History shows that neither the balance between the great powers, or the hegemony exercised by one of them and accepted by others and not the monopoly of violence exercised by an imperial state contribute to the construction of world peace. The future of international security is at stake because Islamic terrorism became the epicenter of a potential conflict of civilizations that threatens to lead the world to ruin. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as president of the United States would be ineffective because they would adopt exclusively military solution to the fight against Islamic terrorism. To celebrate peace in the Middle East, it would, on the one hand, destroy militarily the Islamic State and, on the other, to promote the development of the devastated countries in the region with a program similar to the Marshall Plan implemented in the devastated Europe after the 2nd War World.

1. 1
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Fernando Alcoforado *
Peace has been defined as the absence of war. The formula of Carl Von Clausewitz
exposed in The War- The Art of Strategy (war as a continuation of politics by other
means) is replaced today by the inverse formula: politics becomes the continuation of
war by other means. Historically, the pursuit of peace among nations presented three
characteristics: 1) the balance between the major powers; 2) the hegemony exercised by
a great power and accepted by others; and 3) imperial state exercised by a great power
which holds the monopoly of violence and impose their will on the world scenario. In a
given historical space, or the forces of political units are in balance, or are dominated by
one among them, or are overcome to the point by the forces of a unit that all other lose
their autonomy and tend to disappear as decision centers policy.
After the 2nd World War, the Cold War was characterized by the balance between the
two superpowers (the United States and Soviet Union). With the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1989, the United States began to exercise its undisputed hegemony on the
world scenario thanks to its economic, scientific, technological and military power by
the end of the twentieth century. However, the United States lost the condition of
hegemonic power in the early twenty-first century thanks to the inability to overcome
the global economic crisis from the 2008 crisis and to order the chaotic international
system that now has new players with the strengthen the European Union and Russia, as
well as the rise of emerging powers such as China and India and of terrorism.
The imperial state exercised by a great power which holds the monopoly of violence
was practiced by the UK when it dominated the world in the nineteenth century when it
began to be challenged by Germany and also by the United States in the early twentieth
century. The 1st and 2nd World War resulted, among other factors, of the desire of the
ruling classes of Germany, Japan and Italy to divide again the world that was dominated
by the British Empire. The absence of war between the great powers during the British
rule is related to its economic and military superiority over other powers that prevented
any of them, and any coalition of these units to impose their will.
The hegemony exerted by the United States from 1989 until the beginning of the XXI
century did not aspire the empire situation. There is evidence, however, that hegemony
is a precarious equilibrium between the major powers. The chaotic contemporary
international system is the product of fragile hegemony exercised by the US. All global
relations of the United States were deeply modified in recent times that are forced to
share with other countries its power worldwide. This is what is already happening from
the Obama administration. Finished the era in which the United States sought to impose
their will on the international scenario in the economic and military plans. The strategy
of Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidate, would be to transform the United
States into an Imperial State to reverse its economic decline and the loss of its
hegemony on the world stage.
The stance adopted by Donald Trump is radically contrary to the Obama
administration's tendency to withdraw US troops from foreign countries. The
Republican candidate did not rule out sending more troops to the Middle East to fight
against terrorism. He said he had a foolproof plan to defeat the Islamic State
bombarding it and taking all their oil to deliver it to Mobil and other big US oil

2. 2
companies. When asked how to treat religious issue within the country, Trump said that
if necessary, shut mosques in the United States. Trump took on fight with the largest US
trading partner: China. He accused the Chinese of stealing jobs from Americans and
argued that sanctions must be imposed on that country.
Pascal Boniface, professor at the Institute of European Studies of the University of Paris
VIII, states in his book Vers La 4e. Guerre Mondiale (Armand Colin, 2009) that the
idea of a 4th World War is being developed by American neoconservatives who believe
that the Cold War was World War III and the war against Islam or terrorism, they use
both words often so indifferent, would be the fourth world war. This is the case of
Donald Trump and his allies in the US presidential campaign whose policy is based on
confrontation believing that political problems can only be resolved by the use of force
and military power is a universal response. The Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
would tend to adopt Barack Obama's policy of balance in international relations and to
combat terrorism. The war against terrorism is often presented by Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton as the great challenge of the Western world.
History shows that neither the balance between the great powers, or the hegemony
exercised by one of them and accepted by others and not the monopoly of violence
exercised by an imperial state contribute to the construction of world peace. The future
of international security is at stake because Islamic terrorism became the epicenter of a
potential conflict of civilizations that threatens to lead the world to ruin. Both Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump as president of the United States would be ineffective
because they would adopt exclusively military solution to the fight against Islamic
terrorism. To celebrate peace in the Middle East, it would, on the one hand, destroy
militarily the Islamic State and, on the other, to promote the development of the
devastated countries in the region with a program similar to the Marshall Plan
implemented in the devastated Europe after the 2nd War World.
Terrorism as practiced recently and the emergence of the Islamic State in the Middle
East cause become imperative to create a new legal superstructure and international
policy to deal with these new issues, ie the structure of world government given that no
great power will be able to defeat him as powerful it is or acts in coalition with other
major powers. The preservation of peace is the first mission of every new form of world
government. It would aim to defend the general interests of the planet making it
compatible with the interests of each nation. The world government would also work
towards mediating international conflicts and build consensus among all nation states to
make every national state respects the rights of its citizens, and seek to prevent the
spread of global systemic risks.
Actions to be a global governance was object of Nations Concert in 1815, the League of
Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1945 that were in vain because the great
powers not relinquished to impose their will on the world scenario. Until the emergence
of a world government, international relations will be governed by the law of the
strongest. And this is the worst case scenario because no country as powerful it will be
able to build world peace or solve the planet's problems. The economic, financial,
ecological, social and political crises, the development of illegal and current criminal
activities and terrorism advance show that they are insoluble without the existence of a
world government. One must understand that the problems affecting the world economy
and the global environment and also contribute to the advancement of terrorism can
only be resolved with the existence of a truly democratic world government

3. 3
representative of all the peoples of the world. International law cannot be applied and
respected in the absence of a world government that is accepted by all countries and
ensure their governance.
* Fernando Alcoforado, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor of Territorial
Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and
consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is
the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova
(Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São
Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado.
Universidade de Barcelona, http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e
Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX
e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of
the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller
Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe
Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e
combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011),
Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012) and
Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV,
Curitiba, 2015).