All we are saying... (Christine Porcaro, Week 6, Reflective)

During our class discussion today about the potential of peace in the world I really was at a loss for words. People were making very strong cases for the fact the world peace at this point in time just does not seem attainable. With religion and non-state actors, such as terrorists, thrown in the mix world peace seems like the last possible outcome. Many students in class brought up valid points about clashing beliefs and radical ideology. I do not think that the “isms” can lead us to the conclusion of peace. None of the theories so far seem to be able to take EVERYTHING into consideration. The immensity and the complicated nature of our world system only allows us to wish that world peace is possible but as of thus far it has not allowed us to map out the course to achieve peace. I guess this leads me back to the question from a while ago…why IR theory? I am taking IR theory because I want to understand peace. Without war there would be no peace and vice versa. By studying a system that has been filled with war there must be a possibility for peace, at least I think so. I do not claim to have the answer for world peace and I understand that there are so many elements to this international system that the thought of peace can seem ridiculous but I still refuse to rule peace as a lost cause. What is really cool to think of is an international system where the thought of war seems just as ridiculous as peace does to us. Imagine what theories would come out of that international system. It would be so nice to study a system where we questioned why states got along so well instead of why insecurity creates war or why war is an option over diplomacy. In the end I really do not think I could study IR theory if I did not believe peace could be possible one day. It may be naïve or idealistic for me to believe this but it is what makes IR theory tolerable.