The Whistleblower: A Scathing Account of the United Nations’ role of Sex Trafficking in Bosnia

The Whistleblower features the story of Kathryn Bolkovac, a United Nations peace keeper in Bosnia who soon uncovered the country’s expansive sex trafficking system run by her very own colleagues. Bolkovac joined the IPTF (International Police Task Force) with the UN under contract with DynCorp. DynCorp is a private military contractor that has multiple deals with the US State Department. It has provided peace keepers for 11 countries, and almost all of its $3.1 billion annual revenue comes from the US government. Upon arriving in Bosnia, Bolkovac facilitated the country’s first conviction for domestic violence against a woman. Madaline Rees, a UN human rights official, soon appointed her to be head of a UN faction dealing with violence against women in Bosnia. Bolkovac uncovered brothels filled with scared girls, dirty mattresses, thousands of US dollars, and passports. However, she soon found that after raids on these places, the girls were circled right back into the system of slavery. After questioning some of the girls and fellow IPTF workers, Bolkovac realized the corruption of the system. Fellow peace makers, UN officials, military officers, and police were on the brothel owner’s payroll to tip off raids and return escapees, were clients of the girls, would buy girls, and were actually smuggling the girls into Bosnia. When Bolkovac tried to uncover more of the scandal, officials tried to persuade Bolkovac to leave, she received many threats from fellow employees, her files went missing and her cases pulled, and DynCorp finally fired her for “falsifying timesheets”. Bolkovac sued DynCorp on grounds of false termination and won, however has been unable to find work in any other international law enforcement agency. This suggests that no one else wants a whistleblower in their organization because perhaps the same scandals are occurring there.

 Bolkovac smuggled her files out of Bosnia and shone light on the illegal activities of some of her fellow colleagues. However, UN peacekeepers enjoy diplomatic immunity. They cannot be tried by Bosnia. The UN also has very little jurisdiction over those in question. They can waive immunity if it is an extreme case of personal misconduct outside of a mission. The UN usually just fires the individual and lets the home country deal with prosecution. Home countries will rarely ever prosecute, partially because they do not want to shine light on crimes committed by their own citizens. After Bolkovac’s ordeal, DynCorp announced that some employees were fired for misconduct, but none were ever prosecuted by their home country.

Similar cases have underlined Bolkovac’s cry for justice. Aircraft mechanic Ben Johnston was also hired by the UN and placed in Bosnia. There, he witnessed other employees taking part in the sex trafficking. A fellow airplane mechanic, weighing 400 pounds and always asleep on the job, would brag about the 14 year old girl that he owned. Johnston exposed a video of John Hirtz, Bosnia’s DynCorp site supervisor, raping two girls. Hirtz was fired, but never prosecuted. Johnston claims that because of such corruption, Bosnians are now highly mistrusting of Americans. Johnston was later fired. UN peacekeepers have admitted to other failures. Other sex scandals have been uncovered in multiple countries, including Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

      After Whistleblower was released, the UN debated on whether or not to screen the movie. Many top officials opposed. After the screening, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made a statement conveying the sadness of such events, and said, “it is important that the public recognizes the many steps the UN has taken since then to prevent and punish such terrible abuses”. However, Margot Wallström, UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, stated, “To date, there have been just 30 convictions in response to an estimated 50,000 rapes during the years of war”.

            In line of liberal theory, institutions are the answer to peace. They are the ultimate solution to win win, positive sum situations. Institutions give countries the chance to cooperate, which is what every state inherently wishes to do. In the United Nation’s original charter, overarching goals were stated. The UN was created by multiple nations to create and maintain international peace and security, solve international problems and human rights, and be a center for harmonization. According to liberalists, UN peacekeeping missions should be a success. The host state wants domestic peace and the participating peacekeeping states want international peace. According to rationalist theory, the cost and benefit balance sheet checks out- it is in every one’s interest that the operation go smoothly and that peace is implemented. So then why is it that peace keeping missions like the one is Bosnia end up corrupt and failed? Reflectivists would point fingers to the individuals in these missions. Within the missions are humans, each with different emotions and personalities. With 1,800 UN police officers from 45 different countries currently on ground, many cultures are thrown into the mix. Some of these men sign up just because they know of the easy access to illegal money and free girls. Some convert to these ways during missions because they see so many others acting wrongfully. UN peacekeepers do not have one common identity. They do not all belong to one single state or share common culture or ideas. This leads to a lack of trust in the system, which leads to corruption.

            States may want peace in Bosnia, but when hired by the UN, peace keepers are not representing states. They are not part of the identity of a state. Their ambiguity gives men the environment where it is okay to drop their morals at the door and walk into a war torn nation just to make it even uglier. There is no moral accountability in such a situation. In fact, there is no accountability of any kind to speak of. These men bask in political immunity, and will most likely never face charges for any crimes they commit. However, why should rape be illegal in the US and not overseas? The answer is easy, it shouldn’t be. Rationalists would argue that we should not bother interfering in other state’s domestic affairs, but rather focus on our own buildup of power. However, in an increasingly global world, a state’s domestic problems affect other states and therefore it becomes and international problem. Instead, the UN can take steps to maintain its institution without the corruptions. To begin with, it should not grant political immunity so freely. The UN should employ more female police officers, should put more emphasis on anti- sex trafficking training, and should promote more of a community among peace keepers. Lastly, DynCorp should be held responsible for its actions. In order to sue DynCorp, Bolkovac had to travel to the UK, where DynCorp’s contract was instated. Now, DynCorp has changed its system so that jurisdiction lands under Dubai, making it even harder for anyone to prosecute them. After the incident in Bosnia, DynCorp landed more multimillion dollar contracts for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reoccurring problem seen with both the UN and DynCorp is that with multinational institutions or organizations, accountability and jurisdiction become hazy. A realist world would not face such problems, for everything is centered around the state. However, the current world where international relations is increasingly dictated by non-state actors, a system of accountability for these actors must be established to ensure common good.

 

Works Cited

Diu, Nisha. What the UN Doesn't Want You to Know. The Telegraph. February 6^th, 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/9041974/What-the-UN-Doesnt-Want-You-to-Know.html

Isenberg, David. It's Déjà Vu for DynCorp All Over Again. The Huffington Post. December 6^th,

2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/its-dj-vu-for-dyncorp-all_b_792394.html

Ki-Moon, Ban. Secretary-General Comments on Film on Issue of Sex Trafficking, Stressing Need for
           Wider Awareness, 'Zero Tolerance' Policy Response. The UN. October 14^th, 2011.       
           http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sgsm13878.doc.htm

O’Meara, Kelly Patricia. US: DynCorp Disgrace. Insight Magazine. January 14^th, 2002.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11119

Vardi, Nathan. DynCorp Takes Afghanistan. Forbes. July 30^th, 2009.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/30/dyncorp-kbr-afghanistan-business-logistics-dyncorp.html

Vulliamy, Ed. Has the UN learned lessons of Bosnian sex slavery revealed in Rachel Weisz film?

The Guardian. January 14^th, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/bosnia-sex-trafficking-whistleblower

Wallström, Margot. UN envoy welcomes conviction for rape and murder during Bosnian conflict.

UN News Center. November 9^th, 2011. chttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID= 40348&Cr=sexual+violence&Cr1=&Kw1=Bosnia&Kw2=sex&Kw3=

The Whistleblower. Dir. Larysa Kondracki. Perf. Rachel Weisz. Samuel Goldwyn Films, 2010. DVD.

The Dilemma of Expanding the United Nations Security Council

The Dilemma of Expanding the United Nations Security Council

                The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945, following the end of the worst war in human history. The original charter was signed by 51 nations and provided for a General Assembly of all the member states and a Security Council consisted of fifteen seats. Ten of these seats would rotate between the member states, elected for two year periods. The other permanent five (P5) seats would belong to the United Kingdom (UK), France, the USSR (now Russia), the United States (US), and The People’s Republic of China (PRC), and they would all have the power to veto any motion before the UNSC, thereby stopping it from passing. This status quo remains to the present. Today, with a quickly developing world with many more militarily and/or economically ‘risen’ nations, the question of whether other countries should be given permanent member status has been brought before the UN. In fact, had the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) expanded at the same rate as the General Assembly, there would currently be 57 UNSC members, 19 of them permanent. That means that Germany, Japan, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and Spain would, or could, all be permanent members of the UNSC. In effect, it would mean that, today, every tenth member of the United Nations would have the power to veto anything proposed to the UNSC. Besides being a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare, such a situation could lead to the creation of voting blocks, resulting in a multi-polar UNSC with several states in each block. Worst of all, all of these nations would have to be convinced not to veto in order to pass anything through the UNSC. So one theoretical solution which I thought would be interesting to consider would be creating a third type of member to the UNSC with permanent member status, sans the the veto power.

                From a rationalist perspective, none of the P5 countries would weaken their vote by giving any new permanent member the right to veto it. While a P5 veto would still be as definite as before, the security of their vote, however, would be diminished (from 1/5 of the needed votes to pass to 1/6). Perhaps, if even one seat were added to the UNSC then a resolution could pass that could create a similar 2/3 majority mandate between the USNC P6 (theoretical), just like there exists in the General Assembly in order to pass. Such a change would only go to further undermine the power promised the P5 in the creation of the UN Charter. From a reflectionist point of view, granting more states permanent member status might, in theory, create a greater sense of inclusion. For instance, adding India would permanently, albeit ceremoniously, represent nearly another seventh of the world’s population at the UNSC. However, adding one people and not another could create great ethnic or international tension. How would Pakistan be appeased after the addition of India?

                14 nations could, in theory, be given a permanent seat on the UNSC, but that would mean expanding the current table by at least 4 seats (and that would be without any rotating memberships at all). The UN was set up, post WWII, as an institution meant to decrease ethnic tensions and lower the chances of the breakout of wars between member states. The solution for doing so was by giving long-term, permanent veto powers to those nations that had proved they could withstand the extremes of a World War and were stable enough to succeed in the future. Granted, the USSR dissolved in 1991, but only Russia was allowed to stay as a P5, and for good reason. The other, smaller states were not as capable of protecting themselves and their nuclear arsenals. The truth remains, the P5 control almost all of the nuclear weapons in the world. Even post WWII, these nations had the strongest conventional militaries in the world, and remain to this day, both technologically and offensively, the most capable military powers.

                So, if adding vetos to the UNSC would diminish the power and prestige of the current P5 members, what could be done to at least expand the dialogue? By giving states permanent seats but not giving them veto powers, the P5 would essentially be giving a greater voice (but no bite) to several key players on the international stage. Yes, walking along the middle road makes one look ahead enviously, but it may so greatly legitimize the global ambitions of so many of the world’s peoples that the UNSC could once again be seen not as a club of zero-sum capable players but as a group of the most responsible members sharing the greatest risk in the case of the breakout of a major war. Put in an even more reflectionist perspective, it could perhaps create an atmosphere in which UN Peacekeeping and Peacemaking missions could once again be undertaken because of greater, permanent participation. I’m not saying that it would be perfect, and I am definitely leaving on the table the idea that non-veto able states could block together and demand certain concessions from the P5 for cooperation, but that is all part of the greater realm of International Relations (IR). It is also important to note that nations given such seats would definitely then vie for even greater inclusion and the eventual power to veto. That I would attest as a result of progress and the momentum of a changing world like ours.

                In a world where the P5 have agreed that IR is no longer a zero-sum game, it is completely acceptable to ask why then is it that the nations which are the most secure and have the largest nuclear arsenals would have made that decision? Perhaps it is because they are altruistic, after all the UN is a liberal institution. It would be an amazing thing if a nation like Germany or Japan were added to the ranks of the P5. Not only would a larger portion of the world’s GDP be added in representation at the UNSC, but it is important to remember that neither of these nations ever had nuclear weapons programs, and both have had extensive civilian nuclear capabilities. Perhaps adding such nations, with or without the power to veto, would show the world that those nations capable of sustained stability will be rewarded with a greater say in the UN by the UNSC and at least a 2/3 majority of the General Assembly. Whether or not the UNSC is expanded, by either adding more veto-empowered states, just permanent members, or more rotating seats, it is very important to remember both the symbolic and direct power of the UN. Such an organization is meant to give legitimacy to stable, free, and accepted regimes. Perhaps, it could be in the best interest of the P5 to add more permanent members. Not only would it go to further legitimize the far-reaching actions and powers of the UNSC but also give the P5 nations the image of ‘development builders’ and ‘inclusive states’, not ‘power-mongers’.

“Barack Obama in an address to a Joint Session of the Parliament of India", Lok Sabha, India, 9 November 2010

"Charter of the United Nations: Introductory Note ." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. The United Nations, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. PDF. P. 4,8,11

Craig, Dylan. "The UN, Rationalism, Reflectionism." SIS-105-038H World Politics. American University. Watkins, Washington, D.C.. 24 Sept. 2012. Class lecture.

"India." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm>.

Lamy, Steven L.. Introduction to global politics. Brief ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. P. 144

"Statement by Dmitry A. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation at the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly", New York, Unites States of American, 23 September 2009

A Review of “Labor Unions and Arab Spring” at Georgetown

The event I attended was a panel style discussion in regards to the role of labor unions in the Arab Spring.  It was structured with pre-determined questions for three panelists representing Bahrain, Egypt, and Algeria.  All three panelists conveyed a similar message: the only hope for the uprisings lies in the cooperation and unity of the people and workers through institutions such as labor unions, and that the revolution in each respective country is far from over as seen in the less than satisfactory conditions of unemployment and the economy post-regime.  

Karim Radhi, a General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions representative focused on the progress made so far by the labor unions of Bahrain (they were in DC receiving an award from the UFLCIO for their work toward human rights). He pointed out that a key part of the uprising was the push to achieve the freedom of assembly and protest, and he highlighted how integral a united organization of workers has been toward achieving this aim.  However, he articulated that while they have been working hard to accomplish said goals, people in Bahrain continue to be fired because of affiliation with labor unions.  Social networking has backfired and been used in what Mr. Radhi describes as a “McCarthy-esque” period of oppression in order to spy on the Bahrain population and keep labor unions relatively inactive.  

Kamal Abou Aita, a representative from Egypt’s Trade Union and Worker Services passionately described the conditions in Egypt being worse for workers in now than during the Mubarak regime.  He spoke of the “hunger revolution” and the motto of the labor unions protests of poor economic conditions being “bread, freedom, social justice, and human dignity”. Unfortunately, due to tighter restrictions on trade unions, organizing for better wages, decreased unemployment, and more freedom for the unions has been largely unsuccessful.  Mr. Aita enforced however, that the revolution will continue beyond just toppling the Mubarak regime until the union demands are met.  

Nassira Ghoziane of Algeria spoke about the promising programs set in place by the labor unions of Algeria despite government oppression and years of false promises for reform.  Free trade and labor unions have extended their mission in Algeria beyond just wages and economic reform to providing services to college graduates who are unemployed (a common theme throughout the highly educated Arab world).  The goal is to train the students to find jobs that fit their area of study, as well as helping current students construct their education in a way that will enable them to find jobs upon graduation.

As previously stated, despite the incredibly promising unity and persistence of labor unions in many Arab countries during a time of wide scale transition, “the revolution is far from over”.  The idea behind the uprisings were not a mere overthrow of dictatorial regimes, but rather to accomplish a higher quality of life for the people living in these Arab nations.  Though the Western media may not focus on this struggle as much as they did the actual uprisings of Arab Spring, the fight for equality and worker’s rights continues.

Egypt’s Debt to the U.S.: Rationalist or Reflectivist

The U.S. has been in conversation with the newly elected democratic government of Egypt in an effort to negotiate terms of an agreement to forgive $1 Billion of Egyptian debt to the U.S.  While U.S. officials have preached supporting democracy in the region during a crucial time of transition, the U.S. business interests in Egypt demands an explanation of the agreement from the perspective of Rationalist Liberalism.

In a period of economic instability and uncertainly for Morsi’s government, U.S. financial support is integral in the transition to democracy (Myers).  The American people have always had an affinity for ideology of democracy and supporting uprisings against oppressive leadership, so the idea of supporting a democratically elected president post-regime overthrowing by forgiving $1 Billion in debt is in line with American priorities.  From the reflectivist perspective, this agreement is due to coherence in political structure and American empathy for the Egyptian people’s struggle.  

If it wasn’t for caution by the US by supporting the uprising verbally but not with the presence of boots on the ground, the U.S. forgiving a large portion of the Egyptian debt could be viewed as the imposition of democracy and excessive U.S. intervention and highly neoliberal.  Excessive U.S. presence could have also undermined the legitimacy of the Morsi presidency in the eyes of other Arab nations.

If we adopt the rationalist perspective, the U.S. government’s decision to overlook $1 Billion of debt appears to have very different motives.  The U.S. has major interests in Egypt’s intelligence cooperation, foreign investment opportunities, and their influence in the the politics of the MENA region.  

Intelligence Cooperation: 

During the Mubarak regime, the Egyptian army proved to be the most valuable asset in providing the U.S. with information on extremist groups as well as monitoring the unstable Egypt and Gaza Strip border (Abou Taleb).  The transition to democracy has brought up questions about how cooperative the new government will be as far as providing intelligence to the U.S.  The $1 Billion agreement cannot be viewed purely as an American bribe to keep their hand in Egyptian operations, but a certain amount of reciprocation on the part of the Egyptian government honoring U.S. interests is not out of the question.  

Supporting the democratically elected government also provides the U.S. with the benefit of a safeguard against Al Qaeda affiliates filling the power vacuum left after the uprisings.  (However it is important to note that some Muslim Brotherhood do have loose ties with Al Qaeda). In this regard, the cost of $1 Billion can be weighed against the benefit of assuring extremist groups do not gain any significant control in Egypt. 

Foreign Investment:

Egypt’s diverse economy presents an opportunity of foreign investors in Egypt’s recovering economy.  Following the uprising, foreign investors and businessmen were scared off by the incredible amount of military court trials accusing businesses of corruption and ties to the old regime.  In Mubarak’s Egypt, bribes were the only way to acquire the permits necessary to do business.  The backlash in the post-regime Egypt has been to put the majority of large business owners on trial, most of who were found guilty (Daud).  The repercussions of these trials were significant: foreign investors fled and have not returned, causing the Egyptian economy to suffer.  However if the U.S. forgives Egypt’s debt, the IMF will most likely follow with a loan of $4.8 billion, as well as promising $375 million to American investors (Myers).  To the U.S., this is a huge opportunity to take advantage of a struggling but diverse market.  For Egypt, although accepting the U.S. offer as well as the IMF loan might carry the cost of accepting a certain degree of foreign influence, however the benefit would be the chance to curb the  unemployment rate and stimulate their economy.

Influence in Politics of the MENA Region:

The U.S. push for democracy in Egypt can be analyzed from the view of realists in that its is security based, as well as from the perspective of reflectivist liberals and neoliberals because of the prevalence of democratic ideology.  However in the scope of rationalist liberals, financially supporting the democratic government might lead to the spread of democracy in the region, which could open the doors to better trade relations and diplomatic negotiations in a region where U.S. diplomacy has been anything but easy.  Especially in energy and oil sector, open and friendly relations between democratic governments would be beneficial for the energy glutton of the world, the U.S. 

Final Thoughts:

While it is clear that the agreement between the U.S. and Egypt has significant benefits for a cost of $1 billion, it is important to call to mind the implications of the agreement in light of the recent protests of the film “Innocence of Muslims.”  U.S. officials have confirmed that the debt forgiven will proceed despite delays, however the support of the American people is not certain (Gearan).  In a time of economic recovery and debate over debt in the U.S., overlooking such a large amount for a country who tore down the U.S. flag at the embassy is far from popular. If we examine this predicament from the Putnam’s “Two Level Game Theory” there is a breakdown in opinion between the U.S. government (A) and the American people (A₁) in an effort to maintain the relations between (A) and the Egyptian government (B).  The consequences of this breakdown are uncertain though it is doubtful that they will be too grave.  At any rate, the verdict of proceeding with the agreement show that the benefits of the agreement outweigh the costs for both countries.   

Works Cited

Bilateral and Regional Issues in U.S.–Egyptian Relations. Carnegie Endowment for International 

     Peace, June 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2012. <http://carnegieendowment.org/2009/06/17/ 

     bilateral-and-regional-issues-in-u.s.-egyptian-relations/blmu>.

Cook, Steven. On the Economy, Egypt's New Leaders Should Follow Mubarak. The Council on Foreign Affairs, 26 May 2012.  Web.  4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.cfr.org/>

Enders, Klaus. Egypt: Reform Triggers Economic Growth. International Monetary Fund, 13 Feb. 2008.  Web.  4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.imf.org>.

Gearan, Anne. “US Aid to Egypt Stalled.” The Washington Post. 17 Sept. 2012. Print.

Gjelten, Tom. “U.S. Struggles To Balance Its Interests In Egypt.” NPR. 11 Feb 2012. http:// www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133691051/U-S-Struggles-To-Balance-Interests- InEgypt. 21 Sept. 2012.

Myers, Steven. “U.S. is Near Pact to Cut $1 Billion from Egypt Debt.” The New York Times 4 Sept. 2012. Print.

The Muslim World Reacts

For the international world this past week has been anything but uneventful as tensions between America and the Middle East have steadily increased. Most of this is due to the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” that has at this point achieved widespread notoriety.  The film sparked an enormous protest throughout the Muslim world and in Libya the protest erupted during the 11^th anniversary of the World Trade Center (NY Daily News 1). The protest grew extremely violent and resulted in the death of US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US citizens. From Libya the issue escalated as protestors began demonstrating at US embassies across the Middle East in countries like Yemen and Egypt (Newsday 1).  

            In a response to the escalation of these events President Obama spoke with President Morsi on Wednesday to address Egypt’s actions, or lack of action during the protests. Throughout much of the week the government had little to say as  Morsi attempted to find middle ground within this political hotbed. This situation has not only put President Morsi under pressure but it is also a trial by fire for the Muslim Brotherhood as it is forced to deal with both Muslim outcries against the prophet Muhammad and US pressure to condemn the violence taking place. These competing forces have resulted in conflicting messages from the Brotherhoods officials. On one Arabic twitter feed the Brotherhood supported the “Egyptians [who rose] up to support Muhammad in front of the American Embassy” (Kirpatrick 11). Two days later another message was sent out on an English feed with support for America, the US responded to this message with a “thanks; by the way have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too” (11).

            In a situation such as this the question of security immediately comes into play. After 9/11 the biggest fear of the US has been another terrorist attack on American soil so even before the protests the US was already on high alert due to the 9/11 anniversary for  any possible terrorist attacks. What’s more for some time the US had been considering better security abroad for ambassadors and US embassies (MacFarquhar 10). Some however were opposed to the idea of adding to their security as it would deter feelings of goodwill with locals (10). In light of the recent events however the need for better security will be quite apparent, especially as an expression of US power. According to Realists if the US cannot protect its own diplomats abroad it will be seen as weak and may affect the perception of the distribution of power.  What’s more, the relationship between the US and Egypt is nowhere near as binding as it is with its other formal allies. There is no legal treaty between them and so that makes Egypt’s actions in situations such as these all the more speculative, and in some cases possibly a threat to the US as noted by President Obama when he said that “Egypt was not necessarily an ally” (Kirpatrick 11).

This is one of the reasons why President Morsi’s response to President is so important, as it demonstrates the influence the US has within the Egyptian government. It also speaks volumes for the ways in which Egypt establishes its own security. Egypt’s main priority after all is also state survival and in order to maintain that, the Egyptian government recognized the need for deferring to a more powerful state, in this case the US, concurring with the theory of realism.

The situation in Egypt is not only a present security threat for US Foreign Office representatives but it could also affect long term US security interest in the region. Since the Arab Spring the US has been backing the Egyptian government in order to improve relations in the region, which in turn will add to American security. This would give the US a valuable foothold in the very region where there are the most threats to America. A bad relationship would also affect Egypt’s foreign policy with neighboring Israel and may complicate US relations with other Muslim nations in the region.
            However there are still some questions regarding this situation and its possible outcomes. The anti-American hostilities are not necessarily over and it remains to be seen whether or not governments are able to put down the protest. There is also the question of what the US will do in order to reassert its power in the region, and if the death of the US ambassador will be without some type of repercussions. The course of action that the US does take and the success to which it is carried out will be of great interest to other states as a measure of American juridical power. If the US fails to obtain mastery of the situation other nations might began to have misgivings about the US’ ability to influence other countries and some nations or organizations may take advantage of America’s perceived weakness.

Other questions stemming from this would include the extent of the relationship between Egypt and the US in the future. President Morsi is the first civilian elected president and the call for democracy in Egypt since the Arab Spring demonstrates the change that is coming to the Middle East, and the US would obviously prefer a change that is in their favor. Realist however are aware that Egyptian cooperation is not the only factor and Muslim everywhere will be watching the US for their reactions to those who were responsible for the film. Already the US has asked YouTube to consider taking the movie of the internet and in Egypt and in Libya it has been removed in order to help appease the violence. However Google and YouTube are private corporations, so nations will be more concerned with what the US will do in regards to the film’s producer, who was recently taken in to custody. This is a situation that is still in development and so as  of yet there is still much to be speculated and guessed at.

Works Cited

Kirpatrick, David D., Helene Cooper, and Mark Landler. "Egypt, Hearing From Obama,

Moves to Heal Rift From Protests." The New York Times Sept.-Oct. 2012,

Washington ed.: 1+. Print.

MacFarquhar, Neil. "Diplomats Pulled 2 Ways, Between High Walls and Open Doors."

 The New York Times Sept.-Oct. 2012, Washington ed.: 10. Print

"Protests against Anti-Islam Film Erupt across Muslim World." NY Daily News. The

Associated Press, Sept.-Oct. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/protests-film-spread-muslim-world-article-1.1159601>

"Embassies Targeted as Protests against 'Innocence of Muslims' Film Spread." Newsday.

Associated Press, Sept.-Oct. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/embassies-targeted-as-protests-against-innocence-of-muslims-film-spread-1.4002175>.

 

The American-Israeli Relationship and Realism's Blindness

            For the past few decades, the United States has engaged in activity with Israel that is in no way helpful to its overall interests as a state. It has done a great deal of harm to the United States, especially concerning the United States’ relationships with other Arab countries in the region. Furthermore, the United States has gained little from it in return. From a Realist point of view, the actions of the United States would seem to be indefensibly dimwitted and imprudent toward gaining and maintaining their power. Something else is going on below the surface. And that would be Israel’s ever large, cash endowed, hugely influential lobby within the United States.

            It appears to be a clear cut case of penetration in which Israel is indirectly manipulating the political system of the United States. For one, the senior officials of the past few administrations have been made up of people who are staunchly pro-Israel. The officials that the Obama, Clinton, and Bush Administrations’ policy makers and advisors on Israel have included numerous, Israeli citizens, people who have formerly been at the head of some of the biggest pro-Israel lobbying groups in the US, and a plethora of outspoken pro-Israel backers. Furthermore, there are “Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests” (Mearsheimer). Then, there is the pro-Israel lobby. The pro-Israel lobby is made up of an enormous number of groups, but none more visible and powerful than AIPAC. This group has consistently been ranked at the top of the most powerful lobbying groups in America. Using their huge amount of influence and money they have been successful in ruining congressmen’s reelection campaigns, keeping the current crop of House and Senate members wary of crossing paths with them. This has gotten some to say that AIPAC is “a de facto agent for a foreign government” and that it “has a stranglehold on Congress” (Mearsheimer). Additionally, the pro-Israel lobby is able to use propaganda, spending huge amounts of money at universities to bring pro-Israel speakers and keep the current crop of University students pro-Israel.

Unsurprisingly, all of this influence has produced results. Each year since 1976, Israel has received more economic and military aid from the United States than any other country in the world. Diplomatically, the United States has functioned as Israel’s personal campaigner, advocating almost exactly what Israel wants whenever peace deals and treaties are in the works. For example, at the Camp David Summit in 2000, the United States was the puppet of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, leading Palestinian negotiators to complain that they were “negotiating with two Israeli teams – one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag”. A strong case can even be made that the United States entered Iraq to keep Israel safe, something that would not have been done if it wasn’t for the pro-Israel lobby’s great influence on the United States.

For all that the United States is doing for Israel, it is reasonable to believe that the United States receives some great benefit. After all, realists believe the largest responsibility of a state’s leaders is to maintain and increase the power of the state, and a state’s paramount goal is security. At the very least, the United States relationship with Israel should be doing these two things. However, one does not need to look very hard to see that this is flatly untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

By maintaining such a close relationship with Israel, the United States is only hurting itself. Arab states in general are not supporters of Israel and consider its right to exist as questionable at best. Therefore, by supporting Israel, the relationship between the United States and Arab states in the region only deteriorates. Furthermore, the United States becomes less safe because it invites the wrath of extremist groups and terrorist organizations. America’s support for Israel is one of the terrorists’ justifications for attacking the United States on 9/11. America’s power is also not being increased by supporting Israel. It would be one thing if America had a reliable ally in the Middle East that listened to what it wanted them to do and provided military support in the region. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

Israel at times hardly acts like America’s ally at all. They consistently ignore America’s requests, which continue until the present day. President Obama is the most recent person to ask Israel to stop settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to which Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has ignored. The State Department has revealed that Israel has released “a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers” to countries like China, and just in 2004 an American diplomat gave classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel spies on the United States more than any other ally. The United States has not even been able to rely on Israel for military support. They consistently must send their own forces into the region when they need to get things done, and Israel even proved a liability in the First Gulf War. This is not the kind of behavior that one state has toward their allies, especially not their biggest advocate. Realists would believe that the United States would only pursue their close relationship with Israel and heap money and support upon it if it was clearly in their interest, but this in no way seems to be the case.

            The reason that the actions of the United States do not seem to be supported by Realists is that Realists are much too narrow-minded in their view of the world. They believe that states are the only entities within International Relations that have any importance. While they are correct in saying that if a state falls it will likely fall because of another state, they are naïve to assume that everything that is not a state can be safely ignored. By ignoring non-state actors, it would be impossible to explain the United States actions toward Israel. Its behavior would seem to serve little purpose and its cause would remain mysterious. The fact that the pro-Israel lobby has an enormous influence on the politics and public thinking of the United States would go unnoticed, and social scientists would be all the more blind.

            For the future, it does not appear like the United States’ actions will change much. There is no reason to believe that the influence of AIPAC and similar organizations will decrease, and their strangle hold on American politics is as strong as ever. Even if Mitt Romney is elected President in the fall, he has promised only to be an even greater friend to Israel. This is not what is needed if the United States is to become a more powerful and safe state. Open discussions about America's relationship with Israel and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict need to take place in an environment where one critical comment directed toward Israel can’t potentially end a politician’s career. However, for the foreseeable future, it appears that the status quo will remain unchanged and Israel will reap the benefits of a close relationship with the United States.

Work Cited

Mearsheimer, John; Walt, Stephen. “The Israel Lobby.” www.lrn.co.uk. 23 March 2006. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>

Are We Helping?: Foreign Aid from the Realist Perspective

The topic of “giving aid” to another state conjures up a lot of different emotions in a first world, politically charged nation like the United States. Right now, you may be picturing American doctors and volunteers helping poverty stricken, malnourished children in small huts. Or maybe you only think about truckloads filled with trillions of dollars leaving our borders to go to a corrupt dictator. Both images may be somewhat accurate, but there is also another way to look at foreign aid. Who exactly are we “aiding” and why?

To try to answer this question, let’s look at some statistics.

In 1970, some of the wealthiest nations in the world signed a UN charter to give up .7% of their Gross National Income each year for Foreign Development (Foreign Aid). For the United States, this would translate into approximately $107 billion a year, and each year, the U.S., and almost every other nation involved in the agreement, fails to reach this goal of .7% (Gross National Income). Clearly, international cooperation to lift up those less fortunate is not a priority.

And neither is giving money to states that need it the most. In 2011-2012 FY, Togo had a GDP per capita of only $900. South Africa had a GDP per capita of $11,100 (Central Intelligence Agency). Yet, the United States appropriated $106,000 Foreign Assistance to Togo, and $574,266,000 to South Africa (ForeignAssistance). As much as nations like to paint the pictures of the doctors in third world countries helping poor sick children, most of the time that is not what is happening.

Each year, the United States appropriates between 1-2% of its budget to Foreign Assistance. In dollar amounts that is roughly $58 billion dollars a year (Wingfield).  It is important to recognize that there are many different types of “aid.” Foreign Assistance falls under the category of humanitarian or developmental aid, the kind necessary to help struggling nations “grow out of poverty” (Foreign Aid). Remember, we only give 1-2%. As of December 31, 2011, private companies and industries in the U.S. had invested a total of $4.314 trillion in stocks and NGO’s abroad, a number that had grown from $3.908 trillion the year before (Central Intelligence Agency). These numbers make the 1% of appropriated foreign aid seem miniscule, so why do we still give it? In a world of rapid industrialization, globalization, corporate investments and privatized aid, is a billion dollars here and there really making a difference in foreign nations? Are we really trying to make developing nations stronger?

A Realist might say no. In the game of world politics, the only player you worry about is yourself. From this perspective, foreign aid is not really about “helping” the small nations around us so that they can someday play at our level. Foreign aid is used more as a bargaining chip to balance power. States will give what they can where they need it most. It is the principle of survival and self help.

In fact, we give a lot of aid to our enemies and competitors. In 2012, $81,030,000 was appropriated to Russia, a growing power, the nation that vetoed action in Syria and has arms deals with Iran. Another $9,495,000 went to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, another leader not too fond of the U.S. (ForeignAssistance). But by giving money to these countries, the United States gains a sort of power over them. The United States gives more money to Israel than almost any other nation, $2,460,240,000 in 2012 alone. Yet we also give aid to Palestinians in the West Bank. In 2006, the United States suspended foreign assistance to the Gaza Strip until Hamas renounced its claims in the area. The humanitarian situation greatly worsened as a result (United States). Groups like the Palestinians are extremely reliant on aid from the U.S. whether they agree with us ideologically or not. Though we only provide a fraction of the funds to Palestine that we do to their enemies in Israel, the amount of dependency on these funds gives the United States the slight upper hand in the situation.

Looking back, this form of using aid as a weapon for our own interests is nothing new. The Reagan Doctrine allowed the United States to provide aid to guerrilla resistance groups in Soviet satellites to fight communism during the Cold War (Lagon). In a research journal on the subject, it was noted that, “The realist explanation of the Reagan Doctrine demonstrates how the international environment shapes the realm of the possible in American foreign-policy doctrines, revealing the context in which the United States can act” (Lagon). Based on this International Relations theory, a state will act any way it can to protect its status in any given international environment. The Reagan Doctrine is an example of a state trying to maintain power in the modern age, not with arms but with aid.

States no longer have to use only their own physical forces to protect themselves. In Realism it is not a question of if a state will survive, but how. Especially in this new age of globalization, there are many ways to survive. Giving aid is as much a symbolic show of influence as it is a strategic mode of protection for powerful nations like the United States. That is why we send billions of dollars overseas to our ideological opponents. It is not your stereotypical picture of foreign aid, or even the one that most governments want to project, but from the realist perspective, it is what is necessary to survive.

"Central Intelligence Agency." CIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.

            <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html>.

"Foreign Aid for Development Assistance." - Global Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept.

            2012. <http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-

            assistance>.

"Gross National Income in PPP Dollars." Chart. World Bank. N.p.: n.p., 2011. N. pag. Print.

"ForeignAssistance.gov." ForeignAssistance.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.

            <http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx>.

Lagon, Mark P. "The International System and the Reagan Doctrine: Can Realism

Explain Aid to ‘Freedom Fighters’?" British Journal of Political Science 22.01 (1992): 39. Print.

United States. Cong. Middle Eastern Affairs, Defense. CRS Report for Congress: U.S.

            Foreign Aid to the Palestinians. Comp. Jeremy M. Sharp. By Christopher M.

            Blanchard. Cong. Rept. N.p., n.d. Web.

Wingfield, Brian. "Making Sense Of U.S. Foreign Aid To Egypt And Elsewhere."

            Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 29 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.

Middle East Retaliation to the US: A Realist Perspective

Middle East Retaliation to the US: A Realist Perspective
By Sean Whalen

 For the past several days, there have been widespread protests against US embassies in Arab countries over the video “Innocence of Muslims” that satirizes the Muslim Prophet Mohammad. At the beginning of the demonstrations, protestors entered the US embassy in Libya and killed the US ambassador and three other Americans. The creator of the film, which was posted online about six months ago, is now in hiding, but a man who helped make the film stated that “We went into [making the film] knowing this was probably going to happen” (Quinones). The protests have been staged in part against the United States itself, an idea which has facilitated the spread of the protests to over 20 countries, including Egypt, Libya, Israel, Tunisia, Sudan and elsewhere. Anti-American sentiments led protestors in Lebanon to attack American fast food restaurants in the area, a symbol of how the violence is being misdirected in the demonstrations.

 Secretary of State Clinton has stated that the rage is “is prompted by an awful internet video that [the US government] had nothing to do with,” and even the UN Security Council has released a statement condemning "in the strongest terms" the violence, saying "the very nature of diplomatic premises is peaceful and ... diplomats have among their core functions the promotion of better understanding across countries and cultures” (Batrawy). Despite the US diplomats’ efforts to diffuse the issue, al-Qaeda has called for more attacks with the aim of “expelling the embassies of the United States from Muslim countries,” and the US has called for a return of many officials working in the Arab countries and has deployed advanced military teams to protect several different embassies (US Pulls Some Embassy Staff…). However, the violence has calmed down in the last few days, and several countries, such as Israel, have joined the protests in a peaceful manner, in solidarity with their fellow Arab people. The issue has brought a very strong focus on to American foreign policy, and the US response to the protests will signal to the rest of the world how America stands in today’s political scene.

 This brings us to how the US should respond from a realist’s perspective. The primary focuses of a realist are on a state’s survival and security, once those are met the state can work on its self-interest; seeing as these protests are not a viable threat to ending the sovereignty of the United States, we will focus on the security of the state as that is what is most threatened at the moment.

 One tenant of realism is the belief that there is only a certain amount of power in the world, ant that for one country to gain power requires another to lose it. It is important to note that power is merely the influence one entity has on another, and though weapons and soldiers are one part of that, they are not what is meant when power is mentioned. The demonstrations have clearly shown that US power in Arab countries is dwindling, as the protestors are proving that they will not listen to what the United States asks of them (e.g. leaving the embassies alone). This lessening of US power will be cemented if the United States does not do anything to regain that power, as Thucydides claims through Athens, a state would look weak if it does not maintain its record of action against non-allies (Thucydides). Though it may not be a direct retaliation to their current loss of power, the US announced on Saturday, September 15, that it has a plan to modernize its outdated stockpile of nuclear weapons, a $395 billion project (Priest). This is a trend of showing power that has been popular since the beginning of the cold war: the retaliation power of a country is a very strong deterrent for any attacks at all. Though it was obviously not drafted and decided only because of the problems in the Middle East, the unveiling of this plan is a strategic ploy to prove to the world that the United States still has a great deal of power.

 The other main threat against US security is the balancing of power that other countries are doing currently to offset the extreme powerhouse that is the USA. Though it could be claimed that the alliances of the Arab countries are made because of their shared religious identity, a stronger part that will play in with the states themselves is their worry about the balance of power. In Steven Walt’s article on the origins of alliances, he evaluates the causes of alliances from a strictly realist perspective, and comes to the conclusion that because states are only worried about their own survival and security, they are inherently more worried about siding in a way that ensures their safety in power struggles than they are about protecting a common ideology (Walt). With that in mind, once the governments of these countries begin publicly expressing their alliances on the issue, the will most likely try to band together to strike an alliance that offsets the US power. The other, less likely, occurrence would be that these countries bandwagon with the United States, in an effort to gain increased security if a conflict does emerge. Though this does have some advantages, it would create system where all of the allying countries would be avoiding upsetting the balance of power within their own area, as they would be more equal in power than relative the US, as well as causing strange changes to the proximal power of each country.

 With all that said several questions remain. What will the short term response the US power be within the protestors themselves, will they become peaceful or heed al-Qaeda’s call? Given the US deployment of troops in the area, how will their protection of their interests influence their perceived power in the area? Will the Arab countries chose to balance or bandwagon power, particularly since many of these countries have just instated new governments? How will the world see the US in response to these attacks on their embassies, considering the fact that forceful retaliation is not very likely and the US has to find some way to retain power? The most important aspect of US foreign policy now is making sure that their security is retained, so there will undoubtedly be interesting developments as the entire world reacts to the shifting of balance of power, which is currently moving from the United States into the Arab countries in the Middle East.

 Works Cited

 Batrawy, Aya and Keath, Lee. "Anti-Islam Film Protests Spread To Sudan, Tunisia, Across Middle East." Huffington Post World 14 September 2012. Web.

 Priest, Dana. "Aging U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Slated for Costly and Long-Delayed Modernization." The Washington Post 15 September 2012. Web.

 Quinones, Sam. "U.S. ambassador killed; California man behind anti-Islam film hides." Las Angeles Times 12 September 2012.

 Thucydides. The Melian Dialogue. n.d. "US Pulls Some Embassy Staff as al-Qaeda Calls for Fresh Attacks." The Hindu 16 September 2012. Web.

 Walt, Steven. "Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power." International Security (1985): 3-43. Web.