What is the significance of international terrorism?

At its simplest, terrorism can be defined as a form of political violence that achieves it's aims through creating a climate of fear and apprehension. The very nature of terrorism is fluid and difficult to pinpoint with one definition, however, terrorism is usually a clandestine act of violence that attacks innocent civilians and the perpetrators are often non-state actors attempting to influence a government. The nature of terrorism has indeed transformed particularly since the 9/11 attacks (although some argue earlier than this, e.g. the 1995 Tokyo subway attack), the key transformation being the shift from away from secular traditional political terrorism (i.e the IRA) to religiously motivated terror. 

The significance of this 'new' terrorism lies largely in it's global character. The advent of globalisation has, arguably, allowed for terrorism to develop onto the international stage. Hyper-mobility in terms of cross-border flows of people, good, money, ideas, etc. has been exploited by terrorists groups. Increased migration flows has helped sustain terrorist campaigns as diaspora communities can be a key source of funding such as the Tamil Tigers (however, this concept is not entirely modern and can be traced back to the 19th century Fenian movement in America). Furthermore, aside from making the process of terrorism easier, globalisation has also generated pressures that can be seen as causing terrorism. For instance, cultural globalisation is often seen as Westerenisation which generates a backlash from those who do not align themselves to western values. Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that globalisation causes huge imbalances as the soul-sucking global capitalist system spreads and impoverishes those most vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. 

Perhaps the most notable form of modern terrorism, Islamist, has been the most successful in achieving a global reach. This is largely due to the failings of political islam in the late 1990s, and so domestic jihad was replaced by a global jihad as the islamist movment united around the 'far enemy': western policy. Al-Qaeda are a prominent example of this, their goals are transnational and, to an extent, civilisational (although ISIS is a better example to demonstrate a civilisational attack). Therefore, not only can this new form of terrorism strike anytime and anywhere, by realigning it's targets to a civilisation it greatly increases the number of potential targets. 

As well as acquiring a global reach, another key significance of 'new' international terrorism is the catastrophic threat it poses. 9/11 is often seen as the most costly terrorist attack in history with roughly 3,000 deaths, the psychological impact it caused was devastating, denting the old myth that America was invulnerable. However, the significance of the attack is not in the number of casualties (for, when compared to conventional warfare e.g. 1.5 million killed in the Somme, it is relatively small), The significance is that it highlighted an intractable security threat, something which has the potential to wreak utter death and destruction- something which is near impossible to protect against. 

There are other reasons why new international terrorism poses such a threat. Firstly, terrorism is a form of gurellia warfare and as such it is difficult to distinguish who is an innocent civilian and who is a terrorist. It is often carried out by lone individuals or small groups, e.g. suicide bombings- it has proven extremely difficult to provide protection against attackers who are willing to sacrifice their lives to promote their cause. Perhaps it is possible to reduce the likelihood of terror attacks, but we are never going to see the threat of terror be eradicated completely. 

Additionally, the potential devastation of terrorism has increased due to easier access to modern technology, particular WMD. Nuclear proliferation has run the risk of terrorists acquiring such weapons, Allison (2004) argued that a nuclear terrorist attack on the USA was inevitable unless some form of lock down on nuclear materials on a global scale was reached. Not only do terrorists have an easier access to WMD, they are far more likely to use them due to the moral context of their motivations. For instance, radical politico-religious Islamist terrorism views the west as inherently corrupt and an intrinsic enemy of Islam itself, and therefore would have few scruples in using such weapons to eradicate this perceived 'evil'. 

However, the significance of international terrorism does run the risk of being overstated. Firstly, if we look to the jihadist movement as the prominent example of international terrorism, it is by far a united force. The attacks we have seen (9/11, Madrid, London) are not linked by common inspiration or unified purpose. Some argue these terrorists are not global revolutionaries but rather religious nationalists.

Also, the military threat of international terrorism is relatively small. Due to its nature of sporadic attacks on a variety of targets, it is less damaging than most conventional sustained inter-state warfare. Addtionally, terrorism in itself cannot overthrow a government, it is the governments response to the fear that decides the course of action. 

 Furthermore, the concept of Islamist terrorism as global terrorism stems less from the nature of the terrorism and more so because of the response. The 'war on terror' is largely an ideological construct. Now that the threat of communism is exhausted, the US need a new threat to maintain its hegemonic position, particularly in the Middle East (it's all about oil). In doing so it justifies it's actions by indoctrinating the masses into an "us VS them" mentality.

In what way is there a civilization conflict between Islam and the West?

When discussing the conflict between these so called 'civilisations' we must be careful not to simplify the issue at hand. Samuel Huntington's thesis does run the risk of doing so, in that by grouping all followers of Islam together in one 'civilisation' we neglect the fact that Islam is a universal entity and that it has several faces. Is Islam a cultural identity? A religious identity? A political identity? 

Considering this is a blog post and not a dissertation we'll focus on one particular strand of Islam- the radical minority. And it is a minority considering a Gallup poll found the “radical” group represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in the study, ranging from a high of 26% in Egypt to a low of 1% in Morocco. 

So what is radical Islam? Radical Islam can be defined as a politico-religious ideology (although radicals themselves would disagree with this definition as they see their belief as a holistic moral system). Radical Islam does not have one established manifesto that lays out their beliefs, as unsurprisingly, there are a vast number of factions. Yet there are some common beliefs that Radicals generally seem to identify with, these include a  reconstruction of society in line with the religious principles of Islam, a rejection of the modern state in favour of an Islamic state where religious authority (usually Shari'a law) surpasses political authority. Finally, radicals view the 'West' and it's values as corrupt and justifying some kind of 'jihad' against them. However, again we must be careful when discussing this 'jihad' as it literally means 'struggle' and usually refers to an inner struggle Muslims face in rejecting western values. In other words, this 'struggle' is exercised in various ways, not necessarily confined to acts of terror. The revival of fundamentalist Islam can be traced back to the 1920s (particularly the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928) yet the most signifcant development was in the late 1970s with Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power and Iran declaring itself as an Islamic Republic. Since then we have seen the growth of the Mujahadeen, from which the Taliban developed, and since the 1990s the emergence of jihadi groups- such as Al Qaeda and so called 'Islamic state'. 

What about the 'West'? As with Islam, it is impossible to group all 'westerners' into one civilisation- few would suggest Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn share the same identity and yet they are, supposedly, of the same civilisation. The 'West' can be defined in that we do seem to share a common set of beliefs, such as democracy, human rights, and neo-liberal economics to an extent. In terms of religion, the 'West' is rooted in Christianity, but many would argue we have since become more secular. 

While the west is not radical in the sense that it commits acts of terror, we are 'radical' in the way in which we force our values onto the world. For instance, the age old debate on whether we should universally promote democracy in the name of the democratic peace thesis. Are women's rights a universal concept or an aspect of western culture? The spread of distinctly American vales such as commodity fetishism and  consumer capitalism can be viewed as a form of 'domination'. The same way in which western nationalists argue Shari'a law is an attempt by Islamists to take over and dominate. Furthermore, the college promotes 'British Values' which we are told are the right way to behave, and that these values should be adopted by all. While they are perhaps not enforced as strictly as the values of radical Islam are (I think it's unlikely Blake would behead one of us if we said we didn't like fish and chips) the fact remains that these values are imposed upon us and we are expected to agree with them, in turn disagreeing and conflicting with any other values, like those of Islam. 

Therefore, the conflict lies within our individual mindsets. We need to be prepared to criticize our own way of life, there are fundamental problems with western values, as there is with radical Islamic values. Huntington's thesis has given us an excuse to rally behind the facade of a 'civilisation', which Osama Bin Laden, and later the Bush administration, both used to their advantage to create the 'war' between Islam and the West.  

Bibliography/further reading

• The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim World
• Clash of Civilizations (BBC Radio 3, 2013) 

What is the nature of the EU as a political entity?

What is the EU?

According to our friend Nigel, "This EU is the New Communism. It is Power without Limits. It is creating a tide of human misery and the sooner it is swept away the better." But not everyone sees it that way. Liberals see the EU as an unique and positive international organisation, as it allows states to remain independent sovereign nations while allowing them to pool their sovereignty to gain strength and influence over global politics. Influence that none of the member states could have achieved on their own.

Origins of the EU

The idea of closer European integration was around long before 1945, but until after the second world war this ideas were dismissed as Utopian. The aftermath of the war created a situation in which a European process of integration could occur, what Churchill termed a "United States of Europe". For example, the need for economic reconstruction which cooperation and a larger market would accommodate. Safeguarding Europe from Soviet expansionism was also a key aim alongside economic cooperation. The US advocated European integration on the grounds of preventing the spread of communism- but also to have a united Europe as a market for goods. 

How has the EU developed?

Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors are the two influential federalists who initiated major steps towards a federal Europe. They were committed to creating a European political entity that effectively dealt with the common interests of member states and their citizens. Monnet was responsible for drafting the Schuman declaration, which proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The ECSC gave way to the EEC, the EC, and eventually the EU. There have been other changes as well, such as the creation of a single market, monetary union, and the establishment of the EU as a single legal entity through the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Most significantly, the EU has experienced a process of widening, in that it has grown from 6 member states (France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Italy, Netherlands) to 28- the last being Croatia which joined in 2013. It has also deepened in that waves of intergration have transferred some decision making powers from member states to EU bodies.

Nature of the EU?

The image of the EU is one of both intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. While the 'Luxembourg compromise' of 1966 ensured each member state could veto decisions that would threaten vital national interests, there are supranational elements within the union. For example, EU law is binding on all member states- surpassing national law.

While figures such as Thatcher (who, as we all know, I have the utmost respect for...) have resisted cooperation that goes beyond intergovernmental decision making (for various reasons e.g. the belief that democracy is only feasible within the nation state and not beyond it) the fact is the EU has grown beyond your typical intergovernmental organisation- although it is not quite the "United States of Europe". 

Are nation-states still the most important actors in global politics?

(This has nothing to do with nation-states I just love Christmas)

Following the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the conventional approach to global politics has been state centric, i.e. the state is the most prominent actor on the world stage. However, one of the by products of intensified globlisation is a proliferation of non-state actors. These non-state actors (be they NGOs, TNCs, or other non-state bodies) now exert a varying degree of influence in the global system. Liberals see globalisation as the main weakener of state sovereignty (and therefore the significance of states). They prefer a mixed-actor model as opposed to states as the only actors. Realists on the other hand emphasis the role of the state in global politics in that they are the fundamental building blocks of the system. Furthermore, there is an argument for the middle ground, in that the role of nation-states in global politics has changed- but this does not necessarily mean the power of states has become redundant.

The growth of international organisations and the move towards regionalism can be seen as weakening the importance of nation-states. For example, the trend towards global governance has seen elements of supernationalism in some organisations like the EU. The debate as to whether the EU has eroded the sovereignty of it's member states has been exhausted, one conclusion to draw from it is that while the EU does appear to be a higher authority than nation states (e.g. UK Parliament cannot pass any statute that conflicts with the existing EU laws as seen in the 1990 Factortame Case). Having said that, member states reserve the right the exit the EU- we may very well see a vote for 'Brexit' in the upcoming EU referendum. This surely indicates that, ultimately, states are the predominant actors in the political arena as they choose to be a part of these organisations to boost their own power by through pooling.

The growth of TNC's can also seen to be a threat to the dominant position of nation-states in global politics. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Wal-Mart (12th biggest) is bigger than 161 countries, including Israel, Poland, and Greece. Naturally, these corporations have a sizable influence over states, as Susan Strange put it "where states were once masters of markets, now it is the markets which, on many issues, are the masters over the governments of states". Although it can be argued that states are still important in that they provide legal and social order in which these corporations can operate.  

While it may seem as though the status of states has reduced in global politics, it can be seen that they have merely changed in nature. Instead of a billiboard model of states all competing in their own interests, we see a new multilateral era where states recognize the benefits of working within an international organisation- for example national interest has become international interest, such as global climate change or the global terror threat. Furthermore, the success of supernationalism (i.e. states surrendering sovereignty to a central authority) is, arguably, grossly exaggerated as Europe is the only region that follows this concept.

Has an effective system of global governance now become a reality?

So, global governance- not to be confused with the Orwellian 'World Government' theory- is a complex process of decision making at a global level between governmental (sometimes non-governmental) bodies through formal or informal mechanisms, like the UN. It is different to world government in that world government refers to the centralization of authority in a supernational body-  essentially all of humankind united under one political body. Thankfully this is now considered unrealistic by both liberals and realists, but the concept of supernationalism that underpinned it can be seen to still exist in certain areas of global governance.

Liberals argue there is a distinct trend towards global governance in modern politics. They look to the growth of international organisations (e.g. we can't even keep up with the members of the WTO- is it 162??) as evidence of a greater willingness of state to cooperate with one another. Supposedly, this has also meant a build up of trust between states, but this can be countered by the fact that the security dilemma still prevails in today's politics, such as the apparent "need" for Trident in the UK. The prominence of global governance can be seen to fluctuate, but all in all the evidence suggests it's on the rise. It is unlikely we will return to a world without global governance as it has become essential in responding to the issues brought about by globalisation (transnational terrorism, global warming, etc.).

However, to suggest global governance has become an effective system can be seen as an exaggeration. Realists would argue that in reality, global governance is largely a myth as it only seems to operate in the 'postmodern' world of Europe. Furthermore, the existence of rogue states like Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. demonstrates the shortcomings of the system.

Furthermore, global governance can be seen as ineffective in a number of areas. For example climate change, global conferences have largely been unsuccessful in tackling climate change over the years. However, could we be seeing evidence of cooperation in the recent COP21? Obama has been quoted as saying he feels "very optimistic" that a global agreement will be reached this time.The Director of Climate Programme at World Resources Institute has said the alignment of politics, e.g. America and China cooperating, has allowed for an agreement to become possible. Having said that, she has also highlighted the fact that countries are primarily concerned with their own interest -state egoism- and this could hinder the process of global governance in this case. Addtionally, the agreements reached are unlikely to be legally binding.

The trend towards global goverance is most prominent in Europe. Supernationalism can be found in the EU with countries effectively pooling their sovereignty, and certainly there is much evidence of cooperation within the EU over the years. However, whether or not it is an effective system of global governance can be debated. For example, while liberalists may see the EU's resettlement scheme as an act of successful global governance it has received backlash from some member states who are not willing to cooperate with the quotas set. For example, Slovakia is launching a legal challenge against mandatory resettlement quotas. Surely this reinforces the realist concept of state-centrism, that the state is the key international actor and global governance doesn't work?

The UN can also be seen to have it's short comings when it comes to global goverance. For example, the veto power of the P-5 meant Russia consistantly blocking UN action in Syria in case we upset Putin's pal, Assad. However, we have recently seen a rare example of cooperation in the UN with all member states agreeing to tackle ISIS. Since then the US and Russia have been cooperating in drafting up resolutions to cut off ISIS's sources of financing. The US Ambassador has said the resoultions "will consolidate and streamline the council's recent efforts on ISIL financing" and introduce "new steps to make the sanctions more effective."

In terms of economic global governance we can certainly see progress. The so called 'three sisters' (the IMF, WTO, and the World Bank) are all examples of institutions of global economic governance. Liberals would argue this is evidence of cooperation, however the dominance of the USA in the system suggests a hegemonic system, not a process of multilateral cooperation. Furthermore, the New Development Bank contradicts this idea of global economic harmony- it has caused tensions with the US who worry this is the first step in China setting the global economic agenda. This has led to the Obama administration trying to minimise the bank's influence, therefore global governance is clearly not a reality.

So, has an effective system of global governance now become a reality? Not yet. We have certainly progressed over the years, but state centrism hinders the process as states will always put themselves first. However, with globalisation forcing national interest to become collective interest (e.g. global warming) global governance is going to be the only way to resolve matters, and therefore we will inevitably one day see an effective system of global goverance as the reality of global politics.

(This post is copyright ©Me -i'm calling you out for plagiarism, Dan.)

Bibliography/Further reading

• COP21: Constructive conference or a waste of time? (Aljazeera)
• Beijing's rival to World Bank: Why US is worried (EconomicTimes)
• US weighing new measures to choke off ISIS  (IsraelNationalNews)

Has the UN been effective in it's peacekeeping role?

So what is the UN and what's it got to do with peacekeeping?

The United Nations, for all it's faults, is the most important international organisation in history. Established through the San Francisco Conference in 1945, it is effectively the League of Nations 2.0. Except this time it was a truly global organization with 193 member states (the latest state to join being South Sudan). It has 4 main principles, laid out in the UN Charter:
- Safeguard peace and security in order 'to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war'
- To 'reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights'
- To uphold respect for international law
- To 'promote social progress and better standards of life'.

We can see that maintaining peace and security is an important aspect of the UN, but just how effective is the institution when it comes to peacekeeping?

It is hard to ignore the failures of the UN, for example the thousands of executions in Bosnia in the presence of UN troops. However, the most horrific of these failures has to be the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. At least 800,000 people died in the space of 100 days because of Hutu extremists. The UN failed to supply the mission with adequate resources, gave unclear directions which in turn resulted in peacekeepers unable to use force to defend themselves let alone stop the slaughter. To make matters worse most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers. The UN procrastinated, holding onto the false hope that a political process could be achieved- they stood by whilst populations were being murdered by the thousands. In 2000 the UN's accepted full responsibility for failing to prevent the genocide, and in April last year the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated the UN was "still ashamed" over the issue.

In response to such failures, Chapter 7 allowed the UN to use force to keep the peace. In many was the mission in Congo was a test, but this test was failed after the town of Kiwanja was taken over by rebels while the UN stood by and did not open fire. 150 people died, and less than a mile away 100 UN troops were stationed at a base. These troops had orders to protect the people, using force if necessary. A local human rights worker called the base for help during the massacre- the UN told him there was nothing they could do.

These failings are also due to the lack of political will and conflicting priorities of the Security Council- for example the consistent veto blocking from Russia and China over UN action in Syria. Another problems with UN peacekeeping is it's capacity to keep the peace is being stretched thin as it takes on more asymmetric and complex threats when the UN security council can only muster so many troops. Former US Ambassador Susan Rice described this as a "growing gap between supply and demand".

Even the head of the peacekeeping operations admitted there are problems. He called for the security council to consistently support peacekeeping operations and ensure that they have adequate resources to perform the mandates that the security council sets. As the UN doesn't have it's own army it relies on other member states to volunteer resources, this means negotiation which takes time. Furthermore, UK, US, and other western countries failed to step up and put troops in Congo. The majority came from India, Pakistan, South Africa and Nepal. Only 2% of UN troops in Africa came from North America and Europe. With richer countries not contributing this means the UN lacks resources as it relies on member states for equipment. 

Furthermore, a significant amount of sexual abuse by peacekeepers have been reported. According to a report released by UN's Oversight body, one-third case of reported sexual abuse by peacekeepers between 2008-2014 were on children. The UN has recently (November) sent a fact-finding team to investigate new allegations of sexual exploitation from peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. These new allegations follow 63 allegations of misconduct (confirmed by the UN) since the operation began last year.

Having said that, we have to give credit where it's due. The UN can be seen to learn from it's mistakes, for example following the 1992 report An Agenda for Peace the UN has acknowledged that peacekeeping is not enough on it's own- rather peace-building is required in order to prevent a relapse of conflict.

Bibliography/Further Reading

• Can The UN Keep The Peace? (documentary) 
• UN Peacekeeping Mission in CAR Probes Sexual Assault Allegations 
• Rwanda Genocide: UN Ashamed, says Ban Ki-moon

To what extent did the war on terror affect US hegemony?

Another post on America, Amercianisation is affecting the blogs now... So to start with we have to define what a hegemony is exactly. Most of us would agree that there is a range of great powers currently operating in the international system, from the UK to Russia, China, etc.  Yet a hegemon implies more than simply possessing great military and economic power- in fact it is possible to be a hegemon without being the leading state in these two areas. Hegemony implies domination of a system. It was first used by the neo-marxist Gramsci to describe the bourgeoisie ideological dominance over the subordinate classes, but in terms of international politics it refers to a leading state that possesses structural power within a collection of states, allowing it to shape the actions of said states. 

The end of the Cold War saw the decline of the Soviet Union and, therefore, the end to bi-polarity- which was replaced by a unipolar system. i.e. America was able to take advantage and assert it's position as a global hegemon. However, following the 9/11 attacks and the 'war on terror' that followed arguments that the US is declining as a hegemon began to surface. I don't know what Bush thought would happen when he attempted to wage war on an abstract noun but there you go. 

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq did see early success, e.g. the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's Ba'athist regime- however the US soon found itself fighting asymmetrical wars. The change in the nature of warfare to guerrilla warfare exposed the limits of the US military power in that it wasn't prepared to fight the tactics of terrorism and suicide bombing. Additionally, the 'war on terror' exposed a range of tactical and strategic flaws rooted in the US approach, for example failing to deploy a sufficient number of troops in Iraq. 

Perhaps the biggest blow the 'war on terror' inflicted on US hegemony is to it's 'soft power'. In a world where military power is becoming increasingly redundant due to unwinnable wars 'soft power', i.e diplomacy and influence, is fast becoming an important requirement for a global hegemon.

America's moral authority has certainly been damaged since the problematic reasoning behind invading Iraq has come to light. This damage was then further reinforced by the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detention camp. In turn US diplomatic influence has been weakened, the pressure it is able to exert on countries is limited for example countries such as China and Russia seem immune to US diplomacy- you only have to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria. 

Some economists such Joseph E. Stiglitz would argue that the failings of the Iraq war highlight the fact that the US can't solve any problem, even with all its economic power. Furthermore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under the 'war on terror' showed how the US's military power has become in many ways redundant. While the US can certainly achieve destruction, it doesn't always achieve its political gains. It was the difficulties in fighting these wars that forced the Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral approach to the 'war of terror'. 

If America continues this path of multilateralism and 'smart-power' (Joseph Nye) as opposed to 'hard power' then perhaps it will maintain its position on the international stage. Following Bush, President Obama has certainly adopted a more cooperative tone, for example acknowledging in 2009 that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another". Personally I would argue this shift in approach is merely style rather than substance, after all Obama has recently put troops on the ground in Syria, breaking his earlier promise. 

As it stands currently, the US still has extensive power over elements of the international system- e.g. it's leading role in economic institutions like the IMF and intergovernmental organisations like the UN. Therefore, whilst the 'war on terror' has undoubtedly negatively affected US hegemony it still remains just that- a hegemon.