War Of Maghrebi A Realistic Solution

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The United States is currently the most influential global superpower in the world and with that designation; the U.S. carries the responsibility to take initiative in global affairs whether they be economical or political, because if the U.S. doesn’t who will? The U.S remains the greatest and still fairly popular among the global superpowers. To promote democracy in countries such as Egypt, and to protect civil rights where there is political unrest such in Syria and the Crimean region; the U.S must remain assertive on the international board. To maintain this global strength economically, politically, and militarily the U.S. must step up and continue to police the world and be assertive on the World Stage.

Since the United States became the world’s sole superpower, the Middle East has been seen as the most troublesome region in the world by US politicians. This view emanates from all the conflicts going in the Middle East that have the potential to threaten numerous strategic interests for the united Stated such as oil, terrorist, and Israel. Yet Middle East has never seen as problematic as it is now due to the excessive flux of problems the Middle East is struggling with. This increasingly conflicting nature of the region demands the US policymakers to reevaluate American policy in the Middle East to secure US interests. Unfortunately, American policy in the past three decades toward the

The United States (U.S.) uses two approaches to their foreign policy. The first approach is realism. This viewpoint stresses that the principal actors, states, will pursue their own interests in an anarchical world. States will try to establish a balance of power that restrains aggressive states from dominating weaker ones. The second approach is idealism. This view stresses that states should transform the system into a new international order where peace can prevail. This approach emphases the spread of democracy across the world and the creation of international institutions. Realism and idealism provides an explanation to how U.S. foreign policy has developed since World War Two (WWII), identifies which influential factors play a role in both foreign policy approaches, and determines which view has best served the pursuit of national interests.

At the end of the cold war of 1945, America was regarded as a global holder of power. American domination of an advanced country encompasses various aspects such as economic, political, and military development. Along with the debate on strategic policies in the different fields mentioned above made by the United States, which can have a positive and adverse effect on a particular country. It is therefore essential for us to see the important position of America as a hegemony country that holds the control of world development and international order stability at the moment. This review article will illustrate the extent of the importance of American power in global development, and stability according to modern international order.

America has set itself as a global hegemon in our unipolar world. In order to be called a world leader the United States has been through many conflicts that would rather have no direct threat to national security. What makes America so powerful are their allies and cooperative structure. However, recent complications have seen America lose a lot of its influence on the global stage and a rise of influence in other actors. Within the next 20 years there’s going to be a divergence of power and our future seems to be unstable in the sense that many smaller state actors will be choosing sides with rising hegemonic world actors where cooperation may lead to conflict.

The wider ramification that this thesis attempts to show is how to best understand how countries interact with each other, there needs to be exploration of the nation’s state interests. The problem with international relations is that it often ignores the uniqueness of African states by categorising them as part of the ‘third world’ or part of more powerful nation’s schemes for their own interests. The different interpretations of realism are seriously affected by dismissing the power politics of Africa in regional, continental or global international politics. Additionally is the reinforcement of a double standard of how states operate. To say that some states operate in self-interest but others do not because of their weak political position in the global theatre is problematic. This is just as problematic of designating one policy trait, such as the genocide guilt card, as the only one of a nation. The complexities of the international sphere can only be properly understood through examining the nations that compose it. Thus this case study allows structural realism to build itself in a region, which had not been previously interested because of Cold War politics and Euro-centric focus. The rise of African power nations in the post-Cold War era is an opportunity for realists to be able to test their theories with nations that follow many of realism’s

The Middle East has been involved in turmoil for a quite some time. For years, many revolutions have taken place within the borders of the Middle Eastern area of the world. Outside influences, the United States of America in particular, have tried to decrease the turmoil with military and policy intervention. These efforts have not taken into account the needs of the people involved in the revolutions. Interventions from Western influences have also fueled the revolutions instead of decreasing the violence they cause. In the book, Lynch analyzes the issues that led to the Arab Spring in the Middle East and ends the book with an assessment of solutions to help develop the United States relations with the Middle East.

Everyday, lives are lost due to fighting of different nation against each other, as well as within each of them. This is why foreign intervention is an important problem that needs to be discussed. There are many interventions that the US themselves have taken apart of. Some of these include the Spanish American War, The US Occupation of Haiti, The US Intervention of Dominican Republic, The US Intervention in Yugoslavia, The US Invasion of Invasion of Iraq, and many more. We believe that by setting up guidelines and rules about when to intervene, and how to intervene, we can more effectively solve global issues. The first thing that we need to establish is the guidelines for when we intervene in a certain countries affairs. The US must not intervene unless the country asks for assistance or if there is a serious and imminent act against humanity. Once these guidelines are implemented, then the US must establish how they will intervene. We will intervene through three different strategies and approaches. These three approaches include economic and political stabilization, humanitarian aid, and security through military protection.

The U.S. must intervene in South Sudan, as it is an enduring interest within our National Security Strategy to maintain “An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity.” General Rodriguez, commander of AFRICOM, should employ both diplomatic and economic instruments of power. By doing so, the U.S. risks a potentially long-term engagement in East Africa.

Libya’s history over the last century has been an eventful one. Even by Middle Eastern standards it is an extraordinary odyssey. From Ottoman backwater to Italy’s colonisation of Libya in 1911; Gaddafi’s military coup in 1969 to overthrow the king; the US airstrikes of 1986; the Lockerbie case and to the civil war of 2011. We will discuss these events and look into any to foreign policy passed during these events as well as their effectiveness and legality. I hypothesise that, when looking at all the events together, there may be a pattern of sorts that can be seen in Libya’s history.

The biblical crisis involving the exodus of approximately 460,000 detected migrants and refuges crossing into Europe from the Middle East and Africa is ever-growing, and to date there seems to be no end to the numbers of displaced people that continue to make the perilous journey into Europe to escape the brutality of either the Islamic State, the Assad regime and the conflict in Africa. These terrifying journeys have seen many thousands die trying to get into Europe, this humanitarian disaster has given European leaders including the United Kingdom one of their greatest challenges to date, how to deal with the human crisis that has landed on Europe’s eastern border and what level of intervention is required. This essay in examining

The United state is known as the Police of the world, the world super power which involves itself in numerous foreign affairs for multiple reasons. The choice to continue their involvement in these foreign affairs should be reconsidered. The United states’s involvement in various foreign affairs can be for a number of reasons and some of them may not be completely public. The politics that go into the decision can have a large background but it is still something that should be reconsidered in some situations.

Sub-Saharan Africa has been the ‘problem child’ of the international community ever since the end of decolonization. The continent is drowned in development aid while simultaneously being locked into a colonial power structure wherein foreign powers decide the fate of its natural resources. No other continent has witnessed such a bizarre combination of foreign thievery and foreign goodwill. Furthermore, it has seen a rather large percentage of civil (or so-called intrastate) wars during the last 50 years - from Sierra Leone to Kenya and from Zimbabwe to Angola, the continent appeared to burn (Herbst 2000: 270). While some of these conflicts have now been curtailed, civil wars in states like Nigeria remain a multi-faceted