In the past I have argued for the idea that the international realm can be remade, that mankind is not essentially naturally in a state of violent chaos as Hobbes advocated for. However, new developments in Iraq have me questioning the morality of humanity in human beings. CNN covered this news story this morning.

In it the reporters describe Iraq's bloody "attempt at redrawing itself" and the lengths each militant side is willing to go to in order to win the battle for their territory. This classic Shiite versus Sunni battle is a clear case of nationalist conflict, the kind which the world has seen repeatedly since before the invention of international relations. Each nationality has a legitimate claim to they territory in that region and they cannot agree on some aspect of their coexistene. Regardless of what the true argument conflict or issue is, according to the CNN news report both sides have resorted to genocide, mass killings of the other.

Does this mean that the international realm will always resort back to a state of anarchic violent self-interested and coercive state behavior? Or is this a lingering wisp of past relations?

Prior to the advent of international institutions there would have been no discussion of international intervention and yet that is what happens now when such an atrocity has occurred. This type of violence is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world stage, whereas in the past it would have been overlooked until an official government took over the territory to be recognized as a sovereign state.

So while some actors still behave in the pre-international governance manner, others have accepted the changes made to the international environment and abide by its rules and norms. What will happen in the future remains to be seen. Only the interference of a catastrophic event could change the entire world environment. Only time can tell whether that change will be natural or manmade.

De-Alerting - Nuclear Weapons and the International Environment

I find Bruce G. Blair’s article’s paper Increasing Warning and Decision Time (‘De-Alerting’) interesting, however, in reality the steps to de-alerting both the US and Russia are extremely difficult. I am not sure how plausible it is to believe both the US and Russia would be willing to alter their nuclear operations so drastically.

Firstly, in phase one Blair mentions the verifiability for this step is low. Ideally, both Russia and the US would agree extending the fuse for launch times for nuclear weapons would be safest. However, if you can’t verify the other nation is genuinely taking these steps for ALL of their nuclear weapons, why would you? And who is to say a nation wouldn’t rearm some prior to phase four when they are all stored and accounted for. I think the low verifiability in phase one would be a huge deterrent for both the US and Russia.

Secondly, in order for phase four to be accomplished Blair states that one of the pre-conditions is possibly constraining conventional forces as well. I find it hard to believe actors like the United States and Russia would want to lose their immediate nuclear response capability and then constrain conventional forces simultaneously. I think these two losses would leave the US or Russia feeling vulnerable. In addition, I think the US and Russia would feel even more vulnerable because these protocols and steps are to lengthen their nuclear fuse, but who is to say China, Pakistan or India won’t shorten theirs. Blair mentions the potential for China and others to shorten their fuse based on the US increasing Chinese targets, but who is to say these other nuclear nations wouldn’t shorten their fuse preventatively.

Overall, I agree with Blair’s goals, particularly with the increasing cyberterrorism threat. Having a launch ready nuclear arsenal may not be the safest environment. However, I think de-alerting will be very hard to do. De-nuclearizing the international environment would be a way to control violence, however, how can there be a public authority telling states what to do and how to do it and then supervising them? I think at least the way things are now, de-nuclearizing would fall into the realm of international law. As Jackson said though there are international laws, nations must self-enforce. This self-enforcing aspect shows some of the difficulties in de-altering and de-nuclearizing our international environment, because all nations want to feel “safe”. At this point, it seems unlikely Russia or the US will want to unarm itself, however, perhaps implementing a concept such as removing the pre-programmed targets in nuclear operations would be the next step to lengthening our nuclear fuse. 

Thoughts on Private Security Firms

This week’s reading, “Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics,” by Rita Abrahamsen and Michael Williams was of particular personal interest because of my dealings with private security firms in my professional life. Years ago, I served as a military contracting officer in Afghanistan and was part of a team responsible for contracting Afghani security firms/personnel to help protect US bases within the country. The discussions my team and I had about awarding security contracts to Afghani companies were related to some of the issues detailed by Abrahamsen and Williams. The authors cite success stories tied to private security firms in Africa, but I’d like to look at how private firms have the potential to be less effective than a government sponsored security unit.

From my experience in Afghanistan, I’m of the belief private security firms are not always as capable as government sponsored units. My point of view stems from the contracts my team was responsible for. Many of our private security contracts were issued to Afghani firms composed of properly vetted Afghani personnel who had spent their whole lives living around the base they were assigned to help protect. This creates an interesting dynamic since those who want to attack a particular base would have also likely grown up and spent their whole lives close to the base. To me, it would seem difficult for a security guard to arrest or use deadly force on a “bad guy” who may have very well grown up a few homes down from the guard. This type of dynamic would not likely give anyone under the protection of an Afghani security firm a warm and fuzzy feeling. Granted this type of scenario may be rare for most firms, but it shows just one risk in trusting the capabilities and motivations of guards working outside the realm of government control.

Our Afghani guards were also often late and not vigilant while on post. This stemmed from the fact that their interests weren’t directly aligned with that of the people who hired them (the US military in this case). Some of the guards were just after a paycheck and had no vested interest in the success of the base they were assigned to protect. This type of mentality is another risk for government reliance on private security firms. A state’s willingness to give up some of their national security sovereignty to a security firm with interests not aligned with their own can certainly have negative consequences. 

I fully realize the rise in the use of private security firms around the world isn’t going to slow down, and despite the examples I gave, I do believe they can be effective. As shown by Abrahamsen and Williams, they can often be an incredibly useful tool for governments. I can even cite other personal examples from Afghanistan where private security firms proved useful. However, I believe they must be used responsibly and not to excess. There has to be certain instances where governments insist on using their own forces rather than issuing a contract. Governments around the world need to identify which aspects of their security are able to be contracted out and which ones MUST stay inherently governmental.

Week 7 Post - Technology and its impact on sovereignty

In Dr. Jackson's video the role of technology was mentioned briefly and I wanted to discuss this a little more. I feel that technology has changed the way that states are viewed by the world. Prior to the dawn of the internet, states could control the flow of information and could regulate (more or less) how much information seeped out into the world. In a way, states were able to maintain their sovereignty through not being held accountable for their actions. The advances in technology have changed this. A few examples of this:

The Vietnam War was brought to the American people and the world through pictures and images of the casualties. I believe that the course of the war would have gone differently if people weren't aware of what exactly was going on over there.

The coverage of events like Tiananmen Square and the Arab Spring helped to shape not only the world response but also the response from the states that were directly involved with the actions. Imagine for a second that the world was not made aware of the Arab Spring. Imagine that the internet didn't exist and people were not globally aware of what was going on. I think that had people not been aware that the states would have been able to act differently and would have been able to act as if they were a completely sovereign nation.

This isn't to state that previously there weren't advances in technology. It is just simply saying that instead of it taking days or even weeks to obtain information about the actions that are going on in a country, that news can be instantly transferred across the globe. This instantaneous spread of information forces international actors to keep in mind their actions and because of this the amount of sovereignty that a country has is reduced. A similar impact can be seen as the world becomes more interconnected and globalization spreads. Countries can no longer just act with their own self interests in mind and don't always get to make decisions about what their own country does. Technology and the increasing interconnectedness of the world force countries to share responsibility and thus sovereignty over certain decisions that would once have been reserved for the states to make on their own.

The International Environment - Short and Long Term

It is hard to say if the international environment will fundamentally change. As Jackson mentions in his lecture, what would that even look like? Both the PRO and CON group focused on international cooperation and the potential for states to give up their sovereignty to work together, but what if the international environment changed in a different way? It is hard to anticipate something as unpredictable as the future of our international stage.

I do find it hard to believe that states will give up their sovereignty, particularly if they have a means to defend themselves. However, I also find it nearly impossible to say that the international environment will never change. There are too many variables we cannot control to say there will be no fundamental change to the international environment. Anything from nuclear war, alliances, states failing, an environmental disaster or global warming, famine or droughts may lead states to act differently, and many other things may fundamentally change the international environment as we know it.

I think at least in the near future states are too set in their ways of sovereignty to give it up. Even members of the EU or NATO are still known as their nation first and secondly as a member of the EU or NATO. Small changes such as a country dividing into two or two countries becoming one will occur, however, this does not fundamentally change the international environment. As for what is possible in the further future only time will tell. Fundamental changes in the international environment are likely possible, however, what these changes will be and when they will occur are unknown.

Caught in the Middle

As much as I enjoyed this week’s debate on whether or not the international environment can change, I can’t say I was ever able to take a firm stance on either side of the issue. I was part of the CON group and felt we put together a really strong argument but I also agreed with a lot of the statements made by the opposing group. Thus, I find myself stuck in the middle on the issue.

Many of our arguments on the CON side boiled down to state sovereignty so I’ll use that to elaborate on my “middle of the road” point of view. As our group argued, I do firmly believe all states will always want to hold on to as much of their sovereignty as possible. But with that said, there are certainly instances where states have been willing to give up bits and pieces of what makes them a sovereign state. Both the PRO and CON side used the EU to highlight their points but I personally think EU membership does require states to give up some level of economic sovereignty (and that is coming from someone on the CON side). However, as we in the CON side pointed out there are certainly many aspects of state sovereignty that states are not willing to sacrifice for the EU.

NATO is another useful example to look at. Member states agree an attack on one member is an attack against all which signals sacrificing some level of sovereignty in terms of when/if a country actually wants to go to battle. But all NATO members certainly want to keep their own militaries and follow their own military doctrines. A long list could be made of elements which states want to keep out of NATO control.

The few thoughts I’ve laid out above put me in a position where I feel like certain elements of the international environment have changed and will continue to change. Additionally, certain elements haven’t changed and won’t do so. I feel state sovereignty will always be important to states, but the degree of sovereignty will change over time. New technologies or future events may change the way in which states value their sovereignty. For instance, a worsening global environmental crisis could lead states to sacrifice a degree of sovereignty and agree to certain international restrictions designed to improve the environmental situation.

My bottom line is there will always be sovereign states but some aspects of a state’s sovereignty may be able to be sacrificed. Some could argue that statement puts me squarely on the PRO side of the “change in the international environment” debate, but I still contend I’m taking the middle ground. To me, a concession of a degree of sovereignty here and there does not signal a big enough fundamental change in the international environment. There are still aspects which will never change.

Hindsight is 20/20

Will the world ever be able to evolve past anarchy? Are we as human beings capable of fundamental change within the international environment? Many would argue no and many would also argue that yes, the world can change. However, the answer still remains to be seen. Or does it?

In the history of humanity, we have fundamentally changed many aspects of the international realm. The introduction of sovereignty, the introduction of international organizations and then non-governmental organizations are all examples of this, but as human beings it is nearly impossible to imagine this kind of change in the future. This week, Sam  posted a link to a TED talk on the class wall which highlights this point exactly. Why is this though?

In our class debate on the subject, the CON group pointed out that the world changes incrementally, not fundamentally. Well, this might be true. Yet, does fundamental change not require possibly multiple incremental changes? The changes we have already seen in the international realm did not occur overnight. Looking back we see huge leaps and bounds, but in the moment those changes happened at a snail's pace from the perspective of contemporary society. It was even said that those changes would never work.

Indeed the League of Nations failed to fundamentally change anything, which is evident by the start of World War II. However, once the world powers tried once again and formed the United Nations. This is where I think the debate gets sticky. Many would say the United Nations has failed as well and many would say it is making progress...

The answer to the questions of whether or not the international environment can be remade cannot be answered until the question of "what does the international environment currently look like?" is determined. Additionally, according to Professor Jackson, the theory of personhood affects the way we think change occurs. The issue is that we may not agree on the current state of the fundamental international environment and its actors.

Maybe the focus on international institutions is not even the "fundamental" shift we should focusing on. Perhaps whatever tool might be used to change the environment has yet to be seen. Innovation is not dead, we are not done growing and history is not over. Though, according to the TED talk mentioned earlier, this is a common mindset of human beings.

Whether or not it is good or bad for the world, it will change all the way until the day it ends. Incremental shifts add up to fundamental changes in the environment after time, and when we look back it is easier to see than when we look forward. The way in which human beings interpret the world around them will determine the direction the changes will take.

Week 6 - International organizations and where war has gone

I tend to agree with the realist critique of international organizations. I see organizations like the World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and even the United Nations as “ciphers for the state powers” rather than these institutions playing a vital role in spreading global norms. It only makes sense that these institutions are ciphers for the most powerful states. After all these institutions need to be funded and generally the most powerful states are the ones who do the funding. Furthermore, Koremenos, Lipson and Snidal bring up a valid point in regards to the prisoners dilemma and why corporation isn’t always reached. As the number of states increases the number of uncalculated options increases and thus uncertainty increases. All too often, even among allies, the uncertainty of states actions can bring about a response from other states. The cold war is a perfect example of this. The US began to build its military in response to the possible threat from the Soviet Union. Then the Soviet Union needed to build its own military in order to protect itself from the US build up. Then of course the US had to increase its own to protect against the increase by the Soviet Union and so on and so forth. I feel that while it is unrealistic to think that international organizations aren’t bias I think that it is all too easy for international organizations to become international political arms of individual states.

(In regards to Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal, The Rational Design of International Institutions,” International Organization 55:4 (2001)

In regards to the discussion last night about what fundamental change has occurred, according to Waltz the way wars are fought has changed. Not only has the introduction of powerful conventional weapons increased the cost of fighting a war (both the monetary cost as well as the cost to human life) but also direct conflicts that are fought between two large countries are a thing of the past. The economic dependency that countries have with each other precludes them from fighting large direct conflicts with each other. War has transitioned to be something that poor or weak countries now take part in, where the costs are still relatively low. Waltz article was written in the late 1980s and I think if you look forward from that point until the present you will see that his prediction of the way that war has changed is true. There aren’t any large-scale “superpower” conflicts but rather small-scale conflicts that involve either two weak countries of a strong country against a weak country/organization. These types of conflicts help to lower the cost for the larger countries.

(In regards to Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988)

Week 5: The role of atomic weapons

While I generally agree with Waltz in that atomic weapons redefined the way that conventional war is thought about I feel like he is off in two areas. Both of these areas were discussed last night during our breakout session but I wanted to elaborate on them a little more.

The first issue that I have is that I think Waltz misuses the word "coexist". When I read that he believes that "states continue to coexist in an anarchic order" (624) I felt that was a misuse of the word but to be sure I looked up the definition of coexist.

co·ex·ist

/ˌkoʊɪgˈzɪst/ Show Spelled 1. to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries

The "but peaceably" part is the area that I don't think applies when thinking about the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. While direct conflict wasn't possible, due to the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), indirect conflicts were happening all the time. Given the nature of the Cold War I would consider that these acts weren't peaceful. A peaceful interaction between two countries doesn't result in the shooting down of spy planes but rather results in the country trying to end spying through diplomatic channels. I feel like to say that the US and Soviet Union coexisted undermines the intense military buildup and rivalry that resulted in the economic demise of the Soviet Union and thus doesn't really give credit to how different the Cold War really was.

The second issue I had was when Waltz stated that "had the atom never been split, those two nations would still have much to fear from each other" (625). I think it was the splitting of the atom that drove these two countries into such fear of each other. Prior to atomic weapons being created the fear of invasion was calmed by the geographical location of the two countries. For the US the Pacific and Atlantic oceans acted as a buffer against international act so the fear of war was diminished. Take the American response to WWII as a good example of this. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Americans wanted very little to do with the War in Europe. There wasn't a large fear that their way of life was in trouble since conventional warfare meant that you would have to send ships and move troops in order to attack. With the creation of the atomic bomb the notion of a buffer vanished. Any country that possessed atomic weapons could now destroy an entire city with just a single plane (and as time went on with just a missile). This fear of a secret attack is what lead to the military arms race and the hostility between the US and Soviet Union. I think that had it not been for the creation of the atomic bomb the US and Soviet Union would have been able to coexist and the Cold War wouldn't have happened.  

A View on Nukes

In Kenneth Waltz’s article “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory” he makes some interesting observations about the effects nuclear weapons have had on how nations view war. He states “although the possibility of war remains, the possibility of war involving states with nuclear weapons has been drastically reduced” (p626). He also believes “waging war has increasingly become the privilege of the poor and weak states” (p626) because powerful states with nuclear weapons can no longer risk going to war with each other. Both are interesting points, but I think they made more sense when written back in 1988 than they do now. 

In 1988 the thought of the US and the Soviets launching nukes at each other seemed like a much more real threat than it is today. Back in the Cold War years it was common for families to build backyard bunkers out of fear of a nuclear attack. Today, the only folks building fallout shelters are those hoping to see themselves on the next episode of “Doomsday Preppers.” To illustrate further how today’s nuclear environment has changed, it’s useful to look at the recent crisis in the Ukraine. The US and Russia certainly didn’t see eye to eye on this issue and tensions were high at times. Few seriously believed there would be any type of military engagement between the two nations, but even if there was, neither side would even consider the deployment of nuclear weapons as an acceptable measure. The use of a nuclear weapon would go against international norms held onto by a vast majority of the world. That said, and in contradiction to Waltz’s point, in today’s world it may be possible for two nuclear nations to have a small scale military conflict which doesn’t result in the use of nukes.

Waltz also discusses how only small states without nuclear weapons will be able to wage war with each other. This holds some truth, but with so many non-state actors on today’s international stage, the look of war has changed since 1988. The US has been fighting non-state actors for 13 years in Afghanistan and other countries around the world. It seems likely that wars will continue to be fought by large, nuclear nations against tiny, non-state terrorist organizations. In these types of conflicts it’s impossible for the nuclear armed country to use such weapons. In many of the wars of the future, nuclear weapons may simply not be relevant. I believe Waltz hints at the fact that the need for conventional weaponry may be on the decline, but that may not be true given how the enemy of today needs to be fought.

Maybe some of the points I’ve made above play in well to the debate on whether or not the international environment is changing. Based on the couple paragraphs above, it does appear that a few changes with regards to weapons have occurred in the last 20 or so years. However, those mild changes are certainly not enough to say that the whole international environment is changing.