At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I have just been given a debate motion which is 'Political differences are better solved through wars than peaceful means.' I am opposing the motion and I need to know the following :
a) Examples of political differences that have been solved by peaceful means
b) Why are wars sometimes a better approach to solve political differences?
c) Any link to websites that are associated with this motion.
I am seriously lost in this motion. I have no idea what to reseach about. I really need help here. Please save me.
DK's signature says it all "Sic vis pacem parabellum".If you want peace prepare for war. I'm not taking either of the debate propositions because of course peace is the ideal and generally a negotiated settlement of differences is preferred . .But just as important as a peaceful resolution to disputes is the nature of the resolution. As DK observed in a recent posting the absence of conflict is not necessarily peace.
The UN of course had a sole purpose of ending world wide conflict (see preamble :Charter of the United Nations) . You see how well that has worked . Yes there have been some instances where they have been effective. But I consider that the exception.
I have found however that the UN does not have the desire and/or the muscle to enforce it's various resolutions so their effectiveness is at best contingent on nations providing the appropriate force structure to achieve their goal.
Here is a list of NGOs whose stated purpose is international conflict resolution
The problem, Darkknight (is that a Batman reference?), is that you are on the wrong side of the argument.
Historically speaking, war has solved more political differences than peaceful means. The number of times when peaceful means have brought a political resolution to a problem are very few in human history.
Karl Von Clausewics has some interesting stuff in his book "On War" about politics and the military and hwo the two work together (or don't). Problem is he was speaking from the military point of view, so he tends to be a proponent of military strength to support a political agenda. I suggest reading it for a good bakground understanding of the nature of war, government, politics and the military. You can get free copies of it on the internet.
Solving political problems though diplomacy is a rare occurance. And in every case where it occurs, it happens when there is a credible threat of military force to back up diplomatic efforts (ei: If you don't go along with our solution, we're going to invade your country). There is almost ALWAYS a military component to any diplomatic solution, even if it is only in the threat to use the military if a diplomatic solution isn't reached.
Frankly, I can't think of a viable argument for your side of the debate. Historically speaking, your position just simply isn't true.
I have just been given a debate motion which is 'Political differences are better solved through wars than peaceful means.' I am opposing the motion and I need to know the following :
a) Examples of political differences that have been solved by peaceful means
b) Why are wars sometimes a better approach to solve political differences?
c) Any link to websites that are associated with this motion.
I am seriously lost in this motion. I have no idea what to reseach about. I really need help here. Please save me.
I would suggest that you use Northern Ireland as a model and John Hume and David Trimble as exemplars of the proposition and principle that ‘only peaceful means must be used.’ The uncompromising unionist vs. the honorable nationalist.
Sissela Bok writes about what she calls ‘"The Pathology of Partisanship", about how war can create in us a mental state which leaves us devoid of respect, even of pity, for even the most innocent victims. She recalls the writer Stephen Spender's horror at finding that pathological condition in himself in the Spanish Civil War. Only through strong leadership and institutional guarantees can a society withstand such destructiveness, Sissela Bok concludes’.
The problem, Darkknight (is that a Batman reference?), is that you are on the wrong side of the argument.
Historically speaking, war has solved more political differences than peaceful means. The number of times when peaceful means have brought a political resolution to a problem are very few in human history.
Karl Von Clausewics has some interesting stuff in his book "On War" about politics and the military and hwo the two work together (or don't). Problem is he was speaking from the military point of view, so he tends to be a proponent of military strength to support a political agenda. I suggest reading it for a good bakground understanding of the nature of war, government, politics and the military. You can get free copies of it on the internet.
Solving political problems though diplomacy is a rare occurance. And in every case where it occurs, it happens when there is a credible threat of military force to back up diplomatic efforts (ei: If you don't go along with our solution, we're going to invade your country). There is almost ALWAYS a military component to any diplomatic solution, even if it is only in the threat to use the military if a diplomatic solution isn't reached.
Frankly, I can't think of a viable argument for your side of the debate. Historically speaking, your position just simply isn't true.
Sorry about that, Darkknight.
Elliot
Frankly, we don’t know how many times political problems were solved though diplomacy, it is naive to believe they have all been recorded.
The only problem with Bok's conclusion is that it is wrong.
The British victoy over the IRA came from an uncompromising battle against the terrorists COUPLED with a political/diplomatic program with the Irish Government. Britain worked diplomatically with the rightful and legal regime in Ireland, not with the terrorists who were the cause of the terrorism. All attempts to work diplomatically with the IRA terrorists failed. instead, they worked with the government of Ireland. They told the Irish government that they were going to hold the Irish government responsible for keeping the IRA in check. They said that they would help Ireland do that if they so desired, but that it was Ireland's responsibility. And they stuck to their guns on that position. At the same time, they waged an all-out offensive against the IRA itself. Eventually, it was the IRA who called for the final peace talks.
So the solution was a diplomatic one with the Irish government, but a military one with regard to the IRA.
Bok's assessment ignores decades, even centuries of history that prove that diplomatic efforts to work with the IRA terrorists and their predecessors were fruitless and in fact dangerous.
Similarly, we are trying to accomplish the same thing in Iraq. A diplomatic program with the Iraqi government in which they are held responsible for keeping the terrorists in check, but an unyielding battle against the terrorists themselves. The solution in Iraq will not be a diplomatic one, as much as those on the left woul wish it were so. It will be a combination of diplomatic efforts between govenments and military efforts against the terrorists.
Bottom line: it is very rare to see a diplomatic effort, sans military effort, that results in lasting solutions to problems. Diplomacy is indeed a necessary component, even if only to accept the surrender of the enemy. But it alone is not, and cannot be, the solution. Diplomacy without military action is weak, and temporary at best. Diplomacy can only operate when the military has created the environment in which diplomacy can exist.
Frankly, we don’t know how many times political problems were solved though diplomacy, it is naive to believe they have all been recorded.
All? I'm not looking for all cases where diplomacy worked as a method of conflict resolution without military intervention or the threat of military intervention at some level. I'd be happy if someone could point out even a few. Let's start with one. They are so rare as to be nearly non-existant.
Diplomacy cannot exist in a vacuum without military strength to back it up.
The idea that nothing is worth fighting for is far worse than war; however, it may be useful to ask why the United States needed a Revolutionary war to “be free” and Canada did not.
I remember in October 1963 when President Kennedy gave a threatening speech to Khruschshev of the USSR who was putting in nuclear weapons in Cuba. Those were very dangerous times, very dangerous. WWIII was just about to happen because Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak.
The tension eased when, thru diplomacy, Khrushchev agreed to take the missles out of Cuba....and soon, there they went off on ships back to the USSR. What never was mentioned was that Kennedy agreed to take our missles out of Turkey four months after the Cuban missles were removed.
We often don't know when diplomacy prevents horrific wars. I would direct you to the very active diplomacy from the end of the Korean War to 1989 when the Soviet Union imploded for many, many examples, including the Cuban Missle Crisis that I mentioned above.
Linear Mode
