Size Always Matters

Valeria Giberti

November 20, 2011

World Politics – Professor Craig

Briefing Paper

Size Always Matters

When talking about environment, only one thing comes to mind: green. Since the environmental movement began on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day, there have been numerous differing opinions regarding the government’s role in the protection of the environment (West). Usually, the governments are mostly concerned with monetary expenses and sometimes forgo the beneficial aspect of the rules they are implementing. Most of the green issues almost never present a solution that is both economically helpful and environmentally friendly, so the government is forced to choose between the two. The fact that the government has to choose between the environment and the economy has posed a problem for the environmental movement. Although the government is concerned about what happens to the economy and somewhat concerned about what happens to the planet, the technological advancements being made in the green departments are both dangerous and beneficial at the same time, making it difficult for the government to decide what is best for the nation.

Society is constantly concerned with manipulating the environment to our advantage. Sometimes this method has severe repercussions. However, there have been environmental changes that have been beneficial to the local economy and to the environment. In London, England, there has been a growing debate among the conservationists regarding the preservation of the environment and the affects it has on the poorest communities who live there (Davies). According to the Webster’s Online Dictionary, conservationists are those who are advocates or proponents of the protection of the environment from destruction or pollution (Dictionary – Definition of Conservationist). Having said this, the English community has been concerned with the large amount of cutting that has been destroying the forests rich in biodiversity in the regions. This constant damage has raised awareness to the quality of life the poorer citizens are being put through. A way to solve this problem is through a program called the Payments for Environmental Services (EPS). “The idea is that local communities are paid depending on the outcome of agreed objectives, such as stopping forest clearance, poaching and wildfires,” (Davies).

(the picture is supposed to go here but I am having technical difficulties)

This chart shows what the PES is trying to resolve. The use of Land A is more appealing to businesses, but the use of Land B is more beneficial to the community as a whole. Since different types of land have different pros and cons, the landowners tend to go for the and that is more profitable and not the one that is more environmentally friendly because it becomes less profitable. This problem could cause land usage that is not socially beneficial to the surrounding communities. In order to solve this issue, the PES offers the landowners of Land A payments for using Land B because of its benefits. This way, the community as a whole, the landowner from land A and the costs of downstream all win. For the PES program to work, it needs to have base payments to providers on payments by users, to actually deliver services (meaning getting the science right and having tested the methods so it actually works), and to tailor the mechanism to each area’s needs. The PES program is efficient because it protects what needs to be protected and does not waste the money on something that does not need to be conserved (Environmental Economics and Indicators). Although it is environmentally friendly, the costs balance out because of the location.

In class we were asked which city we thought was more green, Vermont or New York City. If you were like me and thought about the actual greenery, you would have responded Vermont. It turns out that New York City is one of the greenest communities in the United States and in the world. They have become so environmentally friendly because their change from being a polluted city to making efforts in the green departments made a huge dent in the statistical numbers mainly because of its size. Because of the amount of resources it has to offer, it has more potential to making a difference in the environmental movement. The buildings, transportation, and policies are all becoming greener. In regards to making greener policies, Mayor Bloomberg issued a mandate stating that the city needs to reach a 30% reduction in greenhouse emissions in order to make the air healthier and to lessen the Greenhouse Effect. In regards to transportation, the Taxi and Limousine Commission has agreed that the vehicles being used, with the exception of accessible taxicabs, have to reach at least a mileage of 25 mpg. In regards to the buildings, the city has found a way to build buildings in a way that minimizes the use of energy, water and other natural resources (Green Industry).

The constant dilemma as to what the government should do to protect the environment is dictated by the benefits of the outcome. Depending on where the advances and progresses are being implemented, the government needs to make a decision towards what is best for the community and what is best financially. Although there are not many solutions that have this combination, it is up to the government to make it happen.

Works Cited

"Dictionary - Definition of Conservationist." Webster's Online Dictionary - with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. .

"Environmental Economics & Indicators - What Is Payments for Environmental Services?" World Bank Group. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. .

"Green Industry." New York City Development Corporation. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. .

Davies, Catriona. "Does Paying to Protect the Environment Work? - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. .

West, Larry. "Environmentalism - Environmental Movement - When Did the U.S. Environmental Movement Begin?" Environmental Issues - News and Information about the Environment. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. .

Iran Refuses to Return US Drone, Was it Even Justified to Begin With?

Warfare used to be synonymous with high numbers of casualties and great risk to all those involved but that is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Technological advances are creating a new, risk-free, less expensive form of war that is extremely attractive to nations around the globe. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or pilotless drones, are the new phenomenon because they are smaller, cheaper, and less risky than jet aircraft.

Despite their seemingly great implications, drones are a highly controversial topic. One of the main issues is that when all a person has to do is click a button to launch an attack, the task becomes more like a video game and less like an act of war. Vicki Divoll, a CIA lawyer, described it as this: "When the controls are manned by someone in a suburb of Washington rather than by someone in the field you become so detached that there's no cost, there's no limitation on you" (BBC).

Despite this, the US already has over 7,000 drones at its disposal and they are becoming increasingly popular. They can be used for advanced reconnaissance missions as well as for taking out high-priority targets like Osama Bin Laden (BBC).

Last week Iran state TV displayed images of a RQ-170 “Sentinel” drone- the same one that US forces in Afghanistan recently reported missing (Christian Science Monitor). The Revolutionary Guard claims that it was brought down in a cyber-attack but it is unconfirmed whether it was an attack or merely a technical malfunction. Either way, the loss of the drone is a major loss to the US because precious technology is now in the hands of a potential enemy. Robert Densmore, a defense journalist, said “These Sentinels are pretty rare technology still, and to have one in such good condition, to be lost to a potential adversary like this, is pretty significant” (CNN).

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged to Venezuelan state TV that “Those who have been in control of the spy plane will analyze the plane’s system. The systems of Iran are so advanced also, like the system of this plane” (New York Daily News). Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was very skeptical of the possible advantages they could gain from the plane however and instead viewed the remarks as a propaganda coup. Iran has been criticized extensively in the international news lately so the nation is using this incident to regain some of their standing.

As part of their propaganda scheme they are depicting the US as an invasive aggressor who imposed upon their sovereignty. President Obama officially admitted that Iran was in possession of the drone when said, “ We’ve asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond” (Telegraph). In response, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, “It seems he has forgotten that Iran’s airspace was violated, spying operations were undertaken, international laws were violated, and that Iran’s internal affairs were interfered with” (Telegraph). The Iranian government feel that they are owed an apology but clearly that isn’t forthcoming. Iranian defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi told Mehr news agency, “Their plane invaded Iran and Iranian forces reacted powerfully. Now, instead of offering an apology to the Iranian nation, they impudently ask for the return of the plane” (NY Daily News).

With these sorts of statements, the Iranian government is clearly depicting a scenario in which they are the innocent victim and the US is the antagonist. One has to wonder though, are the comments valid? From the point of Iran, the US was definitely wrong in having a Sentinel drone 140 miles into Iranian territory. "No nation welcomes other countries' spy drones in its territory, and no one sends back the spying equipment and its information back to the country of origin," said Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran's military (CNN). If the roles were reversed and the drone was owned by Iran but in US territory, I am confident that the US would have had a much stronger reaction.

US officials have admitted anonymously that the drone was on a CIA spying mission over the Islamic republic when it was captured (Telegraph). Many Americans would support the US surveillance mission because the US is seen as almost a policer and they see it as their job to ensure that unstable states like Iran don’t maintain nuclear weapons. The incident is no doubt going to liven the debate over UAVs that has been heated for some time.

Works Cited

1. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iran-us-drone/index.html?hpt=imi_c2
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8952827/Iran-says-captured-US-drone-is-their-property-now.html
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-claims-control-captured-american-drone-article-1.990815
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8488269.stm
5. http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/predator-uavs-weaponry.htm
6. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1209/Downed-US-drone-How-Iran-caught-the-beast/(page)/3

Retrenchment and Multilateralism: Reducing American Bases Overseas

On Wednesday November 15^th, 2011, US Debt reached the fifteen trillion dollar mark, standing at eighty five percent of GDP.  Over the past year, battling the national debt has become the hot political topic, with politicians pointing fingers and economists shaking heads, both parties exasperated with the lack of economic recovery and persistent unemployment. The current crisis has ramifications past economics or even domestic politics however, with implications for foreign policy. American military spending is one of the largest programs on the federal budget. It constitutes forty three percent of global military expenditures and is six times as large as the Chinese military budget, second largest in the world (SIPRI). The time is right for America to cut back military spending and in doing so redefine its foreign policy. One of the ways in which America can do this is by cutting back on military bases in foreign countries, of which it has plenty: over one thousand spread across the globe (Zunes). Through a process known as retrenchment, America can reshape the global spread of these foreign bases into a far more cost-effective form while at the same time encouraging multilateralism.

Currently, America has more than one thousand military bases in foreign countries, scattered throughout the world. Many of these bases are left over from the post-World War II status quo, with 268 in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea (Zunes). The remaining military bases literally scatter the globe, ranging from the Middle East to Africa to Australia and beyond. Political defenders of these bases argue they are integral parts of ensuring domestic and global security. In reality, scaling back these foreign bases through a process known as retrenchment can heighten security, encourage multilateralism, and reduce costs.

In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, contributors Joseph Parent and Paul MacDonald define retrenchment as “shifting commitments and resources from peripheral to core interests and preserving investments in the most valuable geographic and functional areas.” In this post-Cold War era, America’s most important regions of interest are Western Europe and Southeast Asia, the two regions with which America has the most trade (Parent and MacDonald). Out of all the regions in the world, crises in these two areas would affect the US the most. While keeping troops in other non-critical regions may arguably help maintain global peace and stability, it only affects America in an indirect sense. Thus, America should pull back from other areas and focus on maintaining security in Western Europe and Southeast Asia. In terms of defending these regions, it is important to note that they are among the most stable in the world. The mere fact that these regions are major US trading partners hints at their large GDP size; France, Britain, and Japan all ranked among the top six countries with the highest military spending. These countries are quite capable of defending themselves, meaning that it would actually be possible to scale down deployments in these countries without endangering their stability or safety.  

Some might argue that it is important to maintain bases and a strong military presence in the Middle East to protect oil and combat terrorism. While these are important strategic interests, it is not clear that the best way to accomplish them is through full scale military deployment. A single seal team accomplished in one night what the entire US armed forces could not do for ten years in killing Osama Bin Laden. Furthermore, the presence of American bases in the Middle East can itself be a destabilizing factor. America should enact a policy of retrenchment, dramatically scaling back its military presence in all areas of the world except Western Europe and Southeast Asia, and even there reducing them to some degree.

Critics of retrenchment charge that it reduces security as the presence of these military bases acts as a deterrent against threats to the United States and the world in general. Such critics argue that forward defenses are the most effective way to deter aggression. Removing them will create vulnerabilities abroad that other factions, groups, or countries may try to exploit. These criticisms are unfounded however; removing foreign military bases will not decrease security and in some cases could actually increase it.

Cutting down the number of foreign military bases operated by the United States will not invite aggression or destabilize the globe. Fewer foreign bases will not change the fact that America by far has the largest military in the world, and could crush any other country. As Parent and MacDonald put it, “the biggest menace to a superpower is not the possibility of belated entry into a regional crisis; it is the temptation of imperial overstretch.” America’s most important allies in Western Europe and Southeast Asia are powerful enough that Russia and China are the only two countries capable of war against them.  Realistically, neither is a possibility. The Russian economy is failing, and increasingly dependent on Western consumption of oil and gas (a quarter of their GDP), which would stop in the case of war (Goldstone). China is still a massively export driven economy; should they declare war America would simply stop buying Chinese products. While prices would rise, the Western World is affluent enough that it can buy oil and manufactured products elsewhere. Nowhere else in the world can match Western consumption of those products, so a break in trade would devastate Russia and China while only mildly affecting the West.

In reality, the superfluous number of foreign bases in so many other countries detracts from global security, rather than adding to it. American military bases in dictatorial regimes such as Yemen or Uzbekistan become rallying points for political dissent and targets for aggression. Specifically, the presence of American troops near the Muslim holy sites of Medina and Mecca in Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons Bin Laden cited for 9/11 and his war against the West (BBC News). In addition to increasing security, retrenchment has one other main advantage: it will reduce costs. Parent and MacDonald estimate that “US forces in the European theater could safely be reduced by 40-50 percent without compromising European security.” They further estimate that cutting back troop levels in Europe and Asia could save twelve billion dollars by itself. Overall, cutting back on foreign bases could allow the Federal Government to seriously slim down the defense budget. Doing so would allow the United States to repurpose those funds towards economic recovery, which in the long run will do far more towards maintaining American power than continuing to occupy half the world.

Retrenchment will also have the effect of increasing multilateralism in international politics. Currently, America is basically supplying security for Western Europe and Southeast Asia. Each American taxpayer pays roughly $2,000 in taxes on defense, whereas the figure is $430 for Germans (where there are 268 American bases) and $340 for Japanese (where there are 124 American bases) (Parent and MacDonald). Scaling down American bases in these areas will reduce costs for Americans and push other countries to pull their own weight in defense spending. This will encourage a more multilateral approach in terms of international defense: rather than have the US act as a hegemon and provide defense across the globe, other countries will have to supply more of their own security and work with the US to ensure global security. An increase in multilateralism could have a number of positive outcomes, such as increasing the potency of liberal institutions such as the United Nations. As American allies begin to pick up military slack that the US is leaving them, their forces will become better coordinated with American ones. This has already been seen with Japan, as “calls for Japan to assume a greater defense burden have… resulted in deeper integration of U.S. and Japanese forces” (Parent and MacDonald). Greater integrations will build stronger ties between America and its allies, primarily on a military level but applicable nonetheless. These stronger ties will increase the potency of liberal organizations such as the UN that relate to the military, for example strengthening UN authorized international interventions.

Certainly, this paper presumes a certain liberal perspective, with a focus on multilateralism and international cooperation; strengthening liberal institutions like the UN is far more important to a liberalist than a realist. Retrenchment also opens up new possibilities for liberal foreign policies. Greater military integration could play a major role in international military interventions. Libya is a great example of a successful intervention, where the US initially played a lead but allowed other nations to take over and play dominant roles (Parent and MacDonald). As happened with the EU, greater integration among specialized fields could ultimately bleed over to the political spectrum, in the form of the United Nations. While it will almost definitely not be to the degree of the EU, it is a potential outcome nonetheless.

The current course is unsustainable. Though a political cliché, it is true nonetheless, especially in regards to current US policy on foreign military bases. The current economic crisis necessitates serious budget cuts, and the funds going towards foreign bases stand ripe for the picking. If America continues to maintain overbearing foreign commitments then it will eventually be drawn into the classic imperial trap of over-commitment and collapse. By not only ending funding for a number of these abroad bases but repurposing the money into economic recovery, America can emerge rejuvenated and stronger than ever.

Works Cited

Goldstone, Jack A. "Rise of the TIMBIs." Foreign Policy Magazine. 2 Dec. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/02/rise_of_the_timbis?page=0,1>.

Parent, Joseph M., and Paul K. MacDonald. "The Wisdom of Retrenchment." Foreign Affairs 90.6 (2011): 32-47. Print.

"SIPRI Military Expenditure Database." Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. <http://milexdata.sipri.org/files/?file=SIPRI+milex+data+1988-2010.xls>.

"US Pulls Out of Saudi Arabia." BBC News. 29 Apr. 2003. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm>.

Zunes, Stephen. "Too Many Overseas Bases." Foreign Policy In Focus | International Affairs, Peace, Justice, and Environment. Institute for Policy Studies, 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases>.

Hillary Clinton's Speech - Beneficial or No?

Valeria Giberti

December 7, 2011

World Politics – Professor Craig

Briefing Paper

Hillary Clinton’s Speech – Beneficial or No?

Discrimination against the LGBT community has been an issue in politics for decades, but only in the last few years has it grown to become an important dilemma in the U.S. On December 6^th, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a bold and risky speech to the U.N. condemning the discrimination of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people. Her speech had an enormous impact in the U.S. as well as all over the world. Her main claim was that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” (Clinton). Throughout her entire speech, she refers back to this statement, which enforces the idea that all humans born have human rights; since LGBT people are also human, that gives them the right to possess human rights. The main goal of this speech was to raise awareness of the problem and to persuade the U.N. members to instill the same belief in their countries. Although the LGBT people are humans and deserve to have better treatment, the government has no way to implement the respect for human rights without violating some of the rights on the way. Also, one government cannot expect for all of the nations or citizens of the nations to have the same mentality about this issue. However, there are two sides to every story. No person should be denied to have human rights. The speech was made with good intentions, but it raised more commotion than good.

According to the United Nations, human rights refer to “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status,” (What are Human Rights). Based on this definition, Secretary Clinton’s assertions are correct and justified. Because the LGBT people are human, they are equally entitled to have human rights without discriminations and/or persecutions. Some of these rights include: the right of sexual orientation or preference, freedom of speech, the right to practice religion or religious beliefs in public, the right to own property, the right to have an opinion that is different than that of it’s government, freedom of expression, etc. Most of these rights are considered to be universal human rights, which means that the government should do everything in its power to protect them. Sadly, governments are not taking the LGBT problems seriously. “In many countries lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are denied equality in rights before the law,” (Sexual Orientation and Human Rights). The LGBT are being deprived of basic rights just because of their sexual orientation. So, just because they are different, they are not human? If they are not being granted human rights, then the governments and the other citizens do not see them as being humans.

This discrimination happened right in our back yards. In 2004, President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment that restricted a marriage just between a man and a woman, but it left the possibility for each state to allow or decline civil unions between gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. He imposed this amendment after the Mayor of Massachusetts allowed the marriage between gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The amendment stated that, "The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society," (Bush). However, President Bush was only acting on what he thought was the good for the people; many people still believed that the LGBT community should be treated as second-class citizens. Because President Bush was afraid to lose supporters, he decided to overrule the Massachusetts bill. This marked many of the attempts of the States to allow the LGBT community to have human rights, but was denied by the government, causing their sovereignty to be overlooked.

The US has been very accepting with having same-sex marriage and has shown a little discontent towards the LGBT community having human rights. However, there are cultures around the world that see homosexuality as a crime, and even a crime punishable by death. “The concept of same-sex union is still illegal in 76 nations and punishable by death in five countries - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Yemen and Sudan,” (Shah). Although Secretary Clinton’s worries have been acknowledged, other nation’s governments are not going to change what they believe in just because one person with some power told them to do something. The same concept works with people. Citizens that do not like the LGBT community and will not support the LGBT community having rights will express how they feel in whatever way they believe is appropriate. They can throw protests because they have the freedom of speech and they can write newspaper article about their beliefs because have the freedom of press. If the government was to stop the discrimination, it would have to take these basic rights from its citizens. Although it is not right to deprive someone of his/her human right, whether gay, lesbian, or straight, people’s mindsets are not going to change, especially if their religion says to discriminate against the LGBT community.

Hillary Clinton’s speech sparked a lot discussion on the LGBT community and their rights. Although governments have been doing a lot to promote equality for the community, they cannot do much without overstepping sovereignty or other people’s rights. The constant globalization needs the nations to agree on a set of principles on this issue, so no further arguments can be made. However, the constant evolution in people's mindsets is not shared all over the world, so there is always going to be discontent and debate on this specific topic.

Works Cited

"Bush Calls for Ban on Same-sex Marriages - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 25 Feb. 2004. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. .

"Sexual Orientation and Human Rights." Human Rights Education Associates. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. .

"What Are Human Rights?" United Nations Human Rights. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. .

Clinton, Hillary. "Hillary Clinton On Gay Rights Abroad: Secretary Of State Delivers Historic LGBT Speech In Geneva (VIDEO, FULL TEXT)." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. .

Shah, Sabir. "Homosexuality Permitted in 113 Countries, Illegal in 76." The News International: Latest, Breaking, Pakistan, Sports & Video News. 9 July 2011. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. .

The Drone Debate

From headquarters in Langley, Virginia, CIA operatives have been launching drones to combat militants in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Using drones known as Predators, these robots are equipped with video cameras and Hellfire missiles, and are then targeted at al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Pakistan. This has been under a program that has been recognized as the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policy (Ofek 35).

To the US, this program provides many benefits in combating terrorist organizations in Pakistan. The most prevalent benefit is that it eliminates the necessity of having American troops in Pakistan. The drones are operated from a site far from the attack zone. With this, even if the drone is attacked and shot down, it does not cost the life of the operative (O’Connell 5). Additionally, having drone operatives stationed outside of the Pakistani region eliminates the disaster that would occur from American troops setting foot in Pakistan. Not only would this bring about a US national uproar, but it would destroy the withstanding US-Pakistan alliance.

Another way the US government rationalizes the use of drones is by adhering to the claim that, since September 11, 2001, the country has been battling a “War on Terror”. To the US government, the events of September 11 constituted as an “armed attack” by a transnational terrorist organization. Due to this, the laws of armed conflict apply to the War on Terror, and the US can thusly target terrorists under the self-defense terms of Article 51 from the UN Charter (Vogel 106).

Ultimately, the US government claims that the use of drones is effective. Under the drone program, scores of low-level terrorists have been killed, as well as a significant amount of the CIA’s twenty most-wanted “high-value targets.” Among the terrorists that have been eliminated by drones are major al-Qaeda spokesmen like Abu Laith al-Libi, and the eldest son of Osama bin Laden, Saad bin Laden (Ofek 36). It was a success rate such as this that spurred CIA director Leon Panetta to posit his most quotable quote: “Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership” (Ofek 37).

However, there has been a strong vocal opposition to the use of drone warfare in Pakistan. One is that drone technology is too imprecise to avoid large amounts of collateral damage. In a media report outlining the problems drones encounter in target identification, a reporter explained: “Looking through the Predator's camera is somewhat like looking through a soda straw. … Your field of view tends to become distorted. … [Y]ou might be able to tell a Saudi headdress from an Afghan one. They are different. But it'd be pretty hard to do” (O’Connell 6). As a result of this imprecision, drones often kill unintended targets, causing collateral damage and an increased anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.

Another argument against drone warfare is that the use of robots violates the notion of an ethically just war. In a just war, it is implied that a concrete person must be able to assume responsibilities for human casualties. However, due to the increasing autonomy of drones, it is becoming less reasonable to charge officers that deployed the drones. It was, in fact, the intention of drone inventors for the robots to make its own decision on how to achieve the goal (Schornig 23).

The next argument does not speak against the drones themselves, but instead the very organization that launches the drones into Pakistan—the CIA. According to professor of law, Mary Ellen O’Connell, under the law of conflict the only lawful combatants to use force during an armed conflict are members of a state’s regular armed forces. This is because CIA operatives are not trained in the law of armed conflict, nor bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (7). Thus, not only do drones cause unethical collateral damage, but the fact that CIA operatives are using them in a war-like fashion is reprehensible.

Now, can IR theory help settle the drone debate? Maybe not fully, but it can, in some capacity, continue to explain and rationalize the US government’s decision to engage in drone warfare. One possible rationalization of drone warfare stems from liberalist theory. According to Goldstein and Pevehouse, “public opinion influences governments’ foreign policy decisions” (115). This can explain why the US government prefers to utilize drones to counter terrorists rather than send in troops. There is already much national public outcry against sending troops to the Middle East. Additionally, anti-Americanism is only growing in Pakistan. Sending troops in the region would only increase the image of America’s beloved dying in war and send a message to Pakistanis that America has turned bellicose. Drones help ensure that this PR disaster would never happen.

But in a twist in theory, liberalism adds that although public opinion has a definitive influence on foreign policy decisions, governments also manipulate the public opinion (Goldstein and Pevehouse 115). As we have seen, the US government has attempted to justify the use of drone warfare in stating that the attacks of 9/11 have brought the country into a state of war in which the laws of armed conflict apply. However, as the opposition to drone warfare has stated, the CIA members that launch the drones are not lawful combatants in armed conflict. Thus, their participation in killing is a crime. This seems to suggest that the government has been attempting to manipulate the public opinion; they have blurred the lines of what the CIA can and cannot do. Additionally, the very idea of a “War on Terror” is a manipulation, as this kind of conflict varies from the traditional view of war.

The debate on drone warfare has led me to conclude that it seems as though the very lines between what is war and what is not have been blurred. This haziness—as any lack of clarity would do to a situation—has fostered opposing views that conflict on many levels. This brings me to the question: can the current laws of armed conflict still logically be applied to the “War on Terror”?

Also, I question the ethics behind not just the use of drones, but the existence of such robots that kill. According to Isaac Asimov’s first law of robotics, a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm (“Three Laws of Robotics”). These drones, classified as robots, do indeed cause harm and kill human beings. With this law in mind, should robots even be permitted to make judgments over life and death? An eerily sci-fi thought, but it holds the potential for the end of drone warfare altogether.

Works Cited

Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. "Liberal Theories." International Relations. 9th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. 115. Print.

"Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"" Auburn University. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. .

O'Connell, Mary Ellen. "Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009." Notre Dame Legal Studies 9.43 (2010): 1-26. Print.

Ofek, Hillel. "The Tortured Logic of Obama's Drone War." The New Atlantis 27 (2010): 35-44. The New Atlantis. The Center for the Study of Technology and Society, Spring 2010. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. .

Schornig, Niklas. "Robot Warriors: Why the Western Investment into Military Robots Might Backfire."EDoc.ViFaPol. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, 2010. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. .

Vogel, Ryan J. "Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict by Ryan Vogel :: SSRN." Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 39.1 (2011): 191-38. Social Science Research Network. 1 Dec. 2010. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. .

World War Z and Predictions of the Zombie Model in International Relations

In the past few years, there has been a surge in pop culture surrounding materials that concern zombies. Beginning in 2003, Max Brooks published The Zombie Survival Guide, in 2009 Seth Grahame-Smith published Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and in 2010 AMC started airing episodes of the zombie-apocalypse show called The Walking Dead. In 2006 Brooks published a fictional book titled World War Z that interwove dozens of personal accounts of the zombie outbreak to give more of a “human perspective” to such an event. Zombies have even made a foray into the world of international relations through the publications of Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University.

I picked up a copy of World War Z a few weeks ago after a friend of mine raved about it. I was expecting a slightly over-the-top zombie tale, never having read any “undead” literature before. To my surprise, the fictional tale was pieced together without any main characters (except for the interviewer) and relied heavily upon somber, deeply-felt first-hand accounts of interactions with zombies. Full of gruesome details, the novel accurately captures an element of realism about a zombie outbreak and is a captivating read. While reading the book, I couldn’t help but notice several major international relations themes in the book. After finishing the novel, I reread Drezner’s zombie articles to compare with Brooks’s predictions about what should theoretically happen in a zombie outbreak. World War Z was able to be used as a case study in zombie international relations theory, and I’ll try to enumerate my findings without giving away too many spoilers for those of you who may want to pick up the novel in the future.

If attacked by an outbreak of zombies, Drezner believes that it wouldn’t be an apocalyptic event that would eliminate the human race from the face of the planet. In his opinion, he believes that governments would respond to the existence of zombies with vigorous policies. Realists would have a “live-and-let-live” attitude toward the outbreak, liberals would institute a “World Zombie Organization” to coexist with and regulate the zombies, and constructivists would want to create a pluralistic security community in order to prevent future outbreaks and to socialize zombies into society (“How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zombies”). Drezner also mentions that bureaucracies would make initial mistakes but would then correct them. Zombies are a synecdoche for a constellation of emerging threats in Drezner’s mind. Poorer countries would suffer especially from an outbreak of zombies: “In a world where zombies concentrate in the weakest countries—stronger states are better equipped to fend off the threat—billions of human beings would face an additional menace on top of disease, poverty, and the erosion of the rule of law” (“How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zombies”).

In the case of World War Z, the zombie outbreak as something caused by a quickly-spreading infection. When bitten by a carrier, the victim eventually dies and is then reanimated in zombie form. The only way to kill zombies in the book is to destroy their brains. In order to deal with the dangerous outbreak, Brooks upholds Drezner’s theory by portraying the inefficiencies within governments that create slow, expensive programs to develop weapons that have no practical uses to fight zombies. Complex technologies are painstakingly developed while normal citizens effectively combat zombies with a cheaply produced weapon resembling an axe (Brooks 165). One of the major issues covered in the book deals with the fact that most of the American workforce doesn’t have practical skills such as carpentry, plumbing, and farming work. Most of the American population wasn’t adequately equipped to survive outside of the lap of luxury. Poorer regions of the globe experience much worse zombie outbreaks due to poor infrastructure and the initial lack of knowledge about how to properly kill a zombie. The Kashmir region in particular had a lot of political reasoning behind how the governments reacted to zombies in those regions. In China, the government initially detains anyone with knowledge of the zombie outbreak to keep the fear from spreading and in the United States, the government tries to keep the outbreak a secret for as long as possible and releases a placebo pill to “fight off the zombie infection” to effectively calm the masses. Multiple governments initially deny the problem in order to avert absolute panic, but when people start raiding camping and grocery stores, governments are too slow in reacting to the needs of its people.

Both World War Z and Drezner’s articles on zombies make convincing cases for how zombie outbreaks should occur in reality. World War Z contradicts Drezner’s idea that realists would “live-and-let-live” when it comes to a zombie outbreak. Certainly some countries unnecessarily ignored the problem for a time, allowing increased violence within their borders, but eventually states did recognize that they had to deal with the zombies and ended up using military force to do so. The idea that Drezner’s liberalists create, that there would be a World Zombie Organization, is completely shot down by Brooks in the way that his fictional zombies are portrayed. Zombies are vicious creatures without the ability to think for themselves, so Drezner’s liberalist thought that zombies would become part of a recognized organization is completely preposterous. The constructivist idea proposed by Drezner is probably the most accurate, with the exception of the socialization of zombies into society. Brooks creates a security community in the novel that emphasizes the reduction of the zombie population. Brooks takes a human perspective while Drezner remains theoretical in his approach.

Both texts have a considerable amount of overlap, but I think one of the biggest causes for disparity came from the definition of what a “zombie” actually was. Brooks portrayed them as mindless creatures whose disease was passed along biologically via a bite from a carrier. Drezner was more vague in his definition of zombies, but judging from how he though they would be able to be assimilated into society, it seems as if they are more intelligent and could be trained. Despite differences in the definition of “zombies,” both texts are fundamentally different in what they judge to be important in the prediction of how events will unfold on an international scale.

Apart from Drezner’s theories, I believe that realists would probably view a zombie outbreak as an all-out war against the undead and during this war states would have the secondary objective of vying for the status of being an internationally recognized hegemon. This theory is supported by Brooks in the passage about the Kashmir region. The governments of India and Pakistan are so consumed by their desire for control that their armies unnecessarily clash and do not protect their citizens to the best of their ability. Liberals would support the idea that smaller organizations would have a better chance of combatting threats such as zombies (Goldstein). In World War Z, it is the smaller communities and not the governments that create effective measures to ensure survival. Constructivism would maintain that reactions to the outbreak would be socially and historically contingent, implying that reactions to zombies would vary greatly throughout the globe. This is upheld in the novel, for countries such as China imprison those who speak about zombies while the United States denies the outbreak for months. Interestingly enough in real life, the CDC published a guide to zombie survival several months ago that advises people how to prepare for such an outbreak (Khan). Perhaps in reality, neither Drezner’s nor Brooks’ theories would play out as envisioned and the government would prepared, efficient, and effective against zombies.

One of my favorite things about World War Z was that it gave a human perspective when theorizing exactly how zombie outbreaks would occur in different regions of the globe. The premise of the book was that the narrator was charged to write a report about “The Walking Plague” but when he turned in his report, the “human element,” involving all of the interviews with survivors, was deemed unnecessary. In the introduction, the narrator of the novel states, “The official report was a collection of cold, hard data, an objective ‘after-action report’ that would allow future generations to study the events of that apocalyptic decade without being influenced by ‘the human factor.’ But isn’t the human factor what connects us so deeply to our past? Will future generations care as much for chronologies and casualty statistics as they would for the personal accounts of individuals not so different from themselves? By excluding the human factor, aren’t we risking the kind of personal detachment from a history that may, heaven forbid, lead us one day to repeat it?” (Brooks 1) I support his premise that oftentimes reports and theories are a little too cold-blooded to be concerned with human nature. Sometimes realist, liberalist, and constructivist ideas are so concerned with proving their own theory to be correct and disproving the others to be wrong that they can forget to provide any “wiggle room” in their theories to accommodate the abilities of people to break out of their presumed, ascribed roles in international relations. Is it beneficial to raise future intellectuals who think only in terms of theory and statistics, ignoring their own connections to humanity? Theory can give us a deeper understanding by using a broad view, but in the end, it is highly dependent upon how actual humans act and react in the real world.

Works Cited

Brooks, Max. World War Z. London: Duckworth, 2006. Print.

Drezner, Daniel W. "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zombies." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://chronicle.com/article/How-I-Learned-to-Stop-Worrying/126306/?sid=cr>.

Drezner, Daniel W. "Theories of International Politics and Zombies." Daniel W. Drezner. 2011. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://danieldrezner.com/zombies/>.

Ghosh, Pallab. "Science Ponders 'Zombie Attack'" BBC News Science and Environment. BBC News, 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8206280.stm>.

Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. New York: Longman, 2010. Print.

Khan, Ali S. "Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse." CDC Blogs. CDC, 16 May 2011. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/>.

“Disappearing” in Algeria

William Vazquez

Professor Craig

World Politics 001H

Date of Submission: 12 December 2011

On November 15^th, 2011, in the Kay Spiritual Life Center Lounge, the Human Rights Defenders series presented Nassera Dutour. According to the flyer, she is the spokesperson for the Collective of the Families of the Disappeared in Algeria (CFDA), an organization she founded in 1998 after her son, Amine, was “disappeared” by government security forces during the Algerian Civil War. Nassera works to shatter the silence surrounding the fate of her son and thousands of others who vanished during the war. For her ongoing dedication to the group, she was nominated by the Fund for Global Human Rights to receive the Oscar Romero Award. The Fund for Global Human Rights finds and funds local human rights heroes who often work at great personal risk to strengthen and bring global attention to their struggles. The Oscar Romero Award is given to individuals or organizations in recognition of their unsung, heroic efforts in the area of human rights. On November 13^th, Madame Dutour received this prestigious award in the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas. Two days later, she came to tell us her story. She was aided by two interpreters for those in the room who did not speak French.

On January 30^th, 1997, Amine Dutour was arrested in Algiers at the age of 21. Amush, as his mother affectionately called him, was just another student like any one of us – he wanted to live, learn, and work hard, never asking for anything in return. The authorities in Algeria thought otherwise, and as a result he was “disappeared.” For six months, Madame Dutour searched all over Algeria, going to various police stations, courts, and government agencies in order to try and find him. With every disappointment, she lost more and more hope, but also discovered even more of what was going on in Algeria. She discovered many people being held in secret military compounds, and on the road, she met many other mothers searching for their children too.

One mother she remembered specifically came with her to Washington, D.C., to speak about the issue. Her daughter had been kidnapped while getting into a car by armed security forces. This mother had gone to cemeteries in order to take pictures of the graves of those who were captured and tortured. She then filed a report that she was going to send to the United Kingdom to receive international aid in this issue. She was then taken to a secret government place of torture. Madame Dutour did not want to go into too much detail, but she did say that this woman was detained, tortured, and sexually assaulted by five different people. In the ‘90s, Dutour and this woman came to D.C. to tell their story. Sadly her friend was not able to make the whole journey. She had been suffering from cancer and refused to receive treatment, and so she passed away in 1999.

Madame Dutour stated that it is because of these women that she is able to do her work, to be strong, and to tell the authorities that they cannot continue what they are doing. She then jumped back to explain the back story in Algeria a little more. In 1998 there had been an uprising in Algeria were young students demonstrated in support of democracy. The military (which is still in power today) opened fire on the demonstrating people, and within two days of the firing, about five hundred people had been killed. In response to the demonstration, the government decided to make some changes to appease the protestors (that had survived the murderous onslaught). Yet few positive changes were made, and there remained very little room for political parties to form or for the media or NGOs to get involved. Then the Islamic party became public. During the election of 1999 it won a plurality of votes. The military did not like this turn of events though, so they soon after arrested the two leaders of the party, dissolved the party, voided the election, and deposed the president. For three years, the state was then run by generals. Meanwhile the Islamists were stuck in a rut, for while some wanted peace, others wanted to use violence to get what they wanted. They too had people “disappeared,” but not nearly as much as the central government. In the civil war that ensued, over 200,000 people were killed and 8,000 people were “disappeared.”

In discovering the complexity and the horror of the entire situation, Madame Dutour found that she could not fight “those monsters” herself. She knew her rights and was confident enough to talk to people outside of the situation, but many did not. Many mothers in Algeria were treated badly because of their illiteracy, and their cries for justice were often ignored. Madame Dutour realized that she had to do something to bring about a change, so she chose to go on and as a result ended up creating the CFDA.

The question and answer segment of her talk helped to clear up a lot of facts as well as explain more on how her organization came to be. As of now, Madame Dutour has yet to hear any news about her son. But to continue where she left off, when she first started to try and make a difference, she realized that due to so many Algerian mothers being scared of the authorities and speaking out, she could not accomplish her goals while in Algeria. On top of that, her activity was a thorn in the Algerian government’s side, and if she was not careful, something could happen to her too. She did attempt to organize the Algerian mothers, but she ultimately ended up going to France where she would be safe. There she met with Amnesty International, who told her about many groups in the UN that could help. Dutour filled out many sheets to get the process going and also organized demonstrations to speak out against the crimes being committed. With Amnesty International and several other mothers, she toured Europe, at first speaking while covered in scarves to hide their identities but ultimately building the courage to speak with no scarves on.

The Algerian government eventually invited a UN delegation to come to the country and then denied all the accusations of terrible actions. The positive result of this was that Algerian mothers finally began to demonstrate thanks to the UN arrival. This began in August of 1998 and has continued until now. Last year the Algerian government declared these demonstrations to be illegal, but people continued to do so in private. Madame Dutour also said that after a while, she did not want any protection – in fact, she wanted to get arrested so that she could search for her son and get more publicity for the issue. Instead she spent much of her time meeting other families who had dealt with the same problem. After raising enough support, some progress was finally made.

The Algerian government finally admitted to being involved in about 4,885 deaths. The state was held responsible by not culpable. Eventually a law was passed giving amnesty to the Islamic groups of the nation. This was not yet enough though. Something had to be done about the lost children. Along with several other mothers’ Madame Dutour eventually gained access to meet with the Algerian president, and together they demanded the return of their children. The president merely retorted by saying that their sons and daughters were dead and that they had to deal with that. Even so, the mothers demanded the bodies.

To this day, the Algerian state still has so much power. Some wonder why it was not a part of the Arab Spring. As Madame Dutour put it, the significant changes began in 1999, but the state’s violent response that left the streets running red with blood did a lot to deter any real change. There are still plenty of victims of the civil war dealing with the residual effects and problems. The people are still poor despite the state’s monetary power. A new movement has begun though, one where people are asking the state for housing aid, for more freedom, and for reparations in return for the many lost over the years of conflict.

Currently in Algeria there is barely any freedom of speech. At the moment the Internet is fairly free and available to everyone, although the company providing the Internet is controlled by the state. Despite the movements for more freedom though, a new proposed law is now being discussed in Algeria. This law would allow for the state to act against any situation, group, or individual that could be or did threaten the state. Madame Dutour pointed out once more that at the moment, the president of Algeria does not do anything to provide aid, and the generals who had led before are still in power. To everyone present, she asked us to please share her story. She pointed out that the U.S. has a massive international influence, and that if it were to put pressure on the Algerian government or to aid the people in need, the situation could change for the better.

This talk was incredibly saddening yet full of hope. While Madame Dutour was forced to deal with the reality of her son’s “disappearance,” her overall effort to change her situation rather than just accept it was incredibly inspiring. Through nonviolent grassroots movements, she tried to bring about significant change, and while her efforts have not been as fruitful in changing how the Algerian state conducts itself, the world can now know about what is going on and say something against crimes committed.