Sovereignty and Intervention

The idea of humanitarian intervention is in contention between IR scholars and the United Nations itself.  Humanitarian intervention can be viewed as a violation of state sovereignty.  Opponents to humanitarian intervention often quote the UN charter which states “the Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.”  However, I am of the opinion that state sovereignty is earned and that humanitarian intervention could be optimal in the right circumstances.

State sovereignty occurs when a government is the sole source of authority in a territory and no other source of authority exists elsewhere.  Where does this authority some from?  Throughout history, different definitions of authority, and therefore sovereignty, have surfaced.  In the Han Dynasty, the ruler had a mandate of heaven from which he drew his authority.  The people were subordinate to the king because, in their view, he was chosen by God.  In the US, authority is drawn from the Constitution.  The US is a nation in which the rule of law, or supremacy of written law over public officials, exists.  In many western democracies, it can be argued that the authority of the government is drawn from the people.  Sovereignty cannot be universally justified because authority comes from different sources according to different worldviews.  If the principle of state sovereignty is upheld universally in IR, it can be said that sovereignty is drawn simply from the fact that a ruler exists and exercises power over the territory.  This implies that power is synonymous with authority.  This idea resembles the laws of the natural world, in which a strong organism rules simply because it has power.  It can live where it wants, kill what it wants, and take what it wants because it is able to assert its power on other organisms.  This should not be the case in IR.  Society is an institution that aims to improve upon the chaos of the natural world.  Sovereignty, therefore, should be earned, not granted by power.  Under the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, a state must protect its people from atrocities.  States also deserve help in protecting their people from atrocity.  However, if the state actively commits atrocity against its people, member states of the UN have agreed to take decisive action to protect the people (Ban).

It is necessary that humanity adopts a global responsibility for the welfare of all people.  Should we not provide aid in the form of medicine and food to needy people because it encroaches on the sovereignty of an irresponsible or incompetent nation?  I believe that humanitarian intervention can be justified using this same question.  I concede that humanitarian intervention may not always be the best option.  For example, Syria’s conflict consists of Assad, various rebel groups, and ISIS.  There is no legitimate side to support.  All humanitarian intervention would accomplish in this circumstance is to saturate the nation with more weapons and complicate things further.  However, the idea of humanitarian intervention is justifiable.  Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, shares this viewpoint.  In a report, he concludes that the responsibility to protect is a legitimate concept that should be carried out with cooperation between the member states of the UN.  He supports the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, but realizes that it is a new idea that must be refined in strategy.  If the responsibility to protect is exercised with cooperation between nations, and each instance of atrocity is carefully analyzed, I agree with the Secretary General.  Humanitarian intervention could be a legitimate action used to enhance the welfare of humanity.    

 UN Charter- http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

Ban Ki-moon Report-http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/UNSG%20Report_timely%20and%20decisive%20response(1).pdf

Syrian Intervention

They say hindsight is 20/20, yet that still does not help answer the question on whether we should have intervened in the Syrian crisis in the summer of 2013. Even after the rise of the Islamic State and the refugee crisis that has given Europe quite a headache, the possibility of getting heavily involved in another Middle Eastern country could have possibly had infinitely worse consequences. While many see the control ISIS has over the region as a direct result of the United States refusing the intervene, there is always the possibility that some other extremist group would have risen in its place, using nationalism against the United States to recruit members. A definitive answer to whether we should have intervened or not is truly impossible to give, but I argue that our path of not getting involved during the summer of 2013 was the correct move at the time. 

The past experience including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that attempting to exert our influence both militarily and politically can be turned against us. All of these situations had deeper cultural issues that we did not understand at the time. For example, Vietnam had a long and glorious tradition of repelling foreigners who sought to use the country, from the Chinese in the 1st millennia to the French in the age of imperialism. When we gave weapons and training to the Mujahideen, we ended up funding the beginning of Al Qaeda and fostered an incredible amount of anti-Western sentiment that has been used since to recruit members to organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The Iraq War truly has a very negative image in the minds of many Americans. That is still a very fresh memory and we want to avoid it at all costs, so when we saw another tyrannical dictator being awful to his people, it seemed similar to Saddam. While some saw this as a chance to act as a police force, many wanted to avoid the possibility of another expensive war in the Middle East.

Another aspect to consider is the staunch defense of the Assad regime by Moscow. If we had intervened, Russia could easily have taken that as a violation on the sphere of influence. With a leader in Putin who is so quick to use action and assert dominance, we could have triggered military action from another great power which is certainly something we want to avoid. 

While a US military presence in Syria might have helped curtail the rapid growth ISIS has experienced, our presence could have just as easily helped unite the locals against us. Using anti-Western sentiment, gathering support and spreading extremism could have been a legitimate possibility of US intervention. Settling a civil war is infinitely more complicated than an occupying force. In the Gulf War, we got Saddam out of Kuwait, but if we wanted to remove Assad then all of Assad’s followers could not just leave. Splitting two or more factions that are set in a state make the aftermath much more complicated and expensive for the US.

In conclusion, the possibilities of what could have gone wrong is just as bad as what has happened since we did not intervene. However, American boots are not on the ground in the same number that they would be and we are avoiding another expensive war in the Middle East. I see it as the right decision not to intervene. 

Somalia or North Korea? (And How This Relates to Tipping Restrictions)

Response Blog Post #3

In Lecture 13, an interesting question was raised when we looked at the critique of failed states: Is it better to be a failed state or a repressed state? That introduces the related question of, would you rather live in Somalia or North Korea? It is arguably a lose-lose situation, because Somalia is a failed (or weak) state and North Korea is a repressed state. We discussed how we can regard a state as failed when there are is prevalent human rights abuses, high crime rates, lack of civil rights, lack of an ability to handle natural disasters, civil war, and many other disastrous qualities. This leads to a myriad of security, poverty, and human rights issues. Conversely, we can determine a state as repressed when there is no choice given to the public on how they live their lives, and the government control is overreaching. The effects can sometimes be similar to those of a failed or weak state, such as poverty due to a lack of economic freedom (and many more). However, the main distinction is clarified as being that a failed state has a weak/ incompetent government and a repressed state has a government that is seemingly omnipotent. Both are bad, evidently. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it would be better to live in a repressed state like North Korea, even if I was surrendering my freedom to do so, because the former option just seems much more dangerous, unpredictable, and overall, the worse option.  

It is extremely dangerous to live in Somalia due to the armed conflict between the many warlords and factions against the government forces. Pirates threaten security. There is ubiquitous terrorist activities and civil unrest. Recently, because of a dispute between rival clans over tax collection, “At least 14 people were killed and 20 others injured on Monday in deadly clashes in central Somalia” (Somalia Clan). Personally, I would not feel safe in such a country where something as trivial as a tax conflict leads to over a dozen deaths. Meanwhile, in North Korea, while the government dictates most of your daily life and there is limited private ownership, at least it is relatively safe. According to one crime rating, North Korea has a crime index of 16.90, while Somalia’s crime index skyrockets at 53.77 (Crime Rankings).

Based on current news, I found this failed vs repressed state question to parallel the situation of the Union Square Hospitality Group, which has been explained by CEO Danny Meyer that the company is beginning a new program that will eliminate the freedom of restaurant-goers to tip their waiters (Eliminate Tipping). This is a form of repression on how people can spend their money. Now the tips are already inherent in the meal prices as a service charge, which could be seen as repressive to people who may not want to tip their waiters. According to Meyer, this strategy helps workers and the restaurant industry, because it is often the case that waiters are paid less than minimum wage (Eliminate Tipping). This is not fair and can compromise the livelihood of those working in the dining industry.

Though on a much less crucial scale, the tipping situation can be seen as an analogy to the Somalia or North Korea question. Meyers’ proposal of eliminating tips in place of a service charge can be compared to North Korea, because freedom is limited. What if the waiter serves very poorly or extremely well? They still get the standard “tip” that now comes in the form of a service charge. This, though on a much lighter scale, is repression to the restaurant customers. On the other hand, by allowing people to tip, a disparity of wealth is formed when sometimes, the waiters are tipped so much that they earn more than the chef. Or, they can be paid under minimum wage, which is equally, if not more, detrimental. When comparing this to the belligerent clans of Somalia, one can look at this as a conflict between the chef clan and the clan of waiters.

            This is a subjective question, so what would you choose: living in Somalia or North Korea?

 Works Cited

http://www.voanews.com/content/somalia-clan-clashes-kill-fourteen/3014063.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-eliminate-tipping-waiters-20151016-story.html

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Syrian Intervention (Post #3)

Over the past two years, the United States has considered an intervention in Syria to stop the atrocities committed by the Syrian government, the Assad Regime, against its own people. During this war, somewhere between 250,000 and 340,000 people have been killed as a result of the fighting by, conventional weapons, chemical weapons, torture, and other examples of violence. As the debate continues to be had in Washington, more and more people are dying in this civil war, and now Russia is involving itself on the side of the Assad Regime, which is sure to only elevate the number of casualties. I argue that the United States should involve itself in the war to end the violence, and probably should have already. The most important reason for intervention being the fact that the huge number of casualties as a result of the war, needs to end.

This is something that I believe would be easily accomplished, as American military is far superior to that of the Syrians. Not only that, but the rebel forces would be sure to accept the help of the American forces if it meant that they could finally end the war. One major counter argument to this is the intervention of the Russian forces on the side of the Assad Regime. However, I do not think that the Russians would continue to support the current Syrian government after an American intervention for two reasons. The first reason being that the vast network of international allies that the United States has compared to the small number Russia has, as mentioned in the article on Russian weakness in the Syrian intervention, would prevent them from opposing the United States. Additionally, the Russians would no longer see the battle as one worth fighting, as the loss on the Bargaining Theory of War scale that would come from fighting the United States would not be outweighed by the benefits.

Furthermore, I think the history of the United States makes it sympathetic to the Syrian rebels cause, as the events taking place in Syria are not totally dissimilar to events in our own American History. Civil war, as well as fighting against an oppressive government, are both concepts that should be relatable to the American people as a result of our Civil and Revolutionary Wars respectively. For this reason, I believe the American people could be rallied to the aide of the Syrians because of a feeling of similarity between their histories. Not only would the connection help to bolster support, but it would also give more credibility to the intervention through a sense of legitimacy. This credibility be given to the rebels cause as a result of the similarities with the American Revolutionary War that American definitely considers a legitimate cause.

Finally, despite the relative lack of success that American interventions have had in the past, because this war has a definite faction, the Syrian Rebels, to support, its success would be much more likely. This success can be seen as possible because if the U.S. is able to when the war, which seems very likely, they will have a definite faction to turn the rule of Syria over to, making the region much more stable. The United States also receives two major benefits; first, American intervention and American military power are given more legitimacy through their successful actions. Additionally, however, the United States would gain another ally in an area where allies a hard to come by and vital to U.S. interest.

War with Syria

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/limited-strike-on-syria-will-lead-to-deeper-intervention module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=undefined&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=blogs

https://lms.dickinson.edu/pluginfile.php/828276/mod_resource/content/1/Schelling%20Daed%202006.pdf

Anchal Kannambadi

Blog post

An attack on Syria does not seem like a good idea because we are only attacking Syria to restrict the use of chemical weapons. We should not involve ourselves in a Civil war because we would only add to the problem. Also being involved in another countries problem will cost a lot of money, which is definitely not going to help our country in any way. If we are to assist Syria then we are setting our country up for retaliation, and after 9/11 and the Boston bombings, we do not need that devastation to occur. In class we debated on the Weak and failed states and why they are in such a difficult position, and we came up with the idea that many of the citizens don’t view their leaders as legitimate leaders. They believe that they know what is better for their country, so in turn they cause a civil war, and fight for “freedom.” One thing that I touched upon earlier was the fact that America does not have the money to fund this attack. We are already in multiple states of bankruptcy yet we are willing to invade a foreign country and bomb them for hopes of helping them out? That makes no sense. Something I find interesting is that we are considering sending our troops, and weapons over to stop and control what is going on in Syria, however we are not focusing on our problems. We are jumping up at the idea that we can help fix someone else’s problem but we are not working on our own government. Yes we want to show Assad that using Chemical Weapons is wrong, even punishable, but we should not be interfering in another countries problems when we have our own to work on! An attack with Syria will also cause mass casualties and we are not at liberty to harm citizens who are trying to break free from their government. In class some of us argued that a war with Syria would be The United States of America asserting dominance over another “weakened” state, however you would only go to war with a country when you believe that you would win.

In a Realists perspective, States do not just happen to help other countries. There is always a benefit for us. We are inclined to assist Syria because we want to show a united front and we want to help the civilians of Syria that the United States are willing to help them stand up.
In the article A World Without Nuclear Weapons, we are introduced to the question of whether or not a country would lose a war without resorting to chemical weapons. The article goes on to say how a world without nuclear weapons would be a world that was constantly nervous and on the edge, which is not a healthy way to live. Either way, a war with Syria is not the best idea because if we are to attack them, then we have to be prepared for the repercussions that we will face, such as retaliation and terrorist threats.

An attack with Syria will also cause mass casualties and we are not at liberty to harm citizens who are trying to break free from their government. In class some of us argued that a war with Syria would be The United States of America asserting dominance over another “weakened” state, however you would only go to war with a country when you believe that you would win.

Colonialism and Middle Eastern Conflict

         In this post, I will address Lecture 13 on weak or failed states, specifically our subsequent class discussion about the critique of colonialism and whether it is to blame for many failed states. I will argue that colonialism and colonial borders are not in fact the cause of much of the conflict in the Middle East.

         Proponents of the colonialist critique in the Middle East argue that the Sykes-Picot deal was designed in a manner that fulfilled the interest of the West based on the ground realities that existed at the time (1916) and that it was a solution that was far from optimal in establishing a stable long-term existence in the Middle East. However, I argue that that better borders, drawn with careful attention to the region’s ethnic and religious diversity, would not have spared the Middle East a century’s worth of violence, and even that better borders did not exist. Specifically, in class we discussed a case-study of Iraq. Looking at present-day borders reveals a few similarities with the local Ottoman boundaries in place before the French and British arrived. The three separate provinces -- Mosul, Baghdad and Basra -- that were joined to make Iraq, for example, were often treated as a coherent economic and military area by the Ottoman government. And of course, the region’s geographic unity going back to the origins of human civilization, had long been recognized in the term “Mesopotamia.” To the West, Mount Lebanon had been carved out as a special administrative unit following religious violence there in the 1800’s. The only country in the area for which no ancient borders existed was Jordan -- it was formed in 1922 from some undesirable bits of arid land as something for Britain’s ally, Abdullah, to rule over. (It should be noted that the country with the most arbitrary borders, Jordan, has had the most peaceful history.) At best, creating more countries would have just meant more borders to fight over, while fewer large countries would have turned regular wars into civil ones.

I would argue that creating smaller independent states would only have prefigured the conflicts dividing Iraq today. A predominantly Kurdish state built around the old Ottoman province of Mosul would inevitability have become ensnared in the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Turkey and its own Kurdish minority. Similarly, Shiite Iran would have had religious grounds to try to incorporate a small Shiite state based around Basra, whereas a state based around the central province of Baghdad would have hated to sit back and watch its neighbors grow rich off oil deposits that it lacked.

While I certainly believe that certain ethnic and/or religious differences have played significant roles in the violence in the Middle East, I reject the critique that colonialism and its arbitrary borders doomed these states to weakness or failure. When closely examined, a better alternative is unclear and violence seems almost inevitable. The militarization of these ethnic and religious identities, rather than the failure of perfectly placed state borders to alleviate tension between them, explains much of violence in the Middle East today. It should also be noted that in some cases, especially in Africa, colonialism can be identified as the cause of weak or failed states, and my argument applies only to the region of the Middle East.

     

Soft Power, Hard Power, and the Syrian Conflict

Response Blog Post #2

You have probably heard of the terrifying torture that thousands of Syrian detainees endured in Bashar al-Assad’s jails. People were tortured, starved and burnt, all because of the movement of people who were protesting against the Asaad regime, which has been governing Syria for almost a half century. Russia has many reasons for supporting Syria. At this point, the only place where Russia and the US hold common ground is that they want to eliminate ISIS. This is all good and well, but Syria is not complying with the ISIS defeat attempts. It is true that the current ongoing civil war and interference by ISIS is creating a lot more of a complicated problem, but that nonetheless doesn’t change the fact that there were many human rights violations made by Asaad against his own citizens. There needs to be some kind of intervention in Syria, to optimally stop both Asaad, ISIS, and the civil war. However, Russia believes that Asaad should stay in power. Therefore, the US should try to use its soft power and hard power in order to get Russia to change its position on Syria.

President Obama said the US would draw a line if Syria used chemical weapons, and then they used them in 2013. So, in August of this year, the US used hard power by imposing sanctions against Syria. Unfortunately, attempts that the US are making, such as these sanctions, seem to be in vain, because Russia hinders not only international attempts at intervention, but even Obama administration's domestic case for air strikes. With Russia’s great resistance to the US’ hard power against Syria, it seems to be that the most successful way of handling this situation is through diplomacy with both countries.

The approach that I think would be best is for the US to convince Russia to let go of their stronghold of backing Syria so that the US and Russia can face Asaad together. Though that would be the best solution, the next option would be for the US to face Asaad directly and use a mixture of soft power and hard power to get him to compromise, and at the very least, comply with not committing any more human rights violations. In our IR class, we have learned that hard power is military or economic coercive power, but soft power is more of a persuasive, attractive power. The soft power would be to convince Asaad to step down by bargaining with him and offering him exile and protection. Doing this, combined with continued efforts at sanctions (hard power), will provide a much more effective approach to this Syrian crisis.