A State Is As a State Does?

Here is an interesting piece that relates to our discussions on constructivism. This piece from Foreign Policy discusses regions of states that, not being able to win their independence from the states of which they are a part, just start behaving in many ways like states, issuing passports and currency and such. This brings up the question of what makes a state a state? Do you have to be recognized by the UN and other states, field teams in the Olympics, etc, to be considered a state? (Recognition by other states and the UN is usually considered to be what legitimizes a would-be state as a state). Is it, in realist (and Weberian terms), the possession of a monopoly over the legitimate means of violence in a given territory? Or something else entirely?

Somali militants 'block UN food aid'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8541315.stm

Since 1991 when the central Somali government collapsed, a militant group called Al-Shabaab has run much of southern Somalia. Somalia has been helped by the UN, especially the World Food Program stay sustainable in times of turmoil. Now Al-Shabaab is rejecting aid from the WFP, saying that if they continue to depend on international organizations that they will never regain economic sustainability. This puts the WFP in an ethical dilemma, as they are confronted with weighing immediate relief versus long term sustainability. Even if they were to discontinue their immediate relief program, they have modules for implementing long term relief in place. Al-Sahaab still rejects this help.

This story covers a struggle between realist theory and constructivism. Though Al-Shabaab is not a world power, it is acting to gain full autonomy of its territory, rejecting aid from organizations. Yet it admits that the organizations have influence. It is clear that the WFP is a help to somalia, since its work threatens the sustainability of the country. This undeniable influence proves a constructivist theory to be true. This story relates back to our in class discussion of if an international organization can have a negative influence. Al-Shabaab would have a firm stance that they can. The WFP and Al-Shabaab, neither of which are actual governments are in a power struggle over the governance of a failed state. Is this realist theory scaled down? Are both actors working towards humanitarian interests of the Somalian people?

We Can't Wish Away Climate Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

This article is concerned with our failing to respond to climate change and set up mandatory carbon cap, when facing with increasingly mounting evidence pointing to an already changed climate. Till today, there are still some experts say we do not have enough evidence to claim that there is a climate change. And we, again, fail to start to reach something meaningful in the Climate Summit, with US failing to full fill its leadership role in this issue.

Actually, what quite interesting about this article is that it brings about the fact that China privately signaled last year that if the US. passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty. And if the two largest polluters begin to do something, the world community will begin to act. For this article, I am just wondering how to account the fact that China’s signal to US, for we cannot imagine the vice versa. But why we cannot imagine the vice versa? I think one of the reason is that the US, the only super power in the world, has to pass a mandatory carbon cap first and only in this way, some developing countries can feel safe and secure, like China. Also we cannot do something meaningful to the climate change if the mandatory treaty does not include China, for it will make the US feel less secure. I think there are at least two reasons. First, the US and the China has different ideologies and the former does not see the latter as a liberal state. Thus, although there are increasing economical cooperation within the two countries, it is still hard for the two countries to trust each other. Second, from the point of power politics, China has the potential to become a regional hegemony and the US. has to be alert about that.

Just a heads up about this event, taking place at Mac and at Hamline. I've read McCoy's latest book about torture and how it relies about studies done showing the effects of sensory deprivation, among other techniques to produce its devastating effects. This event is highly recommended if you are interested in how contemporary torture is done and legitimated.

Al-Qaeda's Constructivist Turn

Here's an older piece written by Marc Lynch that argues al-Qaeda utilizes 'strategic social constructivism' in their various campaigns. Check it out for a broader explanation of why al-Qaeda is placed in the 'constructivist' camp.

US Toursim

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/25/news/economy/travel_promotion/index.htm?cnn=yes

Come visit the U.S. - and create jobs!

By Tami LuhbyFebruary 25, 2010

On Thursday, the senate passed the Travel Promotion Act, which will create a nonprofit corporation to market overseas visits to United States. The corporation will be funded by a new $10 charge to foreign visitors who apply for pre-authorization to come to the US, and also through the revenue that will be generated from the additional 1.6 million tourists that are expected. The increase of tourism will supposedly create 40,000 jobs. The reasoning behind the Act is that the US is "the only modern nation that doesn't advertise ourselves," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday as he laid out his plan to spur employment.

I thought this article fit in nicely with our class discussion about the role of NGOs and 'nonprofit corporations,' like the one created by the Travel Promotion Act, and whether or not they always work for what is 'right.' This new travel promotion corporation will create marketing campaigns to promote the US as a desirable vacation destination. While jobs are badly needed in the US, the desire for additional revenue for the state would not traditionally be a goal of nonprofit organizations. This Act and new corporation may benefit average Americans, but its objectives are quite dissimilar to more "noble" campaigns for humanitarianism, environmental protection, etc. In addition, this issue is relevant to the way in which identities and norms can influence behavior. The US sees itself as a "modern nation," in the words of Reid, and apparently, all modern states have tourism promotion programs. The US is trying to fulfill its role and comply with norms; at least, the precedent set by other modern states legitimizes this new travel corporation.

Germany to promote 'language of ideas'

VERENA SCHMITT-ROSCHMANN, Associated Press Writer Verena Schmitt-roschmann, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 25, 11:20 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_language_campaign


Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister is embarking on a campaign to promote the German language. Four months ago he drew attention for insisting on speaking German when speaking to a British reporter. He now has a global campaign to promote what he calls the "language of ideas" and "the language at the heart of Europe." In this campaign, Westerwelle stresses the beauty of the language and opposes the spread of "anglicisms," or words borrowed from English. Says Westerwelle, "It is the key to more than 350 German universities and colleges, to Europe's largest economy. It grants access to German literature, music, philosophy, and science, to the wealth of great European cultural traditions and, not least, it is the key to realizing one's own goals and ideas." The number of German speakers has decreased in recent years, and the German government seeks to promote their language in response to this decline and the rise of other languages becoming increasing important in Germany, including English, Spanish, and Chinese.

I found this article interesting in relation to the constructivist theories and transnational interactions we have been studying lately. It seems that constructivists would believe that "knowledge is power." Language is one way we construct or frame the world, and most modern languages are deeply attached to certain cultures. As Westerwelle indicates, some of the world's great literature, music, philosophy, and science are rooted in the German language. While this knowledge is available to people all over the world through translations, I think just about everyone acknowledges that a translation is just not the same as the original. Some things are always lost in translation; even when the difference is subtle, it can sometimes have a large effect overall. The spread of languages across borders illustrates one aspect of transnational interactions. What does it mean that Germany is trying to assert the importance of its native language? What does the increased use of other languages (especially English) mean? Do you think that the spread of languages across borders is perhaps the result of transnational advocacy networks, as discussed in the Keck and Sikkink chapters? What implications does this have for the state? How would realist or liberal theories explain this language issue?

India, Pakistan hold first talks in 15 months

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35562194/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

In a four hour long conversation in New Delhi, the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan came together to start rebuilding a relationship badly damaged by the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which India blamed on Pakistan-based militants. No issues were resolved during the talks, but at least a dialogue was started. Nirumpama Rao, the foreign secretary of India, urged Pakistan to crack down on its militant groups before a comprehensive peace talk could take place. The United States has been pushing the two sides to resume talks in hopes that a reduction in tensions will help Pakistan shift its focus from the Indian border to the offensive against Taliban militants along its border with Afghanistan.

While this article has definite realist overtones, especially with the United States urging Pakistan to resolve this conflict thereby focusing its attention on its volatile western border, there is also an issue of national sovereignty at hand. For instance, both Pakistan and India have a right to run their internal operations the way they see fit, but when it seems operations are not being properly run ( i. e. Pakistani militant groups spilling over into India), national sovereignty is often questioned or compromised to prevent further occurrences. In other words, when national sovereignty becomes an excuse for activity outside the spectrum of the social construct, such as terrorist acts, its validity comes into question.

Here's a blog post discussing one of the panels I was on at ISA, (yes, the one on Battlestar Galactica). Carpenter reiterates ones of the points she made at the panel (while dressed as Starbuck) that what we were doing wasn't really 'explaining' international politics, but showing by BSG reflects international politics. Is analyzing popular culture really 'doing' IR scholarship? Why or why not?

Blog annoucement

Due to some technical difficulties making it hard for everyone in our class to post on the blog, I've decided switch the blog from 'contributors only' to 'public'. Only contributors will be able to post on the blog, but it will be viewable (and comment-able) to the internet at large. These changes won't go into effect until monday, so if you want to change your screen name for more privacy (so this blog won't come up if your name is googled) you may do so. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

US government seeks to regulate actions of contractor personnel

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/blackwater.afghanistan/index.html?hpt=Sbin

This article describes the Senate Armed Services Committee’s emphasis on making sure that private contractor personnel, such as Blackwater, are, "Adequately screened, supervised and held accountable," for their actions in Afghanistan. The US finds this necessary because the Afghani people do not differentiate US private contractors from the US Military. Past actions of private contractors, such as Blackwater, have diminished the trust of the Afghan people towards American intervention. This is a problem because, as Sen. Carl Levin says, “[The] key to beating the Taliban in Afghanistan will be the ability of U.S. forces to win support from the Afghan people.” According to this article, in order to gain the trust of Afghan people, the US government will have to make sure to keep the actions of private contractors consistent with that of the US Military.

This article also brings up an interesting concept of the separation between the US Military and private contractors. These private security firms are licensed by the US Department of State, and cover many of the same services and expertise that the government military does, just on a smaller scale. The private contractors specialize and are assigned to carry out certain tasks, but sometimes the lack of coordination between these private firms and the military causes inconsistencies in tactics and procedure. However, I am confused by why, if both operations are state-run, are the private security firms able to have different interests, and act according to them? Why haven’t regulations already been imposed, if these private firms are interconnected with the government? I am interested to learn more about these firms, and the certain distinctions they have from the military.

Rebels and Yemen declare temporary peace

I felt that this article helped highlight the fact that even though we are focusing on relations on an international level, there are many smaller factions within states that might not be happy with the official state desires. These smaller factions mean that even if trust and security can be reached between two states, it might not represent the desires of all the people in the state. The whole Middle East is a great example for this kind of problem, but even the separate political parties that are present here in America would serve as an example of split ideals in a country. This kind of situation means that, even if all the worlds states were to come to an agreement, there would be tons of minority groups that were unhappy with the outcome and want a different solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8511705.stm

Poor Sanitation in Haiti

The attached article gives an extremely honest look at the current conditions in Haiti:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/americas/20haiti.html?ref=world

Poor Sanitation in Haiti’s Camps Adds Disease Risk, by Simon Romero

Over winter break, the world was heartbroken by the events in Haiti, now, more than a month later, we are still struggling to help one of the world’s most impoverished countries deal with the destruction. I suspect this recovery will take years. To make matters worst, living conditions for the displaced are “pathetic” and authorities are having trouble managing human waste. Some speculate that a Cholera outbreak is inevitable, and in a country that already suffers from a shortage of doctors (yet a surplus of those in need of medical attention). Doctors are currently seeing a sudden spike in Typhoid and Shigellosis also caused by this accumulation of waste. Many foreign doctors have already left (despite Haiti’s desperate need for medical assistance) because they fear getting sick. “The problem has become impossible to overlook in many districts of Port-au-Prince, with the stench of decomposing bodies replaced by that of excrement.” The rainy season will only amplify these problems (with increased outbreaks of mosquito-borne Dengue and Malaria) and to make matters worse Haiti doesn’t have a single sewage treatment plant.

Haiti has nothing to give in return to those nations currently offering assistance. But it is only reasonable that nations (especially world powers) should help countries such as Haiti in their time of need. If for no other reason than for public relation's sake (as we discussed in class) the United States must help. However, do to lack of organization and the great extend of the destruction, nations offering assistance have only been able to make an insignificant dent in the seemingly endless destruction that hit Haiti.

Here's some more fun for you all. How would International Relations Theory cope with a zombie attack?

U.S. urges speedy return to democracy in Niger

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/02/22/niger.coup/index.html

The United States calls for Niger's "speedy return to democracy and the rule of law." Tensions arose in Niger as as President Mamadou Tandja, who has been in office since December 1999, has been trying to stay in power beyond the time mandated by the constitution. The new constitution is already in the works in order to come to a quick resolution to the conflict.

Tandja is stated to currently be in a military camp. Soldiers stormed the presidential palace and opened intermittent gunfire. Later that day, the constitution was suspended and order was given to the Superior Council for the Restoration of Democracy. According to the United Nations, the onset violence could have been prompted by a collapse of talks between the government and the opposition over a recent referendum allowing the president to hold power indefinitely. Niger's former constitution allowed only two, five-year terms for president.

The general West African public favored the actions of the military coup. Many rallied in support, while civilians are returning to their normal lives, restoring peace in Niger.

I find that this article reflects our discussions of realism versus liberalism as well as Obama's speech regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. The military coup of Niger dealt with the issue in a realist manner. Subsequently, the United Nations got involved, bringing a liberal aspect to the situation. The citizens of Niger felt that if they wanted results, they'd have to take matters into their own hands, which lead to the involvement of a global organization. This portrays Obama's thoughts as well, showing that violent actions are, at times, necessary to attain peace and order. It is foolish to create a false Utopian society with reality knocking on your door. This is where both realism and liberalism co-exist.

NATO Airstrike Kills Afghan Civilians

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/world/asia/23afghan.html

This article is about NATO forces sending an air strike against what appeared to be Afghan insurgents, but resulted in a very large number of civilian deaths. This is not the first time that a NATO led operation has resulted in a high number of innocent casualties. The United States led Special Forces thought they were attacking insurgents en-route to attack a NATO unit not far from where they were situated. NATO has offered their apologies, but remain that it was in the best strategy to do what they did, based on their knowledge of the situation. This is the first large civilian death total since new measures taken last June to limit air attacks to only defensive missions.

Events such as this can have terrible effects on international relations. When civilians are being killed, government officials and the public can have rightfully severe negative reactions to it. Its understood that innocent lives can be a casualty of war, but it takes a toll after awhile. These "accidents" can occur with a startling frequency, and could possibly help people form beliefs that terrorism and other acts of destruction are legitimate forms of payback. I do not have a solution on how to perform valuable military strategy without ever causing innocent casualties. As of right now, NATO forces are doing their best to limit casualties, but it seems as if we might need more than that to keep the innocent from paying a terrible debt.

Iran to Build More Enrichment Plants

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html?ref=world

This article discusses Iran's plans for the development of ten additional enrichment plants (two that will be started within the next year). In addition to this the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization stated that these would use a new kind of centrifuge. According to ISNA News Agency in Iran the decision was made in December, and has been motivated by an attempt to increase the "supply fuel for planned electricity generation" which is legal under international law. Furthermore the facilities will be constructed in a way which protects them against any attack.

One could apply realist theory to this article as Iraq has maintained a strong posture in their uranium enrichment program despite the U.N and United Nations firmly condemning their actions thereby exemplifying offensive realism. This displays how Iran may be attempting to shift the balance of power between the United States and themselves. The United States in this scenario has reacted to the Iran's military potential despite their [Iran's] assurance that they are utilizing this in order to build up their fuel levels. What is interesting in that Iran has threatened with the development of more nuclear sites in the past but has never finally developed them. This scenario may be thought of as a the 'chicken' scenario as it is unclear whether Iran will be willing to risk further deterioration of their relations with the United States in order to develop these sites. In addition there is uncertainty surrounding the course of action that the United States will take in this situation as China has already proven reluctant to increase sanctions against Iran. What I believe to be of huge importance is the fact that Iran is planning on building these sites in a way which they would be protected against military action. Thus while they may intend to utilize these simply to increase their energy in the present, it gives them the possibility to have offensive power in the future. As a result it is not in the United States' interest to allow the development as they may be used against them in the future. What should be noted however is that the United States is unlikely to lose its retaliatory ability, which is more than likely to deter any military intention Iran has.

Unintended consequences

This article posted on the HuffPost, mentions a perhaps unintended consequence of the not-really-closure of Guantanamo Bay. Because of the Obama administration's promise to close Guantanamo Bay, it isn't feasible to capture suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters and send them to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation or for indefinite detention. Instead, drones have been used to kill suspected terrorist/al-Qaeda leaders (often with their families and any bystanders). While Guantanamo Bay is, and was, a highly problematic way of dealing with potential or suspected combatants in the war on terror, the use of drones to summarily kill them is clearly not a step up. The fact that some of the suspected terrorist leaders are within the borders of Pakistan (in which ground troops are forbidden) may mean that Pakistan is an even more lethal place to be a terrorist organizer.

This has interesting implications for how the war on terror is fought, as well as for state sovereignty. Is it really a meaningful distinction to use drones to kill fighters in Pakistan instead of ground troops in Afghanistan? Does this mean that Bush administration procedures for dealing with 'terrorists' are necessarily better?

A Democratic Election Revival in Egypt

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1966922,00.html?xid=rss-world&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Fworld+%28TIME%3A+Top+World+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

The United States is a liberal democracy that supports the democratic principles of the ability of citizens to freely protest and participate in free elections. However, some democracies, for example, that of Egypt, are more illiberal than the U.S., and do not allow their citizens such freedoms. In the past, the Egyptian government under President Hosni Mubarak, now 81 years old after reigning for 28 years with only one multi-candidate election over his entire term, has stifled political opposition to his regime in order to remain in power, meeting public political demonstrations with “swarms of riot police.” The next election is set for 2011, and Mubarak will either run uncontested himself or set up his son to run as the only available candidate. However, in an attempt to stop an effective monarchial regime change, many young activists are rallying behind Mohamed ElBaradei, a highly respected international figure, as a candidate for the next presidential election. ElBaradei is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to curb nuclear proliferation. Although, he has not yet decided to run officially and his campaign will face many obstacles, some Egyptians believe that if elected, ElBaradei would give Egypt a chance for a “real democracy.”

The political situation in Egypt reflects the internal conflict within countries with a populace and government with differing ideologies, one liberal and the other illiberal. Applying Owen’s argument from “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” a democracy must have political leaders who support the views of the public or those individuals will not remain in power. Egypt is an example of a state in this turmoil. The liberal people are tired of an illiberal approach to their governance. During a period of political unrest, it is logical to assume that the situation in Egypt may be slightly unstable while the ideological balance between the people and their officials is restored.

Meeting over fake Irish passports

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8527322.stm

This brief article by the BBC News concerns the use of fake passports by the assassins of a Hamas leader in January. The men in question are suspected of using counterfeit Irish passports to gain entry into Dubai, where they then proceeded to kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The Foreign Minister of Ireland intends to talk with the Foreign Minister of Israel about the issue, as well as address other members of the European political community. This will be done in the hopes of finding a way to prevent incidents like this in the future.

This situation can be analyzed using some of the political philosophies that we have encountered so far in our readings. Looking at this through a Kantian view of the world, we see this as a failure of international institutions. With strong sovereign republics, there would be a consolidated international community powerful enough to prevent such abuses of the system. However, this also supports Owen's world view, the idea that peace is the natural way of the world. Owen believes that war is the result of a few radical, "loose-cannon" political figures. This world model can reasonably be extended to individuals. Peace would exist if it weren't for radical outliers like the extremists who assasinated al-Mabhouh. The assasination itself can be seen as the result of Hamas, a fringe political party democratically elected by the Occupied Territories (Gaza Strip). The un-peaceful assasination of al-Mabhouh was probably predicated by his Hamas ties. Hamas exists in direct response to the occupation of the Palestinian people. Kant would say then that the assination is indirectly tied to the fact that the Palestinians are a nation without a sovereign state with a constitution. Owen would probably point out that Hamas is a "fringe group" (recognized as a terrorist organization by most of the Western World) and that is the source of the unrest that took the form of an assassination.

Rising cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq caused by US bombings

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=334512

Cities in Iraq and Afghanistan that had been subjected to heavy bombings from the US and UK are now facing fast rising rates in both cancer and birth defects. The city of Falluja was heavily bombed in 2004, and now 25 percent of the babies being born have serious birth abnormalities including brain tumors and neural tube defects in the spinal cord. In the city of Babil 500 cases of diagnosed cancer rose to 9000 in 2008. A direct causal link between the depleted uranium from US and British bombs and increased cancer in Iraqis has not formally been made. However doctors have used karyotyping and chromosomal studies to show the harmful effects of depleted uranium, and statistical evidence supports the correlation. Like the cases of rising cancer rates following the 2003 invasion, the war in 1991 also led to a spike in civilian cancer. Similarities have also been found between babies with birth defects in Afghanistan and Iraqis from bombed areas. American soldiers have also been showing adverse reactions to the depleted uranium. Their children are born with similar defects to Iraqi babies, and some soldiers claim the uranium exposure is the reason they have developed cancer. Children continue to be born in these countries without eyes, without limbs, and tumors growing out of their eyes and mouths.

The effects of depleted uranium and the modern age military technology make fighting a just war increasingly difficult. When one side has more weaponry and more harmful weapons, a just war is a notion from the past. The way that people around the world view war has become increasingly negative. This could partly be the result of increased technological globalization. Technology such as the telephone is fairly new, and the development and expansion of the internet has connected people around the globe. The effect of access to people from different nations has humanized the face of suffering. When the people of Iran were protesting in the streets after the 2009 election controversy, people from all over could follow protesters through twitter. People are no longer statistics, they have become humans we can interact with. This discover has also led to the disturbing realization that our fellow man are being harmed or killed. While the Iraq war is being brought to a conclusion, we leave in our wake a country rife with human suffering. Iraq today is a clear result of a liberal state going to war with an illiberal state, and an attempt to change that illiberal state into a liberal democratic one. However, the success of Iraq's government and the ability of the Iraqi people to heal after the devastation of war, will determine the success of their democracy. The future of Iraq remains to be seen, while some people continue to wait and hope, others will move forward to rebuild a nation.