For so long, our ancestors were fighting for freedom to achieve peace for people. Strategically thinking, it could be beneficial to a certain country if other neighboring countries were reluctant to stand against their supremacy because of fear. However, fear towards another country defeats the purpose of peace. Nations must have mutual respect for one another to be able to establish camaraderie among them. I understand that rulers could sometimes be too cruel because of their decisions to make a better place for the subjects. Tyranny sounds frightening to others, but I remember that during the time when Tyrant people took over the kingdoms in most parts of the world, everything was orderly. They utilized their power to obtain peace by making decisions that a normal person would not think of doing. This tiny piece in history rolled over until this very day wherein nations would try to put others on their knees by force and/or terror.
The analysis of Machiavelli could be effective in terms of establishing supremacy, but is it really the civilized way of handling conflicts as such? Let us all accept that our conflict with other countries were products of misunderstanding and close-mindedness. We are supposed to have a common goal as humanitarians, an aim that leads to the betterment of our relationship with all. It could not be achieved by physical force or modernized warfare machineries. We have to comprehend that peace and equality are built from respect and love. Most of the commandos would say that they set aside their emotions and, that is why, they have forgotten that their duty is to protect, not to annihilate a country. I know that most people would contradict my perspective, but this is how I feel about the occurrences that we have with Iran and other countries. Love should be the universal language, not English.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, Chapter 3, pp. 123-190.
Journal Response: Question #8
Violence is an unjustly act committed by an individual or group with the intention to administrate pain, suffering, and devastation to others. There is no such thing as an informal violence because the terminology ‘violence’ is already informal no matter if the violence was initiated by the other party. Victims of the initial attack would have the urge to fight back and would not stop until revenge is made. Revenge makes the whole situation more complicated than it already is. I respect the idea of changing the term of terrorism to informal violence, although I do not think that it could make a better definition for it. Maybe politicians would like to decrease the terror that will be projected from the term terrorism. Obviously, terror is the root word for that term and when anybody hears that there is a terrorist attack, it would definitely cause and/or create frustration among all people.
My perception about the usefulness of the phrase as an analytical term is very simple. I think that it could just create confusion to our countrymen and it might be difficult for us to differentiate the two terms. Since informal violence is the potential substitute for the word terrorism, it would branch out another perspective. It would be an implication that there is a room for ‘FORMAL VIOLENCE’ in this topic that we had discussed. This is relevant to the idea that I have shared earlier about the alteration of the word ‘terrorism’. If informal violence is an act of terrorism, I am now starting to think about how formal violence would apply to our globalized/modernized world. The notion that we are giving to others might be the hindrance to achieving a peaceful relationship among other countries. If formal violence has been put into effect, then it means there would be non-stop war between countries that have political conflicts in our time and maybe in the near future.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, Chapter 4, pp.191-256
Journal Response: Question #4
This is my own ideology in accordance with the Lenin’s explanation of the evolution of imperialism from capitalism. Let us first redefine the meaning of the two types. As we have talked in our lessons, capitalism is the private ownership of raw materials and the ability to produce goods by using natural resources, which are legally owned by a certain nation while imperialism is the mind-set of a nation that encourages to gain supreme authority by colonizing other countries, which were facilitated mainly by the powerful empires back in the years. After acquiring the leadership of a specific land through forceful means, the victors will exploit the natural resources of the defeated and use it for their own profits. Now, let me talk about how imperialism could transition from capitalism. Apparently, if a nation needs more capital and could no longer rely on their own natural resources, the tendency is that they would find extensions for more materials.
Expansion of resources needs broader lands and richer resources, which are not all available in a specific country. This is why, there is a tendency that a nation would try to invade and/or conquer another country to be able to capitalize on richer resources. Once a country is defeated and starts obeying the triumphant nation, their natural goods will allow the victors to use their raw material until the colonization ends. It is not impossible that imperialism will or may evolve from capitalism since, as people, we are never contented of what we have. We always want more even if what we have is already adequate for us to survive. Capital imperialism can be the outcome of the kind of resource hunting that is taking place in our modern society. I hope things do not turn out to be worse than what is already occurring due to our greed and search for supremacy.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, chapter 5, pp. 257-370
Journal Response: Question #5
According to realists, feminists present ideas that could not be supported with scientifically proven methods, which makes their theories hard to achieve. At first, it was suggested that their goal is to promote the role of females in our society in terms of innovating our industrial capacities. However, attention was not given to them since they could not provide factual information in conjunction to their claims. Then, Ticker’s assertion about feminists came to the picture, which played a valuable role for their theories. She explained why feminists were not recognized in dwelling upon the traditional approach to the IR theories. Using her knowledge of the subject matter, she managed to justify their arguments. She added that feminism did not just concentrate on the effect of a feminine idea on the innovation of the industry. She helped redefine the role of feminists by presenting methodological perspectives. She also highlighted some discrepancies in the political knowledge construction. She implied that gender did not determine nor calculate the ability of a person to construct ideas, which could prospectively upgrade the industry’s level of productivity.
Tickner suggested some reasons that could be the root cause of terrorism.
She implied that misalignment of ideas about the modernization could be a possible cause of terrorist attacks. Failure of both parties to comprehend the beliefs of another’s sparks out conflicts of interest. The other country focuses on the conservation of their tradition, which is mainly influenced by their strong faith. On the other hand, a country is dedicated to improve the industry by using innovative ideas and modernized practices. By just citing the differences between the two countries, it is apparent that the interests would be difficult to align. This type of matter could only be fixed if the two parties would try to meet in the middle.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, chapters 6 and 7, pp. 370-485
Journal Response: Question #6
It is illogical to conclude that radical Islam does not constitute a serious alternative to the Western liberal democracy considering that some of them are already the practitioners of the liberal government of the West. Numerous Islamists have migrated to the West because they are confident that their culture would not be threatened by the modernization of the West. However, some of them are vulnerable to culture extinction due to the embarrassment caused by the rules of their countries. The effect of the continuous conflict between them and other nations has afflicted their morality and they want to break away from those predicaments by practicing another type of governance and lifestyle. They have not committed any form treachery, in my own perception. Unfortunately, Other Islam conceives it as a comminatory crosscurrent to their faith, which connive them to create drastic commotions against people who deluded their Muslim brothers. Secularization creates more tension between the Muslims and other countries because they are losing their numbers. They are more threatened considering that they cannot pursue their principles as their believers continually migrate to other countries and start living in a different environment and government.
I agree that some Muslims would be reluctant to be governed by a democratic country since they want to preserve the type of ruling of their ancestors that has been passed on from generation to generation. However, I disagree that they are not willing to live in a different government because a lot of Muslims are now the subjects of Democracy. All comments and personal opinions about this matter at hand are not debatable, but I still stand for my own perception that the Muslims are going to understand our arguments if we could just lay our weapons down and talk things over. If this is not really about the crude, then we can just stop this war and reconcile for the safety of innocent civilians that are being bombarded due to this pre-eminence for energy supply.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, chapter 1, pp. 1-38.
Journal Response: Question #5
Two nations with different faiths are battling to determine the supremacy of religion. This is how I would describe thirty years of war between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Though it has something to do with the geographical ownership of a certain land, its main conflict is still regarding the affiliation of citizens in their own beliefs. The Protestants would like to separate themselves from the Catholic Church and they no longer need the guidance of neither the empire of Rome nor the Roman Catholic Church. This notion agitated the Roman Catholics and served as the commencement of the thirty-year war in Rome. The current war is a recreation of the earlier version, but with additional motives and interest. Interest and motives are already clear to others, but remain vague for some. One thing stayed unclear for me, which is the reason why we have to continue this war in spite of the damages that have been inflicted and are afflicted by both countries. Being triumphant is not declared by the submission of another. Nobody will prevail in this kind of conflict unless both sides sit down for a cup of tea and talk about peace. One issue separates the current war from the old war is the battle for resources, which is obviously the ownership of fuel resources. Legally speaking, that crude is owned by the other country and they will not just raise a white flag and submit to the other country without putting up a fight. That means that this war is not going to end soon. If we just dig down into our history, we would realize that every single war that had unfolded boiled down to the same outcome, which is peace. If this is the end result of a conflict as such, then we could just contemplate about the thing that can cease this illogical warfare. Even though there are similarities between two generations of thirty-year wars, they are still fighting for different objectives. I would like to end this essay in an interrogative manner. What is the true reason why our leaders want to continue fighting this war?
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, chapters 8 and 9, pp. 487-546
Journal Response: Question # 9
They have featured some soldiers who have a different perspective of the war in Iran. Some of them were just forced to perform the tasks that were assigned to them. It saddens me to learn that they were sometimes required to assault someone who was not even considered as their enemy. ‘Soldiers were trained to kill’ was mentioned by one of the interviewees who happened to be a soldier deployed to combat in Iran. Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill without mercy! I guess everybody heard the battle cry of soldiers on that documentary. Our soldiers are going out of track because of the instructions, which were given by whoever it is that is leading them in this war. Most of them have contradicted their own goals. We have the right to pursue our happiness, and protect life, liberty, and our pursuit of happiness. These have been the statements mentioned during the declaration of our Independence. Just obeying commanding officers in their respective infantries without the opportunity to retaliate on the mission’s objective is a form of deprivation of the soldiers’ rights. This is the message that has reached my conscience. No normal human being would attempt to annihilate a race for the sake of freedom. Conscientious objectors should not be referred to as cowards and traitors because they are true humanitarians. The ideology of the objectors strongly supports the tenets of human nature. As human beings, we know if we are doing something for a better cause. Devastation of another country involving innocent people is not an act performed by soldiers with conscience. If soldiers do things that are expected from them, then no soldier would set a foot in Iraq. Everyone would come back to our homeland and defend our country from potential terrorist attacks. Let the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs reanalyze the root-cause of the conflict in Iraq. We are humans and are supposed to act like ones. Killing does not promote peace as it would just enrage more people and even the innocents to fight against us. People in the country that is under attack would think or might think that the war has already ruined their lives and they become much more vulnerable to build allegiances with soldiers of Iraq. The worst outcome is that our soldiers could possible exchange fire with more children and old civilians in Iraq.
Reading: Genest. Conflict and Cooperation, chapter 10, pp. 547-583
Journal Response: Question #5
Images of truth are the pictures taken and video files recorded that contain images of the victims of war, be it terrorist or civilians. They portray the damage that has been the result of war. Just a glance at those images would turn our stomachs upside down and might give us nightmares. The violence that is simply destroying the concept of peace is a message that comes with those files. The compilation of the said images would remind us of the destruction that struck the humanity of every individual who was and is involved and plays a role in these inhuman activities.
Kev Woodward emphasized that ‘Religion seems to be at the root of the majority of conflicts and tolerance could help the world to remain intact’. He also shared his knowledge about the fundamentals of peace studies. For him, the core values of peace are tolerance and harmony. He implied that peace would not be far away from reality if all citizens of the world would try to tolerate each other as then no one would perceive war. If war does not commence, then camaraderie will be projected in all parts of the globe. Harmony is achievable if all of us work hand in hand to attain a common goal, which is PEACE. We can live by these values and enjoy the happiness that a peaceful life can offer.