The spread of democracy and tolerance for ethnic religious minorities should be major foreign policy goals because they are desirable for their own sake, Laitin and Fearon said -- not because they are "magic bullets" for preventing or ending civil war.
Establishing ethnic partitions, on the other hand, is a dangerous course because it increases the chances of launching an insurgency. Implementing policies to redress grievances could be an important tool for resolving an ongoing conflict, although the researchers found little evidence that civil wars occur where large cultural divisions or grievances exist.
This could well pose obstacles to settlement," the political scientists said. Economic growth should be supported because it tends to be associated with more competent governments. More important, the professors argue, international and nongovernmental organizations should develop programs that improve legal accountability within developing world militaries and police. They should also make aid to governments fighting civil wars conditional on their employing effective counterinsurgency strategies that do not, through their brutality or killing innocent people, create additional insurgents.
When a state fails, however, or when regional stability is threatened, Laitin and Fearon have proposed a form of "neo-trusteeship," through which the United Nations would delegate responsibility to a lead nation and a group of international organizations to rebuild the country.
By Lisa Trei. The Guantanamo Bay captives are reported to come from at least 30 different countries. Just as the colonial prisons served as universities in revolutionary warfare, the prison camp experience of Al-Qaeda may galvanize a transnational fighting force for the future. Al-Qaeda attacks have taken place in Kenya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, New York and Washington, and their main goal is to liberate the holy places in Mecca and Medina from the Saudi regime and the US military forces that have now been stationed in the peninsula for more than ten years.
The goal is not to free a nation-state called Saudi Arabia, not even the Arab nation, but to free a world religion's holy places from the presence of infidels in order to pave the way for the resurgence of the Caliphate. Another reason for considering the war as global is the nature of the US response to 11 September.
The Bush administration reacted with a global campaign against a general phenomenon called 'terrorism'. The campaign targets not only clandestine transnational groups, but also many national ones, as well as states accused of sponsoring or providing sanctuary for terrorists. President Bush has consistently sought to lump together terrorists and evil states in a combined image of a global enemy.
Furthermore, the events of 11 September have led the USA to redefine and globalize its concept of home security. Since it is considered impracticable to protect US borders against intruders or to screen all containers arriving at US ports, home security planners have concluded that US territory must instead be protected by allowing US agents access to the ports of origin of ships travelling to the USA, by acquiring a right to board and inspect other nations' ships on the high seas, by intensively cooperating with intelligence services worldwide and by creating a globally standardized system of 'smart passports' containing data on each holder's track record.
The USA already has a virtual monopoly on the most sophisticated hi-tech weapon systems and may seek in the long run to develop a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction. A shorter-term goal is to prevent states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea from possessing such weapons and to keep them from falling into the hands of terrorists.
A possible objection to the use of the term 'global civil war' is that the US—Al-Qaeda confrontation does not qualify as war. While both antagonists clearly see themselves as being at war with each other, this may not be true in an analytical sense.
Al-Qaeda could be characterized as a group of transnational criminals, rather than an army. And when Bush speaks about a 'war against terrorism', the term 'war' could perhaps be understood metaphorically, as with the expression 'war on drugs'. Often, it is apostates, the former adherents of the faith, that are targeted more readily over infidels, those who had always been on the outside.
It is hard not to see echoes of this dynamic at play as Republicans condemn other Republicans over their loyalty or lack thereof to former U. President Donald Trump. Indeed, the United States now displays all three core elements that can lead to civil breakdown. They could either compete with good ideas or resort to emphasizing respect for authority over critical thinking, restricting voter franchise, and making it easier to convert wealth into votes.
The Republican Party chose the easier path. The GOP knows it could lose everything in a fair fight one-person, one-vote , so it built a powerful infrastructure to tilt the local, state, and federal playing fields. To make matters worse, as house speaker from , Newt Gingrich innovated a brilliant and democracy-destructive strategy for enabling his party to keep punching above its popular weight in the electorate: Just say no.
Either Gingrich got everything he wanted or he refused to play. As former Senate majority leader, Sen. In time, the tribalism that naturally divided the two parties began to escalate into sectarianism. The gridlock across the federal government became yet another argument for shifting power to more conservative states.
It also convinced many U. Democrats too were caught in this vicious process, unable to maneuver and compromise to move forward. With the legislative branch locked, executive orders by the president became a mainstay of policymaking. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued , , respectively in their eight years in office. Neither the escalation to sectarianism nor the rise of more authoritarian national executives would have been possible without a severely damaged information space. Jihadism, however, is neither unitary nor monolithic: it contains competing power centers and divergent ideological orthodoxies.
Martha Crenshaw examines the evolution of the relationship between jihadist terrorism and civil wars, beginning in the s in the context of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This essay confronts the collision of two potential global threats: the outbreak of infectious pandemics and the outbreak and protraction of civil wars.
Paul H. Wise and Michele Barry address the potential that civil wars can elevate the risk of emerging infectious outbreaks and reduce the capacity to identify and respond to them, generating political and security challenges that may threaten regional and international order.
They find that global health governance and international security structures seem inadequate to address these challenges, and that new approaches that better integrate the technical and political challenges inherent in preventing pandemics in areas of civil war are urgently required. A tragic output of civil war, large-scale displacement crises also become enmeshed in the politics, security, and economics of conflict.
But policy-makers often mistakenly view host-state security and refugee security as unrelated — or even opposing — factors. Sarah Kenyon Lischer asserts that refugee protection and state stability are linked together: policies to protect refugees, both physically and legally, reduce potential threats from the crisis and bolster state security.
What threats do organized crime and illicit economies, such as the global drug trade, pose to states and the international order? Vanda Felbab-Brown analyzes the responses by states and the international community to the nexus of criminal economies and civil wars, insurgencies, and terrorism, highlighting how premature and ill-conceived government efforts to combat illicit economies can have counterproductive effects, hampering efforts to suppress militancy and, in some cases, generating dangerous international spillovers of criminality.
She also examines various pathways out of the conflict-crime nexus and offers some policy recommendations. The current international system is based on Westphalian principles in which authority is defined territorially, within which the state has sole jurisdiction.
Adherence to these principles has contributed to the decline of interstate war, but, for states that gained independence after , it has contributed to civil conflicts. The norms are opaque and provide poor guidelines as to when, and on which grounds, external intervention in civil wars might be warranted. Hendrik Spruyt argues that the degree to which the combatants challenge Westphalian principles should guide policy responses. Furthermore, the international legal regime should reconsider partition as a potential solution to civil wars.
SFA, however, is often hampered by challenges of interest misalignment between the United States and its partners.
0コメント