# data[].attributes.body
The change of the ruler increase armed conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
Multilateralist globalization provide more countries with opportunities to join the globalization which caused a considerable number of complex problems, then lead to conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
The change of the form of globalization also lead to armed conflicts

# data[].attributes.body
The War and Globalization: Are They Really Connected?

# data[].attributes.headline
Critically analysis onThe Relationship Between the process of Globalization  and Armed Conflicts since 1990s

# data[].attributes.subject
Critically analysis onThe Relationship Between the process of Globalization  and Armed Conflicts since 1990s

# data[].attributes.body
Does Globalization Bring War or Peace?

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Globalization and Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
Economic Independence and International Conflict: Some Cross-national Evidence

# data[].attributes.body
In Defense of Globalization

# data[].attributes.body
The process of globalization increase the armed conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
Many developed countries like US bring hegemonism to the developing countries.For instance fighting to seize strategic resources.The Gulf war and Iraq war.US policies only represent US interests.

# data[].attributes.headline
Process of globalization has changed a lot since 1990s.Inclouding the form, goods, aim, partners, ways. Which led to the change of the contradiction happens at any time.

# data[].attributes.subject
Process of globalization has changed a lot since 1990s.Inclouding the form, goods, aim, partners, ways. Which led to the change of the contradiction happens at any time.

# data[].attributes.headline
More and More partners joined globalization 

# data[].attributes.subject
More and More partners joined globalization 

# data[].attributes.body
Globalization brings  complexity to many states.When different factions in one state  hold different positions, globalization may bring divergence rather than peace.Evidence would focus on civil war , for instance Libya Syria.Western countries such as US may play a ignominious role in the back of those war.

# data[].attributes.body
Many may say the scale of the armed conflicts has been smaller since 1990s.The small scale war and different forms of war happened much more frequently than before.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Hegre and Gleditsch(2003),globalization is emerging as a key formula embodying most of the modern world’s ills. That might be a strong proof to Bhagwati (2008), Who states that globalization is bound to connect with arguments and lead to conflicts. With the process of the globalization，the form ,aim, main partner and dominant power has changed a lot which bring the whole world new problems and contradictions. Armed conflicts, which is considered the most severe ‘illness’ of the world after cold war, come with globalization in a more dependent way. As the influence of globalization continues to expand, we should pay more attention to the relationship between globalization and international security (Pollins,2008). After 1990s, we could mention that wars happened more frequently. For example, regional conflicts continue to intensify, such as Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War and Syria War. It seems that the process of globalization truly increases the armed conflicts in terms of the change of it. In this essay I will focus on three types of change in the process of globalization and the relationship between them and armed conflicts.

# data[].attributes.headline
The process of Globalization can not represents everyone’s interest 

# data[].attributes.subject
The process of Globalization can not represents everyone’s interest 

# data[].attributes.body
Before 1990s globalization more like a free trade between different countries.Nowadays it more depend on policies which made by the group of leaders.Those policies may only benefit some multinational corporations.Not everyone’s interest can be represented by those policies. The movement of Antiglobalization happened anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Compare

# data[].attributes.body
Pillons (2008) mentioned that with the globalization of the economy, many countries have greatly increased their investment capital and access to innovative technologies. Multilateralist globalization provide more countries with opportunities to join the globalization which brings complexity to many states. When different factions in one state hold different positions, globalization may bring divergence rather than peace. Barbieri and Reuveny (2005) believes that trade and foreign investment undermined the interests of the least developed countries. These underdeveloped countries mostly depend on labor-intensive industries and relatively developed industries which are controlled by foreign capital to participate in globalization. This has resulted in a low level of industrial development in those countries and poor standard of living for most of the population. Although such state could be stabilized by beneficiaries among countries, most people are still dissatisfied with this situation. Those whose dissatisfaction is suppressed by the group of beneficiaries are not willing to give up their claims which lead to a vicious circle and then civil war. In addition, some multinational companies and international institutions would force the government to protect their rights. Once their own interests cannot be protected by the government, they may achieve their goals by supporting the opposition to overthrow the government. Furthermore, inequality of income also increases social instability. Especially in developing countries which have just joined globalization, the salary for employee in developed industries is significantly higher than that of other industries. Besides, in order to attract international investment, rulers often want to control the price of laborers, which is unacceptable to those bottom workers. Barbieri and Reuveny (2005) states that the opposite factions attempt to describe the government as an exploiter who promotes the development of one group at the expense of another. That may divide a society into two opposites of different opinions which would increase the risk of civil war. With the development of globalization, more countries will participate in it, and that may bring more problems which are similar to the phenomenon mentioned above.

# data[].attributes.body
In addition, another considerable phenomenon that should be mentioned is the change of the form of trade during the process of globalization. Before 1990s globalization more like a free trade between different countries. Bhagwati (2008) defines that at the beginning of globalization, inchoate trade between different states was depended more on technological developments in transportation and communication instead of the change on policy. The trade form was set to complement advantages of each states in terms of technology, resource, labors, and capital. However, nowadays the form of trade more depends on policies which made by the group of leaders to guarantee unilateral interests. In the process of participating in globalization, a country’s strategic response depends on its internal political changes (Goldstone,2007). Just as Bhagwati (2008) believes, the most dramatic change of today’s globalization is that governments started to play a much more important role in the increase or decrease of trade flow and investment worldwide than before which means the story of today’s globalization is not only written by technical but also colored by state action. The fact is governments that can accelerate globalization can also reverse it. But how those changes lead to armed conflicts? On the one hand, a considerable number of researches reveal that the degree of the influence on countries’ foreign policy by economic interdependence is relied on the domestic institutions and dominating sector union of trading countries. In other words, the preference of those institutions’ policy could be affected by the fact that international trade could divide a society into advantage and disadvantage aspects. As Goldstone (2007) states, when those who has been assigned as winners by international trade are voted in power of the national political system, national strategy will support mollification and multilateral participation, while those who were judged as losers might pursue a foreign policy of confrontation and seek the unilateral advantage when they acquire the leadership. Those policies by opposite factions may only benefit some aspects. Not everyone’s interest can be represented by those policies. And because of policies are always expressed as the attitude of a nation, such phenomenon may lead to trade disputes between countries then armed conflicts especially during the period of regime change. On the other hand, the prevalence of protectionism in globalization caused local protectionism prevails in developing countries. According to Bhagwati (2008), poor countries prefer to make use of trade protectionism compared with rich countries. It is not surprisingly that in international trade, poor countries are more inclined to use disgraceful measures to defend their interests. However, the leaders in those countries still believe they are the victims of unfair trade competitions which provide them with a pretense to criticize other’s protectionism and denounce other’s unfair. Obviously, this statement is not accepted by other countries which makes trade conflicts more frequent in the process of globalization and lead to armed conflicts. Although many countries are avoiding the above phenomenon, they still cannot stop it. Both hawkish party and militaristic governments are bringing uncertainty to existing politics. The form of globalization is still being affected by negative national policies.

# data[].attributes.body
With the  process of globalization the dominant power of it has changed. Bhagwati(2008)mentions that nowadays rich countries and international institutions maintain protection for themselves while they force others into free trade which lead to high level of charges of hypocrisy, double standards, and unfair trade. He also considers that unfair trade is just a pretense by the trade protectionist in developed countries to states that developing countries acquire their competitiveness by unfair competition and unfair trade in order to force those countries to cut down their prices as well as cut off the import from those poor countries. It is a truth that US started to stand at the top status in globalization since1990s. It tend to lead the globalization more deeply which may give rise to more armed conflicts. Once US could not achieve its so-called fair competition or fair trade in globalization, it would reach its purpose by war. Take Iraq as an example, Iraq occupies a dominant position in oil trade with US before Iraq war. After 9-11 era US tend to indicate that the war against terror has a strong relationship with the drive for corporate globalization, peace and global justice movements share vital common ground(Engler,2004).It seems an appreciative news that US try their best to anti-terrorist in Iraq and help them to rebuild their economy after the anti-terrorist war. however think about what US did to Iraq, the fact maybe shows that US occupying authority has opportunistically used its power to impose "free market" reforms on Iraq's economy (Engler,2004).   Does US really considered Iraq's interests or it just wage a war on the pretext of anti-terrorist to defend its own interests? According to Engler (2004) there are several evidences: Firstly, US government attempted to cooperate with big business to carry on the Iraq war which can be verified from the evidence that companies like Haliburton and Bechtel struggled for the high-priced reconstruction contracts. Secondly, in 2003 8.5million dollars from 85 billion dollars which was passed by Congress for the occupation of Iraq was spent on dealing with the remonstrance which opposed the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTTA). Obviously, abroad war has been used to suppress domestic protest in US. Thirdly, US has been eager to achieve its intention in Iraq which force 200 Iraq state firm to privatization, change the ownership of companies except oil industrial in Iraq to 100% foreign occupy, and collect 15% taxes on corporate. It seems that US only defends its own interests and tends to obtain the profits by a simple way—armed conflicts. Such phenomenon can also be recognized from Guff War and Afghanistan War. That might be a trend in the period after 1990s, Developed countries especially US prefer to seize strategic resources, access to international interests, and transfer the domestic contradictions by the use of war.