foundations of international politics

Pakistani President turns over nuclear authority

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9C8VBF80

    President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has willingly relinquished some power by turning over the command of the country's nuclear arsenal to the prime minister.  This comes as the amnesty granting immunity to Zardari and many others from graft charges expired on Saturday.  Zardari's opponents are calling for his resignation, due to the many allegations of corruption that have been plaguing him since the time of his wife's, Benazir Bhutto, presidency.  Bhutto, whose term was filled with corruption, was able to return to Pakistan and run for president with the aide of the US, she was seen as "a secular and pro-Western politician"; however, she was killed by a suicide bomber upon her return. There is also tension between him and the country's military due to some of his decisions that may threaten the power of the army.  This latest move is just one of many that Zardari is employing in order to keep his job as president.  According to the article, Pakistan's foreign allies would prefer political stability in this country that is fighting "Islamist militants" and enduring several bombings so far.  

    Perhaps there is a more selfish motive behind Zardari's actions; however,his actions and others' reactions do illustrate the importance of a stable government for a nuclear state.  It is clear that as a nation with nuclear weapons and one that is also fighting a war, Pakistan cannot afford to undergo a military coup, and that is what Zardari is trying to avoid by relinquishing some of his power and thus appeasing some of his opponents that may have deposed him.  Although the motivations behind most of these actions are less than selfless, it is probably best and safer that Pakistan remain stable and gradually shift leaders.  

    Gusterson's notion of the "other" and nuclear weapons can also be applied to this article.  It can be seen by the US and other western states' complete ignoring of the corruption that was practiced by Benezir Bhutto and her husband as well as many of her allies.  It is interesting to see that the main characteristic that these Western states see is the fact that she is "secular and pro-Western."  It is this overriding belief that nuclear weapons are meant only for Western, more "civilized," states that leads to dissent from other nations, such as Iran and Pakistan (at first).  Now, despite the fact that Pakistan, a mostly Muslim state, has proven it can develop nuclear weapons and not cause WWIII, the US and others are asserting their beliefs over it by supporting leaders that are most like them i.e. pro-Western.  Although political stability is a good thing it must not be an excuse to Westernize a nation whose people may benefit more with different leadership.
 

Iranian Troops 'Seize Iraq Oil Well' and Test Fire Advanced Missile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8420774.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8415489.stm

 

In recent news, Iran not only crossed into Iraqi territory and took over an oil well, but days earlier had also successfully test-fired an improved version of a medium-range missile.

It is interesting to note that the Iraqi government initially played down the arrival of Iranian troops on Iraqi soil, reasoning, “the area was abandoned and right on a disputed border section”. The central Iraqi government has yet to issue directives to Iraqi military forces. The Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister also noted, “the incursion is one of several that have occurred in the last few days”.

As for the missile testing, Iran’s state television confirmed that Iran test-fired a missile that “has the range to be able to hit Israel and US bases in the Gulf”. Although this isn’t the first time Iran has test-fired a missile, its timing, along with its incursion onto Iraqi territory, presents itself as problematic, especially in light of the tension surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran continues to deny any desire to develop nuclear weapons. However, its belligerent actions, in addition to the revelation of the existence of a nuclear facility near Qom, are only serving to “undermine Iran’s claims of peaceful intentions”. Constructivists, in particular Wendt, will argue that states perceptions of each other’s identities are based on their interactions with one another. Indeed, Iran appears to be setting a tone of mistrust and skepticism among its global peers.

            While the issue of nuclear proliferation is serious, and countries must maintain caution with the matter, it would be worth considering all the reasons why Iran may have decided to test-fire a missile. It is natural and makes sense for other states to be alarmed by the deployment of a missile. Perhaps Iran was trying to send a forceful message to its Western adversaries. Nevertheless, a feminist analysis might disagree and suggest that based on the concept of objectivity, this argument doesn’t provide a comprehensive picture of Iran’s intentions. The BBC article does a good job of underscoring this point, and suggests that it was perhaps internal conflict that led to the testing of the missile. The testing occurred on the same day that Iran’s judiciary announced it had incriminating evidence against opposition leaders, and “the missile launch may [have been] an attempt to distract attentions from plans to arrest the opposition leaders”. 

Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18muslims.html?ref=world

    Fear and frustration has emerged among the Muslim community in North America. After the September 11th attacks, the FBI and Muslim and Arab-American leaders worked hard to cooperate and share information, in order to build a “relationship of trust”. However, a series of cases in which informants have been manipulated to give information, and numerous reports of negative experiences with FBI agents has led to the belief among the Muslim community “’that law enforcement is viewing [their] communities not as partners but as objects of suspicion’”.
    The FBI’s ultimate purpose is to ensure national security. This, in effect, entails building relationships and maintaining sources of information. That being so, it seems it would be important, if not necessary for the FBI to maintain upright relations with the Arab community. It would be to the agency’s disadvantage to establish all Muslims and Arabs as the “Other”, as this would only further distance itself from the communities, and inhibit any chance of truly understanding the nuances of their cultures and concerns.

Global warming sets up confrontation between developing and developed nations

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06zeller.html?pagewanted=2&hp

With the international global warming conference approaching one of the main points of contention will be the pressure that nations like the United States will place on developing nations like China and India, whose carbon emissions have been increasing in concert with their economic development. From a realist point of view, it seems like the United States might lack the influence to get serious cooperation on the issue, even if it was truly committed itself to climate change.  India and China are unlikely to be very willing to agree to stringent controls because they would prevent further economic development, which in turn would inhibit further military development to rival the United States and regional neighbors, and increase their own security.  The United States seems unlikely to try to use military force or coercion to accomplish their climate goals, so they may try to work with other countries to present an economic threat to India/China to compel their climate cooperation. 

Iran Plans to Build New Enrichment Plants, Blames West

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8385797.stm

The Iranian government recently approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, comparable in size to its existing enrichment plant at Natanz.  Natanz has 5,000 working centrifuges, with plans to increase that number to 45,000.  Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi has publicly stated that the plan was prompted by the recent UN demand that Iran stop work on a recently-revealed site; the Western world believes that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weaponry, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful.  Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have called the action "childish" and incoherent.  Salehi claims that Iran had no plans to build sites similar to Natanz before the IAEA's demands.

This is a perfect example of the "other" influencing policy action.  The Iranian government - Ahmadinejad in particular - appears to be attempting to pass off blame for its actions by pointing to an outside force as the instigator instead of national self-interest.  It's difficult to pinpoint exactly who Ahmadinejad and his supporters are trying to appease with this strategy; while it might be helpful in manipulating public opinion within the country, particularly in garnering support from other actors in the government, it's difficult to believe that they require that much convincing.  Even if they do, is alienating the IAEA countries worth the stronger foothold with officials who might otherwise have doubts?  Time will tell.

Constructivism Active in Vietnam

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34152989/ns/health-aids/

    A US operated AIDS clinic in Tinh Bien, Vietnam, in the poor province of An Giang, works to provide care and AIDS drugs to 340 Vietnamese patients. This clinic, formerly a site where Americans trained South Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam war, and 55 other clinics across Vietnam work under the PEPFAR initiative of former President Bush (emergency plan for AIDS relief). PEPFAR accounts for 80% of US humanitarian spending at $85 million this year--with $300 million of that going to the effort in Vietnam. Drugs are provided to more than two thirds of Vietnamese patients receiving treatment, while no preventative clean needles and syringes are provided to address the number one cause of HIV spread in Vietnam: infected needles.

    While perhaps not the most pressing piece of news, this article caught my attention because of the concrete constructivist methods of reshaping relationships it describes. While the PEPFAR effort isn't perfect nor as effective as it could be (in this situation, for example, it could be more effective by providing clean needles and addressing the root causes of the issue) I felt inspired, for once, by an outreach effort of the US. Though perhaps I shouldn't, because this effort could be seen as a flailing effort to help rid of the country's shameful history in Vietnam. However, the clinics are creating a movement in the health system of Vietnam and are providing better care (according to this article) than locally run institutions and are providing a refuge for patients. Another way the intentions of the US to "compensate" for its misdeeds in the past is evidenced by the fact that out of 15 PEPFAR countries, the only one in Asia is in Vietnam. Despite that the US will never really be able to make up for its past, I view these efforts in a very positive light. While older Vietnamese citizens may remember the war, patients of these clinics will see the US as a supportive and heroic force. The clinics, aimed to change the health-related future of the country as well as the relationship between Vietnam and the US, are well intentioned and hopefully will continue to do good work. This article makes me wonder about the future of the US's other relationships. Which ones will it try to change? Must it feel guilty in order to treat a former enemy humanely? I wonder if the US will instigate similar efforts in any other countries it has plagued in the past or presently. Perhaps it should.

Swiss Vote to Ban New Minarets... and Jeopardize Social Stability

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html?ref=europe

 

The passing of a recent referendum in Switzerland has effectively banned the construction of minarets (the prayer tower of mosques). The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, however, because the ban gained the majority of votes in the majority of cantons, the ban will be added to the Constitution. According to the article, out of the 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, “only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer”.

The passing of this referendum is extremely telling of the widespread Western fears of Islamic fundamentalism. It also corresponds with the fears of Muslim immigration in other Western European countries, such as France. This current state of affairs reminds me of what Derek Gregory described in The Colonial Present, as the fear of the “Other”. Similar to how the US government played up the American public’s fear of Islamic fundamentalism after 9/11, members of the rightist Swiss People’s Party have stated on public television that “minarets are a symbol of ‘the political will to take power’ and establish Shariah law”. There has also been a series of campaign posters depicting black, missile-like minarets alongside a woman covered in a full veil, towering over the Swiss flag.

 

What’s interesting is that despite the depiction of the veiled woman in the posters, the majority of Muslims that live in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and do not adhere to strict Islamic codes of dress or conduct that is common in countries like Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, there lies a danger in the symbolic message the Swiss government is sending by implementing this ban. In the same way the US government categorized Al-Qaeda and stateless Islamic fundamentalist groups into a war against terror in Afghanistan, the rightist Swiss People’s Party aimed to categorize the general Muslim population into one “Other”. Yet in terms of constructivism, it comes across as counterproductive to depict all Muslims as fundamentalists. Wendt argues that process, not structure defines relations among states. In addition, actors define their identity based on how others treat them. Thus, if we regard the European Muslim population as a state or nation, it becomes easy to see how Switzerland’s treatment of Muslims will affect relations between the two actors. By passing the referendum, the Swiss government is effectively signaling its fear and intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism, and it seems inherent that the general Muslim community will interpret this as meaning their presence is unwelcome. Although Swiss factions, such as the Swiss People’s Party, may hope that this showing of the desire to diminish the presence of Islamic culture will result in a passive response from the Muslim community, I think otherwise. This is not to say all European and/or Swiss Muslims will react in fundamentalist terms, but rather, this seems like a good way to foster social unrest within Switzerland (this may be similar to the recent social unrest and violence in France). Thus, does it really make sense to enforce this ban? Would it not be more constructive and worthwhile to follow in Obama’s footsteps, and welcome the Muslim community as a counterpart to Western society, rather than a threat?

Iran Showing No Fear of Western Aggression

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125949335275468335.html

   

In a move largely suspected of being a response to recent attempts to stymie its nuclear program, the Iranian parliament passed legislation to set aside $20 million to help Islamic terrorist groups, most likely Hezbollah and Hamas. The bill stated that it is meant to counteract the “illegal activities” of the U.S. and Britain. After the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ordered Iran to cease the development of its nuclear program, Iran expressed its discontent with the IAEA and threatened to become less cooperative with the organization, having already defied a U.N. Security Council ban on uranium enrichment. To cap it all off, Iranian legislators began the process of decreasing Iran’s cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency.

These latest developments in Iran will undoubtedly fuel the mistrust that already exists between Iran and the Western world. It is interesting that Iran is standing firmly in defiance of the west when they have not yet fully developed their nuclear weapons, and therefore do not yet have the security offered by nuclear deterrence. I would have thought that Iran would try to at least make it seem like it was cooperating with the West until it had made its nuclear arsenal operational. It seems Iran is confident that the U.S. will not take military action to prevent its nuclear growth, and it clearly has no respect for the institutions of international organizations like the IAEA. Iran is apparently not trying to prove to the West that it is trustworthy, and is solely focused on achieving success with its nuclear program. Otherwise, it would not even be associating itself with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, let alone earmarking millions of dollars for them. If Iran continues to take this stance, I’m not sure that diplomacy will help the efforts of the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear development. Iran is likely going to eventually fully develop its nuclear program, and if the U.S. continues to be determined to stop nuclear proliferation, violence might be inevitable.

Obama's Plans in Afghanistan Continue to Surprise

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34193188/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

In this article, the plans of Barack Obama in correlation to the war in Afghanistan are discussed. In order to continue on with plans in Afghanistan, 35,000 more troops will be sent overseas in order to establish a stronger base to the government, as well as deal with the Taliban insurgency. In order to deal with the financial issues, the American people will now be taxed in order to deal with the countries debts and war expenses, according to the future plans, this will entail approximately 75 billion dollars worth of taxpayers money.

Understandably, more forces in Afghanistan take it or leave it is never a good thing for the American people, nor those of Afghanistan. With a country that is under a civil war with authority, and correlated with a Taliban insurgency, the idea of more forces easily puts distress on not only the civilians, but the soldiers and now, those back home. When Senator Bernie Sanders said it, he spoke words that could not be clearer, "I've got a real problem expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting aroundand saying 'Isn't it nice that the taxpayers of the United States and the US Military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?'" It's questionable when the British Prime Minister had said that several nations are sending in for a totaly of 5000 more troops, ironic, seeming as the US doesn't have any plans for the future rather than current point and time. The idea that specific benchmarks must be met in order for the foreign forces to hand over control to Afghanistan leads to the concern of what happens when more civil unrest develops.
The most considerable component is growing the Afghani army to a point where they can succesfully handle the Taliban to a point where there is not an issue with the insurgency any more.
For a government that seems to claim a greater liberal stance in issues of foreign affairs and conflict, it's questionable at which point the idea of peace and the least amount of avoidable deaths will become priority number one, and not fiscal amounts.

Presidential Psychology

UPDATE:  The figure should have been named Actor's Effectiveness in Wielding Power.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14961345&source=most_commented

Although this article does not fall under any specific realm of International Relations theory, it grabbed my attention immediately. The Economist has presented an overview of Barack Obama's first few months in office, particularly regarding his foreign policy and relationship with other countries. As they investigate his various actions, the question arises as to whether President Obama is being thoughtful or is being pushed around. In either case, is he being effective? To what degree is he being ineffective as a result of optimism towards international relations and realpolitik?

Part of my reason for finding this article interesting is that, in analyzing Obama, it questions not only his psychology but also the world we live in, and thus his potential misunderstanding. Do we live in a realist world and Obama is trying to tread a different path? In the case that we live in a realist world, one would expect Obama's actions not to matter and that the sheer power of the United States alone would prevent him from getting pushed around. However, such a view on international relations does not account for domestic difficulties Obama faces, whether they come from the electorate, the legislation, or even different members of his cabinet (i.e. Hillary Clinton and her different approach to Israel).This level of domestic influence, combined with Obama's own psychology and motives as an individual with significant power over world policy, have not been addressed in any theory we have discussed in class.

It seems, then, that the model such analysis produces is that the theories we have discussed in class address the question of "what is the greatest possible action that a certain group will take", whether they be a TAN, indigenous population, or state. This represents the first dimension in our analysis of how productive the leader of any particular 'actor' is in the world system one deems 'real'. The second dimension is to what level the an actor's leader's ideology of what the world system is fits that of general consensus among other world leader's, whose responsiveness is the leading indicator of a leader's productiveness. If the majority of those who control world events are living according to one system, and a single leader is living according to another, and taking actions accordingly, their actions will not yield the results they anticipated, reducing their effectiveness.

The figure above represents different possibility functions for any actor depending on how much potential power they have according to the International Relations theory the world 'exists in'. For any given potential a state may have, a state's effectiveness in wielding such power increases as their leader's ideology meets a greater correlation with the ideology of international relations followed by others who have power in the world's system (note that the world may live in a different system than that deemed real by most leaders).

A further analysis into the actions of individual leaders may be an interesting frontier for International Relations as the field evolves and starts asking questions about such differentiations between the potential power of states such as the United States and the power they actually wield in situations like these.

Iranian Tour Continues: Next Stop, Venezuela

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8378316.stm

Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has visited Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez on multiple occasions in the past and relations between the two nations continue to grow rapidly. Although some see the relationship to be solely based on the liking both nations' leaders take to one another, many "business and industrial accords" have been signed between both nations, linking them and their interests to each other. This meeting specifically, but not exclusively, addresses Venezuelan interests in developing nuclear energy, as Chavez voiced such interests to his ally Ahmadinejad and backed up Iran's right of developing a peaceful nuclear program. The two presidents are expected to sign 270 agreements this week affecting multiple industries in both economies. After stating that there have been numerous accords signed by both presidents in the past, Former deputy foreign minister Adolfo Tayllardhat stresses that the relationship between Iran and Venezuela is only linked by the fact that both nations are OPEC members and oil producing countries. 

    This article raises interesting concerns and sheds light on multiple IR schools of thought. Iran poses an immediate threat to the US and other western states, due to the ongoing development of the Iranian nuclear program, which some believe deals with the building of nuclear weapons. Tensions between Venezuela and the US have also been on the rise; Chavez is an "outspoken critic of the US" according to BBC, and has on multiple occasions criticized the US and US intervention in other countries' domestic politics. The strong relationship between both nations raises some interesting concerns with regard to US, Venezuelan and Iranian security. If the US does view both Ahmadinejad and Chavez as crazy, irrational leaders, based on past interactions and multiple incidences of non-cooperation, should the US assume that Iran is conveying nuclear information to Venezuela and try to stop another enemy from proliferating? What threat does the Iranian-Venezuelan relationship pose to the US, a state many a times criticized and threatened by the former two's actions and their perceived intentions? Finally, do you believe that the relationship is one shared only by the two leaders or do both nations have, as Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro put it, "a solid foundation [and]... a solid base that [has been] created over this decade?"