-
The Arab-israeli Conflict And United States Geo-strategic And Economic Interests In The Middle-east
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
Liberation struggles, such as those between the African National
Congress (ANC) and the White Supremacist regime of Apartheid South
Africa; the Angolan Crisis in 1975 after the exit of the Portuguese
Administrators, which signaled an end to Portuguese imperialism in
Angola. The forces of liberation cut across three ethnic based
nationalistic and belligerent movements enmeshed in a deep-seated
fratricidal struggle for political authority. They are, the Popular
Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), National Front for the
Liberation of Angola (FNLA), and the National Union for Total
Independence of Angola (UNITA). There was also the fourth – FLEC –
Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave. This was a Separatist
Movement for economic hegemony.
Conflict by its very nature is
inevitable. Although not all conflicts result in armed force, this
paper discusses armed or violent conflict which has for long dominated
relations between the Arabs and Israelis.
David Francis of the
Department of Basic Studies of the University of Bradford in his work,
“Peace and Conflict Studies: An African Overview of Basic Conceptâ€
defines conflict “as an intrinsic and inevitable part of human
existence. However, violent conflict is inevitable and as such, is an
anomaly. Conflict is defined as the pursuit of incompatible interests
and goals by different individuals and groups. Armed conflict is the
resort to the use of force and armed violence in the pursuit of
incompatible and particular interest and goalâ€.
The International
Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia states that “armed conflict exists
whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted
armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed
groups or between such groups within a Stateâ€.
METHODOLOGY
Understanding
the theoretical perspectives of international relations provides an
analytical framework with which we mirror events in the international
political system. To serve the purpose of this research, therefore, our
methodological approach shall first and foremost, entail a
comprehensive examination of the contending theoretical groundwork that
are seminal to international relations. These are the theories of
liberalism, realism and Marxism.
Theories of liberalism emphasize man
as a rational being able to weigh the Strengths and Weaknesses of
available options and their outcomes3. The unique preference of liberal
theorists for democratic liberalism which is the very essence of
America’s democracy, and Laissez faire which connotes economic
liberalism equips individuals with the freedom to discover their
potentials in order to improve on their well-being. This is the
conceptual basis for capitalism. Neo-liberal institutionalism - a
modern variant of liberalism posits that in an anarchic international
environment, there is the tendency for States to cooperate with each
other because it is in their best interest to do so. The game theory
highlighting the Prisoners’ dilemma in evaluating the possible options
open to them and their probable outcomes explains the imperatives for
international cooperation4.
The realist theoretical view point which
sees realism as one of the dominant Schools of thought in international
relations posits that States behave in a particular manner out of
considerations for national interest. Realism emerged as a profound
reaction to the idealism that heralded the formation of the League of
Nations, espousing a more normatively driven approach; the structural
outlines of which were transmitted to the United Nations. The father of
realism – Thucydides reputed to be an exemplar of the realist
tradition, in his work, “The Peloponnesian Warâ€, examined the display of
power by strong states over the weak.
Thurcydides’ analysis of the
Melian Dialogue involved Athens and Sparta – both Greek City States
that exercised hegemonic authority at about the 5th century B.C. Each
of these States feared the other. This struggle for hegemony by Athens
and Sparta became worrisome for the smaller State of Melos that was
desirous of maintaining her neutrality. Athens desired to bring Melos
under subjugation, opting to attack Melos if she declined to submit to
Athens’ authority. Melos indeed called the bluff of Athens.
Consequently Melos was un-provokingly attacked and defeated by Athens.
Against this background, Thucydides concluded that justice is as defined
by the victor which is a common feature of international relations.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
