The New Thirty Years' War



The New Thirty Years' War

According to Klare (2011), the period from 1618 to 1648 was marked by thirty years of war when Europe was engulfed in a sequence of brutal conflicts. The war was part of the struggle that existed between the emerging nation-state and the imperial system of governing.

More importantly, several historians still believe that the current international system of nation-states crystallized into the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, consequently resulting in the thirty-year war. However, Klare (2011) believes that the world today has also embarked on a new thirty-year war. According to the author, the new thirty tear war shows quite clear similarities with the 1618 to 1648 war.

MiniCalc with vip services

Even though the new thirty years of war may not result in as much bloodshed as the previous one, Klare (2011) believes that the new war will be no less memorable to the future of the world. In the next decades, there will be casts of people around the world who will contest in a “succeed or perish battle” for possessing the different forms of energy.

This is because the corporations will supply them while the countries run for them to dominate the world’s energy supply. The winners of the war will hence determine how people live and work in the next three decades and make enormous profits as well. On the other hand, the losers will be put aside despite being dismembered.

The war is likely to take about thirty years by the time presumed for the experimental energy systems such as hydrogen power and cellulose ethanol. More importantly, the war will put the survival of major corporations in the world to be at risk and also cause major economic consequences. In addition, the war will put the fate of the nations at stake, but eventually, after thirty years are over, just like the treaty of Westphalia, the world will probably erect in place the foundations of a new system.

Non-Violent Approach

According to Hubers (1991), the non-violent conflict resolution approach suggests that any government will derive power primarily from the approval of its people and by coercion, as a secondary way. Consequently, when human beings consent to any given state of affairs along with the operations within the framework of specific norms that it offers, then human beings will certainly empower that order. On the other hand, through recognizing their specific behavior to act as moral agents irrespective of external pressures or norms, human beings will consequently become agents of change who will eventually awaken others into new possibilities. The non-violent approach calls for justice, human solidarity along with creative ways that eliminate revenge, which consequently makes the process to be successful.

According to Hubers (1991), peace prevails under conditions that enhance justice in society. Consequently, peace cannot be detached from justice and as a result, this indicates a lack of violence either directly through weapons or indirectly through inequitable structures. This is to say that peace calls for an absence of violence and most importantly, genuine peace will only be obtained through peaceful ways. These are the actions that look forward to undoing conditions that are associated with the degradation of human beings and also they break the cycles of retaliation which normally leads to cheapening of the human life value.

In addition, genuine power is derived from willpower as well as from human solidarity, but not from violence. Moreover, when the ones in power refuse to dehumanize their adversaries even after being provoked or during the repression, the non-violent activists will be empowered by working in creative ways instead of banking on destructive methods of revenge, thereby inhibiting peace. In conclusion, human solidarity along with creative ways eliminate justice through revenge, achieving peace. These conditions are the successful non-violent approaches to peace.

Political Culture and Decision Making

Russett (1993) believes that democracies are less prone to war than other systems of government. He claims that democracies do not actually make war with each other or even commit violence. Similarly, autocracies and liberal states are known to be aggressive, as well as war-prone as compared to democratic states. This view runs counter to the realist theoretical custom which has been dominating the international political arena.

Russett (1993) argues that democracy is an inherent force, which leads to the achievement of peace. One of the single pieces of evidence that Russet shows is the fact that there has been the absence of wars between the democratic states. In addition, the thinks that a democratic government is based not only on the consent of its constituents but also responds to their wishes promotes the proposition that the democratic countries do not wage wars. The research conducted shows that other regimes, such as authoritarian have a reasonably greater probability of a violent crisis, which eventually triggers war, as compared to the democratic system. More important is that transition to democracy is more likely to initiate interstate war. This supports the proposition that democratic systems are less prone to wear.

On the other hand, realists tend to believe otherwise. Actually, according to Ray (1993), a classical realist presumes that the states will inevitably wage war with each other for the reason of the endless anarchic struggle for power and security. This proposition is irrespective of the type of system that is governing the state. In conclusion, the realists view the proposition that democracies are less prone to war than other systems of government as an old one and do not exist in the modern world.

The National Interest of the United States

The United States has national interests that are categorized as vital, extremely important, important, or less important (Allison, 2010). The United States’ national vital interests include conditions that are of utmost necessity to safeguard, as well as enhance American’s survival together with well being in a not only secure but also the free nation. In their endeavor to do this the US national interest is to prevent, as well as reduce the threat of biological, nuclear together with chemical weapons that may attack the country. Moreover, the vital national interest is geared towards ensuring that US allies survive and there is active cooperation with the United States that will lead towards making an international system within which the US can thrive. In addition, the US interest is to prevent any emergence of a hostile major power together with failed states on United States borders. The United States is also focused on ensuring there is viability along with the stability of the main global systems such as financial markets, supplies of energy trade, and the environment. Also, the US vital national interest involves establishing productive relations, which are consistent with the US national interests, with nations that have the likelihood of becoming strategic adversaries.

Want an expert to write a paper for you
Talk to an operator now
Start live chat now

The extremely important national interests are the ones that are compromised to perform severe prejudice although they will not strictly imperil the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well-being of American citizens in a free and secure nation. Extremely important US national interests are to ensure conditions, such as reduction of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. In addition, they ensure the prevention of regional proliferation and promote the acceptance of international rules of law (Allison, 2010).

Client's Review

"I've been using this service for two years and these guys never let me down. Customer support is perfect, any time you ask any question, you get an instant response. I do love Exclusive Paper!"

reviewed on Mar 28, 2018, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

The important national interests are the ones that if compromised. a major negative consequence will arise for the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well-being of American citizens in a free and secure nation. Finally, the less important or secondary US national interests are those, which have a direct impact on the capability of the government to safeguard, as well as enhance the well-being of American citizens in a free and secure nation (Allison, 2010).


Bommes (2005) defines transnationalism as a social phenomenon together with scholarly research that has been gone beyond the heightened interconnectivity among the people, as well as the economic and social boundaries between states. Moreover, it can also refer to the shift in migration patterns as has been evident recently. However, there are various critiques of transnationalism, which actually have different stands.

Our Benefits
  • 300 words/page
  • Papers written from scratch
  • Relevant and up-to-date sources
  • Fully referenced materials
  • Attractive discount system
  • Strict confidentiality
  • 24/7 customer support
We Offer for Free
  • Free Title page
  • Free Bibliography list
  • Free Revision (within two days)
  • Free Prompt delivery
Order now

Assimilationists seem to be the most compelling critiques of transnationalism. Evidently, according to Bommes (2005) assimilation researches tend to prove that the groups or societies are not in the frame of reference for empirical research. This is to prove that transnationalists have exaggerated the results of political theory as well as distinction. Assimilation suggests that in the process of homogeny there is a need to clarify the point of reference about which that process of becoming the same takes place. Moreover, according to assimilationists, the individuals migrate for different reasons, where they may be looking for labor, health treatment, or even education. Assimilation calls for the general existence of all people in the society, whereby there will be long-lasting expectation aimed at controlling the behavior of the individuals together with the actions with the regard to structural conditions that is evident in the differentiated social systems.

On the other hand, multiculturalists are the least compelling critique of transnationalist. Inherently, multiculturalism relates to a typical community that has multiple cultures and refers to cultural diversity (Kinzel, 2008). Multiculturalists, more often seem to argue in the same way as the transnationalist. For instance, they both seem to exaggerate the results of political theory as well as recognize their distinctions. Most of their arguments conquer with transnationalists’ view, and hence, they result in being the least compelling.

Guarantees is a leading custom writing service, the professionals of which are always ready to write an essay, research paper, book report or any other kind of academic papers writing. You may rely on us - will deliver the best orders strictly on time. Our highly-educated professionals will do their best to help you receive the highest grades.

Class System Theory

Class system theory refers to the advancement of the integration of economies all over the globe especially with the respect to trade together with financial flows. What is more important, as the economies integrate the issues associated with the benefits and cost start emerging and outweigh each other. Essentially, there are several critiques of this theory and have different stands (Jeffus, 2005).

According to the class system theory, corporate managers are not the only ones with conflicting goals. For instance, some citizens do not want the benefits like public schools or public highways reduced. On the other hand, as taxpayers, they do not want to pay for them. For this reason, in an attempt to gain votes the politicians most of the time will not act in the public’s best interest; therefore they create what is an inevitably self-destructing cycle (Jeffus, 2005). Additionally, as the politicians feel pressure from the industries to implement government subsidies, regulations, trade restrictions, and other forms of shield motivation for effectiveness is the loss. Moreover, the theory argues that statistics do not accurately represent the facts and that the arguments for the protection of natural resources are a separate issue from that of globalization.

Hyper-globalization is a critique of the theory of globalization. Hyperglobalization introduces the conflicting goals between corporate and environmental growth. In addition, this theory attributes corporate growth to the rising social problems, for instance, the wide gap between the rich and poor citizens, which also continues to grow wider. Moreover, the theory advocates for extended product responsibility that inherently takes into consideration the environmental consequences of production, and most importantly it condemns the subsidies, as well as preferential treatment given to corporations while they are expanding abroad (Jeffus, 2005). Therefore, the theory claims that corporate managers do not have accountability for their actions, as well as they do have misaligned incentives that only focus on short-term profits only.

scroll to top call us
Chat with Support