Conflicts
in sentence
1385 examples of Conflicts in a sentence
Medvedev’s proposed transatlantic security treaty would enshrine the principle of avoiding external force to resolve national disputes, which would rule out international intervention in the
conflicts
affecting the northern Caucasus, including Chechnya.
Market forces and policy
conflicts
triggered shadow banking’s emergence in China.
Given the sectarian nature of regional
conflicts
– for which the Iranian authorities bear a heavy responsibility – engagement with Iran must be conducted within a broader framework of regional cooperation, in particular with the Gulf states.
In Poland, once the battle against Communism was won, the Solidarity movement was soon sundered by
conflicts
between secular democrats and believers who looked to the Church for guidance.
Since that time, I have witnessed many initiatives, plans, and projects for resolving various Middle East
conflicts.
America’s extended
conflicts
in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, are different.
The OECD recommends placing firms at arms-length from politicians’ short-term interests, appointing independent boards, enhancing disclosure, monitoring
conflicts
of interests, and hiring professional managers.
The resulting
conflicts
of interest can make employee governance costly, both by complicating the process of decision-making and by producing decisions skewed toward the interests of dominant employee groups.
How member states respond now – especially those who believe in the purpose and value of the UN - may help shape the outcomes of other, wider ongoing regional conflicts, notably with Iran and Syria, both of which support Hezbollah.
But this is wishful thinking, What we are seeing on the Balkans has all the elements of future
conflicts
in Europe: a war not between states but within them; a conflict that does not immediately threaten NATO states but undermines stability on their periphery and thus weakens their security as well as their cohesion; a frightening precedent for the successful use of military force to gain territory and expell populations.
Just as NATO, the EU is impotent in interfering in military
conflicts
beyond the area of its own membership.
As is often the case in armed conflicts, civilians suffer the most.
Given their strong self-interest in thwarting Islamist revolutionary groups, especially those aligned with Iran, they are not inclined to listen to the “Arab street” – which is far quieter than it was during previous conflicts, such as the 1991 war in Kuwait, the 2000-2004 Palestinian uprising, or the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.
Second, because Arab states confront an Iran-Syria alliance that includes Hamas and Hezbollah, in addition to internal conflicts, there is a regional battle between these two blocs.
But it retains the vocation and characteristics of a major power: a rich culture and history, vast size, formidable nuclear capabilities, strong influence across Eurasia, and the capacity to be a spoiler in many
conflicts.
There are many
conflicts
around the world, starting with Syria, that will only become harder to solve without US diplomatic attention.
America’s re-engagement with the world should be welcomed, but not if the Trump administration continues to view
conflicts
solely through a military lens.
Resolving such
conflicts
requires, at a minimum, some baseline rules of the game, which can be developed and implemented only on a multilateral basis, not in the unilateral way that China demands.
Europe’s
conflicts
have always been resolved with some sort of compromise.
But in this function it has accumulated large risks, concentrated along national lines, thus leading to
conflicts
among member states.
Competition among nations and among peoples trumps cooperation, and regional and global
conflicts
obstruct the pathways to a sustainable future.
The Vietnam War and other
conflicts
were also financial catastrophes.
Whether it is a world war or local policing,
conflicts
always involve big increases in government spending; the question is whether they are worth the cost.
At the moment, there is no global threat and the Alliance only intervenes in regional conflicts, so why not have NATO admit this?
Though it is impossible to predict how events may unfold, there are precedents in the many
conflicts
triggered by the breakdowns of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Since November 2016, and particularly since Trump’s inauguration in January last year, newspapers have led with stories ranging from
conflicts
of interest involving Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to evidence that the president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, met with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Claims that the United States is retreating from the international arena are probably exaggerated, but in at least two of the defining
conflicts
of recent years – Ukraine and Syria – the US has not played as prominent a diplomatic role as it once would have.
The specific triggers, objectives, and battle lines of such
conflicts
are likely to be determined, to varying degrees, by five factors: creed, clan, culture, climate, and currency.
Indeed, these factors are already fueling
conflicts
around the world.
If emerging
conflicts
and competitive pressures lead to, say, economic sanctions or the obstruction of key trade routes, the resulting balkanization of global trade would diminish globalization’s benefits substantially.
Back
Next
Related words
Which
Their
Political
Interest
Between
Regional
Other
Countries
International
World
There
Global
Military
Could
About
People
Would
Resolve
Economic
Should