new world order
Although everyone has heard of the catchy phrase, I think very few people know what the "new world order" stands for. Depending on who you talk to, definitions range from type of government structure to economic policy to leadership role in international affairs. It seems to me that the new world order has never been defined in concrete terms. Therefore, it has become a catch all expression which encompasses many different ideas. I think the slogan is society's attempt to classify a wide range of recent events. Change seems to be the underlying factor that links all these ideas together. I believe the U.S. will continue to hold the world leadership role. I agreed with the point brought up in Chapter One, Selection One (p. 19) by John Makin. Basically he said that the U.S. still has great absolute power even though power measured relative to other countries has seemed to decline. There was a power vacuum following World War II, so it seems logical that in the 50 or so years since then power would become more equally distributed. The fact that Japan and Germany have recovered from almost complete ruin doesn't mean that the U.S. is headed down a path of inevitable destruction. The citizens of the United States enjoy a very high sta
I have mixed feelings about the impact the ending of the Cold War will have. I didn't agree with the selection by Joshua Muravchik (p. 154) which stated the world will become one huge democracy. I also don't think the U.S. should spread democracy to countries that don't want it. I agreed with Doyle McManus and Robin Wright's opinion (p. 162) that some countries aren't suited for democracy because of cultural differences. In order for a democracy to succeed, a country must have people who are willing to become involved, informed, and educated about the process. John Mearsheimer's opinion (p. 178) that world wide conflict will not decrease as a result of the end of the Cold War also appealed to me. I agreed with his claim that war will never become obsolete. Ending the tension between the United States and the former Soviet Union hasn't suppressed skirmishes around the world. Civil wars in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia are proof of this. I think the UN has its foundations in a noble idea, yet its methods render it powerless. How can an organization offer peacekeeping actions when its members can't interfere directly in the situations it is attempting to stop? In order to be an effective force, the UN will have to stop straddling the middle ground and choose a side to defend. Perhaps the mission statement needs to be revised to allow effective operations to occur. I think one of the main flaws hindering the UN is the organization's struggle to maintain a totally impartial involvement in world affairs. So far this has only resulted in missions that are never quite completed as they were intended.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Samuel Huntington, Rwanda Somalia, Soviet Union, , Alfred Balk, Japan Germany, Robin Wright's, Cold War, Joshua Muravchik, Makin Basically, mission statement, role international affairs, soviet union, role international, international affairs, chapter selection, world affairs, maintaining power, leadership role, cold war, focus resources, former soviet union,
Approximate Word count = 1083
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
