Archive for International Relations

Reflections on the Israel-Hamas Conflict in Gaza and Stray Voltage on Genocide, Proportionality, Apartheid, Collective Punishment, and the Impact of the (Demise of) the Right of Conquest  

November 7, 2023 Human Rights & Conflict, Intl Law, Prevent/Contain Intl. Conflicts No comments

Disclaimer: The posts, views and opinions expressed on this site are completely my own and do not represent the views or opinions of my employer, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Armed Services, nor any part of the Defense Industrial Base.

It has been a long time since I posted anything to Kapok Tree. But there is just so much going on in the world with the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israel-Hamas conflict, rising antisemitism, flagrant violations of international law, rising national debt, etc.  I thought this might be a good time to lay a couple things on the table that might get us thinking.  I do want to talk about the conflict in Gaza and clarify a couple things on proportionality, apartheid, collective punishment and genocide, as well as do something unique by looking at the right of conquest, but I’m not going to get into an analysis of U.S. policy or what the U.S. should or shouldn’t do.  I will aim to keep my discussion confined to the topic of international law.  Let’s get into it.

The Permanence of Warfare (well, until Jesus comes back) 

What is happening with Israel and Hamas is really nothing new considering biblical truth.  Warfare and violent conflict have always been a sign of spiritual failure. 

James 4:1-3 says: 

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures” (Bible Gateway, NKJV, 1982).  Jesus added, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, NKJV).  This principle of ‘violence begetting violence’ applies even if the cause is just.  There’s no way around it. 

Moreover, there is no justification in international law or the Bible for an indiscriminate use of violence to deal with injustice, no matter how bad the injustice.  Warfare is not a tool to be taken lightly and used for dubious reasons when other methods of conflict resolution might prove successful.  It is important to note that God wants man to live in peace. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:19, NKJV).   Jesus said to, “Love your enemies, and bless those who curse you” (Mt. 5:44, NIV).  It’s good to be a peacemaker. 

Having said all of that, warfare is not going away, at least not anytime soon.  Both the Council on Foreign Relations and Crisis Watch put out Global Conflict Trackers.  The CFR map reveals numerous conflicts ongoing in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention that a genuine threat of genocide exists in the Sudan, Myanmar/Burma, Darfur and Nigeria.  Genocide, though, is one of those words that get tossed around and applied to all sorts of conflicts without much thought to the actual definition, often depriving genocide of its true meaning and impact thereof.   

What is Genocide? 

According to Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the term is defined as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

  • killing members of the group;  
  • causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;  
  • imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group 
  • {and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group 

Based upon that strict definition, I do Not believe that genocide is occurring in Gaza, or in Ukraine, or to Native American Indians in the 1800’s for that matter, where disease claimed 75-90% of the dead.  I should add that motives are an integral part of proving genocidal intent, and that the convention fails to address what percentage of a group must be impacted to qualify as genocide. Genuine examples of genocide include (but are not limited to) the Holocaust and genocides in Armenia (1915-1917), Rwanda (1994), and Cambodia (1975-1979).   In the international laws of armed conflict (LOAC), Intent and Context are everything. 

Read more

Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy

March 13, 2015 Free Content, Global Security, International Relations, IR Theories, U.S. Natl. Security No comments

What are the competing visions for a U.S. grand strategy, their objectives, premises and preferred instruments?

U.S. Grand Strategy

U.S. Grand Strategy

Robert J. Art lays out eight possible grand strategies for consideration: Dominion, Global Collective Security; Regional Collective Security; Cooperative Security; Containment; Isolationism; Offshore Balancing; and, Selective Engagement (2003, 82). These strategies are derived from national interests. I will tackle each strategy one-by-one and describe their objectives, premises and preferred instruments.

Dominion – The objective of dominion is imperial world dominance in that America acquires as much power for itself as it can, primarily through the instruments of military force and capabilities, and attempts to refashion the world in its image (Art 2003, 87-88). Art adds another view, Primacy, which is merely “superior influence” rather than total domination (2003, 90).

Christopher Layne essentially calls dominion and primacy by the term of “Preponderance,” and adds that the strategy seeks a “U.S.-led world order based on preeminent U.S. political, military and economic power, and on American values” (1997, 101). Layne explains that practicing extended deterrence and maximizing economic interdependence deal with threats to that order and will prevent the rise of a rival power (1997, 101). Read more

China’s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic

October 2, 2013 Global Security, International Relations, Intl Law, Intl. Political Economy, Paid Content No comments

“China’s Assertion of Sovereign Authority in the Global Commons and the Escalation of Legal Warfare in the Arctic” by Jeff Dwiggins

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. June 2013. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.   PREVIEW

“After the Northwest Passage is opened up …  the sea route between Europe, Asia, and North America will be shortened by 5,200 to 7,000 nautical miles. Whoever controls the Arctic sea route will control the world economy and a new internationally strategic corridor.”[1]  Li Zhenfu

Topic

Competition among Arctic states is heating up over access to the Arctic’s undiscovered but potentially vast deposits of oil, natural gas and rare earth minerals.[2]  Moreover, the diminishing thickness and range of sea ice that could eventually make the Northern Sea Route significantly more accessible for cheaper and faster transoceanic shipping has also attracted the geopolitical interest of several non-Arctic states, most notably China.[3] The undeveloped resources are located almost exclusively in the legal territorial waters of Arctic states like Russia, Denmark, the United States and Canada.[4] These states have already made credible territorial claims to the United Nations and are prepared to protect their interests militarily if necessary.[5] So how will China assert its rights and interests in the Arctic without getting into a military conflict?

This essay will examine how China will redefine the Clausewitzian battlefield and utilize legal warfare (sometimes called lawfare) as an “offensive weapon” to “seize the political initiative” and shape international public opinion about the Arctic and sovereign territorial claims through non-military means, negotiations, diplomacy and international law to project power and accomplish its core national strategic objectives.[6]   It will examine China’s use of legal warfare as a preferred strategy for addressing critical challenges to China’s assertion of rights and interests in the Arctic, including the competing sovereignty and territorial claims by Arctic states and the risks, costs and uncertainty of harvesting the resources themselves.[7] Read more

Theodore Roosevelt “Citizenship in a Republic” Speech

May 9, 2013 Free Content, International Relations No comments

Roosevelt“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt “Citizenship in a Republic” speech 

The Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security

March 1, 2013 Global Security, Human Rights & Conflict, International Relations, Intl Law, National Security Law, Paid Content, U.S. Natl. Security No comments

“The Domestic Proliferation of Drones and their Challenges to American Democratic Values, Civil Liberties, Local Law Enforcement and National Security” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

Background

In today’s continuous national security state that blurs the lines between war and peace and civilian and military operations, the question becomes whether America must deliberately violate its values to protect its citizens?  John O. Brennan, Assistant to President Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, declared that America’s values and national security “reinforce one another” and rejected the “false choice” between the nation’s security and its traditional values.[1] Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump from the ACLU counter that drones threaten U.S. citizens’ fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.[2]  This paper will assess whether the end justifies the means.

This essay will attempt to navigate the ethical tradeoffs between using domestic drones that can look inside private homes with thermal heat sensors and tap into cell phone and text conversations with all the good that drones can do in helping local law enforcement.[3] With the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing over 300 Certificates of Authorizations (COAs) since 2006 to entities like local law enforcement agencies and the DOD for permission to fly UAVs, the debate over their potential misuse has only just begun.[4]

{Complete essay contains 4,138 words; 14 double-spaced pages; 30 references}

The posts, 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.

Table of Contents

I.    Background

II.   Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drone Capabilities

A.  Military Capabilities and Usage

B.  Domestic Capabilities and Usage

III.  Analysis – Domestic Drones

A.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Law Enforcement

B.  Pros and Cons of Using Domestic Drones for Border Surveillance

C.  American Values: Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns

D.  International Law Concerns

IV.  Analysis – The Coming Drone Armageddon

V.   Conclusions and Recommendations

Works Cited in Introduction

[1] Brennan, John O. “Remarks of John O. Brennan, “Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and   Laws.” Program on Law and Security, Harvard Law School. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/remarks-john-o-brennan-strengthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an (accessed April 29, 2012).

[2] Stanley, Jay and Catherine Crump. Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government use of Drone Aircraft. American Civil Liberties Union, December 2011, 14. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf (accessed April 29, 2012).

[3] Finn, Peter, “Domestic use of Aerial Drones by Law Enforcement Likely to Prompt Privacy Debate,” The Washington Post, January 23, 2011 (accessed April 29, 2012).

[4] Lynch, Jennifer. “FAA Releases Lists of Drone Certificates—Many Questions Left Unanswered.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered (accessed April 29, 2012).

Ecuador and China: BFFs and Champions of the 21st Century Socialist Agenda

February 25, 2013 Christian Perspective, Free Content, Global Security, Intl. Political Economy, IR Theories 4 comments

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Feb 2013. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins.   FREE CONTENT

Ecuador and China: BFFs and Champions of the 21st Century Socialist Agenda

Ecuador ChinaEcuador is a beautiful country with a rich and diverse culture, geography and history. My wife is from Ecuador, and I can’t say enough about the friendliness and generosity of her family and many others that I’ve met from Ecuador.  My hope is to someday visit the country, God willing, and take in all the sights, sounds, smells and experiences that up until now, I have only experienced through the anecdotal, photographic and video evidence.

However, I feel that my timetable and window for visiting the country is rapidly closing. If things continue in their current economic and political direction under President Correa, there may not be any socio-political stability left, not to mention the inevitable deterioration of the economy that always accompanies centrally-managed socialist states. See Cuba and Russia for good examples.  Moreover, I may have to learn Chinese in addition to Spanish to get around the country. So what exactly is going on in Ecuador? Didn’t Rafael Correa make everything better?

President Correa’s Vision

Leftist President Rafael Correa of Ecuador easily won a second term as president of Ecuador on February 16th with 56% of the vote compared to the 23% of his closest competitor, Guillermo Lasso, a banker from Guayaquil.[1]  Now President Correa will be able to continue his radical socialist agenda for another four years in Ecuador, especially if his party strengthens their hold on the Assembly. Not everyone in Ecuador is happy about that.

“There is a lot of apprehension that if he wins the Assembly, there will be a greater concentration of power,” said José Hernández, an editor of Hoy, a Quito daily newspaper. “He will try to flatten everyone who is in his way. He will try to dominate more because that’s his personality, and that’s what he wants to do.”[2] So just who is Rafael Correa? Read more

Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China

February 22, 2013 Global Security, International Relations, Paid Content No comments

“Engaging the Dragon Through Peaceful Deterrence: Japan’s Need to Recalibrate Its Strategy of Accommodation with China” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

© Kapok Tree Diplomacy. Oct 2012. All rights reserved. Jeff Dwiggins. 

PREVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The grand strategies and values of Japan and China will be evaluated from a “Balance of Threat” and “Defensive Realism” theoretical framework.  This essay posits that given China’s rise and Japan’s moment of opportunity to counter, it is important to gauge the feasibility of a values-based concert of democracies within this theoretical framework. Stephen Walt argues that states tend to balance or bandwagon with a rising power depending on their assessment of the perceived threat.[1] Japan’s past, present and future behavior towards China is thus assessed within the parameters of defensive realism which point to Japanese formation of strategic alliances to deal with the anarchy and security dilemma that characterize the international system and create uncertainty of intentions and inadvertent mistrust and conflict.[2] Read more

« Older Entries  
%d bloggers like this: