¶ … history of events in the twentieth century, one might surmise that the twenty-first may not be all that different. Why? Because human nature and the pursuit of self-interest has not changed from one century to the next. To explain what drives international relations, Joshua Goldstein provides a brief history of the world, in addition to information about the geographical features and the consequences of different nation's economies. (Goldstein, 2003) The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by relative peace in the world. The Franco-Prussian wars were at least three decades into the past. Nobody would envision that the worst horrors of a global scale wars were in the near future. In as much as Goldstein avers that the First World War was wholly unnecessary and it was, at least in its inception, a macho exercise (p. 37), one can believe that war is part of human nature.
After the two World Wars, one might assume that a state of peace might have existed engineered by those that did not want to ever revisit war. Even smaller skirmishes could be avoided since a lot of nations also became independent at the same time from their colonialist rulers. But towards the middle of the twentieth century, the seeds of the cold war that would last more than 40 years began to be sowed. Fascism and Nazism gave way to Communism. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were about one form of governmental system asserting ascendancy over the other. Goldstein illustrates how for the sake of expansion, the United States and the Soviet Union tried to expand their influences into nations all over the globe all the whole knowing that they might be supporting rogue rulers and despots.
The above two paragraphs help to illustrate human nature. Wars will be fought on different scales in different parts of the World. It comes from an innate sense in humans of trying to protect themselves from someone that might be different from them. In the United States, the specter of racism is always present in society. Mostly dormant, racism does occasionally rear its ugly head. The conflicts of Rwanda among the Hutus and Tutsi's show that even in cases of racial uniformity, people have no qualms about massacring millions of people. Currently, the religion of Islam has come under a lot of fire because of the misdeeds of some of its proponents and believers. But even among the Muslims, the Sunnis and Shiites have always been at war. Opinion mongers have hailed Christianity as the beacon of Peace. Several centuries ago, during the Golden Age of Islam, the Christian crusaders were considered savage marauders and the Muslims had the moral upper hand. In India, once in a while, Hindu-Muslim riots erupt in certain sections of the country.
The events of Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants indicate that even among Christianity, people (in modern times) will not hesitate to hurt.
The above illustrations were necessary to establish a pattern of human behavior. This behavior should be one of the most considered determinants in charting the future of the world in the twenty first century. The recent events of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, following the events of September 11, 2001, indicate that pre-emption might be the best strategy to stave of major conflicts. This pre-emption would be achieved by increasing the military strength of a nation. Though one would assume that this would not be wise, it is this recourse that has helped stave of the Cold War turning into World War Three. Constant vigilance is also necessary from every country that wants to remain safe from attacks of terrorism.
The twenty first century will see wars. At the present time, the struggle is for the minds and hearts for the Muslim World. If it is to regain its former glory, democracy has to be brought into the Muslims world. Consider the case for statehood for Palestine from Israel. While moral relativism can be argued ad nauseum, the nations that have this moral superiority, whether powerful or not, are ones that espouse democracy. Most of the people of Middle Eastern nations do not enjoy democracy. These citizens are either subjects of monarchies, or subject to the vagaries of tin-pot dictatorships, which, for all intents and purposes, could be considered monarchies. When the President of Syria died, his son who was being groomed for the position took his place. Without U.S. intervention, Saddam Hussein would have continued to win overwhelming majorities in farcical elections. Several years from now, there is no doubt...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now