Terrorism

                This weekend marked the start of the major Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, a three day celebration that takes place at the end of the Islamic lunar calendar (Glossary). It is celebrated by Muslims across the world but was tainted this year by a number of bombings and attacks that resulted in the death of 31 people and countless more injuries throughout Iraq (BBC). These deaths occurred as a result of seven seemingly isolated acts of violence that were spread across the country. Most of these bombings occurred in heavily populated Shiite regions of Iraq and also affected those of the minority sect of Shabak (Tawfeeq, Deadly). In some cases the victims were Iranian pilgrims on their way to worship at the Golden Mosque. The government has blamed these attacks on Sunni dissidents with possible al-Qaeda ties, but no one has stepped forward to officially claim responsibility for these bombings. These attacks are especially alarming as they demonstrate a clear increase in a wave of violence that began in August, and reached a climax with a death toll of 365 people in September, the highest mortality count since 2010 (Tawfeeq, Twin Blasts). Most of these acts seem to be aimed at religious minority groups and government service providers. In one instance, after the detonation of a bomb in al-Jihad Bagdad, police were called to scene only for a second bomb to go off killing “one police man and two others” (Tawfeeq, Deadly). In Bagdad “gunman killed two police officers and another was fatally shot outside his house” (Tawfeeq Twin Blasts). Since then, numerous international officials have stepped forward to condemn these attacks including the Secretary General’s representative Martin Kobler, who claimed they were “atrocious acts of violence against innocent worshippers of various faiths” (Tawfeeq).

            Terrorism, itself, to this day remains elusive of any international standard by which criminals can be prosecuted. There are however, certain factors that more nations are starting to recognize as a means of identifying terrorist groups. The most commonly accepted components include the use of violence against civilians for a political or ideological reason in order to promote fear. The violent attacks that have occurred in Iraq fall into this category of terrorism and therefore confirm it, because they meet many of these components. Those responsible for the violence, though not confirmed, are believed to be non-State sponsored actors, and therefore undermine the government from below. Furthermore the sites of the attacks took place in public spaces, a minibus in Bagdad, open market places, and even busy restaurants (BBC). These specific locations provided a large pool of victims which in turn provided mass media coverage that would facilitate the spread of the terrorist goal that is “dependent on their impact on the public” (Micewski). Furthermore, the deaths and injuries were inflicted on the civilians through violence to achieve the goal of those responsible. If the Sunni’s are indeed behind the attacks, they are lashing out at what they believe to be a government that does not adequately represent them, and are motivated by tension between Sunnis and Shiites that has been ongoing since the initial religious split in 7^th century (Boeree). In addition, because these terrorist are using violence, they are ignoring the transcendental rights that belong to all humans which include the right to life and physical integrity. The focus, regardless of whoever is responsible is not to promote the wellbeing of others.

Subsequently, if it is confirmed that these attacks in Iraq, are religiously motivated, they would also demonstrate the confliction that many individuals in the world are experiencing as a result of globalization. As human beings are drawn closer and closer together, and continue to interact with one another they begin to create a cosmopolitan identity. An identity that consists of not just one component but many, while there are those who still ascribe to a particularism identity in which there is only one component. The conflict between these two types of identities, and ways of life, are often culminated in religious terrorism as one group may attempt religious homogeny while and another will resist. These issues are further escalated in dispersed persons who end up with conflicting identities, and unfortunately, in war torn Iraq, they happen to be in large supply. Added to the already pre-existing tense Sunni Shiite relationship, it’s easy to see why the situation in Iraq is ripe for ideological and political strife.

            Nevertheless, while the causes and the reasons for terrorism have been studied and identified, the issue has yet to be resolved and it remains to be seen whether it ever will be. Terrorism itself can be traced throughout history, perhaps in its earliest, and clearest, manifestation, the Reign of Terror of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. But even before that, the people of Rome in the year 105 BC experienced it as well, so the concept in it of itself is not a modern day issue. If it hasn’t been eradicated in the thousands of years since its first historically recorded appearance, it is unlikely that a solution will be found now and this stems from the fact, that oppressed individuals are not the only ones to use terrorism. State sponsored terror has also been endorsed in countless instances across the globe, and while the actors may have government authority, they still rely on the same fear through violence.  In addition, terror has been used by various types of regimes, left and right wing governments and other political entities and organizations. In order to fully resolve the issue of terrorism, the international community would have to address the causes and the grievances for all of these different organizations in order to prevent the formation of future terrorist organizations. And even before that, a concrete definition of terrorism would have to be established in order for the international community to be able to understand exactly what it is working to counter against. A definition would also be needed for Freedom Fighters, people who are fighting against truly oppressive and illegitimate governments as there are often conflicting views on whether or not a group or organization fits one category or another.  Furthermore this would not just have to be an international effort but also a domestic one as well which also complicates the issue, as one nation may be unwilling to work towards a terrorist free world, or might use terror as a form of rule itself. If that were the case, the International community would have to come to a consensus on how to proceed with such a state, through either direct intervention, sovereignty violation, or seek other alternatives, like embargos. Regardless of the course of action taken, it would have to be unanimous in order to truly be effective and as often seen in the UN Security Council, unity, is extremely hard to come by, leaving the citizens of the international community with a somewhat unclear future in regards to terrorism and terror.

Works Cited

"Iraq Hit by Deadly Attacks." BBC News. BBC, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20110320>.

Boercee, George C., Dr. "Sunnis and Shiites." Sunnis and Shiites. Shippensberg University,

n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. <http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/sunnisshiites.html>.

Micewski, Edwin R., Gen. "Terror and Terrorism: A History of Ideas and Philosophical-

ethical Reflections." Strategic Insights August IV.8 (2005): 1-15. Center for Contemporary Conflict. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

Taweeq, Mohammed. "Twin Blasts Kill 11 in Iraq." CNN. CNN, 20 Oct. 2012. Web. 28

Oct. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/20/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html>.

Taweeq, Mohammed. "Deadly Attacks Hit Iraq amid Eid Festival." CNN. CNN, 27 Oct.

2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/27/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=imi_c2>.

 "Ramadan Glossary: Eid Mubarak!" Ramadan Glossary: Eid Mubarak! N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.    <http://islam.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-eidmubarak.htm>.

The Global Blood Diamond Prohibition Regime

            For the past few decades, the sale of diamonds has been an invaluable asset to numerous anti-government rebel groups across Africa. These factions sell diamonds in exchange for money and weapons, facilitating wars and brutal acts of violence against civilians. The spilled blood resulting from the sale of these diamonds has led to the labeling of these stones as blood diamonds, and has subsequently become the focus of a global prohibition regime.

            Blood diamonds have been used to fuel conflicts since the civil war in Sierra Leone during the early 1990s. In this instance, leaders of the Revolutionary United Front, a rebel group trying to overthrow the government, gave diamonds to Liberian President Charles Taylor in exchange for weapons (Blood Diamond). As a result, the RUF carved a path of blood, tears, and semen through Sierra Leone, murdering and amputating innocent civilians, forcing children to become soldiers, and raping women. Throughout the 1990s, the use of diamonds to fuel similar conflicts was widespread in several African countries, including Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Blood Diamond).

            The global prohibition regime against blood diamonds fits nicely into the first four phases of the pattern established by Ethan Nadelmann that describes the evolution of most global prohibition regimes. The first stage of this pattern is when the activity is ubiquitous. At the start of the 1990s, the regime against blood diamonds was in the first stage, as countries all around the world engaged in the purchase of blood diamonds. However, it did not take long until this regime moved into its second stage, thanks to transnational civil society.

            During the second stage of Nadelmann’s pattern, “the activity is redefined as a problem and as an evil” (Nadelmann). In 1998, Global Witness became one of the first organizations to bring attention to the problem of blood diamonds by releasing a report detailing how diamonds had assisted a civil war in Angola. Eventually, “growing international pressure from Global Witness and other organizations played a crucial role in forcing governments and the diamond industry take action to eliminate conflict diamonds from the international trade” (Conflict Diamonds). Transnational civil society groups had set agendas, and the process of attempting to outlaw the sale of blood diamonds was well under way. By now, purchasing blood diamonds had certainly been defined as an illegitimate activity.

            According to Nadelmann, this acknowledgement of the evil of blood diamonds would be followed by the attempts of states to criminalize the activity. Indeed, it was not long after the release of Global Witness’s report on Angola that the United Nations Security Council had passed two resolutions banning the purchase of blood diamonds from Angola (Blood Diamonds). The success of global prohibition regimes often hinge on whether or not they receive support from powerful countries, and the fact that the global prohibition regime on blood diamonds began to collect support from some of the most powerful countries in the world, those of the UN Security Council, was significant.

            The UN did not stop with the passing of a few explicit Security Council resolutions, though, and the global blood diamond regime advanced to stage four.  This stage is significant because the activity in question is generally outlawed throughout the world and international institutions are established to coordinate the global response (Nadelmann). It did not take long until a formal international institution was established, once again through the help of transnational civil society. Meeting in Kimberley, South Africa in 2000, representatives from both the diamond industry and NGOs attempted to find a solution to the blood diamond issue (The Kimberley Process). The product, endorsed by the UN General Assembly and Security Council soon after, was The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KP).

            The KP seeks to stop the sale and purchase of blood diamonds by forcing all countries exporting diamonds to certify that their shipments were mined in conflict-free areas. Countries must “certify the origin of rough diamonds, and put in place effective controls to prevent conflict stones from entering the supply chain … and can only trade rough diamonds with other members” (The Kimberley Process). In the nearly ten years since its introduction at the start of 2003, the KP has been credited with stopping a respectable amount of blood diamonds from entering the market. Several countries have already been expelled and allowed to reenter once they have cleaned up their practices.

            Nadelmann’s stage five describes a condition in which the forbidden activity has been reduced to such an extent that it barely happens at all, and only on a small scale. In the case of the global blood diamond regime, it seems premature to claim that the sale of these stones has been reduced to this level. Regime leakage on a significant scale still exists in the world today, and the case can even be made that this regime has gone backwards in the past few years. Diamonds from countries not in the KP are constantly smuggled over the border and mixed into diamond shipments from countries that are in the KP. This has happened as recently as last year in the Ivory Coast (Violence). In addition, the KP has received a great deal of criticism by certifying governments like Zimbabwe who consistently infringe upon the human rights of miners, their most recent atrocity the killing of hundreds of mine workers in 2009 (Blood Diamonds). Furthermore, the KP has invited even more condemnation by continuing to certify diamonds from countries such as the Central African Republic whose profits are clearly funding rebel causes (Violence).

            The KP, as it is, is far from perfect. Recently, Global Witness, who was once an observer of the KP, left the organization in protest, claiming that it “has become an accomplice to diamond laundering – whereby dirty diamonds are mixed in with clean gems” (Global Witness). Many diamond selling states are too weak to stop blood diamonds from being mixed into their shipments. Furthermore, there are even some states that are willing to ignore blood diamonds for their own economic interests. Both of these severely undermine the KP, but the latter is exceedingly difficult to stop. If a few countries are not willing to halt a country’s diamonds from entering the market, as is currently the case in Zimbabwe, little can be done to improve the regime.

            If the global blood diamond regime is to perhaps one day enter the fifth stage, much reform will be needed. The Kimberley Process needs to improve its policing and broaden its goals. First and foremost, concerted efforts must be made to stop the smuggling of diamonds. If rebel groups in countries not part of the Kimberley Process are able to mix diamonds into the shipments of bordering countries that are part of the Kimberley Process, the entire process is undermined and rebel groups will continue their violent operations. Furthermore, the goal of the Kimberley Process must be broadened to stop diamonds coming from areas where miners suffer frequent violence as well as deplorable mine conditions. Diamond profits earned by governments like Zimbabwe provide money for conflict the same as profits earned by rebel groups and equivalently contribute to regime leakage. Better monitoring is also needed so it is clear when states are breaking the rules.  It seems overly optimistic, however, to expect anything to change until the structure of the Kimberley Process is modified. The process by which member states make decisions must be changed so that one state cannot block the will of the rest and the process can work as designed.

Works Cited

“Blood Diamond.” Wikipedia. 2012. 21 October 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond>

“Blood Diamonds: Still Bloody.” WorldPress. 14 May 2010. 21 October 2012.

<http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/3543.cfm#down>

Nadelmann, Ethan. “Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society.” International Organization 44. World Peace Foundation, 1990. 21 October 2012.

<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-183%28199023%2944%3A4%3C479%3AGPRTEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q>

“Conflict Diamonds.” Global Witness. 2012. 21 October 2012

<http://www.globalwitness.org/conflict-diamonds>

“Global Witness leaves Kimberley Process, calls for diamond trade to be held accountable.” Global Witness. 5 December 2011. 21 October 2012.

<http://www.globalwitness.org/library/global-witness-leaves-kimberley-process-calls-diamond-trade-be-held-accountable>

“The Kimberley Process.” Global Witness. 2012. 21 October 2012.

<http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/conflict/conflict-diamonds/kimberley-process>

“Violence” Brilliant Earth. 2012. 21 October 2012.

<http://www.brilliantearth.com/confict-diamond-trade/>

Event Review: David Shambaugh on “China Goes Global” at American University 9/25/2012

David Shambaugh is a professor of international affairs at George Washington University and has written many books on the politics of China. He recently gave a talk at American University about his upcoming book. The probable title for the book is China Goes Global. However, as another professor pointed out at the end of the talk, its more appropriate name is China is Not Going Global. Shambaugh beings by defining China as a rising power. Yes, he says, China has the 2^nd largest economy, 2^nd largest military budget, 2^nd largest navy, and the largest number of PhD graduates in the world. Yes, China is rising as a power. However Shambaugh then argues that, no, China is not an expanding power. China may be rising vertically but it is not spreading out horizontally. Yes, China has a global presence; but China does not have global power because it is not influencing events in other countries. He argues that wealth does not equal power. China must first convert its wealth into instruments of power and use this power in order to have influence over the world. Shambaugh points to four fields that China lacks global influence in: diplomacy, economics, military, and politics.

In diplomacy, China takes the safest, least controversial position. Beijing’s goal is to keep the status quo and get along with everyone. Shambaugh says that many times China takes a classic realist, selfish policy that restricts its involvement in other states. He points to China’s need of a stronger domestic situation before it can focus on its international involvement. In 2011 a Chinese scholar aptly stated, “China cannot even manage itself- how can it manage others?” Along the lines of the realist approach, China is deeply distrusting of other countries. As the Carter Centers Democracy Program points out, some Chinese diplomats believe that the US is trying to shape and evolve China. Among these efforts, US has tried to get China into our wars to impede China’s rising power. However, Shambaugh points out that Chinese diplomats have a variety of views of Chinese diplomacy. He divided these view into seven different categories: nativists, realists, major powers focus, Asia first, global south focus, selective multilateralists, and globalists. As Shambaugh correctly puts, China is having an identity crisis.

China’s economic policies are still very much domestic and contained as well. Though China’s largest trading partner is the US, its next top four trading partners are Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. With the exception of the US, China is mainly trading with other Asian states. Also, China has yet to become a true capitalist society because the state still has huge control over many corporations. Though China has the 2^nd largest economy in the world, it is the 5^th largest investor abroad, investing roughly $60 billion in 2011. The top four countries China invests in are Hong Kong, the British Virgin Islands, the Grand Cayman Islands, and Luxemburg. These are all tax haven locations where China can pack its money away in safe accounts. As far as Chinese multinational corporations, there are barely any that have a big market presence. In the talk, Shambaugh asked the audience to shout out any Chinese multinational corporations that came to mind, and most people could only think of Air China. China has 61 companies on the Global Fortune 500 lists, but they only have 1 on the Business Week top 100 Brand list. They are not marketing their big money companies. Further, most companies on the Fortune 500 list obtains the majority of their revenue from China’s domestic market. The big fault of China’s multinational corporations is their lack of foreign management and lack of transparency. China is not expanding their economic influence to the rest of the world.

China has also been working on building up its soft and hard power, yet Shambaugh understands that China has a far ways to go before it can truly use these powers to influence others. In the 2011 BBC poll about state images, 44% of the global public see China’s image as positive while 38% see it as negative. Hu Jintao is starting to understand that comprehensive power includes soft power, not just money and military power. He just poured money into global propaganda work, such as China Daily, CCTV, and CRI. However, if China really wants to change its global image and gain moral authority, Shambaugh asks why China is still keeping Liu Xiaobo in solitary confinement. He argues that soft power starts at home. Soft power does not come from the government, it comes from society. If this is true, China has a long way to go before it has soft power that it can use to influence the world. As for hard power, Shambaugh states that China still has very partial and weak military influence. China is strong in its ballistic missiles and cyber capabilities. However, they still focus on conventional military power. He argues that China is a regional military power at best. It cannot project and sustain nautical and navy power out of its region. Out of 70 navy ships, only 6 are blue water capable. Shambaugh closed up his talk by reinstating the point that China is a global actor, not a global power.

What Can IR Theories Teach Us About Rugby Rivalries?

            Maul, scrum, try, ruck.  To some people, these words mean very little, especially in relation to each other.  To a rugger, however, they illustrate a way of life.  The sport of rugby is very popular throughout the English-speaking world, specifically in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.  In fact, the rivalry that is most often called “the fiercest clash of all” can be found in the Tri Nations Series, the championship of the southern hemisphere: the All Black-Springbok rivalry (Brown).  The rivalry between the All Blacks of New Zealand and the Springboks of South Africa began in 1921, stemming from the two teams’ very first test, though the current bitterness of the rivalry was not adopted until the 1949 series, just after the animosity or World War II.  Termed the “fiercest sporting rivalry on the planet” (McLook), many have even suggested that “hatred” is a better term for the relationship between the All Blacks and the Springboks (Austin).

            As intriguing as the rivalry between the All Blacks and the Springboks is, one can’t help but wonder why the relationship between the two teams is so intense.  More specifically, as an international relations student, one can’t help but wonder if the rivalry can be explained by the three major IR theories: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

            At its most basic level, the rivalry between the All Blacks and the Springboks can be explained by realism, which insists that world politics is driven by self-interest.  Many times, ruggers have described the game of rugby as war.  “When South African plays New Zealand,” Boy Louw once said, “consider your country at war” (Austin).  Because the Springboks and the All Blacks view each other as equals, realism dictates that they should compete for superiority in order to ensure their survival, similar to the actions of states in war.  Just as states only focus on the actions of other states in realism, New Zealand and South Africa only pay attention to each other and Australia, the other member of the Tri Nation Championship.  Though there are interprovincial leagues, the members of those leagues are not considered a player in the Springbok All Black rivalry (Brown).  However, the rivalry cannot be attributed to only realism because there is a lack of anarchy; each match is governed by a centralized power, a power that provides referees and the laws of rugby.

            It is difficult to see how liberalism would explain the All Black Springbok rivalry: the main purpose of liberalism is to achieve lasting peace and cooperation.  Liberalism does explain the pause in the rivalry near the year 1976: New Zealand, among other states, reacted negatively to the continuation of the Apartheid in South Africa, leading eventually to the discontinuation of matches between the two teams (“The 1976…”).  This pause in the rivalry is a prime example of liberalism’s emphasis on the necessity of basic human rights.

            Rather than using liberalism, then, perhaps it would be best to analyze how neoliberalism explains the rivalry.  Neoliberalism “argues that international institutions can allow nations to successfully cooperate in the international system.”  Given this definition, it makes sense to view rugby rivalries not as a political rivalry, but as an alternative to a political rivalry.  Rugby is very much an institution: it is governed by laws (Brown) and it transcends national borders.  Being involved in rugby should allow New Zealand and South Africa connect through their similarities to prevent political strife and conflicts.

            Perhaps the easiest theory to use to describe the All Black-Springbok rivalry is constructivism, which argues that “actions and words shape society, and society, in turn, shapes our actions and words” (Lamy, et. al.).  In an interview discussing the causes of the rivalry, Springbok John Smit claimed that the team and its success meant a lot to the people; he also mentioned that it was “tough to beat South Africa in South Africa” (John Smit, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeMpCOsWeuc).   Because of the interests of the people, the rivalry between the two teams grew over the years; if the two teams did not have any fans, or if the people of South Africa or New Zealand been unsupportive of the sport, it is unlikely that the rivalry would have developed at all.  The reaction of the New Zealand people to Apartheid is an example of the effect of the interest of the people on the rivalry: though New Zealand wanted to continue its rivalry with South Africa, the people of New Zealand opposed Apartheid and protested many of the matches, making the continuation of the rivalry difficult and nearly impossible (Austin).

            Constructivism also best explains why the rivalry between the All Blacks and Springboks continued after South Africa ended Apartheid and was no longer isolated in politics or, more importantly, sports.  Because of its isolation from rugby, South Africa was no longer New Zealand’s main rival in terms of skill; rather, Australia had filled that gap.  However, New Zealand fans still referred to the Springboks as “the old enemy.”  For these fans, history and tradition were more important than the current status of rugby rankings in their league.  A similar sentiment is echoed by Springbok player Joel Stransky: "We South Africans grow up wanting to wear the green and gold and play against the All Blacks. It is part of our rugby DNA. The history is just so strong and we want to judge ourselves against the arch enemy and the best" (Austin).  The continuation of the All Black Springbok rivalry is not merely a contest to see which team is stronger; it is a tradition built on nearly a century of history.

            Each other main theories of international relations can explain a portion of the Springbok All Black relationship, but in order to understand to the fullest extent of that relationship, it is best to consider realism, liberalism, and constructivism all at once.  It is only through the interactions of these three theories that a full explanation can be reached.

 

Works Cited

Austin, Andrew. "The Rivalries: Battle against Boks Fiercest Clash of All." The New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings NZ Limited, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/great-all-black-moments/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503161.

Brown, Matthew, Patrick Guthrie, and Greg Growden. "Rugby For Dummies." Rugby for Dummies. 3rd ed. N.p.: Wiley, 2011. N. pag. Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/rugby-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html.

"John Smit on All Blacks Rivalry." Interview. OfficialBokTube. YouTube, 27 July 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeMpCOsWeuc.

McLook. "The Greatest of All Rugby Rivalries." Rugby-Talk. Rudi Geldenhuys, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/02/the-greatest-of-all-rugby-rivalries/.

“The 1976 All Black Tour to South Africa." Web log post. The McLook Rugby Collection: A Personal Collection That Tells the Story of Springbok Rugby. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://springbokrugby.webs.com/arrival.htm.

Nation-States: An Arbitrary Institution?

Nation-States: An Arbitrary Institution?

Globalization has perpetuated the flow of people, ideas, capital, and technology which has blurred borders and redefined the way we view the world.  Along with the increase in the poverty gap within countries, areas, and cities, this transformation begs the question: given the immense stratification of wealth, lifestyle, and culture within borders, are nation-states becoming an arbitrary institution? And if nation-states are obsolete, what shift in ideology created created the new institution of a “global world system” and how do they reinforce one another?  

To address the questions stated above, we must first examine what specifically created the poverty gap as well as the flow of people, money, and ideas across borders.  Although the rise of globalism is complicated and involves many nuanced historical developments, technology can be identified as a key component in globalization and the decline of the nation-state.  Post-feudalism, Europe saw the rise of the accumulation of wealth and property (Robinson).  In conjunction with the mercantile system, the upper class of Europe was able to invest their wealth in new modes of production and exploration which in turn increased their wealth and the advancement of European society exponentially.  This wealth was then used to further oppress new areas of exploration (the colonies) which led to what we know today as the Core-Periphery paradigm (Frank).  Essentially, wealthy nations extracted resources at a very high labor and low (or non existent) wage rate, then processed the goods at a low labor and high wage rate due to their mechanization, and then sold those goods back to the colonies at a high price.  This created a position of superiority over the undeveloped colonies, as well as creating a relationship of dependency of the colonies on the imperial powers.  The important implication to recognize is that the Core-Periphery model led to globalized poverty; essentially cementing the identities of poor countries and rich countries that differed starkly in development.   

As technology progresses however, it led to “the shrinking of time and space.”  With continuous advancements in both transportation, communication, and the economic system, from the printing press  to the iPhone 5, from the mapping of the world to G6 jets, the distance between countries is seemingly non-existent.  This phenomenon supposedly led to the “flattening of the world” and the homogenizing of cultures through the sharing of ideas, experiences, and interests.  

The international flow of capital is the most prevalent example of the use of technology to connect nations.  The rise of international corporations and international trade of goods and stock, as well as the ability to fund any group across the world has connected the world like never before.  The interests of American business men are now the same as the interests of their business partners across the ocean.  This transformation has led people to question the government’s influence over the economy and over the course of history because so much of it is being dictated by companies with influence world-wide (Appardurai).  

Immigration in itself has completely changed the identity of countries across the world, as America is no longer the only “melting pot”.  Beyond the mix of cultures, immigration has also redefined the justice system: even illegal-immigrants are extended certain rights once they step foot in certain countries, regardless of citizenship, such as the right to due-process (Sassen).  With such a variation of types of people, culture, as well as the question of rights, one might start to wonder: can we lump all of these different people together under the same tent of a “nation-state”? And does the government of these nation-states have the ability to make decisions for the benefit of the entire nation if there is little relation between its citizens other than geography?

The travel of technology has also changed the nature of the Core-Periphery model by exporting the oppression complex to a smaller scale within nations, as well as introducing what is known as the “semi-periphery” of Asian countries with massive production but little improvement in the quality of life for its citizens.  When the developed nations exported their technology and mechanization to less developed countries, they introduced the stratification of wealth within communities.  This fracture within countries, communities, and all the way down to the city level has created a disjuncture within a country of class, lifestyle, and identity that skews the national identity and coherence of nations (Sassen).  This increasing gap in wealth is what development scholars refer to as the “UN Paradigm” (Thérien).  

Since the introduction of the idea of the “UN Paradigm”, humanitarian aid has begun to change to target certain demographics, instead of certain geographic areas. Some NGOs are focusing on “human centered development” which looks to aid groups like women, child soldiers, and other marginalized groups, instead of just “sending aid to Africa.”  

This transition in humanitarian aid leads us to the discussion of the relevance of constructivism in the context of globalization and nation-states.  Since the way we define and divide the world is largely a social construct, we must question what ideology influenced the construct of “nation-states”, what ideology led to globalization, and how that institution reinforced said ideology.  The division of nation-states originally had to do  with authority, jurisdiction, and monarchies or governments seeking to increase their wealth.  Interestingly enough, the wealth they acquired, instead of reinforcing the institutions of nation-states led to the technology which led to globalization and the deterioration of the definition of nation-states. While it is nearly impossible to specify what came first, the idea to globalize or the actual creation of a global world system itself, it is certain that constructivists would argue that the flow of ideas, capital and people, reinforce global sentiments that permeate every aspect of our society (especially at AU) which turns around and increases globalization all the more.  This perpetual cycle of reinforcement is the cycle strong enough to deconstruct a centuries old idea that the world is divided geographically.  

While the skepticism surrounding the validity of the idea of nation-states is seemingly increasing, the impact of this perspective shift is yet to impact daily life in a visible way.  It is true that the impact of international governing authorities such as the IMF and the UN has become more and more prevalent, but think about our daily lives: at AU we still identify by the country we are from, we still mark our race and ethnicity in bubbles on standardize tests, and we still choose our “area of study” in SIS by geographic region.  Before the nation-state takes a back seat in our view of the world, a new perspective on world systems must be introduced.  Theories that the new line between people will be defined by class or lifestyle, as well as looking at the world through the lens of the economy have taken center stage in fields of both development and IR, however we are yet to see a dominant prediction or theory emerge.  

Works Cited

Appadurai, Ajun. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Duke University Press, Print.

Frank, Andre Gunder. The Underdevelopment of Development. University of Antioquia. 

     <http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ ceo/ article/viewFile/6716/6151>. 

Robinson, William. Beyond Nation-State Paradigms. N.p.: Springer, 1998. Print.

Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2006. Print.

Saskia Sassen on Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. Cast Roller, 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 

     2012. <http://castroller.com/Podcasts/BigIdeas/1169576>.

Thérien, Jean-Philippe. Beyond the North South Divide. Taylor & amp; Francis, Print. 

Feminist Outlook on the United States and Israel's Military Women

The roles of women have been expanding militarily throughout the world, but specifically within the United States and Israel. Each country has seen great strides in their inclusion of women within the military community and integrating them into more and more traditionally “masculine” positions than ever before. Many feminists would be elated at the inclusion of women and the military’s working towards gender equality; however, not everything is working as smoothly as it may seem. Many feel as if women should not be in the military. There is a great divide in opinion over the usefulness of “femininity” in the military. Some see it as a sign of weakness, while others view it as a new and evolving viewpoint that the military could use in order to better utilize all of its capable and willing citizens. I hope to look at women’s involvement in the United States and Israeli military through the feminist perspective in order to shed some light on a growing problem within the progression of women’s rights.

Women have been a part of the United States Military since the early 20^th Century and got real recognition in 1941 with the WAACS and WAVES. Women currently make up over 20% of the United States Military in positions ranging from nurses, to technicians, to pilots, etc. They; however, are not allowed to fight in the front lines. Women are currently banned from participating in direct combat; however, there is no longer a clearly defined line that is considered the “front lines.” In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are countless positions in which women face direct combat because of the nature of warfare. They have been attacked on numerous occasions in the positions that they currently are allowed to occupy. Many feminists would argue that since women are still facing all of the dangers as men in their positions, then qualified women should be able to fight alongside the men in equal positions.  Women have already fought alongside men many times throughout US military history. Senior generals have often been found to disregard “congressionally mandated prohibitions on women in combat by ‘attaching’ female troops to combat groups rather than formally ‘assigning’ them”(Dreazen). In modern times, more than 150 female troops have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as well (Dreazen). Regardless, the military is still very focused on keeping women in “safe” roles that allow for little military rank progression. This  makes US feminists angry that the military is simply basing decisions on sex rather than an individual’s capabilities at the task whether male or female.

While many view America as an extremely progressive country when it comes to women’s rights and equality, Israel’s army has been more progressive than the US for decades. According to the Israel Defense Force’s website, “Women comprise 34% of all IDF soldiers and fulfill various senior and combat roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. Currently, 88% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates” (“Statistics: Women’s Service…”).These large numbers are due to Israel being the only nation that requires the conscription of both men and women, putting both into the possibility of enemy fire.  The conscription of women in Israel is between the ages of 18-26 but they may be exempted if they are married, pregnant, mothers, or religiously opposed. In Israel, though, the desire to serve is as strong among women as it is for men. Many women had been in active combat from before Israel’s 1948 war for independence and were even seen afterward, but throughout its past, it has seen a large fluctuation in its allowance of power for women. They rose through the ranks, proved themselves, and in 1950, their combat roles were revoked due to sentiments that women should not be dying, rather, they should be marrying and producing children. This softened view of women in Israel has arguably given women a much easier time of their military conscription than men. They have shorter serving periods and rarely have to serve in the reserves. It is not the model for feminists looking to prove the progression of women. They seldom gain prominent roles and are often segregated into their own corps. According to the Israel Defense Force’s website, “Women constitute 25% of Officers, and 20% of Career Soldiers. Almost half (45%) are 1st Lieutenants, a quarter are Lieutenants, and slightly less than a quarter (23% and 22%) of Captains and Majors…” While these numbers seem great, they are often only in charge of other women. Feminists want to see women becoming prominent among both genders and able to effectively lead as any man can. Many do not believe that this is possible. That is why women are often seen as the downfall of the power within the military. Between 1967 and 1982, the IDF was one of the finest militaries in the world. Many attribute its downfall to women coming into power and the reluctance of Israeli men to work with them (van Creveld).

In support of women in the military, they’re actually essential to a multi-faceted attack and defense. Women in the military allow for a wider range of frisking, spy missions, expanded multicultural relations, and they add different perspectives to a predominantly male and “masculine” ideological military.They add extra manpower and thus security for their country. They are also proving that every citizen, male or female has a stake in the country’s security and are willing to fight for it.

While there are measurable pro’s to women in the military, there are con’s as well. Physical prowess is not the key issue, the real issue is in the minds of the soldiers and citizens. Women are often viewed as more of a burden than an asset because men traditionally feel an obligation to protect women. With this in mind, many countries are not yet as ready to see women coming home in coffins as men. There are also fears that morale will be broken more when a woman is taken as a prisoner of war than a man. Many men believe that they would give up intelligence if a woman was being tortured rather than a man.  Also a key deterrent towards allowing women in the military is for their own safety sexually. According to the Military Rape Crisis Center, “Every four hours a sexual assault or rape is reported in the United States Armed Forces.” During the Vietnam and Gulf Wars, it was reported that 1 in 3 women were raped. It has historically been a problem and will continue to be one until more rules are put in place to protect women and their human rights. It is difficult to effectively fight in a war when your main security hazard is the soldier next to you.

For simplicity, there are essentially two approaches to looking at this from the feminist perspective.  The first is a positive outlook. Allowing women in the military is slowly changing the views of sex and it becomes, instead, a battle of gender roles. Women in the military who are deemed “qualified” and go through combat training become increasingly more “masculine.” Masculinity and femininity are no longer words used solely for one sex or another. It is a meshing of the sexes to create equality. The only prerequisite for this is the masculine abilities of physical fitness that are able to be acquired by both genders. While the two genders are obviously still very different within the military, the integration of women will allow the traditional roles of sexes to slowly dissipate as both men and women find themselves filling “untraditional” roles at equal prowess.

 Another outlook is more pessimistic for feminism. Feminists would see women in the military as revoking their sexual identities as women. They are throwing away their feminine values in order to better assimilate with the men. The masculinity-dominated institution is merely making women conform to masculine ideals in order to be integrated and, in the extreme, this is against the progression of women. Also, women are consistently getting raped by their male counterparts because they are seen as unequal and easy to take advantage of. This de-womanizes women and degrades them. Personally, I see this from a sort of integration of these two extremes. I think the military is currently utilizing men and women to their sex’s strength’s, but slowly adding a few outliers in either direction to bring new perspectives and ways of executing tasks that had never been tried before. I think that in the military, there are certain positions that are BETTER filled by a male or a female; however, there are certainly individuals who can traverse this sex gap, but currently this cannot be done by everyone.

I would like to hear everyone’s solutions to the problems continually affecting these two militaries. It seems as if it is a sticky problem creating little progressive movement. On one hand, pushing women into positions could force them to prove themselves and to the world that women can do anything that a man can. Or, on the flip side, it could slowly rot the military from the inside out if they are unable to complete tasks, or their presence causes tensions between the sexes. Another proposal that I have read suggests taking women out of the military altogether. The author saw the degrading of the Israeli military as the fault of the women soldiers, and thinks that most countries’ armies would be better off with only men. This would only lead to back-pedaling for feminists everywhere. Personally I think that the slow integration of women is the best, but I believe that there will always be at least a few positions that certain genders will find difficult to acquire.

Works Cited

Dreazen, Yochi J. "Women Fighting The Nation's Wars." National Journal (2011): 13. Academic Search

Premier. Web. 7 Oct. 2012.

Hynes, H Patricia. "Truthout." Truthout. Truthout, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. <http://truth-

out.org/news/item/6299:military-sexual-abuse-a-greater-menace-than-combat>.

Sasson-Levy, Orna. "Feminism And Military Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers In “Masculine”

Roles." Sociological Inquiry 73.3 (2003): 440-465. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Oct. 2012.

"Statistics: Women's Service in the IDF for 2010." Israel Defense Forces. Israel Defense Forces, 25 Aug.

2010. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. <http://www.idfblog.com/2010/08/25/statistics-womens-service-in-the-idf-for-2010-25-aug-2010/>.

van Creveld, M. "Armed But Not Dangerous: Women In The Israeli Military." War In History 7.1 (2000):

82-98. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Oct. 2012.

"Women in Combat Pros and Cons." Sisters In Arms. Sisters In Arms, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2012.

<http://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/>.

"Women in IDF." Israeli Krav International. Your-krav-maga-expert.com, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html>. 

Reponse to Questions About Sex Trafficking in Bosnia and UN Political Immunity

Hey guys, here is my response to questions from my last blog post. I'm sorry for making this a seperate blog post, blogger wouldn't let me post this response in the comment section because it was too long. I tried splitting it up as 3 different comments as well and they were still too long.

First, I would like to clear up some of my ideas from my original post. I talked about individuals and states as international players as if they were the same thing. If I were talking just about America, this may be acceptable because it is the people that make up the states. However, in states that are still dictatorships or not yet fully developed democracies, such as Bosnia, the government is separate from the people. The Bosnian government does not necessarily care about the individuals. During the UN peacekeeping mission, the government may have seen the trafficked women as collateral damage. They could have believed that regardless of their subjects’ struggles, the government was still obtaining its end goal- peace. A rational Bosnian government may have argued that the atrocities the Bosnian people endured from UN peacekeepers were just a small cost that was worth the benefit of ultimate peace. A reflective Bosnian government may have also argued that it was not in Bosnian culture to respect the same human rights for women as the Western world did.

The problem in this case seems to be a difference between the state’s goals and the citizen’s desires. One solution could have been convincing the Bosnian government that in order to have met their goal of peace, they must have first met their citizens’ desires of human rights. The government of Bosnia saw the state as separate from the people. However it was the people of the state that created and continued the chaos. Peace for the individuals and for the state came hand in hand. The more the people’s human rights were infringed on and the more strife they faced, the least likely these people would be peaceful, thereby contributing an atmosphere of continued chaos to the country. Referring to another peace keeping mission, Zenon Mukonngo Ngay, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s UN representative, stated, “the United Nations mission in his country had so “excelled” in criminal activity that any benefits were wiped away”. Therefore it was in the state’s interest to create peace among its civilians, which means preventing peace keepers from rape, murder, and trafficking. Taking a rational approach to this argument, the costs of overlooking citizens’ human rights was a decrease in peace. Therefore, the Bosnian government should have worked with its people and with the UN mission to promote human decency.

The other side of the problem was the second player in the mission: the providing countries that sent peacekeepers over to Bosnia. These countries may have also taken a rational approach and viewed abuses of human rights as necessary to succeed at the main goal of peace. However, many different examples could have been shown to prove that it was rationally in the providing states’ interest to regulate corruption and trafficking. First, if officials and peace keepers were spending their time and energy on the sex trafficking industry, they weren’t spending time on finding solutions for peace. Also, the attitudes of the providing states in the mission could have influenced their reputation in the rest of the world. Though the Bosnian government may not have cared about how the providing states treated the civilians, perhaps other countries did. In the future, a state in chaos may not allow a UN peacekeeping mission on their soil because they do not trust the providing countries. Beijing may laugh at America’s critisisms of human rights abuses in China and point to the US peacekeepers roles in Bosnia. Disregarding sex trafficking is harmful because other states, especially democratic ones, may become disillusioned by the idea of liberalism and in the future may be unwilling to participate in institutions because they see the faults. Therefore, it is in providing states’ rational interests to maintain integrity among its employees. On a reflective level, some providing states such as Uruguay may not have culturally understood the need to protect these girls. In this case, there was no way to convince them that it was their responsibility to end sex trafficking. However, with a state like America it was in their reflective interest to respect human rights. That respect is a core value of the United States. If many citizens of the US find out about the atrocities in Bosnia, there could be a big uproar against the government. The government in America derives its power from the people, therefore it is in their interest to abide by the morals of the people. US citizens may in the future demand that the state department ends contracts with DynCorp or at least prosecutes US employees that committed crimes in Bosnia. In almost all peace keeping missions, with the exception of East Timor, the goal of peace failed. The end goal of peace was never met, and corruption had a big part in these failures. It was in providing states’ interests to end the promotion of the sex trafficking in Bosnia. Further, liberalism believes that institutions such as the UN can end/prevent war. One of the fundamental ideas of liberalism is also the respect of human rights. Therefore in order for a liberal act such as a peace keeping mission to be successful it must follow the liberal ideals it was based on.

To answer problems of political immunity, we must narrow down on the individuals while keeping in mind the fundamental system of UN peace keeping missions. The very environment of a lawless arena may have been the main cause of the abuses committed on the girls. Perhaps in a community where there was no accountability, true human nature of corruption and cruelty came out. This is a rather cynical approach to the individual. Another possibility was that such an environment attracted inherently bad people that came in to the missions because they had heard of easy access to money and girls. Another theory is that the lack of a common identity promoted the idea of “every man for himself”, which contributed to the corruption. 45 countries provide peace keepers to various missions. Each of these countries has different laws dictating human rights and different cultures about what essential human rights are. These peacekeepers in Bosnia did not share common values, which created a distrusting workplace. Also because of this, the employees may have not felt a strong sense of moral accountability to one another. Whatever the case, it was apparent that the system did not work.

There are a variety of proposed solutions to the problem of political immunity, however there are also faults to most of these ideas. If the UN were to subject peace keepers to the jurisdiction of the host country, there is the problem that due process rights are different in various host countries than the providing countries. Therefore, that solution may ironically impede on the human rights of those prosecuted. Another approach is to make providing countries prosecute their own peacekeepers that are accused of human rights violations. The problem is that each providing country has different laws on human rights and therefore this system would not be reliable. Also, the UN itself could hold jurisdiction over its officials and peacekeepers. It could create a general court encompassing all UN employees’ actions, much like tribunal courts, and prosecute each case. However, all of these options could be seen as taking sovereignty away from states. Many providing states may oppose this and refuse to send peacekeepers to future missions.

Despite the various problematic approaches possible to peacekeeping missions, there are also solutions that could be successful in promoting peace and human rights. Most all peace keeping missions have failed to actually create peace in the troubled region, except the mission in East Timor. The mission in East Timor was special in the fact that one country, Australia, led the mission. Many peacekeepers were Australian and the efforts in East Timor were executed by Australia. This led to a mission where the peace keepers had a common identity. They were morally obliged to each other, worked better together, and trusted one another. There was better organization in the mission because the employees were getting most orders from one country. In the mission in Sierra Leone, peace keepers were from Sub- saharant Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. They did not work well together and were not well organized or trained. If one country leads a mission in the future, there would be more individual accountability even without having to take away political immunity. Cases of sex trafficking and rape would no longer be referred to as “that one corrupt peace keeper from one of those corrupt providing countries” but rather “that peace keeper from the US that participated in trafficking”. There would be more transparency in this situation, and the individuals as well as the state would be held accountable by the international community. It would be at the interest of the one providing country to fight against corruption and promote the respect of human rights among their employees.

I’d like to answer some questions that I may not have covered in the response above:

Nick-

Sex trafficking is illegal in Bosnia. Rape is illegal as well, but is not generally enforced and there is a high stigma around it. If you are interested more about this I’d recommend looking into this website under the tab “Restricted Physical Integrity”: http://genderindex.org/country/bosnia-and-herzegovina

Val-

As far as UN peacekeeping missions go, I would agree with you that they are doing more harm than good. I cannot speak to other UN efforts. Here is a pretty reveling record of UN peacekeeping: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/892592.stm

Also, to add to your comments about how Ben Johnston was dealt with, here is more information that you might find disconcerting: In 2012 DynCorp paid him off and by accepting this money Johnston signed a gagging order so that he could not speak against DynCorp in court. DynCorp admitted to firing five other employees on the same basis for firing Johnston, for “discredit to the company and the U.S. Army”.- http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11119

Joe-

Here is the UN’s page about their new mission to recruit more female UN peacekeepers: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/initiatives/globaleffort.shtml

This is also an interesting article about the effects of female peacekeepers in the UN: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/africa/06iht-ffpeace.html?pagewanted=all

Daniella-

To my knowledge, little has been done since the release of the film. There is the effort to recruit more female UN peacekeepers, which is important. The UN officials and employees who committed crimes in Bosnia have still not been prosecuted.

Here are some links for further information about the topic of political immunity:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gal3388.doc.htm

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kentlaw.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fbbrown%2Fclasses%2FIntlOrgSp09%2FPEACEKEEPERABUSEIMMUNITYANDIMPUNITY.pdf&ei=XBVpUNedK6Tz0gGp4YHYAw&usg=AFQjCNFNZ9elQX2tzi3HAY_jpWq2wcj_QQ&sig2=4U6xdKg0nM9H-OzAz5Zb3A

http://debatinghumanrights.org/?p=365

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

The Realist Perspective and Global Conflict

The Realist Perspective and Global Conflict

                In the field of international relations, there are many conflicting theories that all attempt to explain why states take the actions that they take. The three major theories of international relations are realism, liberalism, and constructivism, with constructivism acting as a sort of umbrella category for many of the less popular theories. All of these theories try to provide a pattern of behavior that states follow based on what the states value most highly. The realist perspective is one that states that our ideal world and the world we occupy are two vastly different places, and we cannot assume that we live in a world where morals and ethics are a consideration. Realists see the struggle to survive as being paramount to all other issues and accumulation of power to be the force which allows continued survival. The third tenant of realism says that states can only trust themselves, and that all possibility of state death comes from other states. With these major points on realism firmly established and agreed upon, many topics become interesting to observe through the realist worldview, which makes one wonder how a realist would view the concept of world war or other global conflicts.

                According to realism, human beings are inherently egotistic and self-interested to the extent that self-interest overcomes moral principles, which thereby impacts every aspect of the human mentality .When combined with the self-preservation and constant distrust endorsed by the realist theory of international relations, we see a world where there are no actions that can be done entirely for the benefit of another nation. To a realist, there is always a hidden motive when one state offers assistance to another. This scenario is entirely true of World War I and the United States’ movement of Navy ships to assist the Allied Powers in their fight against Germany and the Central Powers. The United States had been pursuing a policy of isolationism, hoping to avoid the war at all costs despite repeated requests for help from their British and French allies. However, after the sinking of seven U.S. merchant ships by German U-boats, America realized that by helping the Allies to defeat the Central Powers, it could extract revenge on Germany for the lost American lives.

                In addition to the obvious desire to avenge fallen American citizens, the actions of the United States make perfect strategic sense when examined through the realist perspective. According to realists, power is a limited commodity that some states gain at the expense of other states, making every global action merely one move in the struggle to accumulate power. As in the global conflicts to follow, the United States took actions to preserve the store of power that they had at their disposal while looking to increase it if possible. World War I provided a perfect opportunity for the United States to show that it was a force to be reckoned with on the global scale, and it took that opportunity and ran with it. At the end of the war, Germany was essentially dependent on money borrowed from the United States in order to pay the reparations for damages caused by the conflict, thereby increasing American power in Europe while simultaneously fostering resentment amongst the German people.

                To someone examining American involvement in World War I through a realist perspective, the conflict may seem contrary to the principal tenants of realism. The United States, by intervening in conflicts regarding other states, put its survival as a state into unnecessary risk. If things had gone wrong for American forces, the United States stood to lose much respect in the eyes of the international community, making it look weak and in prime position to be attacked by rival nations. However, the actions taken by the United States were well within the context of international relations realism. America recognized that increased power for the nations of Germany and Austria-Hungary meant less of a position of power for the United States in the global community. If hostile states were allowed to amass power that could potentially be used against the United States, there would be a much higher threat to America’s continued survival, which is the core tenant of realism.

                However, realism does not always serve to support involvement in global conflicts. To truly be justified by the realist perspective, a global issue must threaten the sovereignty and survival of a specific state beyond just the perception of a possible future attack. The threat must be realistic and imminent in order to be infringing upon the survival of such a state. In addition, the control of power must be taken into consideration as well. If a threatening state wishes to attack another state, the aggressor must also have enough power to execute such an assault. If not, there is no reason for realist-minded countries to intervene in global conflicts, as there is no imminent threat to their survival from a state powerful enough to actually cause concern for the continued existence of the state.

Works Cited

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "Political Realism in International Relations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/>.

Morgenthau, Hans J. "Six Principles of Political Realism." Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. 4-15. Print.