Global politics is an issue of international concern as it interests every country in the world. There are conflicts going on everywhere in the world often orchestrated by the world stable states. These countries always look for ways to continue being the leaders as there are huge benefits of being a global leader. These countries have a way of getting resources from the other countries on the periphery. Immense benefits arise with being a world leader, which include United States of America, France, The Great Britain, Italy, Germany and The People’s Republic of China. They strive to do whatever they can so that they can remain to control the world in all the sectors of life. They try to establish relations with other countries and as a result of this they dominate the other countries and benefit from the immense resources often untapped by these countries that are not developed.
As a consequence of these struggles, we have seen conflicts emerging over the dominance of these countries. This situation is my primary concern in this research paper. The top countries struggle to fight to gain control of the world, and this has resulted in technological advancements by these countries so as to maintain their superiority in the world order (Heywood, 2011). This situation is the reason behind the conflicts and lack of peace among countries in the world. Most of the violence witnessed in the world today are orchestrated due to political motives as will be evident in this research work.
In this discussion of world politics, I will base my arguments on the Marxists approaches on the world politics and wars. According to this approach, the Marxists believe in the situation whereby the primary states dominate the other countries on the periphery. Major states may include countries like the United States of America, The People’s Republic of China, Germany, and France. The countries on the periphery may include, countries of the third world like African countries.
Marxism is characterized by the following fundamental principles that govern its ideals. The first principle is the belief that social life is based on conflict of interest. The interest is between those who own and control the means of production in the society and those who just sell their labor to the capitalists. The Marxists also believe that at any time, there would be two great classes involved in a capitalist’s society with factions from each part of the classes.
Marxism also believes in the idea of leadership with the consent of the led. There are three ways in which those in governance have managed to consolidate this principle. It occurs by the use of force, that is, the use of the police and the army. It is also displayed by use of ideologies by using mass media and teachers in schools. Another important characteristic of Marxism involves the concept of alienation in which capitalist’s societies have undermined those participating in the production of goods. This condition in a way is a form of oppression by the capitalists. These are just but a few of the principles that govern Marxism.
The Marxists theory emphasizes a dominance by the stronger states over, the weaker states. The capitalists are those countries that continuously oppress the countries that own the means of production and have always undermined these countries by ensuring that they do not gain recognition of the products coming of in the end. The capitalists have a way rebranding the goods and services in a way that succeeds entirely to disregard the producers who are from the fewer powerful states.
Another ideal of the Marxist approach is that which emphasizes leadership on the consent of the led. This position is indeed correct in that, among the major states we have leadership done through a democratic process so that the continued oppression lacks significant questioning from the other major states globally. The decisions taken by the major states are always discussed in fora that are influential world over. Hence, everybody is signatory to such decisions. There are representatives who mostly come from the states on the periphery and they end up being compromised by these other major states. As a result of this they continue to rule world over, and this results in the dominance that I am discussing
Another ideal of the Marxists is the existence of two extreme classes in the capitalist society. According to Marxists, there are factions that exist in these classes and the capitalists have always struggled to maintain the highest in the hierarchy (Nelson & Grossberg, 1988). By this way, they control a larger part that is those who control the biggest companies and in that way they continue to monitor the world. For instance, even though the major states are not the major producers of crude oil they have continued to enjoy a larger percentage of global oil exploration tenders. It occurs due to the capacity they have in such matters and also the resources they have. It is because of this reason that they have continued to rule the world by creating two extreme classes between the producers. It is to ensure monopoly of the market for goods and services.
In this discussion, I would like to relate to the well-known Iraq wars that took place in the year 2003 under the leadership of the then President George W. Bush. This wars happened when Saddam Hussein led Iraq. This war lasted a decade, and its primary intention was to topple the government of Saddam Hussein. The United States withdrew officially from the wars in 2011, but they still have their troops in Iraq. The United States combined armies with United Kingdom and several allied countries during this war, and it was a surprise attack that had no prior warning. The attacks led to the collapse of Saddam Hussein government.
The Marxist theory relates well to this war that directly involved the United States. It is clear that the United States are the capitalists under this circumstance that are a bigger state seeking dominance over Iraq. The United States is endowed with resources that make them a stronger state compared to Iraq, in this case. Due to the situation that it is a big state, it seeks the support of the other major states. Such a move enables them to continue to fight wars in Iraq and gain control of the country and topple its leadership. The United States Army quickly won the wars in Iraq. They had advanced technology on warfare and used their resources to conquer Iraq. This condition clearly shows their dominance in terms of technological advancement.
On the other hand, Iraq is a country that is blessed with a natural resource of crude oil and a very high percentage of its economy heavily depends on and gas products. Such a fact makes Iraq a country that owns a natural resource that interests a bigger state that is the United States, in this case. This position brings me to the principle of Marxist that is about conflict of interest between those who possess and regulate the resources for production and those who sell their labor to capitalists. In this case, the conflict of interest is between the Iraq government headed by Saddam Hussein at that time and the United States which is interested in the natural resource hence the cause of war at that time.
According to the principle that dwells in the belief of leadership with the consent of the led, it clearly applies in this context. The whole war in Iraq was because of the approval of the top leadership forum. It was also approved by the United Nation Security Council based on the arguments of the United States government report to the council (Mansbach & Rhodes, 2009). They were even allowed to use force such as the utilization of the army in war to fight Iraq by the Security Council. This state is seen in that they even have a coalition in this war from the United Kingdom and other allies.
Another important principle is that which emphasizes the dominance of the stronger countries over, the weaker ones. In this case, the higher country is the United States over, the weaker one that is Iraq. The United States dominated the war and came out victorious after a short while, and they captured the incumbent who was later prosecuted in a military court. This dominance was in terms of the army the United States had taken to war and the weapons they used which overcame the army of Saddam Hussein. All these principles of Marxists relate the war in Iraq to Marxist theory. Hence, the theory is applicable to the conflict that took place
There are several factors that led to the war in Iraq that as stated earlier was a surprise attack. Some of the reasons put forward to the Security Council prior to this war from the administration of President Bush. Issues raised were that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed a risk to the United States government and its allied partners who all wanted to fight him. Another factor that led to the war that Saddam was supporting al-Qaida that is a world terror threat to date. Finally, the United States had a reason to bring to an end the dictatorship that was carried out by Saddam’s Ba’ath Party. Its intention was to bring the dictatorship to a halt and ensure that there was multiparty, and democracy prevailed in Iraq.
It is because of this war that United States brought to an end the dictatorship of that time under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. As a result, the country went to a democratic election and came up with a new Prime Minister in 2005.The Prime Minister, Maliki remained in office from 2006 to 2014.The united states has not yet removed its troupes from Iraq due to diplomatic reasons. The new prime minister and his government on the other end have put policies in place to guarantee that democracy within the country is enhanced. This situation has ensured that there is peace in the region.
For this discussion, I wish to express the following in the areas of international, economic and human security. I want to say emphatically that there always is an alternative to war, and peaceful coexistence is vital in the growth of a society. On international security, the United States should involve other countries in its peace deals make sure they feel part of the process of making peace (Smith, Chatfield & Pagnucco, 1997). They also should eliminate barriers that have been put in terms of political negotiations with countries on the periphery. Another important policy I would recommend is that which ensures equity for those smaller states that engage in bilateral deals with the United States. All these countries are stakeholders in one way or another and should be accorded the equal chance at the high table.
Negotiations are also a way to solve conflicts and therefore policies created should be able to allow exploration of options available and at all times ensure that there is peace between conflicting parties (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2014). International securities facilitate positive international relationships that, as a result, leads to the right relations in bilateral agreements. I believe that war is evitable in many circumstances if available options are explored thoroughly. I, therefore, champion for policies that strengthen diplomatic relations. This situation can be realized if schemes are put to deal with security because as a country the United States also needs other countries on international grounds for the benefit of its population.
On economic security, there are various strategies that should be set to certify that the monetary concerns of the United States is protected. To ensure stable economies in these major states, they should be at the forefront championing for world peace. These circumstances can also be achieved when they take part in peace building initiative in countries that hold the world economies like Iran and Iraq. These countries are some of the major oil producers in the world. Lack of peace in such areas automatically affect the global economy, which includes the economic stability of the United States. The United States ought to be welcoming to partners regardless of the disparity that exists in terms of superiority. Some smaller states hold a lot of promise in terms of untapped resources that could be of immense benefit to the economic security of United States.
Another strategy would be to ensure that they maintain economic security by certifying they capitalize the position they have as the world’s superpower. This way they could offer attractive deals to the producers of limited global resources like energy and oil. This strategy ensures that they do not end up in a war over economic issues, and this results in economic security (Küng, 1998).
Finally, I would like to appreciate the importance of human safety in a big country like The United States. Security for the American citizen is important, and the government has to put strategies in place to protect its citizen. I wish to recommend the government to create awareness among the citizens. This awareness could easily be done by use of media to lets the citizens be aware of the importance of being vigilant. The government can also educate its youth in schools on the importance of security to a country. This situation is also accomplished by necessitating that citizens are taught good morals that help them to be good ambassadors and of good morals. It is only through this that the United States could act as champions for human rights world over.
Goldstein, J. S., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2014). International relations.
Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Küng, H. (1998). A global ethic for global politics and economics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mansbach, R. W., & Rhodes, E. J. (2009). Global politics in a changing world: A reader. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Nelson, C., & Grossberg, L. (1988). Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Smith, J., Chatfield, C., & Pagnucco, R. (1997). Transnational social movements and global politics: Solidarity beyond the state. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press.