Realism applied to Hamas

Realism is an important theory that explains why states build up their arms to compete with other states. In the Middle East, terrorist organizations have increased their power, but these groups are not states in terms of the conventional definition that involves popular sovereignty and providing for the common good. In order for realism to apply to terrorist organizations, another definition of a state is needed. The definition that I will use to explain why terrorist groups are building up their arms in the context of realism is the weberian definition, that a state is an organization that successfully claims to exert a monopoly on physical force within a given territory. To apply realism to the terrorist organizations, they have to meet the criteria of a state by this alternate definition. As Hamas controls the resources of Gaza, and publicly executes political opponents, Hamas has the monopoly over the use of power. Hamas has increased their power within the last few years. The theory of realism can explain why they have accumulated power in the Middle East by using the weberian definition of a state.

As of 2005, Israel completely withdrew from Gaza by destroying the settlements and leaving the businesses behind so that the people of Gaza could create their own state and build up their own economy. Instead, the people of Gaza elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, to represent them. Since then, the militant terrorist group has built tunnels for terrorism, launched thousands of rockets, and kidnapped soldiers and civilians. The reason for these actions is that Hamas is trying to change the balance of power in the Middle East. It sees Israel as a threat to its existence, as Israel has a much more powerful government, military, economy, and basis of scientific knowledge. Hamas commits these violent acts of terror in order to weaken the State of Israel while building its own basis of power.

Hamas is trying to survive so that it could maintain its power. During Operation: Protective Edge, Israel went into Gaza to destroy the tunnels. By doing so, Israel was able to significantly weaken Hamas and its military components in order to protect itself from terrorism. As Hamas destroyed the economy of Gaza after Israel withdrew, they rely on humanitarian aid. Now, Hamas is attempting to build up its military power by asking for more humanitarian aid to rebuild gaza, with the ulterior motive of rebuilding the tunnels to continue the terrorism. This is referred to as self-help in an anarchic system; Hamas does not know Israel’s true intentions, so it is trying to build up its own power to compete with Israel as the United Nations consistently fails to reach an agreement between the two sides. As Israel is monitoring Hamas’ movements, it only sees trouble brewing as Hamas is rebuilding its military capabilities. In response, Israel raises its military and prepares for a defensive war in order to survive.

Because Hamas is a terrorist organization that controls Gaza and has the monopoly over physical force, it is a state according to the weberian definition. Realism explains that to survive, countries must compete for power as they are rational and do not know each other’s true intentions. Hamas is attempting to gain power in the Middle East by weakening its opponent. As it weakens the state of Israel, it is boosting its own power to ensure its own survival. By doing this, Hamas is acting as a rational entity in an anarchic system by using its militaristic capabilities.

"One nation, two systems" offered to Taiwan by China; rejected.

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201492810237314786

The article linked above discusses a proposal by China to unify with Taiwan under a “one nation, two parties” system. The proposal from the communist country to their democratic neighbor is an interesting move that could be for a variety of reasons. The approach at reunification is peaceful when China could easily outmuscle Taiwan instead. I would argue that China is attempting to gain security in their move to unify while maintaining legitimacy within the international community.

Currently in the Hong Kong region of China there are protests in an effort to stop Beijing from limiting candidates for Hong Kong elections to only candidates that are Beijing approved. Beijing is attempting to impose control over the region by undermining its democracy. It is strange then that at the same time Beijing is attempting to put down a democratic revolt within its own borders that it is reaching out to Taiwan to unify under the guise that it could maintain its autonomy. China sees a threat from democracy in Hong Kong. The capitol’s effort to manipulate the democracy shows an unwillingness to part with control of the region willingly and the fact that protests have turned violent with 34 deaths today, September 28, in fighting between police and protestors. If China sees democracy as a threat to its power then it would seem an obvious move for Beijing to seek to gain control in Taiwan which itself is began as a splinter region for pro-democracy Chinese after the country became a communist nation. China has the military strength to take Taiwan by force, so why wouldn’t it? China wants to save face in the international community.

Chinese tensions with the United States are no secret. The two powers have different styles of governance and pose a threat to one another in the economic sphere as well as the military sphere. China is a major backer of North Korea and Russia, two countries the United States have sanctioned heavily. But China has not taken open military action against democracy beyond its own borders and has been able to maintain decent relationships with other countries because of its militarily non-aggressive policies. An attempt to take Taiwan by force could greatly damage China’s reputation in the international community and it could come to be seen as a bully like Russia and the United States. Sanctions like those currently coming down on Russia for its action in the Ukraine or North Korea for its numerous human rights violations could come to be directed at China. China would like to avoid such a situation.

In a time when other superpowers are occupied with other matters China stands to benefit from keeping itself out of the fray. The proposal of “one nation, two systems” to Taiwan would have helped China regain territory and influence over the Taiwanese democracy had Taiwan accepted. The move was peaceful and would have kept China out of trouble with the United Nations and the United States. It was a calculated effort by China; however, Taiwan chose to decline the offer and maintain complete autonomy. In my opinion Taiwan made the right call if it wants to remain a republic.

Why we need more IR Feminists..(aka Hillary Clinton is not enough)

Why we need more IR Feminists..(aka Hillary Clinton is not enough)

International politics has been male dominated for thousands of years. As the evolution of the state began patriarchy was often built into the political structure to "maintain order". IR feminism continues to challenge many international relations theories such as liberalism and realism by highlighting the dominant male presence and masculine thought that exists in international politics. We need more IR feminists entering the world of international politics because keeping a male dominated system marginalizes a group of people that inhabit about 50% of the world. Though we have made progress in increasing the number of women in power, we have a long way to go. 

Let's take a look at Hilary Clinton's role in international politics. As former Secretary of State for arguably the most powerful country in the world right now, Mrs. Clinton has made her mark in international politics. She is known for her confident opinions in foreign policy, but the critiques she receives reinforces my belief that international relations is stuck in it's gender discriminatory ways.  “Too masculine”, “too conservative” are too frequently used to describe Clinton’s foreign policy, or quite frankly any decision she has made in her political career. On the other hand Clinton is criticized for being too “emotional”, which could cloud her judgment when making manly decisions about war and such.

So, why does this matter?

Being a woman in power in a state that has such influence across the globe is bound to draw attention. When other states absorb the negative and unfocused commentary that Hillary Clinton receives it remains okay to think of women as incapable of holding a position of power in international politics. This subtle discrimination reinforces structural patriarchy that hinders gender progression. Feminist international relations theorists, J. Ann Tickner says “women have knowledge, perspectives, and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations”.

Generally, the world is moving toward a state of inclusion for women and men in all fields. To let international relations fall behind in this progression is dangerous to say the least. After all, international relations examines how different parts of the world interact with each other. To accept the majority male ratio in international politics is an insidious and risky idea.

Humanitarian Intervention Can Fit With Realism! (?)

The three theories of international relations that we have discussed so far are all based on an analysis of conflict and purport to explain conflict. Realism disdains the other two, dismissing them as misguided and foolishly placing trust in the fragile links of cooperation that shatter when true conflict is at hand. It scoffs at the notion that humanitarian intervention, especially in foreign policy, can be related to national security. Disaster relief by the United States in tsunami stricken Southeast Asia, or the French coming to the aid of West Africans besieged by radical Islamist fighters may be portrayed as acts of good will. However, the all-so-omniscient realism knows better; these and other similar acts are just fronts, carried out to remind others of military might, in order to secure their national security.

While I do agree with realism that humanitarian intervention is often an excuse to brandish muscle, for which the end goal is the continued existence of the state, I do not think that the goals of those who instigate such actions are so callous. In fact, I would argue that humanitarian intervention, even though it circumvents the die-hard tenets of realism that yowl betrayal when economics or human security even approach the primacy of military power as a factor to be considered, helps dramatically realism’s goal: state security.

Suppose the US sends disaster relief to Southeast Asia after an earthquake causes particularly grievous tsunamis. Wikipedia (and verification with another source, oh-so-watchful-eyes-of-those-grading-this) tells me that the US, both our government and NGOs, gave $2.9 billion in non-military aid. I could not find any cost calculations for military aid, but with 12,600 personnel involved, over 20 heavy-lift fixed wing aircraft, an aircraft carrier battle group, an amphibious assault group, it was likely very expensive. Additionally, since this was a non-planned expense, it likely cost even more than an operation of similar size that was already planned and budgeted for, such as an exercise.

So that’s the cost. The benefit, as seen through rose-colored glasses without any desire or drive to look for a more cynical reasons, is that the quality of life of those affected by the tsunamis was better than if there had been no intervention. Their human security was bettered, something that idealism/IR feminism would applaud. Cynically speaking, however, the US assistance had three benefits. It was a major PR boost, bettering how the US is perceived worldwide, making it easier for us to achieve our foreign policy goals, since logic dictates that the more one is liked, the more they are gotten along with. It projected the US’s military might in an area of the world in which it has increasing national interests. Though a bit before its time, what with the current pivot to Asia to “ensure security and stability (read: counter China), it neatly addressed a foreign policy goal of countering China’s rising influence. It was more practice for military logistics, which will streamline involvement in possible future conflicts in the region, since “the more on sweats in peace, the less one bleeds in war.”

Yes, realism, I know, we bettered the lives of people in a manner that wasn’t directly conducive to building our military might, preventing absolute gains, and ensuring the existence of the US state. Shhhh, shhh, it’s ok. Don’t cry. Wanna go bomb the Middle East some more? Would that make you happy?

In all seriousness, the application of IR feminism ideals, namely humanitarian intervention, furthered the achievement of realism’s goals. If the standing of the US improves, if projection of the military happens, and if the military gets to run around the yard a little, the national interest of the US is improved. So what if it happened through less manly manner? If fighting back against China doesn't make realists happy, then I don't know what will.

**

I wasn't able to contribute to a blog until now, since I hadn't been given permission. I emailed my post so Patrick and Professor Shirk knew I had it done in time. I apologize for the confusion.

First Journal (9/27/14 8:52pm)

John Rookard

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/index.html

            This journal post will be a response to the CNN article above.  The article is addressing the fact that more and more countries have joined forces with the United States to fight the terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  The airstrikes taking place in Syria can be connected to the idea of sovereignty.  Sovereignty is political rule that is final and absolute authority.  Many countries including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, and the U.A.E are members of this anti-ISIS coalition.  In today’s world, especially when it comes to states in anarchy the idea of sovereignty does not exist and that is the way it should be.

            Sovereignty means that there is no other final and absolute authority that exists and an understanding that a state will not be interfered with.  However, in times of crisis a state with the absence of government should be interfered with especially when the threat is a very wealthy and large terrorist organization such as ISIS.  It is important to note that this situation in the Middle East has both internal and external sovereignty.  Internal sovereignty is being the ruler, but outsiders do not recognize this.  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the self-proclaimed leader of ISIS and some argue could be on his way to proclaiming himself leader of Syria and Iraq.  While that argument may be a stretch, it is still important to use as an example of internal sovereignty.  External sovereignty is the act of others recognizing you are the ruler of a state.  With that said, all of the western forces fighting ISIS recognize Bashar al-Assad as the leader of Syria.

            States in anarchy should be given assistance with a major issue even if they believe they can resolve the issue themselves.  Especially in the case of Syria, where the government has no real power over what ISIS is doing, it would only make sense for sovereignty to be broken and the anti-ISIS coalition to grow.  States should help other states when there is an absence of government.  However, like this article suggests, this is not a process that will take a short amount of time.