Author: YAZMERLYN DUARTE

This week’s readings examine the complex intersection of climate change and global security. Dumanie and Mintzer’s exploration sheds light on countries’ diverse perspectives regarding climate change, emphasizing the need to move beyond individual viewpoints and embrace a collective stance. They advocate for an integrated approach that transcends disciplinary boundaries, fostering various perspectives within national and international organizations and recognizing the interconnectedness of natural and human-made systems, including the broader implications of biogeophysical changes, extended beyond environmental concerns to encompass a broader spectrum of economics and international relations. 

Throughout the discussion, the authors emphasize the challenge of shifting traditional perceptions of security, which have been associated with warfare, conflicts, and military considerations. This perspective has hindered the recognition of environmental issues as integral to security concerns, contributing to a delayed acknowledgment of the gravity of climate change. Nordhaus’s reading echoes this sentiment and points out how the Ukranie war has redirected global attention and urgency toward renewable energy.

This shift underscores the intricate connections between renewable energy solutions and countries striving to redefine the world order. It prompts us to question the intricate entanglement of our global economy, where reliance on unsustainable climate practices often stems from the existing structure. While the justification for these practices lies in the current framework of our economy, recognizing the immediate threats posed by climate change on multiple scales and finding sustainable solutions requires paradigm shifts in established systems, challenging conventional perspectives at individual, state, organizational, and institutional levels. However, when considering our inherent interdependence across borders, these challenges represent just one piece of the puzzle.

The readings for this week discuss the question of why Pakistan and India, despite possessing nuclear capabilities, have refrained from using them against each other. Abdullah addressed this question by breaking down the notion of nuclear taboo, military principles, and the significance of no-first-use policies, which I found interesting. He concluded that Pakistan’s reluctance to deploy its nuclear arsenal is due to a strategic and ethical evaluation of the circumstances and consequences associated with the use of such actions. He emphasized that Paskistan’s military has demonstrated a commitment to carefully considering the ethical implications, showcasing a reluctance to resort to nuclear options without thorough evaluation. 

These policies underlying philosophy encourages nations to explore alternative conflict resolution methods, steering away from nuclear confrontation. Rather than relying solely on nuclear deterrence, these approaches aim to foster accountability between countries, making nuclear conflict a last resort. Talmodge’s article, on the other hand, brings a different perspective. He argues that when two nations possess a secure nuclear arsenal, an implicit agreement of mutually assured destruction emerges. This agreement alters their behavior, where while they maintain the status quo, the adversary is put in a position to provoke at a lower level to test the response of the opposing nation.  

While both discussions present intriguing points on the rationale behind Pakistan and India’s choices of not using or using their nuclear capabilities, the lingering concerns persist. What specific issues might lead Pakistan to perceive a direct conflict warranting a nuclear response from India? Aligning with a point raised earlier during the semester, countries acquiring nuclear weapons may be linked to how they position themselves globally and in front of other superpowers, seeking a seat at the table and defending their interests. This could be the case for Pakistan and India. Although they  have nuclear capabilities, the acquisition may be more related to presenting themselves as a powerhouse rather than intending to “use.” But although this is true or not, I also contemplate whether acquiring nuclear capabilities ingrains the anticipation of a potential World War III.

Chaz and Katz’s article, “The Right Way to Coerce North Korea.” critically examines the intricate geopolitical dynamics characterizing the relationship between North Korea and the United States during the Trump administration. While the authors present a set of compelling strategies for a coercive approach to denuclearization diplomacy, the feasibility and obstacles associated with implementing these can be complex. They focus on five key strategies aimed at deescalating tension. These include bolstering the coalition supporting sanctions, adopting assertive stances on nonproliferation, enhancing alliances with key regional players such as Japan and South Korea, and establishing an intelligence-sharing counterproliferation coalition. 

The practical implementation of these strategies faces complex challenges in the complex geopolitical landscape. Firstly, increasing the coalition around sanctions requires navigating varying interests and priorities among the international community. Coordinating these efforts would imply a balancing act between the U.S. interest and the potential alliances in the region. Taking a strong stance on nonproliferation will echo the need for navigating the fine line between diplomacy, projecting strength, and avoiding further escalation. Lastly, upgrading alliances with Japan and South Korea regarding missile capabilities will need to be done without raising the tension with China, which could interpret such actions as provocative. 

While acknowledging the potential efficacy of these strategies, nowadays, other layers of complexity have been added to this issue. For example, North Korea has been assisting Russia with weapons for the Ukrainian war, which means that now, North Korea has a strong partner that can help them move their nuclear interest even further. These new alliances would complicate the US objective of denuclearization. 

While these strategies could help create a potential road map to mitigate some of the present uncertainties, the central question would persist: How can the U.S. effectively navigate these complexities of geopolitical dynamics and achieve a sustainable agreement with North Korea around denuclearization? Addressing this question would require an understating of balancing assertiveness with diplomacy in the ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.  

To understand the relationship between Israel and the U.S.,we need to understand the historical backdrop in which this has emerged. Since the creation of Israel, the U.S. has long been the primary sponsor and mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Elgindy’s discussion explains how the mediator position of the United States has, directly and indirectly, influenced the achievement of a peace agreement with Palestine. He highlights how this unique relationship between the U.S. and Israel has played a pivotal role in shaping Israel’s position on the global stage. In particular, he argues that “the peace process has been infused with the idiosyncracies of American politics that have resulted in the creating a blind unequal balance of power between Palestinians and Israel. 

Since the start of the Oslo peace process, the U.S. administration has consistently put its thumb in favor of Israel’s position, according to the article. This favoritism is evident in how the U.S. downplays internal political aspects of the Palestinian government and institutions, creating the political disparities Palestinians have faced over the years. Even though the article did not blend either side of how these relationship has evolved, it clearly emphasizes that the role of the U.S. has been determined in leading into this. According to Elgindy, this “pleasing” position with Israel has been the result of the powerful lobbies in D.C. However, I think that some of this favoritism position concerns the U.S. keeping its hegemonic power in the Middle East. 

American policy in the Middle East has been clear, ensuring access to the Middle East oil and keeping the region stable enough that this access is not blocked. In particular, when it comes to Israel, the United States has a strong security interest. For example, Isarael’s military and intelligence capabilities are highly advanced. In addition, they have extensive experience in counterterrorism and combating terrorism. These two components represent high-value access for the United States because it means they can have access to it. 

I think the current war between Israel and Hamas raises this sentiment of the hot and cold game that the U.S. has been playing with Israel in the Middle East. This ongoing conflict highlights the delicate balancing act the U.S. must perform due to its strong alliances with Israel and its support for a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. finds itself in a challenging position. As this conflict evolved, It would be interesting to see how the US navigated this complex web of relationships and interests. Some of the question that are up in the air is: Would they provide more military support to Israel? OR will it shift its focus toward finding common ground? However, as many analyses have predicted, this war would be long and challenging, adding another layer of complexity to the U.S. role in the region.

The intricate relationship between the United States, Iran, and the Persian Gulf has been the subject of much debate and discussion in recent times. In this week’s reading, two articles discuss the dynamics in this critical region. Charles and Rosemary’s article discusses the US military commitment to protecting the Persian Gulf oil, while Fromeherz addresses the significance of the Strait of Hormuz. Charles and Rosemary’s discussion underscores the undeniable link between the United States’s presence in the Persian Gulf and the relevance of its oil. The US military commitment in the region has long provided stability and assurances for the global oil market. However, the possibility of a US military withdrawal raises several questions and concerns regarding the geopolitical disruption it could unleash in the region. The absence of a regional hegemon could lead to conflicts between the countries, destabilize the region’s stability, and disrupt the world’s oil supply. 

One important development in this context is China’s involvement in the region. As seen in Spring, Bejing facilitated the secret negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. While the specifics of these negotiations remain confidential, one can speculate about China’s motivations. As a rising global superpower, China is eager to secure energy resources to fuel its rapid economic growth. It is vested in the Persian Gulf’s stability and the uninterrupted oil flow. However, these secret negotiations could indicate Bejing intentions to build a partnership in the Persian Gulf, aligning with its broader Chinese foreign policy strategy of expanding its global influence. 

This situation becomes even more intriguing as the US is increasing its presence in the region to deter Iran and others from escalating the war between Israel and Hamas. Furthermore, Bejing attempted to mediate the conflict by pushing this diplomatic champion status and maintaining its position as a superpower rival of the United States.The evolving dynamics in the Persian Gulf will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications on the global stage.

The United Nations, as we know it today, has played a pivotal role in shaping the global landscape. Thomas Weiss’s discussion delves into the intrinsic importance of the UN. He ponders the idea of a world without the UN but also contemplates what might have been if the UN had taken a different developmental path. He frames his discussion on the implications for multilateralism and the international order. He discussed peace and security around the UN’s capacity to monitor and maintain global peace. This has been instrumental in preventing conflicts, mediating peace agreements, and peacekeeping. This idea is also intertwined with human rights and humanitarian action, where the notion of human rights becomes precarious without peace and security. These two elements share a common end goal- ensuring the well-being and dignity of people worldwide. 

Weiss’s arguments extend to the global economy, where the UN significantly promotes international economic cooperation, trade, and development. It fosters a global environment where countries can collaborate. However, a challenge lies in the lack of robust mechanisms for enforcing these principles and the absence of a centralized authority with intervention capabilities. In some ways, this broader nature of the UN’s mission has limited its role on the global stage, leading to calls for alternative global institutions to address these challenges. 

For instance, in recent years, we have witnessed the intensity of conflicts such as the Ukranie war and the Israke-Hamas conflict, which have called for international intervention. If this UN goal is to promote peace and security, why have they not intervened in these conflicts? While I am not arguing for a world without the UN, it is important to recognize that the current version of the UN may not be the best possible solution.

Brose’s article, “The New Revolution in Military Affairs,” delves into the intrinsic components and challenges the military faces in today’s rapidly evolving landscape. In particular, it highlights the pressing problems in adaptation and the profound impact of modern technology on warfare. Brose’s work emphasizes the necessity of reevaluating our conceptualization and engagement in warfare in the modern age. 

One notable aspect of Brose’s analysis revolves around the disproportionate investment by the United States in “developing” outdated military platforms rather than prioritizing the development of innovation and new technology. This observation resonates with the military development we have witnessed in countries like China, where rapid advancements in military capabilities and utilization of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and anti-chip ballistic missile systems have taken center stage. This dynamic has sparked discussion about the use of semiconductors in these technologies and  U.S. concerns about China’s military capabilities advancement. 

Another compelling point Brose discusses in this article is the race for technological supremacy. The United States can no longer claim uncontested leadership on the battlefield as other powers have demonstrated their ability to outpace American capabilities in critical domains. In his article “How the Algorithm Tipped the Balance in Ukraine,” Ignatius points that in the Ukranie conflict, they have been avalible adapt and advance American technologies to gain an edge on the battlefield. Highlighting, that It is no longer solely about the effectiveness of traditional military strategies but rather how efficiently and rapidly we can adapt to technology in the field. 

Furthermore, Brose’s discussion emphasizes the need to redefine the concept of the modern battlefield. Traditional notions of warfare have given way to a more complex landscape characterized by technology, cyber threats, disinformation campaigns, and proxy conflicts. This complexity has created a complex evolving environment where a departure from conventional military doctrines is needed. Therefore,reconsidering approaches to the modern battlefield would entail remaining doctrines,tactics,and international alliances to navigate the shifting landscape effectively. 

As military technologies continue to reshape the international order, it is important to reevaluate how “prepared” we are to adapt and reevaluate our warfare methods. While the Ukranie conflict shed light on how this modern battlefield would look, it also has raised questions about the challenges facing military affairs.

This week’s reading selection put into the spotlight the rapid rise of  China in the international landscape and the growing deterioration of the relationship between the two countries. The construction of missile silos, the global challenges posed by the war in Ukraine, and the afterword of the global pandemic have left behind the question of how far China has come and how close we are to witnessing a significant shift in global power dynamics.  

Although some of us may think there is a long road to go, Elizabeth Economy’sarticle highlights some signs that China’s rise on the world stage has been evident for quite some time. She discusses that President Xi’s move to reunify the “motherland” under the one-country, two-system governance model has been just one of the several strategic steps taken to assert China’s influence on the international landscape. A prime example of China’s growing influence e has been its ambitious Belt and Road Initiatives, which aims to connect Asia, Europe, and Africa through a vast network of infrastructure projects. Position China as the epicenter of the international system, carrying significant geopolitical implications. Nevertheless, this has not been the only move made by China to position itself in the global landscape. The country’s shift in nuclear strategies has raised questions about the global arms control landscape. This shift has been marked by advancements in nuclear technology and increased tension in nations worldwide pondering the question of China’s long-term intentions.   

However, China’s path has not been without its fair share of challenges and sacrifices. As the article highlights, one significant obstacle is the issue of public trust in the Chinese leadership, human rights abuse, and the centric political stance on global issues. These factors cast a shadow on China’s rise and raise questions about its legitimacy as a global leader. 

As the world watches China’s ascent, events such as the war in Ukraine and the emergence of alternative forms of “democracy” are shaping the international geopolitical landscape; it will be interesting to see what the future prepares for us.

This week’s reading selection analyzes the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the geopolitical and historical focus but also explores some of the aspects of why the invasion has shown limitations of the military power of the Kremlin and the complex relationship between the US and Russia. In particular, something that caught my attention was Freedamn’s discussion on how the military power of one nation would be as good as its supreme and operational commanders. In addition, the effectiveness of the takeover would depend on how well the command is prepared to navigate the nation’s resistance. 

Freedman’s article underscores the immense responsibility placed upon military commanders. They are entrusted with the fate and reputation of their nations, requiring unwavering determination, the ability to make critical decisions under pressure, and the capacity to assess situations and allocate resources on the spot. Moreover, commanders must be willing to adapt and consider alternative strategies, even if it means deviating from established plans. As highlighted by Freedman, this latter point serves as a critical point, where the contrasting commanding approaches used by Russia and Ukraine (modern vs. hierarchical) have significantly influenced the war’s course. 

The contrasting command structures employed by Russia and Ukraine have emerged as a particularly compelling aspect of this conflict. Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia’s frequent changes in its military leadership have raised questions about Russia’s preparedness for the war and highlighted the tension between Putin’s ambitious objectives and his rigid hierarchical command approach. In this system, commanders often require approval for their actions, risking charges of insubordination if they act independently. On the other hand, Ukraine has adopted a flexible modern command structure to allow commanders to respond swiftly to changing circumstances and adopt strategies to counter Russian advances. As a result, Ukraine has been avalible to bolster Ukraine’s resilience but also expose Russia’s command structure vulnerabilities. 

A recent development that illustrated the challenges faced by the Kremlin’s leadership was the rebellion of the Wagere Group leader, which showed the internal contradictions and power struggles within the Russian leadership. It raises questions about the unity and cohesiveness of the Kremlin’s decision-making process and the extent to which commanders are willing to challenge the “status” to pursue their objectives. 

As this conflict evolves, it would be interesting to continue to see how both countries’ different commanding and leadership dynamics play out. Such insight would provide an analysis of how military campaigns and leadership affect the dynamics of warfare.