The Beirut Bombing

On Tuesday, November 19th, Al Qaeda organized a double suicide bombing that struck the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, killing at least 23 people, and injuring nearly 150 more. It is the deadliest assault on Iranian interests because Iran has become the most forceful supporter of the Syrian government against the variety of armed insurgent groups, and has also reshaped how the international community examines Iran's domestic and foreign policy. In the more immediate future, the double suicide bombing has emphasized the major costs and risks involved with Iranian intervention in Syria. As  Iran analyst  at Eurasia Group Cliff Kupchan expressed, "Today's event demonstrates the political and economic costs of Syria for Iran."This is because many are divided on the issue of Syrian involvement. On one hand, the international community perceives Iranian support within Syria as its event stepping stone in experiencing an Iranian version of Vietnam. On the other hand, Iran's successful transition in supporting the Syrian President Bashar al Assad has lead to an extremely international decisive influence involving a multitude of issue, wherein Iran is experiencing increases in its ability to overcome and negotiate nuclear program disputes.

Ironically, Iran and other middle eastern nations are blaming Israel as a key player in unifying different supporters and opponents of the Syrian insurgency, and are using this blaming to signal neither Iran, Hezbollah (the main military organization within Lebanon, and other do not want to immediately escalate confrontation that could possibly lead to all-out war within Lebanon. This is probably because Iran's government is facing serious pressure from hard-line political leaders within the different legislative and executive bodies, but will avoid an engagement in order to obtain a deal over it's nuclear program agenda. Therefore, the lack of retaliation from Iran is possibly, as President Mehrzd Boroujerdi, Political Science professor and Iran expert at Syracuse University, explains this is an opportune time for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to attack because "whoever did this was thinking the following: A, we can attack Iranians at this point in time, and the cannot lift a finger against us. Or B, we are going to force them into doing something radical, in which the world is going to have second thoughts about inviting them to Syria negotiations." As a result, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, the offshoot of Al Qaeda that operates within Lebanon claimed responsibility for the bombing is and has been able to threaten to inflict more carnage on Iran until it withdraws forces from Syria, since Iran  could lose significant benefits if it refuses to engage Al Qaeda and enhance conflict within the region. As a result, opponents of the Assad regime believe President Obama and President Rouhani are eager to end the decades of tension with Iran, and supporting the Assad regime has given Iran a crucial position in receiving a nuclear deal. Thus, it is within the interest of these rebel groups to establish terror and drastically effect the stability of specific regions and governments in order to gain influence.

Consequently, the bombing of the Iranian embassy highlights that countries outside of Syria are becoming victims and suffering from the series of sectarian conflicts and bombings on different Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim targets that have become increasingly interlinked with the escalating conflict in Syria. This spill over effect is not a surprise, and as Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif has expressed the bombing should be an "alarm for all" that intensifies the frequent security problem where conflict "cannot be contained in the region." Zarif went on to say "the tragedy today, two Iranians were victims of it and more and more Lebanese unfortunately than Iranians were victims of this tragedy, but that should be a reminder of all of us, that should be an alarm for all of us that we need to deal with the issue and unless we deal with this issue seriously it will engulf all of us." This does seem to be an increasing problem as several of Syria's most powerful rebel groups have just recently established a new Islamic force that desires toppling the Assad regime. This as increased the effectiveness of these rebel militant groups, and has reduced the efforts made by the United States, Iran, and other powers that have attempted to organize discussions that could end the war.

Therefore, the bombing of the Iranian Embassy brings forth a multitude of issues involving war and peace within the middle east. On one level, it effects US and Iranian relations involving deals and negotiations of nuclear energy. On another level, if the bombing highlights the inability for national security to prevent a spill over of conflict from Syria, which also infers an increasing lack of stability within the middle east. Even though this is an extremely simplistic view, it brings forth the issues of civil wars, terrorism, counter-terrorism, bargaining, and international cooperation, rebel groups within Syria have dramatically altered our discussions with countries such as Iran and they have brought forth greater concerns than solutions.

Works Cited

"Al Qaeda-linked Group Says It Bombed Iran Embassy in Beirut." RSS. Euronews, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Barnard, Anne. "Beirut Bombs Strike at Iran as Assad’s Ally." New York Times. New York Times, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

KARAM, SHOUMALI, and HUBBARD BEN. "Powerful Rebel Groups in Syria Announce Creation of Umbrella Alliance." New York Times. New York Times, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

The Fragmenting of Al Qaeda

In an article published this week by Foreign Affairs, William McCants discusses the mismanagement of Al Qaeda by its senior leaders. This topic comes in relation to our discussion this week on military organizations, professionalism, and their ties to government. Any organization as large as the Al Qaeda network needs to follow certain rules and regulations to keep from tearing itself apart. The organizations current leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri is now being reported as having significant problems keeping this kind of infighting out of the organization. Of the four major affiliates, the two in Northern and Western Africa have not been seeing eye to eye as of late. This is a result of having an influx in activity from Al Qaeda and an increase in their recruitment opportunities in the region. Interestingly, what is happening is when these affiliates attempt to recruit from the same regions, they end up squabbling over who will be in charge of the operations. Additionally, the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate or AQI has been openly defying Al Qaeda leadership during its operations in Syria. This groups leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has stated his organization has been operating within the Al Nusra front for an extended period of time and claims he has command over the Al Nusra organization. However, leadership from Al Nusra has rejected this claim, instead pledging allegiance to Zawahiri directly. These kinds of disconnects within an organization represent the chaos that can be created when expansion happens too quickly. Now Zawahiri is attempting to reunited his fragmented affiliates into a working global network.

These concepts apply well to our class by comparing them to the structure and management of the US Army. Although this organization is similar in scale, the US Army is significantly more professional and well managed. This is because of the various rules and regulations each soldier in the Army is held accountable to at all times. There are laws within the organization as well that dictate what a soldier may or may not do, and prevent the types of fragmentation that Al Qaeda has seen. Additionally, our military is tied in to our federal government and takes its missions from our commander in chief, President Obama.

What else do you all feel contributes to the success of large organizations like the military? Additionally, what other factors may be contributing to the fragmentation of Al Qaeda and other similar groups?

Sources:Foreign Affairs, Al Shofra, CNN

Why America doesn't use nuclear weapons

Looking at this enlightening article about the real reason behind America using nuclear weapon, it's reignites a discussion of using a realist lens to view nuclear power: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

America is the the hegemonic leader of the world. America has the greatest economy, with the best armed military. We have the nuclear power to destroy any conceivable enemy and military technology that is superior to any other nation. America is active is maintaining a nuclear balance in the world and keeps volatile enemies in check.  If one is to look at the world through a realist lens, they might ask why America has not acted to leverage its position to exploit other nations and consolidate power. The answer requires an economic lens. The US is a nation desensitized to the costs of war. The expenditures of the government are not felt directly through taxes. Our government finances itself through federal reserve activity and creates hidden inflation that is not recognized immediately by the people. The war effort to build and supply war craft and ammunition is no longer a national effort, but is imported or assigned to a select few government contractors. The American people have never felt a war on their soil and they see foreign intervention through the eyes of the media, which can't effectively convey the tragedy, scope, or price of war. Americans have lost the drivers behind imperialism. We are well fed and happy citizens. Machiavelli proposes that an outside threat must be present to mobilize a nation towards war and Americans do not view many threats as credible. The use of nuclear weapons is seen as a pure cost for Americans because the benefit is not apparent. This article talks about the ineffectiveness of nuclear weapons for some specific military goals:  http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is not a taboo, it's a rational economic choice. Americans look at a nuclear strike as a dangerous endeavor that could upset the status quo and start a chain reaction of nuclear war which is readily understood to harm everyone (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Looking at the graphs shown in class, we see that Americans are not significantly more opposed to the use of nuclear weapons than ordinary military action, we merely lack the incentives. My personal opinion is that if America were to experience a significant economic collapse, affecting the safety and comfort of every citizen, we would see an America much more willing to flex its muscles militarily, including nuclear.

US and Afghanistan reach agreement on long term security pact amid growing narcotics industry

Currently, the United States has 60,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan. At the peak of US intervention, that number was at about 100,000. But recently, Secretary of State John Kerry reached an agreement with the government of Afghanistan on a long term security pact in Afghanistan. The United States was already scheduled to withdraw most of its troops by the end of 2014, but now both governments have reached an agreement on a long term security pact. This would mean that after 2014, the number of US troops in Afghanistan would linger around 13,000. Although there is some speculation that the White House will want a smaller number than that due to domestic calls to withdraw completely from Afghanistan.
But there is one obstacle that stands in the way of this agreement. While the US government and Afghan governments have reached an agreement, the agreement needs to be approved by a loya jirga, or a tribal council. It will be interesting to see whether or not the tribal council will approve of this since they have posed as obstacles in the past to US policy in Afghanistan.
Another obstacle that this agreement is yet to address is the growing poppy trade in Afghanistan. Since 2002, the US has spent $7 billion trying to fight the ballooning narcotics industry. But this money has not been of much use. It is estimated that about 154,000 hectares are used to harvest poppy in Afghanistan. A Pentagon report to Congress reported that the 2013 harvest of poppy was going to be "considerably larger" than the harvest of 2012.
So what will happen once US troops drop to 13,000? The obvious answer is that the poppy trade will continue to grow. After all, this is the livelihood of many rural Afghans. But before we even reach that point, it will be interesting to see whether the loya jirga will approve of the long term security pact. After all, many of the representatives of the loya jirga come from areas where poppy is harvested. So what effects do you think the US troop withdrawal will have on the poppy trade?

Sources: As U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan, poppy trade it spent billions fighting still flourishes.
Kerry: U.S., Afghanistan agree on security pact
Afghanistan-U.S. reach draft security agreement.

And Now I Guess They're Doing Meth...

To switch it up a little from our current posts on nuclear weapons, I recently stumbled on an article on ABC News that stated that five people were charged in a US meth bust from North Korea. Five foreigners were arrested in Thailand back in September and were charged in the United States (today) with plotting to smuggle 100 kilograms of meth, produced in North Korea. Two of the men, who are apparently a part of a Hong Kong based criminal organization that is responsible for selling meth produced in North Korea, along with one other from Thailand and another two from Britain, had agreed to store and transport the drugs, before 30 kilograms of this meth was seized by authorities in both Thailand and the Philippines.

This year, these suppliers provided over 100 kilograms to sources that worked with the DEA, bragging that they were the only group to be able to smuggle this meth from North Korea after the united States cracked down on production there. They also stated that many of the labs in North Korea have been burned down in order to show the American's that they were no longer producing meth, however this particular group has labs that remain open. One of the men even claimed to have stored 1 ton of meth away because of the tensions between America and North Korea that might hinder its production. After meeting with DEA sources, the suppliers meth was tested in the US and was found to be 98 percent pure (that's some Breaking Bad shit if I've ever seen it).

North Korea, which has, for decades, been secretive from the rest of the world in much of its ventures, has received much of its scrutiny from the rest of society because of its tensions surrounding nuclear weapons, as well as surrounding many human rights violations (BBC News). Unknown to myself, and maybe some of you as well, North Korea has also been responsible for trafficking an assortment of drugs for decades with over 50 documented incidents (CNN). It was noted that there had not been a large scale drug trafficking incident involving DPRK state entities since 2004, and that something on this scale may be due to corrupt security agents and government officials who have allowed transnational drug smuggling to slide under the radar. So, should busts like this be happening more often? What can we do about drug traffickers world wide? Should every nation strengthen their trade policies/their security agents who may be responsible for letting drugs pass our borders? While these may be questions that are challenging to answer, I believe they deserve some consideration so that, in the future, the entire world might be safer.

Megatons to Megawatts

"Congratulations on the last shipment! Be safe!" was the message written by the Assistant Secretary of the State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, on the side of a cylinder containing the uranium of Soviet atomic bombs. This past Thursday the final shipment of nuclear reactor fuel left Russia on its way towards the United States thus bringing an end to post-Cold War program that has been supplying energy for the American nuclear power industry for twenty years. The program dubbed Megatons to Megawatts has been creating more electricity in the United States than any other alternative source, providing about ten percent of the overall power. Due to it the Uranium being "weapons grade" its is expected that this shipment should be keeping the lights on in the US until around 2020. Another strategic arms reduction treaty was signed between the two world powers in 2010 that will reduce each respective surplus by 450 warheads. A quote from Bruce Blair, the founder of the disarmament program Global Zero stated, "This program represented the pinnacle of U.S.-Russian nuclear Security cooperation, and its end leaves a huge vacuum that needs to be filled by a new innovative program of cooperation that puts another nail in the coffin of the Cold War."

Luckily for the world it seems that the nuclear arms race of the 1950's is finally creating more than just fear. We read about how the presence of nuclear weapons being used as a threat of complete annihilation does not create an ability to strong-arm, providing that the existential build up of weapons was rather useless. So I now present this question, can we look back on the nuclear arms race in a positive light due to the alternative energy that it is contributing as well as the implication that research from this contribution could further lead to a renewable energy supply that would detract dependence on foreign oil, thus lessening international strain/conflict caused by the economic prowess of the oil industry? Would this even be a plausible scenario to suppress conflict between states of Western ideology with the Middle East?

Caught in the Crossfire

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to burn bridges between his country and the United States.  To back track a bit, in March, Israel was pushed by President Obama to apologize for the 2010 take over of a Turkish convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza which resulted in the death of nine Turks.  Regardless of this apology, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan disclosed to Iran the identities of ten Iranians that were working for Israel.  This compromise of Israeli intelligence is described in a Washington Post article as "an effort to slap the Israelis."  To make matters worse, Mr. Erdogan continues to bash the Israelis, further diminishing hope of a reconciliation between the two states.  Although President Obama's attempt to adjudicate this relationship resulted in an apology for the Gaza flotilla incident, his efforts appear to mean nothing to Prime Minister Erdogan.  By outing these Israeli spies, Mr. Erdogan has proved his lack of credibility with respect to reconciliation.

As if Turkish relations with Israel weren't enough to anger the United States, the Economist reports that Erdogan made an announcement in September that Turkey is "planning to co-produce a missile-defense system with a Chinese company that is under American sanctions for its dealings with Syria, North Korea, and Iran."  This equipment, according to the Chinese, is intended to protect Turkey from Syrian or Iranian missiles however is "not compatible with those of other NATO members."  According to BBC News, in a trip Erdogan took to China, he claimed that the crossfire from Syria which has injured and killed Turks is "a clear violation" of Turkey's borders and that he would respond appropriately.  Now it's being speculated that Erdogan is accepting this deal in an attempt to "force the Europeans and the Americans to offer better terms" in an attempt to protect his citizens.  This situation would work well towards the argument that US sanctions are ineffective.  It's too easy for sanctioned countries to find alternative markets and too difficult for countries imposing sanctions to isolate another country's economy.  Sanctions on the Chinese in this situation are not preventing them from finding an alternative market in the Turks who are seeking to protect their borders in a way that's effective and affordable.  In fact, if these "better terms" are eventually offered, this particular US sanction will appear to have backfired.  By trying to deter the Chinese from producing this missile-defense system, the US has pushed them towards another market seeking a cheaper deal than what the US has to offer.  Mr. Erdogan, however may not have had to go through the trouble of negotiations with the Chinese if he had proceeded with reconciling his country's relationship with Israel in order to please the United States.  Rather by compromising the identities of the Iranians, he is further proving his unwillingness to cooperate with Israel. As a result, the United States is left with little incentive to help the Turks with their defense technology. This, in turn, is what forces the Turks to negotiate with the Chinese to obtain protection from Syrian missiles. However, because of the sanctions imposed on the Chinese, the Turks may have discovered a new incentive for the United States to offer an alternative.  

The Futility of Nuclear Compellence

The recent negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran have demonstrated the overall ineffectuality of nuclear weapons concerning matters of compellence. In, “Crisis Bargaining and Nuclear Blackmail”, Sechser and Fuhrmann discovered that the presence of nuclear superiority and an ability to decimate an enemy through nuclear war does not convey the ability to coerce. We are seeing this finding play out in the negotiations with Iran. Despite the overwhelming nuclear capabilities of the P5+1, Iran apparently does not fear any nuclear attack on their soil. Rather, we are seeing the Iranians approach the negotiating table due to the vast sanctions imposed as an act of compellence.

Although the causes of nuclear non-use are unclear, whether a nuclear taboo truly exists or if non-use is determined by utility, economic sanctions are influencing international relations where nuclear weapons have failed. In fact, Iran’s agreement to negotiations appears to be a direct result of a mandate by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to relieve the sanctions (Negotiating With Iran). The fact that economic sanctions have succeeded where the immense power of nuclear weapons have failed is not lost on the P5+1 or Iran. If nuclear compellence truly worked, it is likely we would have seen it employed by the United States in the form of coercive military action or threats. Rather than try to stave off a military attack, it seems that Iran has approached the table in order to relieve these effective sanctions.

Furthermore, if not for a defection by France, it appears that the negotiations would have led to a significant deal between the P5+1 and Iran. This deal would have constrained Iran's ability to continue producing weapons-grade nuclear power in exchange for relief of some sanctions damaging the Iranian economy (Not There Yet). Perhaps at this stage of history concerning nuclear-influenced bargaining it should be surprising that these immensely powerful weapons are proving ineffective in determining the course of negotiations. Iran doesn't seem to fear a US nuclear attack, which would be a coercive tool to halt the Iranian nuclear program.

If the target goal of these negotiations is a reduction of Iranian nuclear activities in order to prevent military action, than Israel seems to be party most interested in making sure this route isn't pursued (Netanyahu Increases Pressure). Israel seems content relying on policy that is militarily-based and discredits the effectiveness of economic sanctions. They would prefer to pursue compellence based on military threats or actions. However, through past actions, we can see that this line of reason isn't the most effective form of compellence. Economic sanctions, not military threats, have pushed Iran to the negotiating table. To retreat to a policy of veiled military aggression would seemingly be a misstep. Unless the United States was prepared to pursue military action not supported by the international community (which they don't appear to be), then negotiations with Iran must continue.

The Myth of Perfect Intelligence

There are some misconceptions about intelligence that have been pervasive throughout both our classroom discussions and media coverage of intelligence related issues.  One of many issues is the myth of perfect intelligence.  Keep in mind, much of this is observational after years in the Intelligence Community and some is opinion built out of those observations.

The myth of perfect intelligence has four significant elements: cooperation, primacy, completeness, and clarity; all of these elements can be illustrated as a puzzle.  The common delusion about intelligence is the IC comes together, everyone bringing their pieces of a single 150 piece puzzle and completing the puzzle which, like the picture on the box, is a crystal-clear picture of a halted terror attack.

So, let’s break down the fallacies one at a time.

One of the major findings of the 9-11 Commission was the IC was too fractured to effectively identify threats before it was too late; this was the motivating factor for creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (currently held by James Clapper).  Many strides forward on this issue have been taken, but there are still problems with sharing and getting along.  Classification guidelines are designed to prevent any one person from knowing too much, which often makes intelligence sharing very difficult.  These guidelines, while prohibitive, exist to protect the US from grave harm.  Another significant (and in my opinion dangerous) problem is rice bowling; intelligence is, like most things, owned by someone, whether that someone be a department within a government agency vying for more money, or an intelligence contractor vying for bonuses.  Rice bowling is the hesitancy of these organizations and individuals that control and own intelligence to share because they are concerned less with the mission and more with the bottom line.

The US and her allies are also under attack from many different directions.  Terrorists, Communists, Anarchists, Fundamentalists, Socialists (except for you, Europe *wink*), and other –ists and –isms all have stake in bringing us to our knees, or at the very least, down a peg or two.  Every individual with beef against the US that also has the means to be a threat presents another puzzle that needs to be put together in order to prevent that threat.  There are tens of thousands of requirements levied on the IC to provide hundreds of millions of pieces of data to defend against every threat, and the IC must pay attention to every threat.  The IC can’t dedicate every resource available to one problem.

Completeness and clarity often present together.  Often, decisions need to be made by commanders and policy makers with a deadline in mind and it is not always possible to have complete information before that deadline arrives.  If all information were available about one topic there is no guarantee the result of that information would be worthwhile.  Rarely is there a Jack Bauer out there pulling the key piece of information out of a broken terrorist at the last minute; more often than not, information comes across like “there may be an attack someplace in the US sometime in the next little while.”

I think the puzzle metaphor is apt, but the details of the story are idealized.  More accurately, the Intelligence Community reluctantly acknowledges each other but refuses to share puzzle pieces because of fundamentalist adherence to classification guidelines and rice bowling.  Each organization has a only few pieces each of 30,000 different puzzles, none of which will be completed until well after a decision must be made about that puzzle; even if the IC manages to put that puzzle together enough to develop a reasonable picture, that picture on the box is a polar bear in the Arctic during a blizzard.

Follow-up on nuclear weapons

This time-lapsed map by Isao Hashimoto shows every nuclear explosion in the world:

I Just Want to Pass Something Along

This isn't my second blog post, but I wanted to pass some information along to you all in case you might feel the same/are interested in something to kill time or educate yourself with. Not too sure if you all are interested in historical events, but I'm trying to educate myself more on things pertaining to Africa/African history just to be able to provide more context to my political science education. I'm ashamed to say that I really have not had a solid education/interest in African politics, but it'll probably be important at various points in my life...maybe yours. 

Netflix has a few options on fiction and non-fiction depictions of African history:

• Cry, The Beloved Country (Likewise a book, the remake of a 50's movie that has James Earl Jones cast in it). Based off the book the movie follows two mens lives right before the apartheid political system in Africa went into effect.

• The Greatest Silence Documents the horrors and violence towards women through the war in the Congo.

(Careful, rape and assault are mentioned in The Greatest Silence if you're sensitive to those subjects)

I don't think this is on Netflix but still a good documentary:

• God Grew Tired of Us (2006? 07?) depicts three of the "Lost Boys" of Sudan...and their transition from child soldiers of Africa to being integrated in America from a refugee background.

Don't just look for African based flicks though! There's great stuff on the Middle East (Isreal, Lebanon, India) as well as South American countries too that might provide some enlightenment or insight.

-Ray

"Obama to Congress: Give Iran sanctions a chance"

There are many aspects of international relations at work in this article on CNN. One of the most relevant to our class is bargaining. The US and international community have long tried to impose sanction on Iran to impede their ability to enrich uranium. There are a few perspectives on whether these sanctions have worked with many politicians calling for more sanctions on Iran. The Obama administration has taken some criticism for the negotiations with Iran but also received praised for the unprecedented accomplishment. This makes the deals even more significant since there has been no contact with Iran for decades. Many fear the negations could be completely compromised if the US imposes more sanctions or upsets Iran.

Drones:Two Very Different Wars

When one thinks of drones the idea of a robot being operated 7,000 miles away from a shipping crate in Nevada, killing blurry dots on a small screen comes to mind. The media loves to focus reports of drone strikes, however oft ignored are the 99% percent of drone operations carried out with the sole purpose of either ISR, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, or CAS, Close Air Support. Currently two U.S. governmental agencies operate Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) outside of the United States, the CIA and the various branches of the Armed Services, with the USAF operating the most RPAs.

The CIA conducts most of its missions clandestinely from secret bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and engages targets where there is little to no U.S. military presence, relying on information gathered from a host of sources on the whereabouts of specific high level targets. With a fleet of around 80 drones the CIA has enough airpower to stalk 20 targets persistently, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for months on end.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US CIA drone strikes:

Pakistan 2004–2013 CIA Drone Strikes
 Total strikes: 378
Obama strikes: 326
Total killed: 2,526-3,624

Yemen 2002–2013 US Covert Action 
Confirmed drone strikes: 55-65
Total killed: 269-389
Civilians killed: 21-56
Somalia 2007–2013 US Covert Action
Drone strikes: 4-10
Total killed: 9-30
Civilians killed: 0-15

The CIA has only conducted around 450 drone strikes in the past decade, however that number seems much higher given the disproportionately large amount of coverage the specific sorties receive.

The Air Force on the other hand operates a much larger fleet of RPAs; 268 MQ-1 Predators and around 70 larger ,more powerful MQ-9 Reapers, awaiting delivery of 260 more for a total of 329. The Air Force refers to its RPA fleet in terms of combat air patrols, or CAPs. Each patrol is made up of three to four RPAs, so that one of the drones can always be flying over a target while the others are being repaired, refueled, or in transit. The Air Force currently operates 62 patrols 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The millions of hours of live video feed are in high demand of component commanders around the world, and each flight is watched by dozens of intelligence personnel.

The Air Force uses their RPAs quite differently from the CIA. USAF RPAs are used primarily for ISR and CAS of U.S. Military Forces on the ground. USAF RPAs have flown more than 2,000,000 hours in support of troops on the ground. These aircraft work closely with troops on the ground and provide an "eye in the sky", warning troops on the ground of approaching enemy troops, or even of IEDs that can be seen with the advanced optics and senors on the aircraft. RPAs even have the ability of using an IR "spotlight" which can bathe a given area in IR light illuminating the battlefield for US troops equipped with night vision, as if it were in the middle of the day.  Embedded with each each Army or Marine Corps unit on the ground is an Air Force Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) consisting of an Air Liaison Officer (ALO), and a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) who speak with the RPA operators and direct munitions via guided IR lasers. Rarely does an RPA crew engage a target that is not clearly identified and directed by a TACP team on the ground, allowing for unparalleled munitions accuracy. The USAF conducts thousands of sorties every year only releasing munitions in the most dire of situations, when troops on the ground are in harm's way and have requested close air support.

Drones are a powerful tool in modern combat. They range from the size of insects, to aircraft with a 100 foot wingspan that can loiter above a target for days, waiting for the right opportunity to unleash 50,000 pounds of armament. We are only just beginning to fully understand the plethora of applications for RPAs, from combat,surveillance, search and rescue, mapping, delivering food, to studying the atmosphere, and must not be rash in writing off their use simply as remote control death machines.            

Bargaining with Iran

For years now the US has been dedicating a lot of time and effort to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  One of the nations standing in opposed to this effort is Iran who is currently seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities.  Although the Iran's government claims that the goal of this expansion is to create a ready source of energy for the country, Israel, the US, and many of our allies are not convinced.  The threat to Israel and stability in the Middle East from Iran attaining nuclear weapons is seen as too great for our governments to accept.  Last week, a plan to curtail the growth of Iran's nuclear program was shot down at the last minute when France voted against easing sanctions against the nation (article).  This move was denounced by Joel Mathis the RedBlueAmerica columnist, saying instead that the West can not expect to change Iran's course toward nuclear weapons without giving some incentives to do so. 

"... it's somewhat befuddling why conservatives would be so opposed to a slight easing of sanctions in order to produce a temporary halt in Iran's nuclear program. Carrots are supposed to be in the diplomatic toolbox; if the idea is to pull the country away from nukes and setting it on a new course, Iran will need the U.S. and its allies to produce some carrots before the process is over." - Newsday

President Obama stated yesterday that America does not want to see weapons in the hands of Iran.  However, he is in favor of continuing to try and allow a temporary lift of non core sanctions to see if Iranian leadership is actually serious about working to dismantle its programs (article).  This contradicts the stance of hardliners in the West, but it does present an opportunity for trying a more two way method of negotiation instead of pure coercion as tried before. 

Lastly, we should look at exactly how close Iran is to attaining the ability to build a nuclear weapon.  Reuters reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has drastically slowed expansion of its nuclear programs since Hassan Rouhani became president and has significantly less uranium than is needed to create a bomb.  Additionally in an interview on PBS News Hour of David Albright, a physicist, founder, and president of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security, spoke on his opinions of Iran's plans for nuclear capability. 

"The likelihood if Iran  was going to break out, if it decided to do that it would be seeking , at least in my view, probably just a crude nuclear explosive." - Albright

He goes on to say that a weapon like this would be impractical for a major attack and would probably not be fit for use in a missile delivery system.  It would be used simply for Iran to be able to say that they have nuclear capability and as a bargaining chip to use to further decrease or lift sanctions against the country.  While this is important, I would also agree with Albright when he later states that the real question is whether or not Iran will be able to get to this point without sparking a conventional war with Israel and consequently the US. 

Drone Warfare vs. Nuclear Warfare

A pretty heated topic for debate right now is the morality of the use of Drones in warfare.  On one side of the debate, drones provide a way to engage in military combat without having to endanger the lives of soldiers.  The other side to this argument proposes the issue:

"To say that we can target individuals without incurring troop causalities does not imply that we ought to" (NYTimes).

This side of the debate argues that drone warfare is not always necessary because it proposes certain moral issues.  For example, in an article from the New York Times, "it's difficult to blame a person you cannot see, and even harder to bring them to justice".  But this post is not about the morality of drone warfare, it is just the lead in to what poses a bigger threat, nuclear or drone warfare?

Lets start with the similarities between these two methods of warfare.  Drones, like nuclear weapons, are difficult to posses for countries that do not have the proper capabilities.  The building of armed drones requires many expensive materials and time, just as nuclear weapons do, making it near impossible for less developed and more limited countries to posses such a weapon.  So as talked about in class, countries that can posses drones, create a deterrence factor similar to nuclear deterrence, that repel less developed countries from attacking them.  The devastation factor is another similarity between these two weapons.  The problem with a nuclear bomb, is the massive lethal radius that is released with initial explosion.  This explosion destroys not only the target, but any civilians or structures that stand within in a 50 mile radius.  Drones also have been seen to have similar devastating effects on civilian populations.  In one article by Shawn Helton on drone warfare, he states

"There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one suspected terrorist)." 

As you can see, both nuclear and drone warfare create devastating a affect on civilian causalities.

The differences that exist between these weapons can be narrowed down to the capabilities.  When a state posses a nuclear weapon, it becomes capable to use that weapon as a threat to provoke fear.  But when a state posses a drone, it gives the state the capability to commit terrorist actions without a clear trail left behind of who exactly was in control of the drone.  With the capability of creating an attack on another state, without a clear definition of who was behind the attack, the attack itself becomes the threat.  This in turn can be seen as a reason why drone attacks are more dangerous than nuclear attacks.  The target for the attack is left with no one to blame, and no one to retaliate against, leaving it vulnerable for attack again.

So with the rise in technology and the rise of a new era of warfare, I ask the question, should drones be considered as big of a threat as nuclear weapons, or do they propose an even bigger threat?

Two articles in the Economist on civil wars

This week's Economist features two articles on civil wars that reflect on our discussion of types of civil wars, measuring civil wars, and so on.

• How to stop the fighting, sometimes
• What makes it a war?

International Institutions Helping?

On Monday, the highest court of the UN, The International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled that a one kilometer patch around the ancient temple of Preah Vihear and the temple itself are considered part of Cambodia.  This story comes to the international spotlight because of the history of this territory between Thailand and Cambodia.  In 1962 the ICJ decided that the territory was part of Cambodia, however Thailand said that the 4.6km area around the temple was never demarcated and the decision was done with a map that was from a time when France occupied Cambodia.  This map gives the territory to Cambodia when it actually should not.  Thailand and Cambodia have now been in a 51yr dispute over this territory and it has been years of small skirmishes.  Many people would not understand the reason for international spotlight with this issue but in 2008 Cambodia applied to have the temple to be recognized as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO).  When the UN accepted Cambodia's application it turned this 51yr old debacle to a international decision. A decision needed to be made when tensions spiked in 2011.  Cambodia went back to the ICJ after several skirmishes between their army and Thai forces, which left 20 people dead and displaced thousands of people.  The skirmishes resulted in deaths and put people out of their homes and something needed to be done before things got worse.  the decision by the ICJ gave Cambodia the temple and a small area around it, but it also gave the 4.6km area around the temple to Thailand.  This decision actually gave both countries exactly what they wanted and it looks to be a positive resolution for both sides.

In class we have talked a lot about the role of international institutions and if they actually work in the international community.  Furthermore, many of our discussions or debates have touched upon whether or not international institutions make the world peaceful, or if they are partial to the bigger more powerful countries in the world.  I think these articles and this story show reasons to why we can see the international institutions as positive actors in international relations.  Although a lot of international news about the UN and the ICJ have been revolving around the US and Iran about Iran's nuclear programs, I think the ability to have an international court like the ICJ is a positive aspect that can take care of a territorial dispute like the aforementioned one.  This territorial dispute between Thailand Cambodia is a lot less salient and historical than the one between Israel and Palestine, but I think it is a good indicator of what type of international actors will be needed to someday hopefully solve the dispute over the West Bank.  Do you think this example shows that international institutions are effective and important, or do you think that this example is a minuscule and not determinate at all of the ability of international institutions?

Economist

CNN

AlJazeera

Iran’s Nuclear Bargaining Chip and the International Response

Nuclear weapons can be used for deterrence, compellence, defense, or coercion by major powers to achieve their interests in the international arena. The United States and other members of the United Nations use various treaties, such as the NPT (UN.org), military force, or economic sanctions, in the case of North Korea, to deter others from pursuing nuclear weapons. But what happens when an emerging power, Iran, is asked to freeze their nuclear programs? Will threat of force or sanctions deter an actor that is unhappy with the status quo from developing a nuclear weapon while there are others in the region with the capability to destroy the other with one weapon? I believe the answer is no. However, I do not believe sanctions or a military strike is necessary either. Negotiation is the best course of action to pursue.

Over the weekend, the talks in Geneva, between Iran and the other world powers, are at a stalemate. Even though both sides have not reached an agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, it does not mean they never will. Secretary of State John Kerry believes, “There’s no question in my mind that we are closer now, as we leave Geneva, than we were when we came, and that with good work and good faith over the course of the next weeks, we can in fact secure our goal.” (NYTimes) Diplomacy takes time.

The best way to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is through an agreement that limits uranium enrichment and their plutonium program that allows for international monitoring. Iran has already agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, access to some of the nuclear facilities. (NYTimes) Perhaps this is just a small step, but it is in the right direction.

What Nuclear Weapons in Iran Would Mean For Their Ability to Deter

According to an article from BBC, a deal, calling for more transparency in Iran's nuclear program, was almost made. The specifics of the deal, outlined by the P5+1 in Geneva last week, have not been made public at this point. According to the BBC article, John Kerry claims it was Iran that failed to finalize the deal at this point in time. An article from The Guardian, claims that in response to Benjamin Netanyahu's informal request for the deal to be blocked, it was the French that had the deciding vote in the deal not being passed. This disconnect is most likely a product of perception. The last important current event that I would like to point to, from Al Jazeera, is that that the UN settled on a deal with Iran for more transparency in their nuclear program. This deal would include the UN permission to inspect the heavy water reactor in Arak.

So, to branch from the above summary, I would like to talk to what it would mean on an international scale if Iran were to harness the technology to manufacture a nuclear weapons.

As of right now there are only Five states with Nuclear Weapons. Those states all hold significant power specifically with respect to deterrence. As discussed in lecture today, deterrence is the ability for one state to stop another state from doing something. The important difference here is between deterrence and nuclear deterrence. Since nuclear weapons have been added to the arsenal of some nations, it makes going to war with those nations far more costly. Costly because of the potential offensive threat that they pose. So, we can make the argument that, in some sense, nuclear deterrence is much stronger that deterrence, especially when such few countries have that advantage. It follows, if Iran were have nuclear weapons, then their ability to deter attacks and threats would be significantly heightened.

Future of Syrian Civil War

In the last two and a half years the civil war in Syria has been watched and condemned by the international community, yet as the situation continues to worsen, it seems the world still does not know what to do. According to the article, The Syrian Civil War: Still No Sign of a Compromise, in the Economist, "the more Actors who get involved in Syria, the more difficult it becomes to create solutions" (Economist). The article also explains, "The fact is that hardliners, both inside Bashar Assad’s regime and within the motley ranks of the rebels, and among foreign sponsors backing both sides, remain more determined not to budge than the moderate voices that the talks were meant to empower" (Economist).

However, it does not seem surprising that this is what is happening in Syria. Bashar Assad stands to lose his reign over Syria, which has been under his family's power since the early 1970's (CNN). The Syrian National Coalition refuses to negotiate with Assad and are hard pressed when it comes to peace talks, possibly because much of the Syrian population disagrees with the Coalition's power (Economist). International actors such as the United States and Saudi Arabia (among many others) have also come to have serious interests in the Civil War.

According to prospect theory, if the prize of war is greater than cost of war, we should expect to see conflict. In this case, the prize of war for Assad, the rebels, and the civilians is immeasurable. When international actors initially enter the scene, the scenario may spins out of control. As an example, Barack Obama promised retaliation against Assad's regime for chemical weapons use, yet failed to follow through. This made Assad look more powerful and also angered Actors such as Saudi Arabia (Economist). Countless issues such as these will come out of the Syrian Civil War, and peace talks have not progressed much.

Is there any way to deter Assad's regime from continuing it's brutal crackdown? Because multilateral sanctions are difficult to coordinate and enact, what type of sanctions might work in Syria? Is the recent joint effort to chemically disarm Syria between Russia and the US a good sign?

Economist

CNN

Reuters

Do Smart Sanctions Work?

Since we were discussing sanctions this past week I wanted to look at smart sanctions more closely because I think that they are becoming increasingly more of a tool that the US and other countries are turning to in the international arena. I think that smart sanctions can definitely have some great success that we would not be able to achieve otherwise. This article in Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy) really points out how smart sanctions can be successful. In US has started a large coalition of countries that are sanctioning or greatly cutting their ties to Iranian oil in order to stop their nuclear proliferation plan. The Iranian economy has been greatly hurt by this by reducing oil exports by 40%, and the value of the Iranian dollar has dropped dramatically. The high amount of pressure that these sanctions have put on the regime could explain why their new president has been reaching out more to the western nations than the previous president, and has made more of an effort to show Iran's interest in stopping any nuclear weapons program. The Iranian example shows how targeting something specific into a country, in this case oil, can put just enough pressure on a country that it will stop the behavior. I think that smart sanctions can be a tool that can work well in order to avoid more drastic action such as war.

While smart sanctions might work in some instances, they come at a high cost in some instances. A problem with smart sanctions is that they can have large humanitarian costs. In a policy brief by the Brookings Institute (Brookings Institute) it addresses in several places that the probability for humanitarian costs is high. And empirically we have seen this happen in the past. In the case of Iraq, the US orchestrated sanctions against goods such as chlorine in order to hinder Iraq's ability to build weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately for the US, chlorine is also used to clean water. The civilian casualties from the Iraq sanction, granted not merely from the sanction on chlorine, are extremely high. Although the numbers cannot be truly known, the highest estimates are in the hundreds of thousands (Time). So while smart sanctions might be politically successful, it could lead to major affects on the civilian populations of the country.

Overall, I think that smart sanctions are a hard subject to make a definitive opinion on. On one hand you have tool that allows the government to avoid war and avoid potential thousands of deaths; but on the other hand this same tool could potentially kill thousands of innocent civilians. I don't think the calculus there is necessary easy to make. But I thought it would be an interesting discussion to have.

Drones: A New Frontier for the Military

Previous to the 9/11 attacks, the US military only utilized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or drones as they are commonly known, for surveillance and data collection purposes, classifying targeted assassinations as "extrajudicial killings." Since the terrorist attacks, however, the US has been turning away from large-scale military interventions and has instead utilized drones to target and assassinate recognized terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. The appeal of drones is clear: as many militants hide in remote regions of these countries, it is much more convenient and effective to use a drone to follow and attack suspected insurgents than send a traditional army convoy for the same mission.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10713898

According to Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation, the Bush Administration initiated the first drone program, allying with the Pakistani intelligence service to eradicate terrorists in the region. A study conducted by the New America Foundation has found that during his first nine and a half months in office, the Obama administration has authorized as many C.I.A. aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush did in his final three years in office (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/drone_war_13672). As the military increases it's employment of drones, it is important to ask what the potential consequences of such a new form of warfare could be. On November 1st the New York Times reported that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed by American drones. Although the news is portrayed as a tactical success for the program, there are many concerns surrounding the use of drones. First of all, they have been blamed for the deaths of innocent civilians and characterized as "indiscriminate killers". Furthermore, there are questions of authorization and definition- who can legally be targeted under this program? And isn't the US required to gain the permission of a foreign government to conduct operations within their borders in adherence to the law of state sovereignty?

There is no doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy and the the world will observe a huge increase in the use of drones for covert as well as public operations. It remains to be seen how drone warfare will be received by the international community and the development of the legality debate surrounding drones as well.

 

U.S. Willing To Ease Iran Sanctions

As discussed in class, sanctions against a state/regime can be a weak signal and indirectly target the civilian population.  In the case of Iran, we can see that sanctions are used to influence and change domestic policy to deter human rights violations.  By engaging in the economic statecraft we attempt to create an economic hold on other countries where limitations are created to fight against political regimes or inappropriate behavior.  By using sanctions and embargos it’s less costly than going to war, but becomes costly for the target or opponent.  The real question or concern is whether it actually costs the political opponent, or are the civilians of a corrupt country the ones who actually suffer the most?  Currently there are deliberations discussing whether the U.S will provide limited relief from economic sanctions if Iran follows through with “freezing” their nuclear program.

            

“The official said that the suspension of Iran’s nuclear efforts, perhaps for six months, would give negotiators time to purse a comprehensive and far more challenging agreement.” This is a crucial time for Iran to take action and negotiate with the US.  This provides Iran with the opportunity to avoid on-going strenuous economic sanctions, the possible relief to its citizens, and decreasing the tensions of other countries that fear Iran’s nuclear program.  Even though the steps that will be taken to negotiate with Iran about halting their nuclear program are not clear, the one thing that is clear and is encouraging is that newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is pledging to resolve the nuclear dispute and lift sanctions by engaging with world powers.

An examples we can look at is the Non-Proliferation Treaty which nuclear weapon states such has U.S, Russia, Britain, France, and China have all signed agreeing to negotiate in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament.  The latest round of talks in Geneva, bring Iranian officials and representatives of the permanent five members of the UN plus Germany together which may provide a great opportunity to discuss nuclear programs not only in Iran but elsewhere.  We have to follow through with treaties and obligations we have signed such at the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It would be wise and a safer for Iran to take the opportunity to be relieved of sanctions from the US, while also opening the door for further discussion of nuclear disarmament.

             

The Future for Iran

On the 3rd of August 2005, Iran elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as their 6th president in support of the Khomeini-forged Iran post the1979 revolution. Mahmoud rallied the population with false pretenses of hate and misguided ideology through a diversionary “religious war” to further isolate Iran from any form of westernization. Clouded with controversy and erratic behavior he created a stage for the whole world to see. He saw the enemy as; Sunni Muslims, Israel and the United States of America and through forms torture and constant human rights breaches was able to resurface these feelings throughout his population.

Eight years pass and a new leader is elected, Hassan Rouhani is left to pick up the pieces that Mahmoud left. And to be honest its not a difficult job replacing a man who is quoted saying this about Hugo Chavez “I am sure that his innocent spirit has ascended to the heavens and will one day return to us with Jesus Christ and will once again help humankind establish peace, justice and kindness" Yes, he does come with a new agenda, something the world is not used to; an anti-isolationist Iran and . Negotiations concerning their rapid nuclear enrichment programs have for the first time surfaced to the international arena and the whole world waits for what is to come from Iran.

Sure, this sounds good on paper but coming from a country that still holds the west accountable for The Crusades makes it hard for one to truly believe that a thirty year span is enough for them to make amends with what happened in foreign intervention leading up to the Iranian Revolution. It is unquestionably a step in the right direction, but for whom? If the vast majority is still stuck in this ideology left behind by Khomeini and resurfaced by Ahmadinejad what should the world really expect from Iran? If mere attempts to discuss what the future holds for Iran produce the largest anti-America protest in years what hope is there really for moving forward? If the vast majority still want an isolated country then what hope is there for those few who really want to end a 1000-year-old grudge.

Follow Up on Recent Developments in Senkaku Islands Dispute

A little over a month ago I blogged about tensions between China and Japan centered around the territorial dispute of uninhabited islands. Since then there have been some interesting developments in the situation. I believe it will be interesting to look at the predictions I made in my first blog and see how they are holding up to the actual events. Here is the original blog along with some predictions I made concerning the future of the dispute.

I personally believe that the United States' involvement in the Asia Pacific and, specifically, in Japan may be enough to deter China from escalating the dispute. Although China is not happy about the U.S. support of Japan, I doubt China wants to spark an armed conflict that may potentially call for U.S. intervention. I also believe the U.S. has more incentive to support Japan due to its security alliance.

I see Abe holding firm on Japan's territorial claim of the Senkaku islands.

China is still consistently making itself present in the disputed area. In response to these continued threats, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a defense plan that will allow Japanese air forces to shoot down Chinese unmanned aircraft in Japanese air space. China's Defense Ministry responded saying that shooting down any of China's aircraft will constitute provocation or an act of war.

While the dispute continues to rage on, Japan took to YouTube to establish its rightful ownership of the Senkaku islands. This, unsurprisingly, brought more criticism from China.

Abe is yet to stand down on his statement of Japanese ownership of the Senkaku islands. Recently in a Wall Street Journal, the Prime Minister claimed that Japan will take a more assertive role in Asia to counter Chinese power.

With the non-violent conflict continuing to escalate, expectations of armed combat are increasing. One thing is for sure, whatever the outcome is there will undoubtedly be a change in the balance of power. Whether China or Japan gives in or they both resort to conflict and a winner emerges the power structure in the Asia Pacific will still be affected.

Coming back to my original predictions about the situation, I'm starting to believe that maybe the potential involvement of the U.S. is of no concern to China. Or maybe China is convinced that the U.S. will not intervene. Even with the U.S. expressing their support of Japanese ownership of the islands, China still continues to escalate the dispute. I am also becoming less convinced that the U.S. will jump into the conflict should it become violent. Recent statements from the U.S. seem to try to border on neutrality while also giving a little support to Japan. There also seems to be some hesitation when considering whether to go to war alongside Japan should China attack. My prediction of Abe's resolve is still reasonable. This is especially seen in his unwavering responses to further Chinese threats.

It's tough to guess what will happen, but armed conflict looks like a much more likely outcome than it did a month ago.  How do you think the situation has changed and how do you think the conflict will be played out now?

Big Fight Over A Small Area

The article I found was in the economist and it is about South Sudan and the rest of Sudan fighting over  a border that they both think is rightfully theres.  Two years ago Sudan's southerners voted to have a country of their own and the border of the new Sudan versus the old Sudan has always been blurry.  Furthermore, Acuil Akol is a leader who comes from Abyei and Abyei is a territory whose people are mostly Ngok-Dinka (a branch of Sudan's largest tribe) and this small territory was supposed to take a vote whether they wanted to join the South in their quest for independance or stick with original Sudan and contribute to the oppression.  But, conspiracies over who would vote exactly is holding up the small country form making their decision.  This decision could ultimately put Sudan in a position where civil war is inevitable again, as we talked about in class.

With that being said, Acuil Akol is now taking efforts into his own hands and leading efforts to stage an unofficial vote which is making the rest of Sudan very uncomfortable.  Most of the people within this small territory are cattle farmers and crop growers and would prefer their agricultural contributions to stay with the North so therefore they are not taking part in the vote and it will have no legal force meaning its outcome will not be recognized by the government.  Because most of the people are not able to vote this could reignite fighting between  north and south Sudan who have had a history of civil wars.  The International Crisis Group says that the outcome of whether this territory becomes apart of North Sudan versus South Sudan could spark the ultimate outbreak of violence, "what happens in Abyei is likely to determine whether Sudan consolidates the peace of returns to war.  Abyei would cause such an uproar with the opposing territory because despite claims that is is chalked with oil, the agricultural products are quite profound and this small territory would be considered very valuable for the people of the country it will be associated with.  North Sudan is trying to bribe Abyei to be apart of their country by the President promising that he will never cede on their pastures and the president is ignoring all foreign peacemakers advice and is doing everything he can to convince this territory to be apart of his country.

The debate in class we have been talking about is whether or not international institutions help with interventions or make them worse.  And in this case, whenever the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands tried to impose a binding decision on the North so a solution would be made more quickly, the North has challenged this imposition and sent its army and allied militias to drive out thousands of the Ngok-Dinkas of their North State in almost a reverse tactic that if they do not join, then their indigenous people can no longer live there.  But, with that being said, many professionals say that Sudan is NOT willing to make past mistakes and that although help from outside influences is not welcome, they truly feel like they have it covered and the vote should end up in a peaceful outcome rather than a violent one.  Do you guys believe this to be true or should institutions intervene before Sudan has the opportunity to start another civil war?  Although right now the intervention is causing more violence, that does not necessarily mean that at the end of the vote the violence will continue.  I personally do not believe that Sudan will risk sanctions and other consequences that will come if another civil war breaks out but I am curious as to what international institution activists think of this big dispute over a small territory.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588431-border-dispute-dangerous-ever-big-fight-over-small-place