Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
360 PART 3 -- strats of peace - Coggle Diagram
360 PART 3 -- strats of peace
STRATEGIES OF PEACE
DEEP PEACE VS COLD PEACE
DEEP PEACE: warm and stable
no state thinks of starting a war → western Europe and the security community
COLD PEACE:
there is no war
relationship between societies is NOT PEACEFUL
no formal agreement to start a war but it is still possible
Israel-Egypt, Armenia-Azerbaijan
THE COLD WAR:
no hot war as it was constrained by nuclear and military capabilities OR great powers
many rivalries endure(d)
war is still possible but does not happen all the time
birth of a CW between China and the West
POST COLD CHANGES AND SECURITY STUDIES
1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, liberation of Eastern European countries
emergence of citicism towards the realistic logic of war, peace and stability
ARGUMENT: the biggest threat to peace were:
state failures,
population growth,
ethnic conflicts,
environmental conflicts
non-traditional security challenges that cannot be addressed by realist mechanisms (like balance of power or containment)
CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES
argue that we ought to go outside prevailing structures, orthodoxies, processes, and ideologies
contested area of study
→ but they believe that existing theories are part of the problem
prominent scholars like Steve Smith, Mohammed Ayoob, Michael Williams.
endorsed by many scholars from developing countries
ROBERT COX
CRITICAL THEORIES
Prevailing ideas as the basis for action →
the given framework for action is the prevailing social and power relationships, as well as the institutions into which they are organized
people argue that because existing frameworks are not giving the kind of results people want
disenchantment with a nation state itself
argument: unless states radically change, change will not happen
Argument: without critical theories, people would still be living in bad worlds --> critical theories question the current frameworks and bring about change
Democratic revolution, sense of equality and equity, anti-racism all came from a period of critical thinking.
PROBLEM SOLVING THEORIES
calls prevailing theories into question, concerning themselves with the origins of the theory and how they might be in the process of changing
→ theories are not accepted as taken for granted and need to be criticised
criticism: lack of specificity, rigor and many think that their job is not to make alternate policies
GENDER BASED APPROACHES / FEMINISM
a critical theory that put into question the topical frameworks of gender roles
initially = mostly about equity and equality in jobs and armed forces, security institutions, and international institutions (where men dominated)
CRITICISM
Gender roles vary by country
Some harsh, powerful leaders were women: Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Catherine the great of Russia
→ Biggest expansion of their empires
→ May be due to their need to act tougher in the face of their male counterparts
WAR
Proposed that war was a reflection of the patriarchal masculine view of the state
→ state as the instrument of masculine patriarchal views.
A radical reorganization of war would not happen until we accept some feminine values
Nurturing vs coercive behavioral patterns as a key feminist argument, → militarism as one big target
Idea that gender influences the choices countries make
HUMAN SECURITY
The state is supposed to protect individual security, but in many situations, the state is the threat instead
A country's security being based on nation states often does not give attention to the idea of individual individuals
Human security
implies the safety of the people from violent and non-violent threats
Freedom from coercive threats and peoples rights being respected
Vulnerability of the people should be minimized
The metric of analysis of security should be human centric -- and not state centric
Security becomes predatory when run by people of their own interest
If materialistic and cohesive, it becomes a problem
If the status is weak, it is a problem as it has no capacity to
State capacity is important because of how much legitimacy states and rulers have
How caring the state is towards minorities who may take over the state = important
9/11
generated violence against people living in the middle eastern countries
realization in many states that
we need to incorporate human security into legitimate military forces
has not been successful because countries say one thing, but do another
Countries spend on status and prestige when the cost of one aircraft carrier may solve world hung
Big powers contribute to the fact that traditional security concerns still dominate the agenda
ANDY MACK, Human Security Report
he identified the factors of security for humans
The threat of political violence (from the state or organized political actors) should be concerned for human security
When groups are in conflict, state elites can be a source of violence as they have the tools for it
Other threats are natural, calamities, danger, and hunger
→ Threats are not just present and developing states
UNDP Annual Human Reports
(since 1994)
Argue that since the Cold War is over, we need to regain
focus on big developmental issues
:
how to end civil wars,
atrocities against women/children/minority groups,
leftover arms
child soldiers,
mines,
small arms,
irrational state control and failed states
A number of secondary yet important considerations
Problem of studying these without encroaching on other developmental concerns
After the CW
period of relative cold peace
, but we may be back to square one with conflicts emerging
Big powers hold their status only because of their military powers
Rising powers wish to be recognized as such too
In bureaucracies or powerful states, someone with ambition will emerge and start dominating others
SECURITY
absence of threats to physical security of a country/the people and it’s core values
TRADITIONAL SECURITY + non trad
tends to favor the security
of the state
as it’s very difficult to handle the other ones
as nation states grew, war and war prevention became essential for evolution
Nontraditional security includes:
global warming,
environmental disasters,
pandemics,
trafficking of all kinds,
organized crime -- including terrorism.
PEACEFUL CHANGE
Need for mechanisms of change at the great power level as a continuum
MINIMALIST APPROACH:
Change in international relations and foreign policies of states
-- including territorial or sovereignty agreements -- that take place
without violence
or use of course of force
→ Many think that it’s not enough and need for a maximus approach
MAXIMALIST APPROACH:
Big transformational change that takes place nonviolently
Takes place in an amongst states within the regions of the societal levels as well
Normative and institutional level change
Prosperity and justice for all is a main consideration, regardless of race and gender
The ultimate goal is to create a better world of perpetual peace where people are treated as equals
Looks at more than just peacekeeping -- also looks at
peace building and transforming the attitudes of the people living in them
.
NON VIOLENT RESISTANCE
: a general technique of
protest, resistance, and intervention
without physical or general violence
The biggest success is the freedom of India by Gandhi with nonviolent resistance: he was the one who developed the idea.
Gandhi’s opposition to the British imposed rules by mastering obedience campaigns: no reaction when the police fired at them
Belief that you don’t need to win by waving a war against a powerful power as many might die and suffer with no guaranteed independence
Martin Luther King in the 1960s in the US
went to India to learn about the practices of Gandhi
Different strategies he used include
Non-violent protest
persuasion (such as vigils and petition)
Non-cooperation such as boycotting, economic activities, strikes civil disobedience
The aim is to
convert the opponent to your cause through moral persuasion, not to force the opponent to react to violently
Martin Luther King had the power of mobilizing the public and gained support from the white population as well
There is importance of getting support from potential adversaries and their groups as there is
a need to have loyalty and a leader with a magnetic personality
ERIKA CHENOWETH,
Why CIvil Resistance Works
found that between 1900 and 2006, non-violent resistance campaigns were twice as likely to succeed than violent campaigns
Groups that want rights, justification, and meaningful change had more success using nonviolent approaches
3.5% rule:
at least an active participation of 3.5% of the population of the country makes it difficult to lose a campaign
Share use that now many states have realized that these are techniques that can really hurt them
The authoritarian regime are learning to use social media to verify peaceful protesters
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
: the minimization and or avoidance of violence in a conflict
It is the reduction and final overcoming of antagonism between parties
Conclusion of settlements that are acceptable to both parties
The settlements should last and remove the issue of contention. Until then the conflict is not resolved.
Long and short term techniques, including diplomatic, mediation, sanctions, economic, and military interactions
Important ideas, such as de-escalation of conflict as a prelude to resolution + deescalation = multidimensional process
Reducing the source of conflict: Could involve contraption of the extent of the conflict, including the amount of parties, reducing numbers by giving concessions to one group
The parties have to be engaged and willing to conclude the conflict
The timing and rightness can only happen at a certain point in time
rightness is the circumstances for a conflict to be ready for a change
Conflict resolution does not come from a singular level of analysis
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
levels
systemic
- comes from big wars
FOR INSTANCE:
the end of the CW ordered the global politics of many conflicts
during the cold war, superpowers supported powers by proxy
subsystemic: Us invasion of Iraq brought change to the Arab Israeli peace process
state level
either comes from:
a new regime
OR a leader who wants to make peace as their main contribution
EXAMPLE: gorbachev changed policies in USSR according to his own undertsanding of change
but that would not have happened if the systemic context did not have competition and realization that the power position of the USSR would not have been sustainable
need of a constituency that supports peace as they acrry the stretgies and fight for peace (Mandela vs Apartheid)
ISSUE CONTAINEMENT: as the issue progresses, many other issues are intermingled
if you solve an issue, you have many other ones to solve: territorial, distribution of issues, adversaries
HURTING STALEMATE: both parties realize that continuing the conflict is pointless and hurts both --> has to be used by poli elites, leaders and mediators
THIRD PARTY INVOLVEMENT: often are mediators (intl organizations, individuals, great powers)
can either intervene between the parties or support both
FEAR OF CONCESSIONS is the biggest issue in interstate conflict
produces more demands than concessions: if you make a concession, the othher party will perceive you as weak and demand more
hence, the one in the position of power will not make concessions to not appear weak --> often needs third party involvement
deescalation depends on timing and ripeness of the condition of issue containement and third party involvement
REALPOLITIK
tries to move away form the typical realist understanding that there is a proper configuration of power to get peace and full peace is not achievable
--> stability is not equivalent to peace as it is not achievable
INTERNATIONAL STABILITY, DEUTSCH AND SINGER
the international system retains its essential charcateristics
no single nation becomes too dominant
most of its members continue to survive
large scale war does not occur: stable for big powers (but does not mean that states that suffer from the consequences of war are stable) + states are surviving
CW is a bipolar but unjust system
BALANCE OF POWER
PREMISES
the ultimate guarantor of peace is the configuration of power in the international system --> if not properly configured, states could disrupt international order and stability
if a state is left alone with its powers, it will be tempted to upset the order
many argue that this was the greatest killer of the XX century: great power wars (WWI+II = 109 million dead that could have been prevented with BoP)
notion that power has to be met by power
STRONGER POWERS ARE CONSTRAINED BECAUSE
THEY CANNOT ATTAIN THEIR OBJECTIVES
WHY POWER COMPETITION?
because of differential growth rates + some being stronger than others, which will be tempted to achieve hegemony
WHEN POWER EMERGES
others will have to form a coalition or independently defend themselves through military acquisition
the survival of the soveriegn state is important and based on the notion that the SQ is not bad for peace + order and has to be achieved through different mechanisms
some say that this is a conscious strategy, others say it is automatic
HARD BALANCING, realist strategy
acquiring military capabilities to deter or balance a powerful actor OR form a coalition with other states and great powers
why was noone threatening Great Britain's hegemonic status as a source of european threats? because of the ocean and lack of threat to continent and 300 year long hegemony
PROBLEMS WITH HARD POWER:
narrow and power based approach: conflicts may happen without power +
weaker parties can start a war too
ignores the non-military incentives of states
power paroty does not prevent war: Germany compensated for its weakeness with position and weaponry
peace was often brought at the expense of smaller actors
SOFT BALANCING, use of non military strategies (institutional or diplomatic constraints on states)
the power or aggressive policies of the state through international institutions, coercive diplomacies, limited informational ententes, economic sanctions to make its strategic goals more difficult to obtain
aggressor/powerful states are sensitive to international norms and institutions --> since it can be restrained institutionally, there is no point in making a military alliance
-->
convinces leaders that their desire to go to war is not feasible
INDOPACIFIC: states are not balancing from the fear of China's rise
-->
quadrilateral grouping
: a self balancing coalition with no unity
no formal alliance, important for peace and Asia
international support through institutions such as the UN:
denial of legitimacy (great powers yearn for it)
great powers: even tho they say they don't care about intl organizations, they do
legitimacy is part of the concern and desire to be accepted (but can be ignored, US-Iraq)
LACK OF HARD BALANCING SINCE 1991
coincided with a period of intensified globalization = economic dimension
market capital spread the ideas of democracy, capitalism and technologies
production, distribution, investment and marketing were no longer bound by states
-->
states started to NOT look at wars as the way
tech innovation warfare: nuclear weapons make it so that states cannot go to war as they used to
widespread presence of intl institutions
territorial integrity (cannot change borders = legal/normative restraint)
lack of expansionism: fascism and nazism = no expansion
HEGEMONIC DEPENDENCY THEORY
says that preponderance and a benign hegemon = important for states --> to maintain order and keep unhappy/threatening ones (to the intl order) down
emerged from political economy
free market, currency, stable trading system and balance of payment system = all important to the global economy
--> UK and US hegemony with their currencies was not bad
GILPIN
applied to the military realm
some say that intervention is needed by an actor or institution when there is a civil war because the prevent mass murder, others say that they selectively maintain the interests of the big powers
argued that you need a powerful state to maintain the international power because otherwise, secondary actors will upset the order
--> the preponderant dominant actor benefits the order too even tho they have to pay some things
free riding: if peace and stability is a public good, you rationally do not wna pay
argument that only the allies to the hegemon have benefitted
R2P
2005, UN engaged in interventions against wars genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
idea that each individual state is responsible for maintaining peace + collective action is important
however, selective use: Ukraine and Russia, pick and choose
POST COLD WAR BALANCING: US & RUSSIA
reasons why there was no hard balancing against the US
states believed they could make the US rule bound and it self balanced too
--> allies had tried to restrain the US, but it isnt happening as much today
there was no rival state or coalition as the capabilities were missing
american hegemony was seen as liberal despite its imperial attributes
liberal states felt that they had a role + could influence public opinion = benefit
soft balancing through international institutions + formation of diplomatic coalitions
US had legitimacy and legitimate coercive behavior
role of the UN gave its interventions legitimacy
lakc of capacity or interest from other states to develop hard balancing coalitions
the US was not viewed as threatening
enjoyed economic and security benefits
could engage the dominant power (G7, NATO)
UN sanctioned interventions have collective legitimation
--> collective action gives everyone legitimacy
KOSOVO
CONTEXT
: March 1999, invasion of Yugoslavia following UN neglect of the region
--> Serbia was trying to control Kosovo: majority population was kosovar albanian and sought independence
-->
president Milosevic engaged in ethnic cleansing, despite NATO demands to stop
INTERVENTIONS:
NATO intervention threatened Russia's cultural and strategic relations with Kosovo
China intervened as it was facing independence movements too
both prevented UN intervention
Milosevic's regime threatened peace and order in Europe
Russian president Yeltsin helped support a peaceful outcome in Yugoslavia, and Serbia gained independence
IRAQ 2003
ALLIANCES AND COALITIONS
US enemies and allies joined forces to prevent the US from conducting unilateral intervention
coalition France Russia and Germany (despite dependence on US trade)
--> Washington's 6 month long effort to gain support from the UNSC as Bush and VP wanted to assert themselves against regional enemies
intense UNGA negotiations and UNSC opposition
CHIRAC: EU to mobilize an anti war coalition but EU was against
got endorsement from the summit of African Countries
US INTERVENTION
massive bombing of Bagdad and other cities/infrastructures, toppling Hussein
massive internal violence
despite the removal of Hussein, Iraq was not more peaceful (ISIS, 21 day war with US troops being sent in)
Obama advocated for the end of the conflict, this was a war of choice
obama's campaign showed that soft balancing can influence public opinion
BALANCING AGAINST RUSSIA
Russia was trying to cooperate with other states until Putin
UKRAINE
in 2014, ouster of pro Russian president Yanikovich by Parliament because he supported Eastern separatist movements
Paul argues that soft balancing happened against Russia through institutional means: G8-G7 for violating the integrity of a neighboring state for instance
--> the invitation to the G8 in the first place was for restraint of behavior
EUROPE AND US: PASSED A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR RUSSIA TO NOT ANNEX UKRAINE
--> froze financial assets of officials, curtailed travel rights, targetted connected individuals et
--> russia responded by sanctioning back and befriending China
--> HARD BALANCING: NATO deployed troops in Eastern Europe and expanded its capabilities
argument that Europe went from soft balancing, to hard balancing, to limited hard balancing
UKRAINE 2022: failure from NATO to hard balance
russia froze its international financing messaging system (swift)
UK froze Russian assets
EU banned all trade by sea except for certain gas
EU stopped importing coal from Russia
ban on all arispace
Banned the export of 200 products and stopped foreign investors from selling bombs
many argue that the military approach to security taken by Russia is due to its inability to globalize
WHY DID PUTIN DECIDE TO ATTACK?
some argue that elements of soft balancing have gone away as we are entering a period of great power conflict.
weaponized interdependence due to economic globalization and interdependence
Russia may be acting this way because of its status decline and status consciousness
not easy for western alliances to stop Russia and for Russia to win as the war is dragging on
LIBERAL & CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES
LIBERALISM
: how we construct societies focusing on the malleable/perfectible nature of human kind + the possibility to create cooperation amongst humans
idea to reduce the role of the state over time as it is not understood to be the only thing that controls human life
unlike realists, do not see humans as conflictual
BENTHAM AND THE 3 CONVICTIONS THAT DRIVE LIBERALISM
everyone who is reasoned rightly will act rightly thanks to their education and reasoning to do so
the pursuit of good is a matter of right reasoning
the spread of liberal knowledge would make it possible for everyone to reason rightly
KANT
argues that wars are waged by princes
for their own interest, not for that of the people
proper democratic borders = no wars, peace among democracies
PILLARS OF LIBERAL PEACE
democratic states
economic interdepence
international institutions
PROBLEMS OF LIBERALISM
no measure prevent someone from taking monopoly
--> even tho policies are being drafted against that, it is the debate of
--> nations depend on their comparative advantage and do not acquire the same level of wealth: some benefit from free trade while others do not have much to sell (Banana republic are states dependent on land and farmers)
biggest liberal thinkers are from the US and the UK: they have an empire and free trade with other countries benefitted them
LIBERAL ECONOMIC SPHERE
Adam Smith in
The Wealth of Nations
: let people do what they want
Smith popularized the idea of harmony of interests: people have common interests
--> you have to remove state controls in economic matters as individuals promote their interests to the community because the interests of the community = identical to that of the individuals
HARMONY OF INTERESTS
nations serving themselves serve humanity
--> need for universal free trade maximizes the economic interests of each nation
--> the higher the economic interests of a nation, the higher the economic interests of the whole world
NATIONAL BOUNDARIES WOULD CEASE TO EXIST IF EVERYONE WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR REAL INTERESTS as the idea of free trade is based on cooperation, division of labor and comparative advantage
in a shop or a town, the division of labor increases everyone's wellbeing: if everyone does their job, material wellbeing increases and that must be true on a national and global scale
on a national scale, trade benefits everyone
DEMOCRATIC PEACE, Kant in Perpetual Peace and other essays
ARGUED THAT PEACE IS PERPETUALLY POSSIBLE THROUGH 3 DEFINITIVE ARTICLES OF PEACE
IDEA THAT LIBERAL REPUBLICS WILL ESTABLISH PEACE AMONG THEMSELVES
pacific federation of free states securely maintaining each other's rights
through trial and error, wars, collapses, backsliding as these create an ever expanding peace among states
the EU took these ideas from Kant and argued them as true --> free speech needed to understading foreign ppl and preserve such understanding but challenge of fake news and social media
COSMOPOLITAN SYSTEM IN THE WORLD
everyone in the world is seen with NO discrimination
this results in international hospitality and the recognition of rights of foreigners
peaceful relations as a result
CIVIL CONSTITUTION
a state's constitution must be republican
poli society that has solved the problems combining moral authority, individualism and social order
to Kant, absolute monarchies are THE issue
created wars for their own benefits --> once tamed and the habit of respectful rights engrained in people, they will disappear
consensus: in democracies, citizens have a lot of power
citizens bear the consequences of war = rational choice to prevent it
his predictions did not roll out as expected because
issue of wealth and distribution and employment
some states have tried to follow his ideas when it comes to welcoming refugees but primal feelings arise
democratic states are not war prone BUT nationalistic sentiments may be a gangrene
KANTIAN OPTIMISM AFTER THE COLD WAR
once established, two liberal democracies may have disputes and challenges,
but will not Wage War — the more liberal the less mutual of violence
BECAUSE:
During the Cold War, democracies were on one side and had peace, while the developing world had conflicts
ingroup/outgroup bias + ideological alignment
Common enemy: communism being a threat to all democracies --> unite (ex: Canada US united because of a common enemy + need for each other's protection)
WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY?
criteria by Freedom House:
elections
peaceful power transfer
freedom of expression
around 20% of the world is democratic but democratic elections are being used by populist forces and other ideologies
US, UK, Israel have fought more wars than non democracies, very violently so
strong idea of
retributional justice
(US in Iraq non consideration for civilians)
democratic problems of righteousness:
if opposed = punishment
democracies moralize this violence
why do Africa and L.America have relative peace? harmful trade relations but norms of sovereignty are engrained
LIBERAL INTL ORDER
created by liberal states and have been most successful and developing economics and created the international liberal order after World War II
Globalization: connected the neoliberal ideas + Washington consensus that free trade is the way + borders are not very important
Today, we see deglobalization + rise of populist illiberal forces
Populists challenge for three pillars of liberal order:
democracy for democratic peace,
economic interdependence for wealth and peace
international institutions to help resolve international conflicts and crisis.
JOHN IKENBERRY
: cluster of ideas on how to think and act in the world that emerged out of the western experience
KANTIAN IDEAS
Democratic solidarity and cooperative security,
international openness for trade and exchange are important,
progressive social purposes for democratic and international societies.
Material and social psychological where people feel good towards their state
Institutions play a big role and are supposed to restrain arbitrary behavior of states as they create proper roles and regulations
Democracy restraint states through democratic peace
The initial support for globalization by Clinton, Bush and Reagan was reflected in global level production and distribution. Many countries provided platforms and markets.
2008 ECON CRISIS AND COVID
2008/2009 econ crisis
US as the initiator
Rescued by policies by the US and new states/rising powers of BRICS that now stabilize world order
COVID: increased social challenges
Impacted international institutions and electoral politics, Trump
increase of tariffs under T2
Weaponized interdependence: China and US both have the capacity to push those that threaten them by holding economic punishments or tariffs or blockades
the decline of democracy
Right now, we are experiencing an era of democratic recession
Democracy is not viewed positively but much of the world
Hardly gained back freedom once you lose it
Democracies emerge out of crisis periods: 1919, 1930s, 1945 onwards, 1960s, 1991ç
People do realize that losing rights is giving power to populous and demagogues that don’t have good solution
PESSIMISTS
: say that structural factors are to blame + US democratic backslide
OPTIMISTS
: human factors are to blame
WHAT ORDER WILL REPLACE THE LIBERAL ORDER?
may be multiple orders: civilizational (India)
multipolar: once the US declines another will too
bipolar
bimultipolar: US/China dominate in some zones, the rest in others
CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES
state interests are the product of ideational factors, including the preference of leaders
cultures, values, norms, identities
tangible factors are inefficient in explaining international politics, war, and peace --> calculations about power and conflicts can be dependent on cultural and ideational values + big changes can take place based on ideas and intersubjective (shared) notions about how things should be
can develop identities that develop peace, with one of them being the pluralistic identity that is developed in Europe
Transnationalism gave a degree of dependable expectations for peaceful change and gave depths of trust and a degree of institutionalized cooperation
Stable peace based on transnational community shared identities, and values emerged
A pluralistic security community is based on many sided relations: Reciprocity is part of it and relations of peaceful change and absence of organized violence (EU, ASEAN, Latin America)
CRITICS
argue that these communities were not created by ideas and they had to unite
in uniting, they created ideas that allowed them to survive instead
For instance, EUN ASEAN have a shared mission
PEACE KEEPING AND PEACE BUILDING
UN field operations:
international civilians and military under the UN command are deployed
COLLECTIVE SECURITY VS UN PEACEKEEPING
COLLECTIVE SECURITY:
under the UN charter, UN forces may intervene and try to bring peace with the use of force
UNSC + P5 agreement
Identifies aggressor and enemy
Example Korean war US led
UN PEACEKEEPING
Not offensive and no use of military power
, but they have in some situations --> not imposing peace through massive intervention
No identified enemy
and neutrality amongst parties
The role is
to maintain peace where the tension is high,
but no party is determined to pursue armed to conflict
Although possible,
parties agree not to pursue their goals with military means
GOALS AND MEANS
observing territorial border violations
serve as a buffer between hostile forces
supervising troop patrol
help monitor elections
maintain domestic order during trasnition periods
observe the ceasefire lines
only use weapons in self defense with limited numbers: cannot match local forces in number and the forces are drawn from different countries, more and more from the developing world
essential difference: use of military force and identification of an enemy
62,000+ personnel from different countries, largely developing states amd police officers
declining support from the US, more and more from Russia
PEACEKEEPING DEPLOYED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SOVEREIGN
CLASSICAL PEACEKEEPING
put in place in 1956 following the Suez war
Until 1989 forces were authorized where ceasefires were put in place, serving as a buffer between antagonist or hold peace or monitor existing states of peace
During the Cold War superpowers only allowed them in places where they had no direct interest: US Soviet rivalry decreased peacekeeping possibilities
Peacekeeping forces brought in when conflicts and: Sinai, Congo Cyprus Kashmir
Interstate conflicts have been left behind by the Cold War
: the US was left with the role of monitoring
Following the CW, superpower disengagement + end of some conflicts BUT peacekeeping was still needed to prevent the return of intense conflict
Intervention marked the end of absolute sovereignty: rapid decline of interstate war, but more internal conflicts after the end of the Cold War
UN rules for intervention
article 2.7 specifies that members have no right to intervene in the matters within the jurisdiction of states or anything that would upset the jurisdiction of states unless international peace is being threatened
Intervention is possible, even without the consent of the state concerned
FUNCTIONS OF PEACEKEEPING
PEACE BUILDING:
finding ways to strengthen the economic and political structures that increase the chances of lasting peace
--> conflicts erupt where this is not successful and may be along ethnic or racial lines
--> somalia, bosnia,
ABJECT FAILURE IN RWANDA as the genocide was not prevented by canadian peacekeeper
DIRECT CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
placing UN troops where conflict is likely to break out
--> UN is deterrent and deters the other parties from attacking
--> failed in Zaire: some efforts do not succeed
PEACE ENFORCEMENT:
action to enforce peace once the ceasefire is agreed on
--> no fly zone in Iraq and Bosnia had to be monitored
AID DISTRIBUTION:
UN acts as the aid distributor with reasonable amounts and the UN may go back to the fair situation
PEACEKEEPING AND PEACEMAKING:
any action to keep the parties in agreement, UN Active action to bring peace in Bosnia and Cambodia
UN was very realistic between 1989 and 1993: success in Namibia --> but the failures in places such as Bosnia show that the UN has failures + NEITHER BELLIGERENT SHOULD FEEL THAT THEY CAN WIN THE WAR WITH FORCE
LEADERSHIP, MISSION AND MEANS
neither belligerent should feel as though they are able to win the war with force
successful missions require leadership from countries that are contributing
clear definition of what goals are and what they’re supposed to achieve
Exit plan is needed: not easy in conflict zones as they don’t know when the conflict will end
NEUTRALITY, MOGADISHU LINE:
when it ceases to be neutral, it is demoted to a local war in faction
UN may turn partisan: however, in Namibia and Cambodia, it has managed to remain neutral
Somalia was not the case: Attack UN troops and some US ones too
Mogadishu line:
UN will not go far anymore, figurative term to say that they won’t cross the situation
SOVEREIGNTY
Tendency that weak and fragile states = fine w/ violation of sovereignty, but the strong ones do not accept it
UNGA or UNSC has to be strong enough to support the initiative and maintain the support through funding political support
PAST: interstate, NOW: intra and internal to states
sovereignty is important even when the state is the cause of the problem
CONSENT
:
peacekeeping operations may only operate with a consent of local disputes.
--> may create situations in which one party blames the UN of supporting the other, the UN may shoot back if there is turmoil against them
INTELLIGENCE:
Needs better information gathering systems (no intelligence services)
The challenge is that the best information gathering services or western in the CIA --> CIA may cause suspicion as parties are often against the US
UN may hence be viewed as the agent of another state
FINANCES
: unpaid due to US and Russia, very little spent on UN peacekeeping forces compared to domestic spendings on military
GREAT POWER SUPPORT:
Smaller states have been more active than before often with diplomatic capacity
P5 Veto: sometimes does not facilitate peace
If this disappears, what will be the situation in many theaters of the world? How do we get established and maintain peace?
NON TRADITIONAL SECURTY ISSUES: challenges to the survival and wellbeing of people and states
often arise from non military sources (climate change, resource scarcity, irregular migration, food shortages, drug trafficking, transnational crime, infectuous diseases, natural disasters, people smuggling)
anytime someone is challenging people's physical or emotional states
transnational scope of danger
:
something in the state affects the world
something in the world affects states
COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM
: no single state or leader can make decisions on their own + need comprehensive solutions that are often connected to developmental issues
humanitarian use of military force = minute attention on military spending and peacekeeping
MARC ANTHONY says that non traditional security focuses on non military threats:
threats = transnational in nature, conception and effects
don't stem from competition between states or shifts in the BoP
TV PAUL DISAGREES: during Covid, China vs US vaccine =
BoP (failure to agree on a global/transnational issue)
increased competition between states = increased chance that collective action problems get neglected
solutions through institutional means require cooperation at the intl level
RESOURCE SCARCITY AND IRREGULAR MIGRATION:
people fail to think of the reason WHY refugees exist
western and developed nations have been the biggest source of violence in the world
still creates much of the violence seen today + Iraq, Libya and Syria had rather good lives despite dictators
CLIMATE CHANGE:
caused by human induced imbalances
rise of garbage from the middle class in rising powers as they wish to live as the west does
national solutions are often inadequate
main concern = state borders and integrity (societal and individual level)
CLIMATE CHANGE
: perhaps the most existential challenge that is yet underestimated (low security threat in the short, middle and long run)
water resources as a source of international conflicts
Surprisingly water has not caused a war yet: agreements hold even enemies to a point as it is the one thing people cannot stop giving to another
too important and countries may be seen as worse than they already are
Can be a weapon, just not locked in as so yet
Increase in the number of dams in riparian states that build dams, people below don’t have water (Egypt and Ethiopia on the Nile, India and Kashmir)
In Canada, the melting of the Arctic ice causes navigation and passages to widen and big powers have claims on the passage --> dimension becomes economic and political.
Small states are disappearing, with a rise of 5 to 6 feet that could displace people
COP + upper level conflict about water:
Conference of the parties: Kyoto 97, Copenhagen 2009, Paris 2015, Glasgow, 2021, Egypt, 2022, Brazil 2025 (COP 30)
Abandoned by the US, this shows that multinationalism may work even without a hegemon
200 countries are supposed to reduce their emissions or reach their target by 2030
Developed states are to blame due to their industrialization earlier than the developing world and higher per capita admissions
The plan is to have zero emissions by 2050, global warming is a killer (Dehli = unbreathable)
Millions dying 5 to 6 years earlier than they should
CYBERSECURITY -- non tradition AND traditional threat
--> application of technologies, processes, and controls to protect systems, networks, programs, devices and data from cyber attacks
protecting cyber assets can be complex and costly, cyber attack techniques are becoming more and more sophisticated
One individual can do immense harm
Fishing methods, eavesdropping, spoofing, and drink computers as valid entry
1.5 trillion on global economy to protect assets
Use of social media by countries and groups as a form of asymmetric warfare to tilt perceptions
Implication of hard security, used by states to destroy international and infrastructure is like electric, electricity, supply, aviation, etc.
CYBER DETERRENCE
how to protect cyber attacks using the threat of retaliation or denial
Adversary resist attacks, fearing retaliation
Denial of achievement of their objective, cost benefit calculations for states
Not foolproof to deterrence:
attribution of problem and not knowing where the threat is coming from
Cascading attacks and escalations: for instance, all GPS are connected to one another, so destroying one’s GPS = destroying the world‘s GPS = self deterrence
Communicating credible threats: some are more successful than others unless in hostile territories with enemies
AI
Becoming the biggest challenge after the invention of gunpowder and the traditional security sense
Potential for change in the international security because non-humans are a big challenge in warfare as they don’t have emotions and ethics
Computer programs and algorithms make computer computers learn on their own
How to instill things we consider as humans? Could be good and bad: facial recognition, processing, digital assistance, healthcare, cyber security, protection against fraud.
DANGERS:
Adversarial use of data, invasion of data, use of data insights that can be used preemptively
biggest threat is employment: why hire people if machines can do it faster and better? Doctors, nurses, profs?
Challenge of non-traditional security will increase overtime as the globe is becoming more and more interconnected and complex
Technology is important for survival, especially if you have ambition to remain a powerful state
Treaties of international organizations and great power stick with their imperial mindset and are not willing to give importance to these issues
Lack of transparency, AI soldiers, weapon, weapons of mass destruction
: Every nation is involved in the development of AI killer machines, the problem will worsen
international norms are missing + (too) rapidly changing --> institutions are not built to deal with these speeds
Important to study rather than say one is needed, and the other is not
PANDEMICS
threat to human society
Showed the limitations of international cooperation and the need for it
Psychological/social impact: alienation, social isolation, need for human interaction, inability of states to stop the spread, lack of clarity, delay in stopping the contagion
authoritarian nature + local authorities trying to cover up
individual security could be the focus point so that national security dimension is brought in
once detected, national efforts were plagued by poor infrastructures
The challenge worsened by populist leaders and the truth being absent
Vaccine nationalism, and geopoliticization
The vaccine supply chain was not acute and domestic resistance by groups of individuals
WHO:
Politicized + underestimated achievements, slow declarations, and warnings
Mutations, mitigation strategies failure
Weak voluntary reporting by states
Contraction of all GDPs by 5 to 10%, most affected or the poorest countries as millions were pushed back into poverty lines due to globalization, being at the margins of the economic class, pushed those people back to where they were (125 million)
Shortage of workers and disparity of incomes,
overall trend in the world: tendency to devote more attention to some disease diseases over others
BALANCING THE RISE OF CHINA
people do not know what the rise of a state with such capabilities means = challenge for international order as established states do not want a new one (has historically led to wars)
source of increased power has to do with economic globalization thanks to American concessions and support
At the end of the Cold War = US emerged as a powerful state = unipolarity + liberalization of the economy in the world
Deng XiaoPing = peaceful rise and opening up for multinational corporations --> For a rising power to succeed, it has to push and not be too docile
Might need to do things to not irritate the neighbors +
provide for its neighbors
(investment infrastructure, political support)
In the context of economic globalization, wealth = raw power
Following CW = relative peace: lack of big power contestation + gained prominence (expansionist powers were missing)
Norms of territorial integrity = wars are different
Difficult for offensive capabilities to work in defense + deterrence + having to play careful game for trajectory of growth (not military conquest and aggressive policies)
SOUTH CHINA SEA
big claim over the territory with little islands that are closer to the regional states like Vietnam or Thailand
China is not easy to access with decision-making = don’t know who’s making the decision decisions and how to lobby them = frequent purges of ministers
HEDGING
Umbrella, strategy, implies hedging, butts, putting insurance, against certainty = how states have dealt with China but have combined with other strategies
China = sensitive: wants to be legitimately recognized as a great power without war and peace peacefully, which is unique
If it succeeds, we don’t know what comes after that as power is never static
ABSENCE HARD BALANCING AGAINST CHINA:
Non-or multi aligned mode:
China provides goods, but you don’t want to make China your enemy by joining the US and building military
new: states had to take a side in the past, now newly emerging states have agency
Confrontational strategy with China = impossible for every state because of economic dependence
China has received foreign direct investment = helped emerge
Reliance on (cheap, industrial) Chinese goods, without which you cannot produce anything cheap =
interdependence
ASEAN
countries trying to restrain China: Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Timor Leste
Security community trying to imitate the EU: newly emerging states w/ diff history + very sovereignty conscious
Create unity and diversity and territorial disputes with China
also invite non-regional states, including China, as a strategy to communicate to other powers that they respect them, but want sovereignty
CODE OF CONDUCT
: not binding, outlines a number of commitments, commit to 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea: respect and commitment to the freedom of navigation
Biggest fear = try not to control, much of the trade don’t want a single state occupying the areas
China has agreed to talk about restraint from actions on the presently inhabited islands + handle their differences in a constructive manner
US STRATEGY: Asia Pivot, QUAD, AUKUS
QUAD = weakened by Trump policies and has alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam (focused on a free and open Indo-Pacific region, addressing maritime security, critical technologies, and economic cooperation.)
GAIN A LOT FROM CHINA
Obama created such pivot in Asia: US had forces in the Atlantic and pacific
US created QUAD dimension, which is soft + limited balancing mechanism:
argument that when you create an alliance, China will be forced to produce a countering alliance
INDIA'S STRATEGY
Wishes = no alliance & no hedging = multi aligned
Has attracted lots of attention + try to strengthen relationships with the US + active member of QUAD
Has to worry about reducing capacity to invest
India needs pharmaceuticals + hardware + software materials that China produces well. China improves its relations with Pakistan
JAPAN STRATEGY
DIAOYU/SHANKAKU DISPUTES, 2013/2014
As the biggest supportive of North Korea, China’s relations with Japan and korea remains strained despite good trading relations
North Korean tests have challenged each Asian order, pursued hard balancing with alliances with US, soft alliances with India
Shinzo Abe changed offensive stances, increase in defense spending, Japan, trying to build up its own capacity and development capabilities to respond to China’s rise
China’s response: peaceful rise to peaceful development
ideas like peaceful rise and avoiding the pitfalls of the European power system
will not force anyone to accept China's dominance
will rise without getting into conflict
reliance on soft power instruments for growth and development
China argued that it was time to be more assertive and gain more status and have more responsibilities.
HEDGE STRATEGY
wedge with those that could form a coalition with China
BELT ROAD INITIATIVE, BRI
idea that China will create a path similar to the silk road through land and water
Transportation = developed, and investments are on the way
Imperial projects with no military presence through central Asia and Africa, China will invest in places where no investment is happening following payment
Pakistan and Sri Lanka are so indebted that they’ve struggled to pay back
ASEAN all participate and have tried to gain from it
Part of BRICS soft balancing
WEAPONIZED INTERDEPENDENCE: maybe hope for peaceful coexistence: concept developed by Chinese themselves, may not be peaceful, but the coexistence of different actors in the system and Multiplex order with different orders