NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Culture Outreach: a new Tool for Global Security We live in time when the essence of political dynamics is changing, because of the process of Globalization. It is impossible to talk about it as being only confined to the domains of economy and communication. The issue of preventing international terrorism became global, in full sense of this word. No longer can people expect that geographic barriers, such as mountains or ocean, can guarantee their geopolitical security. There is a feeling of strong political tension in the air, which is being felt by more and more people, even though that we are being told that we are about to enter the new world order, when there is going to be no wars and people are going to live in multicultural paradise. In his article Criticism of Globalization: Positive and Negative Aspects Professor Abdelhadi Boutaleb emphasizes the universal nature of Globalization: Globalization, which is designed to be the major trait of the new World Order - that is poised to be an old one - has spread since the beginning like an octopus in all fields.
It uses its gains through being attached to them and through consolidating them as well as through enlarging its networks around the world to take more. This globalization octopus risks to go beyond all obstacles and restrictions to swallow everything (Boutaleb). The problem of international terrorism is closely linked to the process of Globalization; this is why we need to think of it in the context of this process, in order to be able to find a solution. The end of the Cold War did not bring peace to the world. This is because it did not cause forces that opposed U. S.
international policies to dissipate. These forces used to be associated with Soviet geopolitical influences, but now they are left to themselves, this is why they are often being actualized in very destructive forms. For the first time in history, the most powerful country in the world declares war against individual Usama bin Laden, who after years of organizing successful attacks against American targets throughout the world, still remains at large. History shows that world peace cannot be accomplished in principle, because the idea of it is based on utopia thinking. If there were no conflicts in the world, human society would come to a stalemate, when no social or cultural progress could be possible. When there are no conflicts and everybody are equally happy, the society will face the danger of energetic entropy.
Therefore, it is important to understand that wars are essential to the progress of human kind, as specie. Promoting the idea of universal peace and tolerance is only making us weaker, while facing the threat of international terrorism. Security can never become a global issue, because different people have different understanding of what this concepts stands for. Leaving an unattended bag with groceries in public place in America is considered as major threat to peoples security, while doing the same in Ukraine, for example, will not even be noticed, because there are no geopolitical reasons for this country to be the target of terrorists, in the first place. The only global issue is freedom.
As Thomas Jefferson rightly pointed out: The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither (Jefferson). Today Americans are being told that evil Islamic fundamentalists cannot physically stand the fact that American women wear short skirts and walk around with their faces uncovered. It causes them to hate America so much, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives and lives of many innocent Americans, in order to spread terror. Is it really so? There is no doubt that such approach is childish, to say the least. Hatred does not just appear out of blue, it caused by frustration.
If there is consequence, there also has to be a cause one does not have to be a scientist to understand that. America has traditionally been considered Israelis best ally, because of powerful Jewish lobby. This is why we became the target for the attacks. There is nothing global about it. If America changed its foreign policy, in regards of the conflict in Middle East, it would be more effective, as the mean of preventing terrorist attacks, then taking toothpaste from people, before they board the planes.
There is no doubt that we are not much safer then we were 5 years ago. Every time terrorists strike, they do it in the least expected manner. Today we deploy the strictest security measures in airports, which provide almost a complete security for the air travelers. However, terrorists are also aware of this, therefore, the next time they will strike some place else. One can ask how they were able to get in this country in the first place.
It is because that our government promotes the concept of multiculturalism, which is slowly turning America into the analogue of Biblical Babylon. Since 9 / 11 there were more conflicts and more terrorism throughout the world. At the same time, the gap between poor and rich kept widening. This is the real reasons for conflicts. It would be naive to expect people in Third World countries to be completely happy while making 5 dollars a day at Nike factory, for example, when they can come to America and apply for welfare. There is more and more discontent in the world directed towards America, because this country exploits natural and human resources of other countries, while disguising it as promotion of democracy.
It is being declared by Clintons and Bush administrations that American foreign policy's task is introducing the notion of New World Order to people abroad, regardless of their wish. In his article Our Revolutionary Right Dr. William Pierce refers to American attack on Serbia as: Not just an attack on Serbia, it was an attack on America as well. This was a case of the common enemies of Serbia and America using American military and economic resources against Serbia now, with the plan to use them against America in the future. If the New World Order gang successfully compels everyone to toe the line, it will be American freedom which will be sacrificed as well as Serb freedom (Pierce). American traditional allies, such as Germany, France, England and Italy grow increasingly unhappy with how our government conducts foreign affairs.
Some of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, are actually worse than enemy. The bulk of terrorist financing comes from this country. Officially, Saudi Arabia supports America, but it never misses the chance to stab us from behind, when opportunity arises. The same can be said about Russia. This is why the rate of international conflicts in the world in on the rise. We need to re-examine and to re-evaluate our approach and response to the threat of terrorism.
First of all, we will have to come up with a clear definition of who can be defined as terrorists, in order to find the most effective way to deal with this threat. As practice shows, terrorism is rarely the full time occupation for majority of terrorists. In the Middle East, terrorism is like a hobby for most of Muslims. They can be law abiding peasants by day and terrorists by night. Therefore, when we attack them while they look after the herds of sheep, we will inevitably be branded as murders of civilians. This is often the case when our planes bomb terrorist targets in Afghanistan, for example.
This is why we cannot effectively fight against the abstract threat of global terrorism. It is whether we designate certain countries as such that support terrorism and bomb them into the Stone Age, or simply stop talking about it. There is no third option. Those that say that we need to have a global, not local or regional view of terrorism do not understand the essence of this problem, because this point of view does not bring us closer to finding an effective solution to this threat. This is nothing but wordy equilibrist ic. How do we go about fighting global terrorism?
Maybe we should allow British military planes to bomb Boston, because that is where the most of IRA financing comes from? Or maybe we should help Russia to raise Chechen villages to the ground, as they do now, because they consider it as being a part of war on global terror? Or maybe we should round up all citizens of Arab descend in America and ship them back to where they came from? This would definitely solve the problem of Islamic terrorism in America, but communists like Hillary Clinton would not allow us to do this anyways.
We need to have a comprehensive view of terrorism. In its turn, it requires international cooperation and collaboration. However, we will not be able to encourage other countries to collaborate with us, if we impose our view of the problem on everybody else. This is especially the case when our government indulges in constant repetition of buzz-phrases that are deprived of any real meaning. In 2003 French government has banned wearing Muslim turbans by students in schools.
This issue was surrounded by the hysteria, raised by human-rights activists. They were pointing out that under no circumstances people could be restricted in how they behave. Yet, majority of French people are strongly in favor of putting an end to their country turning into New Pakistan. Ever since, the threat of terrorism in France was being significantly lowered. Are we ready to support this French initiative, in order to strengthen the international cooperation and collaboration between our two countries, when it comes to fighting terror? I doubt it very much.
The best we can do is to come up with meaningless formulations, such as: terrorism is global issue, terrorism needs to be confronted, lets double up our efforts to confront terrorism etc. Many political observers suggest that the issue of security is no longer local or national it is international. The ratio of terrorist acts in the world is rising. Susan Glassers 2005 article U. S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism points out to this threatening tendency: The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.
S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week (Glasser). However, this is only the case with countries that actively support U. S. foreign policies. On the other hand, there were no instances of terror in countries that are known for their position of political neutrality, such as Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and Ukraine.
Another reason for these countries to be comparatively safe is that they impose strict restrictions on immigration from Third World countries. It is much wiser to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place, than having to deal with it, after it takes place. America has a strong body but its mind is not overly smart. If we try to convince average Finn that the threat of international terrorism should be one of his foremost concerns, he will laugh. This is because Muslims are being encouraged to overpass Finland, while immigrating to Western countries. It goes without saying that there is a need to establish political and economic stability in many countries and regions, but such stability cannot be imposed forcibly, as our experience in Iraq has proven.
Also, it needs to be kept in mind that an absolute stability only exists in cemeteries...
Free research essays on topics related to: global terrorism, third world countries, international terrorism, saudi arabia, process of globalization
Research essay sample on Third World Countries Process Of Globalization
