Category: War

Introduction

In our world of ever-increasing number of innovations and informational technologies there is hardly a problem which cannot be solved. The scientists are working out the medicines which can cure even AIDs and cancer, regardless the fact that the diseases which were considered fatal a couple of decades ago can be easily cured now. The world has developed a global network for communication and each day offers new inventions in which our ancestors would never believe in if in their times they heard that something like this would ever be possible to invent. Nevertheless, there remains one big problem the modern society seems to be unable to deal with. Every day we continue to listen to news reports about numerous cases of violence, crimes, natural disasters and wars, which in some parts of the world have lasted over the years and seem to never stop. At this, the reasons of the wars are in fact insignificant and seem to be not serious enough for starting something as terrible as a war. No matter how strange and unfair it may seem, but innocent people give their lives for a miserable strip of land which two governments of the belligerent countries are unable to share or because of the desire of one country to prove that it is more powerful than any other. And here the question arises: When will people all over the world stop wars and finally understand that wars and international conflicts are just a mere waste of money and, what is the most important, of human lives? Is that strip of land worth those losses and sufferings of innocent people involved in wars because of misunderstandings and inability to settle the governmental matters peacefully? Living in peace and prosperity is possible but a lot has to be done in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of different countries and their people in this small world which cannot function properly because of something people missed when forming their society.

Main body

First of all, people should admit that it is because of each of them that this world cannot become perfect and agree to introduce some changes into their lives. Everything depends on people and their desire to live peacefully: “Attempting to achieve world peace would mean that the people in this world would have to be willing to make some minor changes in the way we govern ourselves on this earth. Common sense should tell us that the best way to put an end to wars or military conflicts is to create a fully civilized world.” (Jim Des Rocher, 7). It should be admitted that a lot here depends on the government of each country because it is namely governments together with the world leaders who are responsible for wars and international conflict. Constant fighting for power and deciding who is the strongest and who should rule this world leads to what we have now and what will be very difficult to change. It should be realized that not only people of each country should become civilized but the governments as well because welfare of the whole world rather than of separate countries is at stake and with each day the risk of the world to get consumed with uncontrolled violence is increasing. Creating a civilized society will help in achieving world peace and proving to each other that living peacefully in prosperity is not only possible to achieve but is easy to maintain once the desired is already attained: “Civilized countries settle their disputes peacefully. Once you have established a civilized world the chances for military conflicts goes away.” (Jim Des Rocher, 33).

Second, to mention but not less important on the way of achieving world peace is bringing up of such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness each of which is necessary for proper functioning of a society. It is striking how brutal and hard-hearted the people of our generation became. Everybody is obsessed with money and is ready to hurt and kill the others in order to gain more money, get promoted or achieve something in this life. Most of people do not care about the others and stopped helping each other though mutual readiness has always been the basis of a successful and prospering society. If mutual assistance becomes a part of each person’s life it will be a grain of mustard seed on the way of achieving world peace. It is also necessary for justice to rule the world for everybody to get proper punishment and for all people to live in fair conditions: “Peace seems to conflict with justice; the one deletes the past, the other acts on it” (Martin Ramirez, 65). Justice should be an integral part of each society for its members to feel secured and to know that their misdeeds will be punished. And as for mutual forgiveness, this noble quality will help make the world understanding and sensible. Learning to forgive should be a part of each person’s life as only being able to forgive the others one can earn a chance to be forgiven: “To seek peace through forgiveness is a life’s program, and it is a worthwhile risk even to the extent of heroism. But one cannot forget that forgiveness also has its own demands: truth (recognition of the crime) and justice (reparation), together with the guarantee that it will not be repeated.” (Martin Ramirez, 65).

And the final important factor directly influencing the world peace is religion. There exist three main religions in this world and supporters of each of them believe that only their religion is the only true one whereas the rest do not have any right for existence. Religion matters have always caused conflicts and to fight this problem is senseless that’s why one has just to face the reality. Modern society does not make tries to introduce a single religion or to abolish religion as such because the history proved that it will get back to the society as it is an essential part of it. Religion gives people hope for the best and turning to God for help they believe sincerely that everything possible will be done in order to make their lives better. World peace depends on the peace of society thus on the peace of each person. If chaos rules the world not a single person will find peace in him and vice versa. The task of people is to support faith in each other and never to let troubles weaken their faith because if the religion won’t be practiced world peace will be out of the question. Religion makes people intelligent and understanding, well-disposed, noble and generous. Without religion they will become aggressive, arrogant, self-centered and this will cause conflicts all around the world. This is why religion should be freely and widely practised in order to make all people believe that if they treat each other well, if they support each other and do not forget about morality they make a contribution into a difficult but rewarding process of achieving world peace and prosperity.

Conclusion

To sum it up, the modern world full of violence and brutality, ruled by those who being in constant pursuit of power use innocent people to prove that their country is the strongest badly needs some improvements because now it is in danger of collapse and each day is being destroyed by people who live in it. To achieve world peace and prosperity seems impossible but just as a lot of other great deeds what it requires is time, efforts and strong desire to change the life of every person for better. It is possible to make this world better even if not perfect and keys to this are the building of a civilized society where both people and government will be civilized, the desire of each person to eradicate his/her shortcomings by trying to develop such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness. On top of this all stands the religion which irrespective of its kind keeps people united and gives them hope for the best. Provided that all these points are taken into consideration and put into life the necessary result will be achieved and our world spoiled by money and power will turn into what every person dreams about – a world with no sufferings and grief where people care about each other and are not afraid for their future.

Work Cited

Jim Des Rocher. (2004). How to Achieve World Peace: The Second Greatest Book Ever Written. Trafford Publishing.

J. Martin Ramirez. (2007). Peace Through Dialogue. International Journal on World Peace, 24(1), 65.

Introduction

Ethnography is a discipline which is trying to observe and explain human behavior. Nordstrom provides an in-depth analysis of one of the most enigmatic phenomena which is characteristic for humanity: people’s activity aimed at killing each other, i.e. war. In her book “Shadows of War” Nordstrom observes various people’s lives and considers the war in terms of political, economical, social and cultural peculiarities of different societies.

Specific approach of the author enables the reader see every facet of the multifaceted phenomenon, and observe the impact of war on particular individuals and the outcomes of war on global scale. What is more, Nordstrom reveals the line between war and peace and suggests that it is possible to predict violence in a state if to consider properly all “shadows” which constantly appear in all countries worldwide.

Nordstrom’s research methods

Nordstrom exploits the major ethnographic method, anthropological fieldwork. This research method presupposes “participant observation” which enables the anthropologist to get a closer look at the processes which take place in the society or community under consideration (Robbins 15). Thus, Nordstrom provides insights into every arena of war, which the author is considering. Nordstrom recreates the atmosphere which exists in countries where people suffer from military conflicts.

This approach enables the author to follow one of the anthropological concepts, relativism. Nordstrom provides myriads of examples from everyday life of people exposed to negative outcomes of war.

These people are often engaged in illegal operations, but the author providing the real life examples explains that for many people illegal operations become the only way to survive (Nordstrom 197). Nordstrom provides long block quotes of people she interviewed. These quotes reveal the picture of the horrible world in which millions of people try to live.

It is important to state that the author follows one more principle of anthropology and considers many countries. Nordstrom’s universalism makes it possible to have a more complete picture of the processes which lead to war or peace on global scale.

Apart from giving certain real life examples which explain many people’s behavior, Nordstrom also considers all actors taking part in the war, civilians, soldiers, political entities, big companies and other states. This holistic approach enables Nordstrom to consider factors which influence war and peace, or the “time of not-peace-not war” (Nordstrom 171).

Nordstrom’s findings and results

It goes without saying that holistic approach of Nordstrom makes it possible to have the complete picture and draw quite precise conclusions. In the first place, it is necessary to point out that the majority of Nordstrom findings prove the accepted perception of war, as a phenomenon which is caused by many factors and should be considered from different perspectives on various levels.

However, one of the most significant findings of the author is that “much of what undergirded the assaults took place along shadow channels” (Nordstrom 12). Moreover, the author suggests that if to consider these shadow channels properly it is possible to predict various cases of violence and even wars. For instance, Nordstrom point out that the start of war depends on the fact whether these shadow channels become powerful enough (12).

Thus, the author states that it was possible to predict September 11 attack, but the US intelligence failed to take into account numerous shadow channels which caused so many lives and nation’s grief (Nordstrom 12). The author provides examples from such countries as Afghanistan or Angola where the shadow channels led to long period of “not-peace-not war” which transformed in war (Nordstrom 171).

Interestingly, these findings are based on the ethnographic observation of people living countries where war has become a norm. Average civilians’ words highlight many of the shadow channels which are the basis of the war. For instance, the talk of Angolan stuff illustrates that economic factors play crucial role in any conflict.

The author reveals the simple truth that the war makes some people suffer, but others, at the same time make fortunes. Thus, Angolans point out that soldiers punish people for trading, but sell products themselves: “More goods than bullets go across the front lines” (Nordstrom 169). It goes without saying that such real life examples back up Nordstrom’s findings about shadow channels and their influence on societies and their role in the balance between the war and the peace.

Nordstrom research in terms of ethnography

Admittedly, such a thorough analysis of one of the most disputable issues of people’s behavior contributes greatly to the overall study. Nordstrom’s ethnographic research not only draws certain conclusions as for causes and effects of the war and peace. The book should be also regarded as a good example of ethnographic approach to the problem.

First, Shadows of War provides holistic analysis of human behavior. Nordstrom considers every level of society to understand possible reasons for emerging conflicts and cases of violence. It is necessary to note that there is certain focus on average civilians’ attitudes.

Admittedly, Nordstrom relies on the major research method of ethnography, fieldwork. Nevertheless, the results of the fieldwork are put in larger discourse of primary reasons of the war. This enables the anthropologist to obtain important findings which can become an effective tool in violence prevention. Thus, Nordstrom’s research provides a good example of possible implications of ethnographic findings.

Apart from this Nordstrom pays much attention to her ethnographic observation. Her interviewees provide the author with precious information which explains human behavior in war time. Reputedly, ethnography cannot take any assumption, e.g. it is good or bad, for granted (Robbins 16).

Relativism is one of the most important principles for an anthropologist. Nordstrom does not simply state that people are engaged in many illegal operations. She provides the setting which explains why people behave in this or that way. Nordstrom’s research reveals relativity of good or bad in war time. Such a close look at people’s lives is very important for ethnography on the whole.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to point out that Nordstrom book is a good example of an in-depth analysis of people’s behavior in terms of major concepts of anthropology. Nordstrom follows such principles of anthropology as holism, relativism and universalism. The book provides the results of ethnographic observation which enable the author to draw more general conclusions about the causes and effects of war.

Thus, Nordstrom reveals the shadow channels which are often the basis of numerous conflicts. The most important finding which Nordstrom articulates in the book is that it is possible to predict attacks or prevent the start of war if to consider properly and take into account the shadow channels. This finding makes the book one of those ethnographic books which suggest definite implication of ethnographic findings.

Works Cited

Nordstrom, Carolyn. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004.

Robbins, Richard H. Cultural Anthropology: A Problem-Based Approach. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2008.

Introduction

The debate on the relationship between war and religion has always been a heated one. With the development and expansion of religious ideologies, world populations have been passionate about expressing their beliefs and opposed religions that they considered foreign. Since the total number of world religions is counted in thousands, it is not surprising that the opposition may reach extreme levels. To determine the extent of the relationship between war and religion, the correlation should be studied from different perspectives: cross-cultural, political, social, and individual. While most religions promote ideas of forgiveness, charitability, and righteousness, it is possible that these ideas get misinterpreted and lead to armed opposition between groups.

Background

The concept of religion is nearly impossible to define due to its problematic and multi-dimensional nature¹. More importantly, the definition is particularly hard for academics to get away from entirely. However, it is noted that the concept of religion itself was invented within the ‘wars of religion’ turmoil, which took place in multiple European nations after the period of Reformation². During the Enlightenment, the term ‘religion’ was purposefully distinguished from ‘theology.’ It was during that period when the study of religion took an important turn since it was no longer the subject of devotional study and became a theme for philosophers’ considerations about uncovering the reasons for human beings seeking religion and gaining positive knowledge from irrational beliefs. In the social thought of the nineteenth century, finally, ‘religion’ was applied when referring to ‘other’ and ‘world’ religions³. It is important to note that in history, the term ‘religion’ is seen as an opposition to Christian theology because it is considered as tradition.

Depending on the approaches to religion, its definition can vary significantly. For instance, Lewis explored the concept in relation to rituals that people followed and therefore did not give an exact definition of the term.⁴ In contrast to Lewis’ approach, Durkheim specifically identified religion as a unified system of practices and beliefs⁵. Another perspective on religion was offered by Hecht and Biondi who studied the concept from the perspective of civil relationships⁶.

History of Religious War

Dating as far back as the age of Mesopotamia, nations fought over religious misunderstandings, and often the reason for such conflicts was the belief that God had ordered them to do so⁷. For instance, the Arabic (Islamic) Conquest arose from Islam itself – as Prophet Mohammad started receiving life threats in Mecca, Muslims, who were left with no livelihood, started raiding Meccan caravans, which inevitably resulted in an armed conflict. Prophet Muhammad supported the actions of his followers by delivering Quranic verses that permitted the previously peaceful Muslims to fight the Meccans. The first major battle took place in March of 624 A.D. and was led by Muhammad himself.

The Crusades is among the most infamous religious wars because of its longevity and impact – the conflict lasted two hundred years intermittently and led to significant losses. The most widely known Crusades were the church-supported campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean targeted at freeing the Holy Land from Islamic rule. In general, the term ‘crusades’ was applied to a variety of armed conflicts that were sanctioned by the Catholic church, including the Baltic and the Cathars. In 1095, the First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II through encouraging armed support of the Byzantine Empire that lacked reinforcement from allies when dealing with the migration of Turks that planned to colonize Anatolia⁸. The value of the Crusades to the discussion about religion and war is indisputable because the armed expansion of supposed enemies was done in the name of Christianity and was directly encouraged by the Pope.

To add to the discussion, it is also important to mention the French Wars of Religion. Similar to the Crusades, the conflict included multiple events that exploded between 1562 A.D. and 1598 A.D. the main reason for the violence was the opposition between Catholics and Protestants⁹. By the end of the war, between two to four million people had died, which resulted in Protestants’ being given civil rights and freedom. The conflict started when Protestantism had gained momentum in the regions of France which were dominated by Catholics. While King Francis I made some attempts to resolve differences between the opposing religious ideologies, the conflict escalated when Protestants started putting up anti-Catholic posters, contributing to the growth of friction.

With the widespread effects of globalization on the world society in general, the religious identity of societies took on a heightened significance. This is especially relevant in the context of breaking political alliances, as seen from the case of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990s’ when Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs were divided between three religious ideologies: Mulsim, Catholic, and Orthodox¹⁰. For some, it is hard to believe that religion could cause so much tension between formerly amicable groups. Nevertheless, the conflict that was also escalated through political misunderstandings ensured the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the creation of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Contemporary Religious Conflicts

Apart from causing political tensions within countries, religion has been used as a tool for justifying acts of terror in the international arena. Before discussing the issue further, it is essential to note that Islam will be the main focus due to the disproportionate number of terrorist attacks made in the name of the religion. In addition, the scope and the devastating effects of Islamic terrorism prompted the international community to lead a complex and never-ending war against violent extremists. Nevertheless, the issue, in this case, lies in the idea of extremism itself, which can arise in the context of any religion. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan was rooted in the anti-Catholic religious foundations of Christian Protestantism, while the Peoples Temple in Jonestown had both Christian, utopian and atheistic characteristics, the combination of which made it possible for its leader to enforce a dictatorship and subsequently force his followers to end their lives in a communal suicide¹¹.

The roots of Islamic extremism and the agenda lie in how religious followers interpret the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. While radical Islam implies an aggressive interpretation of the Quran for justifying violent acts against other religions, moderate believers choose to stay away from the extremist teachings of the faith. This means that when an extremist reads Quran verses that depict violence, they can use them for justifying their extremist ideologies targeted at non-Muslims. Because of this, there is a disconnect between the majority of practicing Muslims who live their lives in peace and aggression-led minorities that commit extreme acts of violence and continue recruiting new people for suicide bombings¹². However, there should be no confusion about the real purposes behind terrorists’ actions since there is a wrongful belief that all attacks are irrational and take place due to the mere hatred for non-Muslims.

There is a strong political agenda that unites many attacks of Islamic terrorists. As reported by Sebastian Dixon for ABC News, the principal target of the Bali Bombings (with 202 fatalities, and 88 of them coming from Australia) was not the color of citizens’ skin or their religious identity¹³. As said by Osama bin Laden himself, the bombings occurred due to Australia’s support for the United States-led international war on terror as well as the country’s assistance in liberating East Timor from Indonesia¹⁴. Thus, exploring radical Islamism, it can be suggested that religion is used as a tool for supporting and justifying violence instead of causing it directly.

9/11

The devastating outcomes of the September 11th attacks in 2001 in New York and Washington, DC had a tremendous influence on how the global society perceives the problem of Islamic extremism. One year after the tragedy, Richard Dawkins was criticized for suggesting that the attacks could have only taken place when Islamic extremists used their weapons¹⁵. However, nowadays, ISIS uses advertises its religious motivations, justifying its actions with their help. Unfortunately, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon created an overall negative perception of Islam. As mentioned by Alnatour for Huffington Post, when there is one Muslim extremist, his actions are blamed on 1.3 billion non-extremist Muslims¹⁶. The fact that al-Qaeda took responsibility for the terrorist attack and praised their religion for allowing them to commit violent acts subjected innocent believers of Islam to discrimination as well as religious and cultural profiling. The holy war on the United States declared by Osama bin Laden was identified as the primary reason for such a high degree of violence.

Analysis

Researchers have widely argued that the most impactful expressions of religious beliefs were linked to political and social conflicts such as civil or anti-colonial wars of independence¹⁷. As conflicts occurred, religion was often used as a justification for violent acts between and within political players. Examples of such acts include the controversy associated with the publication of satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten in 2005, the murder of Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist in 2004, widespread campaigns around the United States to oppose same-sex marriages, the twin tower tragedy in New York on September 11, 2011, the Palestine and Isreal suicide bombings, the infamous Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris in 2015, and hundreds more. These instances illustrate the visibility of the impact religion can have on the world.

Religion as a contributor to conflict aligns with the assumption of “unrevised theory of secularism that assumes the ‘secular’ to signal a neutral space in what the political philosopher John Rawls called “an overlapping consensus” of comprehensive doctrines that do not interact well between each other¹⁸. This suggestion predominantly comes from the liberal secularist tradition, which had its start during the Enlightenment when such philosophers as John Locke explored the political and social backdrop of devastating wars that took place in Europe. Subsequently, philosophers’ explorations led to the discovery that profound political and public ideologies were deeply rooted in societies’ approaches to the religious and secular.

In the revisitation of the most important events associated with religion-fueled conflict, it was found that most acts of violence had an underlying political agenda. Religion as a system of beliefs and ideologies was used as a justification for violence, especially thousands of years ago when religion was used for guiding every aspect of societal life. Today, societies usually aim to differentiate between what their religions actually preach and what people interpret themselves. Even by reading the Bible, one can find verses that justify violence against other people. This means that the way people choose to view the message of religions will depend on whether or not wars on the basis of religions occur.

Conclusion

The exploration of religion within the context of armed conflicts showed that it was not religious ideologies themselves that encouraged violence. Rather, wars took place because governments, religious institutions, or groups used their beliefs as a justification for their extremist acts. At the moment, violent acts committed in the name of Islam present the most challenges to the global society, especially due to its scope and the devastating impact. Since Islam, in particular, has gained a tremendously negative reputation on a worldwide scale, the problem of discrimination and cultural profiling of believers in the prophecy of Mohammad remains. Global governments, especially the United States of America, see no other solution to the problem than to oppose violence with violence, which transformed into an ongoing war that seems to have no end. To conclude, there are positive and negative teachings of any religion, but wars depend on whether people choose to justify their violence with the help of theistic teachings.

Bibliography

Alnatour, Omar. “Muslims are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam.” Huffington Post, 2015. Web.

Dixon, Sebastian. “The Real Motivation of Terrorists is Clear.”ABC News, 2014. Web.

Gillingham, John. “Was Peoples Temple Religious?: Jonestown and Durkheim’s Religious Typology.” Jonestown. 2018. Web.

Hecht, Richard, and Vincent Biondo. Religion and Culture: Contemporary Practices and Perspectives. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012.

Lewis, Gilbert. Day of Shining Red (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Rawls, John. “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7, no. 1 (1987): 1-25.

Robins, Martin. “Richard Dawkins, ‘Islamophobia’ and the Atheist Movement.”The Guardian, 2013. Web.

Sapinsky, A. L. “The Top Religious Wars in History.” Religio Magazine. 2018, Web.

Stringer, Martin. Contemporary Western Ethnography and the Definition of Religion. London, UK: Continuum, 2011.

“1095. Pope Urban II Orders First Crusade.”History. 2018, Web.

Woodlock, Rachel, Antony Loewenstein, Jane Caro, and Simon Smart. “Doesn’t Religion Cause Most of Conflict in the World?”The Guardian, 2013. Web.

Footnotes

1. Martin Stringer, Contemporary Western Ethnography and the Definition of Religion (London, UK: Continuum, 2011), 5.
2. Stringer, Contemporary Western Ethnography, 5.
3. Ibid., 6.
4. Gilbert Lewis, Day of Shining Red (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology) (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 3.
5. Stringer, Contemporary Western Ethnography, p. 8.
6. Richard Hecht and Vincent Biondo, Religion and Culture: Contemporary Practices and Perspectives (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 31.
7. A. L. Sapinsky, “The Top Religious Wars in History,” Religio Magazine, Web.
8. “1095. Pope Urban II Orders First Crusade,” History, Web.
9. A. L. Sapinsky, “The Top Religious Wars in History.”
10. Rachel Woodlock et al., “Doesn’t Religion Cause Most of Conflict in the World?” The Guardian, Web.
11. John Gillingham, “Was Peoples Temple Religious?: Jonestown and Durkheim’s Religious Typology,” Jonestown, Web.
12. Sebastian Dixon, “The Real Motivation of Terrorists is Clear,” ABC News, Web.
13. Sebastian Dixon, “The Real Motivation of Terrorists.”
14. Ibid.
15. Martin Robins, “Richard Dawkins, ‘Islamophobia’ and the Atheist Movement,” The Guardian, Web.
16. Omar Alnatour, “Muslims are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam,” Huffington Post, Web.
17. Richard Hecht and Vincent Biondo, Religion and Culture, 1.
18. John Rawls, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7, no. 1 (1987): 1.

Introduction

Religion has for many years thought to be one of the main causes of wars in the world today. There are various religions in the world, which normally drive people into war. Due to the diverse philosophic dimensions, many religions get into war based on differences in their religious backgrounds.

In the past, people killed each other because of spiritual differences among other arenas of differing. Actually, civilization has helped a lot in solving the problems that lead people into war. Although war is a natural thing, which occurs in the presence of humanity, the maintenance of ethical and moral values is of great significance. This is because they help in preventing the loss of life as well as maintaining peace in the universe. This paper will therefore explore the religious values that are evident in war and peace.

The religious values in War and Peace

There are three religious views about war known to date. The first ideology is the pacifist view, which states that any form of violence, which might cause physical harm to a fellow human being, is unethical and inhuman. Secondly, there is the just war belief. The argument under just war states that the pursuance of wars occurs with the highest interest of justice.

In addition, this view also stresses on war fought according to just rules. Thirdly, there is also a belief in just war. The principle behind this view follows that the Supreme Being is responsible for commanding his people to fight the holy war. The problem with this view is that all those people who do not follow religion are enemies (Dicken 121).

There are many religions around the world, which hold diverse views on the issues of war. Islam being the largest religion on earth has many ideas concerning war. In the first place, Islam means having to submit an individual’s will to the Supreme Being (Allah). Islam’s views of war get support through the struggle and fight under the will of God.

In fact, Islam is the only religion, which comes up with the ideas about the Holy War. Therefore, the duty of the Muslims is to fight under the will of God. The Muslims believe that anybody breaking the will of God deserves severe punishment. They do also believe that anybody who dies in war shall enter the kingdom of God without any passage (Hertog 56).

Despite the fact that Muslims fight for the Holy war, according to the commandments of Allah their God, it is unethical to kill a fellow human being especially in the event that one is proclaiming to follow God’s word. Emphasis of moral values is thus essential in order to ensure that no killing occurs because of war.

At the same time, non-violent behavior should be overemphasized to stop people from killing each other. Moral behavior entails the engagement of non-violence and preserving religious morals in the society. Religious laws deserve corrections in a manner that just war does not prevail under any form of seeking justice. Conflicts, which lead into war, deserve instant halting to ensure that there is no war, which has happened under any case.

The second largest religion, Christianity has three different positions in regard to war. They include war, which is just, view of pacifism and crusade war. To begin with, the Pacifism view holds that any form of crisis or a disagreement requires diplomatic solutions with the best peaceful manner possible.

This idea also supports the fact that human rights should always prevail and relative actions used to stop the occurrences of war. This is because pacifists do not condone any form of violence carried out. In fact, absolute pacifists believe that killing is morally wrong and at the final analysis both the parties would have to lose (Dicken 127).

There is also the second position of the Christians who believe that war is not governed by ethics but by laws. For example, there is also inclusion of a just war. This kind of war can only happen in the event of self-defense and external aggression. However, this is also limited to killing of innocent lives.

The Bible states that people should love their enemies meaning that even when they are defending themselves, they should also avoid hurting their enemies in any sense. The pacifists on the other hand do not support just war. They believe that any shedding of the blood in the name of seeking justice is immoral by itself and wars should be avoided under any cost (Horowitz 127).

Humanism is a pragmatic philosophy developed just in the recent times. In postmodern society, there are many beliefs, which support the act of humanism. In this sense, there is nothing recognized as killing of a person even in war. The humanists believe that people should not enter into war under any cost.

The fundamental rule of this view is that people should treat others according to the best moral and ethical way possible. That is why the basis of humanitarian principles is on the respect for others; trust in others, resource sharing, and cooperation with each other. This enhances humanity and peace in a society, which is prone to conflicts (Hertog 34).

The basis of many of the religious values is on advocacy for non-violent behavior. Non-violence is a moral philosophy, which helps two conflicting parties to achieve peace after a resolution. Religious values call for respect and cooperation as a community, which shall live together, even after the end of the world.

In fact, many religions such as Christianity call for resistance, which is passive. This entails forgiving those who have forsaken them. Therefore, the avoidance of violence is deserved under any cost because it leads to physical harm. Honest dealings are the best way to predict that a society will be morally right and that no war shall be in existence. Under any cost, peaceful dealings enhance Christian values and humanity leading to good coexistence (Hertog 45).

Conclusion

In conclusion, religious values ought to be enhanced in order to stop and eradicate instances of war. Conflicts in religions should also be avoided because they lead to crisis, which often involve use of violence and physical harm to other people. One of the religious views, which prevail when it comes to the philosophy of war, is pacifism.

Pacifists base their arguments on the fact that war is inhuman, and conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful manner. On the other hand, humanitarian principles are based on this view and they entail respect of others and cooperation as one society. Actually, many religious beliefs are based on use of non-violence when dealing with human conflicts. This is because the idea of war is not governed by ethical and moral standards in the society.

Works Cited

Dicken, Thomas M. Dialogues on Values and Centers of Value: Old Friends, New Thoughts. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001. Print.

Hertog, Katrien. The Complex Reality of Religious Peace building: Conceptual Contributions and Critical Analysis. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

Horowitz, Irving L. The Idea of War and Peace: The Experience of Western Civilization. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2007. Print.

Introduction

World religions make use of the scripture to justify their actions, which are ultimately deployed in the context of war and peace (Almond 45). It is arguably evident that scriptural passages have been quoted as the guiding principles for the engagement in warfare and the establishment of peace.

This implies that scriptural knowledge is vital when analyzing the religious values on war and peace, especially in societies whereby religion is used as a motivation and justification of war and peace (Daryl 85). This paper bases on comparative religious studies in order to have a comprehensive overview of the justifications for war and peace basing on the religious scriptures.

The fundamental argument that forms the basis of the paper is that all religions in the world have within themselves the seeds that can be result to the establishment of either war or peace. It is also vital to take into account the viewpoint that factors that determine peace and war in the world religions are based on the divine commandments, teachings attained from the scriptures and the divine interpretations of the scriptures by the believers (Gopin 100).

Basing on the scriptural comparisons of the various world religions, this paper discusses their respective religious views with regard to the elements of war and peace.

A consensus among all the world religions in relation to war and peace is the opposition to use of force that is deemed lethal or killing. There are exceptional cases where killing and the use of force is justified, but only under particular circumstances (Hertog 74). A comparative review of the scriptures of the various world religions reveals that there is a fundamental rule against killing although there is a variation relating to the strength of the applicability of the rules.

In the context of Buddhism, every person usually trembles during the times of violence owing to the fact that life is cherished by every individual. According to Dhammapada 10.130, putting oneself in the place of another individual, a person is not required to kill. In addition, an individual is not required to compel another person to kill (Super 145).

With regard to Christianity, killing is condemned in the bible. Matthew 5:21-22 clearly states that “thou shall not kill; and whoever kills will be in danger of judgment…” This clearly indicates the stance of killing with regard to the taking of another person’s life (Irving 147). It is believed that an individual has no authority of taking another person’s life. Hinduism also lays emphasis on the respect for another person’s life as a core requirement for the establishment of peace.

As outlined in their scripture at Bhagavad Gita 16. 1-3, the supreme personality of Godhead outlines three transcendental individual qualities including fearlessness, having self-control, nonviolence, having a compassion for all living things and being free of anger (Hertog 96).

These qualities are needed for the development of divine nature. In addition, their stance against violence is emphasized by the fact that the religion is against the use of attacks, even for those who are deemed most despicable. Furthermore, attacks should not be directed at those who are peace-making (Daryl 78).

Islam is also against the taking of human life, which they perceive as made sacred by Allah, except in circumstances that call for just cause. This is stated in the Quran 17:33, and indicates the stance of the Muslims against killing. Jainism is also against the use of violence and people should avoid being involved violence as much as possible (Hertog 102).

From its scriptures, Purushyartha Siddhyapaya 60, states that “having precisely understood the meaning of violence, its outcomes, the victims and the executor, individuals who embrace the values of the religion should restrain from violence, to the best of their capacity. The guiding principles of Judaism are somewhat similar to those held by the Christian faith; the doctrine prohibits individuals from committing murder, as stated in Exodus 20:13 (Gopin 125).

It is arguably evident that all the world religions oppose the taking of another person’s life, which has been emphasized using commandments for the Abrahamic religions; moral standards and virtue in the case of Buddhism; and an advocacy for the establishment of peace and non violent activities in the case of Sikhism. Jainism does not have any exceptions and killing is prohibited for all forms of life (Gopin 126).

Causes that can give good reason for the use of armed force

In cases whereby force is deployed, all the world religions except for Jainism attempt to rationalize the use of armed force for just causes. Jainism emphasizes on the rule of non-killing. The different religions in the world have diverse conditions and scenarios that justify the use of force, with an emphasis on just causes and right motives.

In the context of Buddhism, killing is only justified when protecting the Dharma by the kings, lay men and the upasakas as outlined in Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Chapter 5. Hinduism justifies the use of killing basing on the religious duty of fighting (Daryl 100). Armed force is also justified in Buddhism when an individual’s life is threatened, for the case of self- defense and protecting the people.

Hinduism prohibits the use of war for the purpose of conquest and a person has the authority of killing an assassin who has shown his/her intents of murder, such an acts results to no guilt, which is justified by their scriptures that state that “ fury recoils upon fury” as outline sin the Manu Smrti 8.348-350. In addition, armed force is justified in cases whereby a person is administering punishment to a person who rightly deserves the punishment, provided that they are under the due process of justice (Hertog 148).

Islam justifies the use of armed force when fighting for the cause of Allah, especially for those individuals who are against you. However, limits are not supposed to be transgressed because they are prohibited in Quran 2:190 (Irving 145). Armed force is also justified to ensure that there is prevalence of justice and faith in the context of Allah.

Fighting is also justified against the people who do not believe in Allah and for defending one-self. The religion of Jainism does not justify any sort of killing whatsoever. Judaism on the other hand justifies killing for just causes of the Lord, as evident in Numbers 32:20-22. Justification also bases on penalty for taking someone else’s life vests on the life of the killer; that is life for life and an eye for an eye (Almond 147).

It is arguably evident that the justifications for the use of armed forces and fighting are many including protecting the religion and righteousness, as the case of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism; protecting the innocents, as in the case of Hinduism and Islam; fighting to end oppression, as in the case of Islam and Sikhism; administering punishment to the performers of evil, which is the case of Christianity and Islam; self defense as in the case for Hinduism and Islam and acquisition of the promised land of God for Judaism.

Jainism on the other hand does not justify any form of killing, even for the case defending one-self and protecting other people (Gopin 100). It is also important to note that self-defense is not viewed widely as a religious cause, resulting to its rejection in some religious scriptures such as the New Testament (Hertog 147).

The intent motive behind using force

The motive underlying the deployment of force is also an important aspect outlined in the doctrines of the various religions in relation to war and peace (Daryl 47). Even in cases where there is a justification of the cause, the values of most religions emphasize on the view that armed action must be undertaken with the true motives and attitudes.

A comparative scriptural analysis reveals that Buddhism and Christianity stress on the importance of love and compassion for the enemies and those individuals who are receiving punishment. In the context of Hinduism, proper motive is determined by the undertaking of one’s duty; this implies that using violence with wrong motives and unjustified killing results to negative consequences on oneself, as outlined in the principle of Karma (Gopin 78).

The Islam scriptures outline the consequences of not acting with the right intent, which includes hell for any person who kills a believer purposefully. In the religious values of Islam and other religions such as Judaism, the right intent should aim at the fulfillment of the will of God. Sikhism on the other hand encourages their fighters not take think of their own lives and that self-sacrifice is case of martyrs. Jainism does not justify any intent for the case of killing, and a thought about killing constitutes a sin (Irving 74).

With regard to the authority to use force, Buddhism gives the king the power to punish. Christianity on the other hand gives the ruler the power of the sword and considers it as a right that is God ordained. Hinduism authorizes the kings and warriors to use armed forces when in a righteous battle.

The Quran on the other hand lays emphasis on the going to war for the cause of Allah; it does not offer authority to specific people to wage war. Such authorities are allocated to the imams and Muslim leaders (Gopin 78). When deploying force as the last option, Buddhism lays emphasis on the soft approach, Christianity emphasizes on forgiveness, while Islam states that those in the quest for peace shall receive peace while those engaging treason shall be thrown back.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the values of various religions towards war and peace. It is arguably evident that engaging in war needs a strong justification and that taking human life is only permitted under specific scenarios for important causes outlined in the doctrines. A general consensus across all the world religions is the opposition towards taking another person’s life.

The religious scriptures offer an important indication on the levels to which war and violence are embraced in a particular religion. The limitation is that it is subject to different interpretations, which has resulted to misrepresentation of the religious values relating to war and peace.

Works Cited

Almond, Gabriel. A String Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Daryl, Charles. War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective. New York: Crossway publications, 2010.

Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hertog, Katrien. The complex reality of religious peacebuilding: conceptual contributions and critical analysis. New York: Lexington Books, 2010.

Irving, Horowitz. The idea of war and peace: the experience of Western civilization. New York: Transaction Publishers, 2007.

Super, John. Religion in world history: the persistence of imperial communion. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Introduction

The Great War that took place between 1914 and 1918 was not a chronological event, which can easily be identified with religion. The followers from each side claimed that all were engaged in a justifiable war to defend themselves against aggression. In fact, all argued that the Supreme Being was on their side and each religion prayed for success. As a result, it did not matter whether or not other believers were destroyed given that they were simply considered as enemies. Religious wars are common since the creation of human being although they do not have many fatalities similar to other types of wars. The wars are always regarded as a struggle between different religions namely Jews, Christians and Muslims. This demonstrates that despite the civilization humankind has undergone over years, religion continues to cause war.

Main Body

Religious beliefs are powerful motivations since aggressive individuals fight about them. They continue to cause conflicts even in small families. In fact, it is common for husbands and wives to fight on the religion that the family should adopt. The fight escalates especially when the wife refuses to follow the religion of his husband. As a result, it is common for divorce to arise from the religious differences between married couples. Such a relationship arises owing to the initial attraction between these companions. Each of these individuals has the hope that everyone will eventually see the righteousness in the other partner’s religion and accept to be converted. Conversely, some individuals coerce others to convert given that they strongly believe that they should belong to the same religion in order to have a lasting relationship. When the effort becomes futile, chances of domestic violence become high. Consequently, when they consider that the differences between them cannot be resolved even after involving other parties they end up in divorce (Erbele, 2012).

Religion causes tension even between close friends. For instance, it is common for Islamic families to have relationships with Christians. However, Muslims do not consume pork since it is not allowed by their religion. Although the relationship may be cordial, there is always suspicion from Muslim believers about the king of food they consume in Christian families particularly when the meal involves any kind of meat. Muslims are suspicious even when the meal does not include meat given that the meal may have been prepared using pork fat. Muslims ensure that they stay away from anything that involves pork. In one situation, a Muslim woman warned her husband to ensure that any Christian family they were visiting did not give her daughter any pork. This caused tension between them as the Muslim husband thought that the wife did not trust him to keep a close watch over their daughter (Woodlock et al., 2013).

The wife later admitted that she trusted the husband but did not trust the Christian family on issues regarding what they consume. Apparently, the woman does not even trust her in-law family since they are not Muslims. The tension between families is evident as in-law’s family openly consumes pork products. When visiting the in-law family, the wife ensures that she accompanies her husband and their daughter to ensure that the mother in-law who is usually craving for sausages does not give her daughter any pork product. She admits that it takes a few days for her blood pressure to resume its usual level after visiting the mother in-law who talks about the good taste of pork products (Woodlock et al., 2013).

There are other sources of war between humans such as soccer matches. However, religious differences are common excuses used by states to cause harm on those believed to have diverse religious views. For example, during the 20^th century, cruel administrations of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Stalin ruthlessly murdered millions of those with different religious views. In Russia, atheists murdered thousands of Christians. The atheists sought to eliminate any kind of religion from the region. It is therefore evident that religion has been a contributive attribute to most historical wars.

In the contemporary world, acts of terrorisms are believed to be caused by religious differences. Recently, there was an attack on Kenya’s Westgate Mall. The perpetrators of the heinous act were evidently Muslims considering the CCTV footages that captured them praying while facing Mecca. When the attackers first entered the mall, they held over three hundred shoppers hostage. According to reports by those who survived the attack, the attackers would ask each person different Islamic questions. Those who did not know were shot dead immediately. However, the attackers allegedly told Muslims to leave unharmed. All others who subscribed to different religions were executed.

In Iraq, religious war continues to escalate between different arms of Muslims. Terrorism in the country particularly the capital city of Bagdad continues to kill and maim tens of people daily. Muslims extremists strongly believe that any human that does not subscribe to Islam does not deserve to live. It is this conviction that lead to war between Shiite and Kurds in Iraq despite both being Muslims. The Quran is often observed as one that incites religious wars. It acknowledges the humankind tendency of disagreement and consequently allows defensive warfare. In addition to the individual’s permission for self-defense, it permits religious war in the name of Jihad against non-Muslims.

In Gulf region, the unrelenting war is mainly caused by religious differences. The war between Israel and Palestine is contributed by the fact that Israel is mainly a Jewish state while Palestine is an Islam state. The tension between these countries is further increased by the urge to dominate a large portion of land to settle those who subscribe to the Jewish religion. In the Africa’s most populated state of Nigeria, tension between Christians and Muslims in the 20^th century consequently led to the current state of war perpetrated by the Muslim arm called Boko Haram. The extremists execute Christians at any opportunity. The Al-Qaeda-supported group has taken advantage of the hostility between the two religions to claim and secede from the main Nigeria and create a Muslim state (Abah, 2013).

On the other hand, it has been argued that religion has developed additional importance in the current world given that globalization has changed almost everything. It becomes essential when political and national groupings are broken apart. For example, in Yugoslavia during the beginning of the fiscal 1990s, Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians took positions as Muslims, Orthodox, or Christians (Woodlock et al., 2013). From this, Muslim academics have over centuries managed to develop a ‘just war’ theory. The theory seeks to justify that Muslims can kill others when protecting their religious beliefs. Thus, for greedy and cruel leaders to advance their territorial desires, they have taken advantage of the inclusion of ‘just-war’ in the name of Jihad in the Quran.

In the Bible, it is evident that wars were mainly based on religion. God would use a certain population to punish those who did not follow His ways. The Israelites were commonly used as the vessel for God to punish others who turned against Him. Many people who try to justify terrorism tend to distort the approach in the contemporary world to cause fear in those perceived to be of different religion. Besides, for cruel people to oppress others, they often exploit religion based on the claim for defenseless. In other situations, it is positively utilized by others to defend against such oppression. Those who are perceived to be weak in the society gang up on religious grounds to ensure that the strong and cruel hardly unleash harm on them.

Thus, religious corruption is often criticized in almost all religions. For example, both the Bible and Quran criticize religious hypocrisy. The verse that criticizes religious in the Quran (Q2:204-205) may appropriately be applied to Saddam Hussein situation in the 1990s and early 2000. The president ensured that the world saw him reciting prayers on television. However, he continued to gas and bomb Kurds. He was evidently a cruel dictator who disguised himself as a devoted Muslim. It is this fact that one may conclude that indeed religion offers an essential cover and strong motivation for those who seek to do evil.

Another aspect of religion can be seen from the perspective of Atheism. When people declare that they are atheists, believers of such a religion frown upon them. It is common for such individuals to be excommunicated from the mainstream society. Such individuals are described in hurting terms. Savage comments such as being labeled stupid or fascists are common especially among age mates as well as those who are grown-up than the atheists. Such scenarios are common in the internet. When people declare that they are atheists, there is always an overwhelming reaction from all places on earth. In fact, atheists believe that all religions are unhelpful making believers to be agitated and angered. Conversely, atheists observe those who believe in religion as foolish (Houlihan, 2012).

In the recent years, tension between atheists and believers has been rising considering the swelling number of atheists who are convinced of the need to scorn believers. After the 9/11 attack on American landmarks, some popular people who practice atheism including Ayaan Ali backed nations to be violent against any Islamic country. In a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, atheist’s hatred of Muslims was evident. He asked his friend if he is ever worried that after atheists win the war and wipe out Christianity, Muslims would replace the vacuum. This demonstrates the violent hatred of Islamic religion by emerging atheists.

On the other hand, it is indicative of the frightening idealized nightmare that atheists possess. One may wonder why atheists seek to eliminate Christianity. The atheists’ objective to eliminate Christianity may be driven by the fact that Catholics have allegedly committed multiple contravening crimes such as protecting their leaders who commit sex with minors while they are supposed to live in celibacy. The opposition of abortion by Christians and other religions is also a driving force that renders atheists to violently attack them resulting in actual war. Although religious institutions may be dysfunctional, it does not justify their elimination. The view echoes strong hatred that continues to increase anxiety in the society.

Conclusion

From the beginning of human existence, religion has been linked to many types of quarrels and brutalities. The hands of believers are tainted with blood. Thus, it is reasonable to claim that religion when placed in the hands of wrong individuals may result in devastating harm. In the early days, religious wars were less than what is experienced in the current world. The perception that religion is the primary cause of main wars in the history of humankind is only engrained in mind and community. Out of more than 1,800 main armed conflicts, only less than 130 can be categorized as having originated from religious differences. This means that about ten percent can be associated with religion. It indicates that few people were killed in these conflicts. In the ancient world, wars that were fought due to religion appeared to be less bloody compared to those fought based on other reasons.

In many societies, religion is a positive tool that facilitates the cohesion of a community. It offers a platform for relating and associating with others. Unfortunately, it is openly different when placed in the possession of power-hungry individuals. Such individuals use religious convictions to trounce their rivals. During political campaigns, it is common for aspirants to consolidate votes by associating themselves with certain religions. It is common for such power-hungry aspirants to convert to religions that they consider as a boost to their political endeavors. When religious authority is in the hands of such individuals, it demonstrates the state of human psychology as opposed to the religion itself. This is mainly the basis why most wars experienced in the past involved and will probably continue to entail religion.

References

Abah, H. (2013). Boko haram has no religious coloration – Bideh. Web.

Erbele, C. (2012). God and War: An exploration. Journal of Law & Religion, 28(1), 1-46.

Houlihan, P. (2012). Local Catholicism as transnational war experience: Everyday religious practice in occupied northern France, 1914–1918. Central European History, 45(1), 233-267.

Woodlock, R., Loewenstein, A., Caro, J. & Smart, S. (2013). Doesn’t religion cause most of the conflict in the world? Web.

Identification of premises and conclusions

One outstanding argument in the paper ‘Religion is the cause of war’ is that religion causes conflicts even within families. The conflicts penetrate families that do not subscribe to the same religion. Another argument is that terrorism arguably results from sharing of resources. However, it has been observed that religious extremism and antagonism are the major causes of terrorism in different places. The conflicts that continue to erupt in the Gulf region owes to the diverse religious differences. Israel masquerades behind national security in its effort to obtain a huge portion of land to settle the Jews. The hate expressed by atheists against the need to eliminate Christianity indicates religious hostility among the believers and non-believers.

Identification of fallacies

It is not a fallacy that religion creates tension and eventual divorce between the couples. Thus, tensions escalate in the entire society. Evidently, the differences in religious beliefs make it difficult for couples across religious divides to have a harmonious relationship due to pressure from their religious leaders. The assertion that terrorism arises or sharing of the available resources is a fallacy. The Westgate Mall siege by attackers who claimed to be linked to the outlawed Al-Shabab was evidently a religious war of Muslim extremists against other religions.

Equally, it is misleading to assert that the Middle East conflicts are mainly due to the scramble for resources. In essence, the conflicts between Palestine and Israel are largely due to religious differences. Each of the parties seeks to dominate the region to settle those who subscribe to their doctrine.

Validity of arguments

The argument that religious differences cause conflict within families is substantiated by the fact that the families having different religious beliefs do not entirely trust each other especially when food is involved and considered taboo. The statement made by the attackers in the Westgate attack validates the argument that terrorism is a religious war. The assailants demanded that the hostages recite some verses in the Quran.

Those who were not Muslims were executed in cold blood. For years, the war between Palestine (mostly Christians and Muslims) and Israel (Jews) is essentially due to political and religious differences. Similarly, the Al Qaeda network has always claimed that its terrorism actions are to get rid of the non-believers. This argument is validated by the many conflicts that emerge among individuals of different religions despite being of lower magnitude.

How to change the arguments to eliminate fallacies

In reviewing beheadings of the Muslims who denounce the religion, it is evident that the atrocities are perpetrated to those who denounce the religion irrespective of their closeness to the perpetrator. Couples have also been known to divorce due to religious differences while others are subjected to domestic violence leading to acrimony linking to the families as well as communities.

To eliminate the fallacy that terrorism is a war for the distribution of resources, it is important to comprehend the attacks that take place in other places including the Muslim-dominated Gulf region. The attacks are often perpetrated against non-Muslims. To eliminate the fallacies inherent in issues surrounding religion as the cause of war, it is essential to comprehend the history of wars and prospective conflicts that are likely to emerge in the future. This requires the comprehension of causes of war in ancient times as expressed by the holy books including the Bible and the Quran.

People are able to act humanely during the war by simply being able to understand that we are all created equally. More so, during the war, there is the thought that if you kill someone, they will forever be engraved in your mind, and they will be able to haunt you later on. Although Monroe states that all human beings have the capacity to be good or evil at any given time, they are still controlled by the subconscious, and that is what determines what role an individual plays during a war or a genocide.

Monroe also compares the ability to retain humanity during the war with the ability to be able to help a stranger. It emerges from the feeling that the world is generally a better place and that life in itself should not be taken away since it is a gift. Thus, individuals who tend to be humane during the war are those ones who take it as a responsibility to trust the other person not to do them any harm and, in the process, give them the privilege of life.

The strategies Monroe’s characters use to cope with trauma are being open and sharing with their friends. Another strategy is registering for therapy where they can share their experiences with other people who have gone through the same and be able to deal with their trauma.

The time I experienced a traumatic event was around five years ago when I was involved in a fatal road accident in which I was the driver. My vehicle, which was a Toyota Caldina, swayed off the road since it was raining, and an oncoming bus had all its full lights on.

This blurred my vision, and in the process, I was unable to maintain the vehicle on the road. The car skid on the road and overturned only for it to settle in a culvert. In the car was my uncle, aunt, and baby Stephan, who is my cousin. Although they sustained minor injuries, the car was badly damaged, and I was left traumatized more so since I had not finished paying for the car.

It was a tough experience to the stomach, but I had a supportive family. I signed up for a therapy session where I was able to share my experiences with other people like me who had undergone traumatic experiences. I was able to accept that I should have been more careful, and thus all the anger I felt towards the bus driver vanished.

In relation to the texts provided, dealing with trauma can be difficult and gruel some, especially if an individual keeps on blaming someone else for what may have taken place. Thus, the strategies I used worked since I was able to accept my role in what happened, and in the process, the stress became minimal. The text literature concurs with the strategies I applied since it recommends the use of social and emotional support as well as being able to cherish the memories of the event through active processing. This is one of the most successful methods as it enables soldiers coming from war to be able to deal with trauma.

The solutions to dealing with trauma provided by psychologists are in sync with the ones provided in the text. Psychologists suggest that when one is faced with the trauma they should try to avoid stimulants such as alcohol or coffee in an effort to forget the memories they have, but instead, they should embrace their memories and share with others. Furthermore, they also advise such people to take part in group activities such as exercises and jogging so as to reduce periods of loneliness. Prayer, meditation, a balanced diet, and enough sleep are also other useful remedies outlined by psychologists.

The US is known to embark on military attacks on regimes accused of gross human rights violations. There are claims that the Obama administration has enough evidence on the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s regime. To many, this justifies an attack on Syria. However, a number of reasons make Syria a trickier case than Iraq and Libya. Firstly, the world is under threats of sophisticated terrorist networks.

Secondly, most countries, including allies of the US, are against military interventions in Syria. For instance, Russia urges the US to use the United Nations (UN) to tackle the problem in Syria. Lastly, the US constitution is uncertain on who should authorize a military attack. Accordingly, there is a heated debate on which arm of the government has authority to take the US to war. This paper uses the Syrian crisis to discuss war powers in the US.

The armed conflict in Syria is the largest humanitarian crisis facing the world at the moment. This encounter is between rebel fighters opposed to President Bashar al Assad rule and forces loyal to him. Around 100,000 Syrians have died since the uprising began (Lederer). However, the world is yet to come with a clear plan on how to end these atrocities. The disagreement between major powers should be blamed on this failure.

For instance, Russia and the US have differed on almost every proposal aimed at bringing peace in Syria. Unless a compromise is reached, a quick solution to the catastrophe will not be reached. Syria’s conflict is a serious threat to the region’s stability. There is a high probability that this conflict may spill-over to neighboring countries. An especially disturbing issue is that the unrest may create new breeding grounds for Al-Qaeda and other extremist organization.

Due to conflicting interests, the Syrian issue can make or break the world. If not checked, this crisis can instigate a world war or another cold war. However, nobody intends to go that road. Decisions related to war and peace must be made through a consensus (Putin). Gone are the days when countries made decisions alone. Unlike when President Bush attacked Iraq, terrorist groups have developed sophisticated strategies and grown in membership.

Any attempt to attack Syria will, hence, escalate the violence beyond its borders. This is not time for the international community to apportion blame, but to work together. For the sake of world’s peace and stability, the US must work with the United Nations. Iraq is still engrossed in civil war and Libya is struggling to unite its clans and tribes. There is surely nothing to celebrate about US’s earlier military interventions. Therefore, the US must carefully analyze previous mistakes before making any intervention in Syria.

A country launches a defensive battle in a bid to defend its territory. On the other hand, an offensive warfare is an aggressive way of dealing with an enemy. In this case, one does not have to wait for an enemy to strike, but goes after him. Attacking Syria on its own territory constitutes an offensive attack. According to Lewis, the US is about to strike Syria. This follows claims that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against the rebel and its own citizens.

Therefore, this offensive is aimed at deterring further use of chemical weapons. A state’s independence is limited by human rights. Under the international law, when a situation takes a humanitarian angle, focus shifts from a state’s right to state’s obligation towards its citizens. Sovereignty is derived from people and, therefore, their rights, interest and security should be prioritized. The US will be justified to strike Syria if use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians continues.

Under the US constitution, the president can unilaterally sanction a military intervention when there is an actual or an impending threat to the county (Fox). According to Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, president Obama has the authority to strike Syria (Lewis). War Powers Resolution of 1973, gives the president the right to sanction limited military intervention (Fox).

Therefore, Congress’ input on whether the US should strike Syria may be required, but it is not legally enforced. The war powers act is, thus, unclear on whether president Obama requires a vote from congress to continue with his plans on Syria. Nonetheless, failure to consult the Congress on an important security issue might place president Obama in an awkward political position.

The Syrian crisis is a major test for world’s peace and unity. The entire region’s peace depends on a peaceful Syria. Interestingly, the US has shown restraint throughout the Crisis. However, the US is now planning to intervene following claims that Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels.

Luckily, the intention has attracted opposition from familiar and unfamiliar quarters. Russia is totally against this offensive while the US Congress demands a say on the impending military strike. Nonetheless, depending on its interpretation, the US constitution allows the president to bypass Congress and the international community in authorizing a military intervention in Syria.

Works Cited

Fox, Laura. “The War Powers Act is Pretty Unclear about Whether Congress Gets a Vote on Syria.” US News Weekly, 2013. Web.

Lederer, Edith M. “Death Toll In Syria Rises To 100,000, UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon Says.” Huffington Post, 2013. Web.

Lewis, Paul. “US strike on Syria could come within days as military assets ‘ready to go”. The Guardian, 2013. Web.

Putin, Vladimir V. “A Plea for Caution from Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.” The New York Times, 2013. Web.

Introduction

Before the trading conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia occurred due to seceding of the Nagorno-Karabakh region to Armenia in 1988, the two countries were business partners transiting services and goods under the soviet rule. The breaking away of the region, which was a predominant Armenian ethnic expanse, was a major catalyst for conflicts that changed lives of many people within the two countries.

The support for separation by Armenia caused economic strain since this compromised foreign trade especially on Armenian’s imports from the neighbouring Azerbaijan. This paper forms an analysis of the situational crisis between Azerbaijan and neighbouring countries especially Armenia. It also forms a critical investigation of association between Armenia with its neighbours in relation to Azerbaijan-Armenia conflicts.

History of the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict

The separated Nagorno-Karabakh forces also disrupted the 1993 peace talks between the two countries. Turkey considered these as Armenian forces that caused evacuation of various ethnic groups within Azerbaijan region and declared an economic embargo in protest of the attacks.

A negotiation period emerged in 1994 between the Armenia forces of Nagorno-Karabakh and an ethnic group in Azerbaijan. These negotiation talks have been maintained to date despite pressure from Azerbaijan to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh as a republic. Azerbaijan fails to recognize the self-proclaimed country but equally disproves the existence of a peace accord that would foster cooperation between the two countries.

Reports from the “Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre” quoted the government statistics reports of 2008 indicating that the ethnic related violence caused internally related displacement of people who fled the war-infected regions to settle in peaceful regions of Azerbaijan (Lancer International, 2005, 8). This is a clear indication that despite the peace negotiations to resolve conflicts, people are still refugees since the 1988 chaos.

Positive Effects

On a positive note, the conflict between the Armenia and Azerbaijan encouraged other countries to participate in promotion and struggle for social unity as well as development. For instance, the heavy dependence of Armenia on Russian government for supplies today means that they need to maintain a strong and close relationship. Armenia also depends greatly on Russia’s services such as security provisions since collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia therefore participated in strengthening both the Armenia and Azerbaijan in their fight against soviet related forces. Various million-dollar projects were also established to strengthen the economic growth of the two countries such as the signing of a mining project between Armenia and Russia, where the Armenia processed precious metals from Russia.

Effects on Relationship with other neighbours

Turkey formed an alliance with Azerbaijan on religious grounds and ensured heavy fortification of their eastern region, due to conflicts that related to Turkey’s national impulse of policymaking. Turkey was in support of Azerbaijan and thus opted to block the trading relations with Armenia particularly the pipeline.

The early twentieth century massacres between Armenia and Azerbaijan therefore caused a bitter relationship between Turkey and Armenia particularly for the reason that Turkey did not recognize that these conflict events were campaigns meant to destroy Armenian people as claimed by their government.

In 1915, the Armenian nationals were forcefully evicted from the northern side of Turkey towards south in the aim of reducing immigrants and approximated half million lives were lost in the exercise.

However, Turkish administration shorn of this fact since it did not consider the act as genocide, but indicated that the eviction was a civil war that began due to Armenian attacks in which both Armenians and Turkish Muslims died. The war between the two countries eventually caused a compromise for Turkey to enter the European Union, were conditions included Turkey’s recognizing the 1915 war as genocide.

The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a Turkey ally had a connection to the issue of control over the boundary of Nagorno-Karabakh region and caused blocking of the Turkey-Armenia border. A reopening condition was set as a peace negotiation deal between the two countries.

The Secretary of U.S. state, Hillary Clinton witnessed the 2009 historical even of signing work protocols between the two countries Turkey and Armenia. The prolonged negotiation for cooperation between the two countries ended with the establishment of a working, diplomatic relationship and reopening of the compromised border (Soni, 1996, 29).

Lack of enough electric power is not that only major problem that the country suffers from due to the conflict with Azerbaijan, but food is also precious. The fact that the country is landlocked means that it depends on neighbouring states for various supplies such as oil, fuel, and for a huge percentage of the food such as wheat and sugar which emerges from other countries.

The blockade maintained by its eastern neighbour, Azerbaijan causes the country to depend on other means of transport for instance, trains with food imports from Ukraine and Russia must transverse through its northern neighbour, Georgia. This is a country rocked by widespread and long-term political instability such as lawlessness, which causes robbery of the foodstuffs or heavy taxing of the cargo.

A political instability relating to geographical differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a continuous ruin of the Armenia’s coordination with other neighbouring countries such as Iran. Iran is an Islamic state, and therefore has a strong connection to the neighbouring Azerbaijan, which is a strong Muslim state as well.

The strong relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan caused them to break any form of formal trade with Armenia, although currently there are some formal agreements for trade of natural gas and other scrupulous trades still occur without the consent of the authority. However, this trade remain strained.

Unrests created by the poor relations between this countries causes the private as well as international investors to shun away, for instance the stalled multistate-pipeline project that would otherwise benefit majority of this countries as it transverses through them. Civil unrests by Armenia especially against the neighbouring countries such as Turkey and Georgia causes negative impacts on strategies in particular against the two involved states: Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Effects on Resources

The conflicts affect mostly the resources such as the pipeline, rail transport and the natural sources of energy. Armenia anticipates change but continues to wreak havoc on its neighbouring Azerbaijan state. This causes more use of natural resources and non-renewable sources of its energy.

Lake Sevan, a main resource is drained since the water is used for hydroelectric generation and there are therefore some possibilities of the lake draining due to lack of alternative sources such as import supplies. According to Soni (1996, 23), the Armenian government is forced to seek alternative sources as thousands of its citizens continue to perish due to lack of food and because of excessive heat.

The options that Armenian government has had to consider to improve its status have been highly objected by other international companies such as U.S. for instance the nuclear power plant. Western governments objected the reopening of the plant on the basis that it was not up to standards and remain as one of the most hazardous resources since it is located in an area that is more prone to earthquake attacks compared to other similar projects in Slovakia, Russia and Bulgaria.

Foreign Policies

Azerbaijan financial embargo had major impact on food products and fuel, causing them to become more expensive in Armenia since majority of these products initially originated from Azerbaijan. “The Turkish government, through its prime minister, ‘Tayyib Erdogan’ soon made it clear that its national assembly would not authorize the signed protocol… unless the Armenia withdrew from the settled territories near the Nagorno-Karabakh region”(Lancer International, 2005, 8).

The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan therefore compromised the Armenian economy, since the country is a landlocked country that depends on working protocols with its neighbours.

In line with the thoughts provided by World Bank and the U.S. administration (Lancer International, 2005, 8), peace would accelerate the Armenian economic growth since it would reduce the cost of transporting export and import goods in Armenia. Their easier way of trade is through Turkey, but the conflict forces the Armenian trade to follow longer procedures through either Iran or Georgia at an estimated annual cost of approximately 100 million dollars (Lancer International, 2005, 8).

Conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as with other neighbouring countries also hinder some common sustenance activities such as conservational and environmental initiatives. Although the country receives aid from world bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), various environmentalists in the country admits that the living situation often compromise their work, considering that it is almost impossible to request starving and freezing people to spare the natural resources.

The environmentalists’ opposition to environmental degradation activities such as the nuclear plant operations is an abandoned fight since the desperation of the situation causes the Armenians to take the risk.

Sovereign funding

Today there is a great debate concerning the autonomous capital funds developed states as sovereign investment. These countries have to consider their investments and thus choose wisely since poor Investments often results towards the financial risks exposure especially due to the recent market crisis.

Failure to secure sustainable investment from developed international states often translates to decrease of Armenian’s asset values. According to Soni (1996, 22), investment in violence infected areas require sustenance measures, for a secure, practicable and prospective economical growth.

Migration

There are some devastating effects of the long and unsettled Armenian-Azerbaijan conflicts, such as the devastating populating density reduction and high migration to western countries especially to United States. The conflict has attracted many immigrants into the stable states in search for better paying jobs. This is a big challenge that Armenian faces today and in future, because major analyses show that economy growth mainly relies on labour forces mainly delivered by citizens (Soni, 1996, 20).

Lack of reliability on such is evidently a huge mistake since it is a breaking entity considering that majority of the citizens face deplorable conditions, little or no human rights and little pay, they thus seek better offers elsewhere. According to Soni (1996, 21), the potential economical growth of the country may also be under threat of degradation due to scarcity of the basics requirements such as water or the environmental degradation.

Culture

The Muslim states and have a governance system where cultural procedures govern inheritances of political and social norms. Despite these traditional characteristics, the conflict between Armenia and its neighbours particularly the Azerbaijan has led to drastic changes over cultural outlook, styles or the living criterions. Although the system faces some setbacks over improvement, alterations in appearance are quite evident far from the traditional form of governance that existed before the conflicts emerged.

The states have experienced some dreadful transformations that bring minimal efforts of achieving higher standards of living due to unavailability of resources. There is lack of advancement in the Information Communication Technology as well, thus making the countries less marketable or economically viable.

Education

The widest sense of belonging indicates that country’s ability to acquire wealth requires good formal education for its citizens. A major effect of conflicts is migration and thus loss of people who have the ability to manage basic state resources or infrastructure and establish some well set-up and rooted healthy living codes.

Knowledge enables citizens to establish the living standards for easy adoption to moral, economical, social, ethical and political way of working. Armenia looses a lot of acquaintance to the neighbouring and developed countries through knowledge drain as people evade unavoidable circumstances such as hunger and migrate to these countries.

Education determines employment and therefore financial security. When countries are not interactive such as the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, there is lack of adequate measures necessary for a country to face modernization or economic competition. Are citizens equipped with the requirements to combat current and future needs?

Conflicts create a situation where there is little or no demand for education; the results are a status of inactivity or encumbering anti-entrepreneurial situation that are easy to conquer. Those involved are accustomed to endurance on hard work or dependent on handouts.

Dignity has been lost and therefore there is lack of real and purposeful jobs compared to real situations in most countries where focus is often on education, work ethics and quality in the aim of achieving high outputs. There is equally lack of global competitiveness thus low productivity among citizens. The current trends of highly uneducated citizens especially youths and women lower efficiency.

There are some clear realities regarding the future of Armenia, such as need to diversify the economy and engage the private sector as a way of generating more finances and real jobs. The country lacks vision of ensuring that its citizens acquire the role of guiding the future of the nation.

This requires active practice of education to enhance economic growth of the State. Education system also ensures that citizens play the true role of democratic governance. An articulated and well-informed community shows the importance of education with the ability of promoting democratic reforms. Poor governance is a clear indication of existing challenge to ensure preparations that bring success to the global economy.

Conclusion

The conflict and regional war between Azerbaijan and Armenia may have triggered the emergence of various situations, for instance the June 1995’s Armenia decision to reopen the nuclear power plant built by Russia. They option is on the reason that the plan is able to cater for approximately 30% of the country’s electrical energy needs. The country is landlocked conflict with other countries such as Azerbaijan causes energy starvation

The continual cold war between the two countries cripples Armenia and leads to poor trade relations with other neighbouring countries. The conflict makes Armenia to over-look the dangers involved in reopening a nuclear plant that caused major devastation especially in Yerevan (Armenian Capital) after the 1988 earthquakes. The argument was that Armenian authority were using the option as a ploy to negotiate for better trade relations with neighbours, since they would equally be venerable in case of a future earthquake attack.

It could also be a coax to press for help from the neighbours to assist in negotiating for the trade block created by Azerbaijan. The real situation is that Armenian lacks electric energy and the situation has been that way ever since its self-governance out of the Soviet Union. Continual compromise of basic need affects the country economically.

Bibliography

Lancer International. (2005) Indian defence review, Volume 20. Texas, TX: Lancer International.

Soni, P. (1996) Energy and environmental challenges in Central Asia and the

Caucasus: windows for co-operation. Michigan, MI: Tata Energy Research Institute Publishers.