INR 3003 FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE
INR 3003 FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE inr3003
Popular in Introduction to International Affairs
Popular in International Affairs
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 19 page Study Guide was uploaded by Mari Schwabacher on Tuesday December 1, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to inr3003 at a university taught by metcalf in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 199 views.
Reviews for INR 3003 FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 12/01/15
INR 3003 Final Exam Study Guide Nuclear Weapons & Deterrence: I. Why don’t we use our nuclear weapons? It isn’t because there is a shortage and it is not that we have not been at war – we pulled out without a victory in North Korea when we should have used nuclear weapons to end and win the war. Reasons… A. They are destructive? This is not the answer in and of itself. Weapons are designed to be lethal. Japan bombed Shanghai in 1937, Germany bombed Warsaw in 1939, and the U.S. bombed Tokyo, killing 120,000 people. Warfare strategy: hit civilian centers, break enemy’s morale, and end the war. - Firebombing: using an incendiary bomb. Used in Dresden and Hamburg. -Daisy Cutter: bomb with a trigger device that explodes prior to impact and creates a massive horizontal spread with a greater capacity to kill. B. Nuclear weapons don’t have battlefield utility? Not true – can take conventional weapons and fit them with low impact, tactical nuclear devices to be used on the battlefield. Nuclear weapons could be deployed on a limited scale, but they haven’t been. - Depleted uranium has been used. It has a harder shell and as a result can be used in tank armor artillery shells. This also leaves a low level of radiation behind. C. They are wrong/immoral? A country that used these would be universally condemned by the international community. This is also seen as wrong by the state’s own domestic population. 80% of Americans were in favor of our use of the atomic bomb after WWII. D. A shift in world opinion occurs: the human tragedy of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (August 6, 1945) allowed us to see how destructive these weapons are – areas were picked that had not been hit by bombs before. The mushroom cloud was the only thing to tell us this was different from other bombs. -Shadows were burned into walls. Long term effects of radiation and the concern of atmospheric contamination. There was a human toll – clothing was embedded into skin. Radiation continued to kill – 70,000 died on impact. By the end of 1945 the number doubled to 140,000, and by 1950 200,000 had died. Children were born with horrific birth defects. II. New norm of deterrence: after WWII more militaries and states looked towards nuclear weapons. There was a shift away from civilians as targets (Geneva Convention, weaponry more precise) and nuclear weapons were seen as wrong. McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War, but Truman said no – non-use stance. Other countries were developing and there was fear of retaliation. The atom bomb developed into the hydrogen bomb, and a new norm of deterrence developed. In the Cold War there was a balance of power and a balance of terror. Both nuclear powers had the ability to destroy each other. III. Effects on Policy: policy developed to contain these weapons and their uses. Some wanted to ban them, but neither the Soviets nor the U.S. were willing to do this. Rather, control & contain them. A. 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): banned the use of nuclear weapons and limited their possession. Every country was a part except for India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and South Sudan. Goal of stopping proliferation through monitoring. B. Focus on other non-conventional weapons with exceptional capacity to kill after WWI: Biological (1972) and chemical weapons (1993). Attempts to limit impact on civilians: -1925 Geneva Convention prohibited the use of gas in warfare. -1972 Biological weapons ban -1993 Chemical weapons convention. Followed Iran/Iraq War – weapons used against Kurds C. Approaches to controlling the possession of nuclear weapons 1. Disarmament (liberal): get rid of weapons and rely on diplomacy. Neither Russians nor Americans willing to disarm (Prisoner’s Dilemma) – focus had to be control 2. Deterrence via Extreme Build-up: Deter Russians by developing as many nuclear weapons as possible. Greatest stock-pile, greatest advantage. Feat: might create war (trying avoid this) – increasing security dilemma -Nuclear triad: being able to deliver nuclear weapons amongst all branches of the military -- by land, sea, and air. Important to maintain this. 3. Deterrence via Arms Control: dominant after 1950s in Cold War. Not eliminating our capabilities, but reducing stock piles. Ensure balance of capabilities. We have the ability to destroy Russia, they have the ability to destroy us M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction). Neither side can win. Second strike capabilities – could still hit back because of the nuclear triad. -Maintain vulnerability to a nuclear attack through policy – ultimate restraint system. Neither side can win, why would we push the button first? Both restrain. IV. Arms Control History: From MAD to MAP -1963: Partial Test Ban Treaty – no atmospheric testing -1968: NPT -1968: SALT I – Strategic Arms Limitations Talk -1972: ABM Treaty – Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Limited ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missiles) interceptors. Agree to limit our defenses increasing our vulnerability. -1979: SALT II: agreed to limit and not develop new ICBMs. Offensive capabilities, not ratified by Congress. -1996: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – no testing of weapons -19902-2000s: START – Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. Agreed to start destroying weapons we have, greatly reducing our numbers. -Shift again towards defense – M.A.P. (mutually assured protection): less offensive capabilities, more defense Nuclear Proliferation: I. “Nuclear Taboo” (Nina Tannenwald) Nuclear weapons are “peculiar monsters” created by us and it would be damaging to our reputation if we were to use them. Nina Tannenwald wrote “Nuclear taboo” and argued that weapons had become taboo. The norm of non-use was so widespread that just not using them, but even the threat should be left off the table completely. Insurance purposes. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we came to using these weapons. II. Meaning of Proliferation: Spread of offensive nuclear capabilities, specifically now to states not recognized as nuclear weapon states by the NPT. This has to do with motives: Why would a country want to have nuclear weapons? What do they want to do with them? -Rogue states: pursue nuclear enrichment/acquire nuclear weapons of international treaties. North Korea: began in the 1990s. 1993: pulled out of the NPT, pursued nuclear enrichment, and sanctions were implemented from the international community. Successfully tested weapons in 2006. Continued testing, the international community cashed out. Motives: would not have been good – attack US South Korea, or Japan. Iran: not there yet, but on the path towards nuclear enrichment. Disconcerting rhetoric – talking about destroying Israel. III. Deterrence & small/new states: proliferation of nuclear capability to new states has been a chief concern since WWII, when new states formed. This would have only increased the security dilemma. A. Preconditions: 1) a strong, stable government, 2) possession of advanced technology, 3) an advanced communication system, 4) large, spread out stock piles (Nuclear Triad: in order to provide deterrence, a state must maintain second strike capability), 5) excellent precautions against sabotage and/or accidents, and 6) solid security B. Problems: If a state gets weapons but doesn’t have these things, it’s not a strength, but a weakness – would increase international insecurity. Small/weak states didn’t possess these preconditions. C. Regional conflict: nuclear war would be regional – most likely to occur between India & Pakistan or Iran & Israel. Not the same global intensification, devastating on a regional level. Religious, ethnic, territorial divides – intense and long lasting. IV. How norms shape behavior & strategy (identity/constructivism) A. Nuclear norms: non-use and deterrence with nuclear age B. Do norms matter? Norms are important. They help to shape behavior and strategy – also at the individual level. These have kept us out of war. The Clash of Civilizations: I. Post-Cold War Environment: new era fundamentally different from the past and threatening to the U.S. Samuel Huntington: not in line with realists or liberals – in between realism and identity. Predicted a new type of conflict that will be civilizational. Civilization: “highest cultural grouping of people at the broadest level of cultural identity that people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. Defined both by common objective elements (language, history, religion, customs, and institutions) and by the subjective self-identification of people.” –Huntington, 1993. Not the only form of identification, but the highest. Ex: citizen of Rome – identity narrow/local (Roman) and broadly (Italian Catholic Christian European broadest: Western). II. What are the civilizations: 7 major civilizations, possibly an 8 , and a 9 that is discussed in a civilizational context. This is only Huntington’s idea of civilization. 1) Western: Canada, the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand 2) Confucian: China 3) Shinto: Japanese 4) Islamic: Middle East, central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa 5) Hindu: India 6) Slavic/Orthodox: Eastern Europe and Russia 7) Latin America: Mexico and South America 8) Possibly Sub-Saharan Africa (and South Africa) 9) Buddhist: Southeast and Central Asia III. Conflict becomes civilizational: Huntington sees civilizational conflict as something new/the latest state of conflict. From Princes, to Peoples, to Ideologies, to Civilizations. A history of conflict. a. Princes: wars of elite, chivalry, territory, local power. Fought by elite, no significant role for people other than that they were subjects. Nationalism comes into play. b. Peoples: wars of the people, citizen armies fighting for the nation. French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars up to WWI. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia first communist government. National Socialist Revolution in Germany rise of fascism. c. Ideologies: ideological conflict. WWII and the Cold War. Agrees with Fukuyama – liberal democracy won out, the west found their ideal form of political governance, but this is solely a western affair. Western wars: it is fair to say democracy has brought an end to man kind’s evolution? Democracy not necessarily right for the rest of the world. The world will reject the western construct and create divides. The non-Western world will rebel. d. Defines new era: “West versus the rest” a clash of civilizations. Increased interconnectedness between us and states. Liberals: we are more likely to cooperate, recognize similarities. Huntington sees this from the opposite perspective: globalization will increase our civilizational identities/draw sharper lines of distinction. IV. Why has civilizational identity increased in the age of Globalization? Identity has gone from local to national to civilizational. To Huntington, this is because of contact/globalization. More interconnectedness, more recognitions of differences, stronger sense of civilizational identity. Particularly with religion – broad religious identity transcends local or national. More contact with others more aware of our differences. Familiarity breeds contempt. V. Why might we have a clash of civilizations? Ultimately civilizations will clash over these differences, but Huntington never says that this is inevitable. A. Western Power: He sees other nations rejecting and rebelling against western authority, ideas, and values. Some don’t care for our power, wealth or influence. B. Basic differences: basic, yet fundamental differences (language, history, religion, cultural patterns, and social constructs) are harder to overcome. These make us who we are and shape how we view things – how we see ourselves as individuals, in society, and in relationship to our government. C. Immutable/unchangeable culture: you can’t change who you are. During the Cold War, the question was asked, whose side are you on? You can switch sides. But the question of culture is “who are you?”, and that can’t be changed. High stakes – don’t change sides. D. “Us” vs. “them”: differences create this mindset – exclusionary. With us, or part of the other – draws clear dividing lines. E. Kin-Country Syndrome: if and when we see these conflicts, we can expect this syndrome to kick in. Each going to go to countries within own cultural grouping for back up large conflicts (west allies with west, etc.) VI. Huntington’s Predictions: Huntington says we can see traces of this occurring in the 20 century. Exs: war between China and Japan, wars between India and Pakistan (Hindu vs. Islam), Balkans. Published 1993: argued coming clash would be between Western civilization and Islam. Predicted alliance between Islam and Confucian civilization to counter-balance the U.S. This was before the first World Trade Center bombing. With 9/11, there was a renewed interest in Huntington and many realized that he was pretty spot on. Huntington doesn’t believe that the only type of conflict will be civilization – there will be inter- civilizational war, but not as big/major. Clash of Civilizations – Part II: I. Islam vs. the West: Huntington says that there has already been a back and forth between the Islamic world and the western world. He claims that Islam has “bloody borders” – there has been a series of conflicts on fault lines of civilizations (where Islam/one civilization meets with another civilization. Islam – Israeli wars, Chechnya: Russians vs. Muslims, Pakistan and India, and Sudan. Over and over we see conflict between Islam and other civilizations. Some take offense to this because Islam is singled out. II. Critiques of the Clash of Civilizations A. Essentialism: critics say Huntington draws this out is so that everyone in the civilization is essentially the same. China and Japan are more cohesive but some civilizations encompass a lot of countries. Ex: not all countries in Latin America are the same. Huntington never says that everyone within a civilization is essentially the same, this is just the broadest identity. He doesn’t claim that there is only one identity – just a broader, shared, civilizational identity. Africa (possible civilization): what links countries from Sub-Sahara to those in the South? Tribal culture, geography, black skin population, but scientifically the most diverse region in the world. Islamic civilization shares religion. Critics see this as insulting, again because his idea of this civilization encompasses many countries. Not one ethnic group – there are huge divisions within Islam (Shia and Sunni). As Islam spread, it adapted itself locally, making it unique and diverse. o Edward Said: clash of ignorance – accuses Huntington of racism. Called the grouping of so many diverse people irresponsible. B. Too monolithic: Huntington pits it as “the west vs. the rest.” He focuses on our differences instead of our similarities. C. Can it be measured? Is there any way to prove that these civilizations exist? No, it’s almost impossible to measure. D. Liberal critique: not on the same page – comes down to Huntington’s focus on differences. Liberals believe we are a diverse world but that that shouldn’t impact our ability to come together, through international organizations, and cooperate. We can be different and still work together. E. Realist critique: Huntington’s argument is way too big. Realists focus on the state. Civilizations are made up of many states, which won’t sacrifice their rational self-interests for its neighbors. States’ own security and survival are important, not civilizational identity. F. Fukuyama & the Global Standard Critique: they believe we are coming to a global standard/conformity based on the same set of beliefs (coming from the west). Instead of a civilizational conflict, identities are merging and coming into conformity with the west and its liberal values of democracy. Some have used China against Fukuyama, but he sees the process of conformity: China isn’t as communist today, now has a market economy, and no other country has adopted the Chinese model. Instead, countries around the world have adopted a western model – there is no viable alternative to liberal democracy. Arab Spring: calls for western values (more freedom, less repression voting rights, etc.). Radical Islam not viable alternative to liberal democracy or strengthening, it is reacting to the spread of democracy as it is in its death throes. III. In Huntington’s Defense: Huntington doesn’t argue that civilizational identities will replace all other forms. He simply sees civilizational identity increasing and globalization adding to that. Political Islam: I. “Why do they hate us?” by Fareed Zakaria: a reaction piece in the aftermath of 9/11. Huntington’s answer: because we are fundamentally different and clash because each side seeks to make their interpretation of the world the dominant one. Religion separated us (Bin Laden). Vague question – who is “they” and who is “us”? Radical Islam = the extremist component that espouses terrorism 9/11 brought a new enemy into our focus – the majority didn’t see this coming. We have now reoriented ourselves to a new world and a new threat. We lacked a fundamental understanding of Islam and the Middle East. II. Brief history of Islam: Islam shares roots with Christianity – all goes back to Abraham. The split comes with Isaac (Jews) and with Ishmael (Islam). Both recognize prophets and Jesus, but to Islam, Jesus is just a prophet. Followers of Islam believe that, over time, teachings of prophets have been corrupted and that there is a need for reform. A. Muhammad (570-630): God chose Muhammad as the new prophet (570-632). From Mecca, part of the Quraysh tribe. 610: Muhammad sought to escape the decadence of the area and went to a cave where the angel Gabriel appeared and gave him a simple command: to recite what would become the Quran. 613: Muhammad began preaching and converted a sizable following. This wasn’t sitting very well with the political and economic elite in Mecca – Muhammad was chased out and went to Medina (622) to continue working. B. Ummah: In Medina, Muhammad formulated the idea of Ummah (community), replacing tribal identities and unifying the people as part of a common religious community. Muhammad established himself as a political and military leader. He conquered Mecca and the Mesopotamian peninsula and died in 632. He is viewed as a prophet, not divine. Islam has since grown to be the 2 ndlargest religion in the world. C. Five Pillars 1) Prayer: Muslims pray 5 times a day facing Mecca 2) Recite the Shahada – there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet 3) Giving alms/charity to the poor 4) Ramadan: month of fast, 9 month on the lunar calendar 5) Hajj – pilgrimage to Mecca, to be made by every Muslim male -Gihad is often thought to be a pillar by the west (means struggle) but it is not. D. Christianity vs. Islam (Clash of Civilizations context) 1. Quran (Hadith & Sunna): the primary holy work for Islam. 2 other works: Hadith – sayings of the prophet, and Sunna – traditions based on the life of the prophet 2. Islam’s relationship to the state & role of conquest: religion and state fused together as one. In the West, Jesus is outside the ruling power. In the world of Islam, Muhammad is a religious and political leader simultaneously (conquest). Shariah: Islamic law based on religious works. E. Caliphates: Muhammad didn’t leave a named successor, so elders appointed a Caliph (religious and political successor). Chose Muhammad’s father in law Abu-Bakr General Umar. He was responsible for expansion militarily, through diplomacy, and religious conversion. 1. Orthodox (or “rightly guided”) 632-661 A. Four Uniting Bonds: 1. Islam, religion itself 2. Shariah, Islamic law 3. Language – Arabic 4. Economy, ease of trade With the death of Umar, things got complicated – succession dilemma – who has the legitimate right to succeed Muhammad? B. Legitimists (Shiites) vs. Umayyads (Sunnis): Legitimists believed that the legitimate successor would have to be from Muhammad’s blood line. Umayyads thought that the leader should just come from the same tribe as Muhammad – more supportive of rightly guided Caliphs. Uthman and Ali were two of these and both were assassinated. 2. Umayyad (661-750): Umayyad Caliphate formed – represented victory over legitimists. There was more expansion during this period. Spain Central Asia. Seat of power: Damascus. Golden Age of Islam: cultural and scientific advancement, expansion, power, and the spread of Islam and Arab influence. Caliphates were established as hereditary rule. 3. Abbasid (750-1258): internal problems and decline of leadership seat of power to Bagdad (largest city in the world at the time), new Abbasid Caliphate. Continuation of Golden Age in the early part. Less centralized, encountered a lot of oppositions. th Barbarian Seljuks (Turks) beginning 11 century, loss to Baghdad. Establishing authority, don’t destroy Caliphate. Ran up against Byzantines battle at Manzibert (1071). Byzantines defeated appeal for help to Pope begins Crusades, rally of Christendom to re- take lands. Mongols – made it to Bagdad, ended Abbasid Caliphate, and Mamluk Sultanates clash with Mongols. 4. Ottoman Empire (1299-1923): 1517: Caliphate moves to the Ottoman Empire. Core: Asia Minor (later Turkey). Last of the Islamic Caliphates with the Ottoman Empire at the height of its cultural influence. Very rich time of flourishing across the board (arts, literature, architecture, math, sciences). Diverse and vibrant people into one entity. One reason for its power: location – bridge between East and West. Traditional trade routes (Silk Road from China to Europe). Changes in Western world (Renaissance, Reformation, Industrial Revolution). Europe strengthening and expanding Ottoman Empire eventually loses edge – caught off guard by progress in West. Starts being chipped away at – lands lost to colonialism. “The sick man of Europe” – in obvious state of decline. No longer major power moving into WWI and it falls with that war ruled by European powers boundary drawing (artificial barriers). Unity destroyed in this process Component of nation-state system: Western idea of separation of church and state – completely foreign idea in this region. o Destroyed Uma, imposed western values fundamentally opposed to those found in Islam. Wahhabism to Militant Jihadism: I. 20th Century Humiliation: Mustafa Kemal – Atatürk (father of Turkey): vision for Turkey in opposition to Islamic view. Determined to secularize Turkey. 1924: abolished Caliphate. Extremists call for the restoration of the Caliphate. Secularized government (removed religion). Took religion out of curriculum, changed the style of dress (more Westernized). Created a new script – not Arabic, Turkish. Attacked uniting bonds of Islam (except maybe trade). After WWII, another grievance. 1948 formation of Israel (at expense of Arab lands). U.S. major champion. Those within Arabic world who opposed saw Israel at their expense. The U.S. cannot be targeted as a colonial power, but can be for post WWII American imperialism. Currently: Turkey cannot be placed with the East or West. Islam, but then Ataturk... II. Rise of Reform and Radical Islamic Extremism A. Two Types of Reform 1. Internal-Fundamentalism: Seek to bring it back to the original teachings. Response to what are seen as corruptions and misinterpretation. Get back to fundamentals of the religion. Islamic Fundamentalism: a conservative reform going back to the basics 2. In Response to the West: Response was not uniform. Used to call Beirut "Paris of the East.” Iraq used to be very forward thinking/moderate, maybe secular. Women "had a lot of freedom.” Very progressive Iran (prior to Ayatollah). Others completely rejected the West (more widespread recently). Reaction responding to imperialism. Draw a distinction: everywhere Western imperialism -- opposition, but not always militant extremism/terrorism. Region distinct from others: Reestablishment of the caliphate/Golden Age was a historical collective memory they wanted to revive. Ataturk and Western powers destroyed unity of Western world. Extremists: merging two reforms into 1. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: conservative and extreme reaction to "perceived" threat to Islam/foreign presence. More domestic than international terrorism. Russians tried to prop up Marxist government in Iran from 1979-1989. Al-Qaeda formed. Went from one sect to a group with aspirations to rule. Radicalization takes place as a reaction to imperialism. B. Wahhabism: An Islamist, conservative/fundamentalist movement 1. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92): A religious scholar and reformer in modern day Saudi Arabia. Lead movement for internal reform. Felt Islam had been corrupted. Assimilated foreign ideas into his own belief system. 2. Conservative Teachings: Teachings of the prophet misinterpreted. Model: Muhammad himself, a rejection of modernization. Corruptions and add-ons removed. Men should be reading the Qur'an and be responsible for their own faith. Easy parallel to Martin Luther. Nothing explicitly dangerous: not received well (especially by elite because they had the most to gain from corruptions). Expelled from his hometown, ostracized. 3. Alliance with the Saud Family: Received by another tribe, the Saud family, who would become the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. Wahhab throws his support and followers behind the Saud family. In return, once the family obtained ruling power, they will enforce his teachings. Beginning of marriage still here today. 1744-First Saudi state. Ultimately three Saudi States: Wahhabism at core and actively spread. Spread through Madrasas (religious schools) with conservative interpretation. Only country in the world where women couldn't drive by law (reasoning: there would be no more virgins, divorce rate would go up, homosexuality would spread--all confirmed through scientific studies) III. Wahhabism to Jihadism A. Saudi Connections to Extremism: Potential explanation 1: Seem to support extremism, recognize the Taliban, supported Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, maintains instability to prevent a powerful competitor in the region. 2: Support groups with similar interpretation of Islam (i.e. conservatism). B. The Double-Edged Sword for the Saudis: Government needs support of Wahhabists (religious leaders have tremendous political authority). Can't alienate population. The extreme component of Wahhabists are very critical of the government because of oil wealth, not living like Muhammad, non-rejection of modernity. Extremists virulently oppose Western modernization. Royal family/government have close relationship with Westerners. C. Sayyid Qutb (1907-66): "Man we can point finger at" for transition to militant extremism. From Egypt – scholar, former government official, later leader of Muslim Brotherhood. Accused of being behind a plot to kill Nassir and executed. Initially admired the West, but then came to U.S. and attended college in Colorado and no longer admired it. Living in the rest forced him to realize Western cultural values. Woman had too much freedom, too many sexual freedom. Didn't like consumerism as a byproduct of capitalism. Family unit destroyed. U.S. a very violent culture (Boxing as sport, while his violence was religiously just). After leaving U.S., Muslim Brotherhood. 1. Radical Fundamentalism: Build upon fundamentalism with radicalism--espouse terrorism. Wanted to see internal reform and an aggressive reaction to West. 2. Opposition to the West and Western-friendly leaders: Attacked internal elite (Ataturk = enemy #1), Saudi ruling elite (oil wealth/lavish life, relationship with the West). In 1990s, first Gulf War begins. Iraq invades Kuwait. Saudi government invites U.S. military into Saudi Arabia despite having avoided Western control. 1994 Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship because he called for war over this. 1996 he declared war on U.S. over the fact that U.S. wouldn't leave Saudi Arabia. 3. Notable Followers: More radical leaders: Wahhabists of Qotibist persuasion Omar Rahman-the blind sheik & Osama bin Laden. 15/19 of 9/11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia brought up in radical persuasion of Wahhabism/Qotiba 4. Opposition to the Nation-State System: Antipathy plus we are blamed for destroying the Ummah (community), we can see why extremism might spring out of something like that. 5. Goal: civilian casualty, biggest shock with most limited means. Terrorists can use this approach to weaken their enemy or to try to enforce a change in behavior. They commit acts of terrorism to accomplish a political or religious goal. Militant Jihadism to International Terrorism: I. Afghan War (1979-1989): we start seeing addition of militant and anti- imperialism element. Local instability. Fractured tribes, instability of nation-state, rise of terrorism A. Deobandi Fundamentalism: Deoband, India is where reform movement originates. Trace origin to 1867. 1. Presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan: 1947, new center of deobandist movement moves to Pakistan. US went to war against Taliban in Afghanistan. Trying to fight war against group that doesn't recognize the sovereignty of borders. Flow freely back and forth between them because US must then make agreements with Pakistan to follow terrorists. Advocate using a militant jihad to protect Islam. Takes Afghan war to radicalize this. Soviets wanted to use Afghanistan as puppet state/bridge. Move in 1979 to prop up Marxist government. Looked at as imperialism. Population rallies against imperialist oppressor. Communism and atheism go hand in hand, so if soviets were successful, they would see an attack on Islam. See flooding of people out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. They are welcomed and brought into deobandist Madrasas (funded by Wahhabists). In deobandist Madrasas, common fight against godlessness of communism. Not just secular, but godless state. 2. Ties to Wahhabism: Draw many parallels between it and Wahhabism. Doing same thing, calling for return to fundamentals, emphasizing personal education and individual reading or Qur'an, wanted followers to imitate simple life of Muhammad. Later gets support from Wahhabists, especially in Madrasas. Differences: lacks state support. In 1867, India is under rule of British crown. Not at all state focused, deobandists not looking at territorial borders. Don't recognize nation-state, but community (Ummah). Much more fluidity. B. Taliban: One group emerges as significantly radicalized: the Taliban (from Qandahar) C. Mujahedeen: Not the only one (US called them freedom fighters at the time) but are the Mujahedeen (holy warriors) fighting against soviets. At time US considered them to be just and saw fit to indirectly help. CIA worked with government of Pakistan. Started to supply them, as it was a proxy war. D. Support of Al Qaeda: US helped to supply Al Qaeda, founded and funded by Osama bin Laden for the purpose of this war. 1989 soviets pulled out of Afghanistan – military and economic drain. Marxist regime was still in place until 1996 when Taliban ousted it. Taliban funded by Pakistani government. Pakistan was one of only 3 (Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates) to recognize Taliban as legitimate government. E. Role of US: Where US really went wrong is that after war, US didn't help stabilize the political vacuum left behind. A major radicalization because supporters all over the Middle East were united to protect Islam and then militarized. II. How widespread is Extremist Islam? The radicals are the minority, but they've attacked US, positioning US as their enemy. The media focuses on them because "they make a lot of noise." Islam is a religion that is full of diversity. Both sides of extreme, but also mainstream A. Evidence of Dissent: Muslim Brotherhood (recently took power in Egypt through democratic process). Reaction from Egyptian people because they feared it would be too fundamentalist in its rule. -Ex. Arab Spring: Arab Spring: makes clear to us that radicalism isn't in the majority. Began in 2010, but inspired by revolts in 2009. Want greater freedom, greater political participation. Have seen governments in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt fall because of this. What's going on in Syria is remnant of this legacy. B. Threatened Groups: Extremism poses distinct threat to all that oppose it. Vast majority of terrorism occurs domestically. Radical Islam is threatening to people in many levels of society. State leaders friendly to west (Saudi leadership). Attempted assassination of Nassir. Assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt by militant jihadist group. Threatening to moderates: hey might not desire western culture, but some may desire greater personal and political freedoms. When moderates try to speak out against radicals, they and their families are attacked, so there is a fear of speaking out Also threatening to those who don't adhere to pan-Islamic viewpoint. Radicals want to see reunification of caliphate, but others prefer state identity. May favor pan-Arab instead of pan- Islamic. Because there is so much diversity within Islam, it canned ever remain united for long (Robison). Every caliphate fell apart internally first. External factors were not fundamentally responsible. There will be internal disunity III. Back to the question: "Why do they hate us?” US support for Israel, oil interest, presence in Saudi Arabia, and because US reach has extended into the Middle East. IV. Why Terrorism? Economic targets as opposed to military targets. Civilian causality a goal. Asymmetrical warfare= unconventional approach. Terrorist represent a non-state entity, dispersed enemy, crosses many state lines. Enemy does not have ability to attack conventionally, with an army. Try to inflict the most damage with absolutely limited means. In inflicting maximum damage, target civilians. Bigger shock factor. V. Intentions of Terrorism: Terrorists can use this approach to weaken their enemy or to try to enforce a change in behavior. A. Asymmetrical Warfare: Hiding amongst civilians – they wanted US to respond because they wanted to show that the US is inserting themselves in Middle East. US killed civilians because they hide amongst them. US wants to win over the people, show that freedom fighters are murderers. The radicals initiated this and put civilians in danger by hiding amongst them. B. Demonstration Effect: How do we respond? With force. When they try to weaken, we demonstrate strength. Demonstration affect (keep in mind who the audience is, not US, but people who live around where they operate). Don't have to keep tolerating western imposition, showing they can resist/fight back. Wanted to delegitimize US, call attention to grievances. With US involvement, involvement in Al Qaeda shot up. VI. Transnational Terrorism: We are fighting against a non-state enemy and terrorism has become transnational. At best, US can put pressure on those governments to work with us. Modern communications, transportation. Fukuyama says this is an example of radical Islam in its death throes. The fact that they have spread out is indicative of weakness and vulnerability Terrorism: I. Defining Terrorism: it is notoriously difficult to define because it depends on who you ask. People see things through different lenses. Fort Hood Shooter: Major Nidal Hasan, shouted Ala Akbar (God is Great) before opening fire, and had contact with Anwar al Awlaki (American born Yamani cleric who was a well-known terrorist and recruiter for Al Qaeda). Actions labeled as “workplace violence” – many felt he was acting as a terrorist. The military was the most upset because they cannot award purple hearts to victims and this decreased their compensation. Umar Farooq Abdulmutallab (2009), the “Underwear Bomber”: attempted to deploy a bomb in his underwear over Detroit. Interviewed by 2 FBI agents and mirandized put into civilian court system (he wasn’t American) put in U.S. jail. Grey area: wasn’t clear what to do with him. Also had direct connection to Awlaki (in Yemen) -Ex. Fort Hood Shooter and the “Underwear Bomber” B. Importance for us… Yasser Arafat, previous leader of Palestine. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” There is a logic behind this that, in their viewpoint, is completely justified and not seen as terrorism. II. So, what is terrorism? “The threatened or actual use of illegal force directed against civilian targets by non-state actors in order to attain a political and/or religious goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.” Problems: increasingly difficult to combat terrorism because we aren’t defending ourselves against a state. The targets of terrorism are civilians. a. War vs. terrorism: Terrorism is illegal force: there is a distinction between war and terrorism because there is a legal aspect to warfare and rules of engagement that can be traced back to ancient times. Rules come from a series of Geneva Conventions that stipulate what can and cannot occur in warfare. The existence of terrorism means we might need wars of counter-terrorism not accommodated under just war tradition. b. Just War Tradition (Geneva & Hague Conventions) and how terrorists don’t fit… 1. War can only be declared by a legitimate government. Terrorists are not part of a government so they have no authority to declare war. 2. War must be declared openly so that the other country can seek diplomacy or prepare to defend itself. Terrorists don’t give open warning of attacks. 3. War is intended only to be used as a last resort. Terrorists haven’t attempted to negotiate in order to avoid conflict. 4. Only military targets can be intentionally attacked – never civilian targets. However, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t casualties. Terrorists intentionally attack civilians and also hide amongst them. The Bush administration was criticized for launching a war against the Just War Tradition. Problem: dealing with terrorists falls out of the Just War Tradition because they aren’t a legitimate government. III. Are they crazy? Are they criminals? Better understanding terrorists makes us better informed to combat him. The greatest mistake we can make is to underestimate the enemy. Crazy is an inaccurate label. Ted Kaczynski was an American known as the “Unabomber” and he suffered from mental illness. The solution of how to deal with mental illness doesn’t apply to terrorists. Using criminology to profile terrorists also fails. IV. Rethinking who is a terrorist: The majority of criminals know that they are criminals, but terrorists wouldn’t say that. Criminals tend to be undereducated, poor, young adult males. Much terrorist leadership is highly educated and line up with the middle class – fascism parallel. Terrorists and criminals are two different groups of people. Be cautious about applying easy labels. V. Terrorism conclusion: Although Huntington said “Islam”, and that isn’t all of terrorism, this can be seen as a clash of civilizations. Fukuyama might say that this is a violent struggle that we would expect to see on the way to democracy. International Human Rights: I. Human Rights Development A. Enlightenment/Liberalism: Begins with enlightenment thinkers, when we begin to see concepts of individual freedoms and equality develop. Property rights, ability to resist oppression, and religious and voting rights formulated. B. Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789): at the spark of the French Revolution. Concepts of nationalism and liberalism. Granting individual liberties and freedoms. Supposed to be natural and universal rights. Didn’t apply to colonies, women, those who didn’t own property. This is a starting point of these rights being acknowledged. The concept of these rights spread during the 1800s, especially in the Western world. Soon these rights began becoming the norm/the expectation. C. Nationalism: can be positive, but can also be divisive and exclusive. 1. Minority Issues: There has been unfair treatment of minorities who don’t fit into the mold. 2. The Holocaust: WWII truly highlighted the problem of the minority issue because we had the Holocaust. Jews were the primary target and 6,000,000 lost their lives, but 7,000,000 non- Jews did as well. First coined the term “genocide” in 1944 – applied to the events of the Holocaust. International community more aware of this problem after WWII – had to do something to protect the rights of the individual. D. UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): goes back to the rights of man to recognize the universal and inalienable rights of the individual. Sought to protect the individual’s rights on a broad level – political, religious, economic, social, civic, and collective rights. Directly tied to global peace. If a government/country acknowledges that all of its citizens are equal, it should see others as being equal as well. Problem: when it was drafted, the intent was to make it legally binding on the states. Going into Cold War, many political disputes, this didn’t happen. Thinking was that they would do this down the road, but it is not – this declaration has never been legally binding on the states. Instead, we have seen regional human rights agreements which would embody the values and morals of that particular region. There are cultural differences between regions – these types of agreements serve to recognize those differences. Organizations have also emerged to defend human rights (NGOs) – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, etc. These all monitor human rights globally. Seek to make violations known and states internationally accountable for misdeeds. Reputation costs, seek to put pressure on governments to force them to recognize the rights of their citizens. They call for the release of prisoners, especially political prisoners. They seek protection for minorities and refugees as well as for women and children. Seek to hold up judicial law and force change. 1. UN Human Rights Commission/Council: responsible for drafting and implementing this declaration. 2. International Criminal Court (1999): goal to prosecute those charged with human rights violations. This gets so bogged down in red tape – so many complexities. E. Problems 1. Definition of Human Rights: biases shape our opinions – how can we agree on a definition? In western society, we think in terms of the individual and individual rights – the government works for the people, expected to serve their interests and protect their rights. Different framework in the East. Society itself is the center, the individual is expected to serve the society, which the people work for. Amnesty International’s definition: “basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religious, language, or other status.” This definition would be very problematic outside of the western world – not all countries enjoy basic rights and freedoms according to our definition of those terms. 2. State Relations: Russia would not agree to place sanctions on Serbia for committing ethnic violence – left the UN powerless to act, NATO got involved instead. Problem with wanting powers to concede to broad definition of human rights. 2011: UN Security Council wanted to charge Syria for human rights violations but Russia blocked the vote. Issue with Olympics in China in 2008: Tibet wanted independence, many threatened to boycott the Beijing Olympics and protests occurred along the torch route from Greece. 3. State Sovereignty: states want to be sovereign and they want their rights protected as a sovereign state. The UN is made up of states so it continues to uphold and respect the sanctity of state sovereignty. If the UN, our chief international body, does this, then can they simply violate that because they don’t like what’s going on within a country? Henry Nau asks: “Can the international community breach the global norm of sovereignty in order to implement a new global norm of fundamental human rights?” If country X violates the human rights of its citizens and the UN wants to intervene, is that okay when the UN is made up of states who uphold the value of state sovereignty? At what point can we say there is sufficient reasoning to violate state sovereignty and who has the ultimate authority to make that call? When the call is made, might it be politically motivated? But if we don’t intervene, who will protect those within the state? How do we define genocide – how many people need to be killed? Often a situation is not termed a “genocide” unless someone calls it that to intervene. When there is not an intervention, it is usually not termed. Whose responsibility is it to help? 1999 UN Compromise for intervention: “large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or large scale ‘ethnic cleansing,’ actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion; acts of terror or rape” – under these conditions, the UN can seek intervention. F. Rwanda: a boundary-drawn state. Long standing dispute between two groups. 1. Hutu (majority)/Tusi (minority). UNAMIR (UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda): UN peace keepers on the ground trying to help the two groups make/keep peace. April 1994: Rwandan President (part of Hutu majority) killed when an extremist group of his own group shot down his plane. The Hutu majority used this as a pretext to go after the Tusi minority – all-out attack in an escalated manner. Peace keepers aren’t designed to attack this type of situation, not allowed the shoot. 10 Belgian peace keepers were captured, tortured, and murdered Belgian asked to pull the peace keepers out of Rwanda for their own safety, and most are pulled out. Those that fled to UN camps for protection had no one to protect them and fell victim to this violence. Over 800,000 people killed in 100 days. The RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) took control of the capital, forcing the Hutus to flee fled out of Rwanda, UN came in to help prevent a reverse genocide. Major refugee problem, over 1 million living in refugee camps and instability in the region for years to come. 2. Where was the help? Apparently this was a genocide at the time. Calling it a genocide would have required that we do something, so we didn’t, and the UN didn’t either. This was after the U.S. intervened in Somalia and we did not want to endure another similar situation. 1998: Clinton apologized for the U.S.’s failure to act. Kofi Annan, serving as the UN secretary-general: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity? Surely no legal principle – not even sovereignty – can ever shield crimes against humanity?” If we act unilaterally, we could be condemned for it. G. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): since 2001, the UN has tried to be more clear and aggressive about when we have a responsibility to intervene. “Sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens form avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.” 1. The state has a responsibility to protect its people. When the state won’t, or can’t, the responsibility shifts to the international community. 2. These violations need to be stopped before they occur. If unachievable, they need to be met with military intervention. 3. When military intervention is used, we have to be committed to rebuilding the state afterwards. H. Human Trafficking & Slavery: this happens in every country around the globe, even in our own backyards. It is a reality. Many prostitutes in this country are the by-product of human trafficking – they don’t want to be there, but they are under the control of others who tell them what they have to do. The vast majority of those trafficked are women and children. 2 million children are exploited annually in the global sex trade, including infants. Over 1 million children are trafficked each year. This is very difficult to combat for the same reasons human rights violations are difficult to combat. 27 million people are enslaved today.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'