Globalization has made the world a small village. People no longer pay attention only to the security status of their respective nations, but keep close interests on what is happening globally. This is because a stability of one country directly or indirectly affects the economic and political state of its neighbors.  The level of dependency on international peace and security has seen the rise in measures to promote global peace. However, the question remains if these methods are making any positive progress. How can we grade the world safety? Is it becoming safer or the situation is moving from bad to worse? This response based on the current peace deal coined in Colombia.
According to Guillen, the cause of global insecurity has only shifted sides.  He notes that there has been a change from wars between nations to civil wars. The war between nations currently stands at zero. However, they have been an escalation in the civil war cases and terrorist attacks. Civils wars dominate vast areas of Africa and Asia. According to Guillen civil war is the worst form of conflict that a country can experience since it detriments both the economic and social welfare of the citizens. The after effects of the American civil war represent a good example of the implications of civil wars.  These wars are common in developing nation which is capped with high rates of population growth. This inflicts effects to neighboring countries through migration acceleration. Guillen notes that there are over 61 million people who have been displaced and a further 21 million refugees due to civil war globally. Terror groups have also worsened the security situation. So, agreements in a single nation do not represent the position in the entire world.

Order Now
Use code: HELLO100 at checkout

Ali Wayne agrees with Guillen’s perspective of escalation in civil wars and terrorist attacks. However, he blames the asymmetrical availability of information on the current ill representation of the world peace. According to him, the social media have brainwashed people to relate insecurity with particular regions of the world.  He views the world as safer than it was during the era of the world wars. According to Wayne, the amount of damage and life that was lost during the period of the world wars is incomparable to the current situation. The current condition is better only that they are presented in a sophisticated manner. He justifies his claims by quoting Colombian president, who acknowledges that five out of six people live in regions free from violence.

Emma Ashford who also notes that the world peace has significantly improved compared to earlier years supports the view present by Wayne. However, she concurs with the stands of Wayne and Guillen that civil wars and terrorist attacks have increased. Furthermore, she agrees with Guillen that inter-state conflicts have drastically reduced. However, she believes that even war within nations has reduced, a view which Guillen heavy objects. According to Ashford, the number of conflicts between and within the countries has fallen by 40% from 1999-2014.  She further downplays Guillen concerns on terrorism, claiming that it is not an issue for those people living outside those war areas. She concludes by concurring with Wayne’s sentiments that, the current situation is incomparable to the era of First and Second World War.

Arquilla introduces a new dimension of assessing the status of the word peace. He outlines two ways of achieving this, one I through counting the number of deaths and secondly is by evaluating the degree of their lethality. According to him, the number does not indicate any positive signs in the improvement of the world as a safe place. According to Arquilla, the number of wars has increased by a third over the past six years excluding the case of Colombia. Hence, he agrees with Guillen stand that the world is not safe. However, he notes that the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is high in Iraq and Afghanistan. This agrees with Ashford views that these attacks are confined to some areas. He also agrees with Ashford and Wayne that the current state cannot match the great wars like the world war one and two. However, he downplays such comparisons claiming that they are outdated.

The state of world peace is worrying. I cannot say that the world is safe. I view the status as moving from bad to worse. The rise in the number of civil wars and terrorist attacks is worrying. Previously, these cases were rare. To make matters worse, the terrorists have gone to the extent of targeting innocent civilians. This new trend is what making the world unsafe. During the earlier days of war, most causalities were people who were taking part in the war. However, the modern shift has jeopardized the status of all citizens. Therefore, I find the argument against the world as a safer place as more persuasive.  This is because, they have applied both qualitative and projective approaches in presenting their facts, particularly, the argument by Arquilla. He does criticize not only the world insecurity but also the methodologies that are being used to control the situation. I believe with the current state of technology, communication through diplomacy that can be a tremendous asset in securing world peace.

Conclusive, it is essential to address the issue of world peace, since, in the current world, nations depend on each other for survival. Hence, immediate measures should be put in place.

    References
  • Arquilla, John. According to the Numbers, It’s Still a Dangerous World. September 2016. 2016. .
  • Ashford, Emma. We’re Seeing a Trend Toward Less Violence in the World. September 2016. 2016. .
  • Guillen, Mauro F. Wars Between States Are Down, but Civil Wars Are Up. September 2016. 2016. .
  • Wayne, Ali. Don’t Conflate Greater Complexity With Greater Danger. September 2016. 2016. .