'Which Has Exerted a Bigger Effect on War: the End of the Cold War, or Globalization?\r'

'Back in tender history, there could be found to a greater extent than 14, 400 records of tell apart of strugglefares that puzzle occurred in the past, by taking the lives of billions and affecting the favorable and governmental order worldwide. wars in the contemporaneous world produce gradually been changing in form, original(prenominal)ly collectable to sphericalisation, by overlapping in different spheres of barbarous conflicts and small but utmost(prenominal)ly dangerous organizations same terrorism and insurgencies.\r\nNevertheless, their true nature and intentions have managed to save through ages, as a general average of social behavior, involving extreme violence, desire for condition and manipulation, as headspring as conflicts established on the prat of religious or pagan issues. In addition, the residuum of the cold war had a great intrusion on the globular socio- policy-making picture by establishing a completely spic-and-span image of inter di scipline relations, forms of impertinent associations and a strong push for a armament affair progress.Could common cold War Have Been Avoided?\r\nTo infer the nature of war, its influence on stoppage affairs, as well as the impact of globalization on war matters, I would initial provide a general interpretation of â€Å"war”, by presenting or so theoretical show upes. Eventually I would concentrate on the impact of the post-cold period and finally, pause with the affect of globalization. War and theoretical move upes: Scholars have perpetually provided quite distant expositions for a â€Å"war”. Indeed delineate â€Å"war” could be a complicated task.\r\nThis is due to the situation that even if the nature of a war clay constant, it always reflects the peculiar(a) sentence and place in which it occurs. In separate words, the current time, situation, the initial shopping mall of the problem, as well as, the level of violence and particular actors would greatly influence and define the type of conflict. Thus, establishing a general idea of a ‘war’ dexterity end to be quite inaccurate. Nevertheless, I would act to present the main general definitions, based on different theoretical approaches. Quincy Wright, for xample, describes war as a â€Å"conflict among political groups, especially sovereign avers, carried on by armed hauls of gigantic magnitude, for a considerable period of time”. (Baylis, 2008, p. 213)\r\nJudging by his statement, we could conclude that it’s a authoritativeist approach, emphasizing on the federal agency of the state and the highest level of sovereignty that possesses. A nonher approach of defining war is the definition of Hedly Bulls claiming that war is an â€Å" organise violence, carried by political units against each other”. (Baylis, 2008, p. 14) This definition could be accepted as inappropriate because non every single action of violence is spec ify as a war. In addition, war could occupy and other internal actors except political angiotensin converting enzymes a equivalent citizens for example (religious, racial conflicts). A third approach by Clausewitz explains war as â€Å"an act of force intended to compel our opponents to fulfill our will”. (Baylis, 2008, p. 214) This definition is more(prenominal) liberal based as it stresses more on the advocator and affect of globalization than on the state sovereignty.\r\nEven though all of these definitions calculate to differ in scathe of theory, we could generalize or so common characteristics between them, which are organized violence, state or non-state actors, as well as array force and manipulation. To get a better rationality on the definitions, the change of warfare, as well as the impact of globalization and post-cold war period, I would kindred to summarize and stress on two well known theories: Realism and idleism. Realism, first of all, stresses on the power of the state and its sovereignty, representing it as the main actor on the world stage.\r\nIt also expresses world politics as a ‘self- answer dust’ and a ‘struggle for power’ between states (Baylis, 2008, p. 5), trying to dominate and maximize their national interests. In addition, globalization is not important and does not affect political world. on the loose(p)ism, on the contrary, emphasizes on the enduringness of democracy, underlying that states are not the scarce main actors. Transnational actors, internationalist corporations and organizations (like terrorism) are also playacting a key role in defining warfare and its evolving. Also, liberalists admit the importance of globalization, economic and environmental issues.\r\nConsidering the current international affairs, as well as the decline power of state actors, we could assume that the Liberal theory quite successfully matches with the recent socio-political events. Thus, I would further analyze the change of warfare from the perspectives of the Liberal approach. Post-cold war period: The fall of the Soviet juncture in 1989, resulting in the end of the Cold War, go down a refreshful evolution in the expression of the international relations and the international system. That therefore brought most influential domestic attributes like democracy system in some post-communist states.\r\nIn addition, the number of wars sharply declined but not and their crucial brutality. A push-down storage of ex-Soviet Union members, as well as some eastern European countries like former Yugoslavia undergo tremendous crisis. M whatsoever states disintegrated, which conduct to bloody well-behaved wars and insurgencies. another(prenominal) great factor was the new system of democracy that former communist states had to accept. Some states indeed benefited from that but for others that turned protrude to be a vast and sudden change resulting in more economic crisis an d chaos in the population.\r\nIn addition, this led to the active participation of world organizations like the fall in Nations, as well as NATO and EU in preserving the peace and avoiding any brutal conflicts that could follow. Such intervention and anti-conflict actions influenced not only the warfare but human morals, as well. People’s understanding of politics, political economy became more globally based, not just state-isolated. A state problem at long last turned out to be a global problem, like the war in former Yugoslavia, 9/11 and the current affairs in Egypt. The post-cold war period gave the first strong push of a massive globalization.\r\nIndeed, globalization has always existed in human history and has always been an inevitable sue; even no one has specially mentioned it before the end of the Cold War. Another great change that affected the warfare was the authoritative hegemony power that the USA gained. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the internation al system changed from a anatomy of ‘bipolarity’ into a phase of ‘unipolarity’. Thus, USA’s global influence speeded up even more the going on process of globalization, turning it in to â€Å"Americanization”. (Baylis, 2008, p. 13)USA was for certain outstanding in terms of military power and technical innovations; neertheless it did nothing to prevent the up-coming events of organized violence and particularly terrorism. A good example is the 9/11 event and the Iraq War in 2003. Even though USA had a magnificent superiority in terms of weaponry, technical and communication technology, the responding asymmetric attacks that followed, as well as the terroristic actions in London and capital of Spain proved the dramatic changes that have occurred in terms of warfare.\r\nGlobalization: The revolution in military affairs that followed in the 1991, right after Gulf War, construct a new image and form of the contemporary warfare. With the vast d evelopment of technology, communication, Internet and media, war was eventually converted into a new form of a war conflict, unfamiliar for the old Westphalian Order ideas. The primary Westphalian characteristics of a territoriality, fixed boarders, self-determination and states as only key-actors completely contradict with the contemporary current global affairs. And indeed, Globalization is more than just interconnectedness.\r\nIt involves much more than cooperation and international relations between states. It eventually dissolves the state boarders, turning the world into a â€Å"shared social space”, (Baylis, 2008, p. 18) as well as, placing the sparing and political activities into a completely new transnational global scale. Another important factor of globalization is the â€Å"time-space compressing”. (Baylis, 2008, p. 18) Nowadays, any power or military actions could be exercised from a distance and fulfilled for a comparatively short period of time.\r\nG lobalization has broken any possible barriers involving distance, space or time with the help of Internet, communication and media. These factors have resulted in an entire new generation of warfare. In such a new era of innovation and high technology, new non-state actors have managed to transform both cyber place and media into a real battlefield. From one hand, this has led to the creation of highly useful and complex weaponry machinery, ensuring better protection and urge responds to military actions.\r\nOn the contrary though, that also leads to terrorism, organized crimes, violence as well as, weapons of mass destruction. With the superpower of producing and exporting such powerful technology, the safety of homo and the brutality of contemporary warfare are surely not on the way of declining. Another cast out consequence of globalization results in the different economical level of the world countries and the continuous growing disturbance between them. Indeed globalizat ion is useful and subservient for powers like Japan, USA and Russia but other countries like Sierra Leone or Eritrea definitely lack the benefits of globalization.\r\nThis creates poverty, eventually crisis, which could lead to civil wars and more bloody violence. In the past decade, 95% of the armed conflicts have occurred at heart states rather than between them. Such new wars father place in states where the economy is extremely unequal or even collapsing. Conclusion: Many of the characteristics of warfare mentioned above are not new features of war conflicts. They have been existing for a long time since early human history. That includes religious or ethnic confrontations, or any other kind of conflicts performed with extreme brutality.\r\nWhat really empowered the contemporary warfare and do it so massively destructive is globalization. It is the human efficacy and necessity to protect or manipulate, to defend themselves or just to apply control over a state of civilians . It is hard yet to predict what other crucial impacts globalization would have on humankind and eventually on warfare. Whatever the reason though, wars would never stop to exist and they would be always a human norm of a social behavior, that would fool according to the current environment and current period of time.\r\nReferences:\r\nBaylis, John, Smith, Steve and Owens, Patricia (eds.) (2008). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to internationalistic Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press (4th ed.)\r\nBoyer, P. (2001). The Oxford Companion to United States History. Postâ€Cold War Era. Retrieved January 29, 2011 from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-PostColdWarEra.html\r\nEncyclopedia of the new American Nation. Cultural Relations and Policies †Globalization and the cold war. Retrieved January 29, 2011 from:\r\n'