Whitney Lazo

October 21, 13

An Expanded Debate on Syria

            Stephen M. Walt makes a notable point in his New York Times debate on Syria, stating that regardless of what weapons are used by Assad, the United states should not intervene and I agree. I would also like to add onto this idea and develop an opinion of my own, which is to say that America should not intervene because it is not their responsibility. In addition to the reason that Walt gives about the importance of chemical weapons and their effect on the Syrian people, what is occurring in Syria is not currently affecting the lives of Americans.

            First, America has no interests in Syria, contrasting with Russia or Great Britain, which both have close ties with the troubled state. Because America does not have any valuable interests in Syria, it does not make a difference whether or not the Syrian people are happy with their government. Although America is a great World Power that does not mean the country needs to save all others when they are in need. There are other great powers such as Russia or Great Britain that could assist the Syrian people in overthrowing their oppressive government. America has also recently faced a government shutdown and is currently restoring relationships in its own government, while also improving the economy and the lives of its own citizens. Amongst all this, it is not necessary to intervene in another war or conflict in the Middle East, especially after the disappointing results of the Iraq War, like Ed Husein says in his debate on The Economist. Public opinion would not approve and the nation does not need to carry this burden.

            This may be cynical and is very insensitive towards humanitarian rights and intervention, however that does not mean that I do not care about the violence and destruction in Syria. This should be stopped with the help of the UN or other neighboring nations. No government should treat their people like Assad has treated the Syrians. It is difficult to intervene, for America especially, because of the ties the rebels have with terrorists groups. If America sends aid to the rebels, it is indirectly supporting Al Qaeda. I agree with Ed Husein when he states that Russian intervention is crucial and they must make an agreement with Syria to open an opportunity for peace in the nation.

            In addition, it is important to listen to what the people of Syria want the rest of the world to do. If they believe that intervention would cause military conflict and if they fear colonialism, it may not be a good idea for America to get involved.

            Just because it is the right thing to do, does not mean it is the best thing to do. From a realist perspective, there is no need to intervene in a nation that has no effect on America. I still believe that the deaths in Syria need to be stopped, however the responsibility does not rely on the US. 

Rory McClurg

GVPT200

October 24, 2013

                          Mutually Assured Destruction in Military Standoffs    

     Since the development and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, there has been much debate about what these weapons mean for the international community. Some think it makes the world less stable, whiles others argue the world is a more stable place because of them. This paper will argue the point of the stability brought on by the concept of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction has been established global norm through the precedent of the Cuban Missile Crisis and has carried on to near nuclear wars such as the standoff in Kashmir.

     The Cuban Missile crisis was one of the tensest peacetime events in recorded history, due to the potential ramifications of the situation; specifically, the potential of plunging the world into a nuclear war. When the Soviets gave Cuba nuclear missiles, their intention was to insure that we did not invade Cuba once again. When the US discovered the missiles on Cuba, they immediately set up a blockade around the country. This action in itself speaks volumes about the dynamics of a nuclear standoff. The dynamic of this particular standoff included threatening military maneuvers, but not actual violence between either side, because making a move would have meant certain doom for each party. This is true because, at this point both the Soviets and US had developed nuclear missiles capable of being launched from submarines. This means that there was no way of ensuring that after a preemptive nuclear strike that either side would not retaliate with a nuclear strike of their own, ensuring both the Soviet Union’s and United States’ demise.

     The Kargil region has been a hotbed for conflict between India and Pakistan, with many near full-fledged wars breaking out in this disputed territory. Despite the fact they have rocky relations at best, no actual wars have been fought between the two since the establishment of both nuclear weapons programs. There have been many “close calls” between the two but no actual conflicts between the two, because of second-strike capability post nuclear attack. In reality, the region may be tense, but has no chance of actually fighting, as supported by Pakistani military leaders. In Waltz’s article, during the fighting in Kargil, Pakistani military leaders are quoted as stating there is no chance of conflict between the two sides.

      The Cuban Missile Crisis and the standoff in the Kashmir region further solidify the narrative that the dominant factor that influences national decision-making during standoffs between two nuclear powers is mutually assured destruction.

Jack Murphy

Mr. Shirk

International Relations

24 October 2013

Structure and Conflict in Tomorrow’s Northeast Asia

            While the points that Mearsheimer brings up about China becoming a potential hegemon, because of their large population and rapidly expanding economy, are plausible and threatening, I believe that they will not happen. Also, I do not agree that the United States spot as the top great power will be taken by either Japan or China as Mearsheimer suggests. What I believe is most possible in Mearshemier’s ideas is the first possible scenario that China will not become a hegemon and a multipolar, balanced system will remain in Northeast Asia.

            First of all, I believe that China’s economy will not continue to grow at the rate it has been since the early 1980’s. I believe this because no states economy can continually grow at such a positive rate, meaning that I believe that China will reach a point where they will not be as prosperous. For example, the United States Great Depression. The United States was experiencing a time of great economic prosperity then the markets crashed. While I do not believe China’s crash will be that bad, I believe it will happen. If this does happen and China does not become a hegemon Mearsheimer believes that Japan will become a great power and replace the United States as the worlds top power, but there would still be a multipolar and balanced system in Northeast Asia. Also, Measheimer believes that there would be tension in Northeast Asia because Japan would try to make nuclear weapons with its new power, which would cause China and Russia fear and they would potentially try to stop this. China though has more military power than Japan though just by numbers alone so not much will really happen. This is the situation I believe will happen, except I do not think Japan will overtake the United States. I do not believe this because since Mearsheimer’s book, Great Power Politics in the Twenty-first Century, was written in 2001 the United States GDP has risen from $7.90 trillion (1998) to $15.684 trillion in 2012 and Japans GDP has risen from $4.09 trillion (1998) to $5.959 trillion in 2012, showing that the United States growth is greater (worldbank.org).

            For Mearsheimer’s second idea of what will happen in Northeast Asia that “China emerges as a potential hegemon, Northeast Asia would become unbalanced and the United States would keep forces in the region to contain China” (pg. 400), I disagree with. As I mentioned before I do not believe that China will become a hegemon because I do not think their economic prosperity will last. Also, even if China’s economy does continue to expand exponentially I believe they will have a difficult time becoming powerful because of all the people across different demographics in the Chinese population. Also, all the current territory disputes China has with countries such as India, Japan, Taiwan, Bhutan, and a few other states, would make it hard for China to become a hegemon. Therefore I believe it would be difficult for them to expand their power into other surrounding countries. This being said I do not believe that it would be necessary for the United States to keep its army Northeast Asia to contain China as Mearsheimer suggests.

            While I do believe that Mearsheimer’s first plan is possible, I do not believe that the United States will lose its top spot as a great power to Japan, and I do agree that a multipolar, balanced system will remain. I also do not believe that China will become a hegemon because their economy will not continue to grow and because of the domestic demographic issues they have. 

Work Cited

"GDP (current US$)." Data. The World Bank, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton, 2001. Print.

Why we should go into Syria

Dana Kravitz

GVPT200

10/24/13

Blog Post 3

In recent news, there is a large heated debate as to whether it is right or wrong to intervene in Syria. I myself went back and forth on the issue, and though I see why, for personal interest reasons, we would not intervene I believe that it is important, for humanitarian reasons, that we do. In Radwan Ziadeh’s New York Times argument, The West Must Finally Respond, he makes compelling points as to why the U.S. should intervene for humanitarian reasons. I believe intervention is necessary because of the power Assad has gained, the morality of the situation, and the responsibility of the UN as a whole.

            Assad has not been held accountable for any of his actions so far. He has escaped all responsibility for his illegal activities. If Assad does not believe that the international community is serious about their threats then he will not stop and continue to kill people. And why would he believe them when no one has made any serious moves. The UN will not back the intervention in Syria because they know that China and Russia will veto it. Since they refuse to intervene “this made Assad feel immune to any international action against him.” This is what gave him the “confidence with every step he took toward committing additional levels of violence against the Syrian people.” As the international community exerts no power, Assad gains more and more and that is why it is important to act on the issue.

            We must intervene because it is the right thing to do ethically. People are being hurt and killed and morally the United States should want to help as the free world. If a state is not going to protect its own people someone has to. It immoral to sit idly by while innocent people are being gassed by their own government. Though negotiation would be the ideal way to deal with the issue, diplomacy had not worked for a year now and it is time to take action. The Syrians have made their intentions clear and it is our responsibility as a democratic nation to prevent this atrocity going any further. The gassing of the people and aerial bombardment of Syrian rebels is a clear human right violation.

            Though I have said that it is the United States responsibility to step in, I believe it is important to highlight that this the responsibility of international community and not just the U.S. In order to make a real impact on Syria it needs to be a collaborative effort. The UN’s Responsibility to Protect should be enough to have them intervene. Some argue that the mass killings are not on a large enough scale to apply. But, R2P should not be about protecting people after everyone is dead but to protect the people of Syria by preventing it from happening.

            I believe it is important to intervene in Syria because of Assad’s rising confidence, it's question of morality, and the UN’s the responsibility to do so. I see why people and states would not want to intervene because of personal interests that they do not feel it are worth losing but, I think that sometimes humanitarian efforts are more important than personal gain.

Artem Muchnik

GVPT200

October 24, 2013

Recently there was and to some extent still is a large debate of whether the United States should take action in the conflict in Syria, and from all of the information I have heard I find that to some extent for the best personal interest of the United States that it is best to avoid mixing into this conflict as the United States has done before for many other conflicts such as Iraq, Iran etc. But from a global humanitarian standpoint it is quite important to intervene in the ongoing conflict. After Reading “The West Must Finally Respond” by Radwan Ziadeh and “Weapons Assad Uses Shouldn’t Affect U.S. Policy” by Stephen M. Walt, I came to a final conclusion of that it is best to actually take action and intervene in the conflict, and agree with Radwan Ziadeh. Although multiple times I kept changing my mind; as it is quite possible that even if it is in some ways beneficial to Syria, involvement could possibly end up being detrimental to the United States.

The ways it could be beneficial to Syria is that such an intervention would eliminate the threat of Assad killing more of his citizens. Although on the other side, there is a possibility that the involvement of the United States will just create a higher death toll due to the stronger weapons that would probably be used. The ways that such an intervention could have a negative impact on the United States would be for example if after such an intervention, a more radical government could be established due to a take-over from some radical groups there, which would mean more trouble for the United States. Also if looking at it from a different point of view, if the United States doesn't get involved, that would ruin their reputation due to the fact that Obama already drew the "red line".  

According to the article by Radwan Ziadeh, Assad has still not been held accountable for any crimes he has committed, as the article states “This made Assad feel immune to any international action against him, which in turn gave him more confidence with every step he took toward committing additional levels of violence against the Syrian people.” Thus, “The United States, in concert with an international coalition of the willing, must bring a hasty end to the Syria conflict and prevent horrific chemical attacks like those inflicted on Eastern Ghouta last week.” I completely agree that Assad has gone way to far and that is indeed time to put an end to his tyrannical reign. We must intervene for many different reasons other then his out of control actions, such as that from a humanitarian perspective it is the right thing to do. Every day more and more people lose their lives during this conflict, and it is not right for a state to put their own people in harms way no matter what the reason is. 

For example a previous conflict, the Rwanda genocide ended up with many civilian deaths, and during that period of time the United States did not intervene in the conflict, and it had a terrible outcome. I feel as though if the United States doesn’t take a humanitarian standpoint on the Syrian issue, then a similar outcome might happen and a lot of lives will be lost. It is also not only the United States who should get involved but any “international coalition of the willing”, meaning any other states with a similar view on the issue should help too. 

Overall, I feel that it is very important to put an end to this conflict as soon as possible, and since there is no way to peacefully end it via negotiation, it is time to take it to the point of intervention. If nothing is done Assad will only grow power hungry and most likely keep up his “desperate attempt to crush the revolution”, and not only that but he will also go un-punished for the crimes he has committed against his own people.

Response Paper #3

Jessie Latter

GVPT200

24 October 2013

Response Paper #3

            The Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011 because rebel forces wanted to remove President Bashar al-Assad and his regime from power. Only after discovering that the Syrian government had been using chemicals weapons to kill civilians did the international community, more specifically the United States and President Obama, start talking about humanitarian intervention. In the blog post “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate”, Ty Solomon inquires into why, only after the use of non-conventional weapons like WMDs, do countries like the US and UK want to intervene in Syria? (Solomon). Ultimately, Solomon attributes this to the taboo attached WMDs and argues that when deciding when to intervene words like WMDs and conventional weapons should not have as much influence because conventional weapons cause more mass destruction then chemical weapons (Solomon). I agree with Solomon because the outrage from the international community should not have occurred only after discovering the use of chemicals weapons, but when the government was committing mass genocide against civilians with conventional weapons as well. I also think that if a full-fledged humanitarian intervention were to happen in Syria it should not be by using military force, but by providing aid to the Syrian people in the form of goods/services.

            The arbitrary categories that we place weapons into as either conventional or WMDs makes it seem as though the death toll when using WMDs is a lot higher and more devastating then conventional weapons. Although this was true of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII, the fact is that WMDs do not cause as much mass destruction as conventional weapons do. The death toll before the use of chemical weapons was 100,000+, while the chemical weapons bombings only killed 1,000+ civilians. The Syrian Civil War has been going on for two years and countries like the US knew how many civilians were dying over there and refused to talk about intervening until they crossed the red line by using chemical weapons. This red line should have been drawn after the first civilian was killed, not just by chemical weapons but by conventional weapons as well. A death is a death and the focus should not be on how that person died but that they did at the hands of their own government.

            No one wants to have a repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan in Syria, which is why I think that if humanitarian intervention were to occur it should not be by using military force. When the US sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan the government underestimated the time, money, and resources it would take to accomplish their goals there. Although in the case of Syria it is confirmed that they do have WMDs, the US should still not repeat past mistakes by using military force to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Instead, I think the US government should provide aid to the Syrian people in the form of goods/services because women, men, and children are living in a country in the midst of a civil war resulting in the destruction of homes, spreading of disease, and decline in the availability of food and water. Using military force to overthrow the Syrian government will not mean anything if the death toll continues to rise and a large portion of the population is dead from a lack of access to basic necessities. 

Artem Muchnik

Mark Shirk

GVPT200

Response paper #2: Power: A Radical View

In the reading Power: A Radical View, Steven Lukes offers a decent view at power in my opinion and the way he does it is that he covers the view of power from three different perspectives; One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional. In my opinion the most common view of power in the current world now is the Three-Dimensional view of power. I believe this due to the fact that it focuses on decision-making and control over political agenda, issues and potential issues, observable and latent conflict, and finally subjective and real interests. This is easy to see in the current world because for example for focus (a) in the current world in every government power is harnessed through the political agenda; such as when it is decided to go to war, it is all because of power and is lead by political decisions to do so. The other parts of the Three-Dimensional view of power fall under the first parts quite well; when a decision is made in the interest of power all other (b) issues and potential issues with another state for example fuel the power struggle even more, along with any (c) conflicts previously had with the two parties in the power struggle, and both parties (d) interests are to resolve the conflict usually and still retain said power.

The one-dimensional view, often called the ‘pluralist view’ of power focuses mostly on who prevails in cases of decision making, thus the locus of power is determined, compared to the two-dimensional view where power embraces coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation. While the three dimensional view of power involves a thoroughgoing critique of the behavioral focus of the first two views. This makes the three-dimensional view more sophisticated and more versatile in my opinion.

A very important part of power is in fact coercion, as mentioned in the two-dimensional view of power. If A can get B to do what A wants and B cannot stand up against A’s attacks, then in fact it is a very successful type of power, and almost every if not all conflicts had historically were achieved this way; for example during WW2, the allies won against the axis due to their superiority power-wise and thus through coercion triumphed as they were able to get the axis powers to do as they wanted due to their power. Along with that comes influence because when one has power they have significantly more influence over what goes on politically, and in order to have that one needs a significant amount of authority.

Another way to see power is through force and manipulation; for example when one state has a lot of power is may easily force or manipulate another state to get what it wants; for example if one state has power over the economy of another state it can use that to manipulate what it wants to an extent form the other state.
Overall I believe that all three are important to be utilized in order to have the proper view and control of power, but the more prevalent and more current perspective is the third-dimensional view because it encompasses the first and second dimensional views of power, therefore being the most efficient view.

Rory McClurg

GVPT200

     The causes of the Iraq War have been a hotly debated topic since the war began. Two scholars, Debs and Montiero of Yale University, have made the most compelling argument about the causes of the Iraq war I have read to date. They break their argument down into three main points, the prevention of a nuclear Iraq, imperfect information, and the post-9/11 world, which, if researched, can be supported by facts about the post 9/11 world.

     Debs and Montiero claim the United State’s main motivation to start the Iraq War was to prevent a nuclear Iraq. This statement makes complete sense when you consider the United States’ interests in the Middle East (i.e. oil, military, etc.) and how important those resources are to our well being. Also, as Debs and Montiero claim, a nuclear Iraq would also sway the balance of power out of the favor of Israel, a key ally of the US. If this scenario were to occur, as the US feared at the time, the power of the US in the Middle East would be drastically weakened. This potential upheaval of the power structure in the Middle East, made a conflict with Iraq inevitable, as it was never our intention to lose influence in this strategic location in the world.

     The desire to prevent a nuclear Iraq would never have materialized if not for two crucial factors according to Debs and Montiero. These factors are, the imperfect info about the Iraqi WMD program and the post 9/11 attitude towards potential threats. Saddam Hussein never was committal on whether he had nuclear weapons, this created an illusion in the minds of the major players in the Middle East and around the world that Iraq may have a weapons program. The UN then sent weapons inspectors in, and came up with no irrefutable evidence there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq’s possession. The result of the inspection heightened US fear and suspicion of the Iraqi’s possessing WMD to astronomical levels. The US in years past wouldn’t have been so forceful with their actions, but, considering the post-9/11 hysteria that had engulfed the US, the main priority was to prevent high impact events such as 9/11. This was coined the 1% doctrine. Adding to these facts, the US lost trust in the intelligence community to bring threats to light in a timely manner. So distant possibilities, such as the possibility that Iraq had WMD had to be treated as if they were highly probable events.

     This toxic mix of factors, the desire to prevent a nuclear Iraq, imperfect information about the Iraqi WMD program, and the post-9/11 mindset, all outlined by Debs and Montiero are the most probable factors that contributed to the commencement of the Iraq War.