All papers are checked via
|← Governments of Great Britain and Canada||The Vietnam War →|
O'Hare & O'Hare (2010) pointed out that international peace or world peace refers to the superlative freedom, peace and happiness among people or countries. It is a global, non-violent idea through which countries voluntarily cooperate by virtue of system of governance, which alleviates warfare. Some researchers on peace have also defined international peace as the absence of terrorism and existence of peace between nations. However, the issue of world peace faces challenges that hinder its establishment. According to international organizations that promote peace, the basis of international peace ultimately hinges on realizing internal peace in various nations of the world (Hutchins, 2000). This is referred to as global civil peace that aims to avert organized violence. There are various forms of violence that have affected international peace; they include international war, civil war, communal violence, politics and terrorism, which is war against individuals but aimed at a state. (Hutchins, 2000). In relation to this, the paper assesses the chances of international peace and any aspect of the global system that pursues to establish a long-lasting peace in the entire world.
Chances of Long-Lasting International Peace
According to O'Hare & O'Hare (2010), the democratic peace theory tries to explain that there are chances for long-lasting international peace to be established. According to this theory, democracies do not fight each other. However, the effectiveness of democratic theory depends largely on how an individual, community or a nation defines democracy and war (Mayton, 2009). For example, some people and perhaps nations have used terms such as mutual democratic or inter-democracy nonviolence to refer to this theory. The proponents of this theory argued that democratic leaders should always respond to proponents of war by offering incentives that seek alternatives (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). Additionally, world leaders should depend on settling disputes by discussion, not by war. The adherents of this theory also affirm that democracies perceive non-democracies as threatening people, community or nation and they would prefer going to war with them over disputes that can be settled peacefully. The theory also claims that many democratic nations or communities seem to have stable economies, hence evade war as a way of avoiding economic disruptions (Hutchins, 2000). With many nations going democratic, there can be seen chances of having lasting international peace. With the entire world being democratic, no country or community will prefer violent means of settling disputes.
Mayton (2009) affirms that international peace is feasible, if nations around the globe unite to address economic crisis, terrorism, energy deficiency, war, nuclear weapon propagation and global warming. These issues are interrelated and affect almost all nations. The long-term importance of each nation to cooperate with others in solving these problems gives the possibility of international peace existence (Mayton, 2009). Individual countries should reinforce their relations and unify their policies in order to have a progress towards stability, wealth and peace for everyone. Exceptional chances of global cooperation exist to avert the decline in the world economy as revealed by grand efforts required to reform the world markets (Mayton, 2009). Additionally, involving all nations will substantially contribute to building trust and solidarity surpassing beyond the economic sphere.
Chances of world peace can exist if alternative, reliable sources of energy to Middle Eastern sources are found (Hutchins, 2000). An access to reliable energy sources to all nations is significant in economic stability and growth, which might result in world peace. Moreover, nations need to emphasize on finding a general ground with former antagonists such as China and Russia in revitalizing commitment to reduce nuclear weapons apart from working on economic and energy strategies. Nuclear weapons, that are commonly referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD), have generated a wave of war between America and Iraq in the past decade (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). This proved that the weapons are more detrimental to the global peace in that many nations supported America’s invasion of Iraq. Many proponents of the American invasion of Iraq viewed the invasion as a way of eradicating terrorism to pave the way for long-lasting global peace (Mayton, 2009). British cooperation with America in fighting against nuclear weapons shows an aspect of unity in eradicating terrorism to create international peace.
The world can have peace if nations will stop competing for supremacy and commence working towards what benefits all nations (Mayton, 2009). This will consequently benefit every individual as a whole. It is also necessary to note that a country performs best as it interferes with its own competitive capability for sole achievement, which can be reached collectively. Fundamentally, nations around the globe need to use other cooperative means to promote their interest instead of the military option. Some of the cooperative means include diplomatic negotiations, economic incentives, political solutions and inspired leadership, which can significantly result in change and stability required for international peace (Mayton, 2009). As a conclusion, on chances of international peace, methods used to settle disputes would determine whether long-lasting peace could be sustained globally.
Global Aspects Contributing to International Peace
Global system can be perceived as many nations having a mutual bond (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). The plurality of the individual countries constitutes Marxism, but perceptible Marxism cannot become a global system without the mutual bond. This implies that the global system is made of nations that are jointly interdepend to improve their economy and political aspects. These nations exist as a global system, and the unit of the system is an individual nation (Mayton, 2009). There are various aspects of the global system such as coexistence, peacekeeping, post conflict organizations, and conflict prevention that tend to promote international peace.
The coexistence aspect of the global system collectively brings together nations as members of common planet. All the countries or individuals are affected by similar global problems such as global warming, and all the nations need ecological cover and proper atmosphere. The natural condition results in a feeling of coexistence. Countries cannot exist without depending on other countries as natural requirement (Mayton, 2009). Despite the impediments to the success of this natural requirement, countries continue to rely on each other more than ever. The impediments are less geographic and natural but extremely fabricated and perceived. As such, nations or individuals accumulate various notions and beliefs that tend to eliminate the direct contact with realism. An example of impediment to world peace is the difference in race, color and religion, which have divided humanity and led to conflicts (Mayton, 2009). The Kashmir conflict can slightly be regarded as religious conflict between the Hindus and the Islam. Despite the Kashmir conflict, Pakistani president visited India after seven years (Mayton, 2009). This indicates that the two nations are on the verge of building cordial relationship after having realized they depend on each other. Essentially, it shows some chances of having world peace.
Peacekeeping is another aspect of the global system that seems conducive to establishing international peace (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). The United Nations Security Council is an organization of the United Nations committed to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. The council constitutes of China, Russia, France, United States, United Kingdom and ten other nations nominated after every two years as members (Hutchins, 2000). The council advocates for peaceful methods of settling disputes whenever confronted with circumstances that threaten world peace. The various authorities granted to the council enable it to reinforce decisions by imposing sanctions and mediating in situations of armed conflicts (Mayton, 2009). The council defines peacekeeping as preventing, limiting, moderation and stopping hostilities within or between nations. Peacekeeping facilitates the council to oversee the negotiating period and join in the establishment of peaceful conditions. The establishment of peacekeeping bodies such as United Nations Security Council has contributed substantially to world peace creation (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). For example, the on-going peace keeping in Somalia indicates slight chances of having future international peace.
Post conflict, international justice and other organizations are also aspects of the global system that contribute to having long-lasting international peace (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) significantly dealt with committed injustices. Researches on peace affirm that if the court had not been established, the atrocious practices by warlords and other individuals in war would not have been subjected to legal hearing. Ad hoc tribunals present in the international court system have facilitated the judging of people who committed inhuman crimes (Mayton, 2009). The establishment of International Court of Justice, though it receives few cases, to settle disputes between nations has played a critical role in contributing to international peace. The few cases handled by the ICJ clearly indicate that disputes between nations have drastically dropped due to the mutual coexistence of many countries. However, these tribunals have been alleged for being unjust (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). This criticism poses a threat to world peace as it questions the legitimacy of the court decision.
From a personal point of view, international peace is still a serious challenge that needs a lot of concern. The truth is that it is not easy to know whether man will dwell in a peaceful world until that time comes to his realization (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010). Many nations, communities and individuals have alienated themselves from this truth and only hope to evolve to excellent and peaceful creatures who desire for harmony. A war-free world seems to be a utopia, which indicates that war is a part of human nature (Mayton, 2009). The nature as a human being, hate, corruption, desire to control the world, make it harder for us to lay down the arms, accept the truth and live in harmony. The senseless murder, displacement of people and all use of imaginable excuses to declare war are perceivable from human nature. As much as, there might be theoretical chances of world peace, with the way people are bold enough to bomb and hate each other, it is unlikely (O'Hare & O'Hare, 2010).
In conclusion, international peace is a global, non-violent idea through which countries voluntarily cooperate by virtue of system of governance, which alleviates warfare. The democratic peace theory tries to explain that there are chances of long-lasting international peace for those democracies that never fight each other. Proponents of this theory argued that democratic leaders should always respond to proponents of war by offering incentives that seek alternatives. International peace has a possibility to exist if nations around the globe will unite to address economic crisis, terrorism, energy deficiency, war, nuclear weapon propagation and global warming. An access to reliable energy sources to all nations is significant in economic stability and growth, which might result in world peace. World peace is also achievable if nations will stop competing for supremacy and commence working towards what benefits all nations. There are various aspects of the global system such as coexistence, peacekeeping, post conflict organizations, and conflict prevention that tend to promote international peace. A world free from war seems to be a utopia, which indicates that war is a part of human nature.