Yesterday was the ten year anniversary for the American led invasion of Afgahnistan, America has also led forces in to Iraq and with more help from Britain and France, Libya. Last week I wrote a post about how the army cuts might lead to an end to Britian feeling the need to stick to America like glue every time they pick the next place they want to attack. This week I want to look at the idea of world peace, can the United Nations fulfill its prime goal or is it just pure idealism?
The reason the Americans felt the need to send troops into to both Afgahnistan and Iraq was to combat global terrorism. I do not want to make light of the horrific acts of destruction terrorism has caused, thousands of lives have been taken as a result of extremist ideology. However, the way in which you deal with this threat is important. The 9/11 attacks were an act of crime but they were dealt with as an act of war, this was unnecessary and detrimental to the American cause. Then to continue fighting the axis of evil in Iraq was arguably the biggest mistake George Bush or Tony Blair made. It worked as a recruiting agent for Al Quida and doubled the time that Afgahnistan was going to need to become stable. Global Terrorism should not be the cause of war! It should be dealt with calmly and in a way that reflects what it is, mass murder not a declaration of war.
Wars between underdeveloped nations seem to be inevitable, small groups with racial tensions between one another are bound to cause conflict. They happen all over Africa and in pockets of Asia and South America. We can say as much as we like that they are wrong and unacceptable but they are part of development, when Britain was developing we were constantly at war with half of Europe. I believe these wars are avoidable, global development will help with the issue, it will take the natural cycle of international modernisation but also extra investment in infrastructure and education in LEDCs which will help to prevent the smaller wars from being necessary. This will not happen over night and may never be completely possible but I believe they can become more scarce.
What about China? China is soon to become the richest country on the planet, it already has the largest army. This is arguably the biggest threat to global peace at present. The 20th Century has been characterised by the war between liberal democracies, facistism and communism. World War Two destroyed facism but communism continued through the USSR and now in China. Although China has adopted a laissez faire approach to their economy, which is arguably not communist, they are now growing at a rate the world has never seen! If they decide to expand there is little the world could do to stop them that wouldn't plunge the world into nuclear war.
Is there anything we can do to stop this war? If the UN works as it should then this war can be avoided but it seems we may fall into another Cold War style conflict. It is hard to believe that a communist state (which is an international political thought) can live harmoniously with a capitalist world thats arch enemy is communism. The problem with the UN is that when the powers become the two leading powers in the world then there is very little they can do in terms of implementation. So are we bound for another nuclear arms race and possible threat of world destruction? We possibly are but China's communist party is loosing control, they are having to deal with artists like Ai Weiwei and with the increase in world communication and video technology it is becoming increasingly difficult to subjugate a nation with out the world finding out the truth. The open economic policy that made China so rich will inevitably lead to the destruction of the communist party. If China does not retract back into itself then the communists will fall and international peace will hopefully prevail.
just a question about world peace. The is evidence that money is the cause of all crime and poverty in the world. Would a resource based economy get rid of the problems that money cause and therefore make the probabilty of world peace much higher?
ReplyDeleteWell I think money definitely does drive crime as it is the basis of a consumerist society. However, I do not believe this would eliminate wars. If society continued to have the same characteristics as it does now, like the West's need for oil and sub-Saharan Africa having food shortages then war is still inevitable as these are reasons people enter conflicts at present. Countries don't go to war for money as they are in charge of printing it, but money has no worth if you have no resources. If the world developed a way to work as a collective and give each and every society the resources they needed to live comfortably, this would drive down the probability of war, to me, this world seems unlikely. There was a report out last week by a group of generals I think that asked the government to tackle climate change more fervently as they predict it would be the cause of war due to dwindling resources. Do you think world peace is possible?, because the more I think about it the more I feel its less and less likely, at least in the next fifty to a hundred years.
ReplyDeleteI feel that war and conflict are driven by necessity. As you rightly put, todays and tomorrows conflicts are and probably will be based around resources and who has access to them. However, a world which functions through suply and demand, not where the resources are and who controls them, is a world which wont incourage war on any grounds and isn't anything ideological or idealistic but quite logical and viable with todays tecnology.
ReplyDeleteAs for money not being the cause of war, money was invented as a representation of the worlds resources and i think we can both agree that resources are one of or even the main reason for war. Without money they would be no need for competition and therefore no reason for conflict. I agree that competition is good and needed for growth but a resource based economy would remove the link between that and conflict.
On a more emotional note, isn't world peace somthing this world should be moving towards rather than being resigned to war and conflict which cost people their lives and many, many others their livelihood.
I think a resource based economy would be great, if the whole world dropped the profit motive and consumerism and everyone worked in harmony, that is something to strive for. Personally, it seems too idealistic, it would mean full internationalism and the destruction of private ownership and that seems unlikely, at least in the near future. How would a resource based economy be implemented?
ReplyDeleteFor me it isn't a matter of changing from one workable system to another, but more of a transition from a system that is doomed to fail very very soon and one which would be sustainable indefinatly. The New Scientist paper has done analise of the worlds key resources and how long they are going to last in todays climate. Copper used in wires and plumbing will run out in 38 years, Antimony used in drugs will run out in 13 years, Nickel used in batteries will run out in 57 years, Tin in 17 years and Lead in 8. These will all run out within our life time. The change is a necessary need.
ReplyDeleteWe could set up nuclear power plants, wind turbines, reclycling plants and green cars to limit the comsumption rate but aslong as there is money and a system that remards selfishness no matter the concequences people will still abuse each other and the enviroment. I agree that those with the power and the money will block this needed changed but they are a tiny minority and the majority needs to push for this.
Have you seen the documentary Collapse, its all about running out of resources and creating a sustainable world. I think dealing with these major issues is key or we are destined for gloom. I think we both agree that a resource based economy that worked in harmony on an international level is a very credible idea. The question is how to get economic or political will and consensus especially with countries such as Israel and Palestine who barely have a workable relationship as it stands. If that does not come then this option seem unattainable.
ReplyDeletewell, if you agree that it would be workable and better then todays system, there is no reason that everybody could and should agree to this. I belive that this change is needed and im sure you would agree and so if it is needed then the places with disagreements and problems like Israel and Palestine would surely work towards it. I would like to think that people aren't so stupid to let problems get in the way of survival.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the problem, people are so indoctrinated into believing everything is fine that change may not happen until its too late. We know oil will eventually kill us but we still use it all the time, smokers know it is not good for them but that does not stop them. I really hope that the world will have an epiphany and listen to ideas such as this now and use them but I fear that the majority will not. The green movement, the peace movement, the environmentalists they all need to join up and hopefully create a force big enough to be noticed. But people are comfortable it will take a shock to convince people that something is so seriously wrong that we need such drastic change.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be is a very sad and unhappy truth about todays world. However, I belive that the majority of people feel that the world should be different but feel, like you do, that the majority of other people dont feel the same. This cycle needs to be broken otherwise nothing will ever get done and it will be to late.
ReplyDeleteYou see that is where we disagree, I think if enough people wanted it people would listen. I've seen many leaflets about reform and changing the financial system but at any demo that doesn't directly effect people right now you only get at best a few thousand.
ReplyDelete