Pols404 Written Assignment 21 War And Conflictwri

War and Conflict in the Contemporary world-use the questions to guide you in writing up

1. Why do governments assume that “the more land, the better”?

There is a constant political struggle for land between two or more nations

around the world, where two different countries claiming to own a land area

even though another country controls (or “occupy”) it. Whenever a region

asks for independence, usually the central country refuses.

A non-exhaustive list:

Serbia claims Kosovo is theirs;

Pakistan, India and China all 3 considers the Kashmir region to be

theirs;

Both Argentina and the UK wants the Falkland Islands;

Spain refuses to even consider a possible Catalan or Basque

independence;

Both Greece and Turkey wants to control Cyprus;

Both Ukraine and Russia considers Crimea to be their;

POLS404 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 21 JANUARY 2019 1

5 days ago

Both Georgia and Russia claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia; and so

on.

It seems like pretty much all geopolitics and wars are based on the

assumption that “more land is better.” Is this assumption historically proven

and contemporary correct? What the benefits of “grabbing” more space (land

and water) and what the negatives could be?

2. Are there benefits to war?

Probably the most common defence of wars is that they are necessary

evils. However, wars are also defended as being in some way beneficial. How

does the war affect winners and victims? E.g., polls in the United States

through the 2003-2011 war on Iraq found that a majority in the U.S. believed

Iraqis were better off as the result of a war that severely damaged Iraq. A

majority of Iraqis, in contrast, believed they were worse off. This is a

disagreement over facts, not ideology. However, people often choose which

facts to become aware of or to accept.

The First World War destroyed empires, created numerous new nation-states,

encouraged independence movements in Europe’s colonies, forced the

United States to become a world power and led directly to Soviet communism

and the rise of Hitler. The Second World War led to a profound change in

political thinking about how states should conduct their relations. During the

Cold War, many advances in science and technology were made possible

because of the arms race. Could be such achievements qualified as benefits

of wars?

3. In which case is separatism considered legitimate?

What historical background usually gives a nation/minority within another

country legal grounds for separatism in the eyes of the international

community? In international law, the only principle that can be used is the Self

Determination Right, which is recognised by the United Nations. Do you think

that the definition of “nation” is too loose, as some countries have been

authorised to separate according to that principle, while others have had more

difficulty? Could you call the separatism “a nation within a nation”? Similarly, a

few countries are recognised as such by some others, whereas others refuse

to recognise them. Some examples: Taiwan, Israel, Darfur, Palestine, and

others. However, of what kind is such recognition – political or legal?

4. Can a country take over another?

Could a country legally take control over another country? If one country is

falling economically and politically, what will happen if one nation takes control

and merges the two nations? Are there any widely adopted treaties or

agreements that prevent this kind of action? For example, is the Russian

annexation of Crimea legal? What kind of wars are justified by the UN

Charter?

Based on what the countries, members of the United Nations Security

Council, vote in cases of authorisation of military actions – geopolitical

interests or values. Thus, Russia vetoed war against Syria but earlier did not

oppose military intervention in Libya.

POLS404 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 21 JANUARY 2019 2

5 days ago

5. Why does Russia try to stop Ukraine from approaching the EU and

NATO?

It is widely explained that while the Western capitals see the emergence of a

Europe ‘whole, free and at peace’, Moscow views the continent still

fragmented, still dominated by bloc mentality (given US influence in European

security), and burdened by the ongoing conflict. Where Western capitals see

the “open door” policy and the enlargement of organisations such as NATO

and the EU contributing to wider European stability, Moscow sees the

expansion of these organisations destabilising European security. Where

Western leaders have sought to emphasise partnership with Russia, including

attempting to develop strategic partnership and the creation of numerous

seats at the diplomatic table, Moscow sees itself increasingly isolated, the

mechanisms for interaction failing to provide Moscow with a voice. How do

you see the Russia- Ukraine war through these arguments?