The changing nature of war

I was reading an article today from 1998 about international theory. The contemporary consensus was that globalisation meant that social and economic forces were superseding traditional great power politics. This is undoubtedly the case today. As shown by the ongoing economic crisis, the power of the 'markets' as controlled by global capitalists is devastating and seemingly immovable in the face of governments worldwide.

What some scholars concluded to the scepticism of the article's author was that this would lead to fewer wars between nations. Looking around these scholars were correct that there would be fewer traditional wars fought between states. Where they were wrong was in their optimism: groups and actors are fighting and oppressing each other as much as always but in new (and in some cases old) ways. States worldwide are murdering and torturing those whose interests they are supposed to represent while so-called liberal democracies such as the US and the UK are complicit in barbaric torture practices. Traditional rules of war and humanitarian principles are abandoned in the pursuit of the war on terrorism, a word so vague it can be used to a apply to any actor or group a state deems as behaving or believing contrary to its interests. Thus Syria's forces describe those they oppress as terrorists.

History teaches us to be optimistic about the end of current struggles but not to expect whatever comes next to be any better.

Women in the Global Arena

I recently played a board game (modelled on the game in Friends which causes Monica and Rachel to lose their apartment) during which I realised how much my friends subscribe to (what I had hoped were outdated) gendered stereotypes. Asked whether they agree with the statement 'Women talk too much', they all replied 'Yes'. They justified themselves by saying that they only meant 'some' women. This is clearly not what the statement implied: it implied that, in general, and compared to men, women talk too much.

Fundamentally, that statement is wrong. Firstly, because of all the men and women I personally know it is without a doubt the men who talk too much. It is without a doubt the men who naturally feel more confident and more comfortable being the dominant one in the conversation. That people feel women talk too much suggests that they feel that women should not talk as much as men do.

Secondly, and far more importantly, I object to the statement because we live in a world whose global political arena is dominated by men talking. The UK parliament is among the worst offenders in terms of the representation of women, with only 22% female representation. Compare this to 28% female representation in Afghanistan. (See http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm for more statistics about global representation of women)

Everywhere you look there are men talking too much and not doing enough. Take, for example, the Arab League calling another meeting to talk about Syria while thousands are slaughtered.

Three women won the Nobel Peace Prize this year "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work". It is time more women spoke up, entered the global political arena, and stopped being locked in the stereotypes and insecurities of the past, for the benefit of all of humankind, men and women alike.