Everybody has different values. So with that in mind, conflict will occur when individuals or nations have a lack of acceptance and understanding of these different values. Conflicts with differing interests occur when individuals or nations combat for their personal or nation goals as a whole, often ignoring the organizational goals and well-being, or other nation’s goals and well-being. Scarce resources can cause a lot of conflict. Especially between two countries.
This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. If a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change.
Thus a person can initially adopt a neutral stance, but soon become mired in the conflict and unable to withdraw. Moreover, one’s own moral instincts often force a person to engage with one side or another. Once the moral choices become clear it can be difficult to remain detached. Finally, once gains some perspective on what conflict truly entails it becomes almost impossible to remain a bystander. The long and brutal history of conflict between the western powers and the eastern bloc over the issue of communism illustrates just how people can be drawn into a conflict whether they wish to or not.
They were not inventing anything new but reclaiming something ancient. This is why governments tend to fall apart, because people often want to come together freely and be themselves, rather then fit a mold that is presented for them. Hobbes foretold that it was a human condition that war fought by each against each, making it hard for anything good to come out of it, or learn
WHO WE ARE IS TRULY TESTED AND PROVEN WHEN WE ENCOUNTER CONFLICT. It is a part of our human nature to experience conflict, as we are each forced to respond to conflict at various times in our lives. In order to live serenely we must attempt to avoid and resolve the conflict. Whilst conflict may merely involve two parties disagreeing over minor differences and opinions. We view through our history that major conflict in the form of war and political matters lead may to experience horrific life-changing conflicts.
Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
People started to become unsatisfied with the war. Due to the cost of the war may the inflation worse (Ryan, 2008). The president kept telling the US that the war was going to end soon. Unfortunately, President Johnson lied. There was no longer any faith in government officials.
Unfortunately, governments often fail to consider peaceful options, progressing immediately to violence. In spite of that military intervention can be successful, we should avoid this method of solving problems. The first reason is that the most of military interventions goes with misfortune and fails. There are a lot of types of interventions. There must be an accurate and independent evaluation of the scale and nature of humanitarian needs.
As he states, the defensive realism of Kenneth Waltz finds it imprudent for states to search for global hegemony “because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p73). Since the question of power is not answered by the defensive theory, interest shifts towards the other model. Accordingly, offensive realism finds it admissible to certify that survival is the ultimate goal, and power is just the tool (measurable) to ensure that end is fully realized: “The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure one’s own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival.” (Mearsheimer, 2001, p74). That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future.
Thus, many people argue the point of how to create a single standard for the whole world. However difficult this issue may be, in cases where crimes are prosecuted with a minimum punishment or even none at all is simply unacceptable and only hinders and reverses the progress of the UN missions. Although the UN has been working hard to establish clear standards and rules by which UN personnel must abide, much more progress must be made. This will require the cooperation of every state in order for universal standards to be implemented.One of the main reasons that many crimes have gone unpunished is the privileges and immunities given to UN officials. Many of these immunities have been in place since the founding of the UN and, in fact, are modeled on traditional courtesies granted to all diplomatic personnel by every government far back in history.