The Cold War is one of the major historical events that affected global unity and peace. It was a time when superpowers had conflicting interests that led to severe destruction in the affiliate nations and States. The war between the United States and the Soviet Union is marked in history, as the two super powers which did not fight instead their conflicts caused other nations to suffer. Consequently, the results of the Cold War are still evident until today. However, it can be said that the Cold War has not ended (Russett, 1995).
Recent events of mass destruction have been the center of all news. Many nations across the globe are continually losing their citizens due to the repeated bombing and terrorist attacks. Terrorism has thus become a source of fear and a sign of future destruction across borders. It is sad to realize that terrorism destroyed allies of various superpower nations. The fight due to conflicting interests is gradually getting extended to other weaker States as terrorists pave way to have their wishes fulfilled.
While the effect of war lies on the both powerful nations, a worsening effect is upon other nation that closely relate to these affiliate nations. Terrorists today are armed with various weapons of mass destruction as they were in the times of the Cold War. Terrorist’s plans as compared to the Cold War are targeting the United States allies. Conversely, the United States is targeting the Middle East countries. While the future of this war is unpredictable like the Cold War, it is possible that they will continue until the interests of the conflicting parties are met.
Resolving conflict rationally and effectively calls the participation of two parties. It requires both parties to agree on the same course in order to overcome the ties that lead to negative influence. Conflict resolving schemes have been used from the old days to bring peace in various situations, for instance, ending World Wars. Both violent and non-violent approaches have played a substantial role in reducing conflicts. However, while the violent approach is the most common approach it has disastrous consequences.
There are various instances where non-violent approaches have been used to solve conflicts especially in resolving different matters that have risen as a result of conflict of interest. Nonetheless, there are conditions that favor non-violent means of resolving conflicts. These include:
i) There has to be an atmosphere that can boost dialogue. Often there have been cases where international leaders gather to discuss the way forward to ending conflicts between countries. Such gatherings are a core foundation of establishing non-violent reforms for resolving conflicts. During these meetings people can arise with reliable strategies that can improve relations across borders. In addition, such meetings contribute significantly in enhancing social, economic, and political growth.
ii) Social networks encourage communication between different people, groups, and nationalities. These groupings may or may not have common interest. However, these groups reassure connections that lead to significant benefits. In this context, the advantages that arise from such social groupings play a critical role in bonding different parties to one interest. Hence, it is a means that can be used to resolve conflicts.
Conditions that can fail non-violent approaches to resolve conflict include:
i) The lack of unity in a given region. This is a simple aspect but can contribute remarkably in enhancing peace or developing war. It is a part that affects the thought of individuals. People that have varying interests are likely to conflict in one way or another. It is imperative to ensure that conflicting people stay in unison as they resolve their disparities.
ii) Violence has been known to have a fast solution to end the conflicts. Hence, people with such thought may contribute in derailing non-violent efforts to resolve conflicts. However, selfish interests can be a leading cause in this capacity.
Political Cultural and Decision Making Processes
Bruce Russett (1995) illustrates that democracies do not engage in war under any conflicting circumstance. In his discussion Russett highlights that democracies believe in possibility to come to a common agreement over any conflicting matter. Such people or leaders gather in one accord to seek for non-violent means of disputing any challenges ahead of them.
Russets points out that those democracies do not engage in violent conflicts because they have “other means” of solving conflicting matters. In this context, democracies have very few enemies. The reason behind this is that they often find solutions by non-violent means that allow to device other ways of developing instead of destroying each other. Universal democracies thus form the basis of international peace missions and improve reconciliations, which lower chances of political and domestic wars.
Realists believe that war is “inevitable”. According to realists, war cannot be escaped at all. It is the key to developing social life. This means that war makes a way for people to move to the next stage of development.
According to realists, war comes because of human nature. In this context, democracy is only a virtue that can be cultivated. However, it may not be a solution to war. This is mainly because it is in the nature of man to engage in war as a means to enhance development. Therefore, the thought by realists would not fully support democracy. However, democracy is also a possibility as people have different perspectives of war and resolving conflicts.
National interests refer to aspects that are put forward to establish the welfare of the people of the United States. It is include strategies that contribute to protect the security of United States.
i) To prevent threats of nuclear attacks to the United States. The United States have been a target of nuclear war by other superpower nations. Leaders in the past have considered all efforts to ensure that they eliminate all chances that can lead to such a war. As a result, peace talks have emerged to ensure that the United States is not a target of nuclear attacks.
ii) It is the interest of the United States to ensure the survival of all U.S. allies. In order to do this, the United States should develop a stable and lasting relationship with its allies for the benefit of both parties.
iii) The United States have a major interest in minimizing a chance of other major superpowers in engaging in conflict with them.
iv) The United States prioritized its efforts in development of stability and viability of major systems. These systems are paramount in developing the world economy and social status, for instance, financial markets, trade, supply for energy, and environment.
v) The United States stand for building relationships with other affiliate nations. This is mainly for the purposes of maintaining its own interests while coming up with strategies that could assist in relating with its adversaries. (Allison & Blackwill, 2000).
De Soto begins by pointing out on the various potentials that the poor people have which they can contribute in developing a stable and reliable economic status. In the documentary, poor people have a high chance of changing their own destiny. They are imperfect due to the limited resources that care around them. De Soto illustrates that the government has a key role to play in enhancing the participation of these people in growing the economy. Moreover, liberalism is a concept that is well demonstrated in this documentary (Myers, 2011).
People can have full ownership of business and run their own economic markets through liberalism. For instance, the poor people have a remarkable problem when it comes to business ownership. Today only a few countable people are benefiting from the major incomes in the country, yet the majority of the people are languishing in poverty. Through liberalism, the majority can then rise up to create their own rules and systems that can benefit them and improve their living standards (Myers, 2011).
The ideea of developing a stable economic standard is a result of capitalism. Capitalism can give an open opportunity to any person to establish his or her ambition in a special manner. This concept agrees with liberalism. Contrary to capitalism, the documentary highlights that communism has taken the best that the people could offer. As a result, the poor people have limited options. These people cannot move from their disheartening circumstances despite their urge to improve because of the selfish interests of the minority.
Class System Theory
Power is one of the main themes that are well-illustrated in the Klare film. The film describes the tag of war between major superpowers exhibits that has the capability to rule over the other. According to the theory, an individual’s position in a given set up is characterized by his or her role in that setting. In this case, the film features a conflict of interest between the American President and Sadam Hussein. Hence, the conflict continues until Americans are given authority to send armies to the Arab country.
Self-centeredness and greed: the tag of war between the Arab ruler and America shows how some individuals can focus on their own interests that majority opposed. In the film, it is evident that the Americans are only interested in getting their profits from the oil fields in the Arab countries. The value and lives of the people are not important. Also, they deploy military that play a leading role in silencing the Arab people including their leaders. It has become clear that the fight between the Americans and the Arabs is principally based on the American interest to guard the oil reserves in the Arabs countries.
Other theorists have given a positive response to the Klare film critique. Most theorists would understand the position of America in this fight. The main reason which describe America’s actions is that they can manipulate other countries anyhow in order to obtain their interest. Hence, theorists have continued to highlight the self-attitude highlighted in the Klare film (Morris & Young, 2008).