War with Iran

 

In the recent weeks there have been many developments regarding Iran and its supposed researching of nuclear weapons. Many do not know how the situation will play out, considering both Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met, with the Iranian subject at the top of the agenda. The Israelis would like the world to believe that the Iranians are the top threat in the world. This comes back to our discussion on the misperceptions that can come from weapons creations. In our example we said that if Britain was to gain 20 nuclear weapons Canada or the USA would think nothing of it, yet if a country such as Iran was to gain one, the free world is in danger. This is also the situation with Israel, they have their own nuclear weapons but we are all worried about the supposed development of one. As of now, most of the international community is happy with placing restrictions on Iran rather than supporting an Israeli Iran war. It seems that Netanyahu has a different idea, and after his visit to the white house has increased his rhetoric in Israel in saying that they are ready to strike without their allies, the Americans. I have re-blogged an article dealing explicitly with this business. It is depressing to think that the world will be forced into another conflict in the middle east. I believe the nuclear threat is greatly exaggerated, especially by the Israelis and the Republican candidates using it as a platform for their campaigns. Iran is a country that I believe realizes it does not, nor will not, have the capabilities to compete with the other big countries in the world and will not risk a war that could see it wiped from the map. Even if they were to gain a nuclear weapon, deterrence has worked since 1945 and I believe it will continue to work and, therefore, rather than straining the world economy we should allow the oil to flow freely out of Iran, while keeping a close eye on factors within the country.

Here is a video showing that matters could escalate if a strike were to happen.

The International Criminal Court

On March 14th the International Criminal Court will hand down its first verdict since being created in 2002. The case that it will be deciding is in relation to the Congolese militia leader, Thomas Lubanga. Over the last 10 years the court has heard roughly 15 cases from 7 situations around the world. This case, however, is unique in that it deals with the recruitment and using of child soldiers in a civil conflict. If found guilty this case will add many precedents that could be used in further litigation in the future. The ICC is an institution that has created much debate. There are many arguments one can make against it and its processes. What makes the ICC limited can be found in a contemporary situation:

The ICC, which began its work in 2002, was established as a court of last resort to prosecute the most senior perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes in nations unwilling or unable to put them on trial. It can only investigate in countries that have recognized the court or in cases sent to it by the U.N. Security Council.

For instance, there has been no investigation launched in Syria, where thousands of people have been killed in the government’s monthslong military campaign to stamp out a rebellion by opponents of President Bashar Assad’s regime, because Damascus does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction and the Security Council has not referred the case to the court.

Therefore, if a country is not willing to recognize the jurisdiction, or in the case of Syria, the Security Council uses one of its vetoes, no help can be made. This can be used by critics of both the UN and the ICC to damage the good that both institutions are capable of if states were able to work together. This brings another argument to the forefront, should the Security Council be expanded? and if so, in what way? I believe that what the ICC represents is a step in the right direction, one that shows the way in which international politics should go. In a world, which is now connected in a way that has never been experienced before, the developed world must take responsibility for keeping order in parts which have regressed into civil wars. This does not mean intervention on a military scale, rather helping to restore order, and building institutions that will help in the long term. The ICC sends a message that it will hold leaders who abuse their power accountable for their actions. The process is long, but as more countries recognize its authority I believe it will have an increased role in international politics.

Here is the article relating to Thomas Lubanga.

For more information on the ICC and its current cases, here is a link to its homepage.

The New Individual?

 

2011 was seen as  the year of the protestor, starting in Tunisia and Egypt eventually migrating to North America as well even for a brief time in Vancouver itself. These were different from protests in the past, especially those in North Africa, they risked all for a change and a chance for freedom. To me what these revolutions showed was that the mass public has a more powerful role in a world with social media. With the ability to communicate through mediums such as facebook and twitter allowed mass synchronization and the ability to pass encouraging messages from the outside world. These countries had been under tyranny for decades and finally lifted the yoke from their shoulders in one giant swing. This movement is still in question as Syrians battle to gain the freedom that so many have gained this year. So while most who focus on the individual tend to examine leaders such as Hitler, Che Guevera and other large personalities or the elites who mainly influence the direction of governments, I believe it is a new age in the world of international politics one which the mass public will have a much greater influence on the direction that countries take.

 

Here is a clip of the NATO review of the Arab Spring and its connection to social media.

The Russian Veto.

 

In the past weeks the violence in Syria has escalated, while the country is closed off to the outside world images still leak out showing the toll the citizens have taken in trying to free their country from the dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad. The UN security council recently drafted a resolution, like the one drafted for Libya earlier in the year, to have a change of regime in Syria. When this resolution was put to vote Russia used its veto to strike the resolution. Why would Russia do this? It can be clearly identified as the rational model of decision making depicted in Chapter 5 of Mingst and Arreguin-Toft.

This scenario is clearly a top down approach taken by the state and many reasons behind the outcome. The first reasoning that Russia uses is:

“who or what might replace Assad? The options look to vary wildly between supposedly moderate Islamists who may pretend to like the West, and much less moderate Islamists who won’t like anybody. Either option looks unattractive. Why do anything to make such odious changes more likely? Who knows? Perhaps by hanging in there toughly the Assad leadership will manage to cling on in some shape or form for quite some time to come.”

This particular quote was taken from the telegraph written by Charles Crawford.

Another of Russia’s reasons for backing Syria is that it is afraid of losing it “last Arab ally and seeking to reassert its global clout.” Russia for a long time has backed the regime of both Bashar and his father. They as this question to the UN now:”

“Where were you in 1983 when the Syrian regime committed the astounding Hama massacre, killing and torturing up to 30,000 people to smash local Islamist sentiment?”

Boris Dolgov of the Centre of Arab Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences says, “Russia and Syria have historic ties going back to the Tsars and the Soviet Union.”

It seems Russia will not abandon its ally in the middle east and will not allow it to become another domino in the revolutions occurring elsewhere in the region. However, it is more complicated than these Russian statements make it out to be. This veto is more directed towards the type of trade that the Russians are invlolved in with Syria.

“The extent of Russia’s continued support for Assad was shown in January when a Saint Vincent-flagged cargo ship, the Chariot, docked in Syria after a brief stopover in Cyprus, reportedly carrying a supply of Russian arms.While never officially confirming this delivery, Russia has openly stated it has every right to ship arms to the Syrian regime in contracts that provide a crucial income source for its weapons industry.The general director of the Russia’s Tactical Missiles Cooperation (TRV) Boris Obnosov told the RIA Novosti news agency on Tuesday that Moscow had delivered two years ago to Syria an order for Kh-31 air-to-surface weapons.He revealed that TRV’s losses from broken contracts due to the change of regime in Libya in 2011 amounted to 600 million euros ($790 million).”

This excerpt was taken from Khaleej Times Online found here.

Russia has analyzed the situation and has decided that the pros of vetoing these UN vastly outweigh the cons. While it may seem other groups have a say to the Russian government, but it is my belief that it is the government alone making this decision, therefore, using the rational model.

For an inside view of the violence taking place in Syria, here is a video.

 

Reading Question.

For this weeks assignment I have chosen to answer a question from the Ikenberry, Mastanduno and Wohlforth reading, entitled: Unipolarity, State Behaviour, and Systematic Consequences. The reading itself deals with the idea of a unipolar state, and the way it interacts with the world around it. The specific question I am going to answer is; In what way is unipolarity distinct from empire and hegemony?

The authors believe that empire and hegemony is merely “political relationships and degrees of influence.” To help answer the question the authors define a pole as,

      ” A state (1) commands an especially large share of the resources or capabilities states can use to achieve their ends and that (2) excels in all the component elements of state capability, conventionally defined as size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capacity, military might, and organizational-institutional ‘competence.’”

They then go on to explain that the US has fulfilled all of these requirements and, therefore, has become a unipolar state, a title that is unprecedented in the world beforehand. With America’s large armed forces and defence budget they are unmatched in the world, and although their economy has sputtered they are still believed to be the only state that can claim unipolarity and not merely an empire or hegemony over a certain part of the globe.

I have found an article that argues the time of US unipolarity has come to the end, with Europe, China and India growing at the rate they are. The author Daryl Copeland believes that we have entered into an heteropolar world, one which is even more difficult to analyze.

You can find the link here.