Question: Is the security – defined as the territorial integrity – of the state the first and foremost thing that a state’s leader ought to concern him/herself with?
I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t exactly pinpoint the topic of discussion. My definition of territorial integrity has always been something along the lines of “the right of a state to retain ownership of and authority in its recognized territory”. That does cover many possible security issues, but certainly not all of them. When you define “security” as “territorial integrity”, are you solely referring to cases of land ownership and placement of borders? Or do you mean any security issue caused by outside interference that takes place within a state’s territory? I’ll briefly address both points.
The right of a state to defend its existing borders is an issue that remains central to international politics. I spoke about it extensively in my first blog post, especially with regards to the reasons why borders might change. Currently, as far as the U.N. and most power players are concerned, borders represent legal boundary lines of states, and demarcate the precise extent of a government’s ruling mandate over the land. Therefore, it is only this type of border that we can comment on for the time being. Now, current borders are protected by layers and layers of legal doctrine that are, for the most part, recognized by the entire world. Borders are not easily changed nowadays; since a pattern of global order has gradually begun to mediate world affairs, states cannot simply invade and annex territories, or trade them like baseball cards. Saddam Hussein learned this all too well when he attempted an invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. No, if borders are to be legally changed nowadays, they must be subject to international tribunals, recognized by various nations and international organizations, and provide for the replacement of government infrastructure.
A prime example of this was the dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula, which lies on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon. Both countries claimed it, based on conflicting legal claims regarding colonial-era treaties. However, rather than go to war over it, they decided to hand the matter over to the International Court of Justice. After careful study and deliberation over the treaties, it was determined that the peninsula belonged to Cameroon. Although Nigeria still does not agree with the ruling, they peacefully withdrew their military and civilian personnel.
Territorial integrity has, therefore, become not so much a security problem as a political one. Despite many modern military attempts to change borders and carve out new countries, recognition only comes with a clear legal case as well as a certain degree of political maneuvering. Of course, it is expected that a state will take any measures to retain all of its land, even regarding it as a national security matter, but ultimately, the legal framework has become strong enough that it must be respected by all sides.
Now, with regard to the second point, it is often stated that countries spend far too much on defense, as it usually eats up the largest portion of their budgets. The United States, in particular, spends untold amounts of the national budget on defense, far more than any other country, leading many to question just how necessary the defense of a superpower is. It is easy for these people to question whether a strong defense is a necessity; we certainly don’t have Barbarian hordes waiting at the border, sharpening their blades and waiting for the right time to strike. However, it is important to remember that there are indeed powers that would like to take advantage of a passive United States, not only in America itself but among her allies and trade partners.
Looking at this problem from another perspective, we see an even greater need for appropriate security forces. States that aren’t approaching superpower status certainly need defense capabilities, as their enemies both foreign and domestic stand a greater chance of seriously damaging the government and the state. In addition to that, if America were to take the route previously mentioned, it would remove from the picture a major stabilizer in world affairs. Without the United States around to protect its allies and maintain global order, lesser nations would have to deal with their enemies with minimal outside assistance, as the U.N. is essentially ineffective without strong countries to back it up. As much as the need for alternative modes of spending exist, internal territorial security must remain unbreached, for if any government functions are to work, proper stability and authority of government must be maintained.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Security?
At first, I struggled with this question, for I may have taken a different perspective if the definition of security stated in the question had been different. You say security and I think safety. I think living without fear; living away from violence and out of harms way. You say security and I definitely do not think “territorial integrity.” If the question were asking whether or not I feel that my interpretation of security is a foremost concern of the leader of a state, I would propose that, yes, it may be, at least more of a concern than “territorial integrity.” However, before I continue, I would like to make it clear that I do think territorial integrity is a vital part of a successful and powerful nation, but I do not think it is above human security in it’s importance. It is true that it is necessary for a nation to have secure borders so as to avoid being seized, but first the nation must deal with the problems rooted in the nation itself, such as hunger, healthcare, safety, strength of the government, and support from it’s people. If a nation’s leader were to focus solely on the land, they will distance themselves from what matters most - those whom the leader is trying to lead. Of course, citizens want to have a sense of citizenship and do not want to have to worry about being intruded by other nations, but that comes second to the more pressing issues that may be affecting their health and wellbeing. A leader must build from the ground up, securing the support of his or her followers and creating for them a better quality of life. For if the leader of a state does this, the citizens will be happy with where they live and the nation will not seem as vulnerable to outside territories and furthermore, will not feel the desire secede. The land will never turn on you, however the people you are leading very well may if they are not happy with your leadership.
Domestic vs. Territorial Integrity
The image is my head after reading this week’s question is of a “state leader” wandering the perimeters of his state supervising the building of huge defense walls, while at his back his country and his people lay in waste from disaster(civil, natural, by disease- you choose). I understand my fantastical image is rather extreme and unlikely; however, it presents a good starting point and illustration for my argument against territorial integrity as a leader’s first priority. Rather the defense of interior harmony should reign as a leader’s priority. I hold this to be true for most states but grant that there are obvious and rational reasons during times of warfare or outside aggression when a nation must temporarily look more towards its “territorial integrity” than its domestic integrity.
Interior harmony or at the very least stability though often incorporates territorial integrity in that for a leader to keep the faith of his people he needs to present them with a secure nation amongst other responsibilities. For a stable state such as Canada, it would be ridiculous to say that territorial integrity should be its prime minister’s main concern. Certainly there are border issues that the prime minister might address, but it is not a huge issue for Canadians. Georgia on the other hand presents a very current example of where territorial integrity is a national worry. With the possibility of the country losing significant chunks of territory and very effectively weakening its authority and power, Georgians expect their leader to be mainly concerned with this issue. For all practical purposes (remembering Machiavelli’s pragmatism) it is really in consideration of the people’s priorities that the leader concerns her or himself with territorial integrity above other issues.
Interior harmony or at the very least stability though often incorporates territorial integrity in that for a leader to keep the faith of his people he needs to present them with a secure nation amongst other responsibilities. For a stable state such as Canada, it would be ridiculous to say that territorial integrity should be its prime minister’s main concern. Certainly there are border issues that the prime minister might address, but it is not a huge issue for Canadians. Georgia on the other hand presents a very current example of where territorial integrity is a national worry. With the possibility of the country losing significant chunks of territory and very effectively weakening its authority and power, Georgians expect their leader to be mainly concerned with this issue. For all practical purposes (remembering Machiavelli’s pragmatism) it is really in consideration of the people’s priorities that the leader concerns her or himself with territorial integrity above other issues.
Does Territorial Integrity Worry you?
The priorities of the state should reflect the values of the people. Security, health care, welfare, social security, numerous factors must be considered by politicians who represent the interests of the state. But the question is if security is that one most important issue that leaders of the world should consider their number one priority. Territorial integrity, the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty within its own borders without outside interference, is a major issue in some parts of the world. I am about to do something very un-Seamus McGregor, I will not pick a side, but will instead say it depends on which state we are talking about. The fact of the matter is, territorial integrity is of the highest concern in some countries, but I personally would say it is not the most important issue within America or most of the world.
Territorial integrity has been pushed into the spotlight due to the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Russia, by invading Georgia to seize breakaway Georgian provinces, has absolutely violated Georgia’s territorial integrity. The breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a Georgian internal affair, and in a perfect world, outside players would not have interfered (like how no one complained about Russian atrocities in Chechnya and Dagestan, but I digress). Given recent events, I would say Mikheil Saakashvili should be concerned with the security situation in his country and give it the highest priority. I think another example of a country that should consider security the most pressing issue is Pakistan. President Zardari has radical fundamentalists in the tribal western provinces in his own country. He also has Pakistan’s historical adversary India in the east with the issue of Kashmir still unresolved. Considering President Zardari is the widower of Benezir Bhutto, who lost her life in a terrorist bombing, I am certain he will give his highest attention to security, both regarding internal matters as well as territorial integrity between nation-states.
However, this concept of security-before-all-else is not on the first thing on the mind of numerous international leaders. The United States has a massive defense budget and the Department of Homeland Security, but the territorial borders of this nation are far from threatened. If territorial integrity is what we are considering security, then it is fairly obvious that the United States is not in risk of invasion by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Russia and China are emerging powers with impressive militaries, but only someone crazy (like Lou Dobbs) would suggest that at the present time, either state poses a serious military threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
But you don’t have to be the leader of a rich and powerful nation to not consider ensuring territorial integrity the top priority of the state. Take Ghana for example, it’s a nation known for hospitable people… and not much else. However, it’s in close proximity to Liberia and borders the Ivory Coast, two nations with histories of violence, and Togo, an authoritarian regime. Why does Ghana not sweat security? Because the neighboring nations have internal problems, and Ghana, as a poor and peaceful country, simply decides not to meddle in the affairs of other states. Political and relative economic stability within Ghana have made Ghana a model state in western Africa.
So you see, whether or not security is of the highest importance to you depends on geography to a certain extent. Also a leader should concern themselves with internal issues that could destabilize their nation-state. While security is the top concern in many parts of the world, I would argue that in most countries, territorial integrity is not the single most important issue concerning the head of state.
Territorial integrity has been pushed into the spotlight due to the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Russia, by invading Georgia to seize breakaway Georgian provinces, has absolutely violated Georgia’s territorial integrity. The breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a Georgian internal affair, and in a perfect world, outside players would not have interfered (like how no one complained about Russian atrocities in Chechnya and Dagestan, but I digress). Given recent events, I would say Mikheil Saakashvili should be concerned with the security situation in his country and give it the highest priority. I think another example of a country that should consider security the most pressing issue is Pakistan. President Zardari has radical fundamentalists in the tribal western provinces in his own country. He also has Pakistan’s historical adversary India in the east with the issue of Kashmir still unresolved. Considering President Zardari is the widower of Benezir Bhutto, who lost her life in a terrorist bombing, I am certain he will give his highest attention to security, both regarding internal matters as well as territorial integrity between nation-states.
However, this concept of security-before-all-else is not on the first thing on the mind of numerous international leaders. The United States has a massive defense budget and the Department of Homeland Security, but the territorial borders of this nation are far from threatened. If territorial integrity is what we are considering security, then it is fairly obvious that the United States is not in risk of invasion by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Russia and China are emerging powers with impressive militaries, but only someone crazy (like Lou Dobbs) would suggest that at the present time, either state poses a serious military threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
But you don’t have to be the leader of a rich and powerful nation to not consider ensuring territorial integrity the top priority of the state. Take Ghana for example, it’s a nation known for hospitable people… and not much else. However, it’s in close proximity to Liberia and borders the Ivory Coast, two nations with histories of violence, and Togo, an authoritarian regime. Why does Ghana not sweat security? Because the neighboring nations have internal problems, and Ghana, as a poor and peaceful country, simply decides not to meddle in the affairs of other states. Political and relative economic stability within Ghana have made Ghana a model state in western Africa.
So you see, whether or not security is of the highest importance to you depends on geography to a certain extent. Also a leader should concern themselves with internal issues that could destabilize their nation-state. While security is the top concern in many parts of the world, I would argue that in most countries, territorial integrity is not the single most important issue concerning the head of state.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Blog Group That Roared
Well, if I may depart from the normal perspective, I thought the little “social experiment” we acted out on Friday was very telling regarding human nature. To be perfectly honest, I feel as though, despite our adversarial actions, we all would have made more or less the same decisions. However, I would have acted differently on a few key occasions:
For one, I would not have consented to the decision made by my group to voluntarily relinquish one of our chairs to another group. If we, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Pamba, had extra resources, they should have been deployed in a more strategic manner. Had I, the Pambese defense minister, not been away procuring weapons for the defense of our fair republic, I would have held onto the chair and waited until an opportunity presented itself.
And, as I anticipated, one did. Before long, those good-for-nothing Propranololitans tried to cut a deal with us. However, once we rejected their Skittles-for-table offer, they launched a preemptive Nerf Vulcan strike against our motherland. I was forced to return fire, which temporarily halted their assault.
Now, had we still possessed that extra chair, we could have used it as a bargaining chip. I would have offered to trade the chair to the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania, where the Vulcan’s owner, Phil the Strong, resided. I would have persuaded him to cease his weapon sales to the Propranololitans in exchange for the extra chair, which their group was in desperate need of. Such a tactical move is exactly what extra resources should be used for, as I and many others have elaborated on in our blog posts.
The reason that our actions in the class differed from the values we stated in our blogs was due to the largest difference between our simulation and reality: the lack of actual consequence for our actions. The tables and chair were not “real” resources, and no group would have starved or been attacked another group if they failed to allocate resources properly. With this in mind, we were able to take more charitable measures than we would have had our well-being been on the line.
Later in the class, my group reached a deal whereby we would absorb our former enemy, the Principality of San Propranolo. This was done with no further bloodshed. Instantly, we both shared supremacy in both resources and military firepower. However, there were some outsiders who tried to break up our newly-found union by questioning whether our agreement constituted a merger or an annexation. Balderdash! Großpamba was formed through annexation, you fools!
Nevertheless, our merger was seen as a success by the other groups, and we considered expanding our borders to include the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania and the Emirate of A.
So, in retrospect, I would like to take this opportunity to forgive the group that was picked first to enter the room. Despite our “thought embargo” against them, I feel that the people of the Wordian People’s Jamahiriya acted more or less as we all would have in spreading chairs. In fact, on the topic of how the exercise started, I want to give credence to Catherine…sorry, Athkor’s method of assigning resources, which she put forward at the end of the class. This plan would have one person set up the tables and chairs however he or she wants, provided that they choose which spot to take after everyone else. I feel that if our aim is to promote equality, then this method is near-foolproof. However, I must also admit that I was among the “random selection” crowd at the outset of the class, because I, like many others, was more eager to simply get into the room than to divide up chairs and tables in a fair manner.
At the end of the class, one particular question still pervaded me. We had mentioned the Stanford prison experiment, during which about fifty people were assigned statuses as either “prison guards” or “prisoners”, and were told to interact according to their roles. Within six days, however, the experiment had to be shut down because the participants became too involved in their roles. We spoke in class about how this type of artificial psychological separation affects how people and groups interact, and how the same principle can be applied to nation-states. I wondered during the course of the discussion, “What if the experimenters at Stanford hadn’t applied the labels of “prison guards” and “prisoners”. What if they had been labeled something more tranquil, such as “hotel employees” and “hotel guests”, or if they hadn’t been given a label at all? Would they still have acted in a hostile manner?" Perhaps it was simply the perception that they were adversarial groups that caused them to oppose one another. The same idea, therefore, can be seen among states; we had spoke earlier about how the “limits” of what states can and can’t do are constantly being pushed. What if states behave in ways that they think states are traditionally supposed to behave? The same mentality grips those in power as those in the prison experiment: the model of what the group should be, what their aims and values are like, and the nature of their relationships to other groups. It is a fascinating idea, the possibility of stripping away all previous notions of how a state is supposed to act, but what results would it bring? Would the state be more responsive to the needs of its people, and people around the globe, or would it be used as a vehicle to further the interests of the ruling elite? Just what do traditional notions of a state protect?
On a final note…a gun ban? The nerve! Where’s Antonin Scalia when you need him?
For one, I would not have consented to the decision made by my group to voluntarily relinquish one of our chairs to another group. If we, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Pamba, had extra resources, they should have been deployed in a more strategic manner. Had I, the Pambese defense minister, not been away procuring weapons for the defense of our fair republic, I would have held onto the chair and waited until an opportunity presented itself.
And, as I anticipated, one did. Before long, those good-for-nothing Propranololitans tried to cut a deal with us. However, once we rejected their Skittles-for-table offer, they launched a preemptive Nerf Vulcan strike against our motherland. I was forced to return fire, which temporarily halted their assault.
Now, had we still possessed that extra chair, we could have used it as a bargaining chip. I would have offered to trade the chair to the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania, where the Vulcan’s owner, Phil the Strong, resided. I would have persuaded him to cease his weapon sales to the Propranololitans in exchange for the extra chair, which their group was in desperate need of. Such a tactical move is exactly what extra resources should be used for, as I and many others have elaborated on in our blog posts.
The reason that our actions in the class differed from the values we stated in our blogs was due to the largest difference between our simulation and reality: the lack of actual consequence for our actions. The tables and chair were not “real” resources, and no group would have starved or been attacked another group if they failed to allocate resources properly. With this in mind, we were able to take more charitable measures than we would have had our well-being been on the line.
Later in the class, my group reached a deal whereby we would absorb our former enemy, the Principality of San Propranolo. This was done with no further bloodshed. Instantly, we both shared supremacy in both resources and military firepower. However, there were some outsiders who tried to break up our newly-found union by questioning whether our agreement constituted a merger or an annexation. Balderdash! Großpamba was formed through annexation, you fools!
Nevertheless, our merger was seen as a success by the other groups, and we considered expanding our borders to include the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania and the Emirate of A.
So, in retrospect, I would like to take this opportunity to forgive the group that was picked first to enter the room. Despite our “thought embargo” against them, I feel that the people of the Wordian People’s Jamahiriya acted more or less as we all would have in spreading chairs. In fact, on the topic of how the exercise started, I want to give credence to Catherine…sorry, Athkor’s method of assigning resources, which she put forward at the end of the class. This plan would have one person set up the tables and chairs however he or she wants, provided that they choose which spot to take after everyone else. I feel that if our aim is to promote equality, then this method is near-foolproof. However, I must also admit that I was among the “random selection” crowd at the outset of the class, because I, like many others, was more eager to simply get into the room than to divide up chairs and tables in a fair manner.
At the end of the class, one particular question still pervaded me. We had mentioned the Stanford prison experiment, during which about fifty people were assigned statuses as either “prison guards” or “prisoners”, and were told to interact according to their roles. Within six days, however, the experiment had to be shut down because the participants became too involved in their roles. We spoke in class about how this type of artificial psychological separation affects how people and groups interact, and how the same principle can be applied to nation-states. I wondered during the course of the discussion, “What if the experimenters at Stanford hadn’t applied the labels of “prison guards” and “prisoners”. What if they had been labeled something more tranquil, such as “hotel employees” and “hotel guests”, or if they hadn’t been given a label at all? Would they still have acted in a hostile manner?" Perhaps it was simply the perception that they were adversarial groups that caused them to oppose one another. The same idea, therefore, can be seen among states; we had spoke earlier about how the “limits” of what states can and can’t do are constantly being pushed. What if states behave in ways that they think states are traditionally supposed to behave? The same mentality grips those in power as those in the prison experiment: the model of what the group should be, what their aims and values are like, and the nature of their relationships to other groups. It is a fascinating idea, the possibility of stripping away all previous notions of how a state is supposed to act, but what results would it bring? Would the state be more responsive to the needs of its people, and people around the globe, or would it be used as a vehicle to further the interests of the ruling elite? Just what do traditional notions of a state protect?
On a final note…a gun ban? The nerve! Where’s Antonin Scalia when you need him?
Love for UC World Politics
Okay so, no, Thursday’s class did not specifically focus on educating us any more about current and past international issues. For over an hour, all the class did was bicker back and forth. We bickered about the reasoning for how the seating arrangement worked out the way it did and then we bickered some more about how we could have done things differently as to make our entire experience less violent. However, I think that what many of us are failing to realize is that, as we entered Thursday’s class, we were thrown into a mock world crisis. Yes, I know that this so called “crisis” was extremely unrealistic, but I feel that each one of us are informed enough about legitimate international affairs to fill in aspects of what was left out in class and to discard the factors that were too absurd to matter. For, in doing so, I think that all of us can then apply what we experienced in class to how and why things happen the way they do in our world and society today.
I personally enjoyed the class. Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed class. Beyond what I thought it taught us about how different nations communicate and offer aid to one another, I thought it taught us a lot about each other. It was interesting to see how all of us, many of whom would like to spend their lives actually working in the field of international relations, chose to reason with one another. We each bring something so unique to the table and I think that Thursday’s class really emphasized that. I can't wait to see what the next class brings!
Self-Indulgent and ineffectual discussion...
One of my main frustrations with politics is the (in my opinion) obsession with past political events and the corresponding lack of action and forward looking planning. I am not suggesting ignoring we repeat our past mistakes by ignoring history, but rather that we ignore the impulse to overanalyze what 20/20 hindsight plainly presents. In Leadership Gateway this past week we discussed whether the US would still be the major world power in 50 years. Questions such as this and the discussions they generate are rather pointless in my view. There are too many factors involved, and guesses don’t change anything about what will happen. Instead I wish we could focus on a more middle forward looking view. Concentrating on how we can now and for the future set ourselves up to be in the best position possible. These are the factors we can control, outside of ourselves other agencies and nations will make their own choices, and perhaps those choices will put them in a position above the US politically or perhaps it won’t.
Our class exercise and following discussion on Thursday was interesting but not very productive since almost the entire class consisted of us discussing why we acted the way we did for the first 20 minutes of class. Again I would repeat that some reflection on how our current position evolved is useful, but not if the lessons learned are never applied because we never move beyond discussion of the past to discussion on the future. A balance is needed, and an efficient system worked out that keeps such self-indulgencies from wasting time and possibilities.
Our class exercise and following discussion on Thursday was interesting but not very productive since almost the entire class consisted of us discussing why we acted the way we did for the first 20 minutes of class. Again I would repeat that some reflection on how our current position evolved is useful, but not if the lessons learned are never applied because we never move beyond discussion of the past to discussion on the future. A balance is needed, and an efficient system worked out that keeps such self-indulgencies from wasting time and possibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)