Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights.  The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible.  The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.

‘Sport is a greatly overrated activity.’ How far do you agree?

For and Against Points for Sports is Overrated Activity

  • health advantages of sport
  • ways in which sport might allow us to indulge competitive streak/combat etc. in ‘safe’/controlled environments
  • sport’s role in international politics
  • limitations of sport as a leisure activity (what it can’t do compared to more intellectual activities etc.)
  • what we mean by ‘sport’ – a very wide category; are some sports more/less ‘overrated’ than others?
  • coverage of sport in the media (e.g. at expense of other more pressing and important concerns)
  • views about financial outlay and costs

How far do you agree that newspapers no longer contain news?

  • Article: The state of newspapers
  • news means different things to different people
  • many newspapers are published daily and report on daily events; magazines are usually published weekly or monthly
  • newspapers have to offer more than news if they are to compete with other news media such as the Internet and television
  • most newspapers report on at least the main news stories
  • most newspapers contain non-news items such as competitions, advertisements and TV listings
  • quality newspapers have a higher ratio of news-to-views columns than popular papers.

How far do you agree that we must have rules and regulations in order to maintain a civilised society?

  • rules are necessary for social and political control
  • rules are in place to control experimenters because of previous failures to recognise subjects’ rights
  • rules and regulations are needed to protect the vulnerable
  • history shows us that exploitation and abuse occur when rules and regulations are not in place
  • we need rules and regulations so that companies do not ignore the well-being of others in the pursuit of profits
  • when rules and regulations are not in place, TNCs are free to adopt different standards from when operating within defined boundaries
  • rules and regulations allow transgressions to be clearly identified and penalties to be imposed.

How important is it for a government to respect popular opinion?

Keywords: ‘How important’ and ‘government’ and ‘respect popular opinion’.

• Define popular
• Popular uprising – people power can be effective (e.g. Arab Spring)
• Minority governs the majority
• Respect basic human rights
• Communication through technology – quick to organise protests
• Media – greater awareness of global events
• Is it popular or just the powerful influence of minority groups (e.g. fundamentalism)
• Can respect popular opinion but still a need to adopt unpopular measures (e.g. austerity measures)
• The mandate to govern in a democracy/must be seen as transparent
• Repression – lack of respect – violent outcome (e.g. war in Syria)

To what extent is ‘people power’ the key to achieving a democratic society?

For and against points for ‘people power’ the key to achieving a democratic society

  • Keywords: ‘To what extent’ and ‘people power’ and ‘key’ and ‘democratic society’.
  • Democracy is supposed to bring Equality and Accountability
  • Can remove repression/dictatorship (e.g. Arab Spring)
  • There is little alternative if the country is undemocratic (e.g. Libya)
  • Violence – innocent victims (e.g. Syria and Yemen)
  • Power vacuum
  • Opportunity for the military/fundamentalism to take over (e.g. Egypt)
  • Can fail (e.g. Bahrain/Zimbabwe)
  • Democratic elections do not always give power to the people
  • Electoral colleges give as much weight to the few as the many

Modern technology used in weapons and communications means that war is now far less likely. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

  • modern technology enables war to be conducted impersonally and at a distance (Read Article1 and Article 2)
  • weapons can act as a deterrent to war; the effects of their devastation are widely acknowledged
  • laser technology allows for greater accuracy of weapons
  • the purpose of satellite surveillance technology is defensive; designed to avoid war
  • in the hands of terrorists or a military dictator, weapons can be used aggressively and can provoke conflict
  • weapons do not cause war or keep the peace; that is the remit of those who control them
  • communication systems can direct weapons.
  • non-lethal weapons can be developed.

‘Wars do not resolve questions but create further disputes.’ Does this mean that war can never be justified?

• There are likely to be references to more than one war
• Arguments for resolutions of various conflicts may be advanced
• What might be defined as a ‘just war’?
• World War Two, for example, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq wars, civil wars
• Examples of where negotiations and/or treaties have prevented conflict
• Distinctions may be drawn between ‘wars’ and terrorism
• The so-called ‘war on terror’ may be mentioned
• One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
• Allow for thoughtful interpretations of the term ‘war’

Examine why some democratic countries find it difficult to hold ‘safe and fair’ elections.

Key words: ‘Examine’, ‘democratic’, ‘difficult’, ‘safe and fair’, elections’

• Change from dictatorship (Arab spring/Libya/Egypt)
• Instability (still supporters of the old regime)
Elections are complex, involving a whole population (the problem of logistics)
• Open to bribery and corruption (the problem of independent monitoring)
• Violent intimidation prevents turnout
• It can appear a sham eg, present government manipulates the process to win re-election
• Tends to be difficult in developing countries –depends whether there is a tradition of democracy
• Cost and security of election booths
• Some response might choose to emphasise the fairness of the system via discussion of media involvement, smear campaigns etc.

Should sport be free from government intervention?

In today’s society,  sports play a  prominent role in the world.  It is able to contribute to the international standing of a country, improve the welfare of the people and contribute to the economic growth of a country, to name a few benefits. With sports playing such an instrumental role,  it will inevitably be tied together with government intervention.  While some believe that government intervention is not necessary and would be detrimental to the spirit of the sport itself, others think that the government’s intervention is paramount in cultivating a sporting culture in a country and ensures that more people have access to sports. As a whole, sport should be supported by the government insofar as the provision of funding and facilities but not to the extent that sport is used for political means. Therefore, I believe that sport should not be free from the government.

Some people feel strongly against government intervention in sports as the corrupt nature of some governments would dilute and fragment the spirit of sports due to the methods employed by governments to gain prestige in the sporting arena. In many countries, sport is looked at as a measure of a country’s international standing and prominence on the world stage. As a result, governments would often want to ensure that the athletes are able to compete in international sporting competitions like the Olympics, so as to bring glory to the country. However, in some countries, the desire for success and triumph might cause governments to compromise on the spirit of sporting, which includes fair play and engages in underhanded methods to secure a victory for the country. This can include state-sponsored doping programmes,  which undermine the sport and the health of the athletes. A prominent example would be during the 2014 Sochi Olympics, where Russian athletes were caught in a complex doping scandal whereby more than fifty athletes were found to have used performance-enhancing drugs in order to optimize their performance.  What made it worse was that the Russian government had been the ones who had sponsored and funded these doping activities. All in all, the Russians were accused to have orchestrated doping programmes at the Olympics and other competitions that involved or benefitted a thousand athletes in thirty sports. This not only led to the athletes being stripped of their medals but also stripped of the opportunity to ever compete again as the International Olympic Committee had issued lifetime bans for some of the athletes. This would demonstrate how the involvement of governments in sports would increase the probability of negative outcomes as some corrupt governments would be willing to compromise on the integrity of sports in order to ensure glory on the world stage. Therefore, many objects to the government’s intervention in sport as they believe that it would only serve their own agendas at the expense of the athletes.

Moreover, some are also cynical about government intervention in sports being used to further their political agendas against other countries, which might cause sports to be intertwined and tangled in politics. It is not surprising that sports are being used as a form of political leverage. However, sports are supposed to bond and unite people regardless of nationalities together under a common passion. Critics believe that as seen from history, some governments are willing to use sports as a method for them to further their political agenda while completely disregarding the essence of the sport. An example would be during the Moscow Olympics in the 1980s, at the peak of the Cold War. In response to the Soviets’  decision to invade  Afghanistan,   the  Pentagon decided to ban  American athletes from competing at the games and boycotted the event completely. This was to the dismay and outrage of some athletes who had trained so hard for their event only to have the political motives of the American government ruin their chance of participating at the Olympics. Although this had happened decades ago, many fear that the past would repeat itself and governments would start to use sports in order to further their political feuds with other countries and deprive their athletes as a result. Due to the association of governments with politics, many believe that their intervention would only set the pretext for the politicization of sports,  which would cause the unifying spirit of sports to be tarnished. As a result of this reason, many feel that in order to prevent sports from being tainted by the world political climate, it needs to be free from government intervention.

However,  while the above factors might be true in some countries,  governmental intervention in sports would be able to support the growth of athletes in terms of fiving those with talents an avenue to showcase their own abilities through the provision of economic means.  In some instances,  an aspiring athlete would not be able to reach his optimum level of performance without support being offered by governments. Some forms of support would include economic support, in order to provide one with the relevant resources to work at his sport and the provision of adequate infrastructure and training facilities. These forms of support would ensure that everyone in society with the talent and the skills would be able to be provided with equal opportunities to succeed and represent the nation, regardless of their socio-economic status. For instance, in Singapore, the government has established the Singapore Sports School (SSS), which is a niche school catered to students who have a keen passion and the ability in their sport. SSS is a six-year programme where these students would be able to be developed to their full capacity while also having time for their academic work. Through the establishment of such niche schools, the government is ensuring that the young talents are well supported by the country and that adequate provisions are given to them to ensure that their studies are not being compromised for sports and vice versa. Furthermore, the government has also included a wide range of scholarships for students in SSS to ensure that regardless of their economic status, their skills would still be able to be honed. This demonstrates how crucial the role of the government is in cultivating athletes in a nation as not everyone would have equal opportunities to develop their skills due to the different economic situations of each individual. The government would be able to alleviate certain limitations that hinder the development of one and provide him with the avenue to sharpen and showcase his talent nationally or internationally. Through the funding, developments and policies of the government, there would be more accessible for athletes to develop their passion and have the opportunity to succeed. For this reason, the extensive support towards the development of sports would justify the government’s interference in sports.

Additionally,  governments should not wash their hands off sports completely as their intervention would enable for the inculcation of an active lifestyle amongst the people in society. Usually, the government has the responsibility to maximize the welfare of the people and ensure that their basic needs, like healthcare, are not neglected. One aspect of healthcare would be ensuring that its people lead an active lifestyle by exercising so as to keep fit and healthy. In order to encourage people to maintain a healthy lifestyle, governments would need to provide people with activities that would enable them to maintain their health. One prominent method to achieve this would be through sports. Bearing the aims of the government in mind, which is to ensure that high standards of health are maintained, the government has the ability to promote sports in the lives of its people in order to fulfil this goal. In China, which has one of the world’s highest obesity rates, the government has been active in ensuring that the people learn and have the habit of maintaining a  healthy lifestyle through mandating compulsory morning physical training in school to ensure that students would have a uniformed workout routine and engage in sports. By instilling the importance of sports and activity in children from a young age, they would have the habit of engaging in sports to keep healthy as they grow up. This would reflect how important the government is in ensuring that the people have access to sports so as to improve the welfare of the people through leading healthier lives. This would mean that governments should continue to intervene in sports to ensure that the majority of the people in society understand the importance of these sports to their health and lifestyle.   Therefore, governments should not wash their hands off sports because it is a fundamental tool that they can effectively utilise to improve societal welfare.

To add on, governments should also intervene in sports, as they are able to make alterations to policies in order to encourage the development of sports.  In many countries,  athletes are tied down by legislation that hinders their progress and development in their sport. Through the use of the government’s political power, they are in the position to allow for the development of athletes and any particular sport in a country.  An example would be in Singapore,  where after the  2016  Rio Olympics, the government,  having been urged by Singaporeans,  deferred the gold medallist Joseph Schooling’s time for conscription in order to give him ample time to focus on training for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Through concessions like these being made, athletes would be given opportunities to shine and train seeing as their rigour and momentum would not be hampered by the policies of governments. As such, this would also culminate in many other aspiring athletes to be encouraged to take up sports as they know that the government would wholly back them in their career. Therefore, the ability of the government to push for proper policies to support its athletes is a crucial reason why governments should intervene in sports.

In conclusion,  the government should intervene in sports because they play an instrumental role in facilitating the growth of the sport economically,  socially and politically. With that being said, their intervention for their own agendas should not and cannot be tolerated but should instead be discouraged to uphold the spirit of sports.