Relationships and Processes
States/Weak States/Sovereignty/Blood 13-47
Just War/War Crimes/Genocide 48-94
Human Aggression 95-131
Ethnic Conflict/Nationalism 155-184
Revolution/Internal Conflict 185-233
U.N./Peacekeeping/Humanitarian Intervention 247-259
Nuclear Weapons/Weapons of Mass Destruction 260-268
Kagan: article and Asmus & Pollack article 269-295
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea,; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. 
State of Nature
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan [9/13/97]
runs in the opposite direction. The phenomenon of 'failed states' has become
well known to us. We have seen genocidal violence, and combatants who deliberately
target civilian populations and relief workers. The assertion of exclusionary
identities--ethnic, religious, national, tribal--has intensified.
28 January 1999
United Nations Press Release SG/SM/6878
SECRETARY-GENERAL CALLS FOR UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF KOSOVO CITIZENS, IN STATEMENT TO NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Kofi Annan Stresses Peaceful Negotiation Only Way to Resolve Kosovo Conflict
statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
The bloody wars of the last decade have left us with no illusions about the difficulty of halting internal conflicts -- by reason or by force -- particularly against the wishes of the government of a sovereign State. But nor have they left us with any illusions about the need to use force, when all other means have failed. We may be reaching that limit, once again, in the former Yugoslavia.
six trends shaping institutional change globally
1. THE SPREAD OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY -
2. THE DOMINANCE
OF MARKET FORCES -
3. THE INTEGRATION OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY -
4. THE TRANSFORMATION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND LABOR MARKETS -
5. THE SPEED OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE -
6. THE MEDIA REVOLUTION AND CONSUMERISM -
U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan remarked in a recent speech:
"Half the world's population has never even made, or received, a telephone call."
The rapid trends of globalization create an interesting hazard for America. Globalization accelerates the spread of American culture, and that's good and bad. It often leads countries and movements to see the culture, feel the culture, interact with the culture and reject it, sometimes in violent ways. [GWB]
protests against WTO, IMF and World Bank; November 1999 and April 2000.
Particular, specific, local, parochial interests are resilient, even resurgent, and a major source of conflict in a globalized world-Balkans, Central Africa represent struggle of 'localized' forces in a global context.
destabilizing change. Benefits for many, a better way of life, but social
destabilization, political crises, poor getting poorer for some.
International Review of the Red Cross No. 834, p. 277-301 ROMANTIC PARTICULARISM •after the Cold War we are seeing a clash between globalization and, as a backlash, renewed assertions of romantic (and dangerous) particularism.
•On one hand, we have global economics and global standards of human rights and humanitarian affairs.
•On other hand, we see chauvinistic nationalism, virulent ethnicity, and intolerant religion.
•Globalism draws humanity together through common values and action.
•Romantic particularism asserts emotional or sentimental differences and diversity of a pernicious sort.
•Romantic particularism, e.g., by Serb nationalism, Hutu dominance, and Hindu or Islamic supremacy SUBMERGES THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN LARGER CAUSES OF GROUP IDENTITY.
• individual identity is frequently bound up in group identity.
•But it is not the assertion of individual identity that matters so much for the future of the Geneva Conventions (and their Protocols) as it is the assertion of ROMANTIC GROUP CAUSES.
•They result all too often in inhumanity to individuals, and groups of "outside" individuals, which violates the basic principles of the Geneva Conventions.
•Serb nationalism led to ethnic cleansing,
•Hutu quest for dominance to genocide, and
•Hindu and Islamic superiority to attacks on Christians
disturbing events and trends: Germany, France, and the United States, where sub-national groups exhibit neo-Nazi or other racist attitudes towards, and sometimes even perpetrate attacks against, those in "foreign" or "other" groups.
•There is a DIFFERENCE between wanting to preserve one's group identity or culture and
•being willing to attack or otherwise abuse those in the "other" category.
•former constitutes a moderate or reasonable particularism - for example, Danish nationalism.
•latter makes up romantic particularism - which is dangerous by the very fact of asserting an unreasoned superiority.
•The former is compatible with the Geneva Conventions;
•the latter is not.
1- FIXED TERRITORY
4- SOVEREIGNTY -
CAPACITY TO OPERATE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
MODERN STATE AND
SOVEREIGNTY EMERGE IN 1648 FROM THE
PEACE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
only one authority on a territory. exclusive power to make and enforce laws. a match between authority and territory.
NO STATE MAY BE ORDERED TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST ITS WILL
NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DOMESTIC [INTERNAL] AFFAIRS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE
ALL STATES ARE EQUAL
ALL STATES HAVE
CHARTER of the UNITED NATIONS
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the SOVEREIGN EQUALITY of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from THE THREAT OR USE OF FORCE against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE DOMESTIC JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
PEACE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA
CUIUS REGIO EIUS
RELIGIO[WHOSE THE REGION, HIS THE RELIGION]
A PRINCE HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE RELIGION OF HIS SUBJECTS.
IF A STATE CAN CONTROL RELIGION, THEN IT CAN ALSO CONTROL:
That Are Costly, Difficult, Even Unwanted
BUT LEADS TO A STRONG, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE
Sovereignty arose as an idea to produce order; to stop violence between and within states over religious questions.
But it encourages
disorder by recognizing no higher rules and authority over a sovereign
WEAK STATES 51 189
ROBERT JACKSON, "QUASI-STATES, DUAL REGIMES, AND NEOCLASSICAL THEORY: INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE AND THE THIRD WORLD," IO 41(4) AUTUMN 1987.
SINCE WWII -- HISTORICAL
MAJOR CHANGES IN SOVEREIGN STATEHOOD
UN FOSTERED NEW SOVEREIGNTIES AROUND THE WORLD.
African States 1960s [and European and Central Asian States 1990s] are juridical artifacts of a highly accommodating regime of internat'l law and politics which is an expression of a 20th C. Anticolonial Ideology of Self-determination.
A profound change in international relations.
basic historical change signals a fundamental alteration in the constitutive
principles of sovereignty, particularly as regard the 3rd world.
1955 - 3 INDEPENDENT AFRICAN STATES; 1965 - 31 States.
[PCWE-- 20+ new states from fYugoslavia & xSoviet]
not a result of colonies meeting CLASSICAL EMPIRICAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR
African colonial boundaries drawn in Berlin in 1880s for convenience of colonial masters; not with intent they would eventually become sovereign states.
stemmed from a sudden and widespread change of mind and mood about the
legitimacy of colonialism.
[AFRICAN] ELITES ACQUIRED TITLE TO SELF-GOVT.
Quasi, Nascent or
Pseudo States are states mainly by International Courtesy. Brought into
the International Community on a basis of equal sovereignty rather than
some kind of associate statehood.
Juridical Statehood - a Right of Self-Determination [Negative Sovereignty] without yet possessing empirical statehood, a capacity to govern or Positive sovereignty.
THE STATE IS VIEWED AS AN AUTONOMOUS ACTOR IN THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ARENAS
THE PRIME DETERMINANTS
OF STATE BEHAVIOR ARE:
HEGEMONY: ESTABLISH THE SUPREMACY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LAWS AND ITS AUTHORITY OVER ITS TERRITORY AND CIVIL SOCIETY.
SECURITY: ENFORCE INTERNAL SECURITY AND PROVIDE EXTERNAL DEFENSE.
AUTONOMY: SOVEREIGNTY; INDEPENDENCE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL NORM OF TRUE STATEHOOD.
LEGITIMATION: VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITY IS NEEDED TO ACCUMULATE POWER AND EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE AUTHORITY.
REVENUE: RESOURCES TO SATISFY THE ABOVE, PARTICULARLY SECURITY. SUPERVISION OF THE NATION'S RESOURCES.
CAPACITY TO BUILD
AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE (ROADS, POST, TELEPHONE,
RAILWAYS, . . .)
CAPACITY TO RENDER BASIC SERVICES SUCH AS SANITATION, EDUCATION, HOUSING, FIRE BRIGADE, HOSPITALS AND CLINICS, IMMUNIZATION FACILITIES;
CAPACITY FOR GOVERNANCE AND MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER.
WHY ARE THEY WEAK?
PRIMARY SOCIAL VALUE
TO PRIMARY GROUP SUCH AS EXTENDED FAMILY
EDUCATED ELITES ARE CITIZENS OF TWO PUBLICS IN THE SAME SOCIETY
a. CIVIC PUBLIC from which they gain materially but give to only grudgingly;
b. PRIMORDIAL PUBLIC From which they derive little or no material benefits but to which they give generously.
the unwritten law . . . it is legitimate to rob the civic public in order to strengthen the primordial public.
3- ARTIFICIAL NATIONAL
HIGHLY SEGMENTED ETHNICALLY
4- COLONIAL [IMPERIAL]
& SOVIET-COMMUNIST LEGACY
STATE OFFICES POSSESS UNCERTAIN AUTHORITY
symbol of exploitation & repression
COLONIAL EXAMPLE & MODEL MEANS GOVERNMENT:
Force and Brutality
Detached Ruling Elite
Corruption and Waste
Ineffective for Subjects
5- LACK OF COMMON
No Merging of State and Society as Common Expression of Set of Shared Values
Lack of Organic Unity Betw State and Society
Lack of Sustained and Widespread Public Commitment to Govt Institutions
Lack of 'Constitution'
-DOES NOT COMMAND SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
-IS EXTERNALLY DEPENDENT
-HAS INADEQUATE MARKETS
-NO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR AGENDA OR VISION
-IS NOT SEEN AS BEING IN CONTROL
-GOV'T IS UNDER SKILLED, OVERWORKED AND CAN'T IMPLEMENT
-NOT ABLE TO MEET EXPECTATIONS
-LACK OF SUPPORT/LEGITIMACY
-LACKS TERRITORIAL CONTROL
Robert D. Kaplan. THE COMING ANARCHY: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, Tribalism, and Disease Are Rapidly Destroying the Social Fabric of Our Planet. The Atlantic Monthly, Feb 1994 v273 n2 p 44(21)
The crime and lawlessness of West Africa is a model of the future
ANARCHY - chaos, lawlessness, disorder, insurrection, tumult, turmoil, upheaval, discord. No ruler; absence of government.
The Minister: "In forty-five years I have never seen things so bad. We did not manage ourselves well after the British departed. But what we have now is something worse--the revenge of the poor, of the social failures, of the people least able to bring up children in a modern society."
•recent coup in Sierra Leone. "The boys who took power in Sierra Leone come from houses like this." a corrugated metal shack teeming with children. "In three months these boys confiscated all the official Mercedes, Volvos, and BMWs and willfully wrecked them on the road."
•a coup's leaders shot the people who paid for his schooling, "to erase the humiliation and mitigate the power his middle-class sponsors held over him."
•The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest places in the world.. "The government in Sierra Leone has no writ after dark,"
•"in the villages of Africa it is perfectly natural to feed at any table and lodge in any hut. But in the cities this communal existence no longer holds. You must pay for lodging and be invited for food. When young men find out that their relations cannot put them up, they become lost. They join other migrants and slip gradually into the criminal process."
• Here in West Africa we have a lot of superficial Islam and superficial Christianity. Western religion is undermined by animist beliefs not suitable to a moral society, because they are based on irrational spirit power.
•polygamy. Designed for a pastoral way of life, polygamy continues to thrive in sub-Saharan Africa. In an urban environment, loose family structures are largely responsible for the world's highest birth rates and the explosion of the HIV virus on the continent. Like the communalism and animism, they provide a weak shield against the corrosive social effects of life in cities.
•In those cities African culture is being redefined while desertification and deforestation--overpopulation--drive peasants out of the countryside.
A PREMONITION OF
West Africa is the symbol of worldwide demographic, environmental, and societal stress, in which criminal anarchy emerges as the real "strategic" danger.
•There is no other place on the planet where political maps are so deceptive--where, in fact, they tell such lies--as in West Africa. Start with Sierra Leone. According to the map, it is a nation-state of defined borders, with a government in control of its territory.
•the demographic reality of West Africa is a countryside draining into dense slums by the coast, ultimately the region's rulers will come to reflect the values of these shanty-towns.
• As many internal African borders begin to crumble, a more impenetrable boundary threatens to isolate the continent as a whole: the wall of disease.
THE EVENTS OF THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS, then, one must understand environmental
scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation
of war. Each concept except the first relies partly on the one or ones
before it, meaning that the last two--new approaches to mapmaking and to
warfare--are the most important.
1. THE ENVIRONMENT AS A HOSTILE POWER
the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh--developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts--will be the core foreign-policy challenge
2. SKINHEAD COSSACKS, JUJU WARRIORS
Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" The world, has been moving from nation-state conflict to ideological conflict to, finally, cultural conflict.
•national borders will mean less, more power will fall into the hands of less educated, less sophisticated groups. The real borders are the most tangible and intractable ones: those of culture and tribe.
•Huntington writes, "First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic," involving, among other things, history, language, and religion.
•"Second . . . interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness."
• Huntington points to interlocking conflicts among Hindu, Muslim, Slavic Orthodox, Western, Japanese, Confucian, Latin American, and possibly African civilizations
• rebuttal of Huntington, Fouad Ajami: "The world of Islam divides and subdivides. The battle lines in the Caucasus . . . are not coextensive with civilizational fault lines. The lines follow the interests of states.
•a rundown, crowded planet of skinhead Cossacks and juju warriors, influenced by the worst refuse of Western pop culture and ancient tribal hatreds, and battling over scraps of overused earth in guerrilla conflicts that ripple across continents and intersect in no discernible pattern--meaning there's no easy-to-define threat.
MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE POLITICAL EARTH SINCE 1989 HAS UNDERGONE IMMENSE CHANGE. BUT IT IS MINOR COMPARED WITH WHAT IS YET TO COME. The breaking apart and remaking of the atlas is only now beginning.
3. THE LIES OF MAPMAKERS
Consider the map of the world, with its 190 or so countries, each signified by a bold and uniform color: this map, with which all of us have grown up, is generally an invention of modernism, specifically of European colonialism.
•The state, recall, is a purely Western notion, Nor is the evidence compelling that the state, as a governing ideal, can be successfully transferred. Yet this inflexible, artificial reality staggers on,
•the colonial borders of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, and other Arab states are often contrary to cultural and political reality.
4. A NEW KIND OF WAR
I asked Pentagon officials about the nature of war in the twenty-first century, the answer I frequently got was "Read Van Creveld." Transformation of War
• "By compelling the senses to focus themselves on the here and now," Van Creveld writes, war "can cause a man to take his leave of them."
•in places where the Western Enlightenment has not penetrated and where there has always been mass poverty, people find liberation in violence.
• Physical aggression is a part of being human.
• Debunking Clausewitz, Van Creveld,, writes, "Clausewitz's ideas rooted: ever since 1648, war had been waged overwhelmingly by states."
•state conflict is now ending, and with it the clear "threefold division into government, army, and people"
• to see the future, look back to the wars in medieval Europe
•"In all these struggles political, social, economic, and religious motives were hopelessly entangled. armies consisted of mercenaries & military entrepreneurs. they robbed the countryside on their own behalf. . . ."
•the radius of trust within tribal societies is narrowed to one's immediate family and guerrilla
•war-making entities will no longer be restricted to a specific territory. Loose and shadowy organisms such as Islamic terrorist organizations
• "Armed conflict will be waged by men on earth, not robots in space. It will have more in common with the struggles of primitive tribes than with large-scale conventional war."
• RE-PRIMITIVIZED MAN: WARRIOR SOCIETIES operating at a time of unprecedented resource scarcity and planetary overcrowding.
•"Once the legal monopoly of armed force, long claimed by the state, is wrested out of its hands, existing distinctions between war and crime will break down much as is already the case today in . . . Lebanon, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Peru, or Colombia."
• Future wars will be those of communal survival, aggravated or, in many cases, caused by environmental scarcity. These wars will be subnational, meaning that it will be hard for states and local governments to protect their own citizens physically.
•THIS IS HOW MANY STATES WILL ULTIMATELY DIE. As state power fades--and the state's ability to help weaker groups--peoples and cultures around the world will be thrown back upon their own strengths and weaknesses, with fewer equalizing mechanisms to protect them.
5. THE LAST MAP
•Instead of borders, there would be moving "centers" of power, Replacing fixed and abrupt lines would be a shifting pattern of buffer entities.
•add other factors, such as migrations of populations, explosions of birth rates, vectors of disease. the "Last Map"--will be an ever-mutating chaos.
• The Indian subcontinent offers examples of what is happening. For different reasons, both India and Pakistan are increasingly dysfunctional. it is difficult to imagine that the Indian state will survive the next century. Pakistan's problem is more basic still: the country makes no geographic or demographic sense. Pakistan is a patchwork of ethnic groups, increasingly in violent conflict with one another. "India and Pakistan will probably fall apart,"
WAR IN THE 21st CENTURY?
END OF THE COLD WAR
NUCLEAR THREAT GREATLY DIMINISHED BUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE THE ONLY CREDIBLE THREAT TO THE AMERICAN HOMELAND
--DETERRENCE not viable for terrorists
POST COLD WAR ERA [PCWE]
THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO
THE VITAL INTERESTS OF THE WEALTHY DEMOCRACIES
ZONES OF PEACE and ZONES OF TURMOIL
good neighborhoods & bad neighborhoods
•GREAT CONFUSION ABOUT HOW TO BEHAVE
•THE RULES OF BEHAVIOR THAT STATES FOLLOWED DURING THE COLD WAR MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR TODAY. HAVE TO DEVELOP NEW ONES
THERE IS NO GOOD
BASIS FOR A LONG-TERM POLITICAL OR STRATEGIC POLICY IN THE ZONES OF TURMOIL.
INSTEAD, ??? SUPPORT PRINCIPLES??
LOGISTICAL AIR & SEA LIFT CAPACITY
--in Geo-strategic Terms the USA Is an Island
-only US, Russia, Britain have capacity to lift substantial forces.
--In HI other nations must rely on these few
HIGH TECHNOLOGY WEAPONS STAND-OFF & CASUALTY-FREE
-Army is the paramount service; rapid deployment Marines; Tactical Air
--part-time Front Line Army did not work
-Air Force And Navy Focus on Glamour weapons--nukes, Missiles, Subs--is out of Date
VASTLY SUPERIOR, SUFFER FEWER LOSSES
•NATO Losses in Kosovo  were ZERO
ZONES OF PEACE
America, Western Europe, Japan, Oceania.
THE RICH STATES
THE FIRST WORLD- 2nd, 3rd, 4th worlds
OECD, NATO, European Union, Bretton Woods Institutions-IMF & World Bank
NOT ONLY AT PEACE, these 30+ states have an overwhelming military and economic advantage over the rest of the world
POSSESS ALMOST ALL OF THE WORLD'S MILITARY CAPABILITY and dominate all new TECHNOLOGY.
THEY ARE INDISPENSABLE
TO ANY EFFORTS TO CONFRONT DISORDER
place USA at forefront
quick reaction forces
20% world population
94.6% commercial loans
80.6% domestic savings
80.5% domestic investment
94% research and dev
Fukuyama, The End
of History? 20th Century liberalism was challenged by ideological violence;
first by absolutism [WWI]; then fascism [WWII]; and last by Marxism-Leninism
[Cold War]. Economic and political liberalism have proved their viability
over centuries; no challengers with global pretensions remain.
States "at the end of history" - economic cooperation
States "still in history" - ethnic, nationalist violence and terrorism
Maynes "Relearning Intervention," Foreign Policy 98 Spring 1995.
INTERSTATE CONFLICT v. INTRASTATE CONFLICT
ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENTS MANEUVER USING TOOLS OF DIPLOMACY AND DETERRENCE,
THREATS USED TO INFLUENCE OTHERS
NO EFFORT IS MADE TO INFLUENCE INTERNAL BEHAVIOR.
TRYING TO CHANGE INTERNAL BEHAVIOR, LITTLE MEANS OF INFLUENCE ON INTERNAL ACTORS
NOT DEALING WITH CLEARLY ACCOUNTABLE ACTORS, WHO MAY HAVE LIMITED CONTROL OVER OTHERS WHO USE VIOLENCE.
LEADERS ARE MULTIPLE, DIVERSE, NOT LINKED IN A HIERARCHY.
NOT ALWAYS DEALING WITH RATIONAL ACTORS
THREE OPTIONS FOR
INT COMM WHEN INTERNAL--CIVIL, RELIGIOUS, OR ETHNIC--WAR BREAKS OUT:
VICTORY BY THE STRONGER PARTY
COMPELLING ALL PARTIES TO COMPROMISE BY THE INTRODUCTION OF OUTSIDE FORCE
ATTEMPT TO ENCOURAGE POWER-SHARING
Trying to change
internal behavior requires COMPELLENCE.
DETERRENCE can change external behavior.
In 1945, as World War II was ending, Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoeller was freed from the Nazi death camp at Dachau by American troops. He had been there since 1938.
Reflecting upon his experience, Pastor Niemoeller wrote:
"I Didn't Speak Up"
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
Niemoeller learned a hard lesson: that one must speak up for the truth and against injustice before it is too late.
"We preferred to keep quiet. We are most certainly not without guilt; and I ask myself over and over again what would have happened if 14,000 evangelical ministers all over Germany had defended the truth with their very lives in the year 1933 or 1934, when there must have been a possibility? I can imagine that we should have saved 30 to 40 million lives, for this is the price that we now have to pay."
nyt 10/18/93 "Dole Plans Bill to Bar the Use of G.I.'s in Haiti."
"RETURN OF ARISTIDE
NOT WORTH ONE AMERICAN LIFE."
DOLE WAS PREPARED TO PAY ANY PRICE TO STOP COMMUNISM NOT TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY OR PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS.
19 OCTOBER 1993 - "Senator Dole Conceded That If He Were President, He Would Oppose the Sort of Amendment He Was Offering."
British PM Neville
Chamberlain, 1938: MUNICH
"HOW HORRIBLE, FANTASTIC, INCREDIBLE, IT IS THAT WE SHOULD BE DIGGING TRENCHES AND TRYING ON GAS-MASKS HERE BECAUSE OF A QUARREL IN A FARAWAY COUNTRY BETWEEN PEOPLE OF WHOM WE KNOW NOTHING!"
I believe it is peace for our time . . .
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
-- British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Sept. 30, 1938
BUT in 1939, CHAMBERLAIN reversed himself:
"If, in spite of all, we find ourselves force to embark upon a struggle, . . . we shall not be fighting for the political future of a far-away city in a foreign land; we shall be fighting for the preservation of those principles, the destruction of which would involve the destruction of all possibility of peace and security for the peoples of the world."
DOCTRINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Speech by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the Economic Club of Chicago. 22 April 1999
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister:
I am absolutely delighted to be the first serving British Prime Minister to visit Chicago. I wanted to come here to the heart of this great country. To a great cosmopolitan city and the capital of middle America.
While we meet here in Chicago this evening, unspeakable things are happening in Europe. Awful crimes that we never thought we would see again have reappeared - ethnic cleansing, systematic rape, mass murder. I want to speak to you this evening about events in Kosovo. But I want to put these events in a wider context - economic, political and security - because I do not believe Kosovo can be seen in isolation.
No-one in the West who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that NATO's military action is justified. Bismarck famously said the Balkans were not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier. Anyone who has seen the tear-stained faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming across the border, heard their heart-rending tales of cruelty or contemplated the unknown fates of those left behind, knows that Bismarck was wrong.
This is a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on values. We cannot let the evil of ethnic cleansing stand. We must not rest until it is reversed. We have learned twice before in this century that appeasement does not work. If we let an evil dictator range unchallenged, we will have to spill infinitely more blood and treasure to stop him later.
This has been a very broad-ranging speech, but maybe the time is right for that. One final word on the USA itself. You are the most powerful country in the world, and the richest. You are a great nation. You have so much to give and to teach the world; and I know you would say, in all modesty, a little to learn from it too. It must be difficult and occasionally irritating to find yourselves the recipient of every demand, to be called upon in every crisis, to be expected always and everywhere to do what needs to be done. The cry 'What's it got to do with us?' must be regularly heard on the lips of your people and be the staple of many a politician running for office.
Yet just as with the parable of the individuals and the talents, so those nations which have the power, have the responsibility. We need you engaged. We need the dialogue with you. Europe over time will become stronger and stronger; but its time is some way off.
I say to you: never fall again for the doctrine of isolationism. The world cannot afford it. Stay a country, outward-looking, with the vision and imagination that is your nature. And realise that in Britain you have a friend and an ally that will stand with you, work with you, fashion with you the design of a future built on peace and prosperity for all, which is the only dream that makes humanity worth preserving
Singer and Wildavsky The Real World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones of Turmoil.
ALTRUISM - Benevolence, Charity, Humanitarianism, Generosity, Philanthropy, Munificence.
OR DEVOTION TO THE WELFARE OF OTHERS."
"Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits the survival of its species."
THE QUALITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER."
"When a country gets away from pursuing its national interest."
"Special caution and humility are in order when . . . we go beyond the protection of narrow national interest."
ALTRUISTIC SENSE OF OBLIGATION, AS A GOOD (LEADING) CITIZEN OF THE WORLD
TO SHOW THAT AGGRESSION DOES NOT PAY AND THAT INNOCENT PEOPLE CANNOT BE
SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES."
American morale depends in part on seeing our self as a responsible and generous leader of the world community. We are better off in a more decent world.
"The primary long-term goal of altruistic U.S. policy in the zones of turmoil--aside from crises that may call for some kind of intervention--should be encouragement of democracy. This goal serves our altruistic purposes of minimizing violence (aggression, war, and government mass murder) and speeding economic development."
HOW SHOULD AMERICA
WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN UNIMPORTANT PLACES?
[Friedman NYT 4/6/99]
unwillingness to commit ground troops . . . is an admission that its [Kosovo] liberation is not worth the loss of many, if any, U.S. lives. . . . the cruise missile is the . . . weapon of choice for combating evil in unimportant places.
Edward N. LUTTWAK, "WHERE ARE THE GREAT POWER? AT HOME WITH THE KIDS," Foreign Affairs, 73(4) July/August 1994.
1. Absence of functioning
GREAT POWERS is the cause of the world's inability to cope with all manner
of violent disorders.
2. Great powers were states strong enough to successfully wage war without calling on allies.
3. Preconditions for great power status: a readiness to use force and an acceptance of combat casualties, as long as not disproportionate.
4. Great powers relied on intimidation rather than combat. A willingness to use force was assumed.
Somalia retreat: "Special sensitivity that forces policy to change completely because 18 professional soldiers are killed." USA is a country with one gun-related death each 14 minutes.
Mammismo, Italian for "motherism." Small families. Used to be larger families, plus early death was a common familial experience. Loss of child in combat was tragic but acceptable.
IF ONLY DRAMATIC AND PROMINENT SITUATIONS WILL GET RESPONSE, THE RESPONSE WILL HAVE TO BE LARGER. CAN'T USE FORCE EFFICIENTLY, EARLY AND ON A SMALL SCALE TO PREVENT ESCALATION.
ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF THREATENING.
Can't be great unless interested in things beyond own immediate security. Must risk combat for other purposes. Must choose to fight.
"NO ADVANCED LOW-BIRTH-RATE
COUNTRIES CAN PLAY THE ROLE OF A CLASSIC GREAT POWER ANYMORE."
Political Will - a leader or a country's POLITICAL WILL is a collective force - the will of the people. Political leaders sense/express what the people are willing to support or permit.
UN Charter: Article
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from THE THREAT OR USE OF FORCE against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
ONE OF THE BASIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOSTILE STATES IS THE THREATENED USE OF FORCE
THE BEHAVIOR OF
STATES IS REGULATED BY THE THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE
THREAT IS DETERMINED BY:
1. ABILITY OR CAPABILITY
2. DETERMINATION OR WILLINGNESS TO ACT: REPUTATION
REPUTATION IS THE CRUCIAL FACTOR
STATES REACT TO ONE ANOTHER BASED ON REPUTATION
Afghanistan & Soviet Union - 1.2 million dead v. 14,000 dead
Vietnam & USA - 3 million dead v. 58,000 dead
1842 British invasion
of Afghanistan-16,500 troops and 12,000 dependents-only one survivor
THE REPUTATION FOR DETERMINATION IS HISTORICAL
A NATION'S REPUTATION IS BASED ON ITS ACTIONS AND REACTIONS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. [Centuries]
REPUTATION IS NOT
BASED ON CURRENT LEADERS, BUT . . .
BLUFFS: CAN BUY TIME. MUST BE PREPARED TO CARRY OUT YOUR THREAT, A SMALL POWER--HAITI, IRAQ, SERBIA--MAY CALL YOUR BLUFF--ESPECIALLY IF IT IS A POSITIVE THREAT.
its reputation for having tied down 30 Nazi divisions during WWII as a
shield. Also threat of a wider war on UN PKs and on Croatia, Macedonia,
Kosovo, . . .
The Cost of Victory
. . .
By Richard Cohen January 8, 2002
On one day in World War I, the British army lost 19,240 men. That was July 1, 1916, a Saturday. A single regiment, the storied 1st Newfoundland, was virtually annihilated. Maj. Gen. Sir Beauvoir de Lisle, reporting on what had happened, wrote, "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valor, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further."
ON INVADING IRAQ: LESS TALK, MORE UNITY
By Alexander M. Haig Jr. August 29, 2002 *washingtonpost.com
Recently President Bush has been deluged with advice about Iraq, much of it coming from those with a record of 100 percent error on the subject. We have forgotten too quickly the misjudgments of officials who once saw Saddam Hussein as a responsible leader, counseled former president George H.W. Bush that the Arabs would handle him (before Iraq seized Kuwait) and expected Hussein to be dumped by some anonymous colonel, at no risk to the United States. If we are to avoid similar blunders in the future, then we must quickly clarify the suddenly emerging muddle on Iraq.
Three points are most critical. First is the old adage that "loose lips sink ships." In this case, too many people in the administration are doing too much talking, some urging the illusion of war on the cheap through new weapons and internal uprisings, others just averse to the use of force. Both are undermining the resolve created by President Bush's earlier pronouncements.
Such a collapse of discipline invites not only a torrent of bad advice, but also -- more important -- a worsening of our credibility in the Persian Gulf, where our record is less than stellar. A brief recital of events in the past 30 years, ever since we unwisely allowed the British-run gulf security system to dissolve, establishes the point: the undermining and fall of the shah of Iran and his replacement by an aggressive and fanatical Muslim regime; the successful bombing of our embassy and Marines in Beirut, followed by a U.S. withdrawal; the hostages-Iran-contra episode; and Saddam Hussein's post-Gulf War challenges (1993, 1994, 1996, 1998), none of them effectively rebuked by American military power.
Sorry to say, both Republicans and Democrats have shared the blunders. The inconclusive Gulf War (and our recent derring-do in Afghanistan) established our capabilities rather more than our wisdom in decisively ending threats to our security and regional peace. Small wonder that local leaders (all of whom despise Saddam Hussein) doubt we will do the job this time.
The second critical point is rejecting the fallacy that we must settle the Israeli-Palestinian war before we can do anything about Iraq. This was false in 1990-91, and it remains untrue today. Those who counsel going to Jerusalem before going to Baghdad will never complete either journey. . . .
A third and final point: The war with Hussein never ended. Whatever the merits of announcing a preemptive military strategy or an objective of regime change, we need neither of these to justify action against Iraq. Iraq's agreement that international inspectors would confirm the destruction of its weapons of mass terror was essential to ending the Gulf War. Hussein has grossly violated these provisions since 1998. The U.N. Security Council is united on the demand that inspectors must return, and even those Arab governments publicly opposed to an attack on Iraq will, in almost the same breath, urge the Iraqis to cooperate on inspections. Thus, should we choose to go to Baghdad, we would simply be saying to Hussein: We are enforcing the international mandate on your weapons of mass destruction reached in 1991 and reaffirmed ever since. Stand in the way and you will be destroyed. The alternative is to destroy your weapons. Period.
Some of those urging war on Iraq have suggested that we seek a fresh mandate from the United Nations. Of course we should consult with our coalition partners. But to seek new Security Council resolutions after Hussein's blatant violations would also suggest that the previous clearly stated U.N. demands were irrelevant and unenforceable. This is a sure way to discredit the United Nations.
To sum it up: We have a historical credibility problem in the gulf that will not be easily overcome through rhetorical posturing or diplomatic niceties. We need less talk and more unity in Washington; a clear-headed presidential exposition of why Iraq and why now, tied to the existing international consensus on weapons of mass destruction; and regional actions that show our resolve and focus. Ultimately, an American foreign policy, or, for that matter, an international order that allows a country such as Iraq to acquire weapons of mass destruction while violating solemn agreements, is a guarantee of a world on the edge of greater terrors to come.
The writer is a former secretary of state, NATO commander and White House chief of staff.
WE WON THE BATTLE, BUT LOST THE WAR
levels: tactical, strategic, political
•"WAR IS A TRUE POLITICAL INSTRUMENT, A CONTINUATION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY OTHER MEANS"
WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT
TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS
•"War is too serious a matter to leave to soldiers." - Georges Clemenceau,
•the US Military says we never lost a battle or engagement with the enemy;
•BUT WE LOST THE WAR.
In Somalia [10/3/1993]
•in the battle of Mogadishu, the US Army Rangers completed their mission "successfully" [bringing back the men they went to arrest], killed over 500 of their attackers and lost only 18 their own men.
•However, this was followed by pictures of dead Americans dragged thru the streets of "Mog" and pictures of a captured Ranger.
•The US pulled
out of Somalia a ½ year later and did not intervene in the massacres
in Burundi, the genocide in Rwanda or in the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
A Failed Intervention Is Worse than Non-Intervention
The NATIONAL INTEREST
JFK - "every nation determines its policies in terms of its own interests."
FDR -1918 - Asst
Sec of Navy:
It is a fundamental principle that the foreign policy of our government is in the hands of the State Department. . . . As it is upon our foreign policy that naval estimates must be based, it will be recognized that the Navy Department has a vital interest in this question. It is probable that certain policies are of such importance to our national interests that they must be defended at all costs. On the other hand certain policies are not, by the expense they would entail, justified if they lead to war. Hence. . . . it is necessary for the Navy Department to know what policies it may be called upon to uphold by force, in order to formulate plans and building programs.
In May l940, the
United States Chief of Naval Operations wrote the commander of the Pacific
Fleet: "Suppose the Japanese do go into the [Dutch] East Indies [without
simultaneously attacking United States territory]? What are we going to
do about it? My answer is, I don't know and I think there is nobody on
God's green earth who can tell you."
Joseph S. Nye. Jr. REDEFINING THE NATIONAL INTEREST. Foreign Affairs, July-August 1999 v78 i4 p22 . Nye-1
The "National Interest" is a slippery concept
A state's interests are called the national interest and the means [economic, military, political] it employs to achieve its national interests are called NATIONAL POLICY [or Foreign Policy]
policy; but who determines interests?
government [which may be divided]
Subnational and nonnational interests:
business and industry
interest groups-church, labor, human rights, geographic, gender
Shaped by durable,
moral values and humanitarian interests
Shaped by shaped by transitory, short term interests:
media attention -- the "CNN effect"
politics of the moment
Priorities vary; reasonable people disagree
Nye: the national
interest is simply the set of shared priorities regarding relations with
the rest of the world.
interests can be tangible [oil] or intangible [democracy]
Democracy: the people
determine what are their interests.
inherently variable [see - Incoherent in Ohio]
Power is the ability to get your way, to achieve your interests
HARD POWER - economic and military ability to buy and coerce
SOFT POWER - ability to attract thru cultural and ideological appeal of one's values
Perry and Carter hierarchy of risks to U.S. security
threats to survival - e.g. Soviet Union
imminent threats to U.S. interests, but not survival - e.g. Iraq or North Korea
important contingencies that indirectly threaten U.S. security but do not directly threaten U.S. interests - e.g. Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Haiti
PCWE foreign policy is dominated by the "C" list.
"C" List: Important
but not a threat. Important but not vital or strategic.
Interest in variety of issues: proliferation; terror; drugs; environment
Economic interest in open global economic system
general interest in promoting international law and institutions
humanitarian interest in stopping/preventing human rights abuses
"C" List interests
may be a mile wide and an inch deep
PUBLIC IMPULSE to help will be limited by costs - casualties
Nye: Americans are
reluctant to accept casualties only in cases where their only foreign policy
goals are unreciprocated humanitarian interests.
COMMISSION ON AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTERESTS
on America's National Interests [1996 Nixon Center] has designated as American
vital interests conditions that are strictly necessary to safeguard and
enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation.
"The defining feature of American engagement in the world in the years since the Cold War has been confusion,"
"Clarity in thinking about American national interests demands that Americans think much harder than was necessary [during the last fifty years]."
reasoned, systematic thinking in defining U.S. national interests so that American foreign policy is "steered not by pandering to pressure groups or by bipartisan bickering" -- particularly during the electoral season.
The report deemed ONLY FIVE U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS to be "VITAL":
Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attack on the United States.
Prevent the emergence of a hostile hegemon in Europe or Asia.
Prevent the emergence of a hostile major power on U.S. borders or in control of the seas.
Prevent the catastrophic collapse of major global systems: trade, financial markets, supplies of energy, or environmental.
Ensure the survival of U.S. allies.
were prioritized as
1. to prevent the regional proliferation of NBC weapons and delivery systems, or
2. to protect U.S. friends and allies from significant external aggression,
3. such as discouraging massive human rights violations in foreign countries as a matter of official government policy, or
4. promoting pluralism, freedom and democracy in strategically important states, and
5. including balancing bilateral trade deficits and
6. enlarging democracy elsewhere for its own sake.
PUBLIC is easily diverted to secondary issues deemed "vital" by special interests and campaigning candidates.
careful definition of America's vital interests and its effort to establish priorities among American interests, which, he noted, is crucial to decisionmaking in the presence of inevitable contradictions among specific national interests.
the Cold War period was an exception in American history and that the period since 1989, characterized by no clear and immediate threat to the survival of the United States, is the norm.
lack of a such a threat in the post-Cold War period has contributed to drift and confusion
the media-driven nature of many of today's foreign policy decisions in the United States and
the lack of public understanding of the linkages between American interests and the important policy decisions
the report suggests
that important American interests in Bosnia include protecting U.S. troops,
maintaining the unity of NATO, avoiding a break with Russia, and preventing
massive human rights violations. The future character of the Bosnian state
is secondary by comparison.
The NATIONAL INTEREST
SELF-DEFENSE and NATIONAL INTEREST
World War II is self-defense
Persian Gulf War is national interest
Hans J. Morgenthau.
Politics Among Nations.
"A Realist Theory of International Politics." -
"The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interests defined in terms of power." [interest defined as power roughly equals maximizing power is the national interest.]
two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and
the concern with ideological preferences.
appeasement was inspired by good motives: peace and happiness for all.
Churchill's motives were narrow and selfishly British but helped end the tyranny.
Interests are not fixed once and for all.
"International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power."
"When we speak of power, we mean man's control over the minds and actions of other men."
"Political power . . . must be distinguished from force. . . . When violence becomes an actuality, it signifies the abdication of political power in favor of military " power.
REALISTS v. IDEALISTS
Policy divided into two dominant schools,
REALISTS: TR, NIXON
BLUNT CALCULATIONS OF NATIONAL INTEREST
POWER HAS LIMITS, BE SELECTIVE
ignore some tyrants, even support some
recognize limits and humility
SELF-INTERESTS: vital resources,
keep vital regions orderly and balanced,
reduce ecological, nuclear and terror threats
MESSIANIC, MORALISTIC DESIRE TO SPREAD OUR VALUES
--FREEDOM, LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY
-Star Trek The Borg: resistence is futile
AMERICA'S UNIVERSALIST IDEALS, ALTRUISM
universal theory of liberty
always opposed to tyranny
--MAKES US UNPREDICTABLE
2000 Republican-led Congress: human rights, Tibet, Taiwan, anti-Castro
MORALITY: alleviate extraordinary suffering
TWO GREAT HISTORICAL
MUNICH: APPEASEMENT: thou shalt not appease aggression
foreign crusades are a bloody trap
INCOHERENT IN OHIO
PUBLIC IS INCOHERENT
Expects American dominance in the world, but there is no public willingness to pay the price in blood or money.
Gettysburg produced 40,000 casualties, Somalia 18.
Les Aspin Resigns as US Secretary of Defense-- "We have a dilemma, which
Somalia exemplified. We haven't worked out when, where and how we are going
to commit our forces in this new age. Les hasn't worked it out, nobody's
worked it out. He opposed the use of force in Haiti and Bosnia and won,
but he lost in Somalia--and in that sense he is a victim of our failure
to make a national decision."
"Mr. and Mrs. Couch Potato want us to stop civil wars and save the hungry. They see the military as the best way to do that, but when people get killed, they won't stand for it."
from the discussion on Iraq at Ohio State U. Feb 98
Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger,
Q: The American Administration has the might and the means to attack the Iraqi state, but does it have the moral right to attack the Iraqi nation? [Cheers, applause.]
Q: This Administration has raised concerns about Iraq's threats to its neighbors, yet none of these neighbors seem to threatened. . . . Furthermore, the international community has been opposed to the bombings. If nobody's asking us for their help, how can you justify further U.S. aggression in the region? [Applause, shouts.]
Q: If push comes to shove and Saddam will not back down, will not allow or keep his word, are we ready and willing to send the troops in? [Cheers, applause.]
Q: President Carter . . . was quoted yesterday as saying that up to 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians could be killed. Is that something, Secretary Albright, [Shouts, applause.] that you think is a realistic possibility?
Luttwak "GIVE WAR A CHANCE."
"Although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace."
•when all belligerents become exhausted or
•when one wins decisively.
•the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached.
•hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.
of UN, wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural
course. SECURITY COUNCIL
•interrupted early on, before burn-out
•rest, recruit, reconstitute, rearm
•prolong and intensify struggles
•artificially freeze conflict
•perpetuate a state of war indefinitely
•shield the weaker side
•reduce urgency of making concessions for peace
would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome
from one perspective or another.
•BUT peace takes hold only when war is truly over.
- first priority is to avoid casualties among Pkers.
link to Prof.
Stein's home page
link to ISS 325 War and Revolution syllabus firstname.lastname@example.org