English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Many commentators perceive that international conflict has increased since the end of the Cold War and that globalization shares much of the blame. Stanley Hoffmann, for example, has written, “Globalization, far from spreading peace, ... seems to foster conflicts and resentments.” Many others share this view—they believe that conflict is increasing, and that since globalization is also increasing, then it must be to blame. Hoffmann argues, “The spread of global media makes it possible for the most deprived or oppressed to compare their fate with that of the free and well-off.” The dispossessed thus make common cause with others similarly disadvantaged with whom they share common grievances, ethnic backgrounds, or religious affiliation. A sense of hopelessness compels them “to seek revenge and self-esteem in terrorism.” Hoffmann is wrong on all counts. Although it is certainly the case that globalization is increasing, the frequency of conflict is actually decreasing. Moreover, in the conflicts that do occur, globalization does not seem to be the cause. Rather, transnational Islamism figures prominently as a factor sustaining these conflicts, much as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War.

Globalization, the Liberal Imperative, Islamism, and the Future of Conflict in the 21st Century