Author: NAILAH MALIK

“How Climate Change Is Fuelling the U.S. Border Crisis” looks at the massive influx of environmental refugees who are coming to seek refuge in America. Global climate change is another factor we have to look at when discussing international security, as migration crises and border security crises play into a country’s stability.  Climate change affects food security, and when people are unable to get food or even farmers are unable to work, as pointed out in the reading, they decide to move away. In a previous class, we  mentioned the United Nations many departments which includes the Environment Programme, a program that looks at the environment and it’s issues on a global scale. We also looked at the inefficiency or faults of the United Nations, which I would like to re-examine. When it comes to tackling global climate change and the increasing amount of environmental refugees, there is no better international organization to deal with this than the United Nations. The United Nations 1951 Convention gave definition and recognition of a refugee and their legal protection and rights. However, the terminology fails to recognize contemporary migrants, such as economic and environmental migrants. When we have people fleeing their country because  climate change has devastated the stability of their nation, we must recognize them and grant them rights.

Global climate change has disproportionately affected countries in the Global South, but it has also been increasing the frequency of catastrophic natural disasters in the West. We’ve seen multiple deadly hurricanes in the past decade, being more and more common. There’s also been frequent heatwaves in Europe, and the US, in major cities that were less likely to feel the warmth. This past summer felt like the hottest yet, with it being in the high 90’s at 8 pm at night. There seems to be a disconnect with environmental refugees especially with Americans, when we are one of the biggest carbon polluters, yet turn a blind eye to Global South countries who face deadly cyclones and similar extreme weather changes. These Global South nations are smaller carbon polluters, and are less prepared to deal with the increasing frequency of extreme natural disasters.

Countries like Tuvalu are sinking and have urged other nations to help them, as exhibited by a Tuvaluan politician, Simon Kofe, giving a global climate conference speech while standing in the now shallow sea to highlight Tuvalu’s sinking land. Meanwhile nations like China and the United States are using this to further their agenda, with increasing their military presence in the Pacific. Even when countries are sinking and people are facing displacement, the global powers are more concerned with spreading their influence across nations. When they could do this, by helping their allies and introducing policies that tackle climate change, which affects everyone. When we first discussed multilateralism, one of the solutions to return the US to its former global power was for them to rebuild their relationship with their allies and spread their influence. 

As time goes on, there have been new ways for terrorists to exercise their agenda to increase the extent of their destruction. We previously looked at nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have grown increasingly as a threat, and now we also have cyber warfare to worry about. No matter how many security threats we address, we still can never 100% protect our country from these potential threats.

  In the reading, “The Hacked World Order” Chapter 1, we look at Stuxnet, a malware that the US used to target Iran and stop the advancing of their nuclear program. We tend to think of cyber threats as targeting the federal government of a nation, but one of the biggest cyber attacks we are aware of was the 2014 Sony hack. North Korean state-sponsored hackers attacked Sony Pictures with malware that stole their data and destroyed their digital network across the globe. The reason for this hack? Sony’s newest movie: The Interview a comedy which mocks the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and has two men assassinating him. Why would North Korea care about a Hollywood movie when they have blocked any access to outside media, and place those who are caught watching illegally accessed films in labor camps or executed? Simply because they didn’t want negative portrayals of their Supreme Leader to be spread around the world. This specific example does show that there are no limitations to cyber attacks, and that they can happen to non-governmental entities. Which means we need stricter policies on this type of security issue. 

    Adam Segal says, “Individuals and civil society now participate in global politics in new ways, but sovereign states can do astonishing and terrifying things that no collection of citizens or subjects can carry out.” (pg.2) Society and individuals can now be victims to security threats by entities that act outside of the government’s agenda. How can we hold people accountable for actions when they act through a cyber network and outside a government? Well, through the terminology “digital sovereignty,” which holds all of the internet under the sovereignty of a nation and therefore its laws. Which means someone must be held accountable for the rules of the nation they use the internet from. While this seems to come with certain negative aspects, like a government’s ability to force certain companies to go under security inspections or intimidate internet users, it does provide benefits as well. In the case of the North Korean hack, President Obama introduced new legislation to respond to cyber crime attacks and prosecute these crimes while protecting the privacy of Americans. There were also charges pressed against one of the North Korean programmers behind the hack. With new security policies that can hold people accountable, we will be able to better protect the security of our nation. As we deal with new innovations with technology, whether that be to protect against malware or incite malware, we need to be constantly evolving our understanding of cyber security with it. 

Everyday at the Attari-Wagah border between India and Pakistan, there is a ceremony to highlight the tensions between the two nations but also the camaraderie between the soldiers. It’s happened daily since 1959, except for September 29th to October 6th, when there were military confrontations between the two, and India claimed to have crossed the Line of Control into Pakistani controlled land and fatalities (exact numbers are unknown) occurred. Pakistan and India since the dissolution of the British Indian Empire have had their problems. The two nations were built due to religious differences, and when India-Pakistan was partitioned, it forced people to scatter to the designated Hindu country, India, and Muslim country, which were West and East Pakistan, now Pakistan and Bangladesh. This would lead to years of tensions over religious disputes and land disputes. 

  Pakistan and India’s nuclear war could happen in an instant, with the Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Muslim minorities in India becoming pawn pieces in the government’s agenda, and extremists from both religions committing violent acts. It doesn’t help that they also have China, another nuclear power,  in their backyard, with China funding the infrastructure development of Pakistan and India having a hot and cold relationship with China  over land disputes. It adds to the ticking bomb that is India and Pakistan and their nuclear capabilities. 

In the reading, “Nuclear Ethics? Why Pakistan Has Not Used Nuclear Weapons … Yet,” highlights how India and Pakistan were close to using their nuclear weapons, in the 1999 Kargil War. The Kargil War took place in the Kargil district of Jammu and Kashmir which is undisputed land between India and Pakistan.  Religion plays a huge part in this undisputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, as it’s a Muslim-majority state in India, the other part  of Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan. Many of the people in Kashmir want to be seperate from the Indian government and want to become an autonomous zone, which the Indian government refuses to allow. This leads to many human rights violations occurring, with the Indian military often killing, raping and kidnapping people who are apart of the separatist movement. The Kashmiri Hindus were forced to flee when Pakistan supported extremist groups who wanted to “assist” the Kashmiri independence movement entered the conflict. Both governments are trying to stake their claim into Kashmir and further execute their ideals.This tiny undisputed territory is able to highlight all the factors that may be the reason for Pakistan and India to start a nuclear war. 

It’s also interesting that one of the other readings points out that India or Pakistan could launch their nuclear weapons on the suspicion that the other will if they don’t. While every nuclear state’s decision to use their arms is a gamble, India and Pakistan are even more so. The randomness of their decision can solely be decided on speculation of the others likeliness which is why nuclear deterrence needs to be promoted as a policy in the region again. All of these nuclear nations being neighbors is a huge security risk, especially with India and Pakistan having huge populations and being so close to each other. The smallest border conflict could be the ultimate trigger to one country using their nuclear weapons. 

In the reading, “The Right Way to Coerce North Korea,” we look at the Trump Administration’s policy regarding North Korea and the future of  US-North Korea relations. Like with Russia and China, Trump’s unilateralism approach did not include North Korea. The famous Hanoi Summit which was attended by former President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, was the second meeting between the two leaders, and also the last. What was supposed to be a hopefully meeting following the 2018 Singapore Summit, which many thought would be the start of peace between the US and the two Koreas, failed and no agreement was made between the two. However, peace between the two nations and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was never going to happen. 

The Trump Administration went in with a list of things they couldn’t deal, which included not lifting sanctions, the only thing the North Koreans wanted. There was no other promise besides lifted sanctions that would satisfy Kim Jong Un into getting rid of his nuclear weapons programs, or closing the facilities where they are being built. Both sides are not ready to compromise, and we’re set on getting what they wanted. 

The reading then points out what the Trump Administration should have done which is mostly continuing what we already do. It mentions that we need to take what the North Koreans promise at face value, and continue our counterintelligence to ensure that nuclear material is not being smuggled in and out of the country. Many of their solutions rely on US alliances, whether it be with South Korea and Japan, or many of our allies to stand with us and against the North Koreans, as well as share intelligence with us. However, following the Trump presidency, a lot of our allies have lost faith in what our alliances mean. We cannot put many of our strategies to tackle the North Koreans and their race to gain nuclear weapons, on the backs of our allies who now have no reason to support us when we turned our backs on them for countries like Russia and China during the last administration. If anything, they could side with China, who has been extending their influence financially through their Belt and Road initiative. 

Reading “4 Weeks on Path to War: From Raid on a Mosque to Middle East Carnage,” provides a glimpse into the 2021 eruption of violence in Israel/Palestine. It gives a glimpse into the events that led to the rocket bombardments from Israel and Gaza. Violence in the Middle East and specifically in Israel-Palestinian Territories, is not new. But reading these articles and comparing that to what is currently unfolding feels very eerie. Specifically the line, “In another year, the episode might have been quickly forgotten.” Here we are two years later looking at Israel beginning ground operations in Gaza. We are seeing the beginning of what will be a long battle, especially with many actors involved including Iran, which we looked briefly at last week. 

Another interesting article this week is “Biden and Mother Nature Have Reshaped the Middle East,” which looks at the recent developments in the Middle East and how environmental factors have allowed for rebuilding of relations between Middle Eastern nations that have in recent years weakened. One of the environmental factors this article mentions is a Jordanian and Israeli-Palestinian alliance through water accessibility and solar electricity. Israel has access to freshwater which they would then provide Jordan which is one of the driest countries in the world, while Jordan would use their vast desert land to provide solar grids for Israelis and Palestinians. This alliance has been promoted by environmental organizations that promote peace between the two people. 

How does Israel’s access to water in the region relate to the current ongoing situation? While Israel has been revolutionary in their water sustainability and innovation, it has also been criticized for their decisions regarding water accessibility. Many human rights organizations have called out Israel’s “monopoly” of water access which they, compared to the Israeli supply, have limited Palestinian access. The West Bank has suffered water shortages, and since 2021, many of the Palestinian made reservoirs, wells and sewage networks have been destroyed by Israeli authorities for being unauthorized. In retaliation for Hamas’ actions this month, the Israeli government decided to cut off water supply to the Palestinian people in Gaza, which they just reopened at the urging of the UN and US. 

   With environmental changes and extreme natural disasters becoming more prevalent, will we begin to see this shift of using environmental factors in disputes/war? In drought ridden areas, can blocking water supply be more common.? It’s already happening in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, with water scarcity leading to crop failure being widespread, now being one of the largest factors of death. How will the weaponization of water be treated in International Courts? We also have to look at the influx of environmental refugees, can these new environmental disasters cause worsening political ties? Many nations are already stopping migrants and refugees from entering, with many populist leaders being elected on their stance of being against immigration. All these things can lead to nations being in conflict with each other due to their citizens fleeing to seek refuge in other nations. (Ex: Bangladesh and Myanmar relations over Rohingyas) 

In the article, “Getting out of the Gulf,” we look at the United States’ military presence in the Persian Gulf. In my scholarly paper, I looked at the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia and why it was detrimental to the US’s security. However, this article points out why the relationship between the two nations is necessary, in order to protect the US’ economy and its reliance on oil that comes from them being in the Middle East. Even while the Russians and Saudis increase the gas prices, we are still able to get oil which might not be a possibility if we pulled out of our alliance with them. We must be able to slowly loosen our reliance on oil, something that has been introduced dating back to the 1973 Oil Embargo. This embargo was placed by Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations on the US to block oil, which led to a recession. The Saudis know the weight oil has on the US and the West and we need to counteract that. We must first lower our dependency and vulnerability to oil shocks before we can pull out of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

The other factor of whether or not the US can pull out of the Persian Gulf, is the threat of Iran’s power and them being a future nuclear power. If Iran strengthens in power, the US would have to remain in the region, I don’t think there’s any question about it. We would have to protect our closest ally, Israel, and fulfill our duty to the West, in preserving the world’s access to oil. If recent news is anything to go by, the US would want to support their ally in war and they would accept spending billions in order to protect the global economy and win the war against Iran. 

However as the article, “Iran Among the Ruins,” looks at if Iran would even be a nuclear threat. It says that Iran has taken on a defensive strategy because of its surrounding nations that are no longer unified in their interests. Is it possible that the United States can rebuild their relationship with Iran, it could re-establish limiting nuclear proliferation in the region? I’m not sure, especially with how involved Saudi Arabia is in Western affairs. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the US has allowed it to become involved in peace talks with Israel and normalization of relations. Saudi Arabia is also a threat to Iran’s power, so it might be possible for the US to pull out of the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabian relations and not have to worry about Iran retaliation. Not likely, but a potential possibility.

With outbreaks of conflicts around the world, the United Nations peacekeeping missions have expanded in 2023. The criticism that UN peacekeeping efforts are unsuccessful and they fail to protect the lives of thousands of civilians have been echoed for years. The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 which resulted in 800,000 Tutsis deaths, the ethnic minority in Rwanda, have many times been blamed on the failure of the UN peacekeepers. We briefly discussed in class how the US contributes the largest amount of troops to NATO, but in the UN peacekeeping efforts the largest contributors of soldiers are Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. These nations are not known for their military, which means the largest percentage of troops in peacekeeping efforts are poorly skilled. Those who are being sent to ongoing conflict zones are not prepared which further worsens the situations and let them escalate. 

 The reading, “The Crisis of Peacekeeping: Why the UN can’t End Wars,” points out many of the failures of the UN in their approach to peacekeeping, such as their failure to adapt to their situations and their top-down approach. But it fails to highlight the largest factor in the failures, which is the United Nations itself. We are supposed to view an international organization as a governing body, in a world where nationalism and a country’s sovereignty reigns supreme. The UN cannot force nations to act in the interest of unity and peace, they can’t force nations to do anything. The structure of the Security Council makes it close to impossible to pass anything when the US, China, and Russia are permanent members and have veto power. No country wants to give up its own sovereignty and national interests even if it is to enact international peace efforts. The idea of an international government isn’t possible as each actor wants to be responsible for their own citizens instead of the international stage. The United Nations was created to allow for international cooperation, but in a world where sovereignty is prioritized, this fails. That’s why nations who are poorer and don’t have well developed militaries are the ones who contribute the most to the peacekeeping missions. 

 The United Nations Peacekeeping Mission needs to rethink many of their strategies, including how to successfully have members oblige and forgo their national interests in order to promote international peace. 

Do the benefits of AI outweigh the risks that come with them being involved in military affairs and tactics? No, they don’t according to many of this week’s readings and myself. AI can be used to replace soldiers and make it so less lives are lost when in war. This replacement of humans is actually beneficial, especially when countries are finding it hard to build their military. This would also be fiscally better, as it would be cheaper for one or two drones to do the job of an entire squadron.  This is in theory, as the current situation is for AI fighter jets to be used alongside as pilots. This could in the long term be a cheaper alternative, while also allowing for less lives to be taken and for there to be rapid military mobilization. 

     However, it’s not all positives. AI makes mistakes and unlike when soldiers or military personnel are punished or taken to the ICC, International Criminal Court, we can’t do this with artificial intelligence. How do we even hold AI responsible? Like when soldiers are gunned down by a drone without a human directing it to do this. Or what’s to stop an AI error that results in mass casualties? These errors are too damaging for AI being in charge of military tactics.  As argued at the Geneva Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, banning AI and these “killer robots” should be done as they lack any humanity. This is dangerous as they don’t understand what human life is worth and could easily cross into war crime territory. The other point argued is that the threshold for war could be lowered. (Satariano 2021) This would cause war to be more likely as it allows for a side to inflict harm without a human having to do it, therefore being less of a risk to their soldiers. AI being used in replacement of soldiers is very dangerous, with their likelihood of error and lack of repercussions. 

      Another downside to AI, is the way it can be manipulated to be repressive. “Authoritarian governments could use deepfakes to discredit dissidents, facial recognition to enable round-the-clock mass surveillance, and predictive analytics to identify potential troublemakers.” (Scharre 138) We can see AI being used as a tool for misinformation which would make the likelihood of war more likely, while also hiding atrocities and what authoritative governments are actually committing. This sort of technology is being sold by China, to other nations to surveil its citizens and monitor their every move. When AI can be used without any obstacles, it can quickly become used as a weapon not a tool. As I said before, the benefits of AI do not outweigh the risks that are involved, and can easily be used to inflict harm, whether on the battlefield or against a country’s own citizens. It’s a dangerous situation that we are steering towards with the US military in favor of autonomous weapons.

 As the newsmill pumps out headline after headline about BRICS, and the threat of a new world currency, we see the same question being posed: Is this the start of a new world order? With BRICS being a Chinese-dominated institution, we must look at the relationship between the US and China, and how China’s rise is affecting the world order and the U.S’ role in it. 

All of this week’s readings were published before 2023, with the earliest being 2017 and the most recent in 2022. This rise in power isn’t a new development, and was to be expected. Especially with the previous presidential administration’s policy of unilateralism, we have allowed other countries to become more involved in the global state, like China. China has begun using their own money to fund the BRI, or Belt and Road Initiative. This initiative funds all infrastructural development, and provides labor and materials for those projects. (Economy 2022) This has allowed for China to begin to spread its influence in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Regions where the US used to primarily be involved, have now been taken over by the Chinese and their influence. “The BRI has positioned China at the center of the international system, with its physical, financial, cultural, technological, and political influence flowing to the rest of the world.” (Economy 2022) China’s role in the global stage is undeniable, but it isn’t going without opposition.  

The readings also mentioned the Quad partnership which is an alliance between the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, who were formed to counter China’s role in the Indo-Pacific. While this partnership has not been successful with member states waning in their interests and goals, this brings up the steps countries are taking to protect itself from China. We are seeing a stance taken by the US to ally itself with others against the growing power in China. We see this also with the Bidens’ administration stance on a free Taiwan. Multiple European countries and NATO began increasing their security involvement in the Asia-Pacific region.  (Economy 2022) The US and its allies have been taking steps to protect itself from China, which shows that while China may be growing on the global stage, there are still many who oppose this. There is is still some of the “old” world order that is remaining and ready to stop China’s ever growing influence. 

Do I personally think there will be a new world order? According to the most recent news, BRICS declaration of a shared currency is one of impracticality. 90% of global trade and foreign exchange markets currently use the US dollar. (Naysmith 2023) This would take a massive amount of work to undo, and with China being the dominant force in BRICS it would presumably want to be the main currency. This obviously wouldn’t go down too well with the other nations. I do believe the US has lost most of its power as a global leader, and China has definitely begun to grow in power especially in their presence in Africa and South Asia. However, I don’t think it will be as easy as China being the new hegemon without any fight from other countries. There is already  huge military intimidation being used by China in Asia and specifically in the South China Sea. If the US intervened and rebuilt relations with these countries, I think it would be welcomed.

When we look at the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many would argue that it was inevitable. Russia has been looking to expand their power into former USSR countries, and as we see with war, proximity is always prioritized. Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, it proved that Russia was ready to expand its power in neighboring countries. We saw their involvement in Georgia and Ukraine, in 2008 and 2014, respectively, allying themselves with separatists movements to then uphold their power in these countries. However, in “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault,” by John. J Mearsheimer, the blame is placed on the United States and the EU. I agree with this analysis, that the U.S  and the EU’s lack of intervention in the annexation of Crimea, allowed Putin to believe he could also take Ukraine.

  The EU failed to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, to weaken the Russian influence in the separatist movements. This was crucial in the current ongoing war, as Russian troops entered from Donetsk and Luhansk, and said they recognized these regions as independent from Ukraine. They then used this to continue to invade Ukraine, and attempt to take Kyiv. If the EU allowed Ukraine to join NATO, while we cannot deny that Russia would interfere to stop this like it did with Georgia, it would’ve brought more protection than if Russia invaded Ukraine without their ever being even an attempt. All they did was provoke Russia by talking about Ukraine joining NATO. They also provoked Russia by its constant expansion into neighboring countries in the region. We know that in war, proximity is prioritized and when NATO began to expand, it was a threat to Russia and its former Soviet empire which they were desperate to rebuild. 

Mearsheimer also points out that Russia would never standby as the US interfered in Ukraine with its National Endowment for Democracy. The government began pumping money to Ukraine to prompt democracy which angered the Russians. It’s not illogical to be angry that countries that oppose you are expanding their power in nations that surround you. However, I believe that the US should’ve finished what they started and when Russia took Crimea, took steps to militarily intervene when it came to Russia’s expansion. They interfered, along with the EU and NATO, but never took real steps to protect Ukraine, leading to Russia’s inevitable devastating carnage of Ukraine. They talked a big storm but never took steps to weaken Russia’s hold in that country, in the separatist movements, and in their military presence. 

History repeats itself, Hitler took Czechoslovakia and then began to invade the rest of Europe. You cannot allow a country to exceed its power into another sovereign nation and then think that will be it. We allowed Russia to annex Crimea and therefore should’ve expected the war in Ukraine. Historians have said Putins’ attempt to take Ukraine would happen again sooner or later, and it happened 8 years after their annexation of Crimea.