmony within the nation. However, critics argue that the balance of ones responsibility significantly enhances peace. There are varieties of countries that either promote peace or escalate conflicts. Such as during the world wars two minute nations started a conflict which later developed into a major conflict through involving other countries. Hence when Germany guaranteed to sustain Austria, in the end Russia intruded with the view that Germany was much stronger and Serbia was rather a small country. Terrorism may also be considered as a type of conflict and its final stage is war. Terrorism has been considered to cause more harm than good and has impacted into the death of merely blameless people. Terrorism is therefore is the slapdash and cowardice behavior by individuals or parties. It is in this way as a result of an individual or party greed for achieving its goals. The objective of terrorism is to try to change the government through forceful means or otherwise face severe consequences. Terrorism is characterized by the maiming innocent citizens. Terrorism is seen to have various phases (Ashton, 2007). This include: separatism, freedom fighter, redeemer, radicals, vigilante, and paramilitary among others. Modern terrorism is much different than the latter. The technology is advancing rapidly and in this way creation of more devastation. For example in November 21st 1974 IRA triggered some explosives in Birmingham killing almost 21 people. In another incidence in May 1970 school children were killed suspected Arabian terrorists. This is regard to the past and depicts only a small percentage of today’s terrorism. The nature of terrorism is extensive due to technological advancement. Therefore it is typically a massive killing which is seen by the artillery employed. The society today is now more vulnerable to networked criminals who promote international conflict. Technology is making it very easy to access, possess and production of this dangerous weaponry. The other thing which enhances terrorism is unprecedented state and worldwide interdependence on a platform of potential and resource allotment. In September 11 2009 was the most destructive attack stomached by the US in history, living thousands maimed. In search of the root causes of the attack was as result of opposition of a repressive administration. The US wanted to establish dominion activated the terrorists who vented their annoyance on the US. This was due to the passive support in regards to the Arabs. The Arabs assume that Americans are self centered and recent their foreign policies. Moreover religion and politics are closely related especially in the Arabian community. According to the Arabian traditions what they did is thought to be approved by god. Thus terrorism has to be eradicated because of the pain it causes (Ashton, 2007). Recommendation and Conclusion International conflicts have existed since time immemorial. There is need to find viable and long-lasting solutions to the sources and causes of conflicts. To combat this there is need to focus on tyranny and malevolence as a means to diminish them. Through the establishment of international conflict resolution and peace organizations the remedy of this would have been found. For instance the United Nations organization was structured to promote international security, law, economic progression and human rights issues. It is financed with an objective of overriding international conflicts and thereby stopping further atrocities. There is no probable calamitous incident potentially capable of eroding conflicts and war from the human race. During the world wars millions of people lost their lives and is depicted to be catastrophic (Tidd & Friedman, 2000). Conflicts are deemed to be more pronounced and promoted nowadays than the previous periods. Unfortunately the final phase of conflicts is more unreasonable and least end disagreements between nations, parties and individuals that are involved. Rigid principles should be developed to reduce the incidences of conflicts. Thus international bodies should play a divisive role in management of conflicts to promote harmony. Reference Ashton, C. et al. (2007, November 28). Catastrophic and Terrorism. Retrieved November 06, 2011, from Elements of National Policy : http://www.ksg.Harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm Fisher, R. (2000). Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict Resolution. International Peace and Conflict Resolution , 1-4. Heinz-Jürgen Axt, A. M. (23rd February 2006). Conflict – a literature review. International Conflicts , 2-15. John, S. (2004). Why Nations go to War. Boston and New York : Houghton Mifflin Company. Juliet, R. J. (Boston and New York). Global Politics. 2004: Houghton Mifflin Company. Peter Imbusch, M. M. (2011). Violence Research in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Literature Review. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, Vol 5, No 1 (2011) , Vol 5, No 1 . Tidd, R. A. (2000). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Personal Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress. The International Journal of Conflict Management 2000, Vol.11, , No.1, pp. 32-55. Read More