Failing States and US Intervention

In recent decades, the United States’ foreign policy has exhibited a frequent pattern of intervention in failing and weak states. Notable since the end of the Cold War, it has been made apparent that the potential threats of failing states is larger than that of nations of independent, more powerful nations. The threat of failing states to breed terrorism, neglect human rights, and fail to uphold implementations of basic environmental policy and disease control are some of the main problems that attract interest from the United States. This goal of the United States’ foreign policy, to harness these developing, weak nations, was widely supported by government decision makers in the 90’s, however, recent intervention in states of the Middle East has brought people to question weather or not the intervention in failing states should be a foreign policy goal that the United States continues to display.

Directly after the end of the Cold War, the United States was viewed as the sole super power. After their communist advocating foes and all their children-states began to crumble, the United States had a seemingly overflow of power that they could potentially wield upon weaker states of interest which could in turn create advantages economically and militarily. Support of this policy, which really didn’t even yield any textbook, concrete successes, only increased after 9/11 when it became apparent that the most dangerous states to the United States were not large, capable nations of the world, but rather weak and failing states. These states, often located in Africa and the Middle East, were quickly realized to be harbors of terrorism, which was now clearly a threat to United States security. It was at this time that intervention of what we considered failing states was widely supported and deemed necessary. However, just a decade later, intervention in the same region of similar failing states is beginning to be thought twice about. Today, the years of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq are criticized regularly. Support for continued investment, militarily, in these places has dropped significantly since those months following 9/11. The amount of money the United States has sent, along with the United States human and financial military investment, has been a reason for lost support of intervention in these places. Instances like Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which exhibit characteristics of a failing state, and the mission disasters of Somalia and similar countries, which bring back the same questions asked during the years in Vietnam, back the notion that maybe the US should take a break from entering these weak states.

It seems as though there will always be failing states for the US to intervene. The current situation of civil war and insecurity in Somalia would undoubtedly have received US intervention fifteen or even ten years ago. But after the questionable involvement in similar states in the Middle East over the past decade, actions made toward Syria may be different. How would involvement in the Syria by the US be advantageous to the US? How could we be sure that mistakes made in Afghanistan and other weak nations don’t happen again in Syria? Can the United States afford to intervene in Syria? These questions, in regard to recent intervention of failing states direct me to think Syria is not worth it. Syria and a few other countries are the latest failing states that the United States has had it’s eye on in recent years. But this time, I think the US should back down and see what happens should they not intervene in a failing state of the Middle East. Should the US not like the results, investment in Syria and like places can be discussed, but for now, it think it would be wise economically and considered popular not to jump into yet another failing state which holds the potential to again hurt us more than it’s helped.

Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140347/michael-j-mazarr/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-failed-state-paradigm

Where does India Stand Amongst the Worlds Most Powerful?

            Realist John Mearsheimer argues that the two defining characteristics of a countries power are its military power and latent power. This realist framework contends that military power is paramount, and that latent power, a “state’s ability to translate assets of population and wealth into military power”, is as important (Mearsheimer). Under this realist argument, India is not currently equipped to become a world super power. Their military severely suffers from a lack of modernization, corporate and government debt are very high, there is double-digit inflation, and poverty still runs rampant throughout the country. However, I do believe that India will eventually pass China on the list of world super powers. They will find an efficient way to harness their soon-to-be largest population in a working machine that will thrive both militarily and economically.

Today, India is one of the largest importers of military equipment in the world, due to the absence of a strong weapons manufacturing industry. Without this industry, India cannot equip its military with technologically modernized weapons itself. Inefficiency is another large issue. The majority of India’s military resources and manpower are stationed on crucial border points with China and Pakistan. Though understandable, this military strategy has “limited India’s power projection beyond its borders”(Mearsheimer). India is capable of having a strong and powerful military program if it can re-design its military strategy and create a more self-sustaining modernized weapons program.

            Another major factor holding India back is its lack of latent power. Today, India holds the second largest population in the world, but as of 2010, almost 25% of the Indian population was under the international poverty line of $1.25 per day. The country is also dealing with a huge budget deficit and an inflation rate of 6.46%. Right now, India’s economy cannot support or utilize such a large population. As of 2013, 65 million Indians lived in slums, which are characterized as “dwellings unfit for human habitation”. At this time, India does not have the means to translate its wealth (total GDP) and size (population) into military power. While they hold a competent, young population, the country’s infrastructure is not built to sustain such a large, growing population.

            In the future, I predict that India will overtake China as the world’s second largest power. India has the tools to more than enable itself to become a dominant world power. Unlike China, which will soon begin suffering from an aging population, India will thrive from the large growth in their labor force. With a solid democratic structure, too, I believe they can utilize their growing workforce and transform into an economic and military super power. In thirty years time I believe we could potentially be looking at India as a rival to the United States, because they possess the ingredients to becoming a world super power. 

Sources:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgruber/2014/05/04/india-will-soon-outpace-china/

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/65-million-people-live-in-slums-in-india-says-census-data/article5188234.ece

US & Syria: Different Song, Same Dance

The United States is far from the isolationist state it once claimed to be before World War II, and with its self asserted role as a global police force there are many people to serve and protect. Our newest child to be taken under our wing and freed from the tyranny that governs them is scenic Middle Eastern country of Syria. The Syrian government has been in our cross hairs ever since they crossed President Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons against their own people. Fortunately, Obama was saved from reneging on his promise to send in ground troops by reaching an agreement through international institutions and cooperation from other allied nations to remove the chemical weapons and sanction the state. However the situation has only worsened in Syria as ISIS and numerous rebel forces fight for control over the broken state. The US has decided to take action.

The approved military action for Syria is to train and arm the rebels that we side with, who claim to fight the Islamic State, and support them with strategic airstrikes. We have seen this tactic before used time and time again, with a fairly poor track record for success. Thank god we got rid of those evildoing Soviets in Afghanistan in the 90's, and installed a proper government figure like Osama bin Laden. Oh wait... we installed Osama bin Laden who then became public enemy number one organizing terrorist attacks against the United States. The problem with vicarious nation building is that its essentially a craps shoot to see if they end up turning on us or becoming a viable ally in the region. All it takes is one misplaced smart missile to hit the homes of an innocent unsuspecting families to turn that friend into an enemy. And with the US using drone air strikes like they're playing a live action version of Call of Duty, this outcome isn't very unlikely. But with the alternative being American soldiers with boots on the ground, it seems like much less of a gamble.

The new issue according to a report published by the Washington Post, is that the US does not trust these newly trained rebel fighters to pursue an offensive strategy. The official instructions are for these freedom fighters to protect and defend the towns and cities that have already been liberated or have stabilized without ISIS presence. Clearly the US does not feel that these hastily trained civilians using high powered weapons should be trusted in the heat of battle. With Iraqi troops constantly laying down their weapons in the face of danger, I don't blame them for having doubts. But Syria is simply not having it. The Syrian National Coalition, the only recognized (and therefore legitimate) government force in this state is claiming that rebel forces are on the offensive everyday and insist that the only way to defeat ISIS is to get out there and defeat ISIS.

You have to be able to appreciate the tenacity and sense of national pride the Syrian people have, to want to defy professional international opinion and just get into the dirty heat of battle with some of the most ruthless killers in the region. With that being said, I don't think theres much we can do to stop their campaign to take control of their once functioning state. The only problem I do have with this Syrian charge into battle is that they're demanding US ground troops for backup. Luckily the US is really sticking to their guns here with no plans for ground invasion. Pentagon spokesmen went on record to say "the train-and-equip program would seek to strengthen appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition to enable them to counter ISIL" and stick to a strictly defensive position. The bombs will continue to fall from the sky, taking out safe houses, strong holds, and even a symbolic ISIS flag planted at the top of a hill, but the boots will stay home. This is just a classic wait and see approach to let ISIS and the rebel fighters tire themselves out as neighboring international forces do all necessary heavy lifting. Turkey is one country in particular with a stake in this fight as it neighbors Syria and has a lot to lose by having the Islamic State controlling things.

This brings to question the idea of legitimacy and failed states. The US refuses to recognize anything controlled by the Islamic State, even when it is arguable that they are a growing global force. The international community does not like this rogue state and is therefore violating Syrian soevrignty and getting themselves involved. But I guess sovereignty doesn't matter if you're fighting for freedom and healthy nation building that global community United States can get behind. And if there are neigboring countries with much more invested in the removal of ISIS, why can't they take the lead on this? Why do we wish to continue to spread anti-American sentiment all over the US while gaining few allies and exponentially increasing our enemies? Train-and-equip is the farthest involvement I see with the US and Syria, and for all of our sakes I hope that is the position President Obama and the Pentagon maintain throughout this bloody campaign.


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/10/23/syrian_rebels_oppose_new_us_war_strategy?wp_login_redirect=0


- Garcia

Taking China Down a Peg

One of the United States’ greatest concerns in international relations is the rise of China. At this point, most agree that of the world’s great powers, the U.S. is first, China is second, and everyone else follows. These perceptions of China as a growing, strong country are relatively uniform and undisputed. However, two articles, one from Foreign Policy and another from The Economist, argue that China might not be as strong as it’s cracked up to be due to an economic slowdown and an aging population.

In his Foreign Policy article, “Everything You Think You Know About China is Wrong”, Minxie Pie provides a laundry list of China’s recent problems and how they signal faltering strength. He writes, “The latest news from Beijing is indicative of weakness: a persistent slowdown of economic growth, a glut of unsold goods, rising bad bank loans, a bursting real estate bubble, and a vicious power struggle at the top, coupled with unending political scandals.” Perhaps China just isn’t a strong as we think it is. Their growth was unsustainable, they are having some of the same problems we had (bad loans, housing bubble, etc.), and their government is corrupt. Beyond China’s authoritarian government and human rights violations, which we know well, this information is not very publicized. This is not the story Americans hear from the U.S. government or media. China is always characterized as formidable, threatening, and ascending. How come? Pie puts forth a couple reasons: first, the U.S. thinks of China as even more of a threat because its economy is doing poorly. It’s hard to care about China’s growth rate dipping when it is still higher than yours. Second, China portrays themselves as a great power, aggressive and mighty both economically and militarily, and we basically accept it. They talk the talk, and the U.S. listens attentively.

In addition to the number of problems Pie presents, the article “China’s Achilles Heel” from The Economist points out yet another: an aging population, claiming that demography is China’s “deadly point of unseen weakness.” Despite America’s aging “baby-boomer” population, which is beginning to place a strain on the Social Security system, China has it much worse. They have a lower fertility rate than the U.S. and are facing a decline in not just population growth but population itself. Moreover, there are debates over whether or not China is even a developed country. Though it has the second largest economy in the world, China’s GDP per capita is similar to that of a poor, developing country. Though its cities have impressive infrastructure, some rural areas lack basic sanitation. China may not necessarily have the means to sustain such an old and dependent population. One quote sums up this problem: “Unlike the rest of the developed world, China will grow old before it gets rich.”

Today, the United States sees China as its greatest competitor, and why not? China is projected to overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. China is now also the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which, though terrible for the environment, indicates a pretty good amount of productivity. However, the reports of China’s force have been greatly exaggerated. Their economy is growing, but more slowly now, and has been hampered by the recent worldwide recession, economic bubbles, and corruption. Their population is aging at a nearly unfathomable rate, which will stymie growth, development, and productivity. Though powerful, China may not pose as much of a threat as the U.S. thinks.

Economic issues article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/29/everything_you_think_you_know_about_china_is_wrong

Aging population article: http://www.economist.com/node/21553056

Nigeria as a Failed State

Nigeria gained independence from its British colonizers in 1960. Since that time, Nigeria has endured many different regimes and constitutions. Religious division between Christians, and Muslims, terrorism and power struggles plague the country. This evidence of fractionalization, social unrest, and lack of political control have led me to conclude that Nigeria should be categorized as a failed state.

Of the thirty-six states in Nigeria, the northern states are known to be predominately Muslim while the Southern states are known to be predominately Christian. Twelve of the northern Muslim states enforce Sharia Law. This division creates great tension within Nigeria as those within these Northern states that are Christian, a tribal religion (a smaller but present population), or any other religion are unjustly subjected to laws which do not represent their beliefs and threaten their liberty all within their own country. Additionally, Nigeria’s economy is heavily dominated by their coveted natural resource, petroleum.  The petroleum is located in the southern region of the county controlled by Christians. The countries most valuable resource in the hands of their rival is frequently a point of conflict for the Muslim majority.

Two of the most destructive terrorist groups in Nigeria are Boko Harem and MEND, the Movement to Emancipate the Niger Delta. Boko Harem has spent a lot of time in the news for their most recent display of violence and disregard for human life as they abducted more than two hundred school girls this year. This Islamic militant group furthers the already existing culture of violence, raping and otherwise abusing their captives. Meanwhile, in the Christian region of the country, MEND fights for control of the oil rich Niger Delta in this southern part of Nigeria. Though less religiously charged, the radicals raise arms, kidnap, and bomb corrupt government and those related to the oil industry in this region. Both groups of extremists commit violent atrocities that violate international human rights laws and further develop social unrest in Nigeria.

Despite conducting two seemingly legitimate and consecutive elections, the government of Nigeria still proves to be ineffective. At least two powerful terrorist groups continue to operate within its borders, religious freedoms are threatened, national unity is almost nonexistent, and it appears that Nigerians take laws more as suggestions. Additionally, the state sponsored military is infamous for human right abuses that rival the terrorist organizations aforementioned. President Goodluck Jonathon’s government clearly does not have adequate control over its national resources either as MEND is infamous for impacting oil exportation and therefore directly affecting the Nigerian economy. This current regime has proven to be incapable of asserting its authority, enforcing law, protecting its citizens, or uniting Nigeria as one nation.

The Nigerian government has not ended the severe religious fractionalization or established any significant social stability. It may be argued that the Nigerians have democratically elected their leaders in credible elections and therefore they are legitimate.  While credible elections are a positive asset, they do not make up for the fact that the government has proven to have little to no authority among its own people and therefore Nigeria should be categorized as a failed state.

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/world/africa/nigeria-abducted-girls/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html