Resolving Ideological Conflict ( Unit 5). Arguments for Restrictions

RESOLVING IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT (UNIT 5)
Name:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date:
Resolving Ideological Conflict (Unit 5)
Introduction
The statement, “no country should seek to extend its policy over any the other country or people; rather, every country should be left free to pursue its own goals. Every country should be unrestricted, secure, and confident in pursuing these goals, regardless of the country’s size or strength” presents an ideological perspective of liberalism. However, this statement requires clarifications as well as qualifications of broad generalizations. A nation has sovereignty (right of self-determination) to follow its goals domestically but should anticipate international restrictions if it does not adhered to United Nations principles on International associations (aggression) as well as human rights. Therefore, I do not think countries should be liberal if they do not adhere to UN’s principles on international relations (aggression) as well as human rights.
Arguments for Restrictions
Restrictions have been an instrument of economic and political statecraft for many years. Following the 5th century BC, Pericles of Athens felt threatened by states that had supported its enemy, Sparta. He banned all trade between Athens and Megra state to punish them for challenging his authority. But this sanctions led to a 30 year war since Megra claimed to be a liberal state that would choose who support (Thucydides, 1972).
Throughout the 20th century, restrictions were uncommonly utilized. However, Cold War saw the US and the Soviet Union compete against each other through cooperation with corrupt governments. This policy made restrictions useful in attempting to maintain liberal nations. But, associations among the US and the Soviet Union were motivated by a complicated interplay of economic, political and ideological factors which caused changes among cautious cooperation and always bitter superpower enmity following years. The unique distinctions in the political systems of the two powers always prevented them from realizing a mutual comprehension on primary policy issues. The US was hostile to the Soviet Union for removing Russia from WWI and opposed its communism ideology. Though the US started a famine relief program, the nations did not end their hostility until 1933. By this time, Stalin’s government was an insurmountable challenge to friendly associations. Though the two came together to create an alliance to defeat Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union’s anti-liberal policy towards Eat Europe had established tensions. Further, the Cuban missile crisis almost drove the US and Soviet Union into war. Like the US, Cuba domestically free to design their missiles but the two nations interfered with UN principles on international relations whereby they both felt threatened of the other. In 1962, Cuba felt threatened by US’s leading position on missiles and Nikita Khrushchev developed a similar scheme to protect Cuba from another US promoted invasion like the failed trial at the Bay of Pigs that occurred in 1961. Following Fidel Castro's consent, the Soviet Union and secretly installed missiles in Cuba. President John Kennedy became aware of these developments and queried them but the Soviet Union denied the installations. The US felt threatened and warned against missile attacks from Cuba (Soviet Union) and proclaimed retaliation by imposing a naval quarantine that hindered the shipment of offensive military weapons. The US and the Soviet Union continued putting restrictions on each other owing to the missile and nuclear arms and superpower conflict. But the 1970s saw two exchange letters as well as other communications where Cuba agreed to remove missile installations if the US assured it would not attack Cuba.
In 1989, China domestically interfered with human rights and freedoms. At the Tiananmen Square, students gathered to protest for a democratic and corruption free state. But the state ordered military forces to shoot and kill the students. The soldiers cleared the square by killing many students. Responsively, the US restricted China by suspending the sell of weapons to it and froze their relations.
Further, international sanctions have been significant in ending institutionalized racial segregation and restore liberalism. For instance, the period between 1974 and 1988 saw racism in American schools rise to reach a level that required actions from the lawmakers who were required to solve the issue (Reid, 1974). The court required public schools to address this issue via a busing system of which those who resisted received restrictions on state funding. Increased protests saw Judge Arthur Garrity present a compulsory busing system that needed the driving of children together from homes to schools and vice versa (Formisano, 2012). The system continued for 10 years but was abolished in 1988 and further in 2013. Also, South Africa was restricted for institutionalized racial segregation (apartheid).
The United Nations Council put restrictions against those who support terrorism. For instance, Libya was restricted for carrying out terrorist attacks on Scotland (Chan & Drury, 2000). More so, terrorism was a primary factor in many of these restrictions. For instance, a Pan Am Flight 103 broke and got burned in the sky on Lockerbie, Scotland following a bombing that created a hole in its fuselage. Libya’s Qaddafi government was confirmed responsible for the attack and protecting those responsible, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Amin Fhimah. The US standing for liberalism and the UN put policies that threatened international restrictions involving trading of industrial equipment to Libya if it did not give away the suspects and military embargoes. Qaddafi resisted but gave up in 1999 and al-Megrahi was found guilty for the killing whereas Fhimah was acquitted.
The...