Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention can be defined as a states use of force to stop a mass atrocity. The three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” are first, it is the sovereign states responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens. Second, the international community has a responsibility to assist the other states that chose to intervene. Third, the international community must use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes.  

As kind as this form of intervention may seem, states also have ulterior motives. One theory is they only want to spread their own democratic ideals. Although many would believe that is not a harmful goal to have, there are certain consequences that may follow. Diplomatic interventions aggravate anti-American sentiments and encourage terrorist hostility. Terrorist organizations thrive in poverty stricken areas due to the growing dislike of their corrupt governments. When we provide funds to support their governments, we quickly become their next target of hated. It is also hard to take away funds once they are given, even if the leaders use them un-democratically. In a way, American taxpayers are funding a dictatorship.

Another ulterior motive may be that states are only looking to personally gain from assisting foreign countries in need. Of course many underdeveloped countries are in need of our support, but countries that we aid are not just chosen out of a hat. Many are chosen because of their resources such as Bosnia for their minerals and arable land, and Iraq for their petroleum and natural gas. I see humanitarian intervention as the United States way of buying the government’s official support. This backfires on the United States when the government does not share their riches with their citizens.

The essay titled, “Achieving Diplomatic Goals through Humanitarian Means,” by University of Maryland student Michaela Gramzinski created a simple solution to prevent these harmful effects of humanitarian intervention. She says, “To gain popular support of U.S.-funded programs, programs must be centered on community demands, and ultimately must be run by the community.” In other words, funding local programs in poverty stricken areas would achieve more than throwing money at corrupt governments. This policy would also work towards preventing terrorist groups from forming. Aiding local communities “creates a generally positive association between the humanitarian programs and the U.S. as a donor.” Also, there is a possibility that the children whose community was helped would one day grow up and work as a government official who backs the United States. Gaining support of the people through soft power is more effective than any other militaristic or economic action we could take. Community programs that reflect the interests of the common people can start the growth of democracy in foreign states. 

Dealing With China

There is a clear power shift taking place in the world. China has been on the rise ever since they started their own industrialization. With the new economic power has given the ability to project themselves as a major player in the international theater.  But with this new found power a new potential threat to the United States rears its head. While conflict is not likely at the moment, it is important to take the necessary steps to mitigate and prepare for any potential conflict.

But the interesting question is; what is the most likely conflict to arise involving China? I personally think it will evolve out of the border disputes in the South China Sea and with Japan. China could easily become interested in gain a stronger hold on the south china see do to the economic resources it has. It is estimates that roughly $5.3 trillion dollar worth of trade passes through the South China Sea per year. Beyond this it holds 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Both the aspect of regulating trade and controlling natural resources make this territory very alluring. But other countries that the United States is allies with claim a number of the Islands in the South China Sea. So if conflict breaks out we would most likely be dragged into the mix.

So, now that we have decided what our conflict will look like how do we prevent or prepare for it. And what is being done right now is what I would do if it was my choice. The United States is currently shifting its military interest from the Middle East even with the trouble stirring up with ISIL, the military’s strategy wanders to a new theater. That theater is the Pacific. We are shifting our focus and looking to supporting our allies in the pacific such as, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. With an increased presence in the region we can deter China from becoming too bold and attempting to annex island and threaten the safety and stability of our allies and interests in the Pacific. While doing this we can focus on helping the already established Japanese, South Korean, and Philippine militaries to be prepared to take a forward position in dealing with any possible problems they might face as China continues to rise. By doing this we can lessen the brunt of the potential conflict on ourselves and quite possibly with proper strategic checks and balances we could avoid a conflict all together. 

The rise of the East

Why should the United States of America fear the rise of China? There are a few reasons. First, China’s economy has quadrupled in size since market reforms in the 1970’s. They also have become a major manufacturing center which consumes about a third of the global supply of iron, steel, and coal. Second, it is said that China’s military spending has increased 18% in the last few years. Not only do they pose as an economic threat, but now Americans are worried they can compete with our military.

            Both of these fears can be explained with a little bit of background knowledge. Of course China’s economy is going grow faster than the United States. They just started developing their markets 30 years ago; therefore, they are just catching up to our level. They are believed to have one of the largest economies because the country has a population of 1.35 billion, one fifth of the world’s population, compared to the U.S.’s fewer than 400 million. Also, China may be building up their military, but we should not automatically assume they are planning to destroy the U.S.. China is undergoing many domestic problems such as the growing discontent of rural farmers and migrants. Their leaders are putting more focus on that issue which explains why their military is growing.

            The United States should not feel threatened by China yet. We should invest our time and money into our countries education and industry so we remain more advanced. China would not benefit from attacking us if they depend on us to keep their industries flourishing. It makes me feel uneasy that they are now controlling and owning most of our industries, but that does not seem like a beginning of world domination. For example, on the back of every iPhone, it says “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This proves we provide the brain power, and they provide the work power. I prefer brain power over cheap labor.

            What worries me the most is the amount of Chinese students enrolling in American colleges. Between 2009 and 2010, 57,000 Chinese students were enrolled in American colleges. It is true having exchange students creates good relations with foreign nations, but how do we expect to stay ahead if they are competing at the same level as our youth? They can take their knowledge back to China and become better innovators than we are. However, I firmly believe every American naturally has the drive and the passion to rise above their competitors.

            I’ll end off with a quotation I found in one of the articles I was reading: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.” This means any form of government is going to exploit someone and we should not feel threatened by China’s growth based off of our different ideologies. 

The DPT (Dream-world Peace Theory)

The democratic peace theory (or DPT) is so tantalizing that criticizing its seemingly perfect world-view comes off as narcissistic and negative. However, the DPT is itself very far from perfect. Certainly, in an ideal world internal political revolutions would lead to less international conflict, but this is far from the case. The reality is that on a planet with 195 separate countries, governments, cultures, and ideologies, world peace may always be unattainable.

            Conversely, the DPT is not as hopeless as initially portrayed. Problems within the DPT are moderately simple but gravely entrenched, and the primary issue with this theory is the application of democracy globally. The American democracy is not just supported constitutionally, but culturally. Since its founding, the United States has upheld values of freedom, independence, and personal choice. These are not just words on a page, but deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

            A substantial problem with this democratic complex is that it does not seem to exist in non-democratic nations. Therefore, invading and militarily forcing democratic values on reluctant foreign nations may seem irrational. Logically, it is hard to justify expending time, money, resources, and American lives forcing others to adhere to our political ideology. It is somewhat ironic that this is not how a majority of presidents since Truman have felt. Beginning with the Truman Doctrine, American presidents have tended to believe that democratic nations are the safest, and intervened in a variety of places to ensure their ‘safety’. Scholars criticize a break in international affairs today and ideological goals of the future, but this is not the major problem at hand.

            Rather, the United States’ National Security Strategy needs to recognize that impressing its views on others is not the best way to approach the outside world. Cultures vary drastically from continent to continent, even across mere rivers, and it is virtually impossible to create a world in which everyone believes the same cookie cutter definition of democracy. Truly, there have been enough trial and errors to disprove this already. Continually, the American definition and structure of democracy hardly functions domestically, let alone applied to foreign nations. In our high tech age of instant communication, word processing, and around the clock access to politicians, we have had the most ‘do-nothing’ Congress in history. Few argue that our political system is healthy and functioning as planned, so attempting to apply this abroad seems shortsighted.

            In an ideal world with ideal workings, the democratic peace theory will eventually be achieved and function as best as possible. As stated by Jackson in the reading, the DPT has the most numerical and quantitative evidence backing it up. Hopefully numbers override history and cultural context and prove that world peace is possible; I would certainly love to be proven wrong.

How to combat China

I never really thought "how do we combat China?." I honestly don't find China as much of a threat to the United states. So in my opinion I don't think military action is needed at this time. If China were to do something to cross or attack the United states then I would say that military action is needed. China is behind the United states in many ways. They're behind us when it comes to military strength and technology. If the United states were to attack China it would be an easy win. In my opinion, the way to combat China is to start limiting trade with them and slowly reducing our interdependence on them. This reduces the leverage that China may have on the United States in the future. If they were to catch up to us or not. In the next 40 years there may be a chance of a big power shift so the government of the United states needs to prepare now. With more independence comes more power in the long run. If the United States is the most powerful country now, given how much we depend on other countries for a lot of our goods, then imagine how powerful we will be if we were almost 100% independent. I believe that this is by far the best way to combat a potential future shift in power to a country like China. 

Realistic View of ISIL

The realist view of International relations focuses on importance of different states competing for power over each other, mainly through military conquest. During this struggle, each state’s aim is to achieve an ultimate hegemony over the other states. One of the largest problems at the front of the United States’ foreign policy is dealing with ISIL. The situation with ISIL is interesting, because at a first glance it could pose some problems for the realist view. There are two roads to take when thinking about ISIL: that ISIL is a state as they claim to be, or that they are a mere terrorist organization. Realists view states to be the only important players in the game that is IR, so if ISIL is a state this poses no problems for the Realist view. But, if ISIL was view as a terrorist organization they should not be anywhere as important as they are according to realism. While this may appear to be a hole in realist theory, the situation with ISIL can still be justified from a realist perspective.

The argument for why the United States is engaging with ISIL can be derived from the ultimate realist goal of hegemony over the other states. Therefor United States ultimately wants and needs to have hegemony to guarantee its security. But, this hegemony does not have to come from the elimination of other states but by making sure that you are a monolith of power that can control the other states in the international theater. The United States therefore should make decisions that would be intended to retain ‘control’ over a certain state. A good example of this is the United States involvement in the Gulf War. The United States enter the Gulf War at the plea of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who feared being invaded by Iraqi force after they had invaded Kuwait. The United States did not want to lose their ‘control’ over Saudi Arabia, so the United States entered the Gulf War and pushed the Iraqi force out of Kuwait.  Now the United States’ ‘control’ in the region has expanded into Iraq after ten years of the Iraq War. The Iraq War has been costly and now the progress made in Iraq is being threatened by ISIL riding the momentum of the Syrian Civil War as far as it can take them. ISIL want control over Iraq to acquire a large Islamic population, to bolster their claims to caliphate creating their own state, thus removing western and the United States ‘control’ over Iraq. The threat of ISIL is not that they can directly threaten the United States, but they can undermine the United States control over Iraq while creating their own state.  The United States responded to this threat, in a very realist fashion, with fairly heavy handed bombing campaigns. So while ISIL may appear to be a contradiction to realism, after you scratch the surface and understand the motivations of the conflict you see that realism actually explains it fairly well. 

- Steve McNamara

From Tickner to Watson, it's time for equality

As an educated woman capable of critical thought, I wholly identify with J. Ann Tickner’s analysis of Morgenthau’s principles. The field of international relations, much like many other educational fields, is truly influenced by masculine conceptions of human nature, power, and morality. Reading this article is incredibly timely considering Emma Watson’s recent speech at the United Nations, which launched her new campaign centered on gender equality, HeforShe. Tickner and Watson’s arguments are incredibly similar in most ways, but definitely differ as they discuss gender roles in society. In tandem, they paint an interesting picture for the future of women in positions of power and international relations in general and call for meaningful change worldwide.

Evidence of extreme gendering can be found with a quick glance down any aisle in any toy store. There are girl toys and boy toys, and an implicit divide between the two with little room for gray area. The world of international politics is similar in this regard.

Tickner relays that women tend to be “…more comfortable dealing with domestic issues such as social welfare that are more compatible with their nurturing skills” while “nuclear strategy, with its vocabulary of power, threat, force and deterrence, has a distinctly masculine ring” (15). Gender roles are a societal norm that cast definitive shadows for both men and women, which is something both Watson and Tickner agree on.

Unique in Watson’s speech is the notion that men are just as negatively impacted by gender stereotypes as women are. Typically, masculinity is defined as powerful and emotionally objective. Tickner’s description paints this portrayal as a positive role for men to fulfill, while Watson describes just the opposite. Watson relates that she personally “…started questioning gender based assumptions a long time ago”, since the age of eight. She continues to say recount “when at eighteen my male friends were unable to express their feelings”, and how detrimental this is for mental health, stating that suicide is the number one killer of men ages 20-49 in the UK. Clearly, stringent gender roles are a problem worldwide, for both men and women alike.

Though Tickner and Watson differ in their perception of male gender roles, they both call for meaningful change for women globally. Morgenthau’s six principles have an anachronistic tone as predetermined international relations laws that will remain unchanged as time progresses. However, this is an incredibly dangerous notion, which both Tickner and Watson relay. First and foremost, traditional conceptions of power value war and coercion as primary means for dealing with tension. In a nuclear weapon ridden world, this is incredibly lethal. Tickner also states that, “The ecology movement…and the women’s movement are deeply interconnected. Both stress living in equilibrium with nature rather than dominating it” which is another concept integral to international relations today. Aggressive and wasteful international policies are not only outdated, but also unsustainable. Different, more feminine, approaches are undeniably important to consider as we attempt to create a healthier, more inclusive world for future generations.

The most important takeaways from both works are that including women in the international relations conversation can not only create a more cooperative and peaceful world, but also create worldwide freedom from harmful gender stereotypes. Tickner advocates for a new global perspective that “…appreciates cultural diversity but at the same time recognizes a growing interdependence” and “avoids conflict where possible” by taking feminine opinions into account. Watson envisions a world where “we all perceive gender roles on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals”. These two powerful ideas in cooperation can truly change the international perception of power globally and free both men and women from binding stereotypes.