Are there benefits to conflict? 

Conflict is dangerous, expensive, politically and economically charged and can have alternate meanings for the various groups involved in it. In this blog I aim to highlight and summarise some of the reasons behind why war has in some cases fostered positive externalities and how these externalities have helped shape the nation states.

Conflict can be seen as one of the main stimuluses’ to development and creation of norms and practices that are still articulated today. Jeffery Herbst and Samuel Huntingdon both argue that war in europe helped motivate leaders to take a number of steps that meant that development could occur. These steps included firstly; that elites had to create systems of taxation in order to support their conflicts and thus bureaucratic systems emerged. Secondly, conflict also can be seen as having played a major role in the development of nationalism in Europe, based on the fact that an external threat has the power to unite those being threatened.

The process of the need to create systems of tax can be seen across many nations who have been under threat from an external enemy. Taiwan and South Korea as Herbst notes, are able to extract large amounts of resources from their societies because they can argue that it is necessary in order to protect one’s self from the external thereat which in this case is North Korea and China respectively. The creation of tax systems helps to increase state wealth, whilst also increasing the links between people and their states as they increase their points of communication.

Nationalism in many cases goes hand in hand with conflict. Many stories that are seen as national legends involve discussion of some conflict. This can be seen in Canada with the remembrance of the conflicts including the WW1 that are remembered with symbols such as the poppy and a national holiday. These help create a sense of unity within countries such as Canada and encourage citizens feel close to the state.

There can be an argument made that many developing nations, and in particular African nations have not received the positive externalities of conflict that states in places like Europe were able to achieve. Herbst argues that in Africa since the end of colonization, conflict has primarily been present within a nation’s borders and interstate conflict has been minimal with no countries having been invaded by another. With this lack of conflict it could be argued states have not been able to foster this sense of national unity or create systems of taxation that can support development.

I would argue that the analyses of Africa is flawed and that you cannot really prescribe war as a means of development, it however does raise interesting points and I believe there is a validity into linking development of nation states and systems of taxation to conflict. Overall i believe there are more negatives than positives that come from conflict however i have tried to provide an alternate viewpoint through which we can look at interstate conflict

Climate Change – the most pressing security issue of our time

-     ‘Climate change is not a far-off problem. It is happening now and is having very real consequences on people’s lives. Climate change is disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.  But there is a growing recognition that affordable, scalable solutions are available now that will enable us all to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies.’ [1]

–      ‘there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate’[2](Obama)

The issue of the environment has been thrown into a spotlight this past week following the UN summit on climate change. More than a 100 heads of state came to New York, to discuss climate change and to figure out ways in which to limit the effects of it. Pledges and commitments were made that focused on; achieving carbon neutrality, becoming less reliant on fossil fuels and bringing in the private sector with financial institutions vowing to mobilize more than 200 billion dollars’ worth of finance by the end of 2015 to help create a more environmentally stable world.

So, why is the environment such a big issue and why should its degradation be considered such a security threat?

The environment is one of the few things that all of humanity shares, it provides for us and is the space in which we are all live and is thus fundamental to our existence. The emerging issues surrounding climate change has sparked a lot of debate, in terms of what to do about it, if it is actually occurring and should we consider it a security issue. In terms of security issues, a dichotomy arises between too academic camps about what should be considered a security threat. Prominent Realist thinkers such as Kenneth Waltz see security as being based around force and military power and security scholars who want to widen the topic of security such as Barry Buzan want to include topics such as climate change that pose threats to all of us. In this blog I aim to lay out an argument about why the environment and its degradation should be considered a security threat. Furthermore, I will highlight how these environmental issues are not a security issue that can be easily solved and try to address some of the issues that are presented via climate change and various states take on the issue.

Climate changes’ effects

Firstly, at the moment it is evident that sea levels are on the rise. This has the potential to effect hundreds of millions of people who live next to the sea forcing people to find new homes in order to escape the sea’s approach and could lead to the displacement of many communities. Examples where rising sea levels will cause huge issues and have already began to be felt include Bangladesh that has a quarter of its land being less than seven feet above sea level[3] and the Maldives that could become the first state to disappear entirely due to the rise of sea levels[4].  As the sea level rises it will not just be developing countries that will be effected but will affect every country that has a coast line.    (rising water levels in bBangladesh- http://www.dhakatribune.com/environment/2013/apr/21/climate-change-locals-ignored)

Secondly, as the population of the globe increases (predicted to be 9 billion by 2050[5]) reliance on food sources will grow however ‘approximately one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from Land use.’[6] Agriculture however is a necessity for humans and yet it accounts for a considerable percentage of greenhouse gases. As the population increases, more pollutants will be pumped into the environment causing more climate change that will have adverse effects on the world. This adverse effects will/can cause destruction of organic eco systems, loss of land for species making them endangered and contamination of water due to pesticides.

Thirdly, as the percentage of humans living in cities accounts for 54% of the total global population[7], and is going up humanity will become increasingly become more vulnerable. This is because cities concentrate people and thus increase the potential for single environmental events such as a hurricane or flooding to effect increasingly larger percentages of the human population. This can be seen in events such as hurricane Katrina that affected New Orleans, Brisbane’s floods and the drought that is increasingly affecting California and cities such as LA and San Francisco.

 Hurricane Katrina after effects (http://www.illinoisphoto.com/main/v/hurricane/new-orleans/aftermath+of+Hurricane+Katrina.jpg.html)

Political issues

These are but a few reasons as to why climate change and environmental degradation should be brought to the forefront of security planning. However, in the UN summit on the environment certain leaders did not turn up, this included the premier of China (Xi Jinping) and the prime minister of India (Narenda Modi) as well as Vladimir Putin.  With China, Russia and India coming 1st, 3rd and 4th on the ranking for emitting carbon dioxide emissions,[8] highlighting how these countries have an alternate view on carbon emissions.

These countries have legitimate arguments against the west, about how they should be allowed to use fossil fuels in the same way the western states did when they were modernizing. Although, China has somewhat pledged to support climate change initiatives, the lack of leadership attending the UN summit shows how its priorities lie elsewhere and away from climate change. This highlights how there is also a political dimension to the pursuit of combating climate change, and how in lacking a coordinated vision on how to deal with the issue, securitization against its threats are limited in how able they can be dealt with.

conclusion 

Overall, whilst the UN summit helped shine a light on the issue of climate change, many other problems face the world such as the fight against terrorism, poverty and disease such as the Ebola outbreak. These issues I feel though are small compared to the threat posed by climate change. One problem though is that countries such as China and India that contribute greatly to climate change, may not be willing to take an active role in fighting it until it directly effects them. This may be too late for many people and states though, including many low lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives. We should therefore put a consistent effort into securitizing climate change and make it the most prescient issue of our time as it is a threat not to a few but will be a threat to all. The discussion of these issues in arenas such as the UN is a positive step but it is currently not enough, all countries have to unite to fight climate change.

 Male, capital of maldives – could be the first coutnry to be lost to rising sea levels – http://www.remotelands.com/destination/maldives_13011009_Male

[1] http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/remarks-president-un-climate-change-summit

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/26/maldives-test-case-climate-change-action

[5] http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/action-areas/

[6] http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/action-areas/ – agriculture action statement

[7]http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/

[8] http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

coverage of the ukraine crisis – same conflict different truths

Coverage of the Ukraine crisis – how it is slanted

Same conflict different truths

The world is full of contradictions, hypocrisy and confusion that distorts truth and adds to/creates misconceptions. The conflict in Ukraine and the coverage of it via the various media outlets has lain out how absurd it can be to find out the truth and how the ‘truth’ really depends on your perspective. American, Russian, Ukrainian and European media outlets all have a different view on what is going on in Ukraine itself and all thus cause their readers/viewers to have slanted views  based on the information being relayed to them by the media. Furthermore the alternate representations of the crisis means that something that appears obvious to one set of people appears absurd to another. This creates misconceptions on a whole host of issues surrounding the crisis including; what is going on, who is to blame and what should be done. In this blog I will argue that the coverage of the Ukrainian crisis in the Western and Russian media has been contradictory, and represents a Cold War mentality that could have wide and damaging implications.

One media slant placed on the Ukrainian crisis is that of, Russia is to blame for the crisis and it caused the instability initially and then supplied weapons to the rebels. This view is strongly held by western media and has also been reflected within the western leadership with America enacting sanctions against Russia. Taking a quick glance at western coverage of the Ukraine crisis we see many headlines that are anti-Russian and are accusatorial of Russia. The newspaper headlines presented below (in bold) whilst being a small selection, are somewhat representative of the western mainstream Medias reaction to the Ukraine crisis and provides us with an example of the slant that the west has towards the Ukrainian crisis.

On the other hand when we look at Russian media we see an opposing viewpoint to that of the west towards the Ukrainian crisis. News corporations such as RT and Pravda report the crisis in such a way as to either shift the blame way from Russia or portray Russia as the good guy within the Ukrainian crisis. This information is then consumed by the Russian public and helps to guide their understanding of the issues albeit from a slanted perspective.  Below in italics are some headlines of various Russian news sources.

• Prince Charles compared Putin to Hitler  (CNN)[1]
• Poroshencko; peace depends on Putin’s mood (CNN)[2]
• Fearful Crimean’s flee for Kiev (CNN)[3]
• Ukraine warns west against lifting Russia sanctions (bbc) [4]
• MH17 dominates newspapers front pages around world, but not in Russia (guardian)[5]
• Putin’s missile (the sun newspaper UK)[6]

• A Goebbels propaganda prize for the corporate western media (Pravda)[7]
• Prince Charles, Hitler and ignorance (Pravda)[8]
• Homecoming: Crimean Tatars speak about living and voting on the peninsula (RT)[9]
• We’re coming home; Crimea celebrates after 97% vote for joining Russia (RT)[10]
• ‘China won’t support sanctions against Moscow’ (RT)[11]
• Was there a shot? Berlin is not telling the truth about the crash of the Malaysian Boeing (Rossiyskaya Gazeta)[12] (in this article the paper states that ‘the real cause of the disaster is still not clear’) – this is the opposite of the suns headline.

The biases are clear to see with the western media making it apparent that Russia is to blame whilst Russian media has a different angle in that they are the good guys or at least not the bad guys. These biases effect the consumers of the media in that they effect the perception they have of the situation and thus public consensus on what action should be taken is shaped by these biases. In the west it seems clear that the media is spinning an anti Russian rhetoric whilst in the Russia the media is spinning a defensive/pro Russia rhetoric. This cold war viewpoint of playing the blame game and defending against it shows that the media is a major player in exacerbating the good/bad dichotomy through its dissemination of information.

Therefore, the process of back and forth as established above between the two opposing media entities is relevant to the issues of security because it effects the everyday person. This is because the written media as well as the televised media for many people is the most accessible source of information. As these media platforms diverge and enter the blame game tensions and misconceptions will/have arise/arisen. The everyday New Yorker for example will have a different opinion on the issue to the average St Petersburg resident. These opinions will tend to run similarly to the political ideas at the time as the truth of the matter becomes distorted in the media and trickles into society as a whole.

These misconceptions in the public and in society at large could/have led to the emergence of tensions and these slanted truths could lead to real life security issues. So far these have only been enacted through the use of sanctions but there is the possibility for a localized event in Ukraine to turn into a much larger international issue and the media could play a role in this.

One problem is that these mainstream media outlets are not and have never been purely objective and we have the reader/viewer have to search out all the ‘truths’ and try to discover the most objective source of information possible. We need to be careful of the way we are fed and perceive information from news sources so that it does not create societal conflicts that could lead to excessive or irrational actions that could harm humanity as a whole.

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2014/ukraine

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/world/europe/poroshenko-interview/

[3] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2014/ukraine

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29357105

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-crash-dominates-front-pages-world-not-russia

[6] https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/489886548440412160

[7] http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/23-09-2014/128593-goebbels_propaganda-0/

[8] http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-05-2014/127647-charlie_hitler-0/

[9] http://rt.com/op-edge/187724-crimea-tatars-election-russia/

[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPIkPPs_yw

[11] http://rt.com/politics/189944-sanctions-china-russia-ukraine/

[12] http://www.rg.ru/2014/09/09/boeing.html

PMC's

Shadow Company documentary review and the emergence of private military companies  

The government systems of the western world are designed to solve collective action problems – to protect their citizens and to ensure harmony and order. To protect its citizens, the state holds the legitimate control over force in order to ensure that crime does not affect its citizens and that they can live in a safe environment. National defense is one of the key pillars to this ideal of protecting citizens. However, since 9/11 and the call to arms of some of the West’s most powerful states, the state’s control over the military and use of force has gone through a process of redefinition in which many states are in part reliant on Private Military Companies (PMCs) to cover short comings that they face. States such as United States and the United Kingdom in seeking the aid of these PMCs has meant that these states have become   consumers of force and have given up, to a degree, their monopoly over force. This can be seen with the US government issuing huge contracts to entities such as Blackwater, Halliburton, Aegis and many more that have become necessary additions to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, these PMCs are not solely contracted by Western states but also by private interests and individuals who seek the services they provide. For example, many natural resource multinationals employ PMC’s to guard their property, equipment and personnel.

The documentary Shadow Company provides an insight into how PMC’s work and how complex the issues that surround private military companies. In this blog my aim is to highlight how the process of using PMCs that have the underlining goal of financial gain has some serious moral and ethical implications, and that global oversight is needed to curb the potential abusive  implicit in their roles.

Historically, mercenaries were employed by many groups to deliver further political goals and exert control over the others across Europe with the many city states and regional rulers seeking aid from private armies. Italy, a country that in the medieval ages was made up of city states, was the perfect market for mercenaries. City states that had grown rich from trade, such as Venice and Genoa, yet held small populations had small military capabilities that made them vulnerable.  This caused these states to hire foreign companies to help them protect themselves as well as attack other city states.Shadow Company provided a useful oversight of this and managed to integrate the fact that mercenaries and the renting out of force has been present during various historical eras.

Now, we see a similar emergence of mercenaries that protect those who can pay and can fill the many roles that the western militaries have abandoned. PMCs undertake a plethora of activities and can be divided into distinct categories, with some providing uncontroversial services such as cooking food, and building equipment;, others such as Black Water,  provide tactical support and the now defunct Executive Outcomes – a company which  acted as a military for hire  in Sierra Leone.

So what are the issues of PMCs? Firstly, the state, in contracting out military power, removes a crucial check to force. Essentially, force is no longer a monopoly of government and its use is not subject to civilian control via the government. This means that PMCs, when using force, are less accountable than state-run militaries. In Shadow Company, the various PMC heads discuss the morality behind their choices, and all implied that they are morally conscious whilst they were quick to deride certain figures in the PMC world such as Tim Spicer. Whilst it may be true that many of these people may have morals, I would argue that when money is a key motivator for action – the concept of morality becomes inherently looser. It could also be argued that governments actually seek out PMCs in part to remove their political accountability from nefarious activities that occur during war.

The second issue is that is that PMCs, in renting out their ability to use force to private individuals and companies, can become a tool of force that involves abusive use of that force. I would argue that when protecting projects such as mines or pipelines, PMCs are acting in a non-controversial way and are instead fulfilling a demand that governments, particularly since the demise in the west of mercantilism, have been unwilling to provide. Shadow Company provides an example of how some PMCs have been at the behest of the individual/company contracting them ended up working for a negative cause. The example, provided by the documentary is that of the hiring of a PMC, composed of former executive outcomes members, to lead a coup in Equatorial Guinea (2004). The figures such as Mark Thatcher who contracted the PMC out were promised mining concessions after the coup and whilst the coup failed, the PMC that was involved ended up having many of its members thrown in jail. This coup attempt was not based on protecting people or assets but, rather, based around self-interest. This ability of private entities to hire out PMCs to further self-interest is nothing new however it is a slippery slope and can lead to very harmful situations in which money and force combine to the demise of morality.

The documentary Shadow Company makes a valiant attempt at highlighting many of the issues surrounding the PMC world and brings to the viewer’s attention, the serious discrepancies in terms of oversight that PMCs face. Furthermore, it provides a foundation for building an understanding of this shadowy form of conflict that is based around PMC involvement. The only criticism I have is that it somewhat romanticises PMCs with the use of a Hollywood star to narrate key excerpts of the documentary and gives a platform for PMC involved individuals to show their morality and benefits they provide. Whilst they may provide benefits, the documentary could have focused on the need to increase oversight and standardisation of the PMC business that could be achieved through international organisations and charters the clearly set out how PMCs should behave.  This could be done with the emergence of a regulatory body. In the same way that states are subject to the Geneva Convention, PMCs should also have a similar article or charter that governs them. This would help control the PMCs potential to be brought by the ‘bad guys’, limit their ability to act with unnecessary force, and also give the PMCs clarity in terms of what is acceptable and unacceptable.