A Look at the International Campaign to Ban Landmines

Walk with me as I reflect on the International Campaign to Ban Landmines through the Yeshua Moser-Puansuwan's article:

"Outside the Treaty Not the Norm: Nonstate Armed Groups and the Landmine Ban"

But first, let's get a better understanding! 

“Landmine Ban”: What is it? 

The Landmine Ban discussed in Puangsuwan’s article refers to the “International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).” The Ban formed in 1997 is a coalition of non-government organizations working together to rid the world of personnel mines and cluster munitions. What started as a group of six like-minded NGOs: Human Rights Watch, Medico International, handicap International, Physicians for Human Rights, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and the Mines Advisory Group, has expanded to include over 100 states. The Ban has unified parties to achieve the common goal of ridding the world free of anti-personnel landmass, where landmine survivors can lead fulfilling lives. A commitment to the Treaty is a commitment to never use, nor "develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer" landmines; destroy mines within their stockpile within 4 years and clear mined areas within 10 years within their territory. Signees agree to conduct mine risk education and ensure mine survivors receive assistance. Likewise, states commit to offer assistance to other States Parties and adopt national implementation measures. The Ottawa Process, where cohesive and strategic partnerships between governments, international organizations and civil society binned together, led to the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty. Therefore, the Ottawa Treaty is an international agreement, taking the first necessary steps in steering the world of landmines. However, with over 100 states on board, I, like Puansuwan begin to think outside the realm. What about non-state actors? What are the motives that drive state actors to abide by the landmine Ban Treaty as opposed to non-state actors? Also, what kind of impact does this treaty have on current global political-military issues? 

Unpacking the Landmine Ban Treaty...

With anti-personnel landmines still wrecking havoc since their implementation during WWII, the Mine Ban Treaty holds great relevance in current events. Civilians are the primary casualties of anti-personnel landmines, posing a need for the adaptation of Landmine Bans around the world. Citizens of Zimbabwe are still haunted by the minefield areas mirroring a war zone thirty-three years after the end of Zimbabwe’s liberation war against the Rhodesian colonial regime from 1966 to 1979. Landmines were planted along the boarders to prevent the mobilization of liberation war fighters. Although gun fire has seized in the "war zone", landmines have continued to pose a great toll, killing and dismembering people and livestock, and rending vast areas of valuable land unused. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has partnered with the Zimbabwe government on a landmine removal campaign. Thus, governments must be primary actors is assuming the urgent removal of landmines, as the consequences for the state are grim. The training of demine officers and the donation of trauma kits for medical evacuations is critical to help prevent casualties. However, in the case of Zimbabwe, funding and assistance are essential for demining campaigns to continue, as landmines will not be mere history for Zimbabwe anytime in the near future. 

A Zimbabwe National Army demining team prepares to go into the field at the Sango border area last week, as (above) villages and amputees follow proceedings at a meeting on landmines at Sango Border Post. Pics: Elias Mambo.

The image above is a great depiction for my understanding of how a current event related to the global political-military nexus is connected to the concept of the Landmine Ban Treaty. The image displays what military activity is enabled both leading up to the current situation, and what stands in store for Zimbabwe's future landmine issue. The military activity in the region had enabled the pursuit of war, resulting in the initial implementation of personnel landmines. Such had resulted in the current landmine concern Zimbabwe is faced with today. Thus, partisan politics was in play, as Zimbabwe’s liberation war against the Rhodesian colonial regime was fought to gain liberty and political identity within the state, with antipersonnel landmines as a means in an attempt to achieve such a goal. However, with the war over, the current event today portrays the military's ability to utilize aggregative politics in the attainment of a universal goal. By consolidating their power, the National Army is maximizing common interests and leading the demining of Zimbabwe's regions. In other words, the military is working alongside the state's international agreement to abide by the Landmine Treaty Act, and promote a world free of antipersonnel landmines. Such is a primary example of when national armies are used, displaying how the military enables the political within the political-milirary nexus. 

In contrast, take a look at the effect of Landmine's in Burma/ Myanmar, where the state has not yet signed onto the Ottawa Treaty. The consequences are grim.. 

Reflect with me on Puangsuwan's argument? 

Puangsuwan argues the need to bring non-state armed groups into the discussion about the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which I find very interesting. As the Mine Ban Treaty is a international agreement between state actors, it fails to consider the implementations non-state armed forces have on anti-personnel mines and their dismemberment. States that commit to the treaty display a commitment to never use, nor "develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer" landmines in order to rid the world of anti-personnel landmines. After reflecting, I agree with Puangsuwan that acquiring the support of state actors is certainly the primary step. State actors are legitimate players within the political sphere and often have immense capacities to advocate change within their territory. However, they are certainly not the only actors involved, and non-state armed groups need to be given attention regarding the landmine issue, as well. From my understanding, they often have more governing power than state actors, depending on the political situation within the state in question. 

Nevertheless, I came to a cross-road in my understanding of the Landmine Ban Treaty’s capabilities, as illegitimate actors cannot be brought into abidance with the international agreement. I began to question the Landmine Ban Treaty’s ability to achieve significant change, as rebel groups are sure to be in opposition to state actors and disregard the ban on landmines, using them at their own discretion. With non-state armed groups not included in the Treaty’s criteria, it is difficult to understand where non-state armed groups fit within the puzzle? However, as I began to problematize the issue of non-state armed groups in Puangsuwan’s argument regarding the Landmine Ban, I began to understand the indirect influence the Ban has on non-state armed groups. Surely if state actors are making a conscious effort to seize the development, production, stockpile and transfer of landmines, non-state armed groups will find it difficult to acquire the landmines. It is simply the depletion of landmines as a military resource that will drive non-state armed groups to seize their use, as well. Puangsuwan reinforces my understanding by outlining how a section of the armed forces in Cote d’Ivoire rebellion had gained control of the northern half of the country. The New forces might have used antipersonnel mines to control the Sourthern part of the country, if they had access to them; however, the Cote d’Ivoire had joined the Mine Ban Treaty prior to the rebellion. Therefore, antipersonnel mines were not a part of their weaponry, and consequently not a part of the rebellion’s arsenal as well. 

Ah-ha! There is merely no more ready access! Non-state actors do not necessarily have to be a part of the Landmine Ban Treaty on paper, to ultimately contribute to it’s success indirectly. Perhaps non-state armed groups are more included in the Landmine Ban than I had originally anticipated. Although the reasoning behind both groups decision to minimize and seize the use of antipersonnel landmines may differ, the outcome of decreased use remains the same, ultimately meeting a common interest. 

Additionally, could the humanitarian argument be as convincing for non-state armed groups as it is for state actors in their accordance with the Landmine Ban as well? Even states like Burma (Myanmar) and Russia, who are not parties to the Treaty have shown decreased production of antipersonnel landmines. I feel Puangsuwan’s idea of stigmatization of landmines holds relevance, as such extreme disapproval has spread to NSAGs causing them to renounce landmines as a weapon. In understanding Puangsuwan’s argument, my concerns lay for the future. With antipersonnel landmines no longer used prominently, non-state armed groups will need to turn to alternative arsenal in order to function, increasing the use of command-detonated devices. However, such is the story of political power. As long as power is the ultimate end goal for a particular actor, weapons will be used. 

In probing my understanding of the Landmine Ban Treaty, I must admit that I find it difficult to understand why the United States would continue to disregard the signing of the Treaty. It is difficult to preach freedom, democracy and peace in nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, when millions around the world do not have the freedom to pursuit fulfilling lives without the fear of being blown up. It seems as though Obama's decision to cling to the anti-personnel mines is contradictory to his administration's emphasis on multilateralism, humanitarian affairs and disarmament. More so, it is a decision I find difficult to swallow- morally. If non-state armed groups are willing to abide by the Landmine Ban Treaty, without even signing the agreement, the United States seems to be standing on the wrong side of the game. It is a decision that will surely catch up with them in the future...

Neverthless, I am thankful to see that some progress is being made to decrease the use of this particular military weapon with the backing of the Landmine Ban Treaty. It is not often that the world comes together on a common issue, and although the entire world may not have formally signed onto the treaty, the regard for landmine’s inhumane use is certainly a first step. 

References:

Puangsuwan, Y. (2008). Outside the treaty not the norm: Nonstate armed croups and the landmine ban. In Banning landmines: Disarmament. citizen diplomacy and human security. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers (pp. 163-178).

Mambo, E. (2013, 11/03). Landmine menace persists 30 years on. Retrieved from http://www.theindependent.co.zw/2013/11/08/landmine-menace-persists-30-years/

http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Treaty 

Anderson, K. (2000). The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, the Role of International Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Society. New York: Oxford Publications (p. 90-110). 

Resource Wars

Analyzing the Resource Curse with Reference to Phillipe Le Billon’s “Resource Wars Reframed"

The “Resource Curse”: What is it?

The “Resource Curse” is a concept explored in Phillipe Le Billon’s article “Resource Wars Reframed”. As the name implies, natural resources have often proven to be more of a curse than a blessing for resource rich states. The concept emphasizes that countries rich in natural resources are not able to translate the resources into prosperity and ultimately boost their economies. On the contrary, resource rich states subjected to the resource curse find themselves worse off than states without abundant natural resources, suffering from low economic growth (Wenar, 2013, p. 298). Petroleum producing countries are a primary example of resource cursed states. The negative effects perpetuated from the resource curse are often compared to that of the foreign aid curse. Despite the perception that abundant natural resources will result in fiscal revenues and jobs, as well as necessary investment-capital, the resource curse has resulted in economic and environmental devastation (Klarem 2002, p. 27). The capital produced merely benefits repressive regimes and rebel groups, rather than local population that are often tainted by human rights abuses (Wenar, 2013, p. 301). Therefore, due to the economic and political vulnerability perpetuated from the resource curse, global political-military conflict is too often the result. 

Shaking Hands with Le Billon

In coming to understand the resource curse encompassed in Le Billon’s article, I can not help but question the irony in the concept. The states with the richest of natural resources, are the poorest of nations. Moving the discourse aside, it genially hurts me to realize the reality of the situation, for states were blessed with abundant resources by nature, but fail to reap their benefits. Instead, they are faced with economic vulnerability, political instability, conflict and heartache. Are states better off not having any natural resources at all, than bare the resource curse? In my attempt to understand the grave reality of the resource curse, I took a close look at Le Billon’s notion of resource dependance as both reflecting and shaping conditions for increased vulnerability of conflict (Le Billon, 2012, p. 35). I found such significant in my understanding of the resource crisis, as resource dependance mirrors the states’ already vulnerable status and perpetuates a continued vulnerability as an unequal give-and-take relationship is formed. In the game of power and money, it seems only suiting that states who are poorly governed, and underperform economically, are more likely to be taken advantage of. Worse of all, the resource curse can be understood more like the resource curse cycle, as citizens lack the democratic bargaining power due to their corrupt regimes to break the curse, but are forced to bare the negative effects. To better comprehend the resource curse, it is important to look at the core-periphery relations reinforced by the curse. The resource curse merely reflects a neo-empiricism, where core states continue to take advantage of the periphery and reap their benefits. 

Am I to blame? 

Being fortunate enough to live in a core state, benefiting from the resource curse, I find it difficult to digest the concept. I, like many other North American, live my life day-by-day without fulling realizing the suffering of others at my luxury. As I drive my car to purchase my ridiculously overpriced coffee, individuals across the globe are living with horrid human rights violations or even worse-dying! Sadly, with this knowledge, I am reluctant to change my ways...Could that be the most horrific thing of all? The sad reality is that we have become so accustomed to the natural resources we devour on a daily basis, that an alternative way of life seems almost impossible. The consumer capitalist world we are living in only perpetuates this problem and our oil-thirsty industries show no sign in a declining dependance on natural resources. But as long as the supply and demand is there, the natural resources will be extracted at the expense of another. I must remind myself that the life I am living is one of privilege, and one to be thankful for. I must remind myself that the fridge I stare unenthusiastically in while looking for a snack should be done with genuine gratitude, not routine. It is for people like me that global political-military conflicts are occurring and growing at an extraordinary rate. In a way, it’s almost shameful. I must put myself in the shoes of the individuals involved in the extraction of diamonds enduring structural, cultural and physical violence. A price, other than that on the tag, not many future fiancés consider before purchasing that “special” ring. 

Natural Resources and Conflict 

When looking at the resource curse and current global political-military issues, it is unquestionable that the power base coincides with natural resources such as diamond mines. Zimbabwe is currently undergoing a resource curse with their diamond industry, as diamond revenues are largely marginalized and human rights abuse remains a major concern. The political enables military as Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF political and military elite continue to reap in the state’s diamond wealth through shadowy joint-venture companies (globalwitness.org). Such non-democratic politicians, as well as the violent reputation of the military posses major suspicion that funds are being used for repression and human rights abuses within the state (Wenar, 2013, p. 300). With the army’s seizure of the diamond fields in 2008, the military has perpetuated the conflict in the area, working alongside the government for economic self-interest and control. The oppression of the people is used as a tool of power, reinforcing the resource curse. Ultimately, it is not exactly clear where the money is going, but it is certainly not going to the people of Zimbabwe! Children are hungry on the streets, while political and military leaders are driving brand new Mercedez to their lavish estates. Hidden company ownership in Zimbabwe can cover who benefits from the diamond revenues, providing cover for the military (Klare, 2002, p.1). 

"With no transparency in the present moment, no one is sure what is happening with the revenue transmission. They are Zimbabwe assets and should be benefiting the Zimbabwe people. Right now they are not benefiting the Zimbabwe people" 

-Tendai Biti, Zimbabwe Financial Minister 

Diamond Mining Benefits Unseen in Zimbabwe

With the EU lifting their sanctions on Zimbabwe, a call was recently made for the U.S. to lift sanctions as well, providing Zimbabwe access to international markets (Wenar, 2013, p. 300). The argument for Zimbabwe’s stability and prosperity is being made; however, I am not sure such is the case! With civil conflict still raging in the region, and great political and military instability, a lift in sanctions will not solve the conflict. Europe and the U.S. should maintain sanctions against the state until the Zimbabwean diamond sector is reformed. In addition, despite the Kimberly Process, global companies must implement risk-based due-diligence to ensure the diamonds are not obtained in exchange for human rights abuses (Klare, 2002, p.1). However, who will implement such progressive policies you may ask? There will need to be not only third party involvement in the implementation and follow through with these new policies but internal involvement, as well. Too often when we see the production and trade of conflict diamonds we have the issue of a corrupt government. How can you rely on such a government to ensure the implantation of conflict prevention policies, when they are at the source of the issue? The ownise and motivation must fall on the diamond industry, insuring a humanitarian approach to the business. Consumers must demand and settle for nothing less than conflict-free diamonds and diamond industries must live up to such promises! The Kimberly Process will also need to have some power behind it, not just a symbolic certificate. KP needs to be able to hold industry members responsible for any infractions they may commit. Without any significant authority, the KP is just an idea that can be taken advantage of. 

Respective governments, a UN body, Grassroot Watchdog Organizations, and even the people of Zimbabwe need to make sure that these new policies are being upheld. One group of people cannot be the only ones involved in the protection of human rights as well as the production of conflict free diamonds. Actors such as rebel groups, and politicians that sell the diamonds to diamond companies for less, or use revenues to fund their political agendas, must be monitored, as they undermine the implantation of appropriate policies to assist Zimbabwe in dealing with the diamond conflict at hand.

References:

Le Billon, P. (2012). Wars of plunder: conflicts, profits and the politic’s of resources.(pp. 9-42). New York: Columbia University Press.

Klare, M. (2002). Resource wars: The new landscape of global conflict. (1 ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Wenar, L. (2013). Fighting the resource curse. Global Policy, 4(3), 298-304. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.  

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/mandate.shtml

Conflict and Environmental Changes

A Blog in Reference to Marquina’s “Global Warming and Climate Change: Prospects and Policies in Asia and Europe”

Conflict Prevention and the Environment 

Conflict prevention and the environment is currently a hot topic! Antonio Marquina discusses the issue in “Global Warming and Climate Change: Prospects and policies in Asia and Europe”. So what does the idea of conflict prevention and the environment mean? Marquina explains that conflict prevention is not eliminating the conflict, but dealing with it in order to allow us to tackle the concern early enough to avoid it from happening (Marquina, 2010, p. 481). However, in understanding conflict prevention we must also understand that the knowledge we have about the environment is not sufficient, complicating the process of prevention. As temperature increase and climate change are not linear in nature, one must grasp the idea that not everyone around the world will be affected negatively. The United Nations Department of Political Affairs (DPA) is a focal point in conflict prevention, responsible for coordinating early warning and preventative responses, as well as maintaining information on potential international conflicts (Mason, 2008, p. 53). In my attempt to understand conflict prevention, I question how much mandate the DPA truly has? Likewise, the lack of reliable data poses a challenge on prevention, as information about predictions is often macro, not micro in analysis. The key to conflict prevention is to have accurate and specific data for particular areas, as ecosystems and rainfall differ within the same region (Mason, 2008, p. 25). Thus, failing to consider the Mediterranean as a research zone in a number of studies (but having it stand somewhere between Europe and Africa), makes prediction and prevention difficult. 

The United Nations Department of Political Affairs (DPA) is a focal point in conflict prevention, responsible for coordinating early warning and preventative responses, as well as maintaining information on potential international conflicts (Mason, 2008, p. 53). In my attempt to understand conflict prevention, I question how much mandate the DPA truly has?

Let's Discuss a Current Conflict Area...

Darfur is an interesting global political-military issue in regards to conflict prevention and the environment, as the decrease in rainfall has had a immense impact on the state. With a decrease of rainfall by 20-30 per cent in the last 30 years, millions of semi-desert hectares have become desert, considerably impacting food security (Mason, 2008, p. 25). Attribute such to the stress on livelihood of Pastoralist societies that are forced to move South to find pasture, conflict arises (Mason, 2008, p. 25).Additionally, decreased rainfall can have an effect on incomes, causing the outbreak of civil war. Furthermore, with arms widely available, the conflicts have escalated. 

When analyzing the situation from the political-military nexus, I found that the political enabled the military as non-democratic politicians are responsible for mismanagement an militarization of social institutions. The abuse of property and land use rights, have let to land grabs and conflict (Bromwich, 2008, p.1). Therefore, in my understanding, climate change has resulted in livelihood change and ultimately disputes, but the Sudan government is also at fault! Environmental degradation has resulted in conflict between different livelihood groups, such as neighbouring tribes and villages, attempting to adapt to resource scarcity and a new way of life (Mason, 2008, p. 25). The conflict has both local and higher level political dimensions over the control of resources. The conflict is related to long-term issues of political and economic marginalization, where ethnicity further complicates the issue (Bromwich, 2008, p.1). 

North Darfur, March 2011/Credit: UN Photo, Olivier Chassot

Climate change has forced individuals to settle elsewhere, often prey on the land and livelihood of settled people

In my attempt to understand the situation in Darfur, I find myself overwhelmed with questions about the future of Darfur. A state that lies on the edge of a desert, suffering from both resource deprivation and failure of environmental governance, conflict prevention may not be the only necessary step. But remember that Marquina explained conflict prevention as not eliminating the conflict, but dealing with it in order to allow us to tackle the concern early enough to avoid it from happening, alternative steps may also be necessary (Marquina, 2010, p. 481). Perhaps a humanitarian program and structural long-term support programmes must be implemented to assist the mismanaged social institutions. In order to prevent a band-aid solution for Darfur, wider political issues must primarily be addressed. Nevertheless, Darfur is an interesting case due to its different livelihood groups, requiring the harmonization of these rebel groups and coherence from both regional and global actors (Bromwich, 2008, p.1). 

With the rate of CO(2) emissions in the world, and resulting climate change, I cannot help but wonder what lays in store for other states as well. It is no question that environmental concerns are starting to make it to the forefront of global political issues, but it is surely not given the international attention it deserves. As stated by Simon Dalby’s presentation, geopolitics is about more than the geopolitics military rivalries, but humanity has had a bigger impact on life than we previously realized. We must lower our Co(2) concentration to where it was after the cold war, or we are up for an extremely bumpy road ahead if we do not keep our energy assumption under control. We have changed the world so much, that we are now in a new epoch! As I ponder about the situation in Darfur, it seems that an attempt by various states to adapt to these environmental changes may be a larger issue than climate change itself. Furthermore, not just adapting to climate change, but trying to prevent it might be the biggest conflict of all. With no outlined rules in geo-engineering, and conflicts between who’s doing what, I predict that we will be faced with a whole realm of new global political-military issues in the years to come! 

References:

Bromwich, B. (2008). Environmental degradation and conflict in Darfur: implications for peace and recovery. Humanitarian Practice Network, (39), 1. Retrieved from http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-39/environmental-degradation-and-conflict-in-darfur-implications-for-peace-and-recovery  

Marquina, Antonio. Global warming and climate change: prospects and policies in Asia and  Europe. New York, NY: © Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 510 p. (Ch.27 pp.481-497)

Mason, S. A. G., & Mullar, A. (2008). Linking environment and conflict prevention: The role of the united nations. (pp. 25-55). Zurich: CSS and Swiss Peace.

A Close Look at Terrorism

A Blog in Reference to Sageman’s “Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century”

Terrorism: Defining the Concept

The problems arising with the study of terrorism is presented in Sageman’s article: “Leaderless Jihad: Terror networks in the twenty-first century”. This blog will discuss the problems arising with the definition and contemporary study of terrorism. Initially, when coming to understand what terrorism truly means, I had to strip away my initial definition of the term. The concept of terrorism is a highly contested topic, with even the United Nations having no definition for terrorism (Sageman, 2011, p.13). Growing up in the era of 9/11, I realized that I have been bombarded with the concept of “terrorism” since the fourth grade! It is no wonder why my conception of terrorism is so construed, as I was socialized to understand what terrorism meant by the media. Nevertheless, terrorism is an example of asymmetrical warfare of non-state to state or non-state to institutions (Sageman, 2011, p. 14). It can be argued as the use of political violence for political ends, targeting civilians and combatants. Terrorism raises profile of political grievance via media sensations, draws attention to plight and decides to instill fear and apprehension (Sageman, 2011, p. 14). The political violence DNA/ tango is an interesting metaphor describing how state violence is intertwined with responses. When beginning to dissect the concept of terrorism, Sageman discussed how we can focus on agency, atomizing the actor and studying every detail of that terrorist (Sageman, 2011, p. 14). However, I am glad that Sageman affirmed that there is no terrorist personality, meaning we should stop trying to group terrorists into a cookie cutter conception. We can analyze terrorists as floating atoms in a free space; however, there are many problem with this focus as we are not freely isolated actors but are connected to others; constantly bumping into things. Through a micro-analysis of terrorism, we can study a terrorists’ motivates, however a structure is missing in this analysis! Structures such as networks, internet, religious leadership, ideologies, historical events and economic funding must also be considered. Sageman states that we should marry structure and agency in order to truly understand terrorism (Sageman, 2011, p. 14). The actions of 9/11 were not merely constructed by a handful of 19 men, but attacks of that magnitude need state backing to some extent. The enablement there cannot be ignored in our definition. We must look at the relationships between senior powers at the time and determine who benefited in order to gain insight. 

Applications for the Global Political-Military Nexus

When defining terrorism, the idea can be applied to a number of so-called terrorist groups, that may fight the concept presented. The Tekrik-j-Taliban Pakistan are a group striving to carry on the Afghani-Taliban’s fight against NATO forces and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. By providing soldiers, training and logistics, the Tekrik-j-Taliban Pakistan have many areas in Pakistan with militants under their control, with established government structures (Bajoia, 2011, p. 1). In the case of the Pakistan Taliban, the political enables military resulting in contested political outcomes and ultimately terrorism. The Tekrik-j-Taliban Pakistan resist the Pakistani state, with not only political objectives but territory under their control. Such is important for my understanding, as it shows that terrorism is a sign of something wrong going on in the world. The group is undergoing the political violence tango, as violence is used on anyone who opposes their ideology and criticizes their militant group. With the rejection of their political and religious ideologies, violence might have seemed like they only alternative for the particular group. It is a tool of defense against aggressive NATO-led forces ad as a means of acquiring the Pakistani state (Bajoia, 2011, p. 1). With the resistance of American influences, and the ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic Emirate, the group wants to exuberant power over the government. Thus, military activity is enabled for partisan politics to maintain control of the empire and distinguish between friends and enemies. 

Digging Deeper into Sageman’s Article...

In my attempt to better understand the concept of terrorism and how it should be defined, I found it interesting that Sageman mentioned the use of the scientific method (Sageman, 2011, p.20). That’s often forgotten when studying the social science, but how could it be? As Sageman pointed out, it is not enough to insist your claim is correct by finding some evidence to support it (Sageman, 2011, p. 21). Instead, you need to take not a sample, but all the evidence provided into consideration as all the facts hold relevance. Such can definitely be applied when defining a terrorist, as micro-analysis and macro-analysis are critical. My main concern is the concept society holds of a “terrorist” and the mould the media attempts to put a terrorist in. However, it is inaccurate to attribute a terrorist as being associated with poverty, lack of education, extreme religious affiliations or separated from society. Such are myths that should not be perpetuated, for it only adds to the discourse of terrorism, feeding the stereotype. 

I discovered the extent of this stereotype when coming across the Twitter rants from American citizens regarding this year’s Miss America winner, who happened to have Indian origins. The outlash and immediate reactions to call her a “terrorist”, “Al-Qaeda” and the “Talaban” left me utterly speechless. The lack of education and outright ignorance of the American general population regarding the definition of a so-called “terrorist” is baffling! Such only reinforced my desire to better understand the concept of terrorism, and the relationship it has with global military-political issues.   

References:

Bajoria, J. (2011). Pakistan's new generation of terrorists. Council on Foreign Relations, 1-4. Retrieved from http://relooney.fatcow.com/SI_Expeditionary/Pakistan-Crisis_76.pdf 

Sageman, Marc. Leaderless Jihad: Terror networks in the twenty-first century.

Philadelphia, PA: ©University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. 200p.

(Ch.l pp.13-28) 

In Reference to Melissa Finn’s Lecture: Monday, Nov. 8, 2013

A Look at Drone Wars

A Blog in reference to Brian Glyn William’s “The CIA's Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004–2010: The History of an Assassination Campaign” 

Drone War in Pakistan: What is it?

The drone war in Pakistan is referred to the hundreds of drone attacks made by the United States government since 2004 on targets in north-western Pakistan. The CIA sees the FATA area as the biggest threat to American domestic security, where thousands of Taliban militants harbour Al Qaeda agents (Williams, 2010, p. 5). As the Pakistani’s have little will to go after Taliban and Al Qaeda in the area, the CIA and Pakistani government have made a drone campaign possible. As a result, the Pakistani government had gone to great lengths to hide U.S. involvement, despite clear evidence and growing public protest. Although some high level terrorist leaders have been killed, the true issue with the drone war lays with the debated civilian deaths and immorality of drone strikes on the Pakistani people. 

Global Political-Military Issue

Drone strikes have become a major global political-military issue in Pakistan. Glyn Williams addresses the situation within the state, by discussing the history of the drone campaign and discusses whether the campaign is beneficial for the War on Terror. Analyzing the drone campaign in Pakistan through the political-military nexus may help shy light on the issue. In my opinion, the situation in Pakistan displays a situation when the political enables the military, as the United States’ War on Terror had been the political motive to drive an agreement with Pakistan and launch a drone campaign (Mayer, 2009, p. 3). As Pakistani government does not have the will to go after Taliban and Al Qaeda in the region, it is convenient for the U.S. to attack Pakistani people on Pakistani soil. Hence, why they have continued to cover up U.S. involvement despite approval of the attacks. The political enabled military due to contested political outcomes of terrorism. It is justified by the democratically elected politicians as state defense and security for the United States after the 9/11 attacks has created ground for attack. Therefore, the purpose of the military is to fight a war and ensure national security. In this particular conflict, the CIA is controlling the attacks from the United States while the terrorists group make up the military in Pakistan (Williams, 2010, p. 25). Analyzing the situation from the political, partisanism is evident for there are differences on the ideological spectrum, with a war of securing the hegemony against terrorist ideals. 

A Bone to Pick with Drone Wars

A woman supporter of Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf Movement of  Justice,
takes a part in rally against U.S. drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas
(AP Photo/Mohammad Sajjad)

The concept of drone wars is one I find difficult to swallow. In trying to understand the idea, I can not grasp how drone strikes are internationally permissible forms of combat? Not only is the use of drones unethical, it is a cowardly form of combat! How much power and gut does it take to sit behind a computer screen and push a button? The whole concept seems more like a video game than a military conquest. The victims are dehumanized, so far in physical proximity that it makes their execution easy. The detachment makes killing “terrorists” seem more like a game, with less beating on the morale than a true military operation. The depiction of “execution without trial” is precisely what the drone war has created (Williams, 2010, p. 6). Despite ongoing debates of civilian death tolls, innocent civilians are unquestionable victims! the “collateral damage” is the largest U.S. execution campaign since the Vietnam War, yet the international community allows this? Innocent children, mothers and grandmothers are dying due to these drone strikes with absolutely no way to defend themselves! I cannot seem to understand how the Obama Administration can swallow such immorality while simultaneously preaching humanitarian outreach! Not only is it undemocratic, but hypocritical! The backlash of Anti-Americanism the drone campaign has unleashed will surely come to haunt the United States in the future. The children who lost their parents, and siblings will undoubtedly have a score to settle with the United States, with a vengeance. It is foolish to think otherwise. As Williams points out that 82 per cent of Pakistanis believing the drone strikes are unjustified, it can be expected the civil unrest will magnify in the years to come, as the Pakistani government continues to loudly condemn the attacks (Williams, 2010, p. 15). The concept of a drone “war” in Pakistan does not meet my understanding of the term, as civilians who are the primary victims have no connection to the “War on Terror and no way of defending themselves in this “war”. It is therefore an unofficially waged and unethical warfare. 

A Pakistani civilian's view: 

A 9 year old girl questions why her grandmother was killed in a drone attack...

Drone wars have unleashed a dangerous game in the military arena. In trying to wrap my mind around the justification of drone strikes, I cannot help to think that the U.S. are no different from the terrorists harboring in Pakistan. They are instilling fear on civilians and killing without discrimination, making them truly no different than the Al Qaeda leaders they are working so hard to rid. Maybe it’s time to look in the mirror, America, before dropping your next drone in Pakistan. 

References: 

Mayer, J. (2009). The predator war: What are the risks of the c.i.a.’s covert drone program?. THE POLITICAL SCENE, 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.beaconschool.org/~bfaithfu/mayerdrones.pdf

Scanhill, J. (2009, 11 23). The secret us war in pakistan. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.kean.edu/~jkeil/Welcome_files/Scahill_Pakistan.pdf

Williams, B. (2010). The cia's covert predator drone war in pakistan, 2004–2010: The history of an assassination campaign. (Vol. 33, pp. 5-25). Brighton: Routledge.