What are in your opinion the most important conflicts our society

and states will have to deal with in the next decade? Can you
imagine of promising conflict resolution strategies to tackle those
conflicts?

“Four years on, in 2005, the United States spent only around $2.6 billion fighting HIV/AIDS

globally but a massive $48.5 billion on homeland security alone” (Chriss Abbott, Paul

Rogers, 2007, p41). Wars will be fought but the reason and purpose are most important. It is

said after 1945, the number of Wars has decreased, however, have they really decreased or

just been waiting to erupt: “From 1945-1998, nine such large-scale wars were underway

each year on average” (Kegley, Charles W. Jr, Whittkope, Eugene R., 2001, p.410).

However, actually, they have not decreased and civil wars have started more, also, wars help

technological advancements, more demand for technology. There has been a lot of war now

in the first decade of the twenty-first century; for example, (2001) Afghanistan, (2003) Iraq

invasion, (2006) Lebanon, (2008) Israel and Gaza strip. None of these has been fully

confronted: as in properly resolved conflict, they have just subsisted, discontinued, suspended

for the time being.

Moreover, the problem does not get any better like this. To end a conflict one needs to

understand why it happened and what the factors in it are, divergence of agreement.

Wars takes place for a reason: in order to gain territory, protect yourself, protect your

interests, defence against undesirable aims of another. The First World War was about

territory and protection of one’s own ideology. War, nuclear deterrents, globalisation are all

one in the same; sometimes globalisation means war and those are fought by deterrent;

colonisation in a way is globalisation, they learnt of another culture and it affected those
colonised areas in terms of language, political system, ideology. The best way to protect

oneself; if peaceful means do not work, then struggle for your own salvation. If war happens

and the world arrives almost to the brink of destruction, other issues do not matter. It is more

about ideological stance and protecting your interest. In addition, if one country is attacked

then the logical action for that country is to defend itself. (http://www.pax-

consultancy.com/page4/files/trends-in-conflicts-in-the-last-10-years.pdf 16.57, 21

October 2009, mainly second last page)

The UN in a way acts like a world government – although not in its charter but then again the

Americans have abused its charter more than once. Most of the world’s countries have signed

up to it, over 150 countries. “Second, individual nations will be unable to tackle threats or

impose solutions alone. The system of alliances and treaties and international agreements

will be more important than ever. These will need to be reformed and adapt if they are to

serve our security in the years ahead.” This is from the Secretary of State for Defence.

(http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20090

915FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm)

How does one conform to another ideological stance? If we go back to the First World War,

propaganda was implemented in a most simplistic, but effective way to influence large

majority of the population. They were teaching this propaganda to children in school and

indoctrinating them at a young age.

Britain has a political bias: that Britain is never in the wrong and attacks us is at fault for

doing so. The First World War was also about territory but this is not really about territory it

is about an ideological stance that Britain and Europe did not want to conform to; thus being

Nazi Germany view of Nazism and communism. Some may say that Al-Qaeda does not want
to conform to American views and this could be globalisation by the west.

Iraq, Afghanistan are particular areas of the world where they have a strong sense of views

and religious belief to irrepressible resolution.

The United States of Americans (USA) already has about six military bases in Iraq (Chriss

Abbott, Paul Rogers, 2007, p64). They are not protecting Israel. Israel is the only country in

the Middle East to spend so much on weaponry; its expenditure goes well into the billions of

dollars

The Iran-Iraq war started because of oil mostly and territory or alliance sort of invasion

(Calvocoressi, Peter, 2000, p.459). This shows that the human factor in war is important

because War starts in the minds of men. In this war, the desire to hold power was just too

tempting. This war shows how important resources are. Therefore, when resources come into

the political sphere the fight for them is on.

Why start war? To gain something valuable, for example, in Iraq to gain oil and territory.

Afghanistan is to gain territory. War has a significant influence on the people of the country.

All have those (Nuclear weapons). Some countries are trying to develop them. An example,

is, Israel who says it does not have them but clearly spending billions on security. Israel has

not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There is a view that the more countries have

nuclear weapons or nuclear tension the more likelihood of a nuclear war happening (Michael

Nicholson, 2002, p136). In the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) chemical weapons were used these

are the alternatives to nuclear weapons. In addition, the UN never intervened until the oil

installations for Iran was blown up by Iraq after almost eight years. This was the only reason

they intervened otherwise the UN was probably most likely do nothing (Calvocoressi, Peter,
2000, p.461) “Nuclear bombs can have enormous destructive power” (Michael Nicholson,

2002, p.132). “We now pose the dilemma of deterrence” (Michael Nicholson, 2002, p.220).

If we want, we could blow the world over, to oblivion.

The other Geneva conventions (jus ad bellum) signed by major powers of the day are as

follows: war must be for a just cause; the aims of combatants should be recognised because

they usually have some sort of case; war must be purely instrumental to achieve a just out

come so both side have a chance of winning; war must be a proportional response to the

offence committed; war should be declared by a competent authority; war is a last resort

(Michael Nicholson, 2002, p.217). The above rules of engagement are almost actually the

same in Shari’a law (Gerald E. Lampe (ed), 1997, pp.16-22, p.62, p.91-95).

The reason for looking at these rules for engagement goes a little further: does any war have

these rules of engagement applied to them in the fullest or to a good extent. When war or

invasion like Iraq is not working, where the death toll is possibly over 100 000 innocent

civilians dead, more killed then Saddam Hussein, the reasonable thing to do is to pull out in

that situation where the occupied force is clearly not helping. Most of the world is plunged in

civil unrest; Indonesia has a kind of civil war going on, Africa certain places badly affected

by disease and drought, constant build up of pollution and lack of resources (Chriss Abbott,

Paul Rogers, John Sloboda, 2007, p.4).

(http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20090

915FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm,

13.14) The military spending is getting over stretched and this kind of spending will

bankrupt the country and make the socio-economic divide even more. In the below article

and the above articles says that “Pressure on the defence budget” are putting a strain and
“better at spending the money”, says the Secretary of State for Defence in the above website.

(http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Allan-Mallinson-Our-hardpressed-

Army.5721362.jp, 13.16)

War is never a good thing, defend yourself, but do so with just cause and conviction to do the

right thing rather than making difficult choices. It is said war is needed for peace but really

that is just a lie and what is peace. Peace: “Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity” (Judy

Pearsall (ed), 2001, p1048). “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re

really talking about peace” George W. Bush, said (Abbott, Paul Rogers, John Sloboda,

2007, p.73),” peace cannot coexist with war and vice versa. The two are incompatible

variations. This is what has happened because of War “First, the judgement of the recent

French defence review that we can expect “a world not necessarily more dangerous, but

certainly less predictable, less stable and more contradictory” is a fair assessment.”

(http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20090

915FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm).

Thus with light there is no dark. Are we really helping Iraq in its constitution, in its political

strengthening? How long does it take, is the problem getting better or worse? All these are

questions that need answers in one way or another, for example, when Europe was in ruin

from the First World War (about four years to recover fully). Wars may never end, which is

why power has become necessary and left much of the world in a state of disarray, the Middle

Eastern countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, alliances formed perhaps.

Maybe if countries do not want to be taken over or conform to another view (Shari’a law)

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, (Gerald E. Lampe (ed), 1997, pp10-10), they may

have to go to war just like in the First World War when Nazism was over taking Europe.
However, the way to solve this is to not fight but then again when there is, only the last resort

left what else can one do except fight.

Both Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence are saying the next big issues are

terrorism, resources and free trade between countries (economy), particularly China and India

as the big Economic and political powers. The solution to these problems can be resolved by

not starting a war. Money will be saved, no resources used, lives saved. At the end of wars,

only bitterness is left. If all the forces back out of Iraq, Afghanistan maybe a major disaster

will be avoided, however, I doubt that. Is this what they call globalisation?

(http://www.davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_08_04.htm, 16.48, 21,

October 2009)

(htp://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/200909
15FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm,
13.14, 21, October 2009)

1600 words

References
(http://www.pax-consultancy.com/page4/files/trends-in-conflicts-in-the-last-10-

years.pdf 16.57, 21 October 2009, mainly second last page)

http://www.davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_08_04.htm, 16.48, 21, October

2009

(htp://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/200909
15FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm,
13.14, 21, October 2009)

Kegley, Charles W. Jr, Whittkope, Eugene R., World Politics; Trend and Transformation,
2001, Macmillan Press Ltd, London

Pearsall, Judy (ed), The concise Oxford Dictionary, 2001, Oxford University Press, New
York

Abbott, Chriss, Rogers, Paul, Sloboda, John, The Truth About The Real Threats to Our World
Beyond, 2007, Terror, Rider; London

Nicholson, Michael, International relations a concise introduction, 2002, Palgrave

Macmillan; Hampshire

Calvocoressi, Peter, World Politics 1945-2000, 2000, Longman, New York

Bibliography

http://www.davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_08_04.htm, 16.48, 21, October

2009

(http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Allan-Mallinson-Our-hardpressed-
Army.5721362.jp, 13.16, 21 October 2009)

(http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20090
915FittingDefenceForTheFutureTowardsTheNextStrategicDefenceReview.htm,
13.14, 21 October 2009)

Abbott, Chriss, Rogers, Paul, Sloboda, John, The Truth About The Real Threats to Our World
Beyond, 2007, Terror, Rider; London

Howard, Micheal, Studies in War and Peace, 1970, Maurice Temple Smith; London
Kettle, St John, Dowrick, Stephanie (ed), After the Gulf War For Peace in the Middle East,
1991, Pluto Press Australia; Leichhardt

Nicholson, Michael, International relations a concise introduction, 2002, Palgrave

Macmillan; Hampshire (I have this book)

Lampe, Gerald E. (ed), Justice and Human right in Islamic Law, 1997, International Law
Institute, Washington; Hampshire

Calvocoressi, Peter, World Politics 1945-2000, 2000, Longman, New York

Kegley, Charles W. Jr, Whittkope, Eugene R., World Politics; Trend and Transformation,
2001, Macmillan Press Ltd, London