Klare Thirty Years War Michael

Klare

Thirty Years War

Michael assesses the current situation of the world as far as energy consumption is concerned. His submission reveals the likelihood of a bloodshed resulting from the thirty years war. The world witnessed such kind of bloodshed between 1618 and 1648 though the one yet to happen is less severe but inevitable. It will be a global contest of succeed or perish pitting major forms of energy, companies that supply them and countries that depend so much on them. The biggest question today however is a concern among stakeholders in the industry about the world's major energy supply during the second half of the 21st century. He attests to the Treaty an assumption by historians that the Treaty of Westphanalia (1948) crystallizes the modern international system. Michael however reiterates the occurrence of a bloodshed though not as much as that of 1600s. Over the years and even before 1618, the world persistently experienced two fundamental challenges namely oil scarcity and global climatic change.

On the contrary, the new thirty years will see the once dominant companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron face stiff competition from new companies that eventually contribute to shifting away from petroleum. This trend has massive economic consequences on such companies and the industry at large. The Thirty Years' War will also be an important turning point as Treaty of Westphanalia is likely to uphold the foundations of a new system by organizing itself to meet the energy needs of the world. The thirty years contrary to the universal perception of 1600s will put the world to a far different place characterized by hotter, stormier, and with less land. Giant nuclear reactors as well as coal-fired plants are less likely to thrive in the end with exception of China.

Journal #2 Question 10

Machiavelli Niccole is one of the rare writers in the history of America. It has become a household name among families in the United States together with its territories. From the text reading or film, I would agree with Machiavelli that America should be parsimonious rather than generous. Machiavelli believes that American Prince should conserve and conceivably regenerate an existing state rather than putting a lot of effort to find a new one. Respect of the Rule of Law has been one of the key pillars to significant achievements the country has made for several decades. The United States should be more prudent and economical about spending rather than extending too much kindness to other countries around the world. Machiavelli appreciates the fundamental steps America has made in strengthening its institutions and democracy in the past few centuries. The country is facing stiff competition from other powerful economies of the world mainly in Europe and Asia.

China has emerged as the strongest contender with intent to topple U.S. As super power. Like America, China has accomplished substantial economic growth and development, which puts it in a better position to compete against in terms of economic, political, and social dominance in the global arena. Several countries across the world fear and love America in equal measure. Competitors and countries that regard themselves as rebels of U.S. foreign policy have the tendency to fear America and its people. While the competitors are fearful of the next technological or economic step of America toward gaining mileage over them, rebel countries and groups are skeptical about how they deal with U.S. For fear of an attack. This is evident in those countries that host terrorist groups around the world. I agree with his analysis of leadership with regard to America's foreign policy towards Iran because it is detailed, informative, and convincing.

Journal #3 Question 8

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, have dire consequences on America's domestic politics and world affairs. The expected outcomes are almost a fantasy. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to reflect on what the acts of violence reveal about the U.S. theories about global politics. Robert Keohane evaluates the various assumptions and analytical models Americans have used to comprehend the acts of violence or even theories about world politics including efforts to respond to them. His deliberate attempt to substitute the term terrorism with 'informal violence' does hold considering that he has strong beliefs as well as reservations about U.S. understanding of acts of violence or their perception as far as world politics is concerned. Besides, Keohane defined terrorism as the globalization of informal violence with America falling victims of such violence in September 11, 2001. Despite the raging debate about correlation between terrorism and Keohane's assumptions, majority of Americans find the assertions acceptable and satisfactory.

The violence is pitting a terrorist group and the country that the terrorists consider as an impediment to growth and expansion of their empire. In his view, "the globalization of informal violence" ought to be a perfect substitute for terrorism as the latter has negative connotations. The negative connotation is very difficult to define in a more consistent and analytical way that would command general acceptance. Despite the United Nations passing resolutions on the ideal way to deal with terrorism, it still lacks the capacity to furnish a universally accepted definition of the term. Every country around the world is against terrorism and would be quick to define the violent acts of its enemies. Critics argue that many organizations and countries have always put in place adequate safety measures on how to deal with enemies. However, they refuse to acknowledge the reality that some of them are breeding grounds for terrorist groups. Hence, countries have deliberately politicized the term terrorism to the extent that it loses meaning if used as an analytical term.

Journal #4 Question 4

The evolution process of imperialism from capitalism comprises different stages and is critical to all capitalist countries around the world. According to Lenin in his detailed study of Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), the analysis provides explanation to various happenings in the world in the 21st century. He saw capitalism gradually grow into higher stages. Economic analysis of the transition from free competition to monopolistic practices in the market is vital to understanding capitalism and its eventual evolution to imperialism. Precisely, Lenin asserts that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. In essence, monopolistic trends usually characterize a market that has attained imperial state. In his article, Lenin attests to the realism that Marx and Angels' prediction that imperialism would eventually become the dominant economic practice in the U.S. has happened.

Lenin maintains that growth and concentration of monopolistic trusts and cartels shows the considerable step that capitalism has accomplished in graduating to imperialism system. He went further to provide a 5-point definition of imperialism. He believes that concentration of production as well as capitals have created monopolies that play critical role as far as economic life of the population is concerned. Apart from America and other countries perceived to be propagating imperialism, organizations such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization, Third World-debt, and the World Bank have monopolistic tendencies in their leadership style. Imperialism gained usage in the 1890s (England) as a more advanced term for the older term empire. In his book, Imperialism: A Study, an English socio-reformist Atkinson Hobson, gives a comprehensive critique by describing the principal economic as well as political features of imperialism. Lenin saw the need to conduct a more comprehensible and systematic analysis of the nature of the imperialist stage of capitalism following the outbreak of World War I (August 1914).

Journal #5, Question 5

Tickner is concerned about the growing trend in which the feminist perspective on international relations has persistently remained outside the mainstream of traditional approaches to International Relations theory. Apparently, world leaders have always sidelined women while making critical decisions that affect both genders. One of the factors that have contributed to the political dilemma of feminist groups is women's reluctance to engage in competitive politics with men. The men have continued to enjoy unlimited rights to making crucial decisions about issue affecting different states or the country at large, as they are both appointees and holders of elective positions. The apparent underrepresentation of women in positions of leadership explains why feminist perspective on international relations has always remained outside the mainstream of the traditional approaches to the theory on International relations.

Crucial decisions that international organizations and world leaders largely represent are the views and wishes of men, not women. According to Tickner, men hold key positions of leadership, which makes them an influential lot at the national and international front. A typical UN meeting will justify such claims as the number of men would probably double the women in such meetings if any. However, the decisions or resolutions of such meetings would collectively affect lives of humanity irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, social class, or religion. This trend has remained one of the greatest challenges to feminist perspective as far as international relation is concerned. The feminist analysis of global terrorism would portray the act as men's agenda and those in positions of leadership with consequences largely affecting women and children. On the contrary, a realist would look at global terrorism as an international disaster that affects everyone irrespective of cultural background, gender, race or even religion.

Journal #6, Question 6

Fukuyama contends in "The West Has Won" that radical Islam does not constitute a serious alternative to Western liberal democracy. Do you agree or disagree?

Fukuyama shows his contentment with the approach that that depicts the West to have won and that radical Islam does not constitute a serious alternative to the Western liberal democracy. The group of suicide bombers targeting United States is tiny compared to the total number of people opposed to U.S. policies on international relations and fight against terrorist groups. Thus, the extensive hatred, disquiet and dislike seemingly represent something much deeper than mere opposition to U.S. policies that governs its association with other countries around the world. Fukuyama believes that one of the fundamental causes of the hatred could be ignorance about the quality of life in the West and opposition of U.S. policies by Americans themselves.

Instead of psychologizing the Muslim world, it would be prudent to determine whether the radical Islam constitutes a reasonable option to liberal democracy of the west. Apparently, the radical Islam has no virtual appeal in the modern world besides those who are Islamic so to speak. In the world of Muslims, political Islam has turned out to be much more appealing in the abstract than in reality. Most young Iranians hold to the dream of living in a more liberal society after the end of 23 years of rule by fundamentalist clerics. The Afghans have almost similar opinion after experiencing the brutal and inhumane rule of Taliban. Thus, I do agree with Fukuyama'a assertion since the liberal-democratic west will continue to dominate world politics.

Journal #7, Question 9

What are some of your thoughts and observations on the Weinberg / Ryan documentary? How does it support, or undermine, the tenets of human nature or cognitive theory?