RSS

January 27, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I would certainly agree that understanding geography is essential to understanding many contemporary conflicts. The entire "World is Flat" globalization crowd gets some things right, such as the interconnectedness of global economics, but overlooks some key factors in human history and development that are outside the scope of rationality and economic theory.

History, and the impact upon it made by geography of both the useful and harsh kind, creates the contexts within which humans live. Combine that with certain innate tendencies that man has and one is close to unlocking the mystery behind so much violence in the world.

However, "understanding" a conflict in no way guarantees a solution that is palatable, least of all to modern humanist sensibilities. Often, two sides conflict because they have all too good of an understanding of why there is a problem and the solution isn't always a "win-win" scenario.

January 28, 2010

Member deleted

I feel that only direction to worldwide peace is one way avenue which passes through the regionalization and globalization: It is very well documented by the Historians that Europe has been a scene multitudes of conflicts, disputes and wars including 2 major all out WORLD WARS.

It has been observed that the Europeans have at last found their way to a peaceful Europe after the World War II. Their solution has been clearly unification under some form of a regionalization termed: EU.

Since the establishment of the Common Market by the major European Powers, there has been contiually favorably developing peace-oriented diplomatic relation in Europe. This peaceful developments at home seems to pervade over the European powers' overseas relations as they have come to refrain any serious military conflicts over the last few decades.

The worst prediction against liberalism by some prominent economists and phiosophers had been that the liberal economies would be looking for new market acquisitions all the time resulting in continual conflicts and sometimes devastating wars.

The European approach to unite their markets rather fight for markets seems to have been successful to a good extent because even trans-national companies were enabled to enough room for growth.

I happen to believe that for a peaceful 21st Century the mankind will be heading in the right direction if we all persevere on regionalization policies.

Regarding globalization, if attempts in the direction of this ultimate goal are hastened too much, they may fail and discourage or slow it down even though temporarily.

Globalization may turn out to be indispensible milestone towards mankind's reach to the outer space...

Thanks.
Mustafa

January 29, 2010

Mike Bahl, N/A, (2)

Nation states are creating in today's world based upon larger geo-political struggle between the great powers. Border wars are pretentious for a nation or people to redefine their future and create a facade of security. In redefining of nations no longer depends on community or nationalities in an ethnocentric, homogeneous states is not charming anymore. The biggest challenge is to ability to create an institution and structure where biggest test of sovereignty is the ability to amend the constitution.

February 1, 2010

Rebecca Ann Greenwald, Atlantic-Community.org, Bronze Contributor (18)

I think that Mr. Panna brings up a key point in the understanding of current international politics, particularly international conflicts.

Far too many conflicts are reported on in the media outside of their historical context. This makes them seen senseless and arbitrary, when in fact they have arisen out of a long and complicated history.

Mr. Lawson is right when he says that understanding the geopolitical history of a conflict doesn't automatically create a palatable solution, but it is certainly a good start in finding culturally and historically sensitive solutions to border conflicts.