Just war theory presupposes certain rules on how to resort to war, conduct during it, and how to terminate it according to principles of justice. In this context, enemies, engaged in just war, control, and target the way intended to unleash this war reasonably.
When we are speaking about a war, it seems to be impossible to mention ethical principles, because a concept of war is unethical by its nature. On the one hand, it is so, but on the other hand, there is a just war theory. It is a military doctrine of military ethics and has its conditions of legitimate defense by military force. Based on all just wars there is a paradox – to destroy for the sake of peace or to do evil in the name of good. Unfortunately, it is characteristic of human nature.
I agree with the main article point that just war follows the criterion “jus ad Bellum”, or “last resort” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 8). In the international context, military conflict, based on just war, is the result of strong disagreement between the nations. Following the rules of just war, the enemies are guided by the principles of justice: proportionality, absence of reprisals and discrimination, etc. however, the problem of just war raises ethical problems. Moreover, the article itself stresses that just war is a complex phenomenon in terms of human ethics.
From my point of view, almost all military conflicts may be resolved with peaceful negotiations. However, a human being is the most disobedient child of the mother-nature. Unfortunately, only just war is the only possible exit in some cases. Animals kill to survive. People kill each other because they can’t find another way of solving their problem. Our mother-nature was generous and gave us the most powerful intellect in the world, but we are not able to use it properly. For this reason, just war theory is a controversial point to be discussed.
Use of Force
Modern international law has always been confused with the way how to avoid war in world politics. There are a lot of adopted treaties that prohibit the deliberate use of military force, biological, nuclear weapons; however, anti-war international laws proved to be weak in the face of a real military conflict.
I agree with the authors that just war principles, revealed in some treaties and legal documents, presuppose the use of force. The article reveals the paradox of the use of force in the context of international laws that formally prohibit such armed acts. Especially, it is notable in the case of self-defense. The use of force in self-defense is a double-sided coin. Morally, it is correct, but legally, it is not, because armed acts used to be considered as “criminal and unjustifiable” in the context of international laws (Armstrong et al. 123).
However, human historical experience has shown that laws are neglected in the face of a serious war. At the same time, in peaceful times, restrains on the use of force are widely claimed. Together with the article’s authors, it is possible to conclude that “consistent with the realist lens, law on the use of force is codified in the formal rules that are binding on states” (Armstrong et al. 146). The problem, raised by the authors, causes controversial discussions about morality in the context of the law. Often, force attacks lead to killing that is considered to be immoral.
The coexistence of law and morality is one of the basic contradictions in our civilized world. The law doesn’t know moral principles and conception of ethical rightness and wrongness. Moral rightness often contradicts legal wrongness and vice versa. The formal prohibition of military force and dangerous weapons by international laws does not mean the absence of war that takes away people’s lives.
Works Cited
“War.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016. Web.
Use of Force. Armstrong, David, Theo Farrell, and Helene Lambert. The law in world politics. 2001.
The immense loss that United States suffered in the Vietnam War triggered the adoption of polices that curtailed the president’s authority over the military. The War Powers Act of 1973 sought to minimize the constitutional mandate bestowed on the president regarding the deployment of troops by defining regulations requiring the president to seek the consent of the Congress before deploying military forces to areas of combat. The Act allows the president to conduct military operations for a period not exceeding 90 days without a congressional approval once the Congress approves the deployment of forces. However, once the period ends without the president obtaining another congressional endorsement, the War Powers Act requires the immediate withdrawal of all the troops in areas of combat. Since the conception of the War Powers Act, different presidents of the United States have adhered to the Act’s guidelines with varying levels of commitment. An analysis of the 1980 attempt to rescue American hostages In Iran highlights that President Carter violated the regulations of the War Powers Act.
An analysis of President Carter’s Actions
President Carter authorized a military operation to rescue the Iranian hostages without consulting the Congress. He submitted his report about the operation after its completion. The rescue operation ended after more than the 48 hours that the War Powers Act recommends for the president to submit a written report to the Congress (Binnendijk & Kugler, 2006). The operation failed due to the malfunctioning of equipments in the rescue helicopters, which caused the collision of two aircrafts designated for the rescue operation. In this regard, the period between the launching of the rescue operation and withdraw of the rescue team superseded the mandatory 48 hours. Although Carter’s actions did not violated the provisions regarding the need for a congressional consent that would allow the president to deploy troops for 90 days, his late submission of the first report regarding the rescue mission was not in accordance with the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act does not provide exemptions for military operations regarded as clandestine. One of Carter’s reasons for the failure to obtain congressional consent was that the Iranian rescue mission needed utmost secrecy to avoid jeopardy. In this regard, he violated the War Powers Act in his attempt to avoid exposing both the military personnel and hostages to extreme danger during the rescue operation. Despite the size of the Congress, which constitutes of about 535 members, the War Powers Act demands that the president should not make a decision that does not encompass the views of members of the Congress (Fierke, 2007).
The Act does not provide exemptions in rescue missions that rely on secrecy to sustain optimal security. Carter described the Iranian rescue mission as not constituting of acts of aggression and thus did not require a congressional consent. However, the scope of the rescue mission exposed the military personnel to hostility and thus the operation was in accordance to the standards of military engagement regulated by the War Powers Act. Reactions from the group responsible for the hostage situation illustrated that they would have resisted the rescue mission violently thus creating a combat situation.
The constitutional authority bestowed upon the president concerning the deployment of troops abroad in non-combat situations does not incorporate aspects of the time limit the troops will spend overseas. In this regard, the Congress has no authority to dictate the period within which the president should submit a report regarding a peaceful mission. In addition, the constitution exempts the president from the need to consult with the Congress when making decisions regarding the deployment of troops for peacekeeping missions. However, the Iranian rescue mission entailed the deployment of military personnel to a hostile area and thus congressional consent was necessary (Pohlman, 2004). Although the Iranian mission entailed humanitarian operations to rescue Americans who faced hostility in a foreign country, it constituted of the basic characteristics of a military engagement.
The War Powers Act does not exempt the president form the need to consult with the Congress before authorizing a rescue mission even if the success of the operation should be a surprise. The decision by President Carter to launch the rescue operation without congressional consent arose from the need for optimal conditions of success, which were attainable if a few individuals knew about the operation. The Congress expressed dismay that despite the ongoing meetings since the Iranian crisis began, the president opted to remain silent about the actual rescue exercise. Evidence shows that Carter outlined the plans for the rescue mission to the Majority Leader of the Senate before the mission began (Viotti, 2005). However, he did not inform the Congress that the operation was underway. Carter described the demands by the Congress for consultations in the decision-making about the rescue attempt as a factor that would have considerably delayed the execution of the rescue mission.
An evaluation of the War Powers Act shows that it conflicts with the Article II of the US constitution, which gives the president authority over the deployment of troops overseas. Thus, while the president violated the War Powers Act, he acted in accordance with his constitutional power. The War Powers Act does not explicitly define the scope of the congressional authority in situations of war. The Act gives the Congress the authority to reject the declaration of war by the president. However, it recognizes the president as the commander of the armed forces. In this regard, the scope of the powers of the president concerning the deployment of military personnel in rescue missions is ambiguous and thus subject to debate.
Conclusion
The implementation of the War Powers Act largely sought to minimize the risk of accountability considering that there were no constitutional reviews to deprive the president his authority as the commander of the armed forces. An evaluation of the Congress’ reaction to the Cambodia rescue mission authorized by President Ford and the Iranian hostage rescue mission illustrates that the enforcement of the War Powers Act has been subject to the outcomes of events involving combat. The Congress reacted positively to the Cambodia mission despite the fact that President Ford violated various provisions in the War Powers Act by inappropriately using funds designated for combat operations involving the US military. However, since the mission was a success, the risk of accountability was minimal. The Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees the conduct of military operations, praised the rescue mission as having adhered to the War Powers Act. However, the failure of the Iranian rescue mission attracted a lot of criticism from the Congress. The chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee denounced Carter’s actions terming them as a gross violation of the War Powers Act.
References
Binnendijk, H., & Kugler, R. L. (2006). Seeing the elephant the U.S. role in global security. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.
Fierke, K. M. (2007). Critical approaches to international security. Cambridge: Polity.
Pohlman, H. L. (2004). Constitutional Debate in Action: Governmental powers (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Viotti, P. R. (2005). American foreign policy and national security: a documentary record. Trenton: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
There are numerous schools of thought that dominate discourse in international relations. These include realism, idealism, social construction and regime theory. Each of these theories proposes a set of unique principles with regards to international relations. It is imperative to note that assumptions held herein are discordant. For instance, realists believe that countries are in a constant state of conflict. This assumption is based on the notion that societies are inherently selfish and confrontational. Idealists oppose this view and instead assert that conflict is as a result of flawed sociopolitical system. Social constructionists oppose these views and explain that conflict is socially constructed. These are just some of the philosophical variations that form the basic tenets of international relations, and are evaluated against the concepts of sovereignty and war.
Realism seems to be the most popular theory of international relations. Popular theorists such as E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and Hedley Bull have made significant contributions towards the development of the theory of realism in international relations. Realists are primarily concerned with a countries ability to maximize security as well as control resources and power. Realists also propose that states attain sovereignty by supplanting other states. To attain sovereignty, countries have to reinforce protective measures aimed at eliminating influence from external forces.
This implies that the attainment of absolute sovereignty by a given country leaves other countries feeling insecure (Baylis, Smith and Owens 34, 35). Realists further assert that war is hastened by lack of a mediator. The need for arbitration arises due to the fact that disputes might arise as a result of the searh for sovereignty. This phenomenon is popularly referred to as structural anarchy and in realist view, leads to international security dilemma. In view of this, conflict and the inevitable war are perceived as ordinary to international relations, rather than outcomes. This also implies that sociopolitical systems are naturally flawed and inclined to war.
Realists also perceive nationhood and the need to satisfy national interests as essential towards the attainment of sovereignty. Nations seek to survive in a highly competitive environment. The greed for power and control of international resources is primarily driven by the need to serve a nation’s national interests. Realists assert that national interests vary depending on prevailing conditions. While similar national interests are likely to lead to peace, dissimilar interests are likely to aggravate conflict between nations.
Unlike realists, idealists propose Devine morals as the primary motivation for the attainment of constructive international relations. Idealists argue that conflict and war are evil, futile and retrogressive. Furthermore, war is the outcome of a flawed sociopolitical system and thus ought to be avoided at all cost. Famous idealists such as William Ewart Gladstone and Woodrow Wilson believe in the philosophy of rewards and punishments. As such, nations as well as individuals have the obligation to adhere to Devine norms. Adherence to Devine norms not only alleviates human suffering but also eliminates international conflict, thus helping nations avoid war (Kennedy 36).
Realists assert that satisfying a nation’s self interest leads to the attainment of national security. Thus, nations are naturally self seeking entities that aggravate international conflict and war for the attainment of national security. Idealists oppose this and assert that national interests ought to facilitate the attainment of international harmony and peace. Works of famous idealists such as the former United States president Woodrow Wilson suggest that national interests ought to be pursued not only for the avoidance of conflict but also for the promotion of international peace and harmony. For instance, many countries have varied national interests such poverty, hunger disease, economic uncertainties and exploitation of international trade opportunities. In developing solutions for these challenges, nations have the autonomy to make choices.
This implies that idealists acknowledge that nations exist as sovereign entities, and that no external force has the right to interfere with a nation’s decision making process. However, in making decisions, states ought to realize that the effects of those choices are felt beyond national borders. Additionally, Woodrow Wilson and other idealists assert that the pursuit of national interests ought to be for the benefit of all. As such, nations are obliged to cooperate with each other if conflict and war are to be avoided.
Both realists and idealists seem to overlook important elements such as class and wealth that shape international relations. Such shortcomings have led to the development of other theories, such as Marxism. Marxists reject most of the assumptions made by realists and idealists and instead proposes that economic and material gains determine international relations. Marxists assert that economic gains supersede other concerns and are the main driving force in determining the nature of international relations. Marxists further assert that uneven distribution of resources and power further compounds the situation. As a result, some nations gain more economic advantage leading to capitalism and a state of dependency. Immanuel Wallerstein, one of the most vocal proponents of Marxism, asserts that inequality in distribution of resources leads to class based categorization of countries (Shimko 29). Sovereignty depends on a nation’s capital power and economic domination. Competition for economic resources is likely to aggravate conflict which at times has led to war. Peace is attained if nations share economic interests.
While idealists and realists view conflict and anarchy as natural occurrences, social constructivists purport that conflict and sovereignty are relative and somewhat abstract notions. It is imperative to note that social construction is not an original theory of international relations. It is, however, a social theory used by social constructivists in efforts to explain the relativity of conditions influencing international relations. Social constructivists such as Alexander Wendt argue that there exists ‘ideational forces’ that influence how nations act with regards to international relations. By ideational forces social constructivists refer to socially constructed notions about the state of international affairs. Like realists, social constructivists argue that societies are inherently competitive and confrontational. As such, conflict is part of the global sociopolitical system. However, unlike realists and idealist, social constructivists believe that anarchy, war and conflict are socially constructed phenomena emanating from notions held with regards ton interstate interactions (Searle 37 – 41). Alexander Wendt argues that sociopolitical systems are based on two broad ideas namely anarchy and peace. If a nation’s sociopolitical system is based on anarchical ideals, then the nation is likely to take war as the only means of survival. In relating with other countries, such nations are likely to be confrontational.
The theories highlighted above largely tend to hold opposing views. There are, however, other hybrid theories that exist such as the regime theory. The primary concern for regime theorists is that international organizations, other than internal governmental organizations, influence how states act. This implies that nations are actors in the global arena where international organizations write the script. While this is likely to precipitate a war, cooperation between states is unavoidable especially on issues such as trade, security and human rights. Such co-operation can be defined as a regime and is the bedrock of international relations. States are likely to be under the influence of competing regimes. Such a scenario might result to a crisis, which is likely to gradate to a full war if no concession is reached (Rittberger and Mayer 23). Regime theorists assume that absolute sovereignty is impossible to achieve since states act under the influence of such regimes.
Each country desires to attain sovereignty. However, this is impeded by overarching ideals that forms a country’s philosophical assumptions on international relations. For instance, a country whose philosophical ideals are based on realism is likely to perceive war as the only means through which sovereignty is attained. On the other hand, idealistic states are likely to be more cooperative with each other, since they perceive themselves as having a divinely inspired role of promoting global peace and harmony. While idealist states acknowledged independent decision making, choice made are cognizant of the welfare of other states. This minimizes conflict and the eventual war. States aligned to social constructionism are likely to conceive war and peace depending on the nature of interstate interactions. In view of these assertions, a nation’s interaction with others, herein referred to as international relations, is shaped by the prevailing philosophies regarding international relations. Such philosophies influence the process through which sovereignty is attained. In this process, war seems to be a mitigating factor.
Works Cited
Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2011. Print.
Kennedy, David. “What ‘W’ Owes to ‘WW’: President Bush May Not Even Know It, but He Can Trace His View of the World to Woodrow Wilson, Who Defined a Diplomatic Destiny for America That We Can’t Escape.” The Atlantic Monthly 295.2 (2005): 36. Print.
Rittberger, Volker and Peter Mayer. Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1995. Print.
Searle, John. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1995. Print.
Shimko, Keith. International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies. Ontario: Cengage Learning. 2009. Print.
Foreign aid is the assistance given to countries by others to support their social, political, and economic development. This aid may be in terms of money, expertise, or tangible goods like food or medical equipment. Countries that experience conflicts for a very long time do not have stable economies; therefore, they lack adequate funds to finance their projects. This motivates them to ask for assistance from other countries.
In addition, countries that experience natural calamities like droughts, floods, or disease outbreaks may request for foreign aid to ensure they have enough resources to manage their predicaments. Kenya is a good case study that has relied on foreign aid for many years. This paper examines the effects of war and peace on foreign aid in Kenya.
Peace and War on the Distribution of Foreign Aid
Kenya has enjoyed relative peace for some time, even though this trend was disrupted by the chaos witnessed after the 2007/2008 general elections where the presidential results were disputed (Gettleman 2007). The incumbent political leaders recaptured their positions as the opposition took to the streets with its supporters to protest the outcome of the presidential elections. War broke out and it is estimated that more than 1,100 people died and a lot of property destroyed (Gettleman 2007). This shows the negative impacts of war on developing nations. America, Canada, France, Japan, and China offer foreign aid to Kenya.
However, the war made America and France reduce their funding on Kenya’s education sector and this hampered the free primary school education program founded by the then ruling government. Parents continue to struggle with their children because of a lack of school fees to take them to good schools. Moreover, other projects like road construction, rural electrification, and free medical services to children under five years have not met their targets because of inadequate funds due to the withdrawal of these nations in supporting Kenya’s economy. In addition, most women’s empowerment programs that were funded through USAID collapsed because the donors stopped supporting them.
Kenya established community-based approaches to ensure peace and stability were restored after the elections. People have realized the need for peace and reconciliation even though this has taken longer than it was expected. There has been peace since the chaos of 2007/2008 and this has motivated other nations to reconsider their decisions about withdrawing their foreign aid to Kenya. America became the first country to send its security troops to help Kenya in investigating the terror attack that happened in September 2013 in the Westgate Mall, one of Kenya’s up-market shopping center.
In addition, the Netherlands has partnered with Kenya in promoting farming activities to ensure farmers use modern technology in producing their products. China has volunteered to offer foreign aid to Kenya to ensure communities located in arid and semi-arid regions are offered school feeding programs that encourage their children to go to school and at the same time have food to eat. The expansion of the existing railway network in Kenya has been supported by aid from China and Japan that are interested in seeing that this country has a modern transport system that will reduce congestion and road accidents associated with motor vehicle transport.
The prevalence of peace in Kenya has helped the health sector to get antiretroviral drugs that offered free of charge to all victims suffering from HIV/AIDS. In addition, America’s foreign aid has spearheaded the campaign against polio and measles by offering free vaccines to children aged under five years.
President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya and his leadership has ensured that foreign aid is allocated to various programs that will ensure peace prevails in the country. He has allocated more than 3,000,000 USD in supporting the efforts of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) to ensure there is peace among communities that were adversely affected by the 2007/2008 disputed presidential elections (Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission 2010).
In addition, funding of community-based programs has increased to ensure people understand the importance of peace and strive to promote it. Local chefs have been empowered to promote cohesion among their members and report cases of discrimination to the relevant authorities. In addition, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission of Kenya was formed and is supported by foreign aid to ensure people understand the need for peaceful coexistence among them despite their ethnic differences (National Cohesion and Integration Commission 2013). This commission is heavily funded by foreign aid and ensures that politicians, musicians, and community leaders do not propagate ethnicity.
In addition, it ensures that all communication (social and mainstream media) channels do not promote hate speech and anyone found doing so is forced to take responsibility for its actions. This has ensured that public gatherings do not have ethnic connotations and thus promote healthy interactions among people from different communities. Open-air courts have also been established to ensure cases of incitement, tribalism, and ethnicity are processed quickly. Most ethic based clashes in Kenya occur due to the failure of courts to prosecute criminals. Therefore, these open-air and mobile courts ensure cases of incitement and tribalism are prosecuted within the shortest time possible.
Lastly, the World Bank has sponsored women and community-based programs that ensure rural populations have income-generating projects that are managed by people from different communities (Njenga 2013). This keeps them busy and ensures they integrate without considering their ethnic backgrounds and political affiliations.
Foreign aid has helped Kenyan rural communities to reduce poverty levels. The money obtained through these aids has helped in the establishment of income-generating activities like the drilling of boreholes in arid and semi-arid areas to ensure pastoral communities have places to get water (African Development Foundation 2011). The Turkana community is slowly transforming from relying on nomadic life to farming.
This has started to bear fruits because of the bumper harvests realized in 2011 after 60 boreholes were drilled in the Turkana region. This has reduced poverty levels in this region and helped in improving the health conditions of this and other communities. In addition, community-based projects and education programs have increased the understanding among local communities that tribalism and ethnic-based politics are evils that limit development (Njenga 2013).
Therefore, they embrace peace promotion initiatives to ensure they live in harmony without paying attention to their ethnic backgrounds and this has reduced instances of tribal clashes. Lastly, the introduction of free primary school education and medical services has ensured that communities share social amenities like schools and health care facilities (Njenga 2013).
This has promoted integration between them and ensured they understand and appreciate their diversity in developing their country. Therefore, foreign aid has helped Kenyan communities to reduce poverty by establishing projects that generate income for them. It has promoted peace by ensuring different communities work together in promoting education, health, and the environment. Therefore, people focus on the positive aspects that their differences can achieve and not the negative issues associated with ethnicity and politics.
References
African Development Foundation. (2011). USADF Launches Turkana Food Security Program: USADF and Government of the Republic of Kenya Sign Bilateral Agreement to Start Economic Development Activities in Turkana. Web.
National Cohesion and Integration Commission. (2013). Message from Hassan. S. Mohamed, OGW: Commission Secretary, CEO-National Cohesion and Integration Cohesion. Web.
Njenga, E. (2013). The Impacts of Foreign Aid on Economic Development in Kenya. Web.
Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission. (2010). TJRC Meets Regional Commissioner South Coast. Web.
One of the most notable aspects of today’s geopolitical realities in the world is that fact that, as time goes on; China grows increasingly more powerful, in the military, economic, and political senses of this word, which in turn causes much concern in the West. After all, the process does pose an undeniable threat to the ability of Western countries to continue enjoying an undisputed dominance in the world.
The fact that this threat is being actualised, as we speak, can be illustrated, in regards to what happened to be the essence of China’s current foreign policy. In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while promoting the idea that the manner, in which China acts in the arena of international politics, is reflective of two historical experiences that this country has had in the past – the so-called Opium Wars (1839-1860) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989). The reason for this is that, in the eyes of China’s leaders, both of the mentioned events leave no doubt about the legitimacy of the specifically Realist theory of international relations (IR).
Today, China’s foreign policy can be best described as being closely affiliated with the main principle of the Realist paradigm of IR. According to it, regardless of what happens to be the officially adopted political/social ideology in a particular country, this country never ceases to be preoccupied with ensuring its ‘place under the Sun’, as its main priority. What it means is that the actual international agenda of just about any country on this planet is being solely concerned with: a) political/economic expansion, b) maintenance of a political stability within, c) competition with other states.1 The main indications that, while conceptualising its geopolitical stance, China remains thoroughly observant of this specific provision are as follows:
China continues to provide increasing amounts of economic/financial aid to the Third and Second World countries, while investing in these countries’ infrastructural projects. According to Heinemeyer, “China has lent more money to other developing countries over the past two years (2010-2011) than the World Bank… Loans of at least $110 billion were signed, in contrast to the World Bank with around $100 billion”.2 It is understood, of course, that China does not act in such a manner, because of some philanthropic considerations, on its part, but because it helps this country to expand the range of its economic influence in the world, which in turn is expected to empower China geopolitically.
Since the year 2004, China began establishing the so-called Confucian Institutes, throughout the world, the number of which is now estimated to account for 480. Officially, the purpose of these institutes is to popularise Chinese culture and to help people in other countries to learn Mandarin. As Szczudlik-Tatar noted, “The (Confucian) Institutes operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Education… The objective of the Institutes is to promote the teaching of Chinese abroad. The Institutes also operate as foreign centres for the HSK exam (Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi), a Chinese equivalent of the TOEFL test”.3 However, due to being the integral part of how China goes about exercising its ‘soft power’, these Institutes use the pretence of ‘promoting Chinese culture’ as a cover for what happened to be the actual purpose of their establishment – to win the potential ‘agents of influence’ in those countries that China considers important to its long-term strategic interests.4
China grows increasingly alienated from the West, while using its membership in the U.N. Security Council to criticise the sheer hypocrisy of Western countries, within the context of how they deploy the pretext of ‘defending democracy’ to violate international law in the most blatant manner.
The fact that this is indeed the case, can be illustrated, in regards to China’s decision to join the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group, made out of those world’s countries that openly oppose the geopolitical agenda of the U.S. and its European allies.5 As of recently, China disapproved the U.S. involvement in the conflict in Syria on the side of the ‘fighters for democracy’ (who later formed the bulk of ISIS), and America’s intention to supply weapons to Ukraine, so that this country would be able to continue to subjecting its own cities in the East to the artillery bombardment.
China does not allow the functioning of the Western-based ‘non-governmental organisations’ (specialised in promoting ‘democracy’) on its territory, while rightly considering them to be the integral part of how Western countries go about undermining the integrity of the competing nations from within.6 As the involvement of Western-based NGOs in the making of ‘orange’ revolutions indicates, these organisations are indeed nothing but the agents of Western states – in full accordance with the provisions of the Realist theory of PR. (NGOs have been repeatedly caught financing ‘democratic movements’ in a number of countries. The result of the consequential ‘democratic revolutions’ in these countries has always been death and chaos. Ukraine is the most recent example I write about the Chinese point of view on the issue – not about what Americans believe this point of view should be).
After all, as practice indicates, these organisations were heavily involved in the making of the earlier mentioned ‘orange’ revolutions, which China perceives as the main proof that the West (specifically the U.S.) does meddle in the internal affairs of other countries – contrary to the main provisions of international law. (The main convention this law was established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. According to it, countries are not allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of each other – even under the excuse of protecting people’s ‘democratic freedoms’).
Thus, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that China’s current foreign policies reflect the Chinese governmental officials’ awareness of the fact that the dynamics in the arena of international politics are defined by the never-ending competition between the world’s most powerful countries for territory and natural resources. Even though, as time goes on, this competition continues to adopt different forms; it nevertheless remains just as fierce. Thus, China’s foreign agenda aims to prevent Western nations from being able to succeed in turning China into the subject of exploitation, on one hand, and to create the objective preconditions for the country’s sphere of national interests in different parts of the world to continue expanding.7 In its turn, this is expected to increase China’s chances to win in what would be the eventual ‘open phase’ of this country’s continuing confrontation with the West.
One of the main reasons why China’s foreign policy remains thoroughly observant of the main conventions of the Realist outlook on what international relations are all about, is that this country’s leaders understand perfectly well what can be deemed the actual lesson of the earlier mentioned ‘Opium wars’, fought against China by Britain, France and the U.S. in the 19th century.
The outbreak of these wars was triggered by the fact that, throughout the 1830s, Chinese authorities strived to limit the amounts of opium, sold in China by the East India Company (British), while rightfully perceiving the opium-trade in question as such that represented an acute danger to China’s continual existence, as an independent country. After all, as of 1835, opium constituted three fourths of all import-products, brought to this country on an annual basis. As of this year, the number of Chinese opium-addicts was estimated to account for two million, which in turn meant that China was rapidly becoming a nation of drug-addicts, in the literal sense of this word.8
The British, however, considered China’s move utterly hostile, which in turn provided them with the excuse to use military force, as the way of ensuring that there are no obstacles on the way of opium finding its way to China. This marked the beginning of the first ‘Opium war’, during the course of which, the British did succeed in forcing the Chinese to allow the East India Company to continue selling drugs in China. The outcome of the second ‘Opium war’, was not favourable to China, as well – it is not only that this country was forced to revise its anti-drug policy and to pay monetary compensation, but it also ended up having some of its territories (such as Hong Kong) seized by Britain. What is particularly notable, in this respect, is that while pursuing their less than admirable agenda in China, Western countries continued to proclaim that the concerned aggression was utterly beneficial to the Chinese, because it provided them with the chance to learn about the ideals of ‘democracy’.9
Nevertheless, even though, while attacking China, the West did deploy the rhetoric of democracy/progress, the ‘Opium wars’ stand out illustrative of the geopolitical viciousness of Western countries – at least, as the opinion of people in China is being concerned. As Vassilev pointed out, “A blatant act of naked ‘shock and awe’ aggression, the Opium wars became a cataclysmic event that not only shook the foundations of the Manchu dynastic rule and saddled the conquered nation with large indemnity payments, but also marked the beginning of China’s century-long subjugation and slavish servitude to imperialistic Western powers”.10 Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that the essence of China’s current foreign policy can be partially explained, in regards to the mentioned ‘Opium wars’, as such that taught China that the West cannot be trusted.
Another historical event that continues to affect China’s international stance, as we know it, can be regarded the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Even though, in the West these protests are commonly praised as evidence of the people’s desire for democracy, the Chinese outlook on what should be considered the actual significance of this event, is different. In essence, it can be formulated as follows: the agents of foreign influence orchestrated the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, in order to prevent China from growing ever more powerful.
In this respect, many parallels are being drawn between the event in question, on one hand, and the so-called ‘orange’ revolutions (such as the ones that took place in Lybia, Egypt and Syria)11 of more recent times. (I had to explain the effect of the discussed historical events on China’s foreign policy. The mentioned above is CHINA’S OFFICIAL POSITION of the significance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. It is not my opinion – THIS IS WHAT CHINA DECLARES OFFICIALLY. How hard can it be to understand?).
While believing that China was lagging behind the USSR on the way of ‘democratisation’, protesters demanded to ban the Communist Party, to privatise the economy, to abandon the Socialist form of governing, and the most important – they called for the country’s federalisation.12
If these demands were to be met, it would have been just the matter of time, before China would have been destroyed from within. The example of what happened to the USSR in 1991 leaves only a few doubts, as to the full legitimacy of this suggestion. After all, the earlier mentioned democracy-promoting initiatives were well consistent with how the Soviet first and last President Gorbachev proceeded with ‘modernising’ the USSR.
This substantiates the validity of the suggestion that the foremost reason why the Chinese government was able to succeed, while reforming the country’s economy, is that those governmental officials who were in charge of the process, never had any illusions, as to what would be the actual implications of ‘democratisation’. The Chinese official newspapers of the time used to reflect upon the actual significance of the 1989 protests in following manner, “If we are tolerant or conniving with this turmoil and let it go unchecked… Then the improvement of the economic environment and the rectification of the economic order, construction, and development; the control over prices; the improvement of our living standards… will all become empty hopes”.13
Therefore, the Chinese government’s decision to use a military force, in order to disperse protesters, appears fully appropriate – at least from the government’s official perspective. It is understood, of course, that this decision resulted in a number of casualties among protesters. At the same time, however, it allowed China to remain on the path of a continual progress. In its turn, this made it possible for the 21st century’s China to acquire the status of the world’s second most powerful and economically advanced country. (It may be ‘Chinese propaganda’, as you referred to it, but again – this is CHINA’S OFFICIAL POSITION of the significance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The country’s foreign policy reflects this position. What can I do about it?).
In the eyes of China’s leaders, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 proved the validity of the idea that, just as it happened to be the case during the ‘Opium wars’, the West continues to use the pretext of ‘promoting democracy’, as the instrument of undermining the economic/social well-being of its main geopolitical competitors. It is understood, of course, that this could not result in anything else but in establishing the objective preconditions for China’s foreign policy to be observant of the earlier mentioned conceptual provisions of the Realist theory of IR.
The reasons for this is that, in light of what can be considered the actual significance of the ‘Opium wars’ and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, it is quite clear that China continues to be perceived by Western countries, as such that threatens their geopolitical hegemony. This, of course, naturally presupposes that, while engaging with China in the arena of international politics, they will inevitably seek to weaken this country. As China’s top-officials see it, the best way to address this situation is paying the West with the same token of respect.
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defence of the idea that the ‘Opium wars’ and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests are directly related to what happened to be the qualitative aspects of how China goes about positioning itself in the arena of international politics, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, the discursive legacy of both of these events continues to exert much influence on the very philosophy of what happened to be the country’s current IR-policies.
This simply could not be otherwise, because the events in question did help China’s leaders to realise that it is namely the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle, which defines the essence of IR more than anything else does. The country’s foreign policy is likely to remain explicitly ‘realist’ into the future, as well. This eventual development appears to be predetermined by the fact that, as of today, the world becomes increasingly ‘multipolar’, which in turn implies that the existing antagonisms between different countries will continue becoming intensified.
References
Bailey, Warren and Lan Truong. “Opium and Empire: Some Evidence from Colonial-Era Asian Stock and Commodity Markets.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32, no. 2 (2001): 173-193. Web.
Bickers, Robert. “Chinese Burns: Britain in China 1842-1900.” History Today 50, no. 8 (2000): 10-17. Web.
Grieco, Joseph. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 485-507. Web.
Heinemeyer, Martin. “Where is China Heading? An Analysis of China’s Foreign Policy and how it affects the Western world.” European View 1, no.10 (2011): 95–105. Web.
Landry, Tristan. “The Colour Revolutions in the Rearview Mirror: Closer than they Appear.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 53, no. 1 (2011): 1-24. Web.
Ma, Qiusha. “The Governance of NGOs in China since 1978: How Much Autonomy?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31, no. 3 (2002): 305-328. Web.
Muravchik, Joshua. “After the Fall: 1989, Twenty Years on.” World Affairs 172, no. 1 (2009): 52-63. Web.
Ogden, Suzanne. China’s Search for Democracy: The Student and Mass Movement of 1989. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1992. Web.
Sorensen, Camilla. “Is China Becoming More Aggressive? A Neoclassical Realist Analysis.” Asian Perspective 37, no. 3 (2013): 363-385. Web.
Szczudlik-Tatar, Justyna. “Soft Power in China’s Foreign Policy.” The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 19, no. 3 (2010): 45-68. Web.
Vassilev, Rossen. “China’s Opium Wars: Britain as the World’s First Narco-State.” New Politics 13, no. 1 (2010): 75-80. Web.
Yildirim, Tevfik. “The Rise of the Brics in International Relations, Comparative Politics and Law.” European Political Science: EPS 13, no. 4 (2014): 365-369. Web.
Zhao, Suisheng. “Chinese Foreign Policy as a Rising Power to Find its Rightful Place.” Perceptions 18, no. 1 (2013): 101-128. Web.
Footnotes
1 Joseph Grieco. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 488.
2 Martin Heinemeyer. “Where is China Heading? An Analysis of China’s Foreign Policy and how it affects the Western world.” European View 1, no.10 (2011): 97.
3 Justyna Szczudlik-Tatar. “Soft Power in China’s Foreign Policy.” The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 19, no. 3 (2010): 49.
4 Camilla Sorensen. “Is China Becoming More Aggressive? A Neoclassical Realist Analysis.” Asian Perspective 37, no. 3 (2013): 373.
5 Tevfik Yildirim. “The Rise of the Brics in International Relations, Comparative Politics and Law.” European Political Science 13, no. 4 (2014): 365-369.
6 Qiusha Ma. “The Governance of NGOs in China since 1978: How Much Autonomy?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31, no. 3 (2002): 310.
7 Suisheng Zhao. “Chinese Foreign Policy as a Rising Power to Find its Rightful Place.” Perceptions 18, no. 1 (2013): 103.
8 Robert Bickers. “Chinese Burns: Britain in China 1842-1900.” History Today 50, no. 8 (2000): 11.
9 Warren Bailey and Lan Truong. “Opium and Empire: Some Evidence from Colonial-Era Asian Stock and Commodity Markets.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 32, no. 2 (2001): 175.
10 Rossen Vassilev. “China’s Opium Wars: Britain as the World’s First Narco-State.” New Politics 13, no. 1 (2010): 77.
11 Tristan Landry. “The Colour Revolutions in the Rearview Mirror: Closer than they Appear.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 53, no. 1 (2011): 4.
12 Joshua Muravchik. “After the Fall: 1989, Twenty Years on.” World Affairs 172, no. 1 (2009): 53.
13 Suzanne Ogden. China’s Search for Democracy: The Student and Mass Movement of 1989 (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1992): 117.
Is the desire for self-destruction is an integral part of humanity? It is a logic question that emerges when realizing the fact that for the biggest part of history, people have been killing each other. War is one of the most critical factors impacting the world, and it might result in its annihilation if no changes are introduced. That is why every individual should think of how they can change the world for better and stop wars.
Today, the planet faces many problems, including environmental issues, health concerns, epidemics, and poverty. However, military conflicts remain one of the most devastating and complex stigmas. Statistics show that the number of victims in all wars in history ranges from 150 million to 1 billion (Hedges). For this reason, there is a critical need for immediate action.
The problem is that armies are used as one of the powerful tools in international policy. Trying to dominate and empower their positions, states create new weapons and protect their interests by sending troops to strategically important areas (Hedges). It results in the appearance of military conflicts and wars.
That is why I am sure that every person should accept the ideas of pacifism and refuse using arms to achieve specific goals. The era of humanism means that diplomacy and negotiations should be used as the central means in relations between nations. People can promote this idea and contribute to a positive change.
Altogether, war remains one of the crucial factors impacting the world and destroying it. For this reason, everyone should rethink their attitudes to it to avoid using power in conflicts. As Herbert Wells said, “If we don’t end war, war will end us” (11). People should follow this idea and save the planet.
Available literature demonstrates that, although foreign aid has continued to be used by Western donor nations and international lending institutions to support peacebuilding efforts in collapsed states and war-torn societies mostly found in the developing world, its distribution is to a large extent dependent on the prevailing conditions in recipient countries (Boyce, 2010).
In recent decades, scholars have established that countries in the midst of war may reap immensely from the availability of aid as an effective tool for facilitating the implementation of peace accords and the consolidation of peace.
However, it has also been found that aid can aggravate political and socioeconomic conditions in post-conflict societies, causing them to slide back to war, as witnessed in many African countries (Hansen & Borchgrevink, 2007; Hyndman, 2009). In view of this, the present paper aims to critically assess the effects of war and peace on foreign aid in the Dominican Republic.
Effects of Peace & War on Foreign Aid: Experience from the Dominican Republic
Ever since the assassination of autocratic leader Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina on the evening of 30 May 1961, the Dominican Republic has experienced prolonged instances of peace interspersed with short durations of relative instability (Hall, 2008).
In the 1990s, the country experienced periodic collective violence as progressive politicians, and the electorate attempted to instill democratic principles after years of autocratic leadership, though war scholars have to date failed to quantify these incidences as a full-scale civil war (Seelke, 2012). Nevertheless, these periodic instances of civil unrest followed by long durations of peace have had a profound effect on the country’s foreign aid regime.
During instances of civil unrest and peace, donors have attempted to link the foreign aid provided to the Dominican Republic to increased protection of human rights, the establishment of democratic ideals and institutions, cessation of atrocities, and peacebuilding (Hall, 2008; Taffet, 2007).
For example, aid conditionality was successfully used by Western donors in 1994 to remove the aging Balaguer from the presidency and pave the way for the country to adopt democratic ideals and develop democratic institutions (Seelke, 2012). Consequently, it can be argued that the linking of foreign aid to the mentioned outcomes have so far been beneficial in avoiding human rights violations and abuse of power by leaders during instances of civil unrest, while at the same time ensuring the country adopts democratic ideals and prudent fiscal and monetary measures during periods of relative peace. As a direct consequence, the Dominican Republic is one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America, with a per capita gross domestic product of approximately $5,530 in 2011 (Seelke, 2012).
Peace and war have also had their fair share of negative impacts on the distribution of foreign aid in the Dominican Republic. It should be remembered that the United States (US) increased their proportion of foreign aid to the country for geopolitical reasons immediately after Rafael Trujillo overthrew the government in 1930; however, this aid ended up reinforcing an autocratic rule that ruthlessly suppressed all opposition to Trujillo’s regime (Hall, 2008; Taffet, 2007).
In relatively peaceful times, the inflow of foreign aid into the Dominican Republic has not only accentuated the bifurcation of the Dominican society and reinforced unaccountable elites but is also to blame for facilitating neocolonial orientations and the attendant disillusionment of people due to the breakdown of cultural values. This implies that, just like war, peace can also provide an enabling environment for Western nations to control developing countries through the distribution of aid (de Ree & Nillesen, 2009).
Leadership Actions in relieving Problems caused by Civil Unrest
Today, courtesy of foreign aid mostly coming from Western countries and international financiers, leaders in the Dominican Republic have embraced democratic ideals with the view to guaranteeing political inclusion and protection of human rights. Leaders are now more proactive and answerable to the electorate, implying that instances of abuse of power have been curtailed.
Through partnerships with foreign donors such as the US, political leaders in the country have also developed and implemented policy frameworks aimed at not only ensuring political, economic and social inclusion, but also reinforcing governance, enhancing the provision of social and health services, advancing competitiveness, and addressing citizen security (Seelke, 2012).
Additionally, the political leadership in the country has used foreign aid to “combat drug trafficking, implement CAFTA-DR, provide quality healthcare and education system, and protect the environment” (Seelke, 2012, p. 9). Cumulatively, these actions have expanded the democratic space and improved service delivery in the country, resulting in more satisfaction among the populace and less likelihood to engage in war.
Foreign Aid, Reduction of Poverty & Incidence of Warfare
Without a doubt, the extension of foreign aid from donor nations and international lending institutions has gone a long way in reducing poverty and stabilizing the country.
The relationship between foreign aid, poverty reduction, and incidence of war is a complex one, though well documented in the literature. While foreign aid has been largely associated with instances of poverty reduction or aggravation in developing countries, the incidence of warfare is seen as the main determinant of poverty and the ensuing economic ramifications in the post-conflict environment (Hansen & Borchgrevink, 2007). In this light, it can only be argued that foreign aid has the capacity to increase the chances of civil conflict in developing countries if the resources are not channeled properly amongst the population.
The situation is different in the Dominican Republic, as it has been demonstrated how foreign aid has been channeled to encourage the expansion of democratic space and improve service delivery. In the 1990s, for example, international donors used foreign aid to encourage the adoption of democracy and dismissal of autocratic leadership in the country, leading to a marked reduction in civil unrest as people enjoyed more democratic space and enhanced delivery of services by the government of the day (Hall, 2008; Taffet, 2007).
In the reduction of poverty, it is evident how foreign assistance has helped the Dominican Republic to achieve the status of a middle-income economy, not mentioning that the country has one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America (Seelke, 2012). Consequently, it can only be argued that the country has made good use of its foreign aid allocation to alleviate poverty and consequently help to prevent instances of civil unrest from recurring.
Conclusion
This paper has illuminated the negative and positive effects that instances of peace and civil unrest have had on the distribution of foreign aid in the Dominican Republic, the specific actions taken by the country’s leadership in using foreign aid to relieve the problems caused by instances of civil unrest, as well as how foreign aid has been effectively used in the country to reduce poverty and incidences of civil unrest.
If well utilized, foreign aid can be an effective tool in ensuring peace as well as political and socio-economic development of third world counties. However, aid can be a recipe for a country’s disintegration in times of war or peace if it is wrongly used.
References
Boyce, J.K. (2010). Aid conditionality as a tool for peace building: Opportunities and constraints. Development and Change, 41(5), 1025-1048. Web.
de Ree, J., & Nillesen, E. (2009). Aiding violence or peace? The impact of foreign aid on risk of civil conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 88(2), 301-313. Web.
Hall, M.R. (2008). The transition from dictatorship to democracy in the Dominican Republic. Journal of Third World Countries, 23(1), 13-16. Web.
Hansen, K.F., & Borchgrevink, A. (2007). Cutting aid to promote peace and democracy? Intentions and effectiveness of aid sanctions. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(4), 622-641. Web.
Hyndman, J. (2009). Acts of aid: Neoliberalism in a war zone. Antipode, 41(5), 867-889. Web.
Positive and negative effects of peace and war on the distribution of foreign aid in Madagascar
In Madagascar, foreign aid is both a benefit and a cost of development and growth towards peace. The country appears as a victim of aid-financed democracy that does not suffice to assist it in defeating the challenges of poverty and the lack of sufficient economic systems (Moyo, 2009).
In 2009, Madagascar underwent a coup. This was an indication of the failure of its democracy, backed by foreign powers, to sustain the peaceful transition of government. In fact, the institutions of the country are weaker compared to their ideal functioning levels in a robust democratic society. The distribution of wealth is not equitable, which has served as one of the pretexts for internal conflict. The lack of systems to ensure that the citizens are the real beneficiaries of foreign aid continues to hamper the ability of Madagascar to sustain its peace process.
Peace in Madagascar allowed sufficient development of institutional frameworks that would aid the overall development of the country’s economy. The support of the government and recognition by international political and economic bodies meant that there were sufficient prospects for economic growth and an increase in people’s standard of living. However, as a risk report on the country shows, the effects of conflict ensured that the country had a higher sovereign credit risk, followed by currency inconvertibility and transfer risks as of 2014 (JLT, 2014). These factors jeopardize the effective functioning of aid programs, despite the fact that they arise at a period when the major conflict is over, and the country is working towards rebuilding its peace.
Madagascar was a recipient of foreign aid prior to the coup in 2009 and the unfolding events in the years that followed. Major donors such as the United States opted to suspend the country from aid programs and limit any existing aid to humanitarian programs. Therefore, the war has led to the removal of any available opportunities for foreign aid to fund the development of institutions that would allow the country to sustain peace once it attains it. Currently, aid is only occurring in sectors that mainly require recurrent expenditure assistance. These include humanitarian crises, which require the supply of basic needs and do not allow the concerned agencies to come up with long-term plans to remedy the situation (Ploch & Cook, 2012).
Mass killings continued after the coup of 2009 in the southern parts of the country. Criminal gangs and security forces kept on disobeying human rights and the rule of law to administer their versions of justice and order (WILPF International, 2013). This was a bad report from a country with more than two-thirds of its population being below the poverty line. The period of conflict in the country only worsens the economic situation of the majority of citizens. For example, when bandits attack villages and steal cows in organized cartel activity, security forces opt to destroy entire villages that are suspected of harboring the criminals (WILPF International, 2013).
As a result, they destroy the source of livelihoods for thousands of people, and the nullify gains made on economic empowerment programs supported by foreign aid (WILPF International, 2013). The effects of conflict continue to affect urban area sustainability programs. Many towns are forced to accommodate an influx of internal immigrants fleeing the war. Moreover, the country now has to deal with a growing problem of internally displaced persons who lack resources for self-sustenance.
Other than the direct effects of the war on the economy, there are also indirect effects of the withdrawal of aid. The reduced expenditure of the government due to reduced budgetary support means that non-critical programs of government are not funded in the annual budget. For example, environmental issues relating to illegal logging and the endangerment of wildlife continue to hurt the stability of the country’s economy and the sustenance of its citizen’s welfare (Ploch & Cook, 2012).
Actions Taken by the Leadership
According to the WILPF International (2013), the government of Madagascar is not committed to restoring peace, given that criminals who are affiliated with the political elites continue to possess arms. The reluctance of the current government is part of a larger institutional problem that began in the previous governments. The development of the Madagascar economy cannot happen without being intertwined with political dynamics. Over the last ten years, a number of development initiatives seek to make effective use of foreign aid because it supported the government’s public expenditure that existed before the conflict. A notable example was the education reform launched in 2003.
However, there were issues with government support that minimized the gains made from the program. The concentration of power by the incumbent president, Ravalomanana, meant that resources would not be evenly distributed across the country (Jütersonke & Kartas, 2010). The main reason for the failure of development aid was that it went into programs that did not have sufficient coordination and lacked coherence with the pressing needs of the country. In fact, the seemingly forceful nature of foreign aid to particular programs in developing countries is often cited as a major reason for failure (Moyo, 2009).
Hery Rajaonarimampiana ascended to the presidency in 2014 and initiated negotiations with major investment and donor partners of the country (JLT, 2014). The president also ensured that the government would function optimally by appointing a cabinet and a prime minister. Going forward, the government’s next action is to tackle corruption and strengthen democratic institutions.
Has the extension of foreign aid successfully reduced poverty and the incidence of warfare in the selected country?
Foreign aid has to be effective, in addition to being provided in the right quantity. The system and delivery of aid have to be efficient, so that much of the aid goes to the intended projects. Relying on the positive differences in development to measure the effect of aid makes it easier to interpret aid as less effective due to the causes of funds’ disappearance highlighted above. In fact, there are studies recommending critical reflection in dealing with operational programming cases regarding foreign aid pertaining to the case of Madagascar (Jütersonke & Kartas, 2010).
According to Moyo (2009), an emerging economy requires a transparent and accountable government. In addition, it must have an efficient civil service that will allow it to meet social needs. Unfortunately, it appears that the constant stream of foreign aid has only aggravated problems by keeping inefficient and bad governments in power, especially in the African economies analyzed by Moyo (2009), among them Madagascar. The argument here is that a constant supply of aid provides no motivation for change in systems, despite the fact that the aid is channeled to the specific countries for reasons related to the strengthening of institutions to have checks and balances (Moyo, 2009).
Based on the above analysis, it is likely that future incidences of war in Madagascar will lessen. However, the outcome depends on the ability of the new government to restore confidence in foreign donors so that they resume unconditional aid. It also relies on the government’s commitment to tackling corruption and supporting programs of equitable distribution of resources in Madagascar, as well as protection of natural resources.
References
JLT. (2014). Madagascar risk report: Credit, political and security risk. Web.
Jütersonke, O., & Kartas, M. (2010). Peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA), Madagascar. Geneva, Switzerland: Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding (CCDP), Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. Web.
In the City of Olipo in Syria, the rebel fighters against the regime of President Assad of Syria were doing their usual patrol and door to door military campaign. The military campaign targeted the alleged sympathizers and loyalists of President Assad in a war that has lasted for three years. On this particular day, the rebel militia in a group of more than five gun-wielding militia opened fire on an unarmed man in a blue tracksuit along the open street.
The video camera reported in Aljazeera captured the unarmed man take the bullets in broad daylight in amusement of the gun-toting rebels chanting kill his slogan. The video then captures an injured man pleading for mercy from these rebels who seem to enjoy torturing their victims. From their chants, the militia decides to investigate the captured victim and promises to kill him should he be Prea president Assad’s loyalist (Aljazeera-TV, 2012).
This particular video featured an unknown Aljazeera journalist or cameraman and distinctively showed the rebels directly firing the unarmed man several times at very close range (Aljazeera-TV, 2012). The two players in this video are the rebel militias and the Aljazeera journalist who captured the Aljazeera video. The photojournalist recorded the two main events in the video; the shooting of the unarmed man and torturing of the captured man.
The reporting journalist reports this video on the Aljazeera TV Network and shows the pictures of an unarmed man being shot several times by a group of militia against the Assad regime. The Aljazeera reporter also shows another captured man lying with blood on both hands as the rebels chant ‘kill him’ slogan. The lying man seems to be in pain and pleading for mercy in the full glare of the camera (Aljazeera-TV, 2012).
The values of the Aljazeera reporting journalist are careless and inconsiderate. The raw video of a man being shot several times and another in a pool of blood should be edited before airing in such a large media house as Aljazeera TV Network. Besides, the video showed excessive violence material to a global channel with family viewing. Thus, the Aljazeera journalist can be described as an irresponsible reporter (Brown, 2011).
The action of Aljazeera and the reporting journalist to air this excessive violent video is unethical based on the principle of ethical content reporting. To begin with, the media house did not consider how the family of the unarmed man who was shot several times would be affected emotionally before airing this video. Moreover, since the viewing age group of this media house is unlimited at the hour of airing, the action by the reporting Aljazeera journalist exposed the younger viewers to explicit material of violent nature. Such videos are known to cause a lot of distress and a nightmare to a young audience (Brown, 2011).
Reflecting on the content of this video, it was inappropriate for the reporting journalist and the Aljazeera media house to air the violent video material. Such videos cause unnecessary tension and emotional imbalances since the family members of the victims have to live with the trauma. Before broadcasting this video, the Aljazeera Network should have questioned their actions, weighing them on the societal norms scale, and offering a rational judgment that not only affirms the free will but also offering moral precepts of the reactions of the sensitive audience in the war-torn region. If the content directed to an audience is demystifying as was the case in this Aljazeera broadcast, the final effect would be traumatic on the audience.
On the other hand, if the content is inspirational, the audience may end up being an inspired lot. Besides, the interpretation of the message reported by Aljazeera in this video is not inclusive of the interface between the audience, the message, and the existing culture in the restively sensitive Islamic nation. Conclusively, airing the video of an unarmed man taking several bullets at close range in Syria was unethical. The storyline is very sensitive and of a violent nature.
References
Aljazeera-TV (Qatar).(2012). Syria: The War within [YouTube]. Aljazeera: Aljazeera Television Network. Web.
Brown, F. (2011). Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media. Alabama: Marion Street Press. Web.
War is a conflict of power that involves nations and other parties and it is at times inevitable as conflicting sides usually try to exert their influences on each other and the rest of the world (Clausewitz, 77). To minimize the damage and effects of wars, theorists came up with the limited war theory and a majority of them defined it as the boundary between political resolve and physical authority (Kissinger, 24).
The basic principle of the limited war theory is the avoidance of armed war and the mutual destruction that is brought by it. Several definitions of the limited war exist in the Western world, particularly in the United States. Most of these definitions were made after World War II and seemed to have focused on the actions of the US military to ensure that it did not pose a threat or the instant destruction of the perceived enemies. The major war enemies during World War II were the United States and the Soviet Union. A limited war theory is described as one in which the confrontational parties’ objective is not to seek for the absolute destruction of their enemies.
The theory also puts limits on the use of a given nation’s available resources in war. These resources can be military, human or technological. The conflicting sides should state the reasons for fighting and state tangible, precise objectives which do not require a lot of military actions. The theory postulates that war should be engaged in a defined, local geographical area (Giap, 35).
The rules of the limited war theory might include not firing at the enemy except if the enemy fires at you first or not pursuing an enemy into an area which is termed as neutral. If one of the parties wants to attack its enemy, it can only do so in a particular defined territory so that it can differentiate between the combatants and the civilians (Kissinger, 37). The theory directs that the parties engaged in war must limit themselves to using certain weapons that they may have. The theory defines the kind of military infrastructure that should be targeted by a given enemy (Kissinger 39).
The foundation of the limited war theory
The limited war theory was introduced in the 1950s when military philosophers emphasized the association between political objectives and military means. This fact was made so after the Soviet Union was declared equal to the United States in terms of nuclear power. The theory originated from different viewpoints. The first one was founded on the strategy of the cold war whereby the limitation of war was aimed at improving national security (Kissinger, 26).
The other reason for the limited war theory was focused on keeping the lives of the civilian populations safe. Authorities in charge of security understood that the US and the Soviet Union were in possession of nuclear weapons. The deepening of the conflict to an armed war would bring massive destruction to both sides (Kissinger, 46).
This fact would mean the immediate destruction of the US. This reason defined why the limited war theory was based on the parties’ military capability of inflicting massive damage on each other. The use of weapons with a view of causing deaths became a prerequisite for the use of the limited war approach. This fact meant that a limited war approach would only take place between two rivals who were equal in regard to the weapons that each opponent possessed. The US came up with the limited war theory in order to protect itself from warfare.
The International Committee of the Red Cross feared for massive losses of human life and proposed that the military could carry out its business in certain defined territories. The committee proposed that the military was supposed to carry out its activities away from civilian populations and that its activities were to be restricted to military resources. In addition, the committee suggested the limitation of artillery employed and how it would be used to minimize the harm inflicted on the civilians by war. It was determined that war should be limited due to the misuse of weapons after the automatic warfare advancement during the middle of World War II and the development of nuclear weapons. The possibility of the use of nuclear weapons was dangerous to human existence. The initial motives of a war are usually political ones and should determine the military motives and that of the efforts made by a given party in war (Clausewitz, 54).
The limited war theory ensures that political, social and economic activities continue in the course of the war. The possibility of armed war led to the creation of mechanisms that would assure the safety of the civilians. The creation of nuclear weapons was seen as a way in which certain countries would control the world. (Kissinger, 54). After the Soviet Union obtained nuclear weapons, the threats from the United States of a massive reprisal became futile when the limited war theory was established because nuclear weapons restricted the objective and degree of wars due to their destructive potential.
This fact made the possibility of annihilation of enemies of any given nation difficult as neither parties engaged in war wanted total destruction of the world. The nuclear weapons gave the Soviet Union an advantage over the United States. The theory was established to guard the United States’ strategic interests which included maintaining America’s international reputation especially for the sake of its partners in Europe as well as controlling the Soviet Union. The US and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons meaning that both nations would be destroyed in the eventuality of war between them. Europe feared that in case of an attack of the US by the Soviet Union, the US would be unable to safeguard it.
The US did not also consider it necessary to endanger its citizens’ lives and risk complete destruction of its states due to the warfare going on in Europe. The Soviet Union reduced the nuclear weapon domination that the United States had enjoyed for a long time. The US threats of massive retaliation became less threatening because the Soviet Union was now in a position to match the weaponry of the US (Kissinger 75).
Complete destruction of the Soviet Union would also mean the same for the US. In the event that retaliation took place, the parties engaged in the war would only be left with two options which were to surrender or engage in armed war. However, both of these options would have their disadvantages because nuclear war meant mutual destruction while surrendering would have meant that the national objectives that were being fought for would be forfeited (Giap, 44).
The limited war theory, therefore, removed the burden on the US of deciding whether to engage in armed war or “feel demeaned for retreating” (Kissinger 20). Taking part in armed conflict with the Soviet Union also meant the US would suffer from attacks in its homeland. The US feared that it would give an opportunity to the Soviet Union to establish its communist regime in parts of the United States’ localities which would later spread and prove difficult to control. The US also used the limited war theory to control the alliance between the Soviet Union and its partners thereby weakening them.
The reasoning behind this was that no Soviet ally would compromise on its safety by undergoing the risk of armed war with the intention of defending the Soviet and yet it would not benefit from the action. The Soviet Union would also find it difficult to maintain ties with its allies with the risk of armed war as all its focus and energy would be in trying to avoid the war. By exerting all this pressure on the Soviet Union, the US controlled the action of the Soviet Union. In addition to dealing with the Soviet Union, the US used the limited war theory to increase deterrence from war and should it have failed, then the limited war theory would have created room for negotiations prior to the break out of the war. This fact would have been a better solution for the US than engaging in nuclear war (Kissinger, 33).
The restrictions of a limited war
Restrictions of the limited war theory include well-defined limited objectives, the will to restrict the use of armed means, proper military policies, a national will and ample economic resources (Giap, 51). The military makes its plans using the structures set by those at the top of its political leadership. The nature of the political objectives of a country should determine how the war is carried out and not the framework of the accomplishment of the military structure (Kissinger, 46).
The parameters are then further divided into seven classes namely the geographical area, the targets, the type and number of weapons, the intensity of the war, its duration, and manpower as well as the number of parties engaged in war conflicts. The most important factors of a theory are the geographical area, the targets and the weapons as they are the ones the parties at war can control. The absence of the factors would make the restriction of war very difficult. The limited war theory entails a sophisticated strategy made with clearly stipulated strategies with the aim of minimizing the costs.
The parties engaged in war have to inform each other of their definition of the limited war theory and the restrictions that they would maintain. Limitation of a geographical area translates to keeping the size of the war territory at a minimum geographical scope. In the case of the US and the Soviet Union, this implied leaving out Europe from the power crisis and main nuclear power countries (Giap, 42). The limited war theory used by America to justify its participation in Vietnam was faulty in the sense that its leaders did not realize that war could only take place if both parties were willing to control their means of engaging in war (Kissinger, 52).
This fact was because the theory failed to recognize the important roles that people played in enhancing the possibility of war. The biggest mistake that the US made was to employ the military as the basis of its political predicament given that its main objective in Vietnam was to control the influence of communism. The reason for the invasion of Vietnam by the US was not about Vietnam itself (Giap, 34).
This theory was of international importance as it aimed at maintaining the objective of the control of power by the Soviet Union. (Clausewitz, 76). The United States was overconfident in its war against Vietnam.The US did not consider it necessary to formulate concrete strategies and to allocate a lot of resources in the war against Vietnam. The top-ranking officers of the US military only considered focusing on the size of manpower to be deployed in Vietnam instead of discussing how it would fight in the war. A few examples of limited war theories can be captured in the Korean, Vietnam, El Salvador and Falklands wars. This essay will evaluate the limited war theory and its significance on the Korean and the Falklands’ wars.
The Korean War
At the end of World War II in 1945, Korea which was previously being ruled by the Japanese was divided into two along the 38th parallel with the forces from the United States taking over South Korea and those from the Soviet Union taking over North Korea. The Soviet Union then went ahead to establish a communist rule in the North and the United States became the South’s major financial and military supporter. Five years later, on the 25th of June, 1950, the conflict deepened after troops from communist North Korea invaded South Korea with the intention of uniting the people of South Korea who were opposing the communist rule. The surprise attack almost led to the defeat of the US army and that of South Korea. However, the United States which was an ally of the South Koreans in collaboration with the United Nations intervened by sending troops to defend South Korea.
This fact happened at the same time when Russia was boycotting the United Nations Council. When the US set the agenda for resolution and called for military support for South Korea, the Soviet Union was not in a position to support it which would have worked in its favor by denying the South reinforcement. The then president of the United States Harry Truman with the aid of Gen Douglas MacArthur devised a counterattack plan that drove the North Korean troops back across the 38th parallel and simultaneously made it possible for the US to access the North Korean territory. The president called this move a “police action” because it had the patronage of the UN.
The North Koreans also called for reinforcements from the Republic of China which pushed the American forces and South Koreans back into their territory and the warfare took the form of a stalemate leaving the defensive struggle where it was before the war started. The war came to an end three years later in 1953 when the United States and North Koreans agreed to sign a peace agreement. The division which was supposed to be a temporary one soon became permanent (Giap, 25).
This war was the first in which the limited war theory was practiced because, for the first time, the US went into war in full knowledge that its adversaries had nuclear weapons hence ruling out the armed war strategy. This fact was because the US could not engage in armed struggle with the use of nuclear weapons as it could cause a catastrophe and possibly start World War III. Its plan was limited to defending the South rather than totally defeating the North and it did not also want to use all its resources in a single war. This move to use the limited war gave the Korean War its fame as the Americans were used to achieving victory in armed war. They always did anything and everything in order to win an all-out war. The Korean War was stopped by limiting the use of nuclear war.
The United States learned that through the loss of thousands of its troops, its power was not devoid of limits and that in the nuclear era, the attainment of war victory would almost be impossible. Both the United States and the Soviet Union did not encounter each other directly in the war but by supporting their preferred allies, they somehow engaged in war. The limitations were not only in terms of weaponry but also geographically as the war was restricted to the Korean peninsula so as to avoid other nations being affected indirectly. The US also wanted to control the war by blaming it on North Korea to maintain its reputation in case it faced direct attacks in future in a territory that was considered significant. The war would have attracted international attention and put the US’s global standing at risk if it had expanded the war territory to other nations or states.
The targets in the Korean War were limited. In particular, aerial targets were restricted. No assaults were permitted close to the Soviet borderline or the Chinese one by the Americans and in return, the Chinese limited their aerial assaults on South Korea. The Falklands war The Falklands war began on the 2nd of April, 1982 and ended in June the same year. It was fought between Great Britain and Argentina and was as a result of the two nations’ disagreement over the control of the Falklands islands. The British sent their troops to attack the Argentines’ navy after the Argentinean troops had marched into the Falklands and South Georgia islands and taken them over.The British army retaliated in an effort to repossess the islands. Overwhelmed by the British forces, Argentina resulted in conceding defeat and the islands were once again put under the British rule.
The war came to an end in June 1982 and afterward in 1989 while in a meeting in Madrid, the two nations gave a united declaration although it clearly did not change the stand of each of them on the issue regarding the control of the islands. Several hundreds of both Argentinean and British troops lost their lives as well as a few islanders. The limited war was practiced during this armed conflict as the warfare was restricted to the Falklands Islands and surrounding South Georgia along with the South Sandwich Islands. Neither country sought to attack the others’ mainland. The Argentinean troops would not have attacked the British troops and vice versa if they met outside the defined war territories. The limitations achieved their goal of shortening the duration of the war, cutting expenditure as well as limiting the death toll of the army and civilians.
In the effort take over the Falklands Islands, the Argentineans used the limited aim policy which heavily relied on suppositions. However, if the suppositions had been wrong, then the strategy would have been bound to fail. The limited war strategy can only be successful under certain conditions. The first one is that the attackers have to surprise and overpower the defendants’ troops before the latter can call for reinforcements, take over the territory and set up defenses in preparation for retaliation from the defenders. In this situation, the attacked people can assume that the defenders will not retaliate making the war a limited one.
Argentina lost the Falklands War because of its inaccurate assumptions. The British had earlier not showed a lot of concern for the islands and so Argentina believed that after invading the island and taking it over, the British would not counterattack. This assumption had assured Argentina that the war would not escalate to an all-out war. However, the British did the exact opposite and retaliated. Argentina also made another grave mistake of attacking days after a small conflict took place between them and the British which prompted the British to send more troops to the island (Ilana and Bard, 23).
This action reduced the effectiveness of the surprise aspect. The plans of Argentina were not to attack early as they were still waiting for the armaments they had ordered to be delivered but the British reinforcements forced them to invade early as they saw no chances of victory if more British troops were to attack them. The other factor that led to Argentina losing the war was the fact that the British had advanced firepower. Argentina would not have employed heavy artillery in the war against the British due to the little care they had for the islands. They had also assumed that the Americans would come to their aid which did not happen.
The limited aim strategy assumes that with a surprise attack and a successful capture, the aggressor can set up his defense and leave the defenders with the difficult task of deciding whether to retaliate and start an all-out war. The defenders, on the other hand, are assumed that they cannot retaliate so as not to be underrated in the international scene. Limited war calls for the restricted use of resources be it technological, human, natural or otherwise.
Argentina chose to follow this. Before the war, it had sent General Mario Menendez to the island to act as the defense commander but when the war began, Argentina chose to continue utilizing the less aggressive Menendez as their commanding officer instead of sending an experienced officer to war. Argentina also chose to limit its human resources in terms of military personnel. Rather than sending its best military unit known as III Brigades, this unit was retained in Argentina’s homeland so as to protect Argentina from Chile which posed potential aggression on Argentina along the channel of Beagle (Henry and Hart, 13).
The limited aim strategy mostly appeals to nations with feeble militaries as they rely on the stronger nation’s hesitance to retaliate. This hesitance as mentioned before is due to the stronger nations’ fear of losing their reputation on the international scene by being regarded as aggressors for starting a war.
Conclusion
The limited war theory has in certain cases proved to be useful in minimizing costs and loss of time as well as the chance of armed conflict. However, as seen in certain of the wars, the success of the limited war depends on common interests to avoid a total war and the will of the enemies to limit their means.
Works Cited
Clausewitz, Carl. On War. Eds. Howard, Michael and Paret, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Giap, Vo. People’s War, People’s Army, New York, USA: Frederick A. Praeger, 2002. Print.
Henry, Basil, and Hart, Liddell. The Revolution in Warfare, New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
Ilana, Kass, and Bard, O’Neill. The Deadly Embrace, London, UK: University Press of America, 2006. Print.
Kissinger, Henry. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, New York, USA: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003. Print.