Keeping Peace In The Future In my opinion there are two main ways of securing peace in the up coming decades. The first way is that of a realist approach and a liberal one. In the eyes of a realist, national security can one hand only be reached by a destructive capability and the ability to intimidate anyone that defies or threatens national security. On the other, the realist will however not intervene if conflicts do not measure up with national interest.
Either way, the realists believe this and this alone would maintain the peace for the future. The liberalists however believe that a more unified body with all peace-loving nations can be the best way of conflict management. They believe that any conflict in the world should be controlled before it can ever escalate in to a bigger one. To start of with the realists believe that a greater military body would create a balanced and therefor peaceful world. To achieve this the realists see possibilities of enlarging the power of NATO and other military, governmental organizations.
To create more members and enlarging the firepower would in realistic eyes decrease countries to enter conflict. The liberalists find this a very poor argument. They find that with a possible expansion of NATO and increasing power of the organization that the third-world countries can be left out. Liberalists tend to think more in the format of the United Nations. They think with the Expansion of the Security Council, that global peace can be maintained in a more unified, universal manner. Also they believe that the General Assembly could increase in power and take a more serious role in international disputes and conflict resolving.
The Essay on Culture And Conflict God Gilgamesh World
The culture of conflict is just as important as the conflict itself. The reasons for conflict and the inner agony of pride are all do to culture. The epic poem of Gilgamesh, and The Odyssey, the story of Genesis have many forms of many conflicts. Cultural conflicts have many different forms, but pride is usually at the root of all of them. The book of Gilgamesh has many conflicts, and battles. ...
By increasing this power it would call on a more responsible Secretary-General, and there as giving the United Nations as an inter-governmental body more strength, and possibly giving the world a better way of solutions. This in a realist approach is unacceptable. The unifying steps and the decreasing powers of states is not the solution for world peace. In fact they see this as a very big threat seeing that countries would be less cooperate. With this structure of the UN, it would also be much harder to strive for national interest. I believe in a combination of these two perspectives to be the key to global peace in the for coming decades and possibly centuries.
If the UN would increase power, it would be vital that the United Nations would therefor create a separate body, a more secure military body that not only can be used for peace-keeping missions, but for offensive, defensive, humanitarian and finally collective security methods.
