China and the Argument for Stopping the Push for Democracy

            Democracy, what constitutes it and what states are considered democracies is something that cannot be defined in precise terms. To many international relations scholars and politicians, democracy is the key to successful state. Many countries, such as the United States, practice a strict policy of promoting solely democracy abroad. The United States has even gone to great lengths to remove heads of non-democratic states in order to set up a democratic government in its place. However, these governments never last very long. While almost all of the world’s current successful and powerful states practice democracy, the growing success and power of China provides support to the argument for abandoning the push for democracy abroad.

            Although democracy has proved to be successful in many states, it does not necessarily guarantee that a state will not fail. History has shown that some democracies work while others do not. The reasons for why some democracies work and others do not are varied. In a Washington Post article, Lindsay Benstead found that in a survey of six Arabic countries, twenty-seven percent of those surveyed believed democracy to be the best form of government but ultimately unsuitable for their country. Countries that were declared unsuitable for democracy were found to have significant economic and political instability. Political stability and economic growth are important for a successful state, but it is not necessary to be a democracy to have them. China, whose communist party remains in power, maintains economic and political stability due to its focus on economic growth.

            In addition, the consistent failure of many Middle Eastern nations to produce a successful democracy has fostered a growing dislike of democracy. In order for a state to be successful, a majority would have to approve of the form of government. Successful states are essentially popular states. Therefore, when nation building, the United States should be less concerned with a establishing a democracy and instead should focus its efforts on laying the foundation for a stable government the citizens are in favor of.

The current foreign policy of the United States has failed to influence unstable states abroad or lay the framework for a successful democracy in other nations. Proponents of this policy argue that democracy is the most peaceful and successful form of government and U.S. efforts should be focused on establishing democracy in the Middle East in order to mitigate ideologies and prevent extremist groups from rising. Such proponents are right to be concerned about establishing stable and secure states in the Middle East, but are wrong to believe that democracy is the only way to do so. Such concerns should actually take precedence over democracy when building nations abroad because it would increase the likelihood that the established government is effective.

            In conclusion, the United State’s push for democracy abroad is a misguided policy for establishing stable, successful states. All efforts with regards to nation building should focus on laying the framework for a government that is stable, secure, popular, and economically successful, not instituting a form of government that the nation has already rejected.

Why Abuddin is a Failed State

Vishal Hemnani

GVPT 200

26 October 2014

In FX’s new TV series, Tyrant, the fictional nation of Abbudin fits the exact criteria of a “failed” state.  The show revolves around Jamal and Barry Al-Fayeed, sons of the late President of Abuddin, Khaled Al-Fayeed. Barry is the younger brother to Jamal and is returning from America after a self-imposed 20-year exile. His elder brother Jamal is Abuddin’s newly appointed president, following his father’s footsteps as a dictator. Throughout the show, themes of political instability, social unrest, human right abuses, and the use of military power for oppression all contribute to Abbudin as a failed state.

            The first and most important indicator is political instability and social unrest. The people of Abuddin view Jamal as an unruly leader, worse than his father. The nation is in constant disarray, as individuals form an opposition against Jamal that is strong enough to force him into military action. This is similar to the opposition groups in Syria fighting for a regime change against the Ba’athist government. To many, Syria is considered a failed state thus this comparison yields that Abuddin must be seen the same way. The show even alludes to the Arab Spring, claiming that Abuddin is the next country to fall into civil war with Jamal being the one overthrown. Most would agree that the countries apart of the Arab Spring are “failed states”. In addition political instability is highlighted by the great influence Barry has over Jamal’s presidency. Barry’s role in this show is to advise Jamal, who absolutely trusts his younger brother. When it is apparent to Barry that Jamal is not right for their country, he organizes a coup to overtake his brother’s presidency. He coerces’ Jamal to accept rebel’s demands for a democratic election, and aims to sabotage his ability to retain head of state, all with the intention of instituting democracy. The important thing to note is the great change this country endures as it momentarily transforms from a tyranny to a democracy upon arrival of one person, Barry. This political instability ultimately backfires as Jamal discovers his brother’s ulterior motive and responds with a tirade against all the “progress” he has made. Professor Shirk mentioned that a coup within a nation is a sign of fractionalization within the government. These lack of defined roles between those in power are part of the reason why Abuddin “fails”.

Another reason to identify Abuddin as a failed state is their history of human right violations. Barry’s decided to leave Abuddin and flee to America because he was disgusted by his father’s massacre of many Abuddin nationals. An opposition group rioting at the town square was met with deadly gas attacks by Abuddin’s military under his father’s rule. While Barry fought for democracy in the nation, Jamal followed the ways of his father. When the same situation arose again, Jamal turned to military force to force out rebel groups. Once again, this response is similar to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack during their civil war in 2013. The use of military at the disposal of the president is an additional reason to view Abuddin as failed. There is no form of “right to trial” as those who speak out against the government are met with a gun to the head. In failed states, military leaders run the country and oppress the people through violence.

Based on the standards set today, the ever-changing power shit in the government shows instability. This alongside the disregard for the state’s well being and the constant turmoil among the people are reasons to classify this fictional nation a failed state.

A Critique of Nation Building, by Eliot Fenton

Eliot Fenton

A Critique of Nation Building

One of the most prevalent and recurring themes of US foreign policy is the act of nation building. The US repeatedly invades foreign dictators, overthrows them, and attempts to establish democracies. Though we have good intentions, it almost never works. There are two main problems with our strategy of nation building: our insistence on grouping unlike people into countries and our expectancy for instant results.

History has shown that people don’t like being ruled by groups that are different than themselves, whether these differences be racial, ethnic, or religious. Ethnic differences were the root of problems in Yugoslavia and apartheid South Africa, and are now a main cause of the Crimean revolution. Despite the long history of unlike people not getting along, the US repeatedly ignores large cultural differences when trying to create states, such as Iraq and the Congo. Iraq’s population is a mix of mostly Shia and Sunni Muslims. The Sunni minority resented being ruled by the democratically elected Shiite government, allowing the Sunni group ISIS to establish itself in the area. Furthermore, in the Congo, unrelated tribes were arbitrarily “united” into one country after the end of Belgian colonization. These tribes share nothing in common besides proximity, yet are still expected to live as one country. The US needs to begin seeing statehood from a more constructivist viewpoint. States fail when the citizens of the state see their leaders as an “other,” and democracy does not guarantee leaders that represent the entire public. Iraq and Congo are failing because of large schisms in their populations that no amount of democracy can overcome. I argue that instead of trying to implement democracy across wide regions that we define, we instead allow the citizens of those regions to define their own states. If Iraqis wish to split into one Shiite and one Sunni state, the US should not stand in the way (this type of religious split worked well in India). Additionally, Congo may be better off if the state is dissolved, allowing regional tribes to create their own governments. Though it worked in America, US’s insistence on uniting large areas under the false hope of democracy decreases the stability of the region.

Additionally, Americans have unrealistic expectations for how quickly they expect democracy to take hold. It is important to remember that the US underwent a lengthy civil war, and a large portion of the population lacked many basic human rights until within the past 50 years. Even today, our democracy isn't perfect, but we continue to revise it from within. Our government remains free from external meddling, and that has allowed us to create a government that is truly representative of the people’s wishes. When looking at some of the oldest and strongest democracies across the planet, very few (if any) have existed in their current forms forever. The US needs to realize this and allow the system to run its course. Developing nations need to experiment with different balances of power until they find the right one for them. There will be many failures, many revolutions, and, unfortunately, many deaths (just think of the French revolution). However, the result will be a strong government supported by the people. The US needs to stop expecting our form of democracy to appear within a few years of removing a dictator from power. We must keep our hands off and observe from afar without picking sides. Democracy is a process, not a destination.

"Failed" States

         When it comes to the status of “failed” states, primarily those in Africa, the leaders are not solely at fault for the depravity of their situation. First and foremost, failed states owe their circumstance to the colonization and decolonization by major powers in the 19^th century. While the leaders who have come into power in these countries have made it worse, ultimately these nations are not failed, but have been failed. If failure is measured by effectiveness and legitimacy, as well as things like human rights, fractionalization and civil wars, these can be best understood by looking at the roles of colonial powers.

            Professor McCauley, a teacher of politics and the developing world at the University of Maryland, cites two reasons of why colonial powers have had a negative impact on developing countries. This includes arbitrary borders drawn by the world powers and the extractive institutions put in place in the harsher colonized areas. While not all of these now decolonized developing countries are failed, essentially all of the failed states were at one point colonized. France and the UK were two of the biggest powers in the region, were seeking more land and therefore drew arbitrary borders with no respect to the people on the ground. Because of this, ethnic groups were forced together and others were split. Due to fractionalization in these countries even after decolonization, it allowed for the extreme suppression of one ethnic group by another. When this happens, it is significantly more likely for a state to become weak and allow human right violations and lack of political stability.

            Extractive institutions also play a big part in explaining why some countries are now failed or failing states. In nice places, colonial powers set up settler institutions for people to migrate to and establish their own laws and live. This created a stable infrastructure for the future country to build on. However, in the harsher areas like Africa, they merely used the land for its resources and people and did not establish any lasting establishments. By taking people from the land and valuable resources, decolonization was potentially worse for these countries because they then lacked a stable ruling authority and instead had to create their own with few means of doing so. Even after a government was established, these areas had been drained and therefore were unable to sustain good economies, which is critical for creating an effective and legitimate ruler.

          Since not all decolonized countries have become failed states, it is important to note how those failed ones are different. These ones had a higher chance for conflict due to higher fractionalization, especially in the case of Sudan where there is still debate on the split to South Sudan. Many of these also may have had less natural resources to begin with and therefore have a harder time providing goods to contribute to the global economy. Ultimately, these states have been failed in the past, and while their current regimes may make the situation worse, it is major world powers and colonization that put them in that situation to begin with.

How should the United States handle the situation with ISIS and Syria?

Connor Handzo

GVPT 200

Professor Shirk

Blog Post 2

            Recently there has been much debate over what course of action the United States should take against ISIS and Syria. There are many different arguments on each side as to what to do. Some people feel that we should get fully engaged in the conflict, others feel that we should only be somewhat engaged and there are those who feel that we should not engage ourselves at all.

            Many people and groups feel that the United States needs to fully engage itself in the conflict with ISIS and the Syrian government. As of now, the United States government is performing airstrikes in the region, but there are groups that feel this is not nearly enough involvement. There are those that believe that the United States should not only continue airstrikes, but that it should also deploy troops and physically have boot on the ground in Syria. These people want the United States government to fully commit troops, equipment and resources to this conflict. They feel that this sort of action is the only viable way to stop ISIS from growing and to contain it and eventually destroy ISIS. Not only do they want to stay involved until ISIS and the Syrian government are toppled, but they want to stay in the area and commit to nation building. Each of these tasks are monumental though and could easily plunge the United States into numerous years of war.

            Then there are those who believe that the United States should get involved in this conflict, but not get so involved as to commit itself to war. That is, some people feel that the United States should stop the airstrikes, because they feel that the strikes are ineffective. They also think that the United States should set up neutral zones in order to protect humanitarian rights, and should not engage in combat unless provoked or attacked first. This is in order to help refugees and other people who are fleeing the war, among other humanitarian practices while staying out of the fighting aspect of the war. Lastly, these people feel that in this approach, the United States government should not favor either side, ISIS or the Syrian government, in the conflict.

            Another group that is vocal about this conflict is the group that believes wholeheartedly that the United States should not get involved in this conflict. These people use past examples, such as Iraq, as their support as to why the United States should not get involved. That is, based on what happened with Iraq, it is their belief that there is no evidence to support the idea that the United States would be successful in Syria. Moreover, they feel that nation building does not tend to work because of how the two groups involved in the fighting feel towards each other. Because of the combatants’ beliefs and such, they feel that fighting would continue even after the United States were to leave after its time spent nation building. So, because of these reasons this group vocalizes that there is absolutely no reason to risk American lives, equipment, and resources if in the end not a whole lot would be different.

            So based on the arguments and evidence from the three varying sides, it is my belief that the United States should pull out of Syria and not get involved. If we even do manage to defeat ISIS and topple the corrupt Syrian government, which would incur an immense cost on us in lives and resources, then we would engage in nation building. However, the region around Syria is unstable and infant democracies are weak so there is no reason to believe that after all of our efforts the new government would survive. Furthermore, the people of Syria might not even want a democracy and could potentially end up resenting us for installing one. Therefore, the United States should pull out of Syria and not get involved any further.

Combatting Words of Mass Destruction

In his article “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate,” Ty Solomon discusses the significance of rhetoric in international politics. He identifies that an arbitrary categorization of an issue in one State greatly affects the attention this issue receives from another State.

Specifically, Solomon addresses the influence of the term “chemical weapons” in the (in)decision of the United States and the United Kingdom to intervene in the Syria Crisis. He notes that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom were interested in intervening in Syria until the engagement of the term “chemical weapons” –in contrast to “conventional” weapon, like guns and explosives. In addition to merely noting this reality, Solomon persistently asks why this was the case. Why didn’t either the US or the UK care to intervene in Syria until “chemical weapons” defined the issue?

This issue can be considered more broadly: why does certain verbiage elicit a stronger response or more concern from some States than other verbiage? A major focus of Solomon’s argument is the arbitrariness of categories that have such a crucial affect on the world’s response to these issues. He identifies the consequences of arbitrariness when noting that issues of so called “chemical weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction” receive more attention than issues of “conventional weapons” --even though “conventional” weapons “illicit much more mass destruction and human pain.” That is, the use of “regular” guns and explosives is more widespread than other weapons and consequently results in just as many, if not more, lost lives. So how is one category considered more distinct from another? Or, more threatening than another? Or, worth more attention that another?

Clearly there is a strong degree of power in identifying such categories and assigning to which category a State belongs. One category will receive aid or intervention while another category remains neglected. An important question is: who governs the rhetoric, which governs international politics? More candidly, who governs the rhetoric that decides who lives and dies?

The influence of rhetoric is an example of power, thereby relating to sovereignty. Walter Opello and Stephen Rosow discuss sovereignty at length in their book The Nation-State and Global Order. Specifically, in Chapter 10, “The Postcolonial State: Reflexive Sovereignty,” they discuss sovereignty’s historical significance. They explain that sovereignty has been used historically to establish and enforce dichotomies. One dichotomy is the distinction between traditional societies and modern societies.  They note that modern societies were viewed more favorably than traditional societies.

When one understands rhetoric as an exhibit of sovereignty, one can understand how Solomon & Opello and Rosow’s arguments relate. The concept of traditional versus modern still persists today. Sovereign states dictate what is traditional and what is modern. In this discussion, conventional warfare is traditional, and weapons of mass destruction or chemical warfare are modern. Modern issues receive more attention than traditional issues –just as they have historically.

Therefore, states who are not sovereign (or of lesser sovereignty) must make active attempts to be regarded as modern. They must recognize the lessons of history despite the moral concerns associated with it. States who are not sovereign must develop rhetoric that brings attention to their need. They must intentionally redefine what is traditional or modern, never allowing themselves the misfortune of being being categorized as the former.  If that means coining their issues as more concerning than another issue, then that is what must be done. If that means exaggerating an issue, then so be it. In reference to Syria, if that means coining the term “chemical weapons,” then this is a life-saving solution. As Opello and Rosow state, State sovereignty is a modal feature of the modern world, that is, a model that migrates and is taken up an reworked by indigenous peoples according to particular circumstances and conditions.”