Of the five theoretical approaches to security, which do you think our foreign and defense policies should be formulated upon?
There are five theoretical approaches to the issue of security:
- National security;
- International security;
- Regional security;
- Trans-state security;
- Global security.
All those approaches explain the issue of international security from different points of view, emphasizing different sides of the problem. The Peak Oil Theory deals with the problem of national security, but from the different point of view: it explains what should be protected. The point is that the United States of America is one of the dominating oil countries. It is one of the richest countries in the world with one of the strongest economics. The point is that all the values of the country, as well the wellness of its citizens, should be protected.
In my opinion, the best way to protect the country’s citizens in case something happens. The point is that national security deals with security of citizens, focusing on the issue of security of the whole country. It is easy to conclude that national security is aimed at protection of the highest country value – its citizens, where other security approaches are aimed at protecting material values, or uniting against enemies. The national security approach is aimed at the country, which means that if there is some danger, the country will have the opportunity to protect itself and not give its military forces to the needs of other countries leaving its citizens unprotected. Besides, there might appear political problems while a country is the part of a union, which will have not good influence on the relations inside the union. This theory may be proved by such historical event as participation of Italy in the Second World War. There was a union between Germany and Italy, aimed at helping each other. When Italy realized that Germany is about to lose, it changed its position and became the ally of the USSR.
Which of the following three should prevail in world trade: (1) free trade ideals; (2) national laws protecting the environment, food safety, and labor standards; or (3) powerful corporations and industries demanding protection from foreign dumping, import barriers, and subsidies to their industries? Support your answer.
Nowadays there are three models for the world economic trade market. All of them are not perfect. They have their advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion, the model that emphasizes on the national laws that protect the environment, food safety and labor standards should be the major model of the world’s economic market. The point is that citizens should be of the most value in the country policy, because people are the ones who provide the country with the wealth it has. That is why national policy should be focused on the wealth of citizens, as well as on their work conditions and the environment they are living in. Nowadays there are many laws that protect businessmen and rights of global corporations. On the other hand, there are too few laws that protect the wellness of the workers of those global corporations. Moreover, there is a tendency in the world to move plants to the poorest countries of the world, because the work force there is much cheaper than in the developed countries. This issue has two sides as well: on one hand, thanks to this tendency, people from poor countries have new work places, the economy of those countries increases, the country receives the possibility to participate in the world’s trade market. On the other hand, citizens from the United States of America become jobless, which means that the level of life in the country decreases.
Limited time Offer
Please respond with your thoughts on the film we have been watching, The End of Poverty?, which takes a critical view on the process of globalization. What would proponents of unfettered globalization say in response to this presentation? Did this film expand your understanding of the concept (positively or negatively)?
Movies have become one of the ways of focusing people’s attention on the most urgent and significant problems of the world. They deal not only with problems of one particular country, but also with problems of all the humankind. The problem of globalization has become one of the most discussed among economists; it has also found its place in the cinematography. What caused poverty in the world? Countries of the northern hemisphere are quite rich, and at the same time one billion of people in the southern hemisphere live in slums. Every two seconds one person dies of hunger. It is difficult for many people to solve the problem of poverty. But if you watch the film “The End of Poverty?”, you can immediately find the answer – we have a problem. The Director Philippe Diaz has recently introduced this documentary to the audience. The title of the film has the question mark for a particular reason. In this film, there is the search for answers to the questions such as: why there are so many poor people in our world, why a lot of people are living on less than one dollar a day. The fact is that politicians, economists and the media do not pay due attention to this issue. The purpose of the film is to draw public attention to the problem of poverty, which is far more dangerous than global warming. This film helps to realize how violent the humankind may be to itself. The point is that people are digging grave on their own for themselves: we do not realize how crucial is what we do to the planet. The movie helps to understand that nowadays there are six billions of consumers who do not try to give something back. The movie influenced me greatly, having opened my eyes to what goes on in the world and where it might lead. If people will not try to change the situation, there might not be any new generations more, humankind will vanish.
Examine the statements about contemporary religion put forth by James Carroll. He appears to believe that, under the proper conditions, religion can be a positive force in international affairs. Would you agree or disagree with this notion?
James Carroll is a well known priest who has developed his own theory that in some points religion may become very important part of politics. He states that religion may even become a positive force in international affairs. It is difficult to agree to that, because it is well known that religion is not the best way to start or to develop international relationships. On the one side, the United States of America placed religion on one of the highest positions, putting a statement “In God we trust” on its banknotes. On the other, citizens of the United States of America may believe in God and this statement may be put on money, but this does not mean that religion should be put on the first place in solving international problems. Moreover, if religion is put on the first place, it might reveal different interreligious problems, worsening the situation in the world and relationships between countries. In my opinion, religion should not be put on the first place because it might lead to the third world war, because radical representatives of the Muslim belief will begin to attack the United States of America as well as others Christian countries. This means that they will begin a war they are talking about nowadays – Holy War.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Explain in your own words the ideas presented in the short documentary The Ecological Footprint. What sort of solutions presented in the video seems plausible for Americans to carry out?
When watching this movie, a person realizes how unstable everything is. Humans are the smartest creatures in the world; however, they are also the most dangerous for our planet. The documentary is only thirty minutes long. But, nevertheless, it might change the understanding of the world and points of view on the human life. The main idea of the movie is that humankind is constantly consuming and does not think about giving something back or at least keeping what it has. Dr. Mathis Wackernagel explains in the film that it is only up to us to choose on what planet we want to live: on the green planet or on the grey destroyed planet. The movie is called The Ecological Footprints, because humans leave footprints on the planet that are larger that they are. The point is that the nature around us is not capable of dealing with such a harm, to overcome it and go on giving us resources we need. The narrator of the film proposed that new Global Footprint Network helps the governments to understand the seriousness of such footprints and to take some measures. It is not so much important to renew the nature that surrounds us, it is much more important to save what we have and to try not to lose it. If people stop destroying the nature and continue to help it to recover, in future our planet will become green as it used to be before the humankind.