World politics Essay Example

World politics Essay Example World politics Essay World politics Essay Huntington’s controversial expose on the progress of the world’s powers strongly indicated that finally there were emerging civilizations that could potentially clash. He goes on to explain why power struggles will be the major issue in international relations. Power is the ability to forcibly have one’s way regardless of dissenting voices. This hypothesis has been largely critiqued for generalization in its premises, as paying no attention to traditional clashes and for not appropriately envisaging the events that followed its release. The terrorist attacks of 2001, in World Trade Center and others targeting United States’ interests across the world were clear indications that Huntington’s assertions were not well informed. Therefore it is not considered dominant in introspecting to international coexistence. There has been a long standing sour relation between the world superpower: the United States and North Korea over the latter’s possibility of harboring nuclear weapons or developing some.   Nuclear power is the next frontier that the developed countries are trying, albeit with much struggle, to control. The only impediment to this end is the unending question as to whether international laws can be ratified by non-signatories. The United Nations (UN), as a body charged with the responsibility of harmonizing international relations between nations have been greatly compromised. Political scientists across the board agree that the United Nations has leaned towards the whims of the only superpower. The voting power of the signatories also tends to lean towards who has got both military and economic power (Stiglitz, 2007). Being the most recent Stalinist entity in the world, North Korea was the newest state to get itself into the Uranium enrichment. During the last 20 years or so, North Korea has been undulating from getting invaded and engaging very sincerely with the rest of the world.   The United States has been at the forefront in this affair. This stand-off has always been stimulated by its intricate governance and the perceptible notion that the policy of approaching precarious state of affairs to the beginning of an adversity finally yields some good. Beside the war in Iraq, the US has already envisaged to wage a war against a new enemy:   North Korea. In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea has been at loggerheads with her neighbors and the rest of the world over the thorny issue of its unsupervised nuclear activities. First, it is important to realize the scientific and technological potential that nuclear harnessing could impact the fortunes of a nation. Iraq was invaded over much similar speculations. This issue sparks security unease among the developed countries. There a general myth that those underdeveloped and undeserving countries, North Korea included, have less capacity not only to safely utilize nuclear power but might have intentions of using it to develop warheads that could lead to a holocaust. As far as ways of governance cannot be uniform, democratic ideology is so far the best and prolific (Wiseman, 2004). It sets out the guiding principles in running government and it must come from the will of the people. The m ajor setback is that it cannot be taken up by other nation or states because of the historical, cultural and religious backgrounds. The current international predicament revolves around North Korea’s alleged role in sinking South Korea’s ship. The incident has so far attracted intercontinental attention with the United States offering its military muscle to police the international waters. The whole dilemma started on March this year when a South Korean submarine sank after exploding. 46 crewmen aboard the ship died. Two months later, Seoul offered forensic substantiation incriminating a Pyongyang’s missile on the ship that was the sailing in the vicinity of a disputed sea boundary. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mossad strongly believed that the attack incidence was authorized by the North Korean president in a bid to enable his son take over from him. The United Nation, issued a statement reproving the incident but stopped short of implicating North Korea because China, the latter’s collaborator and a growing force in world politics, opposed the move. The Washington government has so far enforced economic sanction on North Korea. This move has been seen by North Korea and her allies as a sort of provocation. Politically speaking, the United States role in the whole saga is a strong reminder that it exists as the only superpower. President Obama’s foreign policy was very clear at the beginning: that it could offer a listening ear and hand to those who have divergent views and firm handling to those who seek to make the world insecure. With this promise in mind, the presence of the United States’ military alongside those of South Korea, coupled with the United Nations’ Nuclear Disarmament Program resolution, implies that North Korea must be policed and coerced to drop its nuclear ambitions. The clash of civilizations as said by Huntington comes into perspective when we consider the amount of international concern that the incident has ignited. Perhaps the end of the World War II, is a fresh reminder of how the world could be so pitiless. But alliances change and shift over time such that Japan is now closely allied to the United States on the issues of the day. Both countries now are up in arms over North Korea. But who seem to be the aggressor? Is the United States overusing its might to threaten others or is it doing what is required of it to foster peace and security in the world? To answer this, we should recall that in this globalized world, there has not been a consensus as to whether the political ideologies of the West are ideal for all the countries. Huntington’s argument delineates an outlook that the grand points of disagreements between man and the overarching foundation of divergences between nations would solely be based on ways of life. He further goes ahead to categorize the customs of world. He was quick to point out that Africa had the probability to be civilized (Spielvogel, 2008). Given the varying levels of development across the world, cultural differences, economic and military power, democracy ingrained with capitalism cannot be applied by all countries (Kaikini, 2006).   The natural resources is also a major consideration so is the technological expertise. Take for instance; Tanzania in East Africa has vast amounts of Uranium but lack capacity to harness it leave alone to mine the precious element. Therefore, it is true that the ability to exploit the possibilities that comes with Uranium actually depends on the strength of a nation. Huntington’s supposes that such civilizations were categorically characterized in religion coupled with some extemporized exclusions. The Cold War also shaped the way international community can punish nations which may act in contravention of treaties and common positions. The measures are wide ranging, from slapping economic sanctions to trade boycotts, arms embargo to invasion of the offending nation. Huntington goes on to explains that the last part of philosophical conflicts among the ways of governance, namely noninterventionist egalitarianism and Marxism would lead to clashes over the frames of progress on small scales. On the other hand he foresees, on large scale, a confrontation among the progressivisms in the pursuit for having power over global unions, attaining monetary superiority and martial supremacy. Similarly, it can be noted that such conflicts are common since all the clashes that have so far been witnessed have been fueled by the same motives. The alternative view suggests the contrary: that the row among the nation –states has always been determined by geological and opinionated aspect instead of diversity in backgrounds of the feuding nations. There are various talks by the key players over the Korean issues which is attracting various concerns. The United States and China have been holding talks with the main area of concern are the disagreements between the two Korean countries. This has been the major part of disagreement which is arising between China and United States of America. There were talks which were held by the two countries centered on the economic and strategic dialogue between China and United States of America.   These talks were held in late May where the main emphasis was on the tensions which are arising in the Korean peninsula. The tension has been caused by the interference by the two countries as they are the main ones with great influence. The two superpowers have been in the fore front in determining the solutions which have not been achieved as at date. These solutions have been of bad intention and have not good faith in the way they are handled. The countries have subjected the countries in je opardy as they cannot handle and solve their own issues on their own. The conflict in the Korean peninsula has been fueled by the external super powers mainly the China and the United States of America. This has been the cause of the problems which are being witnessed in the Korean peninsula. In the pursuit of the civilization in the world, many countries have been a source of destruction to the general developments and progress in the region and the entire world. This is because the various productions of machines and other equipments have been harmful to the countries themselves and other countries. There has been the nuclear manufacture in the various countries especially the North Korea which it recently launched the nuclear bomb. This has led to rise in sanctions from various countries that have been cooperating with them. There has also been many trade sanctions and travel ban of the goods, services and people to and from the country. This also has increased the tensions which are experienced in the Korean peninsula. The issue which has led to the disagreement is the system of governments which should be in place for the unification of the Korean peninsula. These issues have been of great importance and also have been at the center of disagreement. These issues have elicited fresh pursuit of the new peninsula reunification. The system of the government in the Korean peninsula is influenced by the external country which wants their system to be emulated. There are other countries which also want a hybrid kind of government system which cannot be easily attained without the consent of the Koreans. This has resulted in disagreements between the pressing countries and the fellow Koreans who do not see any use of the intended system despite the form of the civilization. There has been close relationship between the South Korean government and the United States of America and the Chinese government. This has been of great influence to the mode operation in the South which has led to increase in the conflict from the North. There were attacks of the South Korean warship by the North Koreans due to the misunderstandings on the form of the international system of government necessary for the Korean reunification. This attack has given rise to new talks on the nature and the means of handling the North Korean decisions as it is viewed as an issue of provocation. This has been the most disagreed topic in all the talks which has been held. This is in relation to the North Korea and the Korean peninsula. These have led to the increase in the threats by the North Korea to eliminate any kind of association with the South Korean. There is also the intention of bilateral non-aggression pact being avoided by the North due to the manner in which the South is associating itself with the US and the type of the international systems which should be in place. These have led to accusations from either part to denounce responsibility of the problem. The north has increasingly refused the issue that it’s never sunk the ship yet the South is of this view. This has led to the increase in the tension and the UN is urged to intervene on the matter so as to sort it out amicably. There have been claims that the South is making false accusations so as to be seen as a war provocation with the North. The country is in great danger to participating in engaging in war with the South. The Korean peninsula has been of great concern to many other countries that have great influence and interest. The countries like the US have shown favoritism on the issue and it is siding with the South. This means that the attacks are immine nt and the US is at the forefront. On the other hand, China has shown also intentions of lack of consensus-arriving solutions as regards to the North. China has not shown any intention of solving the problems in a manner which is fair and result oriented. There are claims that they are more civilized than the Koreans especially the north, hence the sanctions are escalated by them. China has moved away from the neutral position it has been holding for so many years with regards to the manner in which the Korean peninsula is being handled. When the sinking ship was experienced, the china government opted to stay away from the neutral position. There is need for the china to offer the necessary security in the region over the issue so as to attain the best solution. The civilization matters have led to the decisions made to be biased and inappropriate as they injure the rights of the others (Moreton, 2009). The reasons given for these conflicts and injustices are not justified and are therefore being done in the name of civilization. The international policies which are applied are very unique and increase the chances of the occurrence of unnecessary actions. For example the US gave a go ahead to the sale of the arms to Taiwan. There has also been the issue of the human rights injustices which has been indicated by the US-China relationship especially in regards to the imprisonment. There is also the issue of trade tensions which has been witnessed in the recent past which is not welcomed by many states. In conclusion, China and North Korea also has been stepping up its military machinery in a move to be ready for any eventuality in terms of any aggression. There has been clear indication by the Chinese government that the developments are not meant to be use on any war with any country but just to satisfy their technological know-how. This has been done in pursuit of civilization by all other countries yet it doesn’t concur with the international systems. Therefore we should really draw to closing choice between idealism and realism if we are to seek the fundamental causes of international conflicts (Baylis and Smith, 2001).