Along the span of time and history, there are several reasons why certain countries would commence a war against another. Scholars would often state it as an alter ego principle, which is possessed naturally by any form of government, given of course the real disposition of any individual. Even until today, there exists a raging war between the United States of America and Iraq (Price, 2003).
Thus, unlike before where power and supremacy has been the explicit reason, the contemporary society caters mysterious facts on why one country would want to conquer another. 9/11, global warming, Kyoto Protocol, biological weapons—these are just a few examples of the events that shook the world, and apparently started the 21st century warm. However, a blunt question sprouts in the schema of such activity, when will the war end? What are they fighting for?
Every individual is astonished. Dredged in a coat of defining the events during the nineteenth century, Michael Perman, world-renowned political historian who has made numerous books establishing the twists and the turns which took place during the time when the North and the South had a clash in ideas and on perspective during the period after the Civil War, creating a new world of prose historical writing in several renditions of his books.
The whole package of the scholarly monographic masterpiece on the events and the instances that endured during that certain time had been wrapped into one book – Emancipation and Reconstruction. Perceivably one of the most accurate and precise elaboration of the realistic events when both poles of the North and the South, it catered what happened to those citizens as well as with the political situation of the country upon reaching the edge of struggles. It was mainly defined as to be “winning the war, but on the other hand, losing the peace” (Perman, 2003).
Historians’ quest for defining historical icons Amongst those who have had huge enthusiasm on historical events, Perman’s indulgence on the role of the civilians anchoring the federal governments’ constant involvement in Reconstruction often created a conflict with regards to the concerns on the state relations. During that era, added disputes of such, Southerners depended on the support taken from the blacks and the whites on the participation of those who had been freed.
On the level of distinguishing the form and the effectiveness of democracy, the book rendered the precise illustration onto the limits adhered by the Northerners, as well as with the Southerners (Pickering & Kisangani, 2006). The North enjoyed more on their rights on democracy, which as a matter of fact was only inhabited by 5 percent of black individuals. But the main gist of the event for the South’s downfall laid on the matter that they were cohesively divided into two, making them formidable to be in unison (Miller, 2006).
The British invasion on the United Arab Emirates began consequently after the ntervention of Europe in the budding years of the 16th century with Portugal. A century and a half later, Dutch and British conquests began to outdo one another in terms of dominating the UAE. In the closing years of the 18th century, Britain eventually became the major dominating force in the Arab territory (Schofield & Zenko, 2004).
Both the contemporary ruling clans of Ra’s al Khaymah as well as Ash Shariqah, known as the Qawasim back in the days, grew to a significant level of marine power in the lower gulf eventually raiding maritime vessels from the British colony of India. After routing the naval force of the Qawasim, the British forces mandated in 1820 a number of treaties that brought forth and maintained a maritime truce. This later paved the way for the creation of the United Arab of Emirates after being labeled with the name as Trucial States.
Two years after, the external security issues as well as the foreign relationship of the state with other countries became absorbed by British responsibility. The British continued its protective control over the area of the UAE until 1971. Over the course of these years, the inner affairs of the UAE were devoid of British intervention as the latter was more after the protection of the maritime commerce in the area of the Persian Gulf (Price, 2003). Moreover, it has been observed that part of the British control of the UAE established overall peace as well as the Western notion of territorial states was also introduced.
Far more importantly, the cooperative characteristic among the seven emirates was further amplified after the formulation of the Trucial States Council in 1952. The foundation of the UAE’s Supreme Federal Council is traceable in such council (Goodman, 2006). The dilemma may evidently the main reason of the wars, which transcribed in Iran and in Vietnam (Lovett, 1987). Given the fact that history relevantly established which countries are the culprits and which are not—it is under the conviction and understanding of those who live in the present era as to which story they believe is credible.
These perspectives may not be considered in other culture, but then the rule of moral standards is what prevails in this story. For every country suspected to be making grave activities which will shatter the advent of peace and prosperity worldwide, then the United Nations—controlled and supervised of course by the general masses—will make a move to eradicate the unlawful deed an eventually take all means in doing so. Diversity and cultural beliefs are no longer considerable when it is the lives of many which will be compromised. Conclusions and further remarks
Perhaps there is no definite answer to the question on “truth” and acceptability—since each race, class or culture have different views and perceptions in life or on any other form of belief. Some may regard these moves as unjust, but it is the society who needs to speak and it is the responsibility of the government to answer their call and act upon it. It is the main reason why the United Nations has been created, so that the power is not only vested on one country alone, or on the wealthiest, or the most popular. Without allies and without the help of the full force amongst all nations, one country will not be able to succeed.
And so the blame on why these countries have been “controlled” is because they would not agree. References Goodman, R. (2006). Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War. The American Journal of International Law, 100(1), 107-141. Lovett, C. C. (1987). “We Held the Day in the Palm of Our Hand”: A Review of Recent Sources on the War in Vietnam. Military Affairs, 51(2), 67-72. Miller, R. A. (2006). Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law by Charlotte Ku and Harold Jacobson. The American Journal of International Law, 100(4), 980-986.
Perman, M. (2003). Emancipation and Reconstruction (American History Series (Arlington Heights, Ill. ) (Second ed. ). Wheeling IL: Harlan Davidson. Pickering, J. , & Kisangani, E. F. (2006). Political, Economic, and Social Consequences of Foreign Military Intervention. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 363-376. Price, M. T. (2003). The Concept “Culture Conflict:” in What Sense Valid? Social Forces, 9(2), 164-167. Schofield, J. , & Zenko, M. (2004). Designing a Secure Iraq: A US Policy Prescription. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 677-687.