Archive for Free Content

Using Economic and Military Tools in Conflict Prevention

February 15, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. 2010. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins. FREE CONTENT

There’s a number of economic tools that may be effective in preventing conflict. Most seem to fall under good governance. The first one that comes to my mind is export diversity. If you depend on one item for 44% of your exports and that one item is a commodity as it is with Sierra Leone’s diamonds, your economy is extremely vulnerable to global price fluctuations in that commodity. A downward dip in prices can have a devastating effect when all your eggs are in one basket. If people have to be laid off or you have to cut their wages, then social dissent can escalate as a result.

The second item that comes to mind is avoiding growth without development. If a nation choose to ignore its infrastructure and social services at the expense of corruption and out-of-control government spending, or spending on things that do not have a long-term impact like million dollar conferences, then that nation will suffer the consequences in decreased foreign direct investment and increased social dissent.

The third economic tool I can think of is well-developed economic and market institutions that are capable of opening up the economy to increased trade.  Peter Sutherland adds that increased trade may “challenge domestic corruption, encourage competition, release entrepreneurialism, ensure affordable services, “provide cover for reformers”, increase foreign investment (examples: Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, China), and increase personal civil rights and freedoms by virtue of access to greater levels of information via the internet, cell phones, etc.” (2008).

The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces. Read more

Are Confidence Building Measures Effective in the Middle East?

February 15, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. 2010. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins. FREE CONTENT

Diehl lays out five dimensions of peace building which are applicable to the situation in the sense that CBM’s can be a significant component of peace building activities.  Diehl’s dimensions are (1) the goal; (2) the strategy and activities; (3) the timing; (4) the context; and (5) the actors who will bring it about (8-11).

Applying Diehl’s “broader context” we could also say that conflict resolution – the elimination of the “willingness of parties to use violence” (9) – is a fundamental goal to achieving a lasting, sustainable peace. The StimsonCenter specifies communication, constraint, transparency and verification measures as primary CBM tools that could conceivably be used within these five dimensons of peacebuilding (2010). Which ones would be feasible or effective? It depends on the peace building dimensions.

The context, goal and actors primarily drive the strategy. The timing is important but secondary given the length of this particular conflict. The context of Israel/Palestine situation differs significantly from the US/Russia Cold War example, while being more similar to the India/Pakistan example in some respects.

The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces. Read more

Zero Problems – Turkey – FREE PREVIEW

February 14, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

Zero Problems – Enhancing Security and Preventing Conflict in Turkey’s Evolving Partnerships with the European Union, United States, Middle East, Russia and Eurasia

{5,673 Words. 20 Pages. 61 References} 

FREE PREVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS (TOC)

I.     Section One – Europe and the Balkans

A.    European Union (EU) Accession

B.     Cooperation with NATO

C.     Cyprus and Greece Conflict

II.     Section Two – The Middle East            

A.    Israel

B.     Iran

C.     Syria

D.    Iraq

E.     Foreign Policy Perspective

III.   Section Three – Eurasia and the Caucasus

A.    Russia

B.     Armenia and Azerbaijan

IV.    Turkish Cooperation with the United States

V.      Turkey’s Domestic Issues

A.    The Kurdish Problem

B.     Political Trends, Islam and Social Transformation

C.     Comparisons with China

VI.    Conclusions: Conflict Prevention Through Strategic Counterbalancing

The views and opinions expressed in this paper are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Section One – Europe and the Balkans (*not the complete section*)

European Union (EU) Accession. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, says that EU Accession is on an “irreversible course” that will produce enhanced peace, stability, indivisibility of security, economic interdependence, cultural harmony and convergent interests in a region that includes the Balkans, the Caucasus, Europe and the Middle East (Davutoğlu:EU 12-17). The interests of the EU and Turkey do not, however, always converge harmoniously, and accession progress has slowed considerably since Brussels opened membership talks in 2005 with major regional security implications (Alessandri 28-29). Read more

PREVIEW – Civil War and Crisis in Côte d’Ivoire – An Analysis of the Steps Taken By the International Community To Prevent, Manage and Resolve the Conflict

February 13, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Oct 2010. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.

Essay consists of 11 pages, double-spaced + 26 references (3,293 words)

Table of Contents (TOC)

I.                 Introduction

A.    Summary of the Sources and Causes of the Conflict

B.    Background

II.              Actions of the Main Actors

A.     France                                               

B.     Burkina Faso

C.     The United Nations (UN)

III.           United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI)

IV.            UN Security Council (UNSC)

A.     ECOWAS and the African Union (AU)

B.     FN Zone Commanders

C.     Independent Electoral Commission (CEI)

D.     President Laurent Gbagbo and his party, the Front Populaire Ivoirian (FPI)

E.     Prime Minister Guillaume Soro and the Forces Nouvelles (FN)

F.     The World Bank (WB)

V.              The Ouagadougou Political Accord (OPA)

A.     Genesis of the OPA

B.     Key Components

PREVIEW

Actions of the Main Actors

France.  After a failed military coup on September 19, 2002, France quickly moved 700 troops into Côte d’Ivoire under a 1961 pact obligating it to defend its former colony from any external invasion (Kohler 31). But France also had 16,000 citizens and 210 subsidiaries of French companies (Kohler 31), in addition to $3.5 billion Euros in direct investment in industries like oil, gas, banking, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications to protect (Busch 52). Read more

Challenges to Keeping the Peace in International Law

February 10, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Intl Law No comments

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. August 2010. All rights reserved. By Jeff DwigginsInternational-Law flags

Introduction – FREE CONTENT

The need for a “fundamental institutional arrangement not only to address questions of war and peace and human rights but to develop legal norms in other areas, such as labor, health, and communications,” has enticed the vast majority of states to consent at some level to a growing and complex body of rules and norms designed to serve state interests by securing and furthering a peaceful, prosperous and stable society (Dunoff et. al. 16). Today these norms permeate the mission and operations of numerous international institutions like the United Nations, providing peaceful dispute resolution tools in such diverse areas as trade, military operations and human rights.

While most states desire to live in peace with one another and follow the fundamental norms of international law, a few states and some increasingly dangerous non-state actors like Al- Qaeda prefer to do whatever they want. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, U.S. President Barack Obama added, “[the] old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats … wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos” (Obama 51).

This paper will examine what it means to “keep the peace” in an era of the globalization of world politics and unprecedented challenges and threats. The specific challenges to be addressed include nuclear proliferation, military conflict and terrorism, international trade and economic relations, diminishing natural resources, and humanitarian and human dignity issues. The paper will also examine whether existing international institutions and legal doctrines are likely to resolve the issue, and where are they likely to fall short?

The posts, views and opinions expressed in this post are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Section One – Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear weapons are able to do far more than disable enemy combatants. They can destroy entire cities and obliterate entire human populations with one powerful blast.  The international community has developed two important treaties, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to limit proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), encourage disarmament, and preserve peaceful usage of nuclear energy (Dunoff et. al. 532-533).  Although these treaties have substantial ratifications, their effectiveness is severely limited by holdouts and compliance issues.   Read more

Is International Relations a Science?

February 10, 2013 Christian Perspective, Free Content, International Relations, IR Theories One comment

(C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy. 2010. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins, author

Is international relations (IR) a science? Well, I guess it depends on what science we’re talking about – physical, biological, social, economic, political?  When I hear the term “science” I still tend to think of what I’m most familiar with, and that is the scientific method used by the natural sciences. Russett and Starr attempt to modify the social science of IR to follow the scientific method using some general general steps  (2004). I would tweak those steps as follows along the natural science format: pose the question, observe, research and analyze, form hypothesis, experiment, gather more data, analyze results, interpret results, form conclusion, retest (“Steps of the Scientific Method”, n.d.).

Can we apply this same scientific method to international relations? Yes, but obtaining the level of accuracy in international relations typically required in biology or physics is not really possible. Human behavior is not as predictable as universal laws and the uniformity of nature. The current rend in IR is to try and make it as predictable as possible by crunching numbers and trying to explain every outcome through quantitative analysis. But state and non-state actors do not always act rationally, nor do they always operate with perfect information and single-minded purpose. “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).

Russett and Starr talk about science being about “comparison, contingency and probability” (p.19) in order to “define, label and classify” (p. 19). They point out that the analysis should be done in a systematic way in order to make theoretical “generalizations” (p. 20). They do admit the role that assumptions (p. 22), values (p. 26) and uncertainty (p. 19) can play in the overall scientific process as it relates to international relations. That’s good. Here’s a few reasons why.

The facts do not always speak for themselves. In tackling the controversy and diverse theories over the assassination of JFK, the late Christian theologian Greg Bahnsen brilliantly points out that, “What a person will take to be a “fact” and how that fact is interpreted and related to other beliefs is not determined alone by the perceptions or observations (or observation-reports) which a person has. His thinking will be guided by various assumptions or controlling presuppositions” (1992).

What one takes to be factual, as well as the interpretation of accepted facts, will be governed by his underlying philosophy of fact – that is by his “pervasive, basic, value-oriented, possibility determining, probability-rating, sometimes religiously motivated presuppositions” (Bahnsen).

The science of international relations is viewed through the value-oriented assumptions of the person doing the analysis. That frame of reference or lens may be realist, liberal, Marxist, constructionist or some combination thereof. It doesn’t mean the conclusions aren’t scientific to some extent, but we do have to be realistic about their precision and highly scrutinize the underlying values and assumptions that went into the observation and research of pertinent facts in the first place.

If our standard is that international relations (IR) must be able to be categorized, defined, labeled and classified, and that the scientific method may be usefully applied to it, then I would agree that it may share some qualities with the scientific method, though not on the same level as the natural sciences.  Thus, IR is not an exact science despite the claims of many social scientists and academics who try to convince us otherwise.

 

International Law’s Expansion into Individual Affairs: A Tug of War over Tradition, Jurisdiction and Universal Human Rights

February 10, 2013 Free Content, International Relations, Intl Law No comments

Introduction – (C) Kapok Tree Diplomacy, July 2010, All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins, author.

FREE CONTENTFort Derussy Park, Honolulu

As international law extends beyond traditional state-to-state interactions into matters directly involving the rights and wrongs of individuals, its pervasive encroachment directly collides with domestic law on important issues of supremacy, customary norms, jurisdiction, human rights and sovereign immunity. Courts often struggle to navigate the chasm between the two realms of international and domestic law and produce cogent, universally accepted decisions that fall within uncontested limitations and clear jurisdictions.

This paper will explore the challenges, benefits and trade-offs of a non-traditional application of international law in cases involving individuals where the dynamics of tradition, jurisdiction and human rights interact in overlapping spheres of domestic and international law, producing a compelling tug of war between competing interests.  I’ll begin by examining the issue of international and universal human rights.

The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of the Navy (DON) or any of the Armed Forces.

Section One – International Human Rights v. The Interests of States

The Preamble of the United Nations (UN) Charter calls upon member states to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,” while Articles 55 encourages member states to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (“Preamble” and “Chapter IX”). A thorough reading of the Charter, however, doesn’t uncover any definition or mandate for human rights which has complicated a universal embrace of uniform standards for human rights. Read more

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
%d bloggers like this: