The inability of the UN to help those outside of the sphere of Wolrd Powers

William Chandler

Humanitarian intervention has changed over the years, but until organizations charged with preventing these atrocities can rely on hard power as well as soft power, gross violations of human rights will continue because those with the power to stop these crimes are often not willing to get involved:

“You’re dirt. We think you’re dirt, Paul… The West. All the super powers. Everything you believe in, Paul. They think you’re dirt. They think you’re dumb. You’re worthless… You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African. They’re not going to stay, Paul. They’re not going to stop this slaughter.”

-UN Peace Keeper Colonel Oliver, Hotel Rwanda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKjprq67kYI

I recently watched “Beats of No Nation” on Netflix. It follows the life of a child soldier in Africa. It is a very upsetting and disturbing film. In this film there are horrible violations of human rights at every turn. From the execution of innocents, to child soldiers, drugs and rape this movie shows it all. In fact, it occurs so frequently, it gets to the point that the viewer, as well as the characters become immune to these terrible acts. And despite all of the institutions in place, including the UN, all of this persists and continues without really any outside intervention.

This begs the question, why is there so much turmoil, failed states and violations of human rights in Africa, while, there is often quick intervention in some regions of the world, such as with “Operation Provide Comfort”? Why was that humanitarian mission so successful whereas aid was was found to have saved perhaps no one in Somalia?

The UN has plenty of soft power, but little to no hard power. While the UN has a plethora of soft power, especially when it comes to legalizing the actions of states, “The UN has only so much hard power as it can borrow from its member states.” This is especially difficult when the board is divided. As long as all members of the Security Council are in agreement, the UN does have some hard power, but once divided, this all goes away. The UN cannot successfully intervene unless they have backing from the Security Council. This backing rarely comes unless it is in the interest of the world’s super powers. While these interests may range from protecting their own sovereignty, economy or resources, such as oil, the world super powers are more likely to intervene in places outside of Africa and as such the majority of terrible atrocities have occurred there.

Because the UN relies on others to give it the man power and hard power needed to help those in need and stop the breach of humanitarian crimes, many atrocities are neglected, because these world powers do not care for the sufferings of others. The reason for prolonged genocide in Rwanda is explained by this quote in Hotel Rwanda, “I think that when people turn on their TVs and see this footage, they'll say, "Oh my God, that's horrible," and then they'll go back to eating their dinners,” (Hotel Rwanda). While Westerners and other super powers may see that these atrocities are going on, they are likely not interested enough to get militarily involved. As such, these issues drag on and thousands or millions can die as a result.

Humanitarian aid can help save lives, but it is often times botched, or non-existent. Many times the aid that is most required is safety. Supplies are stolen, lost or unable to be used as the area is in turmoil. World powers only care about their interests. Because of this, they do not care about the atrocities committed in places away from their political agenda. And as such these places do not get he humanitarian support they need. The best way to provide for these people is by giving them protection. Arming the UN for humanitarian interventions is the solution. While it may lead to more violence between the fighting sides, it will protect the innocents civilians, and not just those that the super powers deem worthy enough of investing in. Ultimately is will create stability and prevent these conflicts from dragging on and destroying generation after generation of young boys and girls. 

"There will be no rescue, no intervention force. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us... say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as though you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die. We must shame them into sending help." 

-Paul Rusesabagina, Hotel Rwanda

  

Have we Learned from Rwanda?

Have we Learned from Rwanda?

The Rwandan Genocide was a serious genocide that did not receive the attention it deserved. Realists argue, in general, that humanitarian intervention does not make sense because it is not in the best interest of the state. However, in times of death and serious crime, it is essential in order to save lives and protect the integrity of the international community. The international community has a role and responsibility to aid in times of great despair. Great powers have no excuse but to intervene and self-interest is meaningless.

In Rwanda, after the shooting down of the plane of the Hutu president, Hutus grew angry with the Tutsis and wished for them to be eliminated as a race. The hatred grew, and announcements of slaughter for the Tutsi people were made through radio. The United States heard about these announcements but still did not intervene. Reasons for not intervening included the events of Somalia where U.S. rangers died, lack of “national interest” in Rwanda, and reluctance to deem the Rwandan killings acts of genocide (Rwandan Genocide: Failure of the International Community?). These are not reasons, these are merely excuses. The United States simply watched as thousands of innocent people died. There is no justification for that. Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, said: “The US and the UK refused aid at this crucial time in February 1994 for reasons of economy. This failure, I think, sent a message to those planning the genocide that they could continue, knowing that the world would fail to react” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). When perpetrators are given the green light, their actions will only get worse. The U.S. and UK let this happen. Let that sink in for a second.

The United States claimed that the events of Somalia damaged them and they did not want to enter a similar conflict where their soldiers would be at great risk. Also, the United States was reluctant to use the term genocide. If the term genocide was used at any point, then the U.S. had an international responsibility to intervene because of the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Bystanders to Genocide). Thus, the U.S. avoided the word at all costs, trying to avoid intervention as much as possible. Yes, the United States, the supposed “greatest” country on Earth avoided saving thousands of innocent lives. That is the sign of a selfish country. It is frustrating how the United States, a nation that prides itself on promotion of human rights and freedom, denied any genocide. To be honest, it is sickening. The U.S. had no excuse not to act. Thousands of innocent Tutsis died and still face oppression today. If the U.S. did something, just something, that would be different. What sickens me the most about our inaction is our denial. We don’t think our inaction was all that bad. We don’t realize the positive impacts we could have made and we don’t realize the negative impacts our inaction had.

While people such as realists may argue that the United States had to worry about self-interests, there is nothing that trumps the attention a genocide deserves. To not pay attention to a genocide not only hurts the people affected, but also leaves an embarrassing mark on the international community. Self-interest is never more important than a genocide. Never. UN members even acknowledge their failure. Kofi Annan, who was the UN Secretary General at the time, said that “We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenseless men, women, children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago. We must acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). The UN at least made some effort, unlike the United States. This is not a nature of simply accepting our failures. We must learn from this terrible mistake, admit to it, and never let it happen again.

The genocide in Darfur is still occurring and although we have helped provide troops, promoted democracy, and tried to end human rights issues, we cannot lean back. We must continue to save innocent lives because that is our role as the most powerful nation on Earth. We have the power to end genocides such as the one in Darfur. We must use that power to our advantage and never stop trying to aid human rights across the globe.

The question becomes, have we learned from our mistakes? Do we realize how much of an effect our lack of intervention had? Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is a nation that doesn’t like to admit to failure, and the U.S. never really admitted to failure during the Rwandan Genocide. If the United States can’t fully admit to such a brutal mistake, then how can the U.S. be trusted as the most powerful nation on earth in the future?

Not the Best But Better Than Nothing: Political Intervention Through the Lens of Addiction Intervention

Influenced by my observation of interventions on an alcoholic family member, I believe that political interventions (like addiction interventions) will never be fully effective but that they are still an improvement on doing nothing.  Both addiction interventions and political interventions are acclaimed as a way for one party, who allegedly knows better than another, to stop harm from occurring.

                One of the biggest arguments against political intervention is that it will not fix the problem, that it is a bandaid measure whose effectiveness disappears as soon as the interveners leave.  I do not argue this point; in the class discussion about intervention in Syria, I even said that I did not think it would have been possible to fix through intervention the humanitarian offenses occurring there. The same argument is levied against addiction intervention.  When my family member went through his intervention, he felt enough pressure from everyone around him that he entered rehab.  Once he finished the requisite cycle, however, our family left him alone, thinking he had changed.  However, as we discovered eventually, the change was only temporary; it was dependent on the constant presence of people around him who would enforce his sobriety.  As soon as that presence was gone, he started drinking again.  He had never internalized the message of the intervention, which was that he had a problem - because he didn’t believe he had a problem, he didn’t think he needed to change. 

In the same way, political interventions will always have only temporary success.  Political interventions, like Syria and Iraq, are military, so they are a show of force, an invasion of another’s space to bring about change through intimidation.  Intimidation and coercion only affect actions; they cannot change people’s hearts or minds (this goes back to the effects of hard power versus soft power).  These tactics are effective as long as that force is actively applied.  When the pressure is removed, however, the wound of injustice bleeds profusely again.  Political interventions, by their coercive nature, simply cannot be counted on to make people or nations believe that there is a problem, and therefore will not bring about lasting change. 

Nevertheless, the alternative is to do nothing and this is even worse.  The argument goes that intervention should not be pursued precisely because people cannot be helped until they want to be helped and that no force or intimidation can make them want anything.  We were advised on a few occasions to do nothing and wait for the addict in our family to hit rock bottom to let him realize for himself that he needed help.  The same advice could be, and often is given to potential political interveners.  Some might say: wait, let the injustice and violence get so bad that the nation cannot ignore it.  The problem with this advice is that even hitting rock bottom does not necessarily make an addict - or a nation - realize that there is something that needs to be fixed.  My family member drunk drove and crashed into the bedroom of a house; he was jailed for several months.  Still, he did not acknowledge the need, or express a desire for help.  Likewise, nations may simply keep escalating violence or human rights violations and not ever care about how bad it gets.  The time in rehab that kept my family member sober and kept him from hurting himself and others, and the time of foreign presence that keeps nations on their best behavior are the temporary reprieves from harm that intervention offers, and they are better than nonstop injury.  

The Challenge Failed States Bring To Our Global Community

       Today in our globalized world, where information can travel almost instantly, failed states pose a perplexing dilemma for both the global community and countries that could be directly affected. Our growing awareness of these failed states test what standards we hold our global community to. Failed states are now more dangerous with the rise of international, non-state sponsored groups. For many countries this has left them with little choice as to whether or not to intervene. In the case of the United States, our involvement in Iraq would be an example of intervention with a failing state. Their instability posed a threat to our ability to get the oil that our country so desperately desires. But less often is it that case that a failed states failure to regulate their country poses a security threat to another state. This makes it harder for other states to discern when and how it would be best to get involved. Though it doesn’t adhere to many of the qualities of a failed state, North Korea can be thought of as a security threat to the US due to its shortcomings. One can also not ignore the security threats that the extremist groups in Iraq pose, but whether our involvement in Iraq’s affairs has made matters worse is another question that needs to be asked.

            Iraq’s status as a failed state dates all the back to the Ottoman Empire, where it was divided up into three different sections. Since then no government has been able to successfully rule over these now combined three sections.  The Shia, Sunni, and Kurds in the country have faced rampant sectarian fighting that has resulted in the creation of radical factions. The problem that this created for other countries was both a security threat and instability in a region that exports huge quantities of crude oil. In this case I would argue that the security threat was used to gain support around military intervention where the bigger goal was to ensure continued oil production (Iraq War). Currently there is a societal aspect to the security threat because the extremists have been able to strike on other states soil. The Islamic State commits crimes against people both within Iraq, and outside Iraq’s borders. It also is slowly trying to build up enough power to govern large portions of the country. Actions such as these pose a huge threat to western countries because they oppose such actions. But what measures could be effective at eliminating their power at this point is unclear.

            North Korea is a less obvious failed state. It is not their underdeveloped government, but perhaps the over developed dictator (a cult of personality) who is able to try and kill off any social unrest, opposition to the lack of civil rights, and lack of economic growth. Similar to Iraq, North Korea too poses a security threat. In their case it is not because of radical extremists, but due to their leader’s desire to maintain power and if possible gain more. Though extreme human rights abuses have not been seen by external observers (but are well reported by escapees, and backed by satellite data), the lack of freedoms and prosperity goes against the ideals of many western cultures. However the implications of taking military actions against North Korea is much more complex given its location as a China client state in Asia versus Iraq being in the midst of broader turmoil in the Middle East.

     Failed states test how state’s moral compasses are aligned with their economic goals and needs. The wealth and threat of a failed state certainly carry weight in another state’s decision on whether or not to intervene. But at a more basic human level, the condition of people in a failing state is a reflection of how poorly people will be treated before other states can no longer ignore the problems at hand. With each failed state it becomes clearer how failed states can breed more discontent and decline throughout our world. The worst conditions reflect back on everyone. What standards will our global community hold one another to? What can the global community actually do? How do or can we enforce our values on others? Should we try and intervene? These questions are becoming more relevant and pressing as the reach of failed state’s conflict grows.

A world without nuclear weapons and Iran

Article

On Thursday October 22, 2015, the Iranian government stated that they will begin to completely implement the nuclear deal that was made. President Hassan Rouhani made it clear though that he would make sure that the other parties would also fulfill their part of the deals. For example, international sanctions on Iran from major powers must be lifted. What this Iranian deal shows is that a world with nuclear weapons does not mean any country can have nuclear weapons, and countries with nuclear weapons can use this over other countries in order to make deals. Therefore, what I take from this article is that some nuclear weapons is a good thing. It has allowed or caused a long peace between great powers. Russia and the United States fear a war with each other due to the fear of a nuclear war. What this article also shows, is that countries with nuclear weapons even with differing forms of government (China and United States) can work together, in this case using sanctions to deter other countries from gaining nuclear weapons. With all this being said would all the problems be solved by having no nuclear weapons? Schelling in “A world without nuclear weapons?” would say no. I completely agree with Schelling that a world with some nuclear weapons is safer than a world with no nuclear powers.

I believe this because firstly, the ability to know for certain that a country does not have a nuclear power or is not intending on making one is incredibly difficult. Therefore if countries stated they did not have a nuclear power no one really knows if they are telling the truth. This could be seen in the Iraq War when Sadam Hussan was unclear whether or not he had a nuclear weapon. Secondly, without the fear of a retaliation attack why wouldn’t that country keep making the nuclear weapon and hold it over a power greater than themselves. Third, Schelling makes the point that a non-nuclear world may just consist of mobilized bases that at any point could make a nuclear weapon if necessary. Meaning, if for example, China were to begin fighting with the U.S., those countries would most likely have in place a base ready to make a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible to hold over each other. Lastly, Schelling argues that he has seen 63 years without a nuclear weapon used and he believes that great powers will keep each other “quiet” by all having nuclear weapons and can work together when “rogue” threats come up. Iran was a rogue threat, and as we see in the article the great powers that Schelling mentioned did work together in order to prevent a nuclear Iran. Nuclear Weapons in this case almost seem necessary for peace. I would go as far as to say that they are necessary for peace because now that they have been made and countries if they wanted could possibly obtain one, other countries must also have nuclear weapons in order to prevent one country from taking over all other countries.

Intervention: The Government’s Decision or the American People’s?

During Friday’s class discussion regarding Syria, I began to really think about the United States’ reasons for intervening in a failed state. Many times, we (the U.S.) claim that we are intervening in a country due to humanitarian reasons. But, how often is this actually the case? In class, we discussed the imperialization of Africa by several European countries in the 1800s. While we can now all agree that the motives of the Europeans to imperialize Africa was strictly for their own benefit, (specifically to accumulate resources) I am sure that many Europeans at the time believed that they were helping the African people. I can’t help but ask if much has changed since this time? Can we really argue that in today’s world, we are not first and foremost concerned with our nation’s own well being and economic advances- and if that is the case, is that necessarily a bad thing?  This is of course in stark contradiction with the claim that the U.S. constantly makes that we are solely intervening in order to help those who are suffering. It is also important to ask if it is the job of the government to decide whether or not we should intervene in failing states or should the American people be well enough informed about foreign affairs to make these decisions themselves? I would argue, that it is the American government’s responsibility to equip American citizens with the necessary information to make them aware of their intentions for intervening in a “failing” state. However, it is also the job of the American citizens to stay informed with foreign affairs in order to adequately give their opinion on what actions are best for the nation.

            Will brought up a really interesting point in class on Friday during our discussion on Syria. When the U.S. government intervenes in a “failing” state, many times we claim that the main reason for U.S. involvement is for humanitarian efforts; and we do this in order to gain support from the public. While I think humanitarian efforts are often a very good reason for the United States’ involvement, and I agree that it is one that the American population most largely sympathizes with, if that is the reason we must give to the public to justify our involvement, and get the public on board with intervention, then I see this as a huge problem in our society. From the beginning, American citizens should be told the truth as to why the government feels the need to involve itself in failing states (regardless of whether or not the government predicts the decision will spark public approval of the decision). Secondly, if American citizens are informed of the government’s true intentions in intervening, they will be able to decide for themselves if they believe that the United States should intervene or not. 

If the American people were told that we were going to intervene in a failed state for humanitarian purposes, however, the government had alternate intentions, (for example: balancing power, threat of nuclear weapons, etc.) than the American people must be kept informed of why it is in America’s interest to intervene in a country. If the US government started lying to the American people by saying that we are getting involved in another country’s affairs for different reasons than what the American people are told, than this will create an even larger divide between American people and the government and heighten the sense of mistrust between citizens and their elected representatives. Such divides, (between the American government and U.S. citizens) many people would argue, are quite evident in this country. Thus, to eliminate further divides and mistrust between the government and American citizens, the government must be truthful in its reasons for intervening in a failed state. However, with this truthfulness and honesty comes a duty from the American people to keep themselves well informed about foreign affairs and policies. How can we expect the government to be truthful with us if we as citizens choose to be ill informed about what is going on in the world? Thus, it becomes the responsibility of individuals to educate themselves to become informed citizens.

            Lastly, it is incredibly important for American citizens to be truthfully told why the US government wants to intervene in failed states in order to determine for themselves if intervention is the right thing to do. One of the biggest criticisms of the Iraq War was that Bush pushed his “powerful rhetoric” onto the American people and convinced them that war was the right thing to do. However, there was also a lot of “imperfect information” surrounding Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction (or lack thereof) program. I believe that if there had been more sound, concrete information provided to the American people, (and I am not saying that this is the US government’s fault) than maybe there would have been more objection to the war because they would have been able to come to their own conclusions regarding whether war should be waged or not.

Leaders Meet in Paris

Article:

On October 2, 2015 the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany met in Paris to discuss terms in order to bring peace to Ukraine. This is a perfect example of how and why the world is being more peaceful and less wars are occurring. It is also a great example of the bargaining theory happening in modern times. The meeting was mostly about withdrawing troops from both sides. Today countries with differing government policies can meet peacefully to discuss deals, which shows how the bargaining theory works and why the world is becoming more peaceful.

If Russia were to invade Ukraine, there would almost certainly be a world war. For all countries that would participate in the war, it means they must use men and supplies which becomes very costly. Therefore, what we are seeing in Paris is countries working out deals so that large wars do not have to occur. Each country in this case came to the agreement that they will begin to retreat troops from Ukraine. This means that even though Russia may be giving up some of their troops located in Ukraine they are also gaining because both France and Germany are doing the same. For France and Germany, both countries would much rather end this in a peaceful manor and are therefore willing to give up man power in Ukraine in order to maintain peace. All of these countries also have nuclear weapons, which is a huge incentive for countries to try to resolve issues rather than going to war. Nuclear weapons can completely wipe out countries and therefore deals, even if it means giving something up, are more favorable than warfare.

Transportation and technology have improved immensely in the last 20 years. Using the new technology allows leaders of countries to meet like we see in Paris and discus issues. One of the major causes of war is lack of or incorrect information and therefore if leaders of countries have easy access to each other, information can improve and therefore more deals can be made. In Paris, the president of France stated that he was “optimistic about the peace process”. Countries do not want to go to war, but rather get the most out of a circumstance. Ukraine, France, and Germany want Russia to completely leave Ukraine so that Ukraine rebel forces can be controlled and the flow of guns to them stopped. With this is mind they are willing to make a deal with Russia and as Russia should, according to the bargaining theory try to get the most that they can.

The fact that the leaders of these countries are meeting at all shows great progress in the push for peace internationally. With how easy it is to get from place to place even traveling great distances or using video chat, there is no reason why countries should not try to resolve issues in a more peaceful way and I think this meeting is Paris is a great example for how international disputes in the future should be handled.

Softer than It Looks: Military's Participation in Soft Power through Recruitment Practices

Softer than It Looks:

The U.S. Military's Participation in Soft Power through Recruitment Practices

The word “military” brings to mind an image that is the epitome of hard power: guns, tanks, bombs, fighter planes, infantry, and so on and so forth.  However, I believe that this is only half of the picture in states where there is no conscription.  In these states (and for the rest of this paper, I will be talking about the U.S. military because it is the most familiar to me), the military functions not only to fight the state’s enemies, but also to draw individuals into its ranks.  The first function is only possible through hard power, while the second is not possible through hard power. Therefore, contrary to the stance in class that military is not a factor in soft power, I argue that, thanks to its recruitment practices, the military is a major utilizer of soft power.

We talked in class about how soft power is getting others to want what you want them to want as opposed to forcing them to do what you want them to do.  This translates directly into the job description of a military recruiter, which is to realize the military’s goal of filling the ranks by getting young people to want to voluntarily join up.  Military recruitment involves not only individual recruiters, but also a department that systematically employs soft power though the development of full-blown advertisement campaigns which are tailored to attract the youth of America. 

For example, across the center of the Army’s website runs the following banner: “Join the Team that Makes a Difference.”  This plays into many youths’ desire to belong and their ambitions to change the world.  When you click on the banner, you’re taken to a page that says: “Our team is made up of doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and combat troops.”  This tells potential recruits that they can still be whatever they want to be.  This sends the reassuring message that you don’t have to give anything up when you join the military; this implication is likely to positively affect the target audience because it accommodates most young people’s reluctance to sacrifice anything that they have or want to have.  Furthermore, personal stories on the website call to attention all the things you will gain by joining the “team:” getting to work with cool gadgets and being part of a family-type team that has your back through everything.  By presenting all the things that the audience wants to see and hear, the military is using soft power tactics, striving to persuade potential recruits that they want to join.

I experienced being on the receiving end of those soft power strategies, and can attest to the talent with which the military gradually convinces you that what you want and what it wants from you is the same, and that is to join up.  It was evident to me that the recruitment efforts are not simply portrayals of fact when recruiters changed their narrative to make the military as attractive as possible to different audiences; at a military academy camp, weapons were talked up to the men who were interested in them while humanitarian action was emphasized to those not impressed by violence. This change of tone told me that the goal of military recruitment is not to present the entire reality and let the youths decide, but rather to manipulate their decision by changing the descriptions of reality to fit their desires. 

What is this manipulation of desire and decision if not the practice of soft power?  The significance of all this is that recruitment practices which successfully put people under the influence of soft power are dangerous; they put those people at risk of waking up one day and realizing that they were sold an image that does not necessarily reflect reality.  This contributes not only to the decline of the satisfaction and well-being of those individual soldiers, but also by extension to the decline of morale across the whole military system.  In this way, using soft power recruitment to strengthen the military may eventually have the opposite effect. 

World Peace is not desireable

The theory that world peace should be the ultimate goal of society is fraught with disillusionment and it is in fact civil unrest that is the greatest protector of human welfare. Competition between democratic political parties is the best hope the world has for a minimizing violence and protecting human rights:

“What do you call the slaughter of thousands of civilians in the streets of Syria by a despotic regime — is that “world peace”?

What do you call it when soldiers go home by home, systematically raping and killing women and children in the villages of Sudan — is that “world peace”?

Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Mauritanians who, in the twenty-first century, are forced into slavery by their own countrymen — is that “world peace”?

To the peaceniks, it is, as long as no one intervenes to stop these injustices from happening.”

Let’s break down the concept of peace level by level. First, on a global stage.

war arises due to a conflict of interests between two parties. So to alleviate this problem, world peace could only fundamentally be established by creating a single entity that encompasses the whole world. Since there is only one state, there would be no conflict and thus no war. While this power would be created with the goal of peace, there is obviously a danger to human rights, as this force would be so omnipotent and it would not have to answer to anyone. It is dangerous because “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If there is no opposition to power, and no war, terrible atrocities like those listed above, would occur similarly to the work of the Nazi’s, Stalin and other dictators. But, this could occur on a global scale instead of within the state. And even as this was going on, it would still be “peace” if the victims could not fight back. Clearly, “as Teddy Roosevelt once declared, wars are ‘as a rule to be avoided [but] they are far better than certain kinds of peace.’” So, clearly we can rule out world peace, but what about interstate peace?

Perhaps our only hope is democracy. It has many flaws, but its greatest strength is that it holds its leaders accountable for their actions, and balances power, so that no single person can dominate. It has other benefits too, “Indeed, one of the great phenomena of international relations is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.” Democracies show the most promise for a more peaceful world. But despite this lack of war between states, unrest within a state is important too.

Assuming then, that all states are democratic, it’s imperative that there be competition within the state. If each democratic state was made up of a single party, then those outside that party would not have a say. It is important that there be competing powers within the state in order to assure the rights of the people and ensure that the majority is in power. If there is no conflict or opposition inside a state, it could give rise to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson spoke to this when he said, “(Revolution) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical… It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."  Civil turmoil, while it may be extremely costly and violent prevents a tyrannical power from abusing its power with no opposition. However, it’s possible that

While conflicts are extremely upsetting, they are essential as well. While I do not believe that world peace is either attainable or desirable, I think that limiting casualties while protecting rights is. The best way to accomplish this, is to foster intrastate competition in democratic states.

Was Invading Iraq a Rational Decision?

One of the most significant turning points of the 21st century was September 11, 2001. On this tragic day, thousands of lives were lost, the United States’ feeling of security took a significant dip, and terrorism made people confused. We had never seen evil like this, and quite frankly, we did not know how to respond. As a leader of a nation that prides itself on democracy, courage, and resilience, President Bush decided that war was the solution. He did not want to, in a sense, let evil “win”. He wanted the U.S. to hold a strong identity as a resilient nation that never backs down. While it was unlikely that Iraq did have nuclear weapons, the United States still wasn’t sure, and as a result they went through with it. The U.S.’s decision to intervene was not rational because it acted out of emotion and values rather than fully considering the situation. Acting based on low possibility rather than probability is not a well-thought out solution, and it is a solution that can have very negative effects. The U.S.’s decision had these negative effects.

Why would there not be an opposition to going to war? Why did everyone support it? Ah, there’s the catch: Not everyone supported it, but no one was willing to show their opposition because they didn’t want to seem like they supported terrorism. They obviously didn’t support terrorism, but because 9/11 was such a terrifying rarity, everyone was fearful of being viewed in the wrong way. Because of the level of tragedy, the support for the nation was at an all-time high. Every action that acted on the basis of morality was deemed justified. Peter Singer, an ethicist, said that Bush is “America’s most prominent moralist. No other president in living memory has spoken so often about good and evil, right and wrong” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). After such a horrific event, everyone needed a moral figure to speak to them. Bush gave the public what they needed, and as a result the public, at least externally, supported his notions.

Bush was the leader of a nation that prides itself on its patriotism and democracy. We care deeply about our values but sometimes take that a step too far. Before we do something that has potentially significant impacts, we should really think critically about it. The mystery of whether Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or not was frustrating for the U.S.; because we didn’t know for sure, we went off of the “possibility” vs. “probability” comparison. For us to go to war because of a “possibility” reflects a lack of judgment, thinking, and rationality on our part. Relating to constructivism, the United States responded to a gesture made by Iraq, but it was a gesture that was foggy and unclear. As a result, we did not have legitimate reason to go to war. If we knew what Iraq’s intent was, and if Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons, then we would have justification for war. However, Iraq did not pose a clear threat and as a result the U.S.’s decision to intervene cannot be considered rational. The Bush administration had a passionate, strong, encouraging reaction to the attacks, but they took their patriotism, passion, and pride a bit too far.

While the United States considered the negatives the war presented, they didn’t consider them fully. Even if they deemed the negatives to be great, they wouldn’t care because “a price could hardly be placed on defending the democracy for which thousands had died on September 11, 2001. Thus was the American public primed for the costs that an aggressive campaign of democracy promotion might entail” (Fixing the Meaning of 9/11). Think about it, though: after such a degrading attack on the U.S., any citizen would feel patriotism and pride for their country. Any cost was viewed to be worth it. Now, this does not mean that the U.S.’s decision to go to war was rational; it means that the public’s reaction made sense. An initial reaction should not be the reason for a long-term mission. Before going to war, leaders have to put things in perspective while not letting their emotions and values get the best of them.

Can our Culture Justify the Response to the 9/11 Attacks and Iraq War?

Can our Culture Justify the Response to the 9/11 Attacks and the Iraq War?

In my Cross Cultural Psychology class, we have been talking a lot about variances across cultures. The idea is that people from different cultures can view ideas, objects and concepts vastly different from those belonging to other cultures. Although this concept seems fairly obvious considering there are many things in American culture that we don’t see, for example, in East Asian cultures and vice versa, I never really understood how much variance there was across cultures. Parenting styles, abilities to assess oneself, work ethics, and alternate views on societies as a whole are just some examples of ways that the American culture influences our ideas, beliefs and views. The way American cultures influences these ideas, beliefs and views are vastly different from the way East Asian cultures, for example, shape their own ideas. Many of these differences across cultures can be explained by categorizing these societies into two groups: the individualist society, which is associated with American culture, and the collectivist society, which is associated with East Asian culture. In individualist societies, typically, the emphasis is on the self. The idea is that we do things because it will benefit us, as the individual, focusing less on the larger picture of society. In contrast, in collectivist societies, the emphasis is on the group. The idea, is that our actions affect an entire group and thus when making decisions, its important to think about the consequences of our actions as affecting the entire group/culture/society, not the individual.

At this point, you’re probably thinking, what does this have to do with national security, war or liberal imperialism? Well, I bring up the concept of cultural differences because I wanted draw a possible comparison between our culture and the way we respond to attacks. More specifically, looking at the United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks. First, I would like to propose this idea: The United States’ response to the 9/11 attacks was an individualistic response. When the Twin Towers were hit, we, as a nation, took these attacks as a personal attack on us, as individuals; it was as if the attack was directed at each of us individually. Therefore, our immediate response on such a personal attack was to defend ourselves. This is the same case in day-to-day life. If we feel threatened or attacked by someone, or that someone could potentially be harmful, I will speak for myself and say that my natural instinct is to do whatever I can to protect myself. I think that the United States had the same reaction to the 9/11 attacks, however their response was on a much larger scale (than any attack one can compare to an attack on a single individual.) So my question now is can we justify our reaction to the 9/11 attack by blaming our individualistic culture?

I would like to insert here that I recognize that there are many other factors that go into the reasons why we went into Iraq. However, I am focusing on the 9/11 attacks because it sparked this sense of fear and anxiety throughout the country. The United States had been involved in numerous wars over the 20^th century. However, we had never seen an attack like this on our own soil.

I would argue that, hypothetically speaking, if a country that was considered to be a collectivistic society had been attacked on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, the response would have been very different. The emphasis in collectivistic societies is that one’s actions affect their society as a whole. Thus, I believe that this strong emphasis on community would have resulted in a different reaction (from the United States’ reaction to the 9/11 attacks) from this collectivist society under attack. Instead of viewing the attack as being a personal one, I believe that the attack would be viewed as one that affects the whole community, and in order to respond, there would need to be some kind of coming together of the society. War would not be waged until all pros and cons were weighed, and it was agreed that a war was the best possible option for society.

I understand that there are a lot of hypotheticals in this paper and with hypothetical situations there is often a lot of room for interpretation, debate, and inaccuracy. However, I wanted to bring up the question: if culture is so influential in society (and from much research demonstrated by my cross cultural psychology class, culture is vital) with regards to popular culture, beliefs and ideals, could it also be responsible for our decision making in times of war? If so, is this a fault of us as citizens of such a society, or is it inevitable, and something that we must accept and take as is?