|← The UK Devolution Scheme||Canada →|
Afghanistan became unstable in the 1970s because its community party and Islamic movement became bigger and opponents became stronger. The instability devastated the progress and peace that was characterized in the rule of king Mohammad Zahir Shah 1933-1973. Afghanistan’s monarchy was founded in 1747 by Shah Durrani and Zahir Shah was the last who had the crown. Afghanistan was not a political entity but it was a territory that was occupied by tribes or tribal union frequently connected with neighboring communities. Zahir Shah was the last existing son of King Mohammed Nadir Shah 1929-1933 followed by king Amanullah Khan 1919-1929 and Tajik 1919. During the presidency of Clinton his administrative diplomatist engaged the Taliban movement as it was gathering strength but the relations of the U.S and Taliban deteriorated harshly five years later, when the Taliban were in power in Kabul. This led to the U.S and the Taliban’s large adversaries before the September 11 attacks.
Earlier before the September 11 2001 attacks, the Taliban’s alliance with Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden had become the Clinton administration’s overriding mutual agenda issue in the U.S policy toward Afghanistan. However the press reports in May 2002 said that the Clinton administration was putting into consideration, proceeding to the September 11 attacks, a plan to try and weaken the Taliban. The government maintained conversations with the Taliban. In fulfillment with U.N Security Council resolution 1333, in 2001 February, the state department made an order to detain Taliban representative Abdul Hakim Mujahid who continued to operate informally. This ensured security in Afghanistan considering the necessary pre-conditions for reconstruction and development.
Leadership is the process of social influence that an individual enlists aid and support to others in accomplishing a common task. It can also be termed as a duration when an individual occupies the position of a leader, the ability to lead. The four factors of leadership are leader, followers, communication and situation.
I agree to the discussion that no qualities are sufficient to differentiate leaders and followers in all situations. Machiavelli’s commitment to the situational component of leadership shows in his often cited advice to leaders in the prince. This is because we do not live in an ideal world. One should be prepared because if these positive qualities become liabilities, a person can be trained and prepared to counter them. This is chiefly concerned with leadership behavior that is conducive to holding onto power and he claims that it is necessary for a ruler to hold on to power, as well as learn to be tough.
However, he is least concerned with the situational ethic which states that leaders must exercise to hold on to power. This is contrary to the universal behavioral flexibility that is crucial for effective leadership. There are moral neutral leadership qualities like cautiousness and impetuousness. Machiavelli is not optimistic that a leader might adapt to changing situations as he says, “There are two reasons why we are unable to change when we need to. In the first place, we can not help being what nature has made us. Secondly, if one style of behavior has worked well for us in the past, we ca not be better off acting differently. The consequence is that one’s fortune changes, for time changes and ones behaviors do not.” It should be noted that justified inequalities are a function of people’s attributes in particular situation. But, situations change to make the attributes of a person irrelevant. The person with relevant attributes is replaced gradually.
Sensitivity versus Vulnerability
De Soto has provided the most influential conceptual discussion of interdependence in the contemporary society. He argues that if there is an indication of dependence as reliance upon external forces, which considerably affect a state’s behavior and autonomy, it is an indication that interdependence is a shared dependence between two states. Interdependence involves both costs and benefits. The existence of benefits emanate from the incentives for the state to move toward interdependence. Costs materialize when ties between states are made. Interdependence differs from interconnectedness because it involves a common dependence between states.
Interdependence can emerge from interconnectedness incase states become dependent upon these transactions. This leads to the changes in the structure or presence of transactions that result in costs for at least one of the states involved. He discusses interdependence in two distinctive characteristics sensitivity and vulnerability. Sensitivity is a term that is referred to as the immediacy and initial intensity of costs that another state can impose through altering the interdependent relationship. It involves the delicate reaction costs incurred as an outcome of policy changes from another state. While vulnerability is defined by a state’s capability to compensate and rebound from costs faced as an outcome of policy changes from another state.
World systems theory is defined as a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change. It stresses that the world system ought to be central for social analysis. It refers to world wide split of labor that classifies the world into core countries, semi periphery countries and periphery countries. Wallerstein often misunderstood world systems as a term that he consistently rejects. According to him, it is a mode of analysis that aims to transcend the foundation of knowledge inheritance from the 19th century. This includes the divisions within the social sciences and history. He remarks that world system theory needs an undisciplinary historical science, social science and debates the modern disciplines. Products of the 19th century are blemished in that they are not split logics as is obvious. A good example is the de facto overlap of analysis amid scholars of the disciplines.
Wallerstein typifies the world system like a set of mechanisms that redistribute resources from the core to the periphery. He states that the core is industrialized and developed part and the periphery is underdeveloped in terms of raw materials exports, needy part of the world, the market. This means that the core uses the periphery. Wallerstein views that there have been three kinds of societies across history of people: mini systems, two world political systems and non-political. World systems analyses argue that capitalism, as a historical social system has always integrated various forms of labor within a world economy. Countries are a part of the world economy and do not have economies.
Tickner states that gender insinuates into international relations. According to her, feminism and its entire permutations can alert people to the ways women are affected by global politics or the economy of the working world. This raises questions on the relation of hierarchical gender relations with other forms of domination. Tickner’s major point is that when one dons lenses of feminist, the preoccupations behind IR’s security writings can seem magnified beyond reason leading to the alternative understanding of the few possible concepts that remain in IR. For example, power is something Tickner finds the association of feminists with mutual enablement than domination. To reach this approach, Tickner should neglect those feminist ways that probably take a different direction. She renders IR accountable for its slights to individuals’ common, unproblematic call on women and broadening its concepts.
Tickner states that the exclusion of gender hierarchies is a way of global security achievement. Focusing approximately exclusion on IR, she sketches canonical positions on security in realism, international political economy and international environmental studies. Aspects of the canon have been challenged within the IR tradition. She notes that global economic security is incisive. Tickner shows the various moods of economic security overtime like mercantile, liberal, on gold standard and seeking a new international political economy. According to her, economic liberalism of project economic gains as the world wide passion and offloading it in different people.
Fukuyama states that the world has developed from primitive, traditional, to advanced and modern. That liberal democracy contributes to the end point of the evolution of mankind. In his piece of writing, “The west has won: Radical Islam can’t beat democracy and capitalism” he states that the September 11 attacks were the center of global capitalism that were evidently perpetrated by Islamic extremists that were not pleased with the existence of western civilization. According to him the Islamic fundamentals are the only people that have resisted modernism that is significant to the conditions that led to the outcome of modernity. Fukuyama thought that this may make a person think that the challenge of modernism is the function of Islamic fundamentals existence. However, it is a misleading conclusion. The opposite is true because they have a non modern referent that does not qualify as traditional people. His assumption was thought to have other implication of policy. If the situations that led to the development of liberal democracies of the west are replicated, the production of similar results makes the world a better place. It may not be possible for the universe to be liberal, especially the west, because of the antagonistic relationship between liberalism and religion. Several governments obtain no legitimacy from their past and not representative of their people; Islam and high majority of Muslims recognize universal rights especially freedom of conscience and religion.
This documentary profile of 8 American soldiers. Four of them believe killing is wrong and refuse to kill. Whereas the rest believe killing at times and under the conditions of war is necessary and accepted. It showcases the most combat personnel struggle with the morality of killing and whether they decided to kill or not. The issue has long lasting effects on their lives, physically and future behavior. It looks at the response of the 8 veterans. The question is practically philosophical but the film provokes viewers to consider the sides of the matter and reach their own conclusion. This film mainly looks at the human behavior physically, psychologically and socially. It shows that all human behavior attempts to remove doubt from their lives. In the film, this is seen when the soldiers think hard on the choices to make. Doubt is the force that drives behavior and trying to remove doubt is like the pull of gravity. Fear is observed which is so powerful and emotional. For it to be a force in human behavior, it has to be present. The film demonstrates this when the soldiers are making the decisions. They are afraid to make the wrong one. The human behavior takes process considering possibilities, doubt, fear and decision making. This process frequently takes place in our lives as we make decisions.
There are various places where peace is used like in peace programs, projects and studies. Peace theory does not compete that democratic states are less war prone to none. Democratic peace proposition does not only challenge the value of other political system but also prevailing real account of international relations that emphasize on balance of power calculations and common strategic interests, so as to explain the peace and stability that characterizes relations between liberal democracies.
In structural, it states that the institutions of government, representatives that hold elected officials and decision makers are accounted to a wide electorate that make war look unpleasant for the government and citizens. This is because the costs and risks of war directly affect massive segments of population. There are expectations that the average voter will throw the incumbent leader out of office, if they initiate a losing or unnecessary war, hence, providing a clear institutional encouragement for democratic leaders in the anticipatation.
Cultural perspective states that the shared democratic and liberal values explain better the existence of peace between democratic states. This shows that democratic political culture motivates peace as means of conflict resolution that extend beyond the domestic political process to other democratic states. This is because their leaders have reasonable expectations and their counterparts work their differences. Political philosophy determines the way democracies distinguish partners from adversaries, representation and action of democracies in their citizens. The perception importance means that even though a particular state has enlightened citizens and democratic liberal institution, other democratic states regard this as a genuine liberal democracy rather than democratic peace proposition not been held.
It states that the subject of specific definitions adopted in highly empirical studies is probably going to affect the results: difficulty of validation of the theory one hundred percent. On the other hand, this is majorly undermined by a large number of studies which shows democracies are highly not to fight each other irrespective of its definition, the type of cases and dispute threshold. It has been noted that there has been a significant increase in the number of democratic numbers. The explanation of the casual relationship between peace and democracy is not clear between democracy and peace. It is argued by realists that it is not common politics, but interests that can better explain the low incidences of wars between democracies.