Is_Conflict_&_War_an_Inevitable_Feature_of_Global_Politics_

Is Conflict & War An Inevitable Feature Of Global Politics' It is to a certain extent that one can summarise that conflict and war is an inevitable feature of global politics due to problems in the structure that have a resounding effect in terms of establishing long term peace. Yet this is down to how you look at this idea and analyse it. The two groups in dispute surrounding the argument can be identified as realists and liberals, each with different ideologies approach this subject from different angles to express their feelings on whether war and conflict really are inevitable features of global politics. It is the realist argument that the structure of global politics means that it is hard to establish long term peace. Moreover conflict is favoured due to the international system. Realism, is a theory that emerged to counter act the theory of idealism. What is meant by idealism, is the ultimate nature of the reality and society that we live in is based upon the foundation of the mind. Realist will strongly argue that the idealist thinking post World War One, lead to the building and break out of the Second World War. This is backed by the statement that Idealists place trust in the League of Nations to regulate international relations and prevent another war from breaking out. That is why when looking back at history we can see this as one of the reason for the break out of the Second World War. Furthermore that is why today we see nations are the world founding their foreign policy upon realist theories. For the past five hundred years of world history, war and conflict have been prominent features of global politics. For instance the Boar War, The Hungarian Uprising and even the First Gulf War thus showing conflict is very much a part of global politics or could it simply human nature' Numerous realist theorists will argue that this tendency toward conflict simple derives from the set up of the international system. So simply each state is struggling for power. For instance, look at America over the recent decade America has taken advantage of the global system to expand and establish its self as a unquestioned hegemonic power to promote regime change around the world . Furthermore they have often resorted to war, a prime example of this would be the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which serves to show as an example of American promoting its national interests due to the fact Iraq is rich in Oil. For realists, states are the principle actors in global politics, and being sovereign power they act as autonomous entities. the primary motive driving state action is the pursuit of power and self interest. Realist thus see international relations characterised by power politics, the sense of power usually in the form of a military force thus meaning they have the ability to impose their will on others or face their aggression. Furthermore, Realist see the one of the reasons for instability is due to the fact a sovereign power lies above other countries in the world, thus seeing the emergence of survival realists. Such countries as Iran, lead by Mahmoud Ahmandinja we see facing heavy opposition from the West in the Middle East. This is due to the fact they have broken free of the American sphere of influence, Ahmandinja sees the international system as corrupted and there is no real central authority as America tends to have connections on every level and act as a so called 'World Police'. What this means is that due to these faults in the system long term peace is hard to achieve as the scales of peace can be tipped very easily. Over the past the twenty years we can look back at a series of conflicts that have emerged due to states acting on their own interests. In the middle east the CIA has back numerous revolutions to expand American influence. That is why realists tend to argue that due to the features of the global system conflict is inevitable. On the other side to the argument is the Liberal theorists opinion, liberalism on principle is based on what maybe seen on a slightly naive level that global politics can be characterised simply through co-operation. furthermore that conflict will not arise between democratic countries thus war will only arise in very select and difficult situations. In a comparative sense it is easy to see where the two ideologies differ. The liberal criticism of realism can be seen as the exclusive focus on the sovereign state ignores the actual transformation of the state through global influence and internal sub-political influences. They see the idea of survival at all costs simply not viable, liberals assume that the principles which underling organisation of liberal-democratic policies within states can be reproduced between states at an international level.