I’m stuck on a Political Science question and need an explanation.
Answer the 5 questions regarding the wars and conflicts in the 21-century. Questions are not directly interrelated, and you do not need to write binding texts.
I expect from you to answer each question in the following format:
– Statement of your opinion (in one para).
– Your arguments, supported with citation and references that prove your thesis.
– List of used sources.
There are no specific volume requirements. However, do not forget the grades are between 2 and 6. I want a grade 6 from you.
1. Why do governments assume that “the more land, the better”?
There is a constant political struggle for land between two or more nations around the world, where two different countries claiming to own a land area even though another country controls (or “occupy”) it. Whenever a region asks for independence, usually the central country refuses.
A non-exhaustive list:
It seems like pretty much all geopolitics and wars are based on the assumption that “more land is better.” Is this assumption historically proven and contemporary correct? What the benefits of “grabbing” more space (land and water) and what the negatives could be?
2. Are there benefits to war?
Probably the most common defence of wars is that they are necessary evils. However, wars are also defended as being in some way beneficial. How does the war affect winners and victims? E.g., polls in the United States through the 2003-2011 war on Iraq found that a majority in the U.S. believed Iraqis were better off as the result of a war that severely damaged Iraq. A majority of Iraqis, in contrast, thought they were worse off. This is a disagreement over facts, not ideology. However, people often choose which facts to become aware of or to accept.
The First World War destroyed empires, created numerous new nation-states, encouraged independence movements in Europe’s colonies, forced the United States to become a world power and led directly to Soviet communism and the rise of Hitler. The Second World War led to a profound change in political thinking about how states should conduct their relations. During the Cold War, many advances in science and technology were made possible because of the arms race. Could be such achievements qualified as benefits of wars?
3. In which case is separatism considered legitimate?
What historical background usually gives a nation/minority within another country legal grounds for separatism in the eyes of the international community? In international law, the only principle that can be used is the Self Determination Right, which is recognised by the United Nations. Do you think that the definition of “nation” is too loose, as some countries have been authorised to separate according to that principle, while others have had more difficulty? Could you call the separatism “a nation within a nation”? Similarly, a few countries are recognised as such by some others, whereas others refuse to recognise them. Some examples: Taiwan, Israel, Darfur, Palestine, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and others. However, of what kind is such recognition – political or legal?
4. How has politics been affected by the expansion of force, through technological change, and its dispersion?
Scholars have explored in-depth the effects of changes in the technology of force on international relations in the West over periods of centuries. Recent changes in warfare, relying on global positioning systems and electronic technology of all kinds, have created huge gaps between the military power of the United States and that of other countries. Some of those who celebrated American military power, however, may have forgotten that ingenious adversaries can create effective “weapons of the weak,” such as terrorism and that possessing a superior resource may lead states to overuse it, or to attempt to use it for purposes for which it is not well suited. How do you see the impact of asymmetry on contemporary wars and conflicts?
5. Is there any plausible sense in which progress has taken place in the prevention of conflicts and wars?
Since the Second World War, both IR scientists and politicians expected economic interdependence to dampen or even prevent wars and sought arbitration and arms limitation treaties to facilitate and institutionalise benign changes. The effects of changes in the ideas in which people believe are by no means necessarily benign, as illustrated by nuclear weapons and the recent militancy of religious fundamentalism. We should expect no simple answer to questions about progress, but they are nevertheless essential questions to ask. How do you see, would it be realistic to expect further progress in preventing wars and conflicts due to intellectual or moral advances in human thinking?