Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
The Three Biggest Challenges Facing the International Community & How They Affect International Relations
In my opinion, the three biggest challenges facing the international community are:
These challenges have assumed crucial importance in recent times and have significantly affected international relations. If the international community fails to tackle these issues satisfactorily over the next few decades, they may become uncontrollable with overwhelming consequences for the whole world. This essay looks briefly at these three issues in turn and explains how they affect the current and future international relations.
Economic and social inequality has assumed grotesque proportions in recent times and the indications are that it is on the rise. For example, the richest 1% in the world (50 million people) have income equivalent to the poorest 57% (2.6 billion people) and four fifths of the world's population live below what countries in North America and Europe consider the poverty line. The rising trend of income inequality is reflected in the fact that "the share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income now stands at a miserable 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960." ("Inequality" -- World Revolution.org)
According to a senior World Bank Economist, Branko Milanovic, who carried out a wide-ranging study on global inequality in 2002, such huge levels of inequality breeds great resentment among the poor and "ultimately, the rich may have to live in gated communities while the poor roam the world outside those few enclaves." (Quoted by Elliot and Denny) What is more, the problem of inequality is by no means confined to income inequality alone and gets reflected in a number of other social indicators as well. Infant mortality figures show that the number of children who die at the time of childbirth is twenty times higher in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia than in the rich industrial countries; in most poor countries, only half of the children of secondary school age are enrolled in schools, which compares with 100% for the developed countries. Another important area -- that of "Internet access" shows similar disparity with 163 Internet host sites per 1000 people in the United States, compared to only 0.31 Internet host sites in Africa. (World Bank and UNDP figures quoted in "World Inequality")
Surprisingly many people, especially in the developed world, are unconcerned about such high (and growing) levels of inequality and tend to believe that poor people deserve their lowly status due to their "laziness," "low IQs" or lack of ability. For selfish reasons alone, the rich ought to be more concerned (if not positively alarmed) at the growing inequality because people in the developing countries are acutely of the opulent lifestyle of the rich and it creates resentment among them. It also creates a desire among the poor in the third world to migrate to countries of affluence and when barriers are created to stop such immigration, more resentment is created.
If we explore the reasons behind the increasing inequality between the rich and the poor countries we shall find the unequal rules of globalization to be a major cause. For example, while information and capital is allowed to move freely between countries in a globalized world, movement of labor (immigration) is restricted. Free trade rules implemented by organizations such as WTO force the developing countries to open up their markets to imports but the rich countries continue to subsidize their agricultural sector, which keeps the prices of primary commodities depressed. Such continuing inequality is clearly unsustainable and is likely to create a situation in which the developed and the developing countries would take increasingly antagonistic positions creating perpetual global tensions and instability.
The devastating terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 has brought the issue of terrorism to the center stage of international politics and exposed the vulnerability of soft civilian targets to a small but determined group of terrorists. The immediate reaction of the U.S. administration was to change its foreign policy previously based on containment and deterrence to one that favors pre-emptive strikes, unilateralism, and an active promotion of U.S.-style democracy. The resultant invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S., however, have not ended or even lessened terrorism; global terrorism, in fact, threatens to escalate.
If we examine the history and causes of terrorism, we would find that it has always been "a weapon of the weak against the strong" and it is often the result of real or perceived grievances rising out of political oppression, cultural domination, economic exploitation or religious persecution. Most of the terrorist attacks in recent times, including the 911 attacks, were carried out by Islamic terrorist groups. They are driven by a deep sense of frustration and anger at the United States in particular for its consistent support for Israel; its tacit approval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians; and the cultural domination of the Americans in a globalized world that threatens to undermine the deeply conservative Islamic cultural values. (Marjorie 25-26)
Subsequent U.S. military action against Afghanistan and Iraq and its threatening noises against Iran and Syria (all Islamic countries
) have further reinforced the impression among Muslims that the United States' "War on Terror" is exclusively targeted towards Islamic countries. This has created great unease among Muslims around the world and provides the Islamic terrorists with huge potential support.
To my mind, therefore, the international community in general and the U.S. In particular are losing the War on Terrorism. In order to tackle the problem of Islamic terrorism more effectively, the U.S., as the sole super-power in the world has to take a more even-handed approach when tackling international disputes such as the Palestinian problem. It must support and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice instead of undermining them. Most of all, it must dispel the impression that its "War on Terror" is not directed exclusively against the Islamic and take concrete steps to ensure the closing of the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. Only then would the sense of injustice and outrage which breeds terrorism begin to dissipate.
Nuclear proliferation is another issue that threatens to spin out of control of the international community and become a potential nightmare for the world.
Thirty-five years after the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into effect, it is considered outdated and irrelevant because the nuclear arms race seems unstoppable and nuclear terrorism has become an increasing possibility. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, while inaugurating the 5-yearly UN Conference to review the treaty has said, "The plain fact is that the regime has not kept pace with the march of technology and globalization, and developments of many kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress." ("No Nukes Treaty-Out of Date")
In recent times the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has faced direct setbacks such as the pursuit of nuclear weapons programs by several "rogue" states, the evidence about international nuclear smuggling rings and the threat of global terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass destruction. As if this was not enough, North Korea kicked out inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from their country in December 2002; withdrew from the NPT the following month and later claimed to have made atom bombs.
The underlying problem that plagues nuclear non-proliferation, however, is the hypocrisy of the major nuclear power -- the U.S. itself. In 1970, when the treaty was first signed, potential nuclear powers agreed not to seek atomic weapons in exchange for a commitment from the five original nuclear states -- China, France, Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union -- to eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. This has not prevented the Bush…[continue]
"Today's International Relations And World Politics" (2005, May 03) Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/today-international-relations-and-world-66573
"Today's International Relations And World Politics" 03 May 2005. Web.22 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/today-international-relations-and-world-66573>
"Today's International Relations And World Politics", 03 May 2005, Accessed.22 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/today-international-relations-and-world-66573
Rationalist Theories of International Relations Despite the name, rationalist theories of international relations are anything but, limited as they are by both an almost childlike understanding of human behavior and a catastrophic lack of imagination. Rationalist theories of international relations, like the Objectivism which developed in the same post-World War II period, rely on a number of assumptions which have since been shown to be empirically false. Rationalism assumes that the
95-133. In this selection, Chong examines the foreign policy used by Singapore during the 1990s to establish its credentials as a full participant in the international conversation. I will use the examples explored in this article to support the thesis that soft power is a realistic and viable choice of policy. Fukuyama, Francis, "The End of History?" National Interest 16 Summer 1989, pp. 3-18. Fukuyama's assertion that the fall of the Soviet
He feels that he last perspective explicitly adopts values that focus on justice and human dignity and strives to shape an emerging order of non-territorial central guidance to serve values associated with humanity as a whole, rather than promote the particular interests of favored religious, ethnic or geographic segments. Faulk's views of these perspectives are very straightforward and to the point. I think that the last perspective of a global
To Walsh, the need for international politics remains. Interdependence, he argues, will never be complete. States desire to retain control over key resources that could be denied them in times of war or crisis. There is a certain level of mistrust between states, and that fuels the need for international politics despite increasing interdependence. Moreover, interdependence also fuels more opportunities before war, because it creates more situations for offense or resentment,
International Relations Studies and research programs from inter-disciplinarity of sociology have proved that the society is essential to be protected. Social, political, economic and cultural aspects are evidently vital in promoting development and the improvement of life style, which eventually accounts for societal development. From previous projects, the society is a depiction of human life illuminating facets of social life to coax the modern world systems. Various theories have summed up
D., p.3). The author holds the position that no one tradition is best-suited in maximizing and advancing Australia's national interests in the international platform not just because all three traditions have their innate strengths but more so because these very same traditions have their innate weaknesses which make us believe that following only one line of foreign policy tradition is all but worry-free. The Evatt tradition has a widely-known pitfall. It is
As stated clearly in the book, But in today's world, a nation's form of government, not its 'civilization' or its geographic location, maybe the best predictor of its geopolitical alignment." For instance, China and Japan both have shared Asian culture, but at the same time one is a democratic country while the other one follows an autocracy. Thus, Japan will have more in general with another democracy, even though it is