International Relations Exam #2 - Study Guide
NATO’s Hard Road Ahead - Notes
Many of the countries in the NATO alliance are pushing for diplomatic solutions to the Russian and Ukraine war
“But it is time for NATO to focus on a diplomatic endgame and capitalize on its successful effort to strengthen Ukraine’s hand by facilitating a cease-fire and follow-on negotiations.”
However the US has been very reluctant to support this, and many government leaders including President Biden have publicly stated that they will not tell Ukraine how to fight this war, whether that means continuing to battle or transitioning to diplomatic relations.
What are the consequences of the Russia v Ukraine war continuing on the NATO ally countries?
Even with the additional weapons from NATO countries, Ukraine lacks the might needed to beat Russia, and if the war continues, many more lives will be lost, and potentially territory as well
The longer the war goes on, the chances of escalation rise significantly regardless of if the escalation is purposeful or accidental
The war will continue to have negative impacts on the world economy and the world food supply (A huge burden on some of these NATO countries)
The bipartisan support that providing additional aid to Ukraine is rare, especially considering the desire of many Americans to have the government focus more on issues at home, rather than acting as the police force for the rest of the world
The Russia-Ukraine war also plays an important role in the huge increase of prices for food, gas, and other essential items
European countries are looking at a mass influx of refugees both from Ukraine, but also potentially from Africa as the war could make an already dangerous food crisis deadly.
Many European countries are also in the midst of a gas crisis, partially as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian war
NATO countries all over the world are facing backlash from their people about many issues, including the Russian-Ukrainian war
The domestic foundations of US foreign policy have also become much more unstable as this war has progressed.
“Yes, the West must stand by Ukraine, punish Russian expansionism, and defend against further acts of aggression. But it also needs to weigh these priorities against the imperative of preventing illiberal populists from taking power on both sides of the Atlantic.”
It is important for NATO countries to monitor the political and economical backlash that they receive from their own people in response to providing aid to Ukraine
Grey Zone - An area in europe between NATO land and Russia
There are 3 main approaches to ensure the protection of countries in the Grey Zone:
These potential solutions take into account Russia's objections to NATO expanding farther east
Permanent Neutrality - an official stance that is adopted by a state who wants to remain neutral in military conflicts, doesn’t want military alliances, and they want to avoid participation in wars
Switzerland and Austria are examples of countries that have adopted permanent neutrality, and they desire to focus their efforts on peacekeeping and diplomatic relations
A situation where arms trading and military training occurs during peacetime in the country, but if that country was facing an imminent attack or the threat of one, NATO countries would step in.
EU Membership - it would mark the formal institutional inclusion of a country like Ukraine into the group of Atlantic Democracies, and would strengthen alliances for Ukraine without igniting Russia’s objections towards NATO
The Russian-Ukrainian War provides a unique opportunity for NATO to gain more strength geopolitically
A stronger Europe will make NATO stronger, and it will benefit Atlantic partnership
More european capability will mean that the US doesn’t feel as much pressure to respond to threats in Europe
The US has troops in Europe and probably will for the foreseeable future, but it is important that Europe can come to its own defense
It is also important that transatlantic institutions adapt to changes that occur as a result of this war, NATO can only handle so many of the conflicts, but with how many issues this war has touched, more support is needed
Could create a new transatlantic council incharge of dealing with policy issues in a way that takes down barriers such as bureaucracy and other institutional barriers.
There is the potential that homegrown threats to liberal democracy may pose an even bigger threat to global stability and agreement than Putin’s war on Ukraine does
60 Years of NATO in 8 Minutes - Notes
Chapter 1: 1948 the Berlin Airlift
Soviet Blockade of Berlin
The Soviets cut off overland access to Berlin, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
The West recognized the need for a military response to the blockade.
Initiation of the Berlin Airlift
The airlift began in 1948 to supply West Berlin with essential goods.
Chapter 2: 1949 NATO Was Founded
Formation of NATO
On April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by twelve leaders from Western Europe, the U.S., and Canada.
President Harry Truman emphasized NATO's goal of peace and self-determination.
Germany Joins NATO
In 1959, German Chancellor Conrad Adenauer led Germany into NATO to strengthen defenses against the Soviet threat.
French Withdrawal from NATO
In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's integrated military command due to perceived American and British dominance.
This decision was reversed in 2009 by President Nicolas Sarkozy.
End of the Cold War
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact marked the end of the Cold War.
Eastern European communist governments fell, leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Chapter 3: NATO's New Missions
NATO's Role in the Balkans
In the early 1990s, NATO enforced a UN-backed arms embargo in former Yugoslavia.
Operation Deny Flight began in 1993, marking NATO's first military engagement since its formation.
Intervention in Bosnia
NATO launched air campaigns against Bosnian Serb forces to stop ethnic cleansing.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted the significance of NATO's involvement in ending the Bosnian War.
NATO Enlargement
In March 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO, marking the first expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries.
NATO initiated a bombing campaign in Kosovo to protect ethnic Albanians from Serb forces.
Chapter 4: Post-9/11 NATO
Response to 9/11 Attacks
On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the U.S., prompting NATO's first invocation of Article 5.
NATO allies pledged military assistance to the U.S. in response to the attacks.
NATO in Afghanistan
NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003.
The mission faced challenges, including troop commitments and political considerations.
NATO's Expansion and Challenges
Seven new members joined NATO in 2004, increasing tensions with Russia.
U.S. Ambassador Kurt Volker emphasized the need for NATO to play a proactive role in global crisis management.
Current Challenges
NATO faces an uncertain mission in Afghanistan, a resurgent Russia, and global instability.
The alliance must prove
Alliances - Class Notes
The goal of alliances is to prevent attacks.
NATO Article 5 - Collective Defense
“NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several members is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defense, which is enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty - the Washington Treaty.”
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time on September 11th, 2001
Deterrence
The best case scenario for an alliance, is that they never have to do anything because everyone else around them understands the consequences of attacking a country that is part of an alliance would be bad
An effective alliance is able to convey their power to other countries, and as a result, these other states are discouraged from attacking an alliance member.
Credibility, Resolve, and Capability are all important factors in an alliance between states, and alliances are only as effective as their credibility and resolve are.
If an alliance is just using cheap talk, their credibility and resolve to defend one another is damaged and the strength of the alliance is weakened
They want to change the perception of any potential aggressor, they want to make the probability of the aggressor winning so low that they don’t engage in battle because of the potential costs
Trump v Clinton Debate on NATO - 2016
Clinton's Views
More Intelligence need from all over the world
Clinton wants to do more work with countries around the world and NATO
Cooperation is essential especially with Muslim nations and the American Muslims
Stop alienating them and discriminating against them
Trump's Views
He talks about NATO countries not paying their fair shares
“NATO could be obsolete” - because they do not focus on terror
Trump says that the US pays 73% of the NATO fees
He wants to use NATO to go into the middle east with the US and other surrounding countries, and attack ISIS.
For any military alliance to function they need to have external parties that they are trying to deter or weaken.
The conversation around whether or not NATO is obsolete is an ongoing conversation.
Paying Their Fair Share
NATO doesn’t have an army or a budget for NATO operations
It is only as strong as the military forces and the budgets of the countries within NATO
When referring to paying their fair share to NATO;
Countries don’t actually pay anything to NATO, there are no membership dues
The money spent is used to grow the military of that state
There is no required amount that a state has to spend on their military in a given year, but the recommended amount is about 2% of the countries GDP
You also have to invest in the credibility of the alliance; because of an alliance has no credibility, it is worthless
How much do you want to spend on your military? And how much are you willing to spend to show other non-ally countries that your commitment to defending your allies is credible.
The amount that a country invests in their military depends on many things
Perceived threat they face: the threats towards the US are much more costly then the threats that a country like Luxembourg faces
Deployability - if there was a war that broke out tomorrow, how fast could you mobilize those forces. Even if your military is very powerful or you spend a lot of money on it, your ability to utilize those forces in a set amount of time can damage your ability to hold up your end of the agreement, and potentially damage the strength of your alliance.
Many people worry that by expanding NATO, and giving more countries membership, would the chances of attack go up, and what if you aren’t in a place to defend all these countries, which inturn deflates the credibility of the Alliance.
Every single current member of NATO has to approve of another country gaining membership
If one country says no to a membership request, the entire request is denied.
Democratic Peace Rand - Notes
Overview
Core Thesis: Democratic states are less likely to engage in wars with each other, a concept known as the "democratic peace" proposition.
Significance: This idea underpins U.S. foreign policy aimed at promoting democratization globally for national security reasons.
Some would say that promoting democratization around the world is beneficial for the US because it would provide greater national security if one is to go on the assumption that democratic states are less likely to engage in war with other democracies
The idea is, the more democracies there are, we have a better chance of not going to war, because the number of countries that we would theoretically battle against (non-democracies) is lower
Major Claims about the Democratic Peace Theory
Democracies are LESS likely to fight wars against each other
Democracies tend to prevail in wars they fight with non-democracies
In wars initiated by democracies, they tend to suffer less casualties and the wars are shorter compared to nondemocratic states
Democratic states that are engaged in disputes with other democracies tend to choose more peaceful means of resolution then other pairings of states outside of a democracy-democracy dyad.
Democratic great powers do not initiate preventative wars
Historical Context
Origins: The concept dates back to Immanuel Kant in the 18th century but gained significant scholarly attention post-1990.
Consensus: Despite dissenting voices, the prevailing view among international relations theorists is that the absence of war between democracies is a strong empirical observation.
Variants of the Democratic Peace Proposition
Institutional Arguments:
Constraints on Leaders: Democratic institutions impose checks on executive actions, making war less likely.
Similar to the checks and balances system we have in place for the US government
The president cannot declare war, congress has to make that decision
This prevents a leader (the president) from acting on their emotions in the heat of the moment, providing time for more logical considerations surrounding potential solutions as well as potential consequences of going to war
Public Debate: Free public discourse allows for peaceful conflict resolution and reduces the likelihood of surprise attacks.
Election Concerns: Leaders in democracies are motivated by the desire to be re-elected, leading to careful decision-making regarding military engagements.
The closer an official is to election, their stance and actions on specific issues may change by becoming more or less conservative depending on what will win them points with their voters
Most people have a negative view of war and its impact, the death toll, lost resources, and loss of security are all issues that voters care about and therefore the representatives care to
Normative Arguments:
Shared Norms: Democracies view each other as reasonable and trustworthy, which fosters a stable environment.
Most states recognize social norms or “rules of the game” regarding international politics
Most would agree that attacking another state with no provocation is not okay; that is a norm that has been set: no attacking others without a legit reason
Democracies inherently see other democracies as reasonable, predictable, and trustworthy which in turn makes them view the intentions of other democracies as peaceful
The concept of Live and Let Live
You leave me be and i’ll leave you be
Conflict Resolution: Political conflicts are typically resolved through compromise rather than elimination of opponents.
Interdependence Arguments:
Economic Ties: Democracies tend to have free-market economies and engage in trade, which creates mutual dependencies.
Interdependence is very common in democracies, and this reduces the likelihood of war between two interdependent countries because of the potential consequences of damaging the interdependent relationship
Free-market economies provide more credibility in regards to trade agreements; as a result democracies can provide their partners with credible promises of trade and capital, which promotes trading between countries
Costs of War: War threatens economic benefits, making conflict less appealing.
Trade:
Trade helps create stronger transnational ties and these connections tend to encourage accommodation and communication between countries rather than conflict
Trade is an incentive to not go to war because a war could cut of important imports or exports that a country relies on
It also helps decrease the desire of attempting to take over another country because of the material that they have access to.
Trading allows countries to get what they want or need without taking over another country
Caveats to the Democratic Peace Proposition
Not Immune to Conflict: Democracies can and do engage in wars and security competitions with nondemocratic states.
Democratizing States: Countries in transition to democracy may be more prone to conflict due to instability.
Political, economical, and social instability are often common catalysts for wars, especially civil wars where a faction attempts to take over the government
Factors that impact the probability of war during a regime change:
Democratization leads to the establishment of a number of politically significant groups with diverse and sometimes conflicting platforms
Power people who feel threatened have an incentive to mobilize their allies within the greater population, sometimes along nationalist lines
Danger of war increases when elites try to retain or gain more power and support
State authority is generally weak and unstable
Changing Perceptions: The perception of other democracies as peaceful can shift in response to security or economic competition.
If one country begins to bolster its defense or offensive systems or they make significant changes to their economy that negatively impact another country, the peace between these two democratic countries can change
The norms of respect and the perception of friendliness between states can change when economic and security issues arise and create competition
Proxy Wars and Covert Actions: Democracies may engage in indirect conflict rather than direct military confrontations.
A proxy war is a conflict where two countries support different groups to fight for them instead of fighting each other directly. This allows them to pursue their interests without facing the costs of direct war.
Can also include conflict on lower levels; the conflict is not designated as a war because less than 1000 people died as a result of the fighting
Democratic Reversals:
When a country goes from being democratic to more authoritarian, losing freedoms and fair governance. It’s a slide backward from democracy to more oppressive rule.
They have happened many times in the past and it is always possible that they could happen in the future
The number of democratic states in the world has gone up significantly, but that increase happens at irregular intervals
Statistical Evidence:
Democratic peace might be an example of high correlation rather than causation
This makes it questionable when using it for intelligence purposes
Security Competition
Rising Powers: As democratic states gain power, they may seek to expand their influence, power, and control, potentially leading to clashes with established democracies like the U.S.
Historical Examples: The Cold War exemplifies how security competition can manifest without direct military conflict.
Conflict with Authoritarian States
Democracies have been in many wars with authoritarian states for many reasons
The US might come to the aid of a nondemocratic state that is being threatened or attacked by a rising democratic power
Democratic Reversals
Historical Patterns: Instances of democratic regression have occurred, leading to aggressive foreign policies (e.g., Germany and Italy in the 1930s).
Interestingly enough, as democratic reversals were happening in these countries, they went took aggressive action against the rest of the world (World War One and Two)
Vulnerability: Consolidated democracies are less likely to experience reversals compared to those in transition.
The first 2 waves of democratization were followed by two reverse waves
“First, consolidated democratic great powers—states that have established the norms and practices of a strong and grounded civil society, a fully functioning political society, a rule of law that is upheld and respected, a state apparatus that respects, protects, and upholds the rights of citizens, and a market-oriented economic society—appear substantially less likely to suffer a democratic reversal.”
Consolidated democratic great powers, with strong civil and political societies, rule of law, citizen protection, and market-oriented economies, are less likely to experience democratic reversals.
Democratic states in decline or in transition are more vulnerable to reversals. Russia's recent authoritarian past, India's 1970s democratic setback, and fragile democratic institutions highlight this. Historical examples from Germany, Japan, and Italy show that such reversals can lead to aggressive foreign actions.
Democratic Institutions and Peace:
Pacifying Effect: Democratic institutions theoretically constrain leaders through constitutional and legal means, public debate, and the desire for re-election, which should lead to peaceful relations with all states.
Normative Arguments:
Deficiencies: Democracies don't always externalize peaceful norms. They can engage in security competition, covert actions, and alter perceptions based on context.
Historical Context: Wars between democracies were often averted not due to mutual respect for democratic norms but because of military balances and the fear of third-party exploitation.
Interdependence:
Promotes Both Peace and Conflict: Increased interactions can foster mutual understanding and peace, but they can also lead to conflicts and resentment, questioning whether interdependence is a cause or an effect of peace.
Post-1945 Peace:
Cold War Alliances: The peace between democracies after 1945 may owe more to the alliances formed during the Cold War than to inherent democratic peace principles. This suggests that external factors significantly influence democratic peace.
So, while democratic institutions and interdependence have roles in promoting peace, their effects are complex and often intertwined with broader geopolitical dynamics.
“Thus, Interdependence may be an effect of peace–rather than a cause of it.”
Conclusion
The democratic peace idea emphasizes the importance of understanding the complex relationships between democracies and the potential for conflict, urging policymakers to remain vigilant regarding emerging= democratic powers and their implications for international stability.
Democracies have a bunch of built-in mechanisms that generally keep disputes from escalating into full-blown crises. If things do escalate, being a democracy doesn’t automatically prevent war, but these mechanisms usually help keep things from going that far.
This explains why wars between democracies are rare. It shows the critical points where democratic systems have a calming effect and ties together the whole process of tensions, conflicts, and wars.
While this idea supports democratic peace theory, it’s still based on probabilities and needs more testing. Even if it holds true, it doesn’t mean the U.S. can afford to be complacent in dealing with other democracies. Historically, democracies don’t go to war with each other often, which is reassuring, but predicting future behavior based on current evidence is still tricky.
Democracy and Wars
Main Question: How do internal characteristics of states explain why states go to war?
Domestic Politics and War
Domestic Actors
Executive Branches of government; The President, Ministries, state departments, etc
Military officials
Public opinion/voters
Corporations and interest groups - these groups have an impact on the economy, trading, political funding, and many other things
Lobbying - these groups can lobby for or against an issue, and then politicians have to make a choice based on what those lobbyists have said
Bureaucracy
Institutions
Regime type - the process by which a country can declare war is different in different regime types, and the responsiveness to public opinions by different political regimes impacts the decisions a country makes
Proximity to Elections - the closer one is to an election; a leader may be less likely to go against public opinion or make big decisions because their goal is to stay in power and the people are the ones putting them in power
Role of Military
Who authorizes the use of force?
Separation of Powers
What is the premise of democratic peace theory?
A democratic state is less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states.
DYAD - a pair of states (only 2)
Democracies are NOT inherently peaceful, but they are peaceful towards the democracies that they chose.
How do we measure democracy?
Is it a yes or no question or is it a spectrum
How we define democracy also impacts how democracy is defined
How do you measure War?
The current threshold to label a conflict as a war: a minimum of 1000 people have to die for a conflict to be considered a war.
Democracies want to be surrounded by more democracies because it has the possibility of decreasing the chance that they will go to war. Therefore, they have incentive to encourage democracy and reward movement toward democracy as well as punish movement away from democracy.
Democracies make better economic and trading partners
This is because most people don’t like war or want one, and in democracies, governments are meant to listen to the people.
Civil Liberties and Freedom lead to peace
Democratic Peace Theory - Class Discussion
Capitalist Peace Theory -
Norms
Democracies have an instinctive trust towards other democracies
They believe that other democracies reasonable and predictable actors
The assumption that all countries that are democracies have specific intentions towards other democratic countries
The assumption that all democracies are peaceful and trustworthy is not always the case
The alliances and friendships between countries can disappear very quickly
Perception of actions or non action can change world view and threat level
The connection between Norms, Information problems, and commitment problems
Domestic Institutions
Public opinion is a determining factor in a government's decision to go to war
To argue this, you have to consider
Is public opinion not as important in a non-democracy?
Why do we assume that the public is against wars against other democracies?
Some people believe that democracies fight harder
Checks and balances
It is harder for a country to wage a war because of the procedures they have to go through to declare war
Retaining Office
The desire to stay in power
Bargaining Failures and Civil Wars
Genocide - The intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide as the following acts:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about the group's physical destruction
Imposing measures to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Ethnic Cleansing - the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
Introduction
Civil wars are harder to resolve than interstate wars.
Negotiated settlements are rare and often fail to be implemented.
The article argues that civil wars are particularly susceptible to information and commitment problems.
Bargaining Problems and Civil War
Bargaining Theory: The decision to fight can be seen as part of a larger bargaining process.
Information Asymmetries: Lack of clear information about capabilities leads to wars.
Commitment Problems: Difficulty in ensuring adherence to agreements exacerbates the situation.
Information Asymmetries
Governments often lack accurate information about rebel capabilities.
Rebels may not fully know their own strength until engaged in conflict.
Information withholding can lead to increased chances of war.
Commitment Problems
Governments can easily renege on promises made to weaker rebel groups.
Settlements often require rebels to demobilize, making them vulnerable.
The imbalance of power complicates the ability to enforce agreements.
Indivisible Stakes
Conflicts over territory or political power can be indivisible, making negotiation difficult.
Creative solutions (e.g., power-sharing) are often overlooked in high-stakes conflicts.
Explaining Civil War Onset
Governments may fail to offer concessions due to uncertainty about rebel capabilities.
Uncertainty about a government’s resolve can lead to wars as groups test the government's willingness to fight.
Information Problems and the Outbreak of Civil War
Uncertainty Regarding Rebel Financing**: Governments struggle to identify which groups can sustain a long conflict.
Uncertainty Over Government Resolve**: Governments may bluff their commitment to deter multiple challengers.
Commitment Problems and the Outbreak of Civil War
Weak institutions lead to fears that agreements will not be honored.
Political cleavages complicate the ability to make credible commitments.
Explaining Duration of Civil Wars
Some civil wars last longer due to:
High commitment levels from combatants.
Evenly matched forces prolonging conflict.
Profitable situations for one or more sides.
Information Problems and Duration of Civil War
Guerrilla tactics and multiple factions complicate information gathering.
Wars that provide less clear data about combatants tend to last longer.
Commitment Problems and Duration of Civil War
Generous offers may be rejected due to fears of exploitation.
Asymmetries in power make it hard to enforce peace agreements.
Explaining Recurrence of Civil Wars
Recurring conflicts often stem from unresolved issues from previous wars.
Information gained from prior conflicts can help prevent future wars.
Decisive military victories provide clearer information about capabilities, leading to longer peace periods.
Conclusion
The article emphasizes the importance of addressing bargaining problems to understand civil wars.
Countries with weak institutions and high fragmentation are more prone to violence.
Further research is necessary to explore creative solutions for enforcing peace agreements.
Summary
Barbara F. Walter's article provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges in reaching and enforcing negotiated settlements in civil wars. The focus on information and commitment problems highlights why civil wars are particularly resistant to resolution compared to other forms of conflict. The discussion emphasizes the need for better understanding of these dynamics to address and potentially resolve civil wars effectively.
Civil Wars - Class Notes
Civil War is an armed conflict that occurs between a government and one or more rebel groups within the same country.
Government versus Non-State Actors
Non-state actors are also known as rebel groups; they are rebelling against the status quo (the laws)
Multiple rebel groups will often fight each other even if they have the common enemy of the government
There is discourse regarding who or what group is the main party or the face in the war against the government
Civil War Overview
Comparing Civil Wars to Interstate wars: there are far more civil wars in a given year then there are interstate wars
Civil war is more common
Foreign intervention can help and harm in a civil war
They can expedite the end of the war; reducing casualties
The aid can also create more conflict and worsen the war
Civil Wars can become interstate wars
If country X is supporting the government of country A and country Y supports the rebel group of country a; If country X and country Y start fighting each other directly, it becomes an international war
Civil wars are responsible for the majority of war casualties since WWII
Violence often directed at civilians; the goal of civil war is to attack civilians (the rebel groups are civilians)
To qualify as a civil war, 25 people have to die within one year that died as a result of opposition towards the government or vice versa.
The main difference between terrorism and civil war is that with terrorism there is a constant need to inflict fear, where as rebel groups have a goal and they are usually pacified when their demands are met
Civil wars tend to last longer than interstate wars
The average duration of a civil war is about 6 years
The average duration of an interstate war is about 3 years
Civil wars are much harder to end
They are ended if one side wins, or the two groups come to a peace agreement
The chances of a civil war reoccuring is much higher than the likelihood of an interstate war recurring.
About 60% of civil wars will reoccur
What is the importance of Civil Wars in International Relations?
The outcome of the war will have an impact on the relationship of that state with the rest of the world
Foreign Intention: States often have a preference for who is in control of a certain state; maybe they want to overthrow the government for economic or political reasons, or maybe the instability that the rebel groups are creating is undesirable and a state might want to get rid of that rebel group
Based intervention; you are intervening for a specific side
International Law or Norms
Humanitarian Intervention: the purpose is to end the war, the only preferred outcome is that the war ends, not specifically who wins
Responsibility to Protect Doctrine
Regional Stability:
A civil war becomes an international issue the second refugees from that country cross borders into another country looking for asylum
Economics
Spillover Effects: whatever is happening inside a country impacts the rest of the world
Indirect effects of the fighting in a civil war that impact others outside of the people and things that are directly impacted by war
Death and Destruction versus loss of materials and partnerships
Destruction of nature, cultural heritage, and other important things from civil war have a large impact on the stability of a region
What Drives Civil Wars?
Grievances - government discriminates against members of a particular group(repression, denial of access to services).
The government selectively gives out rights; the right to freedom in practicing your religion, or speaking a native language
Any restriction on a right; travel restrictions, restrictions on what jobs you can do, or if you can participate in the government process
There are no societies without grievances but there are societies where grievances turn into civil wars
Greed - A group wants to control more of a country's resources.
The main question is that if everyone has grievances, when do those grievances turn into a civil war?
Differences Alone DO NOT lead to Civil War -
It is not about the differences themselves, it's about how the government treats the differences. Without discrimination, there won’t be grievances.
It is when these differences give rise to discrimination, inequality, political exclusion that demands for territory, policy change, or regime change can arise.
Why do some dissatisfied groups organize to further their interests through use of violence while others (indeed most) do not?
The potential for civil violence arises when:
Group of people motivated by greed or grievances
Inability to pursue their demands through regular political institutions
Are the groups and organizations that have already been created that could help address the discrimination that I am facing?
Is there a way to solve this issue without resorting to the use of violence
The ability to recruit fighters and purchase weapons to pose a threat
What Makes Civil War More Likely?
Group Level Explanations :
Minimize collective action and free-riding problems
Collective action problems is essentially the fact that even though people may want a policy change, they are not willing to spend their time and money or risk the punishment to fight for this change
Collective action problems lead to free-riding
Free-riding in this situation is basically where you want the change to happen but you want other people to be the ones taking action; you don’t want to put yourself and your life on the line, but you want other people to
Establish trust
It is easier to build trust in rebel groups that form along ideological lines, people already have common beliefs
Mobilize people for or against the government
Create Ideological Motivations
Provide Material compensations
The idea that “if you die, we will make sure that your family is taken care of” or something similar to that idea
Country Level Explanations:
Political Institutions and Regime Types
How does a government discriminate against a group of people
Some political institutions and regime types or more susceptible to discrimination
Wealth
Income inequality can be a big grievance
Even if the country as a whole is doing well financially, if there is a significant difference in income, that country is more likely to deal with civil violence as a result of the grievance around income inequality
Population and Terrain
Some believe that the bigger a country is, the less likely they are to deal with civil war, but this argument also works vice versa
There is some evidence that suggests countries with mountains are more likely to have civil wars
Mountains act as a physical barrier that separates you from the government
This can also be true with terrorist groups
International Level Explanations:
Foreign assistance impacts the outcomes and duration of civil wars
Sending weapons or money
Sending medical supplies or food to help sustain a group
Trying to facilitate peace talks or treaty negotiations can also be a way that third parties can influence the outcome of civil wars
Placing sanctions and tariffs on a country as a punishment and an incentive to act in a certain way
Information sharing and intelligence: feeding information to the side that you support in hopes to give them an advantage against their opponent
Rebel groups often form in a chaotic non-hierarchical way because they need to protect the group. If the leadership system is a hierarchy, and the leader is taken out, the stability of the group will be threatened.
How do Information and Commitment Problems show up in Civil Wars?
Information Problems
Neither the government of the rebel group can be sure of what the other will do
The amount of intelligence that the government has on the rebel group and vice versa varies significantly, especially if a governments resources are public knowledge
Commitment Problems
If the government and the rebel group are able to reach an agreement, neither can be sure that the other will hold up their end of the agreement
The government could attempt to discriminate against this group again, or the rebel group could choose to attack the government again
Humanitarian Intervention - Class Notes
Major Questions
Under what circumstances should the third parties intervene in conflicts abroad?
Do humanitarian interventions violate the “sovereignty” principle?
What does the track record of interventions tell us about the wisdom of intervention in civil wars?
Post Conflict Environment
There is no active fighting or violence going on within a country
Peace keeping forces cannot be deployed while violence is activly happening
Peace keeping can also be a form of conflict prevention; the desire to keep peace in an area and prevent another conflict
Basic Principles of Peacekeeping (From the UN)
Consent of Parties
Impartiality
Non-use of force; the promise to be be peaceful
UNDPKO - United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
The UN will deploy peacekeepers to a country and their job is to assist with the maintenance and creation of peace
They are often referred to as “Blue Helmets”
Responsibility to Protect - R2P
The R2P doctrine is an international norm that concerns human rights violations in other countries. Essentially, if a sovereign state is commiting a human rights violation in an egrigious manner, it is the responsibility of other states to step in and protect the people of that state.
These crimes include; Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity
State Responsibility: Every state has the responsibility to protect their people from the crimes listed above
This idea becomes an obligation to fulfill this duty as a sovereign; a sovereign state should be able to protect their citizens without influence, involvement, or interference from another state
International Assistance: The idea that states should help each other in keeping up their responsibilities to protect their citizens.
Collective Response: If a state is failing to protect its people or is actively doing harm to them, it is the responsibility of other states to take action and protect the people
Do humanitarian interventions violate the “sovereignty” principle?
If you aren’t fulfilling your sovereign duty to protect your people, then you are not really sovereign
It isn’t a violation of sovereignty because the sovereignty of that state is weakened by their non-action
It is humanitarian aid not a violation of sovereignty
R2P does not believe that humanitarian intervention is a violation of sovereignty
R2P is a principle; there is no legal obligation or requirement to uphold the principle
What is a Public Good?
What is the relationship between Public Goods and Humanitarian Intervention?
Bystanders to Genocide - Notes
People Sitting In Offices
in 100 days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda nearly exterminated the Tutsi minority
Using firearms, machetes, and garden tools the Hutu soldiers and citizens murdered 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu people
It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century
President Clinton had shown no interest in the genocide until years later
The U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up opportunities to intervene.
In March 1998, President Clinton issued "Clinton apology" to Rwanda
During the first three days of the killings U.S. diplomats in Rwanda reported that extremists wanted to eliminate the Tutsi
U.S. officials ignored this
The Peacekeepers
Romeo Dallaire: commander of UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda sent to keep the peace
Before Rwanda achieved independence from Belgium, in 1962, Tutsi made up 15 % of the population, and had privileged status.
independence brought in 30 yrs of Hutu rule, Tutsi were discriminated against and killed, ethnic cleansed
In 1990 a group of Tutsi exiles invaded Rwanda named the (Rwandan Patriotic Front),
1993 Tanzania had peace talks, resulted in the Arusha Accords
Arusha accords stated that the Rwandan government had to share power with Hutu opposition parties and the Tutsi minority
UN peacekeepers would be deployed to patrol a cease-fire and assist in demilitarization and provide a secure environment for exiled Tutsi to return.
hope among moderate Rwandans and Western observers was that Hutu and Tutsi would coexist
Hutu extremists rejected this and terrorized Tutsi and Hutu politicians supportive of peace process
the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) was run on a shoestring (equipped with hand-me-down vehicles)
The Early Killings
Rwandan President Habyarimana's jet was shot down, with Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira on board
Habyarimana was dead, and Mujawamariya knew that the Hutu would use the crash to begin mass killing
Within hours Hutu militia men began killing in Kigali.
The “Last War”
Simultaneous war and genocide—confused policymakers who had no understanding of the country.
Atrocities were carried out in places not commonly visited, where outside expertise is limited.
The Peace Processors
American actors dealing with Rwanda brought institutional interests and biases to their handling of the crisis.
3 weaknesses of U.S. diplomacy:
1. Before the plane crash diplomats had repeatedly threatened to pull out peacekeepers in retaliation for the parties' failure to implement Arusha.
2. before and during the massacres U.S. diplomacy revealed its natural bias toward states and toward negotiations
U.S.officials trusted the assurances of Rwandan officials, who actually were plotting genocide
3. blindness bred by familiarity: people in Washington who were paying attention to Rwanda before the plane was shot down had been tracking Rwanda for some time and expected ethnic violence from the region.
Foreigners First
David Rawson-American ambassador
about 300 Rwandans gathered at Rawson's residence seeking refuge
Genocide? What Genocide?
The testimony of U.S. officials who worked the issue day to day and the declassified documents show that plenty was known about the killers' intentions.
determination of genocide turns not on the numbers killed, but on the perpetrators' intent:
American officials shunned "the g-word."
They felt that using it would have obliged the United States to act, under terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention
They believed it would harm U.S. credibility to name the crime and then do nothing to stop it
“Not Even a Sideshow”
Once the Americans had been evacuated, Rwanda dropped off the radar of senior Clinton administration officials
Rwanda wasn't important once americans were not involved
The UN Withdrawal
When the killing began, Romeo Dallaire expected and appealed for reinforcements
sent peacekeepers on rescue missions around the city
wanted to increase the size and improve the quality of the UN's presence
the United States opposed sending reinforcements
The fear was that what would start as a small engagement by foreign troops would end as a large and costly one by Americans
The Pentagon “Chop”
Any proposal that originated in the working group on Rwanda had to survive the Pentagon "chop."
"Hard intervention," (U.S. military action) , out of the question
Pentagon officials stymied initiatives for "soft intervention" as well.
American public expressed no interest in Rwanda
crisis was treated as a civil war requiring a cease-fire or as a "peacekeeping problem" requiring a UN withdrawal
was not treated as a genocide demanding instant action
PDD-25 In Action
On May 17, (most Tutsi victims were already dead), the United States resorted to a version of Dallaire's plan.
Very few African countries offered troops
The Stories We Tell
Things the United States could have done differently:
before the plane crash, as violence escalated, it could have agreed to UN reinforcements
Once killing of thousands of Rwandans a day had begun, the President could have sent U.S. troops to Rwanda
Features of what justified the US to not act/ consider Rwanda as not genocide:
1. Administration officials exaggerated the extremity of the possible responses
U.S. leaders posed the choice as between staying out of Rwanda and "getting involved everywhere.
2. Administration policy makers appealed to notions of the greater good
3. U.S. officials with a special concern for Rwanda took their solace from mini-victories—working on behalf of specific individuals or groups
4. the delusion that what was happening in Rwanda wasn't genocide created a nurturing ethical framework for inaction
"War" was "tragic" but created no moral imperative
President Clinton's aims:
1. they wanted to avoid engagement in a conflict that posed little threat to American interests
2. sought to appease Congress by showing that they were cautious in their approach to peacekeeping
3. hoped to contain the political costs and avoid the moral stigma associated with allowing genocide
The normal operations of the foreign-policy bureaucracy and the international community permitted an illusion of continual deliberation, complex activity, and intense concern, as Rwandans were left to die.
A Continuum of Guilt
Romeo Dallaire did the most to save Rwanda and it haunted him forever.
When the international war-crimes tribunal called him to testify, he plunged back into the memories and his mental health worsened.
Dallaire said: "I told them I would never give up Rwanda,"
April 2000, Dallaire was forced out of the Canadian armed services and given a medical discharge
Humanitarian Intervention
Public Goods
Non Excludable: for everybody
Your use of a good has nothing to do with your contribution to the good
People generally pay taxes to fund a public good but this idea means that everyone can use the good regardless of if they pay for it or not
Non Rival: No Competing
More than one person can use the good
There isn’t a competition for the public good
Peacekeeping vs Peacemaking
Peacekeeping is when the blue helmets are sent in after all the fighting and violence is over and their job is to uphold the peace and carry out actions that were agreed upon to promote peace
Peacemaking is when soldiers go into a conflict while violence is still happening and they attempt to stop the violence and create a peaceful environment
Free-Riding and Humanitarian Intervention
Most people would agree that ending the war would be a good thing
But many countries who have that opinion basically say “we want the war to end, but we don’t want to be the ones to take the risk. We want another country to take the lead so we can profit without placing themselves in danger”
Often times, countries will look to the hegemon for leadership in these situations
If the hegemon doesn’t act, the other countries won’t act and violence continues
This is why the Rwandan Genocide continued for so long; everyone was expecting the US as the hegemon to take action, but they didn’t. And as a result, everyone had the free-riding mentality and no one took action, leading to prolonged violence
UNHCR Global Trends - Notes
Forced Displacement is a consequence of the failure to hold up peace and security.
As the frequency, duration, and intensity of these conflicts has increased, so has the number of people who are forced to flee their homes each year.
Refugees tend to stay close to their home country, so many of the states that surround a country end up taking on the burden of a conflict in a state because the refugees from that state who were forced out due to the conflict enter into nearby countries.
Low to Middle income countries are more likely to host refugees.
75% of the refugees in today's world reside in a low to middle income country
Refugees and Migrants are not the same thing, although they often face similar persecution and consequences.
Which can include: Rape, Tourture, Kiddnapping, Severe threats on ones life, unlawful detention, robbery, and even human trafficking.
Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP’s) - people who are forced to flee their homes, but they don’t actually cross an international border into another country, instead they seek refuge in other areas of the country
IDPs account for around 58% of people who are forcibly displaced from their homes
Refugee Crisis - Notes
Refugee
Migrant
Asylum seekers
Internationally Displaced Person (IDP)
Host Country
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is an international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and advancing nuclear disarmament. The treaty, which was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and entered into force on March 5, 1970, is widely considered one of the most important international agreements related to global security.
Key Objectives of the NPT:
Non-Proliferation: Prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology to states that do not possess them. This is perhaps the treaty's most critical feature, aiming to stop the number of nuclear-armed states from increasing.
Disarmament: Work towards the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Although the treaty does not demand immediate disarmament, it commits nuclear-armed states to take concrete steps toward reducing and ultimately eliminating their nuclear arsenals.
Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy: Promote the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as in power generation and medical applications, while ensuring that such technology is not diverted to nuclear weapons production. The treaty includes provisions for the sharing of nuclear technology and knowledge under strict international safeguards.
Structure of the NPT:
The NPT is structured around three main pillars:
Non-Proliferation (Article II): Countries without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire or develop them, and those with nuclear weapons agree not to assist others in doing so.
Disarmament (Article VI): All parties, including nuclear-armed states, are committed to pursuing negotiations in good faith towards nuclear disarmament and a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy (Article IV): Signatories have the right to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, provided they adhere to non-proliferation safeguards and regulations set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States:
Nuclear Weapon States (NWS): According to the NPT, only five countries are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), United Kingdom, France, and China. These five are also permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (P5).
Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS): The majority of NPT signatories fall into this category. These states commit not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons and agree to submit to international safeguards by the IAEA to ensure compliance.
The NPT’s Review Process:
The NPT includes a Review Conference every five years, where states parties meet to assess progress on the treaty’s objectives. These conferences also serve as a forum for discussing issues like disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful nuclear cooperation.
Key Provisions and Principles:
International Safeguards: The IAEA inspects and monitors nuclear facilities to ensure that nuclear material is not diverted for weapons use.
Withdrawal Clause: A country may withdraw from the treaty if it determines that "extraordinary events" have jeopardized its supreme national interests. However, withdrawal must be done with a formal notification to all parties and the United Nations.
Criticisms and Challenges:
While the NPT has been largely successful in limiting the number of nuclear-armed states, it has faced criticism:
Slow progress on disarmament: Many non-nuclear states argue that nuclear-armed countries have not made significant enough strides toward disarmament, as called for in Article VI.
Nuclear-armed states outside the NPT: Some countries, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel, have developed nuclear weapons but never signed the NPT, creating challenges for non-proliferation efforts.
Non-compliance: There have been instances where countries, such as North Korea, have violated or withdrawn from the treaty, leading to concerns about proliferation.
Conclusion:
The NPT has been instrumental in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but its success is tempered by the complex realities of international security, regional tensions, and the challenge of achieving meaningful disarmament. Despite these challenges, the NPT remains a cornerstone of global efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote stability.
Why Iran Should Get The Bomb - Walz
Most people in the US, the EU and Israel believe that Iran posing a nuclear weapon would be the worst case scenario, but this article argues that it could be the opposite.
That Iran gaining nuclear power would be the best result possible and would increase stability in the middle east
3 Main Ways that Crisis over Iran's Nuclear Program Could End
If other countries (US, EU, Israel) were to continue with diplomacy but also place significant sanction on Iran; This might result in Iran abandoning their attempt to make nuclear weapons
This is unlikely to happen for a few reasons
History has shown that once a state is set on gaining nuclear power, it is rare to convince them to stop
The use of economic sanctions as a way to punish a state into stopping nuclear weapon production does not tend to work very well
Adding more sanctions could actually make the state feel more attacked and vulnerable, driving them to continue the production of their nuclear weapons as a way to protect themselves
Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but they develop a breakout capability.
Breakout Capability: when a country can build and test a nuclear weapon very quickly
There are many countries around the world with sophisticated nuclear weapons programs but they don’t have an actual bomb; Instead they can produce one very quickly
There are mixed opinions on if this outcome would succeed or not
A robust breakout capability could help leaders and politicians in Iran feel safer - it could satisfy the domestic political - The country can enjoy the protection of having a bomb (Greater security) without the negative consequences (international isolation and condemnation)
The US and EU are fine with breakout capabilities but Israel is not. Israel believes that any growth in Iran's nuclear program is a direct threat
This could potentially result in Israel continuing its attempts to weaken Iran's nuclear system; Iran might see the continued threats and sabotage as a message that their breakout capability isn’t enough, that they need to actually build a weapon to be safe.
Iran continues to build up its nuclear program and could potentially go nuclear by testing a weapon.
Major world leaders involved with this issue have declared this outcome as unacceptable
History has shown that by reducing imbalances in military power among states, newly nuclear states can often bring more stability to the region and to the international community,
Israel is the only state in the world that is the only nuclear power within its region . Because of this, Israel is considered to be an Unchecked Nuclear State.
Argues that the current crisis is that fault of Israel and their nuclear arsenal rather than Iran’s desire for a nuclear arsenal.
Israel has a history of using force to retain their status as the sole nuclear power in the middle east
This has created a situation where potential rivals of Israel feel the need to develop protections possibly in the form of nuclear weapons to prevent Israel from attacking them
Israel has a nuclear monopoly in the middle east
Many believe that this issue is not the result of the more recent Iranian Nuclear crisis, but rather, it is the result of “a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.” (3)
Unfounded Fears of the Iranian Nuclear Crisis
The belief that the Iranian regime is unstable and therefore are more likely to attack
Not True: Even though many of Iran’s leaders use “inflammatory or hateful rhetoric” there only goal is to survive
Some people argue that Iran is “irrational” and if they were allowed to build a bomb they would not hesitate to attack the US despite the potential consequences
It is far more likely that Iran's goal in developing nuclear weapons comes from the desire to increase security rather than a desire to improve its offensive capabilities.
Others worry that Iran having a nuclear weapon would increase their bravery and allow more opportunities for Iran to carry out aggressive actions
It has been shown that once a country has a nuclear weapon in their possession, they feel even more vulnerable and they are very aware that the presence of their nuclear weapon makes them a potential target for other major powers
There is this fear that Iran may try to provide terrorist groups with nuclear weapons
Not Very likely:
It would be really hard to give these types of weapons to a terrorist group without someone finding out; If other states found out that you were giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, you would be punished severely
It is so hard to predict what a terrorist group will do, and what their goals are. Countries also can’t control terrorist groups.
These weapons are expensive and extremely dangerous, so a state would have every intention of keeping it out of the hands of people who they cannot trust and control.
Others believe that if Iran gains a nuclear weapon then other states in the middle east will also gain nuclear power
This is unlikely because of the lack of Proliferation
Proliferation: rapid and uncontrolled speed
Essentially, nuclear states are emerging at a slower and slower pace as time goes on
Israel has had nuclear power for decades now and they didn’t cause a nuclear arms race, so if Iran gains nuclear power it is unlikely that it will cause an arms race
Rest Assured
If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other
No other country in the region will have an incentive to create their own nuclear power
This will lead to the conclusion of the current crisis, and create more stability in the middle east
How Should We Continue:
Continue with diplomacy practices: they help the western countries feel safer and makes it easier for them to live with nuclear Iran
Drop sanctions; they aren’t effective in deterring the production of nuclear weapons or the use of them and they have a negative impact on innocent civilians
Big Takeaway
History has shown us that when a nuclear state emerges, stability within that states region and in the international community also emerges. So maybe more nuclear weapons are better?
Iran and the Bomb - Kahl
Core Ideas:
Debate between two perspectives on Iran's nuclear capabilities:
Kahl's position: Nuclear-armed Iran would be dangerous and destabilizing
Waltz's position: Nuclear weapons would make Iran more responsible and create stability
Key Points:
Arguments Against Nuclear Iran (Kahl's Position):
Iran would likely become more aggressive in supporting terrorist groups and militants
A nuclear arsenal might embolden Iran to pursue regional goals more aggressively
Iran could provide more sophisticated weapons to groups like Hezbollah and Palestinian militants
The initial period after Iran acquires nuclear weapons would be particularly dangerous and crisis-prone
Historical Context and Evidence:
Examples of nuclear states' behavior are cited, including:
Soviet Union's involvement in Korean War
Pakistan-India conflicts and the Kargil War
Research shows new nuclear powers tend to be more crisis-prone
Strategic Implications:
While nuclear weapons might prevent large-scale wars, they could encourage lower-level conflicts
The "stability-instability paradox" suggests nuclear deterrence might generate greater instability in smaller conflicts
Proposed Solutions:
Preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold should remain a top U.S. priority
A negotiated solution through economic pressure and diplomacy is preferred over military action
Summary:
Kahl argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would create more regional instability and conflict, while challenging the notion that nuclear weapons necessarily lead to more responsible state behavior.
Key Words & Definitions
Nuclear-Armed Iran: Refers to the potential scenario where Iran possesses nuclear weapons, raising concerns about regional and global security.
Deterrence: A strategy intended to dissuade adversaries from taking undesirable actions, particularly through the threat of significant retaliation.
Stability-Instability Paradox: A concept suggesting that while nuclear weapons may deter large-scale wars between nuclear states, they can also encourage lower-level conflicts or proxy wars.
Crisis-Prone: A situation or state that is likely to experience conflicts or crises, particularly in the context of international relations.
Terrorist Groups and Militants: Organizations that use violence and intimidation, often against civilians, to achieve political aims. In the context of the document, this includes groups supported by Iran.
Economic Pressure: Measures taken to influence a country's behavior through economic means, such as sanctions or trade restrictions, often used to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Negotiated Solution: A diplomatic approach aimed at resolving conflicts or disputes through dialogue and compromise rather than military action.
Regional Stability: The condition in which a region is free from major conflicts and tensions, allowing for peaceful coexistence among states.
Proxy Wars: Conflicts where two opposing countries or parties support combatants that serve their interests instead of waging war directly.
Nuclear Threshold: The point at which a country develops the capability to produce nuclear weapons, which can significantly alter the strategic balance in a region.
Nuclear Proliferation - Class Notes
Nuclear proliferation - more countries gaining nuclear power and capabilities
Non-Proliferation - the policies that we have today around nuclear weapons to make sure that proliferation or an increase of these weapons does not occur
Weapons of Mass Destruction
WMDs: Biological Weapons, Chemical Weapons, and Nuclear Weapons
Treaties for WMDs: international efforts to govern the proliferation of WMDS
Proliferation: Spread of WMDs into the hands or additional actors (generally other countries)
Types of Proliferators: Porcupine
Nuclear Weapons can deter aggression
Nuclear weapons can increase the power of otherwise weak countries
Status Quo countries won’t be able to “touch” new nuclear countries
Makes regional conflicts hard to address
Security Dilemma is very relevant in this situation because if a state feels threatened by another country possessing nuclear capabilities
Some argue that more nuclear weapons can lead to less conflict; if everyone has nuclear weapons, they will all be disinclined to fight each other
Types of Proliferators: Pitbull (Offensive)
New nuclear states may act more aggressively.
Using the nuclear weapons to attack
Nuclear weapons can make a country more aggressive without actually having to use the weapons
You can bully other states and you have that power because you can threaten with a nuclear attack
Often are involved in regional conflicts, with competing claims for territories
With smaller nuclear arsenals, states may be tempted to use them early, before they’re destroyed by an enemy first strike
Types of Proliferators: Turkeys
Nuclear power may create safety problems.
May have a hard time solving command and control problems, both civilian-military and non-state actors.
New Nuclear states may not have such resources to overcome issues; Safety Issues, making sure that these weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands
Close Calls
Chernobyl disaster
Fukushima Disaster
Governing Proliferation: The NPT
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968)
Declared nuclear states work to reduce their arsenals
They could not ask the major powers to give up their nuclear weapons
This treaty gave 5 states permission to keep their weapons
Those 5 states - US, UK, China, Russia, France (The power 5)
However these 5 countries are prohibited from helping any other country gain access to materials or knowledge for the production of nuclear weapons - don’t help others create nuclear weapons
Non-nuclear states will not acquire nuclear weapons
Nuclear states provide access to peaceful nuclear technologies
Monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Very intrusive monitoring of countries
They examine declared nuclear plants and non-declared ones
They determine if the energy generated by a nuclear energy plant is actually for energy or if it is for weapons
They try to differentiate between countries without nuclear capabilities and those with capabilities
Then they have to decide if the nuclear capabilities of a country are being used correctly
If it is found that a country is not cooperating with the NPT, the IAEA has the responsibility to refer the issue to the UN security council who decides what to do from there
5 Countries — Out of the NPT Regime
These countries do not allow the IAEA To come in and examine and report on the nuclear power and weapons of that country
These countries are not opening themselves up
They reject the treaty
The international community does punish some of the countries through the UN Security council
North Korea has extreme sanctions placed on them by the UN security council
Israel will never be given sanctions because the US will always veto
Pakistan
North Korea
India
Israel
South Sudan
Big Question:
Do Nuclear Weapons Generate Stability of Instability? Are they beneficial to world peace?
Exam 2 Overview
The second exam will only cover the topics that we have covered after the first exam. But we will build on those topics with what we are learning now.
Evaluating Humanitarian intervention in the case of Sovereignty
Foreign Aid as a Public Good
Interstate Wars
What states are fighting for?
Cost-Benefit analysis of starting a war; what benefits could they get?
Why is a state fighting?
Bargaining framework: Information Problems, Commitment problems, and indivisibility issues
What is the intuition behind the bargaining framework
What is a bargaining range (big picture stuff)
Credibility and Threats
Audience costs
Incentive to misrepresent
What is a threat; what makes a threat credible?
Review the main points from readings
Alliances
How are alliances a deterrent to international conflict
How do alliances impact interstate war
Where does the strength of NATO come from
Collective Defense
What challenges is NATO facing
Democratic Peace Theory
What is it?
Economic Interdependence Argument
Norms Argument
Argument 3
What are the weaknesses of these arguments?
Review the flow charts and their summaries
Civil Wars
Definitions of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
What states and rebel groups are fighting for
Greed and Grievances; the underlying reasons why rebel groups form in the first place
Lack of institutions to address grievances
Inability to recruit and lack of money for the operation
International factors in civil wars
Information and Commitment problems in the context of civil wars
What things are needed for a rebel group to form and then initiate a conflict with a state
Humanitarian Intervention
What is R2P
Sovereignty is a privilege that comes with the responsibility to protect your own people
R2P allows humanitarian aid to occur without violating sovereignty because that state has lost their sovereign privilege because they aren’t protecting their own people
Why did the international community fail in the case of the Rwandan Genocide
Free Riding incentives and international conflict
Refugee Crisis
Review lecture material
Definitions from slides
What countries are active players in creating and receiving refugees
Nuclear Weapons
What are the types of proliferators
What are some reasons why states would want to have nuclear weapons
The non-proliferation treaty, and what rules it has created
What are the arguments of the Waltz and Kahl articles
Porcupine, Pitbull, and Turkey explanations
Environment
Review lecture notes
Main points from the Cassidy article
Environment and International Relations
If you want to make any improvements in lowering the carbon emissions, the big players have to be involved. (US, European Union, India China, etc)
The countries that emit a lot of carbon emissions are benefiting from that and therefore they have economic incentives to continue with their current plans
More environmentally friendly plans tend to be more expensive and the big players have no interest in losing money
There is not a lack of initiatives with the goal of climate progress; rather the issue is the lack of enforcement of the rules and regulations
There is no one group that is in charge of making sure that countries uphold their agreements
How can you create an environment where these big countries are willing to make these changes?
How can you show these big countries that they would benefit from these changes
Kyoto Protocol - legally binding
Adopted in 1997 and came into force in 2005
It is part of the UN framework and it is linked to the UNited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
It establishes a legally binding framework for 40+ industrialized countries specific targets for reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses
They basically agreed that they were okay with the other countries punishing them if they did not keep their word.
2 main phases; (2008-2012) and Phase 2 (2012 - 2020)
Kyoto was only for industrialized countries; china was classified as a developing industrialized country so they were not part of the agreement
Was the US a signatory of the Kyoto protocol?
Clinton signed it
But to ratify a treaty; congress has to approve it
So without congressional approval, the US is not an official party of the treaty
The Paris Climate Deal
Participating Nations made a pact in December of 2015 and the agreement went into effect in November of 2016
Deals with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation starting in the year 2020
Countries agreed to limit the century’s global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the levels from the years 1850-1900 (the pre-industrial era).
Under the agreement, every country has an individual plan (or “Nationally Determined Contributions”) to tackle its greenhouse gas emissions.
There is no clear cut consequence or penalty for countries that fall short of their pledged goals.
A country being in or out of the agreement doesn’t have a huge impact on decision making in this group or in the international community
The goal of the Paris agreement was to create an agreement that the US and China would want to join, and the only way to do that was to make the agreement non-binding
Why Have Climate Negotiations Proved So Disappointing?
Major Arguments
Collective Action Problem: Climate change mitigation requires collective action, but countries face a "prisoners' dilemma." While all benefit from global action, individual nations have little incentive to act alone.
Failures of Existing Agreements:
The Kyoto Protocol failed due to weak enforcement and limited participation. Emissions reductions were statistically insignificant on a global scale.
Voluntary pledges, such as those under the Copenhagen Accord, do not guarantee results and are often insufficient to meet temperature targets.
Scientific Uncertainty: Uncertainty about climate tipping points complicates cooperation. When tipping points are unknown, countries are less motivated to act decisively, increasing the risk of catastrophe.
Incentive Structure: International agreements often lack mechanisms to enforce compliance or deter free-riding. This reduces the effectiveness of treaties like Kyoto.
Potential Ideas for Improvement
Strategic Treaty Design: Agreements should include mechanisms like trade restrictions or "tipping" strategies to incentivize participation and compliance. For example:
Trade restrictions, as used in the Montreal Protocol, can deter free-riding and enforce cooperation.
Sectoral agreements focused on specific technologies could create positive tipping points for global adoption.
Focus on Coordination Games: Transform the emissions reduction problem from a "prisoners' dilemma" into a coordination game, where collective action benefits all.
Adopt Incremental Approaches: Start with smaller, enforceable agreements targeting specific sectors or pollutants.
Important Examples
The Montreal Protocol succeeded due to strategic design, such as trade restrictions that incentivized participation.
Experiments show that greater scientific certainty about climate risks can transform the dynamics of international cooperation.
Important Vocabulary & Main Ideas
Collective Action Problem:
Climate change mitigation requires global cooperation, but individual nations often prioritize self-interest over collective action, leading to failures in international agreements.
The issue is akin to a "prisoners' dilemma," where nations benefit most by free-riding on the efforts of others.
Failures of Current Agreements:
Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord lacked effective enforcement and meaningful participation, resulting in negligible impact on global emissions.
Voluntary commitments often fail to align with scientific targets like the 2°C goal.
Scientific Uncertainty:
Uncertainty about climate tipping points reduces the urgency for nations to act collectively, making catastrophic outcomes more likely.
Credible scientific evidence and precise thresholds could encourage cooperation.
Strategic Approaches for Success:
Treaties should incorporate mechanisms like trade restrictions to enforce participation and compliance, as seen in the success of the Montreal Protocol.
Climate agreements need to move from "prisoners' dilemma" dynamics to "coordination games" to align incentives globally.
Prisoners' Dilemma: A situation in game theory where individuals acting in their own interest lead to a worse collective outcome.
Coordination Game: A scenario in game theory where all parties benefit from aligning their actions.
Tipping Point: A critical threshold at which small changes can lead to significant, often irreversible effects.
Free Rider: A participant who benefits from the efforts of others without contributing themselves.
Trade Restrictions: Strategic trade measures to incentivize compliance with international agreements.
Montreal Protocol: A treaty designed to protect the ozone layer, often cited as a successful international environmental agreement.
A Skeptical Note on the Paris Climate Deal
Main Arguments
Optimism About Paris Accord:
The agreement brought together 188 countries, marking a diplomatic milestone.
Aims to limit global warming to "well below 2°C," with aspirational goals of 1.5°C.
Pledges represent a global recognition of the need to act against climate change.
Weaknesses and Criticisms:
Voluntary Nature: The agreement is non binding, allowing countries to set their own emissions targets without enforcement mechanisms. Failure to meet targets results in "naming and shaming" rather than concrete penalties.
Insufficient Targets: Current pledges are not enough to meet the 2°C target. Many countries, particularly developing nations, remain reliant on fossil fuels.
Coal Use: Key emitters like China and India continue to build coal-fired power plants, undermining global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Lack of Financial Commitment: The $100 billion annual aid pledged by developed nations to support renewable energy in developing countries is voluntary and likely insufficient.
No Carbon Tax: The deal lacks mechanisms like carbon pricing, which could provide clear economic incentives for emissions reductions.
Skeptical View:
Historical Comparison: Cassidy likens the Paris Accord to the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which aimed to outlaw war but failed due to a lack of enforcement. He contrasts this with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which succeeded due to clear incentives and mechanisms.
Cautious Optimism: Cassidy acknowledges some progress, such as advancements in renewable energy and shifts in Chinese policy, but warns that significant challenges remain.
Key Issues for the Future:
The agreement depends on future technological breakthroughs and voluntary increases in ambition every five years starting in 2020.
The success of the Paris Accord hinges on sustained political will, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and increased financial and technological support for developing countries.
Important Vocabulary and Main Ideas
Strengths of the Paris Accord:
The accord united 188 countries under a common goal to limit global warming to below 2°C.
It marked a diplomatic milestone in recognizing the urgency of climate action.
Weaknesses and Criticisms:
The agreement is non binding, with no penalties for failing to meet emissions targets.
Current national pledges are insufficient to meet the stated climate goals, and reliance on voluntary contributions leaves much uncertainty.
Key carbon-intensive nations like China and India continue to expand coal usage.
Financial and Technological Challenges:
Developed nations pledged $100 billion annually to support developing countries’ transitions to renewables, but this amount is voluntary and likely inadequate.
The lack of a global carbon tax or similar pricing mechanism leaves emissions reductions reliant on government directives and private investment.
Historical Comparisons:
Cassidy likens the Paris Accord to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a failed treaty that sought to outlaw war but lacked enforcement mechanisms.
He contrasts this with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which succeeded due to enforceable measures and clear incentives.
Paris Accord: A 2015 international agreement aimed at combating climate change through voluntary commitments.
Carbon Tax: A fee imposed on the carbon content of fuels, intended to reduce carbon emissions.
Naming and Shaming: A strategy to pressure countries by publicly criticizing their actions or lack thereof.
Financial Aid: Contributions from developed nations to support climate action in developing countries.
Kellogg-Briand Pact: A 1928 treaty that sought to outlaw war but failed due to lack of enforcement.
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): A 1968 agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
Foreign Aid for Scoundrels - Notes
Major Arguments
Support for Dictators:
A significant portion of foreign aid supports dictators, contrary to claims of promoting democracy.
Roughly a third of global aid since 1972 has gone to dictatorships, with only one-fifth directed to democracies.
Double Standards and Rhetoric:
Western aid rhetoric often emphasizes democracy and good governance, but in practice, aid supports regimes that suppress freedoms.
Aid agencies prioritize disbursing funds over fostering accountability, enabling corruption and repression.
Historical Context:
Aid practices originate from colonial attitudes, framing donors as protectors and recipients as incapable of self-governance.
Donors often label autocratic regimes as "developing" or "democratizing," perpetuating paternalistic relationships.
Case Studies:
Leaders like Paul Biya (Cameroon) and Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) have received billions in aid despite human rights abuses and lack of development progress.
Similar patterns are seen in Central Asia and other regions.
Aid and Democracy:
Aid often undermines democratic institutions by bolstering autocratic regimes. For example:
Aid increases government resources to suppress opposition.
Governments use aid selectively to reward loyalty and punish dissenters.
Challenges to Reform:
The "war on terror" has replaced Cold War logic, justifying support for dictators viewed as strategically important.
Aid agencies have structural incentives to maintain the status quo, prioritizing fund distribution over meaningful reform.
Critics and Alternatives:
Figures like Dambisa Moyo argue that aid fosters dependency and corruption, disenfranchising local populations.
Mo Ibrahim’s governance index and prize highlight the importance of democratic accountability but underscore its scarcity.
Important Conclusions
Aid donors must align their actions with democratic values, avoiding the hypocrisy of supporting autocratic regimes.
True progress requires recognition of equal rights and the rejection of paternalistic practices in aid.
Summary
Foreign aid disproportionately supports autocratic regimes, undermining democracy.
Despite rhetoric on "good governance," aid often enables repression and corruption.
Aid agencies prioritize fund distribution, creating structural disincentives for democratic accountability.
Historical colonial attitudes continue to shape aid dynamics, perpetuating paternalism.
Critics like Dambisa Moyo and Mo Ibrahim highlight aid's failures and advocate for governance reform.
Case studies (e.g., Cameroon, Ethiopia) reveal systemic issues with aid undermining human rights.
Strategic considerations (e.g., the "war on terror") often trump democratic principles in aid allocation.
Important Vocabulary and Main Ideas
Good Governance: The effective, accountable, and transparent management of public resources and institutions.
Aid Dependence: A condition where recipient nations rely heavily on foreign aid for economic and social development.
Paternalism: A relationship where donors assume superior knowledge and control over recipients' decisions.
Benevolent Autocrat: A concept suggesting that some dictators may advance development, often used to justify aid to such regimes.
Gerund Defense: Framing authoritarian regimes as "democratizing" to justify continued aid.
Developmental State: A state that prioritizes economic development under strong centralized leadership, often used as a rationale for supporting autocrats.
War on Terror: A post-9/11 geopolitical strategy influencing aid decisions, often prioritizing security alliances over democracy promotion.
Slush Funds: Resources used by autocratic governments to reinforce control, often financed indirectly through foreign aid.
Democratizing: The process of transitioning toward democracy, often used ambiguously to describe aid-receiving states.
Human Rights Watch: An organization that monitors and reports on global human rights practices, often critical of aid-supported regimes.
The Case for Aid - Notes
Defense of Foreign Aid: Sachs argues that foreign aid is an essential tool for economic development and can save lives when properly designed and delivered.
Criticism of Aid Detractors: He addresses critics like Professor William Easterly, who claim that large-scale aid projects fail. Sachs counters that recent evidence shows effective aid can lead to significant improvements in public health and economic growth.
Public Health Successes: The article highlights the successes in public health due to increased aid, particularly in combating diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Initiatives like the Global Fund and the U.S. PEPFAR programs have been pivotal.
Malaria Control: Sachs discusses the successful strategies for malaria control, including the distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and the introduction of artemisinin-based treatments. These efforts have led to a significant reduction in malaria deaths.
Economic Impact: Aid has contributed to economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, helping to lower poverty rates and improve health outcomes. Sachs emphasizes that while aid alone isn't the solution, it plays a crucial role alongside good governance and sound economic policies.
Call for Continued Support: He stresses the need for ongoing financial support for aid programs, arguing that even a small percentage of the GDP of wealthy nations can make a substantial difference in combating extreme poverty.
Quality of Aid: The effectiveness of aid is linked to its design and implementation. Sachs advocates for well-structured programs with clear goals and metrics to maximize their impact.
In conclusion, Sachs argues that the debate should not be about whether aid is necessary, but rather how to ensure its effective delivery to those in need.
Important Vocabulary
Foreign Aid: Financial or material assistance provided by governments or organizations to support the economic, environmental, and social development of developing countries.
Economic Development: The process by which a nation improves the economic, political, and social well-being of its citizens.
Public Health: The science and practice of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities through education, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and research for disease and injury prevention.
Malaria: A life-threatening disease caused by parasites transmitted to people through the bites of infected mosquitoes.
Global Fund: An international financing organization that aims to attract, manage, and disburse resources to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
PEPFAR: The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program aimed at combating the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Mass Action Effect: A phenomenon where high coverage of preventive measures (like vaccinations or bed nets) protects even those who are not directly covered.
Governance: The processes and structures through which an organization or government operates and makes decisions.
Transparency: The quality of being open and accountable, ensuring that actions and decisions are made openly and are accessible to scrutiny.
Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.