Blog Post #2- Karla P.

The Debate between the Liberal Peace and Democratic Peace

            Although both the hypotheses of Liberal Peace and Democratic Peace rely on Liberal principles they differ significantly in their explanations of what prevents war and propagates peace throughout the world.  The Liberal Peace theory can be summarized in that mutual trade and economic development in a country are the most powerful inhibitors of war and indicators of peace. The Democratic Peace theory is even simpler and states that wars do not occur between democracies. In order to contribute to this ongoing debate on which theory best accounts for peace in the Western world, I argue that the Democratic Peace theory is more empirically reliable and stronger when compared to the overall Liberal Peace explanations.

            The Democratic Peace theory has a lot of strong empirical evidence supporting it, meaning that it has been statistically proven that democratic states are less likely to go war with each other. Research conducted has proven statistically significant, like 0.01% of wars occurring between democratic states according to Bremer in his 2001 research (Ray, J., 1998).  More importantly, the rebuttals or counterarguments to the Democratic Peace Theory are relatively weak, being “esoteric” in nature and using complicated methodologies that render unclear results (Schrodt, P., 2004) Although Democracies do often go to war, this does not occur with other Democratic states, that fact cannot really be contested. Explanations for that observation like Regime affinity can easily and sensibly account for it, because using logical reasoning it makes sense to deduce that regimes of similar values and ideology stick together (Lecture 10).

            The main issue with the Liberal Peace explanation is that it is presented with World War I and World War II. If economic development and trade are the main tenets of this theory, there is no way it can account for why World War I and II occurred. Also, the modern “McDonald’s theory of war” only held for about 3 years, when The United States began bombing the Serbian capital which had seven McDonald’s restaurants (Schrodt, P., 2004).  The burden in proving how this theory holds is showing that it is true, which has proven to be just as difficult as it is to show that the Democratic Peace theory is false.

          Overall I think a lot of factors besides Democracy and Liberal values (like trade and economic development) account for the waning of war in history until our modern times. However, when choosing between these two theories and analyzing the data available in support of each, Democratic Peace seems like the obvious choice for me. It more readily explains why Democratic states go to war with non-democratic states as well as why they do not go to war with similarly Democratic states. The fact that these are two facts/ observed patterns in the world make it difficult to oppose this theory, which is why it has received much attention throughout the years.

Sources:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3699600?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104915033787

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm

Lecture 10

Should the US intervene with Syria

          Syria has a lot of issues right now.  They have a growing problem with a civil war that started in 2011.  Their failing government has caused tons of distraught and hatred within the country.  Since 2011, over 100,000 people have died due to the fighting and war.  Syria also now has ISIS to worry about now that they have claimed a large amount of land there.  ISIS has been killing many innocent people in Syria and other people from around the world.  They strike fear into the people of Syria daily.  The United States has a tough decision of whether or not to enter Syria and try to intervene with their civil war and government, much like we did with Iraq.  It would be wise for us not to, and here is why.

          The war in Iraq should really be a reminder why intervention in Syria is not a good idea.  That war went on for over 8 years and it was arguably not as tricky Syria.  With that war lasting so long, their government still isn't perfect by any means.  The country is still extremely volatile with the Islamic State threatening it along with other rebellions taking over.  As soon as the United Staes left Iraq, two years later extreme rebellions rose and overtook the government leaving them to ask for help from the U.S. again.  After spending over 8 years, tons of money and people's lives, Iraq is back to being a failing government and state in shambles.  The point here is that history tends to repeat itself.  If we intervene with Syrian government, how long will it take us to take over and rebuild? How do we know it will even work?  ISIS isn't going away anytime soon and if they aren't dealt with, they will just invade Syria as soon as we leave yet again killing innocent civilians.  With a region of the world such as this, with extremists and terrorists basically running their operations throughout this region, I don't think any government will be able to be rebuilt.  

          If we do go into Syria, how many American lives will be lost?  This is a question that no family wants to know the answer of when dealing with this war.  Will my son be going into war?  Will I ever see him again? 

          There were about close to 4,500 American causalities during the Iraq War.  Are the American people really ready to embark into another war that could kill this many people again?  I know gaining the support of the American people would be extremely hard.  Without the support, it would tear this country apart with protests and not supporting the war which is not easy to deal with.  With the Iraq War, people were eager to go to war because of what happened with 9/11.  Unfortunately, a tragedy to our country has not happened that had near the effect of 9/11.  Syria really hasn't done anything to our people to get us behind war.  Another thing that people will ask is what do we get out of this war?  Why does the United States have to intervene?  Atleast with the other war we had a feeling of security when invading, with hopes of ending future terrorist attacks, but what benefits does this war bring? None.

          There are too many risks of this war and not enough benefits.  Can we really afford to invade another failing country, just to watch it fail as soon as we leave?  What will it cost us and at what cost will we feel satisfied with Syria?  It is a pretty easy decision as to leave it be and to not intervene.

SOURCES

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14542954          

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

Blog 2: Ellie Silverman

Tunisia refuses to become a failed state

As ISIS rips through Syria and Iraq, Tunisia has remained strong. The state adopted a progressive constitution in January, which includes a balance of power between a prime minister, chosen today, and a president which will be elected next month. While others may still believe this state will fail, I think this constitution is a promising step towards guaranteeing success.

Elections took place across the world today, but Tunisia’s was incredibly important to their stability as a nation and a beacon of hope for those who want to see democracy take place in the Arab world. The Tunisians, who headed to the polls to vote, made history by voting for their first post-revolution government today. This marks the end of three years of transitional governance, that if continued, may have lead Tunisia to become a failed state because of its instability and unrest.

Regaining political control took Tunisia another step away from the apparent failure of many other Middle Eastern nations. There were several parties competing for votes, but the country’s Islamist Ennahda party is advocating for a unity of all competing interests after learning from Egypt’s failures when a divisive election led to a military coup. “We decided that at this stage of the democratic process we need to unite the country and not to polarize the political scene,” Loti Zitoun, a senior Ennahda official said to The Washington Post. By acknowledging this fact, Tunisian political officials are actively avoiding fractionalization, civil war, social unrest and lack of political control – all of which are evidence of a failed state.

Like most other Middle Eastern states, Tunisia has a poor education system, high unemployment and citizens who are Islamic extremists. CNN reported that over 3,000 Tunisians travelled to Syria to fight with extremist groups like ISIS. This makes Tunisia the single largest contributor of foreign fighters.

At the same time, gender inequality is still apparent in Tunisia, which impedes its ability to become a true success and gain legitimacy with social rights. Yes, women had the right to vote in 1957, abortion was legalized in 1965 and women had access to birth control ever since 1962, but approximately 23 percent of Tunisian women do not even graduate from high school. Although Tunisia’s laws may seem progressive, especially compared to other Middle Eastern states, the reality of life there does not support gender equality – a tenant of a states ability to achieve success and legitimacy.

However, I don’t see these problems as an immediate threat to the state. Instead, economic and security threats are much greater with terrorists invading the surrounding region. With this new coalition government, perhaps Tunisia will be able to boost the public’s confidence in their ability to provide security for the nation and thus gain a more immediate legitimacy as a government.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/26/world/asia/tunisia-elections-arab-democracy/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-tunisia-boldly-embraces-democracy/2014/10/26/8d86b19a-5adc-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/gender-fault-line-tunisia-2014102352855464592.html

Lauren Mishan- Blog #2

Evidence of Failure in Syria

            There has been much debate on whether or not Syria is heading for “failed state” status or not. From lecture, we learned that evidence of “failure” could be seen in human rights abuses, lack of civil rights, fractionalization, and civil war; many of these can be seen within Syria. First off, since the outbreak of the Syrian Revolution in March 2011, the international community has been weary and cautious when it comes to getting involved in Syria. There are many within the international community, including the former UN envoy to Syria Mr. Brahimi, who believes that Syria might become the next Somalia. Thousands of people are being killed, cities are being destroyed, massive human rights violations, bombs are being used, and millions are forced to flee their homes. Mr. Brahimi said, “Both the Syrian government and the opposition had committed war crimes “every day” (BBC). This is by far evidence of positive changes. In fact, the conflict in Syria leaves room to destabilize countries close to Syria, which comes with obvious drawbacks to the world. Mr. Brahimi also says, unless there is real, sustainable effort to work out a political solution, “there is serious risk that the entire region will blow up” (The Telegraph).

            How much killing will occur before this conflict is resolved? It seems like an endless discussion. Bloodshed in the Middle East seems to steal headlines every other week, but is the end in sight is the real question. From my perspective, I believe that there must be a way to stop the killings and the destruction. I do not know if replacing President Bashar al-Assad is the solution to ending the conflict, but I do think that unless an orderly political transition takes place, Syria will continue its path to becoming a “failed state” if it’s not already. In discussion we talked about whether or not the United States should become involved in Syria, and while I have my own beliefs about that, I do think that unless the international community steps up to encourage a more stable transition of power, and encourages democratic leadership, thousands of lives will be lost everyday if we all sit and do nothing, and that’s the reality of the situation. “People are struggling to obtain basic life needs” and as much as the U.S. and other countries are hesitant to get involved, there will be no end in sight, no peace for the innocent civilians in Syria, unless there is some push from the outside (Washingtonpost).

            When we turn to Washington to see what there “plan” is for this conflict, it seems that the Obama administration does not want to play a visible role in the conflict. There are obviously many reasons for this decision, many that we do not read or hear about, but it seems as though Americans are tired of trying to “govern war-torn countries.” So, there will be no boots on the ground, no “no-fly zones”, no big shipments of U.S. arms (Foreignpolicy). But, since there is a threat of chemical weapons waging in Syria, Obama says that intervening is in the “United States’ national security interest” because chemical weapons in Syria are a future threat to the U.S. and its allies. Instead of putting American boots on the ground, U.S. military action will be limited, and only to deter the use of chemical weapons and degrade Assad’s capabilities (CNN).

            It seems the longer this conflict goes on for, the more Syria comes closer to being a “failed state,” something that is difficult to reverse. I think if the international community jumps on board to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis that is destroying Syria, the world can start to figure out policies to help the Syrian people. There is much to be done, and I don’t think the international community can sit back and watch the conflict go on much longer.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27754732

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10884716/Syria-is-a-Somalia-style-failed-state-that-has-blown-up-in-the-Wests-face-former-UN-envoy.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/22/what_is_the_us_really_doing_in_syria

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/09/28/president-obamas-isis-strategy-working#p//v/3810794376001

How does a state fail and how can we fix it?

Amar Parikh

Failed States: How does it fail and how we can fix it

            Failed states have caused the United States of America to re-think their values in international relations due to the inherent threats from the failed state to our own. So why do states fail? They fail due to the fact that the local government cannot provide efficient political guidance and the government itself looses its legitimacy. The very nature of a nation-state becomes void in the eyes of its citizens and this causes the internal violence within the state.

            Somalia for example is a state that has never established a centralized state but rather an assortment of various clans. None of these clans have ever risen up to take full political control of the nation-state thus there is no proper establishment of laws and regulations. The clan’s warlords would fight and steal any national aid that was sent to the state. They would also try to obtain various military weapons in order to further strengthen their clans.. Countless fighting and other factors such as disease, environmental damages, and economic downfall contribute to the growing pains of the failed state. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has said, “Without a central state there is no law and order, without law and order there is no economy, without an economy a nation is destined to fail”.

            Failed states can become susceptible to terrorist training grounds further decreasing the nation’s security. One debate of failed states is that outside countries should seize political control of the state in order to save it. Intervention of a state can be difficult because each state is different. Due to different ethnical, racial, and religious backgrounds fixing the problem can be problematic due to the fact that in most cases one group will be favored and the other will be a secondary citizen. There is also an issue of what kind of aid will be sent, such as providing economic aid, military interventions, or completely overthrowing the government.

            Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was the center of attentions due to the fact that the Taliban had a hold on the country. The United States wanted to overthrow the Taliban in the region and instill an efficient and stable government system in place. They built infrastructures, trained the military force, and assisted in creating laws and establishing democracy.   

            In the end the United States want to create a stable government however they must be careful. American democracy cannot fully work in the nations of Africa due to cultural, environmental, and religious circumstances. The expectations for a rebuilding a failed state should be set low in the beginning. For example the United States would not be opposed if Afghanistan established a government that is slightly corrupt. This is because even a moderately corrupt government system could enforce some kind of national security within the nation so that threats like the Taliban can be easily handled. If all interventions of failed states occur with the idea of low expectations with the exception of guarantied national security, all failed states could potentially be salvaged.

Work Cited

"10 Reasons Countries Fall Apart." Foreign Policy. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

"Why Do Some States Fail While Others Do Not?" Roosevelt Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

"Why Do States Fail?" CIPE Development Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Natalia Rojas: Is Mexico a Failed State?

In late 2006, Mexico began experiencing a domestic crisis when the drug cartels forced a war with the Mexican government. Since the administration of Felipe Calderon, the president from 2006 - 2012, the drug war has killed at least 120,000 people and the country still continues to spiral further out of control.  (Grant) The effects of the war has put the once stable democratic country under much doubt from the international community; there has been increased violence, government corruption, human rights abuses, trafficking, and exploitation.

            To determine if a state has failed there has to be substantial concerns for their legitimacy and effectiveness. Questions such as “Is Mexico able to control its state?” or “to what degree is there government corruption and/or people recognizing the government?” can be indicators and evidence of the country’s stability.

            To answer the first question, “Is Mexico able to control its state and function correctly?” Looking at the variables: within the causalities list, seven percent of the estimated deaths are among military and police personnel. The security of Mexico is limited; most of their citizens are providing their own self-defense against the cartels rather than the federal government.  (Grant) In this perspective, Mexico fails to fulfill the government functions of providing safety and controlling crime.

            To answer the second question, “To what degree is there government corruption and/or recognizing the government?” The length of this war has been elongated due to the internal corruption of the police force and local politicians. Under the influence of fear, many policemen worked with the cartels or turned a blind eye to their crimes. The Mexican Army had 250,000 soldiers at the beginning of the war, but more than 150,000 soldiers since 2008 have left or have been associated working for the cartels. (Uprising Radio) Often at no choice, as many cartels including the famous Tijuana Cartel which reigns close to the California border, makes examples through public hanging and dismembering police officers who rat on them. Despite this, Mexico has been able to keep intact their federal/governmental institutions; democratic practice is still influential. This is seen with the successful transition of the Calderon administration to the Nieto administration with a 63% voter turnout for their plurality election.  (Carr)

            According to the 2014 Fragile States Index provided by the think-tank Fund for Peace; Mexico ranks as the #105 under the subset of the High Warning Index of “Failed States” out of 178 states. Mexico ranks with states such as Russia, Cuba, India, and China in the “High Warning” Index. 12 factors that are used to rank such states including social emergencies, economic volatility, political corruption, and low internal legitimacy. In comparison, the top country for failing all indicators and thus being the #1 failed state is Somalia which is classified in the subset “Very High Alert”. (Fund for Peace) I agree fully with this evaluation; as I do see the decline of economic and political efficacy within the state as alarming, but in contrast the fact that democratic institutions are still intact within the state provide structure and hope. I think it comes to show that a democratic structure can go a long way to provide stability and hope in the middle of chaos.

Works Cited

Carr, Adam. United Mexican States Legislative Elections of July 2012. 2012. IFE Website. <http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/m/mexico/mexico20122.txt>.

Fund for Peace. Fragile States Index 2014. 2014. <http://ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2014>.

Grant, Will. Michoacan: Mexico's Failed State? January 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25774430>.

Uprising Radio. Murder City: Ciudad Juarex and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields. April 2010. <http://uprisingradio.org/home/2010/04/26/murder-city-ciudad-juarez-and-the-global-economys-new-killing-fields/>.