International Conflict

1. International conflict among countries is more likely of what we may think. Today there are many different ongoing conflicts. International conflict is a stage of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more states (Malek). The term "international conflict" referred to conflicts between different nations and conflicts between people and organizations in different nations (Mr. Turetzky lec 11). It also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power. International conflicts can be divided into two branches: private international conflict and public international conflict. A private international conflict is a disagreement that involves business enterprises or individuals that are from two or more different countries. An example would be a conflict between a U.S. computer company, and a Japanese company that supplies motherboards for the U.S. Company. If the Japanese company or the US Company does not fulfill the contract, it would cause a private international conflict. It would have to be handled by an international tribunal of some sort. In contrast, a public international conflict is a moral conflict that spills across borders and social movements that wish to change an existing state. An example may be the conflict between the U.S. and Cuba. The United States’ attempts to help Cuba find a political stability have formed a conflict between Cuba and the United States. To my point of vies there are two important causes for public international conflict. The first and most important one is the search for sovereignty. The conflict between Cuba and the United States, as long as many other conflicts between the US and other countries is attributed to the US desire to establish sovereignty in other countries ( Malek). I considered religion as another cause of public international conflict. A very good example of conflict on the name of religion is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bill Maher, in his book When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden, blames religion for the conflicts (that later became wars) among countries ( Maher). War is an extended state of violence. It is a large-scale conflict involving two or more states. The grade of violence involved and the participation of military forces make the difference between a conflict and a war. In general a war is a deteriorated conflict between two or more countries. Stoessinger, in his book Why Nation Go to War, defines war as “an ineradicable part of human nature.” To this definition, he also adds a human essence. He blames the decisions made by the heads of the states involved in a war. For example, in World War I, he blames the perception of statesmen and generals of the countries involved in the war. I agree with Stoessinger’s comparison of war. He compares war to sickness. It is true that nobody wants war or sickness, but it is impossible to eliminate either one from our society ( Stoessinger 20). Ray and Kaarbo define war as a conflict caused by a nation’s desire to demonstrate its technological and military advancements ( Ray 39). My own definition of war is: a small conflict that gradually converts into a war. The causes may be diverse. However, I think that the main reason for wars is a country desire to demonstrate its capabilities to defend its moral beliefs and gain what it wants even thought it involves severe violence. Some countries may use this desire in a selfless way. Of course, the head state’s perceptions have a lot to do with war. For example, the United States went to war against Iraq because the US president perceived that Iraq was supporting terrorism. Eventually, the causes of the war changed. President kept American troops in Iraq because he wanted to overthrow the Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. Now, it is speculated that President keeps American troops in Iraq because of his interest in Iraqi oil. Another speculated reason to keep American army in Iraq is the idea that withdrawing the army would mean leaving with the tail between our legs. Probably, there will be always conflict among countries impossible to control. However, we humanity has to do something to don let conflicts transform in war. Conflict may be solved; but it is hard to control the destructive of a war.

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s perception has a lot to do with the worsening of a war but not with the involvement of a country in a war. The decision of going to war is not only made by a leader. For a president to declare war against other country there must be provocative reasons and an approval of public and other political figures (congress members). States’ Internal characteristics are another considered explanation to war. Poverty and the level of economic development is an important factor in war. According to Ray and Kaarbo, “the most warlike states have been poor.” Although the most impoverished countries lack military or economic resources to declare war, it is believed that when “the most impoverished countries begin to develop economically,” they can pay their troops (Ray 173). I completely disagree with this idea. I don’t believe that poverty is one important cause for war. I want to support my argument with an example. In World War I and World War II, the most developed countries caused the catastrophic and massive destruction. It is absurd to think that poor and undeveloped countries cause war. It is also believed that