Week 15, Post-Class

I think my favorite part of this debate was seeing that, in the end, most of our arguments relied on each other. I know there were several times I noticed it in our group’s writing and in our opposing team's arguments. I would read something and think, “you know that could really be turned around to support the opposing argument…” We have spent a lot of time in class talking about the ways America is the biggest threat to America and global cooperation but tonight there was an overwhelming presence of the idea that the downfall of America will be when the world decides they can go on without us.

Whether that means there is a new steward of the international realm such as China, or people no longer can or want to immigrate to the states, or that the world is sick of our war mongering, it seems that one day the US will no longer have the resources or legitimacy to be the hegemonic power. What’s more, in all our arguments we envisioned a transfer of power to another party. Although we didn’t all argue for the same type of power to be transferred – some thought it would be economic power, others security – there was an implication that a weakened America will not lead to the easing of sovereignty and towards a world government but to ad hoc solutions in the areas where the US can no longer lead.

Or maybe this is just an echo of my own opinion. I don’t know that I'm convinced human nature will allow us to put a desire for sovereignty aside and in the need for sovereignty we are persistent in the idea that the sovereignty in others is threatening. Whether out of fear or ambition I think the transfer of power has been and will continue to be the inevitable evolution of the international order. However, the transfer of power may not look the same as it has in the past so we must be ready to adapt. 

Week 15 Post Class

This last class brought many different perspectives into the issue of the downfall of the United States, and aside from the issue of internal polarization (which was OBVIOUSLY the best argument of all...) the greatest threat to US global hegemony arises from China.

The threat posed by China isn't necessarily a military one (although they do flex their muscles on the regional level in the South China Sea), but an economic one. China has been transitioning away from an economy focused on manufacturing towards one based on innovation. Admittedly, the success in this venture has yet to be seen, but growing optimism at the potential of emerging tech scenes in Shenzhen and Beijing has made venture capitialists invest in China's technology at a growing rate. If China was able to foster this economic development, it could seek to challenage the US as the technologic hub of the world.

Historically, China's aspirations have been regional rather than global, but Premier Xi Jinping has more international goals than his predicessors. Unlike the American way of projecting power and asserting dominance, China doesn't expect other countries to adapt their system of governance or way of life (regionally thats a different story, but this is in the global conversation). Rather, they simply expect ownership over critical infrastructure within countries and to have a say in their local politics,  like in Djibouti for example. This affords China the ability to manipulate states without having any moral obligation to favor one state over the other. China's ambitions have shifted to the global arena, and with their view on hegemony they won't have as many moral constraints to hold them back as did the liberal US hegemony.

Downfall of U.S. Hegemonic Power

Our last week of class was an interesting experience. More and more I found that I actually do think the greatest threat to the United States role as a hegemonic power, is ourselves. We have always had some level of isolationist policy, but this has increased in recent years. Specifically, when looking at the past two years under the Trump administration, our policy has been to withdrawal from the global governance structure whenever we disagree with a proposed action or stance. However, it needs to be reiterated to the administration, and its supporters, that if you do not like something, then change it. The only way to effectively change the policy of an organization is by being a respected part of the body. There have been multiple times when I have heard President Trump argue that the direction of an organization or structure is wrong, that’s why we must leave. But this only removes our position as a respected member of the global community, and forces countries to work on solutions without us having a seat at the table.

When looking at other groups arguments, I did find them compelling, even believing that they are a threat to U.S. hegemonic power, but not the biggest threat. Looking at the global war on terror argument, I had a hard time grasping just why the group thought this was the greatest threat. Yes, the United States does spend an enormous amount of money on the GWOT, but I would argue that this places us in front of the eyes of other countries, reiterating our global hegemonic power.

Even with the possible lose of hegemonic power, I do not see this happening in the near future. If we continue on this path, it could definitely happen, just not within the next 5 years.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/08/downfall-of-us-hegemonic-power.html

The Rise of the PMC, End of the State

I could not help myself from linking everything private security/military related in the readings to things I have read in fictional literature. It made me wonder if the writers of the novels I read were actually students of international relations. I digress.

Abrahamsen and Williams brought up some really interesting points that I wanted to hone non. They really captured the scale of the growth of private security. The fact that private security outnumbers police forces by 2:1 in the UK, 3:1 in the US, and the entire military is outnumbered in India speaks volumes about how different the system has become. Their argument, that security is increasingly beyond the state, has resonated with me. I don't think it's as doom and gloom as they predict, that those states that have delegated the "monopoly" on violence have contributed to their own demise. I think that is very true for weaker states where private military and security companies continue to grow stronger day to day,  but I don't think it means the end of states.

There's a Tom Clancy novel (not written by him, but in his name) called HAWX and it covers a topic very much like this. The gist of it is that in the near future most governments contract most of their military and security needs out to private companies. Eventually the interests of those companies diverge from those of the state and the novel climaxes with one of the largest PMCs almost successfully staging a coup against the government of the United States (thankfully stopped by some scrappy former F-16 pilots). What I enjoyed about the book and why I find it so interesting in the context of these readings is that as states delegate more and more of their authority it leads me to question: what happens when private companies, with their own interests, decide that they are in charge? It seems farfetched that a private company could ever usurp challenge the United States, but smaller, weaker states? Failed or failing states? What happens if a PMC becomes the "legitimate" owner of a state? I don't see it as likely, but I definitely see it as possible.

Week 13 Post-Class

Celebrity diplomacy is a bit of an abstract term which describes any celebrity involvement in international affairs and it can take many shapes. Celebrities can serve as advocates for international issues which require humanitarian aid (such as disease prevention), they can raise awareness of political oppression globally, and they can act as unofficial liasons with foreign government and non-government actors. At times, due to a combination of a lack of diplomatic training or general awareness of the intricacies of social problems they are advocating on behalf of, celebrities can do more harm than good, particularly when international politics are concerned. Because of this harmful potential, celebrity diplomacy is most benefitial for advocacy of humanitarian crises and fundraising for natural disasters.

Advocacy and fundraising efforts provide many PR and financial benefits to a region, and have limited opportunity for negative backlash. There are negative consequences from inappropriately advocating for or funding a particular cause, for example terrorist organizations could be funded or supported as a result of improper vetting. That being said, the likelihood of severely negative consequences is limited in scope, and on the whole the benefits of celebrity advocacy and fundraising greatly outweigh any potential risks inherent in these efforts.

Week 10 Post-class Tech-nationalization

There is a growing trend in the field of cyber security known as tech nationalization which can be summarized by the notion of utilizing solely domestically production software and technology to avoid any potential security threats associated with internationally manufactured technology. The rational for this is that over-reliance on foreign produced technology creates a vulnerability which can be exploited by the producer of the technology, and since the United States primary producer of innovative technology they are seen as the primary threat. There is also the threat that governments can use tech corporations as political leverage depending on the political climate as a sort of exercise of soft power. One example of this is when the Crimean peninsula was annexed by Russia, Google and Apple stopped providing services to the peninsula and to the South of Russia as a part of a series of sanctions imposed on the country. This is not even to mention how certain technology is required to have backdoors which can be accessible to foreign law enforcement agencies for legal compliance related issues. For example in order for Kaspersky Labs to comply with Russian regulations on software companies they must provide the federal police access to the information on their servers, which in turn can be used to examine the contents on devices of Kaspersky customers.

In order to develop technological autonomy, countries are investing in R&D firms and supporting what are called "digital economy" initiatives which aim at fostering the development of tech companies domestically. Many countries have created legislation which requires industries of strategic importance to utilize purely domestically produced software to avoid backdoor entrances for hackers or any other cyber attacks. Some have even began to undergo the type of internet segmentation like China and create their own sovereign internet segments. Overall, countries are beginning to worry about the soft power nations can employ on tech companies and what kind of implications they can have on the international stage, and combatting this potential threat by focusing on developing their own domestic capabilities.

Week 8 Post Class

After reflecting on the material from class the previous two weeks, I started to wonder what the role legitimacy has in when examining transnational criminal organizations. Professor Jackson provides the definition for authority as simply "the right to do something" and while we haven't defined legitimacy in class, it can be best summarized as the acceptance of authority. Essentially, legitimacy is the mandate of the people and provides democratic support to authority. An actor or entity can have authority without legitimacy, this is often the case in autocracies, however their hold on power is less stable without legitimacy.

When examining transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and whether they can supplant the state as the main authority within a given territory, their legitimacy has a huge influence on their overall ability to maintain authority. When TCOs are the predominant authority in an area it is mostly due to some capacity gap of the state which is unable to either provide some kind of service or enforce it. More often than not, when TCOs are the predominant authority in an area they acquire their authority through the use of coercion and physical violence. Whatever authority they have is therefore based on their ability to maintain their capabilities of coercion in order to remain as the authority, because when confronted with a viable alternative authority will be granted to the actor with both capabilities to enforce laws, as well as with the legitimacy granted by the people. Without legitimacy therefore, TCOs don't have any real staying power as an authority.

Violence as a commodity

I have found the concept of the monopolization of violence to be very intriguing throughout the last couple weeks. A question that remains in my mind, and that has come up in class, can states truly hold a monopolization on violence? Is violence a commodity to be held through competition? My answer: definitely. But I don’t think states always hold the commodity in abundance over organizations that have or might rise to challenge their authority.

The concept that professor Shirk brought up in class, by Charles Tilly, poses an interesting theory. That state making itself has, at times, developed from organized crime, suggesting that maybe it doesn’t matter who holds the monopoly to power, it matters who is strategic enough to use it in a way that will advance their interests. Violence in many criminal or militant groups spreads as individuals attach themselves to an idea that turns into an ambition. We’ve seen it from groups who start from contemporary triggers, such as ISIS and we can also see it in groups that have maintained ideas and norms throughout time such as the views of some tribes within some African states that, to this day remain prominent in their culture. There are even those states where politicians compete as members of a certain tribe. The latter is an example of violence that wasn't triggered by contemporary circumstances but instead the conflict has transformed across years. Where once there was violence  between tribes, some who used it to their advantage remained on top and are today forming and leading political parties in democratic societies. 

Authority derived from violence, it would seem, is not so much a matter of who holds the authority but how they use it to strategically place themselves in the world.

International Law and the Collapse of Sovereignty

After watching the lecture for this module, one question posed by Professor Jackson stuck with me: can international law be strengthened without doing away with state sovereignty? My answer to this question is a realist response, that state sovereignty cannot exist with the expansion of international law. The mere state of being a member of an international organization with a judicial branch implies that the state is no longer sovereign, no longer having unconditional authority over it's actions. 

The reason for this is fairly simple, by allocating more authority to a body that dictates international law, the state loses a portion of its authority, and a state cannot be autonomous without the monopoly on authority. An important point to note here, is that sovereign states can enforce international law. However, once this is done, autonomy is eradicated. According to Professor Jackson, the superior legal authority within international law, means that states in the international system are no longer fully autonomous. By giving authority to an international body which governs international law, the state is no longer sovereign, and no longer has full autonomy.

To aid in comprehending this idea, let's look at a body that governs international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, was created as a means to solve legal disputes between member states. By submitting to the Court's jurisdiction, states relinquish a piece of their sovereignty. The state would no longer be autonomous, no longer having all authority to govern itself. The reason for this being that if the state was brought before the Court in a dispute, the state must then adhere to the ruling of the Court, losing authority over that specific matter. Therefore, if a state wishes to remain sovereign, it should abstain from the realm of global governance.

Some people may argue against this idea, claiming that in reality there is a grey area where states can retain sovereignty while international law is strengthened. However, this issue is black and white, either states are sovereign, or they are not. There is simply no middle ground on which to hide from the reality of the international system.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/06/international-law-and-collapse-of.html

Week 8 Post Class

Recently the United States has made overtures at recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights. This is significant in that this would be the first time since the end of World War II where the United States would recognize a territory captured by military means. This recognition could potentially set in place a precedent which could grant other states the public authority to recognize other territories captured by military means in the future. Since there is no superior legal authority within the realm of the international, public authority is dictated by precedent, and the willingness of states to follow through with said precedent. This particular precedent bears the threat of a belligerent sovereign using the threat of violence on a smaller state in order to expand their territorial claims inside the smaller state, and then having these territorial claims be recognized by the allies of the belligerent sovereign. Any attempt by other states to disavow this claim to the belligerent's new territoriality would be nominal, as any military action within these new borders can be interpreted by states which recognize this new border as a violation of sovereignty.

A similiar situation occurred after the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in 2008. Kosovo's territory was located within the sovereign country of Serbia, and (to summarize a complex series of negotions) declared independence in 2008 without the consent of Serbia. Kosovo was promptly recognized by a number of states including the U.S. shortly after declaring itself independent. This set a negative precedent that regional separatist movements do not require any public authority from the sovereign country they are declaring independence from. This precedent was then used by Russia in the Georgian autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to justify military intervention in Georgia to protect the sovereignty of these two regions. One of the main differences between the Golan Heights recognition and the recognition of Kosovo would be that only the U.S. would recognize the Golan Heights and Kosovo received recognition from a broader international audience, however the threat of establishing this precedent still remains and should be taken very seriously.