The population of the world has been on the increase for the past century or so due to a number of reasons (Kelsall, 1999). And if something is not done quickly to contain this rapid increase, population bomb may become one of the greatest problems in the history of mankind. It is through the advancements of industrial, scientific and medical systems that the world’s population has increased fourfold from the traditional rates of 2.5 million in two years, (Malthus, 1958). It is only recently that fears have emerged on realization of the outburst in the world population by a staggering 60 billion people in less than a decade, which, you will agree, is an impending danger. The ecosystem is being depleted, dependency ratio is significantly on the rise, food insecurity is stalking on mankind and societal moralities are being deconstructing to allow dishonest competition for resources that has led to corruption, crime, tribalism, racism and nepotism. Poverty, especially in the third world countries (eg Sub Saharan Africa), has been as a result of high population against limited economic opportunities.
To blame for the current population bomb are the religious leaders, (Weeks, 1998). Religion, so to speak Christianity, has propagated the belief that children (many children) are blessing from the supernatural being, (Weeks, 1998). The Catholic Church for instance, has not only waged war against abortion but also against the otherwise effective use of contraceptives. These frontal attacks on controlled births have encouraged exaggerated birth rates thus high population. Technological advancement and the governments’ emphasis on the health sector have significantly reduced infant mortality rates. Immorality in the world has encouraged adultery, early sexual relationships among the youths. This has been known to reward young girls with early (and so to speak unwanted) pregnancies.
However, the sobering point is that all is has not been lost as far as world’s population control is concerned. Extensive campaigns should be done worldwide to call for voluntary contraception, empowerment of women to have autonomy over the reproductive process, and talking religious leader out of their misguided approach towards births and sex as tool solely for reproduction. People have to stand tall and contain the problem of population outburst before it becomes too sophisticated for our problem solving tools to handle.
Jihad and McWorld
Jihad and McWorld are two very competitive forces in the world today that differ and relate significantly in many ways, (Mintz, & Geva, 1997). Both jihad and McWorld operate under a hierarchical power system, and both appear to partially employ the tenets of true democracy, (Levitt, 1988). Furthermore, winning global domination has become the key motivator of the two. Their ultimate differences in the methodology called to task towards satisfying their goals and objectives make these two forces impossible to coexist within a single form of governance where the space is just enough for only one of them.
Jihad refers to the ‘holy war’ that is perpetuated and asserted in its strict sense by Islamic fundamentalists and their followers. The Jihad followers believe they are on a mission from God, a mission to ‘assist’ God wipe out non believers (and sinners). The only to do this according to the, is by declaring war on the non-believers: the holy war. The physical locations for the people who enthusiastically participate in the holy war transcend national boundaries and are, as a result, scattered all over the world where they still exist in smaller groupings that are ultimately networked with those in the larger Arabic world. When the term Jihad comes to the context of America, as (Mintz, & Geva, 1997) state, what rushes into the mind of people are groupings like Al Queda and Al Shaabab, but in true, the members of Jihad include Islam in its entirety.
On the contrary, the McWorld, that is the American corporate empire, value a relatively lower purpose or religious ideal. It simply values, in the words of Barber, ’cold hard cash’. This corporate world is growing exponentially and is becoming a monster in the face of Jihad due to the large amounts of money it has come to generate in the course of its economy oriented metamorphosis. American-based businesses like McDonald’s fast food empire symbolize this attitude which made Barber refer to it as McWorld. America seeks to control all markets of the world and is therefore the founding ‘father’ of the McWorld attitudes. Almost all developed and developing countries have come to depict these imperialistic attitudes thus embracing the American approach to global domination. Money has become the only (mark ‘only’) source of motivation as proposed by McWorld and not religion that Jihad so vigorously proposes.
International Conflict Prevention
The world’s peace has been threatened in the present time more than ever before. Nations have conflicting objectives and interests. When these interests clash, the resultant situation is where each nation seeks to go to war with the other, (Gill, 1997). As the markets of these nations expand in the current pressures of globalization, so does the emergence of grouping among nation states in the line of businesses. Grouping in that, nations become friendlier to those that they do business with, so that any war is undoubtedly not going to between the two belligerent nations but one that involves a cluster of nations. The point here is, such a war in the face of the modern technological advancements in weaponry, may lead to the net extermination of the human race. Therefore, the need for a sober approach in the manner in which these cross-nation conflicts are to be solved has become inevitable. Due to the complexity of the nature of the 21st century nation states, a well designed, systematic and objective strategy is important. International conflict prevention study course is this sober, result oriented and nation interest safeguarding approach.
The study of international conflict management will produce experts who are able to monitor tense situations across the nations. The experts will be able monitor the resulting conflict and design informed approaches that will see to it that conflicts do not escalate to destructive disputes and wars. The truth is, prevention of international conflicts starts as the escalation stage where the resultant experts of this course will be able to make the international conflicts deescalate. The designed approaches will ensure that potentially violent conflicts are intervened and a state of stability achieved.
Experts produced by this course are able to initiate empirical problem solving tools that address the problem from its roots causes. The effectively identified root causes are then resolved amicably, the triggers of conflict destabilized and a long lasting measure is put in place to ensure that conflictual situations are put under once and for all. The experts, drawing from skills only acquirable from this course, will be able to institutionalize the idea of violence and conflict prevention at the regional and international levels, thus succeeding in making conflict prevention an integral part of a just and peace seeking world.
Indeed, as much as conflicts are unavoidable in this world of competition, the manner in which they are handled in the name of resolving them makes them either violent or mild. Conflicts across the nations can lead to a major war. However, International conflict prevention course will go a long way in mitigating problems of conflicts internationally. Though many nations have not yet known the great role played by this course (they can only imagine it), its importance in international peace keeping missions can never be overemphasized
Realist and Idealist Foreign Policy
The two, realistic and idealistic foreign policies consist of opposing approaches to the meanings and the pursuit of national objectives abroad. The realistic policy approach is developed by accepting and dealing with conditions across the nation states as they are and goes ahead to elaborate the ends and means of policy by the strategies and measures of the expected gains, costs, priorities and likelihood of success.
The idealistic policy approach tends to define the nation states objectives in the ideal state which makes it more visionary and presupposes that the means for satisfying this goals does not depend entirely on the measured policies put forward that are depended on diplomacy or coercion but rather on the beauty of the objectives, (Sullivan, 2002).
In the case of America, adopting the realistic foreign policy becomes more efficient since the both the goals and the actual achievements or failure are easily quantified or qualified. In the event that satisfaction has not been achieved, in so far as meeting the set goals is concerned, the applied methods of approach, procedure and strategies are put to test. This provides room for informed and focused judgment that will ensure that errors are learned, methods of situational approach revamped towards achieving long term goals. The idealistic foreign policy breeds high expectations and the resultant disappointments can lead to violent conflicts among nation states or even within the nation. America, in the wake of worldwide insecurity must embrace the realistic approach and judge nation states on the basis of what they truly are, what they do and the security threats to they pose.
Isolationist and Internationalist
Internationalist foreign policy is a mindful approach to other nation states, (Sullivan, 2002). This policy calls to mind the fact that development of one nation state has a great influence upon the others. It is founded on the conviction that problems are better solved in informed dialogue and all nations (the peaceful one at the moment) have to channel their efforts towards the promotion and preservation of rule of law, morality, justice and the ultimate creation of international relations that are guided by good will.
Isolationist policy entails the belief that each nation state is a single entity that should be left alone to fend for its citizens, solve conflicts and if need be, engage in wars in isolation, (Sullivan, 2002). There is no interdependence among the nations or international humanitarian intervention in crisis, no technology transfer, no foreign involvement in key aspects of development. This means that a state lives ‘isolated’ from the activities that define international relations.
America should not go the isolationist way. The dangers of this move, as warned by George Washington, have so far cost America a lot in the bid to Isolate Europe, (Logevall, et al, 2001). The fate of European nations has undoubtedly come to haunt the American economy and social well being. Instead, the internationalist is reliable, all inclusive and sees to it that all nations join hands in achieving a common goal: development, (Logevall, et al, 2001).
To conclude, this terms idealistic, realistic, isolationist and internationalist have become very important in international relations. The approach that a nation chooses to use determines its foreign policy’s goals are, (Gill, 1997). An informed guidance in choosing these foreign policies is inevitable in so far as good international relations is concerned.