read the instructions and tutor comments and make corrections in my journals - if you can complete by Sunday Midnight, it will be great

reassignments.zip

Home >English homework help >read the instructions and tutor comments and make corrections in my journals - if you can complete by Sunday Midnight, it will be great

dont_arm_ukraine (1).docx

Don’t Arm Ukraine by John J. Mearsheimer

The main argument is that NATO (western bloc) powers should not arm Ukraine forces to fight Russia. The argument in my opinion is right as its calling for non-military attempts to solve Ukraine crisis. Ukraine is a land that is vital to both the west and the East hence America needs it as much as Russia does. Weapons cannot help solve the issue as the battle is beyond Ukraine government that is, there are eternal powers such as America. Ukraine crisis has gone beyond to an extent of involving America and Russia (Sengupta, 2015). Russia is a country that is next to Ukraine and known to have deadly weapons such as nuclear ones. It will thus not relent when it comes to defend itself as far as its interest in Ukraine is concerned by whatever means possible. Arming Ukraine will commence decades of War as western bloc with likes of America and Eastern bloc with the likes of Russia try to prove their might. The crisis can only be solved diplomatically with all parties (eastern and western bloc) represented in order to make sure that interests of either sides are safeguarded.

Some of the interesting points include the issue of the Ukraine not being merely about Ukraine. Russia’s strategic interests are threatened hence it’s the reason its invading the Ukraine and America too has interests hence supporting Ukraine. The next point is that military efforts have so far not augured well for Ukraine itself which has lost parts of its territory. Crimea was a main region that supplemented the country’s budget hence losing it was detrimental for Ukraine (Malgin, 2014). The next point is that Russia might not give up easily as it’s a neighbored by Ukraine. It might fight to the last breath and increasing the cost might not be the lasting solution as Russia has expensive warfare equipment. The last but not least point is that Ukraine success in the crisis might only be if it remains non-aligned as all forces want it to be by its side.

Questions

1. Will both alliances (Western bloc and Eastern bloc) agree on a Ukraine that does not favor either bloc?

2. Will Ukraine give in and let Crimea, a region that it hugely relied on leave and join Russia?

References

Malgin, A. (2014, October 22). Can Ukraine Get Crimea and the Donbass Back? The Moscow Times. Retrieved from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/can-ukraine-get-crimea-and-the-donbass-back/509930.html

Sengupta, K. (2015, October 2). Ukraine Crisis: Discontent in Separatist Ranks as pro-Russian rebels fell betrayed by new political masters. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-discontent-in-separatist-ranks-as-pro-russian-rebels-feel-betrayed-by-new-political-a6677531.html

iraq_and_the_democratic_peace_0 (1).docx

Iraq and the Democratic Peace; Who says Democracies Don’t Fight? By John M. Owen

The main argument is that countries that countries that are democratic do not fight and honor international agreement with other democracies. However, countries in the process of democratic transition often find themselves fighting amongst themselves. Such a situation might prevail for Iraq. In my opinion, transition of previously autocratic states to democracy cannot happen in a day or two. It has to be done over a period of time. Use of force might not trigger democracy on the spot or put any democracy at all. War might not enhance democracy in an area as the fighting might not stop any time soon (Gary, 2006). Iraq is a country sounded by autocratic states and happened to be under autocracy at the time. Failure to effectively integrate democracy in a country and can leave a loophole which can be exploited by opposition leading to war. However, partial democracy might result as a relief to the citizens but the international relations may not feel it (Ferguson, 2005).

One of the points to note is the case study of Mansfield as well as Snyder which have shown that transitioning from previous non-democratic to democratic states are prone to war. The case studies by the authors have indicated that process of democratizing a state might lead to war. The other interesting point is that America use of force to democratize Iraq might not be a solution as it might treat the citizens better but ill-treat the neighbors. The issue of successful states democratized with war is further paramount. Such states such as Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998-200 period, France during the reign of Napoleon III around 1852-1870. Such countries have managed to achieve their democracy despite the fact that the process happened through wars. All the above scenarios depict a quest to weigh out before an autocracy is turned to democracy.

Questions

1. What is the most effective formula for introducing democracy to autocratic style peacefully?

2. Can Iraq succeed in realizing democracy despite fellow neighbors being not democratic? Will such democracy survive?

References

Gary, B. (2006, January 1) Are Democracies Really More Peaceful? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01wwln_essay.html?_r=0

Ferguson, N (2005, Dec 18). The Possibility Now Facing Iraq is not of a Democratic Peace but a Democratic War. Telegraph. Retrieved fromhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3621781/The-possibility-now-facing-Iraq-is-not-of-a-democratic-peace-but-a-democratic-war.html

global_battle_for_aids (1).docx

In Global Battle for Aids, Bush Creates Legacy by Sheryl Gay

The main argument is the article is the relevance of the President Bush administration dedicating funds to help combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. The plan initiated to assists the drive was known as President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief abbreviated as Pepfar. In my opinion, the plan was a good initiative towards combating the national disaster that was facing. The plan was highly unlikely from a republican since most are conservative and do not hold the view that American money should be hugely spent on non-American drives. Most of the countries involved in such were the third world countries located in Africa and the Caribbean (NBSNEWS). The argument to start such an effort was thus a bold move towards supporting the poor who can hardly liberate themselves from the epidemic (The White House).

Some of the interesting points to note is that initiative was appreciated by both sides of political arena. Senator John Kerry, a democrat for instance endorsed the effort terming as a ‘tremendous accomplishment’. The next point is that president was in the drive with support of his family. His wife, Laura Bush travelled to Africa owing to the same course while the daughter wrote a book on the same. Moreover, its vital to note that the plan was still facing position evident by the words of Michael Gerson who was the president’s speech writer. Some wanted to remove the piece in his speech during the state of union address. However, the president made overruled them and went ahead to read it. The plan was awarded $500,000 and the dispatches were to be done as years progressed. The plan was marked as legacy from the president as the administration was facing criticism due to Iraq war, taxes etc.

Questions

1. What is the efficiency of the drive to date?

2. What are the milestones achieved so far due to the implementation of the plan?

References

The White House. Office of National AIDS Policy: President’s HIV/AIDS Initiatives. Retrieved from http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/hivaids/

NBSNEWS. AIDS battle burnishes Bush’s Legacy in Africa. Many Praise the President’s $15 billion effort to prevent, treat the disease. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28605888/ns/world_news-africa/t/aids-battle-burnishes-bushs-legacy-africa/

the_promise_of_democratic_peace_0 (1).docx

The Promise of Democratic Peace; Why promoting Freedom is the Only Realistic Path to Security by Condoleezza Rice

The main argument is that there is need to promote democracy in all parts of the world as a solution to the insecurity issues threatening the world. In my opinion, the argument is positive in that it is giving a chance for the world to be free from any threat in terms of security. Democracy connotes the voice of the people and depicts equal representations of all individuals in the world. Democracy enshrines an element of freedom of each and every citizen. The insecurity facing the world is as a result of ailing democracy (Wilkinson, 2001). If people’s freedom is taken away, the people have to look for another forum to make sure that their voice is heard (Weinberg, 2004). The article highlights on the Middle East countries. Such countries are ruled by autocracy hence they have breed terrorism. Such activities start within a nation and the group becomes international with time.

Some of the interesting points is that United States of America is on the fore front in the call for democracy. It has done that being a victim of the terrorist attack. The attacks such as September 2001 and 1998 bombing of its embassy in Kenya might be a motive. The next important point is the need to need something as the whole world with regard to weak states. Waiting and watching as the nations’ become weak and weaker every day is not a solution. There is a need to take appropriate measures thus addressing the plight of such nations. Initiating the drive towards democracy now through polices will assist the world leap in later stages. The article gives an example of Acheson’s period in office where polices made then have led to peace among European nations.

Question

1. Is democracy the solution to the world insecurity to date?

2. Among weaker nations that have adopted the democratic style, how many are still on that path?

References

Wilkinson, P. (2001). Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass

Weinberg, L. et al. (2004). The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 77-94