There is no telling what may or might not happen in the future. There are many actors, interests, and international institutions that can affect the identity and trends in global politics. Many factors come to play with a likely future, such as economic change, technological advancement, political opinion of individuals, etc. Many different levels of actors have the power to change interactions. We can gain some predictability from an increased demand in international institutions. Even though we have an increased need for global governance, we still need actors to solve problems. We can guess the future based off the events of history and how we know the world works.
To begin with, Francis Fukuyama’s idea presented in “The End of History?” provides many flaws. …show more content…
The same anarchic threat resides and no state will trust the other even if they share the same beliefs or sign treaties with the same rules. Even with the help of the United Nations and the international institutions within it, there will never be enough power to enforce any nation to truly get along and history will probably never end just because some form of war will always be present. War does not always mean guns, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. We have already seen the effects of civil wars and interest group riots and protests. Thus, Fukuyama’s views can be diminished from a likely demise of history as we know it (Krifto, 2011).
Furthermore, Benjamin Barber’s notion in “Jihad vs McWorld,” grants many dilemmas. He suggests that there are two main political forces in the world and neither of them is democratic. I can understand how there is no true democratic political force as America is supposedly going under a New World Order sometime in the future and the Islamic state is under a terrorist ISIS. This New World Order will try to get everyone under the Western liberalization, which democracy has attempted to be spread for years. The Islamic state of ISIS will
To begin with, Francis Fukuyama’s idea presented in “The End of History?” provides many flaws. …show more content…
The same anarchic threat resides and no state will trust the other even if they share the same beliefs or sign treaties with the same rules. Even with the help of the United Nations and the international institutions within it, there will never be enough power to enforce any nation to truly get along and history will probably never end just because some form of war will always be present. War does not always mean guns, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. We have already seen the effects of civil wars and interest group riots and protests. Thus, Fukuyama’s views can be diminished from a likely demise of history as we know it (Krifto, 2011).
Furthermore, Benjamin Barber’s notion in “Jihad vs McWorld,” grants many dilemmas. He suggests that there are two main political forces in the world and neither of them is democratic. I can understand how there is no true democratic political force as America is supposedly going under a New World Order sometime in the future and the Islamic state is under a terrorist ISIS. This New World Order will try to get everyone under the Western liberalization, which democracy has attempted to be spread for years. The Islamic state of ISIS will