Zilam
28-08-2007, 21:35
I am in a Political Science course that focuses solely around peacekeeping and conflict management. Today we discussed a few articles, one about international terrorism, another about arms build up and conflict, and Huntington's article on the clash of civilization. Well, after reading the last one , I came with up a proposal and want to run by all of you arm chair intellects. ;)
Basically, we see how through out the last thousand years the evolution of conflict has gone from small to large. It began with conflicts that pitted prince versus prince, then evolved to nation state versus nation. In the first half of the twentieth century it evolved into alliance versus alliance. When the cold war came around, conflict grew into Capitalism vs Communism. Since the fall of communism, the nature of conflict seems to focus less on political and economic ideas, but more on the differences in civilization, culture and religion. Huntington calls it the clash of civilization. We see the rhetoric all the time of the West vs Islamic Fundamentalism, or the West vs the East. Its still the same old us versus them, but on a much larger scale, and involving ideologies that are less likely to be compromised. For instance, one can call themselves an Irish-American, and that is a compromise. However, you cannot call yourself a Catholic Muslim, because those two labels are either/or. Either you are a Catholic, or you are a Muslim. Because we have resorted to such labels, the situation has become, in case of a possible conflict, either you completely destroy them to preserve us, OR as I'll argue for, you have a need for a much stronger and unified world government. They are essentially two roads to the same place, which is ultimately peace for ourselves.
The first thought process, however, is very flawed. The thinking behind that idea is that if we want peace, we must destroy those that oppose us. The problem with this is that there is always some sort of opposition. A party cannot completely destroy opposing ideas, unless it wants to completely wipe out all of mankind, which then takes away from the goal of said party, which is peace for themselves. So option one, as a viable solution to peace is off limits.
Option 2 on the other hand is a bit more practical. It requires nations to seek peace through a strengthened international power. This power would be much more capable of handling any conflict, than the UN is currently able to do. This international organization would allow for different member states to go about in their own beliefs and such, but it would prohibit them from having militaries, and weapons. Instead, the international government would be the sole source of military intervention in case of intra-state conflict. This super world power would unite people in peace, instead of allowing the "us vs them" ideology go on.
We can almost be certain there is a clash of civilizations coming in the near future. China is seeking closer ties to the Islamic world and third world countries. The west is coming closer together than ever before. The lines are being drawn right now. The conflict will be a clash of cultures, one the world has never witnessed before. There is no way to keep an "us vs them" mind set, and try to compromise things. As I have said, the sides are uncompromisable. However, if we create a stronger international body, we can avoid outright war. The only way we can create this body is by dropping the 'us vs them' thoughts, and instead see them as us, and have them see us as them. We might have different ideas, and beliefs, but there is one thing we all have in common. We want peace for ourselves. Now, if we go the extra mile and make peace not only for us, but for everyone, there will be no fear of terrorism, or arms races, or even nuclear war.
Basically, we see how through out the last thousand years the evolution of conflict has gone from small to large. It began with conflicts that pitted prince versus prince, then evolved to nation state versus nation. In the first half of the twentieth century it evolved into alliance versus alliance. When the cold war came around, conflict grew into Capitalism vs Communism. Since the fall of communism, the nature of conflict seems to focus less on political and economic ideas, but more on the differences in civilization, culture and religion. Huntington calls it the clash of civilization. We see the rhetoric all the time of the West vs Islamic Fundamentalism, or the West vs the East. Its still the same old us versus them, but on a much larger scale, and involving ideologies that are less likely to be compromised. For instance, one can call themselves an Irish-American, and that is a compromise. However, you cannot call yourself a Catholic Muslim, because those two labels are either/or. Either you are a Catholic, or you are a Muslim. Because we have resorted to such labels, the situation has become, in case of a possible conflict, either you completely destroy them to preserve us, OR as I'll argue for, you have a need for a much stronger and unified world government. They are essentially two roads to the same place, which is ultimately peace for ourselves.
The first thought process, however, is very flawed. The thinking behind that idea is that if we want peace, we must destroy those that oppose us. The problem with this is that there is always some sort of opposition. A party cannot completely destroy opposing ideas, unless it wants to completely wipe out all of mankind, which then takes away from the goal of said party, which is peace for themselves. So option one, as a viable solution to peace is off limits.
Option 2 on the other hand is a bit more practical. It requires nations to seek peace through a strengthened international power. This power would be much more capable of handling any conflict, than the UN is currently able to do. This international organization would allow for different member states to go about in their own beliefs and such, but it would prohibit them from having militaries, and weapons. Instead, the international government would be the sole source of military intervention in case of intra-state conflict. This super world power would unite people in peace, instead of allowing the "us vs them" ideology go on.
We can almost be certain there is a clash of civilizations coming in the near future. China is seeking closer ties to the Islamic world and third world countries. The west is coming closer together than ever before. The lines are being drawn right now. The conflict will be a clash of cultures, one the world has never witnessed before. There is no way to keep an "us vs them" mind set, and try to compromise things. As I have said, the sides are uncompromisable. However, if we create a stronger international body, we can avoid outright war. The only way we can create this body is by dropping the 'us vs them' thoughts, and instead see them as us, and have them see us as them. We might have different ideas, and beliefs, but there is one thing we all have in common. We want peace for ourselves. Now, if we go the extra mile and make peace not only for us, but for everyone, there will be no fear of terrorism, or arms races, or even nuclear war.