International Relations

 The notable experts provide the convincing arguments about the possibility of peak oil, its causes, as well as the present and anticipated consequences of this phenomenon. They claim that the possibility of global crisis drove the USA to organize and lead the worldwide campaign against 60 states that allegedly harbor terrorists in order to secure control over two biggest deposits of oil in the world. Moreover, the scholars argue that the 9/11 attacks were a pretext for the U.S.-led wars in the Middle East. In other words, the film highlights the importance of considering the connection between the control over the oil distribution and the terrorist acts in New York. I find the arguments entirely reasonable in view of the presented evidence. The early warnings about the anticipated shortage of fossil fuels, which represent an important source of energy for the state industries, could have forced the federal government to overstep the moral boundaries in order to provide the constant supply of oil. I strongly believe that the state interests could be used to justify the hesitation in everting the anticipated terrorist attacks and the implementation of the overly militarist policy during the recent decades.

In response to the pressing dilemma, the realist would be more concerned with ensuring the national security and maintaining the status of the world power. The adherents of the realist school of thought would probably support the foreign policy of the Bush administration. However, I strongly oppose the idea of self-assertive diplomacy since the total disregard of other states’ interests would create the anarchistic world order. Additionally, the immense financial, human, and material resources spent on the artificial antiterrorist campaign would be more useful for the development of the energy saving technologies and alternative sources of energy.

End of Poverty focuses primarily on the growing inequality between the North and the South. In a highly detailed manner, the notable researches present the historically truthful and fact-based explanation of the causes of the extreme poverty in the Third World countries. Since the beginning of the colonial era, the conquered territories were essentially deprived of the chance to determine the course of their political, economic, and cultural development. The colonies of South America and Africa were systematically subjugated to the enslavement, imbalanced trade, enforced conversion to Christianity, and political repressions (Diaz, 2008). I consider the provided historical accounts rather helpful in explaining the backwardness of the underdeveloped countries and the current impossibility to disrupt the perpetual circle of marginalization. The economic dependence and political pressure from the Northern industrial countries essentially turned the former colonies into the economic appendage and effectively exploited as the source of free labor and raw materials.

The proponents of unchecked globalization fiercely oppose the assertion on the grounds of the anticipated benefits from the economic interdependence, including the equal access to the global markets and free movement of people, goods, and money. However, I argue that the concept is inconsistent with the reality. These individuals fail to take into consideration the historically predetermined incapacity of the underdeveloped states to compete with the world powers. Since they were initially deprived of the chance to build the diversified and self-sustainable economy, their industrial complexes lack the financial, human, and material resources to the manufacture of the compatible goods and products. Therefore, there is a low probability of reversing the imbalance in the trade with the wealthy countries. Overall, the film has negatively influenced my understanding of globalization. I believe that the logic of capitalism drives the leading countries to exploit the South’s inferior position and economic vulnerability.

According to the article, the rejection of globalization is the common denominator between Trump’s political agenda and Brexit. A growing bulk of evidence suggests that both occurrences are the result of the economic interdependence. Critics of the economic openness effectively highlight its potential dangers including the unemployment, disproportional trade balance, and raising inequality. I find these arguments most compelling since the removal of the trade barriers does not necessarily lead to the financial prosperity. There is a high risk of losing the global market competition by failing to diversify the national industries in a timely manner. Therefore, the free trade policy is hardly beneficial for the underdeveloped countries that struggle to adjust to the world tendencies. At the same time, the unlimited access to the global markets does not ensure the equal distribution of profits. The states with the flexible and fast-growing economy and China in particular tend to enjoy the benefits of the favorable trade imbalance. Similarly, the wealthy elites are frequently the immediate beneficiaries of the free trade policy, while the working class suffers the low wages and high rates of unemployment.

The opponents of globalization fiercely promote its critique. They claim that the protectionist policy, widely implemented by the nation states during the 1950s and 1960s, was effective in maintaining the high living standards. However, the assertion seems to lack the credibility since globalization presupposes low exchange rates, import taxes, and liberal immigration policy that all together ensure the free movement of people, goods, and money across the state boundaries. Protectionism, by contrast, would simply exclude the underdeveloped countries from the world trade by promoting the policy of the closed national borders. It can create the artificial obstacles for the development of trade ties and interpersonal relations between the nations. Therefore, I strongly believe that the policy of openness may stimulate the economic growth of the underdeveloped countries. I strongly disagree with the main idea of the film since all religious teachings highlight the healing power of love. Beyond Our Differences fails to take into consideration the power of mass media. It is unsurprising that the world is more drawn to pay attention to the extensively exploited images of misled use of religion’s motivating power. In the progressive world, the population tends to abhor the thought of crude acts of religious hate. Meanwhile, the small acts of humanism are an equally frequent occurrence. For instance, the personal examples of Melisse Lewine-Boskovich and Father Kieran Creagh may inspire thousands of concerned citizens throughout the world after watching the film. Evidently, the currently dominating attitudes to religion is a changeable notion that may be shaped by the external influence in equally negative or positive way.

Moreover, the motivating power of religion is neutral in a sense that it does not recognize the predetermined susceptibility to violence. I believe that people are born with the equal predisposition to goodness and evil. The choice to exploit the religious teaching in either of these directions is influenced by the real life experiences and deeply related to the personal characteristic of the practitioners. There are numerous examples of both cases. The life stories of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Dalai Lama are the embodiment of love’s force, humanity, and nonviolence. At the same time, a large number of the radical factions chose to ignore the initial purpose of faith and commit the brutal acts of religious intolerance. Therefore, the tempting and beneficial sides of religion affect people equally since the believers are exposed to the influence of both interpretations of spiritual texts. The case of Melisse Lewine-Boskovich successfully exemplifies the assertion. As a young Israeli activist, she came to be entirely indifferent to the sufferings of the Arabs under the influence of the dominating views only to undergo the profound change after becoming a mother. Evidently, the shift from one extreme to another indicates the changeable character of a person’s worldview.

If you happen to look for a writing guidance you can apply and ask all your questions at the https://freshessay.net/interview-paper-writing