Home Tags Posts tagged with "featured"
Tag

featured

FeaturedPhilosophy

Gobbledygook in IR Theory: What Are We Talking About?

written by Seamus Kim

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

—Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

One of the defining texts of International Relations (IR) theory is Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations. He posits, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” We may feel impressed by this aphorism. We may not know what it means, exactly, but we are sure—it’s Morgenthau, and his Politics Among Nations, after all—that this is the sort of statement worth talking about. 

But what picture of reality does this statement present? This strikes us as a meaningful proposition, but it is unclear what the world would look like if it were true or, more importantly, false. 

Perhaps, this is not intended to paint a picture but is merely a definitional remark (like, all bachelors are unmarried), in which case we might shrug and say: ‘well sure, if you’d like to define international politics like that’. Except, Morgenthau clarifies, “Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim.” Semantics doesn’t seem to be the intention. Rather, he seems to be—or intends to be—drawing a substantive picture, which we could plausibly debate over. That is, he is making a descriptive claim, not a definitional one. To rephrase: ‘It is always the case that, regardless of what their long-term goals are, political actors seek short-term power.’ Given the universal ‘always’, a seemingly straightforward—and strikingly precarious—criterion for falsifying the statement is simply to find one instance in which one’s immediate goal is not power. 

This sounds easy enough. That is, until we ask what is meant by ‘power’, and what sort of observation we could make to determine whether it is someone’s immediate goal or not. Morgenthau offers more clarification: “Political power is a psychological relation … It gives [one] control over certain actions of [another] through the influence which the former exert over the latter’s minds.” 

The picture again becomes fuzzy. Empirical analysis aside, could we even imagine a case in which a political actor would not be pursuing power, as described here? To get to any ‘ultimate aim’ on the world stage, it seems that one would necessarily have to engage with others and enter into a ‘psychological relation’ in which one influences the thought of another, insofar as they are engaging in political interactions (like, diplomacy) with other agents. Perhaps Morgenthau is referring to a special type of influence—one that wouldn’t be baked into the definition of international politics—that would save the statement from semantic triviality. But we can stop the interpretation here. The issue is already clear—it is not even a question of whether the statement is false, but whether it’s even the type of statement that can be false. And, if a statement can’t even be false, then it’s either a matter of semantics (I’m defining power, relations, ultimate aims, etc. as such and such) or, if not semantics, something much worse—nonsense. He is referring to nothing at all, but an imagined, amorphous quality—‘power’—that we can’t make predictions about but is nonetheless supposed to have bearing. 

Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) made the distinction between statements that are sensical, senseless, and nonsense. Sensical statements are truth apt—they can be, in principle, true or false pictures of reality. Statements like these presuppose a certain criterion for how you would determine its truth-value. From the assertion that all swans are white, we would expect that every observation of a swan would be of a white swan, and if there was a single (accurate) observation otherwise, then the statement would securely be rendered false. In other words, statements can be sensical yet obviously false—but it’s their sensicality that allows us to quickly dispose of them and prevent pulling hair.

Senseless statements include those of logic and mathematics, which may be true or false by virtue of certain rules, but don’t purport to paint a picture (they give the structure of the picture). And then there are the worst offenders—nonsense statements which variably sound like they are saying something meaningful but are simply ill-formed propositions. Consider Lewis Carroll’s poem, Jabberwocky, as a prototypical example of (intentional) nonsense: 

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

‘’Twas brillig’ sounds like an English sentence with recognizable syntax—there is a something, x, and x was ‘brillig’—but one would obviously be confused if they tried to determine how to prove or falsify that statement. 

Although not nearly as severe and immediate as the Jabberwocky example, a concerning amount of material in the International Relations literature suffers too from nonsense—especially that which we sometimes mysteriously refer to as ‘theory’. It is unclear whether some statements within the literature—say, about the structure of the international arena, fundamental motivations of political agents, etc.—are about anything at all. They do not paint a clear enough picture such that we would know, in principle, how to determine whether the picture matches reality. 

The consequence is impasse. High-school debaters and academics alike can discuss liberalism, realism, constructivism, Marxism, etc. ad infinitum, but without much progress because it is unclear what picture, exactly, is being debated. This talking-past-each-other might excite our intellect, but with little import to real-world decision-making to show for it. Given the near impossibility of subjecting international relations to experimental study, it is understandable why there is relatively less concrete, methodologically rigorous analysis about international relations. But plugging the hole with abstractions, which do not paint a picture one way or another, fail to compensate. 

Consider the following example from Nicholas Ross Smith and Grant Dawson’s article Mearsheimer, Realism, and the Ukraine War, in which the author critiques Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s picture of civilizations:

Civilizations are continually evolving in different directions. So, while in the West the concept most adequately denotes a loose ‘political community’, in places like China and Russia, the notion of civilization has evolved to be “coterminous with a state” (Coker 2019, 92). These emerging ‘civilizational states’ force the reconsideration of Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s (2007, 47) argument that civilizations are not actors because there is “no front office or central bureaucracy”.

The first proposition—“Civilizations are continually evolving in different directions”—borders on nonsense. It is not immediate what any of the terms in the sentence are referring to—civilization, evolving, directions—and, consequently, there is no clear path to verifying or falsifying this claim. 

Fortunately, the rest of the paragraph helps clarify that this first statement is not claiming that a set of entities called ‘civilizations’ are themselves doing anything (‘evolving’) but that the application of the concept ‘civilization’ is evolving. That is, for instance, people in the West now apply the term ‘civilization’—which might typically be reserved for something like Ancient Greece—to a collection of modern states, which we might call ‘Western civilization’. In contrast, people in China or Russia now apply ‘civilization’ to a singular state—e.g., the ‘Chinese state’ is synonymous with ‘Chinese civilization’. So, as it turns out, the path to verifying or falsifying the claim is to simply go out and see if people really do, in fact, use the term ‘civilization’ as described, not to speculate about the behaviors of civilizations. We may feel as though we have robbed the statement of its intrigue, but at least we have retrieved it from nonsense. 

The issue, however, is that the resulting proposition—the term ‘civilization’ is now used in such and such ways—no longer seems to actually engage with Jackson’s claim that civilizations aren’t actors because they lack a ‘front office’. Smith and Dawson argue that ‘civilizational states’, like Russia or China, pose as counter-examples to Jackson’s claim, since they—as states with governments—clearly have ‘front offices’. But, as we recall, Smith and Dawson didn’t actually claim anything about whether Russia or China qualify as civilizations, or about the behaviors or attributes of such civilizations (as a set of entities). Instead, they made a claim simply about how the term ‘civilization’ is used. Jackson can perfectly well agree that the concept of ‘civilization’ is indeed now applied by people in places like Russia and China to their states, but that has no bearing on whether those states really are civilizations. 

Of course, the fault for this argumentative whiff also lies in Jackson’s original claim. Is he simply saying as a matter of his definition that there are entities called civilizations that don’t have front offices? In this case, there would be no point in engaging this claim—since he could rule out any counter-examples of civilizations with front offices as definitionally excluded—although we might debate about the appropriateness of this definition. Or, is he making a substantive remark that there are entities called civilizations, who happen to all exhibit the lack of a front office? In this case, then the sentence borders on nonsense until we know what he’s referring to when speaking of civilizations. In either case, between Smith and Dawson on one hand and Jackson on the other, we have two independently puzzling statements with an equally puzzling relation to each other. 

Let us look at a final example from a well-cited chapter on conflict resolution. The author Raimo Väyrynen contends, “Terrorism is political action divorced from verbal politics which has been found ineffective as a means of political influence.” Again, it is not obvious what picture this statement paints. An immediate roadblock is the grammatical ambiguity about whether “which has been found ineffective …” is modifying ‘terrorism’ or ‘verbal politics’. Let us assume the latter, which yields the embedded claim that verbal politics has been found ineffective (by terrorists). Although few would feel inclined, one could, in principle, survey terrorists and find out whether they have, in fact, found verbal politics to be ineffective. In this way, the embedded claim has sense. 

But what about the claim that “terrorism is political action divorced from verbal politics”? Assuming this is a descriptive claim about terrorism, we might ask: is all terrorism really divorced from verbal politics? This doesn’t seem to be the case at all—terrorist groups are often quite vocal about their motives (take, for instance, Osama bin Laden’s 2004 speech to America, or the Unabomber’s Manifesto). Assuming that such an obviously false suggestion was not the intention, perhaps the statement is merely a definition. Terrorism is just defined as political action divorced from verbal politics. In that case, we may feel as though this is an excessively strange definition that bears little resemblance to what we typically mean by ‘terrorism’. Given that both interpretations may strike us as non-options, we may think instead that Väyrynen intends to refer to something less immediate when he says ‘political action’, ‘divorced’, and ‘verbal politics’, and we are missing the point entirely. Perhaps some explanation is in order, but until then—and the onus should not be on us—the statement does not supply a possible means toward verification or falsification and so borders on nonsense. 

Of course, the functions of language go beyond simply describing, truly or falsely, the affairs of the world (or, in this case, the international arena). Some language is just an expression of one’s attitude or feeling, like ‘ouch!’, which is not intended to accurately describe. But when we are using descriptive language, as is often the case in International Relations literature, it is important to be clear and honest. Too much gets away with the illusion of meaning without saying anything at all—that is, too much gets away with nonsense. And if nothing is being said, as Wittgenstein insists, we must pass over in silence.

Image source: Flickr

November 5, 2024 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
China

China’s Tightening Grip on Tibet

written by Jade Faircloth

Almost a decade after the People’s Republic of China incorporated Tibet in 1950, the Dalai Lama fled to India. He set up a government-in-exile after a failed uprising against Chinese rule and continued to call for Tibetan autonomy, leading China to view Tibetan independence as a threat to territorial integrity and national unity. The Dalai Lama’s advocacy for “middle-way” autonomy directly conflicts with China’s strict control polities, especially since it calls for cultural, religious, and environmental preservation within Tibet. 

China has long aimed to absorb Tibet into China through systematically weakening Tibetan religion and culture, especially due to its long history of cultural imperialism and censorship of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. This ranges from China selecting its own Panchen Lama (the second highest authority in Buddhism) to exerting influence over the selection of the next Dalai Lama. As the current Dalai Lama has hinted at breaking tradition by choosing his successor, China seeks to intervene in this process to ensure a successor will align with its political agenda of maintaining control over Tibet and undermining the country’s independence movements. 

China’s efforts to control Tibet and the Dalai Lama exhibit cultural imperialism based on China’s suppression of Tibetan culture and imposition of Chinese culture and politics onto Tibetan society. China’s claims of sovereignty over Tibet and involvement in choosing the next Dalai Lama undermines the autonomy and cultural integrity of the Tibetan people. As the Dalai Lama is not only a spiritual leader but also a symbol of Tibetan cultural and religious identity, China aims to impose its own cultural and political authority over Tibetan religious practices. For instance, six to seven million Tibetans who live in China face harsh rule with some even retaining little to no memory of their homeland’s past, and Tibetans in exile are scattered across the globe. Tibetan schoolchildren are “compelled to attend Chinese-language boarding schools away from their homes, raising fears that their own language will soon disappear.”

With the rise of social media, China has resorted to popular platforms to employ censorship and propaganda tactics in an effort to shape popular opinion about the Dalai Lama and restrict its own people from Western social media. Individuals in China recognize the dangers of utilizing social media to express their political opinions and instead choose to keep their beliefs offline. Moreover, communication with Tibet from outside countries requires coded language. For instance, ‘Aku Pema’ (Uncle Pema), a code for the Dalai Lama, stems from a popular Tibetan song about an absent loved one, but it has become so widely known that few dare to use it. The Chinese media regularly calls the Dalai Lama a fraud and “the source of turmoil in Tibetan society.” Additionally, by allowing only negative and critical information about the Dalai Lama to be shared on social media, the Chinese government is systematically wiping out Tibetan culture and the Dalai Lama from the modern-day textbook. For instance, when the Dalai Lama kissed an eight-year-old boy lightly on the lips and asked if he would like to suck his tongue, this video went viral. The Chinese government ensured that the film was aired widely and failed to provide an explanation that the Dalai Lama is known for teasing and that sticking out the tongue is a common greeting in Tibetan culture.

Social media and digital activism have enabled international awareness about Chinese repression of Tibetan culture. Regardless, it is difficult for the social media movement in Tibet to gain widespread traction and attention. Tibetans cannot share their experiences regarding China’s repression of Buddhism because of Chinese propaganda and the Great Firewall, China’s censorship system that restricts access to the internet. Fear of repercussions from the Chinese government forces Tibetans and their relatives to settle for “being a population spoken for and about.” 

Despite this, Tibet’s culture is still managing to permeate China, as Tibetan Buddhism is flourishing inside China, and there are well over twice the number of Buddhists compared to Communist Party members. The Dalai Lama’s persistence in resisting Tibetan cultural homogenization is reflected in Tibetan Buddhism’s popularity both within and outside China. 

The power struggle between China and the Dalai Lama’s followers over the future leadership of Tibetan Buddhism holds both significant political and religious implications. Recognizing the consequences of political alienation, China has worked tirelessly to obstruct relations between foreign governments and the Dalai Lama because few governments want to harm their economic relationship with China. While the Dalai Lama still represents moral legitimacy and international influence with American backing, China seems willing to stir trouble regardless of the consequences. In relation to China’s quest for dominance over the Pacific-Asia region, Tibet is like a thorn in China’s side. However, to many Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is a beacon of hope, leading to the important question of who the next Dalai Lama will be and how he will be chosen.

This past July, President Biden signed the Tibet Dispute Act, which aims to resume Beijing’s talks with Tibetan leaders – stalled since 2010. It also pushes China to address the Tibetan people’s historical, cultural, religious, and linguistic identity, as well as a negotiated agreement. In response, China has expressed strong opposition because the act interferes with China’s domestic affairs and sends the “severely wrong signal” to the “Tibet independence” forces. The Dalai Lama, who recently turned 89, has maintained that it will clarify questions regarding his succession around his 90th birthday.

The Tibet Dispute Act challenges Washington’s long-standing precedent of recognizing Tibet as part of China. While the U.S. has previously condemned China for human rights violations against Tibet and supported the rights of Tibetans to practice their religion and preserve their culture, the real question is whether the U.S. is genuinely concerned about the people in the region or if its focus lies in advancing geopolitical interests. The U.S. has a complex history of intervening in other regions for its own strategic purposes, often withdrawing or adopting an isolationist stance when it fails to resolve the situation or when more pressing political or economic interests arise elsewhere. 

What happens in Tibet offers a telling preview of what could unfold in Taiwan and China’s periphery influences in the region. Taiwan represents a bastion of democracy in the midst of China’s expanding influence. If China succeeds in suppressing the Dalai Lama’s influence and fully assimilating Tibet into its communist system, could Taiwan face a similar fate? The trajectory of Chinese control in Tibet raises critical questions about the future of democracy in Asia and its resistance to Beijing’s authority.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AfricaTerrorism

Terror by the Numbers: GIS in Action

written by Josef Sinigiani

The Sahel, a hot semi-arid region in Africa below the Sahara – which includes around fourteen nations – is teetering on the brink of collapse, where the convergence of terrorism and food insecurity has reached alarming proportions. Militant Islamist violent attacks, intensifying through the region, have unleashed many negative consequences, including the displacement of over 3.5 million people, mostly farmers, herders and traders. This exponentially rising displacement exacerbates an already dire food insecurity situation as entire populations within Sahelian countries, whose lives are reliant on pastoralism and farming, are unable to access their land due to the militant conflict which further restricts them from humanitarian aid. This article advocates for the integration of innovative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology as a crucial tool in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel by allowing populations to reclaim their land, thus working towards the fortification of food security in the region.

While numerous changes are necessary within Sahelian governments to effectively combat militant Islamist violence, such as reforming military counterinsurgency operations and returning to civilian-democratic rule, it is imperative to recognize a particularly promising solution: Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Given that terrorism often seeks to exert influence and control over political boundaries, the integration of GIS technology is especially helpful in understanding the spatial dynamics of terrorism, a dimension often overlooked by autocratic military regimes. GIS can be defined by a sophisticated computer system designed to capture, record, store, and analyze information relating to features on earth’s surface.  Through geospatial analysis, GIS examines vast quantities of open-source data, collects data and converts it into a suitable digital format, termed as “input”, by numerous international organizations. The uses of GIS technology are virtually unlimited, but specifically regarding this topic, GIS holds significant potential in four areas: (1) intelligence analysis, (2) simulation, (3) response efforts, and (4) retaliation.

Integrating GIS technology into Sahelian counterinsurgency operations holds immense potential in bolstering intelligence analysis capabilities. GIS possesses the ability to analyze a wide array of data collections, giving governments valuable insight into the spatial dynamics of conflict. For example, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset (ACLED) supplies crucial information by pinpointing hotspots of civil unrest, enabling a more targeted approach to counterterrorism. The integration of GIS extends beyond civil unrest; for example, in Saudi Arabia, GIS has been a pivotal tool in analyzing aerial photography as satellite imagery to identify activities of terrorists, particularly around oil and gas fields. Similarly, in Nigeria, GIS has been used to evaluate the targets of Boko Haram, a militant Islamist group, demonstrating the ability for GIS technology to analyze spatial patterns and terrain features to measure and gather intelligence regarding violent militant Islamist attacks.

In addition to improving intelligence analysis, GIS also offers significant advantages in the simulation of terrorist scenarios, enhancing a government’s preparedness and response capacities. GIS can utilize remote sensing and LiDAR data, a process that involves collecting images from low-altitude aircraft and commercial satellites to document landscape features besieging terrorist events. The gathered data is then processed into 3D dense samples, creating a digital habitat to simulate any terrorist event. In Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, anti-terrorism exercises were conducted to simulate various terrorist scenarios such as sieges of buildings, kidnapping operations, and threats involving chemical and biological agents. Lycoming, as well as many other counties in the US, reported remarkable accuracy with modeling each scenario, allowing for comprehensive preparedness and response planning. By utilizing GIS for simulations, Sahel countries can operate with effective and accurate training, mitigating the impact of terrorist attacks on agriculture, infrastructure, or nomadic communities, ultimately contributing to improved security and stability in the region.

Geospatial analysis technology plays a critical role in coordinating response efforts in the aftermath of such terrorist attacks. As seen in Colombo, Sri Lanka, GIS initiatives have significantly reduced the emergency response times through hotspot mapping. By identifying specific areas prone to terrorist attacks and mapping out strategic road networks, emergency services are able to navigate cities more efficiently, reaching impacted areas quickly and effectively. Moreover, GIS serves as an important tool in coordinating immediate response efforts during an attack. In providing real-time information on general proximities of event sites to first responders, GIS allows services to deploy and mitigate the impacts of civilian or military casualties. In the Sahel, where response infrastructure is limited, the integration of GIS is particularly crucial, enhancing government coordination and response times, mitigating the risks of future attacks and protecting their citizens.

The use of drones, equipped with GIS, plays a pivotal role in combating terrorism by conducting intelligence-gathering tasks, such as uncovering enemy hideouts, as well as, scanning and analyzing hostile territories. Their stealth capabilities make them particularly good at navigating Sahelian enemy terrain, while going completely unnoticed. Moreover, drones with GIS can be employed for combat purposes, allowing for precision strikes against terrorist targets, minimizing collateral damage and maximizing efficacy of retaliatory operations. By leveraging drones enabled with GIS technology for intelligence gathering and precision strikes, countries in the Sahel can now strengthen their capacity to retaliate quickly and decisively, contributing to sustained peace and security in the region. 

Ideally, the implementation of GIS technology in every country in the world would serve as a crucial tool in limiting substantial terrorist violence. However, specifically in the Sahel region, such efforts of integration can be particularly challenging for a multitude of reasons. First, one may argue that the initial investment in GIS may be too substantial. However, without a doubt, the long term costs of not implementing such measures can be far more detrimental, because the negative economic impact of terrorist attacks on infrastructure, lives, trade, and investment, as well as the resulting need for humanitarian aid, can place a far worse strain than the initial GIS cost. One may argue that implementing GIS in Sahel countries may present initial challenges due to the complexity of technology and the requirement for specialized training causing a lack of GIS implementation. However, these obstacles can be overcome through targeted capacity-building efforts and training programs with partnered international organizations.

An additional limitation may be that a country’s infrastructure is not optimal for the implementation of GIS technology. However, the argument can be made that investing in GIS infrastructure can lead to overall infrastructural development in the region because improving communication networks, electricity access, and transport systems could lead to positive spillover effects, enhancing economic development and government connectivity. Lastly, it can be argued that recent and historical distrust regarding governmental inability to address terrorism can hinder efforts to implement GIS. However, by demonstrating the benefits of GIS and other counterinsurgency changes that enhance the security and protect citizens from terrorist attacks, governments can rebuild trust and legitimacy.

One common misconception regarding GIS technology is that it has the ability to predict nearly everything related to terrorist activities. In reality, GIS can only analyze data to identify patterns and trends, which may then inform decision-making processes. As terrorist groups often employ different tactics, it can be challenging to establish clear trends. Thus, while GIS technology can provide important information to governments, it is still essential to supplement its use with other intelligence-gathering tools to effectively combat terrorism.

The feasibility of implementing GIS as a counterterrorism measure in the Sahel region is validated by numerous real-world applications across the world. While there may be some initial investment challenges, the demonstrated success of GIS in diverse contexts highlights its potential and feasibility to serve as a state of the art solution for enhancing counterterrorism, ultimately aiding in safeguarding communities and addressing the complex system of terrorism and food insecurity in the Sahel.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
LebanonMiddle EastUnited Nations

The Blue Helmets: Nobel Peace Prize Winners to Warfare Targets

written by Tracy Tawil

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), originally created by the UN Security Council in March 1978, was established in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon the same year. The primary objectives of the peacekeeping force were to confirm Israeli withdrawal, restore international peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in regaining effective control over the southern region of the country. This mandate, however, has been amended multiple times to adapt to new developments. For instance, during Israel’s second invasion in 1982 and subsequent withdrawal in 2000, UNIFIL’s mandate expanded to address emerging tensions in the region.

In the wake of the July-August 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, the Security Council further extended the force’s role. In addition to its original duties, the mission was enhanced to include monitoring the cessation of hostilities, assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces in their deployment, and facilitating humanitarian access to civilian populations affected by the conflict. Despite these adjustments, the mission continues to face significant challenges. Today, the peacekeepers, known for wearing their distinctive blue helmets, are no longer just neutral actors facilitating peace but have become targets of warfare themselves in the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. This raises a critical question: has the mission of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed?

The UN Peacekeeping Forces, often celebrated for their efforts to restore peace in war-torn regions, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Their role in various global missions was commended for preventing conflicts and creating conditions for peaceful negotiations; however, they also faced a plethora of obstacles. One of the most pressing issues they face today is that their mission to maintain peace has increasingly placed them in harm’s way, making them direct targets in the conflicts they are meant to mediate. The situation in southern Lebanon is emblematic of this shift. UNIFIL was designed to protect peace and security along the Lebanon-Israel border, but rising tensions between Hezbollah and Israel have made the region a danger zone for peacekeepers. Recently, on October 13, 2024, Israel called for the evacuation of UNIFIL troops after multiple incidents where peacekeepers were injured and their posts targeted in crossfire. 

The UN Peacekeeping mission has been hailed as one of the most ambitious international efforts to promote peace. However, it is not without significant failures. Two glaring examples are the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre during the Yugoslav Wars. In both cases, UN peacekeepers were present but unable to prevent the atrocities from unfolding. In Rwanda, despite early warnings of impending mass violence, the UN mission was understaffed and under-equipped to respond effectively. This led to the deaths of approximately 800,000 people in just 100 days. Similarly, in Srebrenica, peacekeepers failed to protect Bosniak Muslims from genocide, resulting in the deaths of more than 8,000 men and boys. These failures not only demonstrate the limitations of UN peacekeeping operations but also cast doubt on whether the international community has learned from its mistakes. Despite these lessons, similar issues continue to plague contemporary missions, including the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon.

The recent calls for UNIFIL’s evacuation bring the broader issue of peacekeeping missions into sharp relief. As hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel flare up, the very presence of peacekeepers has been called into question. Three UNIFIL peacekeepers have already been injured, and several of their posts have been struck, either intentionally or unintentionally, by Israeli forces. This situation begs the question: If the very presence of peacekeepers no longer serves as a deterrent, should they simply retreat, as Israel has suggested, and what does this mean for a mission that has been in place for over four decades? The notion that peacekeepers can be forced to abandon their posts due to safety concerns undermines the essence of their mission. Peacekeepers are deployed to prevent conflict and ensure the protection of civilians. However, when they become targets themselves, the mission becomes untenable. Furthermore, does their withdrawal suggest that the international community has given up on supporting Lebanon in its long-standing conflicts, and by extension, on peace itself?

The safety of UN peacekeepers is protected under various international legal frameworks. According to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, deliberate attacks on UN personnel are considered war crimes. In addition, peacekeepers are afforded special protections under the Geneva Conventions. However, legal protections have proven to be more theoretical than practical. When peacekeepers are attacked, the perpetrators are rarely held accountable. For instance, despite clear evidence of violence against peacekeepers in Lebanon, there have been no significant legal repercussions for the attackers. One wonders: Who has the authority to enforce laws protecting peacekeepers when host nations or warring factions refuse to cooperate? This dilemma is further complicated by the neutrality of peacekeepers. Their mission requires them to remain impartial, often putting them in precarious positions where they cannot defend themselves or retaliate without breaching their mandate. 

As the situation in southern Lebanon worsens, the human cost of peacekeeping becomes increasingly evident. UN peacekeepers, once lauded as the guardians of international peace, are now being targeted in the very conflicts they are sent to prevent. While peacekeepers play an essential role in global conflict resolution, their vulnerability raises doubts about the effectiveness of the current peacekeeping model. When the Blue Helmets are no longer seen as untouchable protectors of peace, but rather as expendable targets in conflict zones, it becomes clear that reforms are needed. The UN Peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, like many others, faces significant challenges that put the lives of peacekeepers in jeopardy. Without substantial reforms and a renewed commitment to protecting those who serve in the name of peace, missions like UNIFIL may ultimately fail to fulfill their objectives.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
IsraelUnited States

What Could a Second Trump Administration Mean for the West Bank?

written by Zack Apt

The most revealing moment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN occurred when he revealed two side-by-side maps of the Middle East. One, labeled “The Curse” represented an Iran-dominated Middle East. The other map, labeled “The Blessing,” presented a connected region with trade routes between the Mediterranean and the Gulf enabled by Saudi normalization. Notably, both maps fully incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper – a revealing glimpse into a Trump-endorsed plan that could come to fruition in his potential second administration. 

The hope of Saudi normalization as seen in “The Blessing” map almost never came to be. The Netanyahu government in 2020 had plans to annex the West Bank, but internal hesitation stalled the process, and negotiations led by the UAE formalized the Abraham Accords. The deal officially normalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco and was interpreted as removing annexation in the near future. A skeptical Netanyahu accepted the deal, and abandoned annexation with the understanding he could not begin the process without steadfast support from his governing coalition and Washington. 

The next four years provided little support for the annexation plan, as the Biden administration stood in firm opposition. The Biden administration continued to pursue a Saudi normalization deal in hopes of integrating Israel further into the Arab world yet largely ignoring the Palestinian issue. Biden long expressed support for a two-state solution, though his term was marred by the expansion of Israeli settlements and an intensifying West Bank status quo. 

Since Hamas’ attack on October 7, the prospects for a two-state outcome are historically low. Israeli settler violence against Palestinian villages has escalated with the IDF often ignoring outbursts. Illegal Israeli outposts have increased deep in the West Bank and Israel has doubled the amount of West Bank land it has claimed since the Oslo Accords of 1993. Palestinian terror groups have grown in prominence in West Bank cities and plotted attacks within Israel, resulting in frequent Israeli raids in Area A. Israel’s withholding of tax funds has ravaged the fragile economy, putting thousands of West Bank day laborers out of work. The Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Mahmoud Abbas, is viewed as weak, corrupt, and incapable of governing an eventual state in its current form. In the meantime, the most far-right government in Israeli history has considered de jure annexation once again while expanding settlement construction deeper into the West Bank. Hopes of removing the current coalition in favor of a more pragmatic one have diminished further with Netanyahu’s coalition still growing, likely extending his reign until October 2026. 

While a Trump Middle East policy is unclear, annexation is a realistic possibility. Influential Trump donors and advisors have openly advocated for annexation. Trump is unlikely to continue Biden’s practice of sanctioning Israeli settler groups, evidenced by the administration’s 2019 reversal of longstanding U.S. policy declaring settlements illegal under international law. In May, Trump said, “I’m not sure a two state solution is going to work,” to the delight of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich who responded, “A Palestinian state would be a terrorist state that would endanger the existence of Israel.” Ultimately, a second Trump administration would do little to restrain the extremes of the Israeli government and would instead work to cement Israeli control over the entirety of the West Bank. 

The implications of annexation are far reaching and damaging. Legal annexation solidifies the segregated systems for Palestinians and Israeli settlers, increasing the likelihood of violence. Palestinians are further removed from self governance, leading to deeper resentment threatening Israel’s own security. Smotrich’s plan includes settlement expansion further into the West Bank, as opposed to the majority of current settlements which reside adjacent to the Green Line which separates Israel proper from the West Bank. Hamas has been unsuccessful in mobilizing West Bank militants to resist en masse, but if economic hardships persist and settlements expand Israel, there is a risk of a Third Intifada that experts have warned about in recent years. Expanded settler violence and annexation pose existential threats to Israelis and Palestinians, and an ambivalent attitude from Washington enables the most radical of the Israeli right wing. The current Israeli government lacks the same internal divisions over annexation as the prior coalition, and a green light from Trump accelerates the process.

Not only would annexation threaten a Saudi deal, but it strains Israeli alliances with the Egyptians and Jordanians. Israel does not have the luxury of testing alliances in its fragile regional standing, and Jordan is almost certain to retaliate against annexation whether through recalling ambassadors or scrapping the peace treaty. While Egypt is less likely to take drastic measures, it is a major player in Gaza’s reconstruction, and Israel needs its cooperation. While Israel is isolated and condemned by countries in the Middle East and across the world, it cannot risk weakening its already fragile peace with its neighbors.

Surely, a peace plan with two secure states will not be crafted amid heightened tensions and a potential regional war. But a policy of annexation ensures that Israel will be embroiled in regional conflict for the foreseeable future, and Palestinians in the West Bank will continue to be deprived of political autonomy. These steps delegitimize the PA and demonstrate a lack of control, yet a competent PA is in Israel’s best interest. Israel should be taking steps to strengthen the PA as a viable governing body, instead of the corrupt and ineffective body it currently is. On both sides, the prospect of peace feels impossible at this moment, but a two-state solution is the only solution to ensure long-term safety and justice for Israel and Palestine. Small steps seem futile in a period of maximalist agendas and constant escalation, but annexation threatens to exacerbate the conflict irreversibly.

The West Bank is at a breaking point; annexation not only worsens the already intolerable situation for Palestinians in the West Bank but also threatens Israeli security in the long term. In a time of great uncertainty in the region, a second Trump administration threatens to remove the guardrails from Israel’s worst instincts and poses to plunge the region into further chaos. If there is any hope of “The Blessing,” the U.S. must reject maximalist actions and create conditions for the inevitable Palestinian state and Israeli regional integration.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
MilitaryNorth KoreaRussia

The Great Escalation: North Korea’s Concerning Deployment of Troops to Russia

written by Madeline Abellera

Back in April, I wrote an article detailing the actions that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken around the world in order to secure control over a new Cold War-style eastern bloc. Since then, Putin has taken his plans even further. According to a report by the Defense Ministry of South Korea, approximately 12,000 North Korean troops are set to soon be deployed to Eastern Europe in order to fight alongside Russia in the ongoing Russia–Ukraine War. These troops are allegedly part of North Korea’s most elite fighting force: the XI Corps, which in total consists of 200,000 soldiers. On October 23, U.S. National Security Council spokesman John F. Kirby stated that the U.S. has already tracked around 3,000 troops who were transported from North Korea to Vladivostok on Russia’s eastern coastline.

The deployment of North Korean troops to Russia marks a disturbing escalation of the Russia–Ukraine War for multiple reasons. First, there are clear concerns regarding the ability of the Ukrainian forces to continue to repel the Russian army with their new reinforcements. The Ukrainian government has reported that some North Korean troops have appeared on the front lines in Kursk, a Russian border region in which the Ukrainian army is carrying out an incursion. While Putin’s choice to utilize North Korean forces indicates that Putin is hesitant to continue to draft Russian citizens (as 600,000 Russian citizens have already been killed or wounded), the move also solidifies the fact that Putin does not intend to give up the fight any time soon.

To counter the North Korean forces, conversations have reignited about sending Western troops to aid Ukraine. Philips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, sums up his thoughts: “Everyone flips out whenever they talk about European troops going to Ukraine, that it’s far too escalatory. And then the Russians just go ahead and bring in outside troops. The escalation has already happened.” While the United States and western Europe—though expressing alarm over North Korea’s moves—have not officially committed to any new course of action, these new updates will undoubtedly lead to questions over if more should be done to protect Ukraine from invaders. North Korean involvement in the war has also led to increased anxiety among the governments of both South Korea and Japan. South Korea is purportedly considering sending arms to Ukraine, as well as translators to help Ukraine interrogate any North Korean prisoners.

Another issue that has arisen from the North Korean deployment is the secrecy in which the troop movements are carried out. NBC News, utilizing information from South Korean intelligence services, reports that newly-dispatched North Korean forces have received Russian military uniforms, Russian weapons, and false identification documents claiming that the North Koreans are actually Russians from the far east. (AI facial recognition technology, however, has proven that the soldiers are indeed North Korean.) Pyongyang and the Kremlin also both maintain that the reports of North Korean troops in Russia are false. At the United Nations on October 21, North Korean representatives referred to the accusations as “groundless, stereotyped rumors.” As its troops have not directly engaged in fighting yet, North Korea’s precise next moves are unknown—adding a new layer of obscurity to a war already rife with misinformation.

Perhaps the greatest concern related to North Korea’s troop deployment, however, is the fact that North Korea is doing it for a reason. Western analysts just don’t know what that reason is. “Sending weapons is one thing, but sending your own men is another level of investment and commitment,” stated defense analyst Rachel Lee. “I find it hard to believe that Kim [Jung Un] would send troops without a down payment.” This “down payment,” experts think, could likely take the form of Russia helping North Korea build its nuclear arsenal. There’s already some evidence to point to this conclusion: large cargo-transport planes have been spotted flying from Russia to North Korea, and some policy analysts see it as a possibility that those planes are carrying supplies to help North Korea build nuclear missiles. If Pyongyang is indeed building its arsenal with the support of Russia, it marks a significant break from past Russian foreign policy. As reported by Slate: “Back during the Cold War, the Kremlin blocked its Warsaw Pact allies from developing or obtaining nuclear materials….Putin’s short-term needs in the war may have been compelling enough to justify compromising one of his long-term interests against the spread of nuclear weaponry.” A more lenient Russia and a more powerful North Korea spells out danger for Ukraine and its allies and signifies a changing world order.

With all of this said, North Korea’s military is far from perfect. Isolated from the rest of the world and plagued by economic problems, North Korea does not have experience in fighting modern warfare and relies on Soviet-era weaponry. Additionally, there exists a language gap between the Russians and the North Koreans that may render communication difficult across troops. However, Putin likely seeks to use the North Korean forces to overpower Ukraine by strength in numbers—especially in areas like Kursk, where the Ukrainians are barely holding on to their land. Furthermore, the training of North Korean troops by Russian soldiers will undoubtedly increase the future capabilities of North Korea’s military, modernizing a fighting force already incredibly disciplined and staunchly anti-West.

The deployment of North Korean troops has the potential to change the nature of the Russia–Ukraine War in ways that Western analysts do not yet fully understand. The actual intentions of North Korea, how well they perform alongside foreign troops, and the impacts of their arrival in Eastern Europe remain to be seen—though it can already be said that this move has increased tensions in an evermore volatile situation.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
DiplomacySports

Basketball Diplomacy: The International Impact of the NBA

written by Charlie Donlan

I. Introduction

    The Most Valuable Player award in the National Basketball Association, a league that has historically been dominated by players born in the United States, has been awarded to a foreign-born player in each of the past six seasons. The rising globalization of sports in the 21st century is not unique to basketball, as similar trends have emerged in baseball, soccer, and across the landscape of sports. Given the trend of sports globalization, two questions are raised: (1) What caused the rapid rate of globalization we are experiencing in the 21st century, and (2) What implications does the globalization of sports have on international relations?

    II. Shifting NBA Demographics as a Reflection of the Times

      The globalization of the NBA began with the players themselves, who then generated shifts in fanbases. The NBA consisted of almost entirely American-born players up until the early 1980s when players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing entered the league. Although players like Ewing and Olajuwon achieved historic success and broke down barriers for international players to follow, they rose to stardom through the American collegiate basketball system before entering the league. This was a common theme for most foreign-born players in the NBA up until the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

      In 1994, the NBA appointed David Stern as the league commissioner; he would serve for the next 20 years. Stern understood the importance of expanding the NBA’s influence abroad more than anyone who held the position before him. Stern made his position on the NBA’s expansion very clear, saying, “There are 250 million potential NBA fans in the U.S., and there are 5 billion outside the U.S. … We like those numbers.” The new commissioner not only set ambitious goals for the league going forward but also delivered on them.

      Following the appointment of David Stern as commissioner in the 1990s, the NBA used several strategic policies in order to encourage global expansion. One of these policies included giving international players who come from countries with large consumer markets, like China, preferential treatment and payment. In 2001, the NBA helped create the Basketball Without Borders program, which seeks to develop young international talent by holding camps for players age 18 and younger from all over the world. These camps include basketball training sessions as well as seminars and workshops teaching campers important life skills. The NBA, heavily invested in finding the next generation of basketball talent, is simultaneously helping the international youth develop skills that will make them successful off the court. 

      The growth of the NBA’s international player pool beginning in the late 1990s was seemingly exponential. The 1998-1999 season saw 30 international players on NBA rosters. Just two years later, the number of foreign-born NBA players had nearly doubled to 57, and by the 2007-2008 season, that number had nearly doubled again to 109 players. Finally, the most recent season saw 125 international players from 40 different countries represented on NBA opening-night rosters. Clearly, there has been a steep upward trend in the NBA’s international player presence since the turn of the century.

      In order to understand how this rapid globalization of sports has occurred, it is important to analyze these trends in the broader context of the international political economy. In the early 1980s, around the same time that the NBA first began to expand globally, the political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism were adopted by several Western leaders. Neoliberalism is an extreme form of free market capitalism that was pioneered by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s and involved reducing government regulation and other barriers to international trade. While critics point out the detrimental impacts these economic policies have had on the developing world, neoliberalism gave corporations, like the NBA, financial incentives to expand overseas.

      III. The “Soft Power” Achieved on the Court

        The globalization of the NBA has given the United States an incredibly valuable platform to display the country’s excellence on the world stage. There are countless examples of nations boasting their military power, technological advancement, resource abundance, or wealth in order to show their superiority or strength internationally. However, the NBA functions as a more unconventional diplomatic tool for the United States to advance its foreign policy standing through “soft power.” The idea of “soft power” is when countries use persuasive strategies that glorify certain aspects of their culture in order to spread their influence. While the aforementioned “conventional” strategies of diplomacy involve coercive methods meant to demonstrate disparities between countries, the strategies of “soft power” often invoke acceptance and camaraderie through the celebration of cultural excellence. This is nowhere more evident than in the growth in international recognition of NBA stars.

        The “soft power” associated with the NBA can largely be traced back to the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. Up until 1992, the United States was not allowed to send NBA players to the Olympic Games, which had long been considered a competition for amateur athletes. After a disappointing performance from the United States Men’s National Team in the 1988 games, there was a push for the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to level the playing field and allow NBA players to compete against professionals from other countries. When FIBA voted to allow NBA players to compete in the 1992 Olympic Games, the stage was set for the NBA to be displayed in front of an international audience. The 1992 United States Men’s Olympic Basketball Team, otherwise known as the “Dream Team,” will go down in history as one of the greatest sports teams ever assembled. Comprised of some of the biggest stars the NBA has ever seen, including Michael Jordan, the “Dream Team” went on to win the gold medal at the 1992 Olympics and set a precedent of basketball excellence that is associated with the NBA today.

        The influence of the “Dream Team” went beyond just basketball. The worldwide recognition of the NBA stars on the “Dream Team” was utilized by the United States to advance its cultural influence abroad. In 2023, Dirk Nowitski, Pau Gasol, and Tony Parker, widely considered to be three of the most influential international players of all time, were inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. All three of these players credit the performance of the “Dream Team” at the 1992 Olympic Games as an inspiration to pursue their dreams of being in the NBA. The German basketball legend Dirk Nowitski explains the impact of the 1992 Olympic U.S. Men’s Basketball team on his career: “I had just started playing basketball in ’90, ’91…I was about 12, 13. I was just starting to be an NBA fan. MJ just won his first championship in ’91. Then, ’92 happens, and I remember I was watching every game. It had a huge impact on me, and I wanted to be like these guys, and I wanted to be in the NBA. That was a huge moment.” Just like Nowitski grew up idolizing NBA greats like Michael Jordan, a whole generation of young athletes grew up idolizing Nowitski. In 2013, the Oklahoma City Thunder’s German point guard Dennis Schröder commented on Dirk’s impact on his generation of players, saying “I think every player, every German player, looks up to him.” Clearly, the impact of the “Dream Team” on young people in the early 1990s started a chain reaction. Young people from all corners of the world will continue to draw inspiration from the greatness of NBA players, especially players who represent their home country. The “soft power” of basketball has created an interest in the now global National Basketball Association.

        IV. The NBA as a Catalyst for the Spread of American Ideals

          Not only did the globalization of the NBA increase international interest in American sports culture, but it also added new consumers to the American capitalist economy. Following the 1992 Olympic Games, Michael Jordan became a household name and a global commodity in his own right. Jordan was marketed alongside iconic American brands like Nike, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s, which essentially monetized his excellence on the court for the benefit of the United States economy. By associating its stars with huge multinational corporations in the food, beverage, and apparel industries, the NBA was able to create a marketing system that pushed American consumerism into untapped markets. 

          The NBA also markets its star athletes to international audiences in order to push the idea that the American dream is achievable through sports. A great example of this kind of marketing is Nike’s 2019 ad celebrating Giannis Antetokounmpo, an NBA superstar from Greece and the MVP of the league that season. The ad uses images and video footage to depict Giannis’ rise from when he “lived in a single room with his entire family” to being “crowned the 2019 MVP.” The ad ends with the words, “It’s only crazy until you do it,” followed by Nike’s signature slogan, “Just do it.” The marketing strategies used in commercials like this attempt to disseminate the idea that the NBA, like America, is a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter where you come from. Regardless of whether these appeals to the international community’s hope for a better life are motivated by corporate profits, the message encourages people to better themselves. Clearly, there is a way for the capitalist system to simultaneously serve business interests and the betterment of humanity.

          The NBA has even been able to build diplomatic bridges with countries that are considered adversaries to American democracy. One such country is North Korea. In 2015, a group of American basketball players, including NBA legend Dennis Rodman, were invited to participate in a “foreign sports exchange program” in Pyongyang. The trip included an exhibition game with mixed teams consisting of Harlem Globetrotters and members of the North Korean Men’s National Basketball Team playing alongside one another. More importantly, the game was observed by thousands of North Korean fans, including the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, who was seated next to Dennis Rodman for the entirety of the game. Following the game, Dennis Rodman spoke to the crowd and declared that while the United States and North Korea may not be “on good terms,” he considers Kim Jong Un a “friend for life.” The North Korean dictator even invited the group of Americans to dinner afterwards, where he and other North Korean ministers expressed their hopes that the exchange would “promote understanding between the peoples of the two countries.” While the legitimacy of the North Korean leader’s words are often brought into question, the camaraderie shared by the players on the court cannot be denied. The fact that a former NBA player and two Harlem Globetrotters were the first Americans to ever meet a dictator who stands as one of America’s biggest ideological adversaries is a testament to basketball’s unique ability to transcend politics. 

          V. The Future of the NBA and Sports Diplomacy

            In the 21st century, we are just now seeing the full effects of the globalization that began with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. The NBA’s goals of expansion, which first began to show results in the early 1990s, continue to gain support from the international community. The increasing success of foreign players in the past 20 years is a testament to the NBA’s investment in developing international talent. The more basketball infrastructure and development programs that are created internationally, the more the NBA’s talent pool will continue to grow.

            As the NBA and the sport of basketball continue to grow in popularity, the mixing of diverse cultures will become more and more salient. In order to continue advancing American foreign policy interests throughout the 21st century, the United States should continue to invest in global sports development. Not only does international sports development grow the American economy, but it also provides a common ground for people of all different backgrounds to come together. Unlike international competitions over geopolitical, military, or technological power, the competitions that take place on the basketball court have a level playing field where everyone is subject to the same rules. Ultimately, sports bring out the best in people, and fostering international inclusion brings out the best in sports.

            Image source: Unsplash

            October 28, 2024 0 comment
            0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
            BangladeshPolitical Upheaval

            Bangladesh’s Prime Minister is Out. What’s Next?

            written by Chaitanya Kishore

            On August 5th, 2024, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, fled to India, ending her decades-long career as one of the country’s top political leaders. Hasina’s resignation was the culmination of nationwide protests that began in July, primarily led by students opposed to the country’s quota system for government jobs. Bangladesh’s quota system sets aside 30 percent of all government jobs for the children and grandchildren of those who fought for the country’s independence in 1971. Many young people – already disillusioned with Hasina’s government and her party, the Awami League (AL) – were angered by the reduction of government jobs available to them through a meritocratic process, particularly because of the relative lack of stable, well-paying jobs in the country. 

            However, the end of Hasina’s increasingly autocratic rule seemed to be a long time coming. Beginning with Hasina’s reelection earlier this year, there have been increasing concerns over the decline of the country’s democracy as well as allegations of election fraud. In fact, the election was boycotted by Bangladesh’s main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the country’s history. The United States and the United Kingdom called the election unfree and unfair, while countries like India and Russia asserted, in support of Hasina, that the election was fair. 

            There is also a growing perception that Hasina’s government is corrupt. Many powerful figures in Hasina’s government, including former high-level military and law enforcement leaders, have been mired in rumors of corruption. Hasina herself admitted she had to fire her own assistant for embezzling millions of dollars in state funds. The quota system for the government, the main cause of the student protests, was also viewed as part of Hasina’s tightening control over the Bangladeshi government. Young people also saw it as a way for Hasina to install party loyalists because one of the core support groups of Hasina’s party are the descendents of those who fought for Bangladesh’s independence.

            The Bangladeshi Parliament was dissolved soon after Hasina’s resignation, forming a power vacuum in the region with the country’s largest neighbors, India and China, vying for political influence. Bangladesh now stands at a turning point with two options to define its future trajectory: military rule or a new democratic government.

            Currently, Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate, has served as the leader of the country’s interim government since Hasina’s resignation. Yunus, a popular economist among the student population, was appointed as part of a compromise by the military and the student leaders of the protest who were suspicious of military rule. Interestingly, Yunus was convicted of labor law violations by Hasina’s government earlier this year, a move that was criticized as being politically motivated. Yunus has now appointed a cabinet with new leaders and has begun embarking on a series of reforms to restore peace and democracy to Bangladesh.

            However, neither Yunus nor Bangladeshi military leaders have committed to a solid timeline for holding democratic elections, leading to concerns that Bangladesh may indefinitely remain under Yunus’ unelected government or military rule. For instance, General Waker-uz-Zaman, the chief of Bangladesh’s army, has said that he would like to see an election within a year and a half of Hasina’s resignation – but he has also committed to not intervening in politics. On the other hand, in a recent interview during the UN General Assembly, Yunus disagreed with the military’s plan for elections in a year and a half and instead gave a mixed response, stating that he did not think there should be elections without “fixing everything,” referencing the implementation of his plans for political and civil reforms. Some opposition parties, like the BNP, want elections to be held as soon as November 2024.

            A military coup of this nature is not unprecedented in Bangladesh’s history. Bangladesh has actually experienced relatively many military coups and assassinations, beginning with the assassination of the country’s first prime minister – who was also Hasina’s father – by the military. His assassination led to an autocratic government takeover by a Bangladeshi general for six years. Following the removal of the military ruler by rebels, the next Bangladeshi government was ousted by yet another military coup about a year after it came back into power. 

            Most recently, the January 2007 elections were postponed by the then-head of the caretaker government, Iajuddin Ahmed, after he declared a state of emergency. The military deployed troops across the country, and over 100,000 people were arrested, including many political elites and party leaders. Furthermore, Sheikh Hasina, who at the time was a former Prime Minister, was prevented from returning to the country, as she had been in the United States during the coup. Similarly, another former Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, was sent into exile by the orders of the military government. This governmental crisis eventually came to an end in the 2008 election with Hasina and Zia both running in the election on a platform to usher in a new era of democracy in Bangladesh, which was won by Sheikh Hasina and her party.

            Assuming that Yunus and the military follow through on their commitment to hold a free and fair election, Bangladesh and its citizens face a similar situation to what they faced prior to the 2008 election. The results of a democratic election could drastically change the course of the country and its institutions. The next election will likely be contested by the country’s main opposition party, the BNP, and many of its allies. Soon after Hasina’s resignation, the BNP’s leader, former Prime Minister Zia, was released from jail, where she had been since her 2018 corruption conviction. Another party that will most likely contend in the next election will be the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party, a right-wing party and a close ally of the BNP. The JI had been banned by Hasina during the student protests and deemed a terrorist group, but this ban has now been removed by Yunus’ caretaker government.

            It is still unknown if Hasina’s party, the AL, will compete in the next election. The party has been in disarray after Hasina’s departure to India, and many high-ranking leaders have been jailed or fled the country themselves. The party’s offices across the country now lay vacant or have been destroyed in the protests. The other major issue for the AL in an election is the deep mistrust in the party from both its supporters and the protestors. To many, Hasina and her party represent the systematic weakening of the country’s democracy as well as rampant human rights violations. Supporters of the AL feel betrayed by Hasina and other party leaders’ decisions to flee the country while they have been left to face attacks from the protesters. But, the AL does have the support of the country’s religious minorities, which neither the BNP or JI have. Hindus, the country’s largest religious minority group, make up 8 percent of the country’s population. Religious minorities have long supported the AL because of its secular nature compared to the BNP, JI, and other right-wing parties. Hindus particularly have faced severe attacks and violence due to the protests, with at least 200 attacks reported so far.

            Hasina’s resignation has also left India and China competing for power over their much smaller neighbor and for influence over emerging political leaders. Bangladesh’s relationships with both countries stem from long historical and economic connections. India has a long and close history with Bangladesh since India supported Bangladesh’s fight for independence from Pakistan in the early 1970s. Furthermore, India is one of Bangladesh’s largest trade partners in Asia. The Indian government has also developed and maintained close relations with Hasina’s party at the expense of interaction with opposition parties like the BNP. A major issue between the Indian government and the interim government in Bangladesh is the topic of Hasina’s extradition to Bangladesh. The Indian government plans to let Hasina stay in the country and let her eventually move to a different country permanently. However, Yunus and the interim government want Hasina extradited to Bangladesh so she can be tried for alleged war crimes from her tenure as prime minister. 

            Similar to India, China maintained friendly relations with Hasina’s government. But, China has been much quicker in distancing itself from Hasina. For its part, China has begun reaching out to the opposition parties and the interim government. For instance, the Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh, Yao Wen, made a visit to the JI party headquarters, becoming the first diplomat from any country to reach out to the JI party in over a decade. Chinese diplomats also attended the swearing-in ceremony for Yunus and his interim government. 

            The Indian government’s lack of foresight regarding engagement with opposition parties in Bangladesh seems to be an example of India’s decreasing regional influence and China’s growing diplomatic power. Many new governments in countries near India have distanced themselves from the Indian government. Mohammed Muizzo, the President of the Maldives, for example, was elected last year on an anti-India platform, which he called “India Out.” Under the “India Out” platform, Muizzo has called for India to remove their military presence from the country and also broke precedent by making his first foreign visit to Turkey instead of India. China has quickly taken advantage of the changing regional power dynamic and is using its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to forge closer diplomatic ties with neighboring countries. In fact, the Maldives joined the BRI in 2014, and China has since invested heavily in the country through substantial infrastructure development. Like the Maldives, Bangladesh has received billions of dollars from the BRI and also billions of dollars in loans to fund the development of industries in Bangladesh.

            With Bangladesh’s democracy once again decaying into an autocracy, it remains unknown if the current leaders will implement a new democratic government and if the democracy will stand. Nonetheless, the case of Bangladesh is a further example of India’s decreasing influence in the wake of China’s growing regional and global power.  

            Image source: Unsplash

            October 24, 2024 0 comment
            0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
            EconomicsMiddle East

            Lebanon’s Political Deadlock

            written by Lucine Ekizian

            In 2022, President Michel Aoun of Lebanon stepped down with no successor in place.

            In order for the Lebanese Parliament to elect a new leader in the first round of voting, 86 of the 128 members would need to agree on a candidate. In June of 2023, Lebanon’s parliament failed to elect a president for the twelfth time since Aoun’s six-year term was completed. A Parliament divided – on the basis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) controversies and foreign influences – cannot see a clear future in its current state. 

            Although the mismanagement of Parliament dates back to the 1989 Taif Agreement – which ended the Lebanese civil war and implemented the sect-based government – the current political deadlock was catalyzed by the chaos of 2019-2022 during Aoun’s term. The Lebanese protests of Oct. 17, 2019, were instigated by the Lebanese cabinet’s new financial measures, such as Voice over Internet Protocols, and frustration over the circumstances that led to a 46 percent unemployment rate. Protests resumed again in 2020 and followed the port explosion in Beirut, as protestors gathered to call for the resignation of government officials – another symptom of a continuous deadlock.

            The political eruptions had a direct effect on the economy, as GDP dropped from 51.61 billion U.S. dollars in 2019 to 23.13 billion in 2021, followed by the World Bank reclassifying Lebanon as a lower-middle income country. The 2020 explosion had 3.8-4.6 billion U.S. dollars in damages and 2.9-3.5 billion in losses, according to the Beirut Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment. Banking sectors had ceased lending and deposits, causing the storming of banks by depositors in 2022.

            The political deadlock has directly impacted Lebanon’s relationship with the International Monetary Fund, which recommends various solutions to aid Lebanon’s deteriorating economy. The IMF has stated, “A new government [must have] the will and the mandate to implement the necessary comprehensive reforms [that are] critically needed.” With multiple recommendations from the fund, such as establishing a credible monetary and exchange rate system, electing a leader that would be in favor of working with the IMF would prove to further strain the deadlock. 

            In 2020, Hezbollah announced that it was opposed to allowing the IMF to handle the economic crisis, describing the IMF as an imperialist agent. Hezbollah continues to hold 13 out of 128 seats in Parliament, but following the end of President Aoun’s term, the group obstructed efforts to elect a president by casting blank ballots during electoral sessions. With the continuing deadlock and tug of war between Iran-backed Hezbollah and an opposing government alliance with closer ties to the U.S., Lebanon will not be able to create economic relief for itself. 

            According to a 2023 report by the Harvard Growth Lab, one solution for a sustainable economic recovery would be transitioning to a monetary system based on full dollarization, as a flexible exchange system with inflation-targeting mechanisms would create high interest rates. The report overlaps with IMF recommendations, as they propose to convert approximately 76 billion U.S. dollars in commercial banking to interim resurfacing certificates that would represent a claim on the government. The proposal was formulated on the basis of dollar deposits’ depreciation at the Central Bank of Lebanon.

            The restructuring proposal would be in support of and accordance with the IMF program. This highlights another symptom of the deadlock, as the IMF stated that Lebanon needs to be “tackling head-on the fundamental problem of weak governance” and strengthening the anti-corruption network, which is becoming more difficult with the current regional crisis.

            Strengthening the anti-corruption network does not seem plausible, as Lebanon’s role in the Israel-Hamas conflict has escalated significantly. Israel has targeted Hezbollah in recent bombings of Lebanon, and there are concerns of a full-scale invasion. Israeli-led violence in Lebanon has been backed by the U.S. – State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated that the U.S. supports Israel’s incursions to deplete Hezbollah’s infrastructure, as the U.S. believes it will achieve a diplomatic resolution. 

            The U.S. is the largest financial contributor to the IMF; this also means that it has the most voting power…and the strongest veto power. Researchers from a 2007 University of Chicago study concluded that, “For countries that are not strongly allied with the United States, the IMF would restrain fiscal and monetary policy expansion by setting tight conditions on loans.” With the IMF’s American influence and an unknown extent to which it could help, it is not likely that Hezbollah would support the fund in the future or that the fund’s best interest would be the security and recovery of Lebanon’s economy. 
            With an economy in need of restructuring and tensions rising in the region, Lebanon must elect a leader ​​nemine contradicente who is prepared to take accountability and reverse the lack of transparency surrounding the Lebanese economy.

            Image source: Pixabay

            October 24, 2024 0 comment
            0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
            FeaturedFreedom of SpeechInternational Law

            The Case for International Whistleblowers Protections

            written by Seamus Kim

            That, ultimately, is the critical flaw or design defect intentionally integrated into every system, in both politics and computing: the people who create the rules have no incentive to act against themselves.

            — Edward Snowden, Permanent Record

            In recent weeks, two stories involving whistleblowers exposing alleged human rights abuses have stirred global controversy. First is CNN’s report on Israel’s Sde Teiman detention center and military base, which houses around 70 Palestinian detainees. The accounts of three Israeli whistleblowers and more than a dozen former Palestinian detainees allege severe mistreatment, including physical and psychological torture and wanton medical malpractice. As one whistleblower describes, “They stripped them down of anything that resembles human beings.” Abuses, another claims, “were not done to gather intelligence. They were done out of revenge.” 

            Second is the sentencing of ex-military lawyer David McBridge—who leaked the notorious 2017 ‘Afghan Files’, detailing potential war crimes—to nearly 6 years in jail by an Australian court. The Afghan Files allegedly reveal 39 unlawful killings, including of unarmed men and children, by Australian Defense Forces (ADF). 

            In both cases, the whistleblowers leaked information about alarming human rights abuses directly to the media, bypassing internal reporting channels and legal procedures. In choosing the extra-legal route, the Israeli whistleblowers and Mr. McBridge risked serious legal repercussions and employment retaliations, notwithstanding community and public ostracization, which manifested as a prison sentence for the latter. Justifying the sentencing of Mr. McBridge, Australian Supreme Court Justice David Mossop pronounced, “There is no aspect of duty that allows the accused to act in the public interest contrary to a lawful order.” The contention that whistleblowers should only exercise their duty within the bounds of the law—however extraordinary the moral cause—seems to be the default government position whenever an especially brazen whistleblower ignites public scandal. Commenting on Edward Snowden, who was charged with espionage for leaking massive NSA-run surveillance programs in 2013, then-President Obama remarked, “If any individual who objects to government policy can take it in their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will never be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy.”

            Of course, the threats whistleblower vigilantism poses to national security and the integrity of intelligence systems should not be dismissed. Secrecy is necessary for defense and intelligence strategies to succeed in both staving off adversarial threats and protecting the security of personnel. But, the leap of faith in government self-discipline has its limits. The glaring question remains: when the government is both the perpetrator and judge of its own misconduct, with strong incentives to keep abuses concealed, what measures should a potential whistleblower take? Without extra-legal disclosures, serious government-perpetrated human rights violations may never reach public awareness. Although they may contravene domestic law, these disclosures are crucial in upholding international law and generating responses, as evinced by the influence of Snowden’s leaks in prompting a UN investigation into surveillance programs.

            Since the world’s first whistleblower law in the US, which was enacted in defense of military whistleblowers, protections for those in both the private and public sectors have undergone significant enhancements, both domestically and abroad. This is except for classes of individuals who share similar circumstances and moral causes as those who inspired the original whistleblower law in the first place—namely those in intelligence and military. It should be expected that governments would not be especially keen on equipping whistleblowers with the means to expose government wrongdoing. But, with the advent of international bodies and laws—whose raison d’être is to uphold universal principle against the excesses of state self-interest—there is now a more appropriate home for military and intelligence whistleblowers beyond the very government they are blowing the whistle on.

            The Origins of Whistleblowing—A Revolutionary Act

            In 1777, merely a year into the Revolutionary War, ten USS Warren sailors and marines held a clandestine meeting, the outcome of which would test the nascent republic’s loyalty to principle against tyranny. In the meeting, the perturbed revolutionaries traded concerns about the behavior of the first U.S. naval commander, Commodore Esek Hopkins. Hopkins, they alleged, subjected British prisoners to grueling torture. Despite incurring major risks of retaliation from the powerful Commodore and without any whistleblower law to ground legal recourse, the men agreed to voice their concerns to the government. Before the Second Continental Congress, Marine Captain John Grannis ‘blew the whistle’ (in modern terms) on their commander’s misconduct, condemning his behavior as “inhuman and barbarous.” Amidst a longshot war, the Congress decided to affirm the principles of the Revolutionary cause despite potentially jeopardizing its wartime interests, moving to suspend Commodore Hopkins for his abuses. Further, on July 30, 1778, prior to the Constitution, the Congress unanimously passed what is possibly the world’s first whistleblower law: 

            That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.

            However, perhaps most stunning is the government’s decision to, in effect, expose itself. Convinced that the whistleblowers’ act constituted not betrayal but exceptional loyalty to the public interest, the Congress proceeded to release their petitions about Commodore Hopkins, further risking international embarrassment, vulnerability, and wartime interests. Transparency and public trust, in their decision-calculus, took precedence. 

            Global Precedent

            In backing the whistleblowers, the Continental Congress not only set a formative legal precedent for both public and private whistleblower protections, but engendered a spirit of prizing whistleblowers as champions of the public interest rather than degrading them as ‘squealers’ or ‘snitches’. In enacting the 1778 Whistleblower Protection Act, just two years after the Declaration of Independence and still a decade before the Constitution was ratified, the Continental Congress not only laid the ground for a series of landmark whistleblower acts —such as the 1863 False Claims Act (‘Lincoln’s Law’), the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—but it also set a global precedent. 

            Some legal protections for whistleblowers now exist, at least nominally, in 170 nations and self-governing territories. The stronger examples include Korea, Australia, Japan, and South Africa, many of which are either directly or indirectly inspired by the United States’ unusually robust array of whistleblower laws. At the international level, laws like the United Nations’ Convention Against Corruption (2003) and the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention (1999) have proven critical in setting global standards, encouraging member states to implement more effective and comprehensive whistleblower protections. Although there is no universally accepted framework for whistleblower law—let alone a common definition for ‘whistleblower’ across countries—most laws concern preventing and punishing retaliation perpetrated by employers. A select few countries also offer monetary incentives and confidential reporting channels.

            Global Failure

            Despite the growing global consensus supporting stronger protections for whistleblowers, one alarming yet persistent gap remains—protections and effective reporting channels for whistleblowers seeking to expose government-perpetrated military and intelligence abuses. The precarious situation that this class of whistleblowers face has stoked considerable controversy, particularly in the US, which is at the same time regarded as the vanguard of whistleblower protection.

            Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, was charged with violating the Espionage Act, carrying a potential sentence of 117 years. Due to government mishandling and an unusually strong defense, Mr. Ellsberg’s charges were dismissed. Chelsea Manning, who released thousands of incriminating military misconduct to WikiLeaks in 2010, was similarly convicted of espionage and served 7 years until her sentence was commuted by President Obama. Wary of a legacy of unfriendly behavior to those before him, Edward Snowden fled to Russia after being charged with two counts of espionage. He has lived there since, unable to return for fear of having his prosecution resumed. Notable crackdowns and retaliations against military and intelligence whistleblowers have occurred beyond the US in countries like the UK, Thailand, and, as mentioned earlier, Australia.

            President Obama defended the charges of espionage against Mr. Snowden by citing his Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19), which supposedly carved out more protections for intelligence community whistleblowers that Mr. Snowden should have utilized. However, it is likely that Mr. Snowden would have not enjoyed much protection—much less his objective of informing the public about mass privacy infringements—under the directive due to severe faults ripe for circumvention. Opposing the directive, the National Whistleblower Center points to the fact, among others, that the American government grants the responsibility of protecting the whistleblower to the agency (e.g., the NSA) heads, the same authorities who have incentives to retaliate against the whistleblower. Further, even if Snowden did wish to legally file allegations against the government, the nature of the classified information means that he would have scant evidence on which to stand.

            Although the exact character of regulatory frameworks, such as sanctioned internal reporting methods and anti-retaliation measures, vary across countries, the primary issue is the same. For instances of private sector misconduct and instances of defrauding the government, the government has clear incentives to encourage and protect whistleblowers and launch investigations. In fact, the whistleblower programs housed by the IRS, SEC, and DOJ in the US and some of their counterparts in other countries are unusually robust. They not only offer whistleblowers protection through anonymous reporting and complimentary anti-retaliation laws, but they incentivize whistleblowers to come forward by providing monetary rewards, recognizing that agencies perform their jobs better when more whistleblowers submit useful information. In contrast, the government allowing individuals to blow the whistle on its own abuses and pursuing investigations yields no self-serving benefit, only potentially jeopardizing security strategy and risking international embarrassment. 

            Whistleblowing, Internationalized

            Given governments’ incentives not to protect government-abuse and national security whistleblowers but to silence them, international bodies are better positioned to accept claims of government misconduct and offer protections. For example, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), through HRC Resolution 5/1 passed in 2007, offers an online portal for individuals to confidentially submit complaints of human rights violations by any UN member. These complaints are initially screened and, if determined to be admissible, relayed to the accused state for its response. The case is then passed to two Working Groups and, in turn, to the Human Rights Council (HRC), all behind closed doors to prevent leaks and public embarrassment. The Human Rights Council may continue to keep the case under review, make the case public, or recommend the OHCHR to facilitate cooperation and advise the accused country. 

            According to the Council, up to 15,000 complaints are submitted each with a 95-100 percent state response rate. The OHCHR claims that this procedure has had a marked influence on causing positive actions across the globe, including releasing political detainees, granting reparations to victims, and aligning policies with international law. Although, it does not provide data substantiating this, nor does it shed light on how it protects whistleblowers from persecution beyond confidentiality. 

            This alternative, international-level route for whistleblowing yields clear benefits to all parties. The whistleblower is able to report abuses without disclosing their identity, protecting themselves from retaliation by their government—which is almost always forfeited when reporting to the media—thereby escaping the dreaded predicament of choosing between honoring their moral principles and losing their career or worse. On the other hand, the accused government gains the assurance of a fairer and comprehensive review process before the option of publicization becomes available, which is not the case when an individual resorts to disclosing to the media. Further, by being involved in the process, the accused nation can work with the Office to ensure unnecessary security details are not revealed if the allegations are made public.  

            However, there are two clear issues that fail to even meet the standard of most state frameworks and to address the important concern of public knowledge. Firstly, HRC Resolution 5/1 does not include any anti-retaliation measures or assign special protections to whistleblowers to ensure their safety and entitled rights upon being discovered. Without anti-retaliation measures, such as sanctions, there is little to deter a state from threatening or punishing—physically, financially, or otherwise—a whistleblower and from preventing further cooperation. Without effective retaliation prevention and punishment, whistleblowers would still face grave risk in reporting to OHCHR. 

            A possible antidote to this challenge would be amending the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees to extend refugee status and mandatory protections for whistleblowers facing retaliation by a State for reporting to the OHCHR. If granted refugee status, whistleblowers who have fled their home country out of fear of persecution, such as Edward Snowden, would enjoy the right to non-refoulement (the right to not be deported to a country that may persecute them). Backed by international lawyers, the NGO Blueprint for Free Speech has advocated for this amendment since 2017. Adding protection measures would decrease perceived risks of submitting a complaint, increase investigations of potential human rights violations, and, in turn, spur international law abidance and deter violations. 

            The second, larger limitation of the OHCHR complaint procedure is that it does not guarantee, even with agreed-upon abuses, public disclosure. Although an option, the OHCHR notes that it has made cases public in two instances: one against Kyrgyzstan in 2006 and Eritrea in 2012. Not guaranteeing public disclosure of human rights abuses, let alone only pursuing it in two instances, parts with the basic right to “receive and impart information … through any media and regardless of frontiers”, as per Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

            It also betrays the important precedent set by the first whistleblower proceedings in the U.S., where the Continental Congress voluntarily published potentially damaging petitions in the interest of democracy. For whistleblowers motivated by the necessity to publicly reveal information, such as Mr. Snowden, the closed-door nature of the OHCHR reporting process may do little to dissuade them from reporting to the media. Although some degree of secrecy is warranted to ensure the integrity of a state’s security, excessive opacity—especially in cases of rampant rights violations—erodes public trust and lays the ground for democratic backsliding. It also risks global scandals that jeopardize state legitimacy, as in the case of the NSA surveillance programs. 

            The OHCHR complaint procedure provides an admirable alternative to internal, state-sanctioned channels for whistleblowers who wish to expose flagrant government wrongdoing. That said, it evidently lacks the robustness, both in protection and in effect, that many of the otherwise vigilante-whistleblowers may desire in their pursuit of defending the public interest. Moreover, with scant information online advertising it as a desirable avenue and touting its potency, it may do little to catch the eyes of its target audience. In order for the program to maximize its potential as an avenue for government-abuse whistleblowers, it is imperative that the OHCHR devote more effort to publicizing the program and provide more resources and protections for those considering blowing the whistle. 

            In any case, one thing is clear: governments are not the appropriate agent to protect this precarious class of intelligence and military whistleblowers nor to ensure their own accountability. It is naive to expect modern states to abide by an honor system, like the Second Congress two-and-a-half centuries ago. States are now bound by international law, which military and intelligence abuses often violate. As such, whistleblowers of these violations should have accessible and strongly protected channels at the international level.

            Image source: Tingey Law Firm on Unsplash

            June 3, 2024 0 comment
            0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
            Newer Posts
            Older Posts