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 To make matters worse most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.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. 

Is America the most powerful nation in the state system?

If you asked your average American today if the US was still the supreme power they'd probably be offended you would even consider the possibility it wasn't. I mean this guy clearly thinks America is the greatest country on earth,

(And yes, those are real tattoos)

but is that still the case today?  Is America still the dominant hyperpower operating in a unipolar world, or have we moved towards a more multipolar system?

To begin with, the end of the Cold War certainly enabled America rise as the global hegemon; a hyperpower that dominated world affairs in a unipolar world. For example it boosted economic globalisation as opportunities arose for western/US capitalist enterprises. The IMF were also able to encourage post-communist countries to transition to a more laissez faire system, and the US system of liberal-democratic governance was adopted by many of these countries. 

Perhaps the strongest argument for the US as a hyperpower is it's military dominance on the international stage. In 2011 the US accounted for nearly half the world's military spending- 42%! That's five times as much as the second biggest military spender- China. The US is unchallenged in it's lead of high tech weaponry and air power and has around 700 military bases in over 100 countries. Many see the US as the sole power that can sustain multiple operations and intervene in any part of the world. However, is military power still a secure basis for global hegemony? While America can certainly inflict military destruction it doesn't always achieve it's political aims. There are countless examples of this such as the forced withdrawal of America from Lebanon in 1984 and Somalia in 1993, and of course the difficulty in fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight how terrorist/guerrilla tactics can stop a supposedly advanced power like America. 

In terms of the world economy the US accounts for around 32% of the world's spending on research and development meaning it has an unrivaled technological lead on the international stage and has high productivity levels. Yet, while it is still the world's largest economy it's rivals -most notably China and India- have been growing much more quickly than the US in recent decades. In fact, the Chinese economy is predicted to outstrip the US by perhaps as early as 2020.

 Furthermore, the global financial crisis (2007-2009) can be seen to have weakened the US by exposing the flaws the US economic model and leading people to question the dollar as the world's leading currency. However, many point out that China is still a long way off from overtaking the US in the economic sectors, regardless of the fact that China along with India have set up their own lending and developing institutions. If the British Empire could remain a global hegemon till the mid 20th century- even after it was surpassed by the US and Germany- surely America could still remain the dominant hyperpower even if it lacks the largest economy? 

America's increasing population is also a vital factor in it's role as a supreme power, expecting to reach 439 million by 2050 with an influx of Hispanics and Asians helping to underpin it's economic performance. Additionally, while you might think of America as the stereotypical redneck country, a lot of the population are highly educated and skilled in areas like science and technology. Up to 7 universities feature in the world's top 10 while an Asian university has yet to enter the top 20. 

When weighing up America's position in global politics we must be specific on the type of power America has and how influential it is. For example, for the most part America's 'hard' power doesn't appear to be rapidly in decline. However, in terms of it's 'soft' power, America's reputation has been damaged by it's association with corporatism and the ever widening global inequality. Also, America is often blamed for causing resentment through a clash of civilizations (i.e Americanisation triggering conflict between the West and Islam). Furthermore, the moral authority of the US has come under pressure due to the 'war on terror' particularly the Iraq war and the treatment of those imprisoned at Gantanamo and Abu Gharib. 

In terms of structural power, many see the US as unrivaled. The US undoubtedly exerts disprotionate influence over areas of economic governance (e.g. it's managed to maintain it's veto in the IMF despite protest from Europe) and of course it has huge influence over NATO. While the influence of developing countries is on the rise and economies continue to emerge, no one country is close to taking over the US's role in global decision making. While the global financial crisis may have highlighted faults within the US economic model, it also showed how the US played the key role in the global response to the crisis. 

However, in a world in which (I would personally argue) diplomacy seems to be of increasing significance as opposed to military power, the US is very much in decline.  The pressure it is able to exert on countries is limited for example it relies on Chinese diplomacy to exert influence over North Korea; EU diplomacy is used to influence Iran and it's capacity to influence Israel is also limited (e.g. Obama pretty much giving up on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)
 countries such as China and Russia seem immune to US diplomacy- the US has had no influence over the Tibetan problem and one only has to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria to see the US's limited influence over Russia. There are fears that there could be an accidental clash between the US and Russia as they carry out separate bombing campaigns. Furthermore, the increasing significance of the G-20 heralds a shift in global politics in that it represents a new institutional world order that better reflects economic realities thereby enjoying greater global legitimacy than the IMF and World Bank have in concentrating global decision making in the hands of a few states, mainly America. 

♫ Oh say can you see, By the dawn's early light, America is beginning, To take over the world ♫

Ok so perhaps World Domination is a bit far fetched but there is an element of truth in it. While we may see globalization as sparking worldwide growth and prosperity, distributing power across the globe, spreading democracy (and therefore according to the democratic peace thesis: spreading peace), critics of globalization argue there is a distinct American homogenization in terms of global politics, economics, and culture. Having said that, there are also those who argue that the USA as a global hegemon is in decline. 

Firstly, what exactly is globalization? Globalization is the political, economic, and cultural process of increased interconnectedness. Our lives are increasingly shaped by events that happen outside our nation state and the territorial borders between said states are becoming less significant. That being said, has the state that takes the leading role in shaping the structure of globalization exerted it's own socio-economic ideology over the system, and in doing so, the rest of the world? 

In terms of culture it seems as though the world is being 'flattered out'. By eating the same food, watching the same TV shows, cultural diversity is being eroded and replaced by the rise of supraterritoriality. If we view cultural globalization as a top-down process it is in many ways a form of imperialism as stronger states can exert dominance over weaker states. Many of us would see the USA as the current dominant hegemon which is supported by the rise of consumer capitalism across the globe. Brands such as coca cola have come to dominate the global economic market, show casing the spread of materialist values which have a distinct American character. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the brands (such as Mcdonalds with restaurants in 119 countries) that are dominating the global market and culture originate in America highlight the fact that the advancing system of consumer capitalism is a particular US model of capitalism. Having said that, other forms of culture
have certainly become globalized, for example Japanese popular culture (anime, music, etc.) is increasingly popular in western countries like the US and UK. 

However, the implications of America's association with corporate power and the global inequality that resulted from the current capitalist system have damaged it's 'soft' power on the international stage. It's reputation as a political hegemon and it's moral authority has certainly been damaged since the Iraq War and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detention camp. Furthermore, it's 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- one only has to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria. There are fears that there could be an accidental clash between the US and Russia as they carry out separate bombing campaigns, although Russia has recently agreed to resume talks on air safety with the US.  

The strongest argument for globalization to be merely Americanisation is perhaps America's  control over institutions of global economic governance. No country has as much influence as America over global economic decision making, despite the rise of developing economies. For example, in the IMF only one country has the power to veto, which, of course, is America thereby giving it enormous influence over shaping polices. Many would argue that economic institutes (e.g. the IMF, World Bank, etc.) have outpaced the importance of political institutes (such as the UN) meaning that if the US is unrivaled in it's position over global economics then surely globalization is merely Americanization in disguise? Having said that, the US has seen relative economic decline. While it remains the largest economy, countries such as China and India have been growing more quickly- China is predicted to over take the US economy within a decade. Furthermore, globalization has also seen China and India set up their own lending and developing institutions thereby challenging the concept of Americanization.

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 it's economic power. Furthermore, the US's military power has become in many ways redundant. While the US can certainly achieve destruction, it doesn't always achieve it's political gains, e.g. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was these difficulties that forced the Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral approach to the 'war of terror'. 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". Having said that, I would personally argue this shift in approach is merely style rather than substance. All in all though, the US has recognized the limit of it's hard power and realized there's going to have to be more multilateralism and cooperation in order to solve the problems that globalization brings. Therefore if America cannot solve global issues on it's own, despite having access to resources that it does, then perhaps it was never a global hegemon to begin with and 'Americanization' is merely a myth? 


Bibliography/Further reading

• BBC Radio 4 'Globalization'
• Is Globalization Americanization?
• Americanization or Globalization?
• China's GDP is expected to surpass the US' in 11 years

Are liberal and realist views of international politics still applicable?

Liberalism and realism- the two theories that shape our perception of global politics. I like to think of them as two arch enemies who discover a long the way they actually have a few things in common. But this isn't about superheroes vs. villains unfortunately, this is about international theory which I'm sure is just as exciting...

So what is realism? Realism begins with human nature. Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes believe we are inherently self seeking and egotistic. They believe that instinct always prevails over intellect and therefore conflict is inevitable. This in turn influences how a state acts, realists like Niccolo Machiavelli argue that political life is characterized by strife because humans are, by nature, violent and insatiable. 

(Disclaimer: I may or may not be paraphrasing Hobbes and Machiavelli here)

This logic also implies that global governance cannot work, no one group is strong enough to establish dominance over the international system. Therefore, realists argue international politics operates in a state of nature, meaning the international area is an area of anarchy. 
What are the implications of anarchy? Well, neo-realists argue that conflict (note: not necessarily war) is inevitable for three main reasons. Firstly, states are only concerned with maintaining their position relative to other states. While states may benefit from a particular action, those states are primarily concerned with whether another state has benefited more so. Secondly, because states are separate and autonomous they must rely on their own resources (i.e self help), they cannot rely on other states to help them. Lastly, there is always suspicious between states, we only have to look to the security dilemma to see that self-help means the build up of arms for defense, however this runs the risk of being interpreted as aggressive by other states. 

Realists therefore argue that conflict can only be contained by a balance of power. Neo-realists associate bipolar systems with stability and multi-polar systems with instability, for example they view the Cold War as the "long peace". The problem with applying this concept to our modern day system is that it is, for the most part, a multi-polar system. There are a number of great powers today such as Britain, China, America etc. that have yet to see any extreme conflict occur between one another. 

(George Bush + the security dilemma)

Then there's liberalism. Liberalism stems from idealism and focuses on harmony in that while groups/individuals may pursue self interest there will always be a natural equilibrium. Liberalists have a more optimistic view of human nature, while they agree people are naturally self-seeking they also suggest there is a harmony of shared interests meaning conflict can be resolved. For example, in 2012 several Asian countries pledged to contribute a significant proportion of the $456 billion offered to the IMF to combate the financial crisis, showing it's commitment to international cooperation.

Liberals look to intergovernmental organisations like the EU and UN for global governance based on collective security and respect for international law. While the UN and EU have certainly grown over the years, is this applicable today? What does Vladimir Putin think of international law? That isn't a rhetorical question I honestly don't know -someone ask him-  but if Russia's actions in Crimea are anything to go by I'm going to guess he isn't too bothered by it. 

Neo-liberalists also believe in complex interdependence, where states are affected by what happens elsewhere e.g. climate change which is classed as low politics. Realism on the other hand places far more importance on high politics, like defense. Liberalism in this case can be applicable as low politics is a fundamental concern for states, just as much as high politics. For example in June this year the G7 leading industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century.

Liberalists would argue than international institutions such as the EU would be capable of encouraging cooperation between states and therefore move away from power politics (the fundamental principle of realism). So, naturally, the migrant/refugee crisis should be an excellent example of modern liberalism in action, right? We should see states coming together and cooperating, and yet so far the crisis has only served to further divide the EU. For example, while liberalists may see the EU's resettlement scheme (approved on Tuesday by a majority vote) as an act of successful global governance (the 'rule of law') 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? 

Realists believe that states that have relatively more power have fewer restraints than states with less power. This can be seen to influence the international system today and be applied to the recent migrant/refugee crisis. Jordan, a country significantly less powerful than some EU member states, have taken over 600,000 refugees/migrants compared to, say, the UK which has a GDP 78 times that of Jordan but has stated it will only take 20,000 over the next 5 years. This is clearly an example of power politics and therefore surely realism is more applicable than it's counter theory in the migrant crisis. 

Furthermore, the Dublin Regulation, an established EU law, requires a refugee to stay in the state they arrived in first. This means border states were put under immense pressure. This includes countries such as Greece which, as we all know, isn't doing too good right now economically. These border states are left to struggle with the influx of refugees while there are states who outright refuse to accept refugees/migrants. For example, Arab States of the Persian Gulf haven't accepted any refugees despite international actors like Amnesty International calling it "shameful"- and if NGO's are being ignored by states then that reinforces the concept of state-centrism. 

However, liberalism argues cooperation is a gradual process that takes time, and certainly we have seen gradual improvement and more cooperation since the image of the drown Syrian child sparked international outcry from civilians. At the EU summit on Wednesday (the 23rd) Donald Tusk (European Council President) called for "a concrete plan" on how to stabilize the border crisis "in place of the arguments and chaos we have witnessed in the past weeks."

And yet, it is quite clear we are still not doing enough, we are not acting fast enough and we are by no means cooperating enough. It will take years to make a significant change in the crisis and we're highly likely to see more divisions in Europe and the western world on the way. Therefore I would argue that the theory of realism is very much applicable to the recent refugee crisis. 

_______________________________________________

Bibliography/Further reading

• Migrant Crisis: EU splits exposed as talks take place
• The World Tonight BBC Radio 4
• The European and Refugee Crisis Explained 
• Why is EU struggling with migrants and asylum?

#piggate

This relates to international politics because... live animals are a partof trade in the European Union and, according to the Dell Theory, trade and shared investment across member states is essential in conflict prevention...? But what if no one in Europe wants to trade with Britain anymore because of the #piggate scandal. David Cameron could have caused WW3 for all we know. 

Palestine and State Sovereignty

(At least you tried Obama.)

Trying to research the Palestinian Problem without using bias sources was like getting blood from a stone. It seems like everyone has an opinion on who are the Good Guys™ and Bad Guys™ but the real question is: what does this mean in terms of state sovereignty?

Like most problems in the Middle East and Arab, the origins of the Palestinian problem can be traced back to Western Colonialism.  After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire mandates (i.e. trusteeships) were established by the UK and France over areas including Palestine, and although these mandates were dropped in the 1930s/40s western influence remained strong. The declaration in 1948 of the the State of Israel was seen by the Arab states as an expansion of colonialism from the West- actually very few of the yishuv themselves supported the idea of binationalism. The Arab-Israeli wars that followed lead to many Palestinians becoming refugees in neighbouring Arab states and only served to worsen the anger and humiliation expressed by the Arab world. The opinion of many is that an independent Israel came at the cost of dismantling the Palestinian community. 

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a question of external sovereignty, Palestine seeks to establish a sovereign state in territory which is claimed by Israel, which Israel perceives as a threat to it's sovereignty. In 1964 the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization did strengthen the concept of Palestine as a nation, but it was the Palestinian Authority that gave Palestinians a defined territory and effective government- two of the four qualities that a state needs to be classified as a state as defined by the Montevideo Convention. Having said that, it still lacked de jure (lawful/right) sovereignty. 

The UN plays a significant role in legitimating the status of a state. The UN Security Council did not endorse Palestine's transition into a non-member observer state which means it isn't a full member of the UN and, consequently, cannot claim statehood. Although, in 2013, 132 members of the UN recognized the Palestine as a state. 

As for resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it must be noted that limited progress in finding a solution is partly because both sides favour military solutions over political ones. Having said that, those who argue the case of Palestine being granted statehood tend to favour the two-state solution. They are of the opinion that by continuing to deny Palestine statehood we worsen the hostility towards Israel and, in doing so, worsen relations between the West and Islam. 

Furthermore, there are a range of practical implications when establishing a Palestinian state. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is divided between Hamas (controls the Gaza Strip) and Fatah (governs the West Bank).

(Hamas and Fatah as snakes devouring each other. Snakes are cool.)

Additionally, if a Palestinian state was established according to the 1967 borders this would result in roughly 500,000 Israelis technically living in a different country. Although most Israelis seem to have more concern about the two-state solution, they fear Palestinian hatred for Israel would lead to a sovereign Palestine posing a threat to the survival of Israel.