Author: Harry LaMagna

In their article, “Confronting Climate Change and Reframing Security”, Carol Dumaine and Irving Mintzer discuss how the issue of climate change has become a topic of discussion and study in security and military circles. They discuss how since the 1970’s American policy makers have “securitized” the issue of climate change and discussed how the United State’s military and security apparatus should prepare for the incoming affects of climate change. They contrast the American security lens with that of Germany. The German lens does not focus on security and military matters, instead it focuses on using strong multilateral and cooperative approaches to deal with and mitigate the damage that will come from climate change. Dumaine and Mintzer quote some German experts as stating that they believed that America’s focus on the security aspect of climate change is a distraction from the real issue. I believe that American policymakers are correct in “securitizing” climate change .As the environmental situation continues to degrade resources such as water and arable land will become scarcer and only countries that can physically defend their resources will be able to keep them. I would also consider it unwise for nation states to rely on multilateral approaches when dealing with climate change considering the fact that the United States left the Paris Agreement. In my opinion, it is the German experts who are acting foolishly in believing that the international community would come together during such a crisis and not crumble into a state of chaos in which every nation is solely looking out for the survival of its own people.

In the chapter “Who Could Be Planning A Nuclear Terrorist Attack? from her book “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe”, author Allison Graham describes efforts by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to use on the United States, American Allies, and Russia. One of the themes that I feel the author is really trying to convey is how easily non-state entities like Al Qaeda and Aum Shinrykyo have demonstrated the ability to get their hands on the material necessary to create WMD’s and in the case of Aum Shinryko, deploy these weapons in devastating attacks on civilians.

Based on this information, I would say that although they are still dangerous, the threat of North Korea and Iran having WMD’s pales in comparison to the threat of non-state actors possessing these kinds of weapons. While the regimes running those countries can be described as erratic, they can at least be negotiated with. For example, despite their bellicose rhetoric, the Obama administration was able to successfully negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. However, when it comes to non-state actors there is really no one to negotiate and if and when they come into the possession of a WMD that they are able to use against the United States and its allies, there is not much we can do to prevent them.

In their article “Nuclear Ethics? Why Pakistan Has not Used Nuclear Weapons…Yet”, the author Sanniah Abdullah lays out the argument that the reason Pakistan has not yet used nuclear weapons is not because of the presence of a nuclear taboo in the country or deterrence but because the Pakistani military has not yet faced a situation where they were able to use nuclear weapons and doing so would be useful.

I only kind of agree with the author’s argument. It is worth pointing out that the 1999 Kargill War was limited in its scope and did not nearly qualify as the type of conflict that would justify the use of nuclear weapons. Since 1999, there has not been any real military crises between India and Pakistan aside from skirmishes between irregular forces in the disputed Kashmir region. However, the lack of a nuclear taboo and the power of the military over the country leads me to believe that if such a situation would arise, there is a high chance of the Pakistani’s using their nuclear arsenal.

In her article “How strong is the nuclear taboo today?”, the author Nina Tannewald discusses the “taboo” that currently surrounds nuclear weapons and their usage, particularly their usage against states without nuclear weapons. In her article, Tannenwald articulates her belief that this taboo has helped humanity thus far avoid an apocalyptic nuclear war. She discusses how the characteristically reckless Trump administration has softened the effect of this taboo through the use of aggressive rhetoric threatening the usage of nuclear weapons. The author specifically points to his verbal duel with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

In case you were unaware, Joe Biden has defeated Trump in the 2020 presidential elections. In my opinion this is great news for people who do not want to see humanity destroyed in nuclear fire because I believe that a Biden administration would work to undo a lot of the damage Trump has done to international norms including the nuclear taboo.

In his article “China’s clear and present conundrum on the Korean Peninsula: stuck between the past and the future”, Xiangfeng Yang discusses China’s complicated relationship with its ally North Korea. The author states that although countries share deep historical ties, the erratic actions of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has eroded the relationship between the two countries. In my opinion, this development is something that could be used by the United States to further its interests in the region and perhaps improve its relationship with China. However, with his inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump threatens to push North Korea and China closer together.

In their article, the author discusses a debate occurring in China regarding its relationship with North Korea. The author describes there being two sides, one which consists of what they consider to be “conservative hard-liners” and the other side which consists of moderate intellectuals. The hardliners want China to continue to support North Korea against what they view as an increasingly aggressive and belligerent United States while the moderates want to work with the United States to deal with North Korea and other security issues in East Asia. By using inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump weakens the position of the moderates and strengthens the hardliners who would see American influence completely removed from East Asia. In order to foster cooperation on this issue, the President should use less harsh rhetoric when discussing China.

In his article “Israel and the Arab World- Renewal of the Alliance of the Periphery”, Eyal Zisser describes the unlikely pseudo-alliance that has arisen between Israel and several Arab states as a result of the political upheaval of the Arab Spring and the rising threat of Iran. I do not believe however that this new cooperation between Israel and the Arab states is long for this world. I believe that the situation that the 2 camps find themselves in is similar to what the situation the Western Allies and the Soviet Union found themselves in during World War II, a reluctant alliance against an enemy that threatened to destroy both. Once this threat was extinguished, a fierce rivalry that almost lead to all-out war on several occasions ensued. I believe that something similar would occur between Israel and the Arab States if the threat posed by Iran were to diminish. I also believe the alliance would collapse if the United States continues its current trend of withdrawing from the Middle East.

 

In his article “Hard Truths in Syria: America Can’t Do More with Less and It Shouldn’t Try”, Brett McGurk, who served as the Special Presidential Envoy to the Coalition to Defeat Isis laments the decision of the Trump administration to wind down the presence of US servicemen in Syria. McGurk also describes the decisions that he believes the United States should take in order to prevent further damaging American interests in the region and to make sure that the main goals of the Coalition remain achieved which McGurk states are to “prevent Isis from coming back” and “from stopping Iran from establishing a fortified military presence that might threaten Israel.”

When discussing the potential steps that he would recommend the United States take in regards to the region, he does establishing some deal with the Assad regime in Damascus as a way of ensuring that the interests of the United States in the region are protected. I would imagine that this is because the Assad regime is responsible for plunging Syria in the country in the first place with their brutal repression of protests and their previous use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians. The ideal solution (in my opinion) would be the removal of the Assad regime and the establishment of a secular liberal democracy in Syria that is allied with the United States and maintains good relations with Israel. However, this is not possible without committing to a long-term occupation and more likely than not a possible conflict with Russia considering that they are the ones who are protecting Assad in the first place. While an ideal and perfect solution is now out of reach of American policymakers and diplomats, we could still achieve a settlement that is good enough and in my opinion, the best way of doing this would be to strike a deal with Damascus.

A potential deal with Damascus could entail partial repeal of the sanctions being placed on the regime in return for certain concessions. As McGurk explains in his article, as a result of the civil war, Syria has faced a total economic collapse that has not been seen since the Second World War. I believe that the possibility of repealing certain sanctions on the Damascus regime would incentivize them to move away from Iran and to try and reach a settlement with the western powers in terms of deescalating the situation with Israel and giving certain protections to members of the SDF.

In the article “The Crisis of Peacekeeping: Why the UN Can’t End Wars”, the author Severine Autesserre examines the history of UN peacekeeping missions and operations and details why these operations are often ineffective in restoring peace to chaotic, war torn areas. The author goes on to prescribe a “bottom-up” approach of empowering local individuals instead focusing on implementing the dictates of uninterested foreign powers.

I agree with the author that such an approach would greatly increase the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping mission and I believe that such an approach would work to defuse the current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh. A ceasefire that was negotiated by the Russian government has failed to hold and I believe that the reason for this happening is that they are not really trying to get the local powers to find a solution themselves, rather, they are trying to just stop the fighting so as to prevent the situation growing out of hand.

In the chapter “How Aggressive is China” from the book Avoiding War with China by Amati Etzioni, the author discusses the actions that have been taken by China that are perceived by the United States and its allies in the region as aggressive and proactive and puts them into a larger context that takes into account international rules and norms, the history of China and the region, and the behavior of the United States itself. Through this lens, the author is able to show China in an unsensationalized light and is able to offer realistic policy recommendations for dealing with China.

For example, the author Amati Etzioni points out certain aspects of America’s diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea that are not often mentioned when discussing the topic. Etzioni points out that the United States often interferes in the negotiation with China and its neighbors like the ASEAN countries. The author points out how the United States uses the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as part of their justification for their criticism of Chinese activities in the South China Sea when the United States has not even signed the treaty itself. By providing this honest view of Chinese foreign policy, Etzioni provides a more realistic view of China’s activities that does not characterize it as an overwhelmingly powerful villain hell-bent on regional domination. Rather, the picture Etzioni paints is that were China is just another geopolitical rival of the United States, a picture that is much closer to reality.

In his article, “Russia’s Perpetual Geopolitics”, Stephen Kotkin discusses what he describes as the tendency of Russia to “rely on the state to bridge the gap between itself and the West”, and how the current efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin are running into the same issues that have plagued previous Russian rulers. Kotkin states that in order for Russia to catch up with the west in terms of living standards and technological sophistication, the Russian state liberalize and create institutions like “a free and professional media”, and an “impartial judiciary”. However, China has managed to become powerful and economically dynamic without liberalizing politically.

This begs the question of whether Russia is capable of doing something similar. Both China and Russia are large “civilization-states” whose people possess what Kotkin describes as “a sense of mission and a being special” as well as resentment towards the west. Both nations are also massive in terms of geographic territories, have large militaries and possess a veto in the UN Security Council which give a global reach.  All these similarities make us ask why is it that China was able to revitalize itself without political liberalization while Russia has not.