International Wars and Conflicts PDF

INTERNATIONAL WARS AND CONFLICTS Lesson 1 (3/09) *Why do we fight all the time*? We will select various levels of analysis, Kenneth Waltz, at the individual level it's instincts, urge to fight, then you have the group level and level 3 is international level, in which the international system conj...

INTERNATIONAL WARS AND CONFLICTS Lesson 1 (3/09) *Why do we fight all the time*? We will select various levels of analysis, Kenneth Waltz, at the individual level it's instincts, urge to fight, then you have the group level and level 3 is international level, in which the international system conjures war, since we don't have a that level a superior justice, to impose peace, states make war and war makes states. Theres a point that says that wars are becoming obsolete, looking at the casualties. War as a mean of conquest at this point is obsolete, it's a burden and not an asset. As a species, do we have a violent gene? The EU has made peace possible between mortal enemies, France and England, France and Germany, all their rivalries seem gone. There's a argument that democracies do not fight against each other, that can negotiate when there's a problem, when the use of force is contemplated sometimes is used to make a diplomatic point. We must look at the international system to find the reasons a country might use violence when it's not threatened by any other country, and there are such factors such as uncertainty, then we move to means of war, like nuclear war, a big threat nowadays. Another important topic is the war on terror after 9/11. *War for justice*; many times, the decision makers try to justify their means of war, and with the theme of justice, respect of human rights, for which we intervened in Kosovo and Libya, we're going to cover the tern new wars, and how war ends, how to negotiate the end of a conflict. More democracy means less conflict. So, this is the idea about enlarging the EU and NATO. The prospect of war in Europe after the cold war is higher than when we were in the cold war. The last element is linked to the individual, thinking that trade would turn people less violent and with a lower tendency of recurring to violence. There must be a way for us to deal with the new rising powers of the world. Lesson 2 (10/09) *Human nature in relation to war*: from an evolutionary point of view and see if war is in our nature, and then we will talk about honour reputation and fear, all reasons of war and why are they so; did we evolve into a post war species, and is war obsolete? In a group there are individuals with special roles, who's responsibility is the security of the state, we have generals, who are fundamental war, we have presidents and diplomats; is more important the individual or the leader of the group? Some countries have a reputation in war; (Norway protects human rights) a reputation however belongs to other's looks, not the country itself. For France for example is independent, and that is also why in the 60s De Gaulle decided to exit from NATO, because it lacked freedom of movement. In the world of international relations, for a very long-time emotions were considered not scientifical, did not deserve to be studied when talking about decision making, economical science calls this rational choice, nowadays emotions are back; many have interpreted like this Putin invasion of Ukraine. *Human nature in war*: from a cultural and religious point of view is assumed that man is evil inherently; our need for survival leads us to domination and our state of nature is evil, Hobbes describes this as the fundamental state of man, where emotions are preponderant to gain what we want against reason; put men into the state of nature and it will turn into beasts; another example is carpet bombing a city to decrease the morale and the rule of law; any kind of cooperation between groups breaks down and everyone starts thinking for themselves. Another example is the covid 19 pandemic, the global pandemic brought tensions in every single Country, there were rules about freedom of travel and cooperation, and these rules just started to crumble; when Italy asked help during the pandemic nobody answered because they put their citizens first. However, it must also be noted that the EU then decided to operate like a Union and buy necessary goods as a Union. The other trend is the biological and evolutionary theory, insisting on domination and egoistic behaviour, fundamental to survive in the wild, Darwin talks about the survival of the fittest, the one who can adapt in the best way possible to the environment; the drive is to get to a privileged place; this can be shown in our social sciences, to create alliances to get to the top, kindness, and trust are key weapons to do this, in the state of nature so it seems that Rousseau was right and Hobbes wrong, we are made to bond and cooperate and to use social skills. The link between war and this is much more complicated to establish; among the group you can have a more civilized way to behave thanks to general good living conditions, there are volunteers to protect the group that will select the best way to do it, through specialization, the best group organization will succeed where all the others have failed; the group is more Important than the individual, agriculture was fundamental for this step, it is the change from the hunter gatherer lifestyle to territorial human being. Among the group are common imitation and competition, there is also the inherent nature of obeying orders from an authority. *Is emotion still relevant in warfare and international relations*? We can start with reputation; it is very important, in which it's important what you do, much more than what you say, to capture behaviour, a picture is enough to do a lot of damage to reputation, in addition to that, status and power also go together, when 9/11 happened, the US wanted to show its power and status; you do not divide and bargain on status. The last classic element is fear, is it something that leads to dangerous situations or a helpful emotion that makes us escape problems: it is one of the most important feelings for decline and preventive war as a response, it can also lead to negotiation. *Is war nowadays obsolete*? We are experiencing freedom in modern times, and this implies institutions in a much less violent environment, and the ones that use it are criminals or soldiers contracted by the state; since we are in this kind of framework, at some point we have evolved into human beings that are less war prone than our ancestors, we repel the use of war and we try to make as less casualties as possible, zero casualties warfare, the most civilized warfare possible. Conquest is a thing of the past, soft power is the key; to persuade others without conflict, countries want to prosper not trough war but trade. Form a legal point of view war is prohibited, since the Brian Kellog treaty in 1928 between the US and France, since then war is prohibited if it is not in the context of Collective security or collective defence; but pacifism is not a value of tomorrow. The security of Europe for example belongs to Europeans and it is an exceptional alliance between countries that have fought for centuries. Lesson 3 (17/09) *War and identity:* when resources are not plenty, there is competition and within the group there is another sub group which job is to deal with violence with other violence; there are different types of identity, related to an individual or a group and on an international level, we will link this to ethnicity and war and the link there is between all this, with civil wars in Bosnia and the genocide in Rwanda; personal identity is an addition of multiple factors, experience, religion, knowledge etc...; identity politics, specific trait of identity used for a political debate; the feeling of being a part of something bigger than us is a lot more fragmented and a lot less present within us, after the invention of social media which fragmented society even more, then there is the opposition between constructed identity and primordial identity; generally, all identified are constructed and can be changed, not fixed, some other think that identity cannot be changed, since its so crucial for our existence, it's a primordial identity, following this way of thought, the only way to have peace is separation. The group identity is formed by ethnicity and nationalism, on the international level, the first element is that all international system is not a given, it is constructed by the States and so can be changed, since the main characteristic of the system is anarchy; since there is no supranational entity that will stop conflicts; states might agree to have an environment in which cooperation is possible, if they share the same identity and feel like communication is possible; if we follow Huntington's thought, after the cold war the world would be divided in civilizations that would fight each other. *Ethnicity and war*: ethnicity Is a sense of belonging, a political marker and a social construct and historical process made by discourses, in which individuals are agents and victims of the process; in this, élite manipulation is fundamental, to gain or maintain power by the élites; self-perpetuating process: on one hand is the use of history to project an identity to the future, in which the in group cohesion may trigger an opposition with another group, identified as a foreign enemy; its impact on violence is enormous; with a manipulation, a group can be leaded by a leader to a war with another group; in a federation like Yugoslavia there live different realities, which, when collapsed, there is no state anymore and there is no monopoly of legitimate violence, all the groups fear each other because there is no higher authority anymore that can stop it; this is what happened in Bosnia with the Serbians, involving ethnic cleansing, which does not even need actual violence most of the time, because fear of death is just enough to make the villages flee, or you can shoot first if you have the capabilities; this explains why ethnic violence is very difficult to stop once it has begun. If survival is the key, so ethnic cooperation across villages becomes possible, even if the chances of success are low. *Civil wars*: by their very nature are complex to analyse, there are 2 main categories, greed(it's about money and resources, a way to look at violence and groups as if they were criminals, and the only objective here Is to make money) vs grievances (autonomy or independence of a group, it is about politics). If the civil war is about money, the ethnic dimension most of the times is just an excuse; if the war is based on an ethnic cause, self-determination is many times its centre and secession might be a solution. So, the question becomes why so many civil wars have an ethnic cause? Economic inequality, political exclusion and ecological marginalization, these are all ethnic lines that can cause an ethnic civil war; another thing is the opportunity to rebel and create an armed movement. The key problem is how to stop the violence, and the bargaining can be very limited by the ethnic group. *The case of Bosnia:* since it happened within Yugoslavia and it was not recognised as an interstate conflict, but as a civil war, the UN could not intervene If not with a humanitarian mandate to protect refugees, which, with Serbia's ethnic cleansing, was absolutely not an easy task, and the blue helmets were deployed; which were only tasked of that, and in case of a breaching of the mandate, they could not act but report to the UN. What it took was the act of an external entity (NATO) to stop the atrocities in Bosnia. *The case of Rwanda*: it was a very carefully planned genocide in a few weeks, in which the first step was to clearly identify the enemy, the second step is to dehumanize the other group, and this is the key aspect of the genocide, the third step is to train a military group, and give them weapons; there were some signs that something terrible would come, but genocide happened all the same; and the international community was guilty of being passive. *Nationalism and the State*: there are situation in which the State comes first and then the Nation (France) and vice versa (the UK); after world war I Wilson wanted to have ideally a homogeneous group that could become a democracy. Sometimes a bit of nationalism is good for a country's identity, most of the times it goes overboard and is a disaster (Danish Folly). Do you think that the ethnic factor is an important factor for the spreading of violence in Sudan? Or is just a tool used by the parties (YOUR OPINION, 700 WORDS WITHIN NEXT WEEK) the title is important!! (hatred and psychology as fundamental manipulation tools for violence, idea) Lesson 4 (24/09) *Introduction*: a decision maker when there is a decision to make that involves violence thinks about strategy, is this the best way to obtain what I want; one can use violence for something linked with peace, all this is a part of the process of a diplomatic engagement; in today's world is surprising to know how much decision makers use force in a diplomatic context. *Difference between war and peace*: democratic peace theory: there are some elements in democracy that limit the freedom to decide for leaders, since the consequences of war are felt by everyone, this restrains the freedom of choice, one recent case was Cameron's England against Syria, in which the parliament denied the use of force, in France it's different because the president does not have to present anything to the parliament; in the US Congress has the power of money to restrain the president's ability to go to war, in Europe there's most of the time a coalition in power with mixed opinions on the subject. When there's 2 democratic countries with democratic leaders they will do everything to find a way to resolve peacefully the contrast, and there is almost no risk of an attack, since it cannot be secret and since the risk of betrayal is equally low, so you end up in a world where the possibility of war is very rare; all these elements do not work when on one side there's a dictatorship and on the other a democratic country; in a dictatorship there are no limits to the leader's power and there is not a single institution where a proper opposition can form; in this case the rational element just does not exist. *Democratization*: the process of becoming a democracy is very fragile and many problems will occur, in Yugoslavia there was a vacuum of power; every time there is not a strong institution of enforcement, when there's no law and order you must deal with a Failed State. *Is it a good idea to wage war for democracy*? Short answer is no because there's a contradiction in the idea, transforming a dictatorship into a democracy so that the possibility of war decreases, but when you use force to do it there are many problems, democracy cannot be imposed with illegal and illegitimate means, even if there's Saddam Hussein on the other side; it is an illegitimate force of occupation. *Wars are always awful, and you are crazy if you choose to go to war*, and so leader should find another way; leaders among themselves should start a bargaining process to have peace, and the guiding element of this is rationality; the assumption is that you convey clearly your intentions to the adversary and he will do the same, the shared knowledge should be enough to resolve into a peaceful solutions: there are some difficulties for this; many times information is hard to acquire, and emotional blindness also does not help rationality, when you are sure you are the strongest or you are blinded by an event, this does not help to carefully evaluate the enemies strength; when pearl harbour was attacked, Roosvelt wanted to reduce into rubble Tokyo, guided by emotion. The next element is bluffing: the weaker you are the more you have interest into lying about your strength to convince the enemy on how strong you are; one example is the perception that Russia was bluffing in 2021 when it was preparing the invasion and piling up men on the border. *In the bargaining process I'm talking to the adversary*: this pushes you to war because striking first can be the secret of winning, and the more you wait the more the enemy gets stronger; if you think an offensive strategy is the key of winning, then there is no space for negotiation; if there's an advance in a defensive strategy is better, then negotiation becomes possible; opening negotiations is hard because it is all about reputation; next is the appeasement argument; one can make a deal with Hitler because peace is always preferable to war, always; maybe things will not escalate; the major risk is that you're giving a victory to the enemy and you might have not stopped it from using violence, but you've increased it and you increased its willingness to expand; there was a negotiation attempt from turkey between Russia and Ukraine; the main elements were Russia keeps the territories it gained and Ukraine becomes neutral; the Ukrainian leader was not completely opposed to it, but the English convinced them it was just an appeasement move. *Public opinion and war*: Press and media pression will explain a decision taken by the government, you generally got a general trust in the government and their action; even in dictatorships this feeling of "rallying around the flag" is present; this is what happened in 2003 with the proclaimed threat of Saddam Hussein. *Red lines and tying hands*: when a democratic leader sends a signal to another leader, that signal is high effective since there is commitment that follows that signal; it is s strategic tool, sending a clear signal to the adversary, that signifies a threshold to the enemy, if you cross that red line, I will take some action, used to manipulate the intent of an adversary; the red line will fail if the adversary thinks you're bluffing or if you are too weak or if the beneficial effect of not crossing the line is not greater than the beneficial effect that results by crossing the line itself. Lesson 5 (1/10) *War and anarchy, insecurity*: the situation with Lebanon and Israel is very complicated, Israel decided after everything that's happened in the last month to launch a campaign against Hezbollah and its 30000 militias, the largest non-state actor in that area, a big difference between this campaign and the attack from Hamas last year is the completely different amount and quality of intelligence from Israel of Hezbollah; it's important to think about the impact that this will have on Lebanon, an already destabilized country, in addition to that we have to think about what Iran will do now, since they are the best force that Iran has in another country, will it trigger a response from Iran, and another one from Israel, also because Iran and Israel do not have the same strength, plus one of the priorities for Iran is to protect its own population from attacks, but if they do not answer, their credibility will diminish; at this point it's important to also consider what the USA will do now, their position on the long term is not really sustainable. Iran could decide to continue its nuclear program and create an atomic bomb to defend themselves from any threat to their national confine. *Nature of the international context:* the classic realist take is from Hobbes to Kissinger that refer to the human nature and the fact that it's inherently evil, but alternatively to this Kenneth Waltz also refers to the inherent nature of the international system, which is pervaded by just anarchy, not seen as a place where there are no rules but absence of a superior ruler to the States, so there is no international judge, so the unit of the system is the state (Hezbollah does matter when there is a vacuum of power perhaps, but it's very rare and there are just other states that will fill this vacuum) transnational forces are not that important to realists; so the state is important and the notion of self help becomes important since the state can only rely on themselves. You can sign all the treaties in the world, nothing can prove that a friend will help you in the moment of need; plus the balancing of power for realists is fundamental and this is their view on the cold war as a balancing of 2 powers: a multipolar world to them is more unstable because there are more players and more cracks in the system. Gains are relative to the realists, and so most of the cooperation you can achieve will give you some benefits but at the same time you are never sure of the enemy's intention; it's a zero sum game in which at the end one wins and the other loses, so you need to be very careful with who you ally yourself with. The element that today affect security are the offensive-defensive strategy, the perceptions and misperceptions and economic globalization. Lesson 6 (8/10) *The main sources of conflict:* Nowadays it seems that a reason why there are fewer and fewer wars can be saw in economy: it is not worth to go to war anymore and territories are not seen as an advantage but as a liability to control; since trade is a thing, it is stupid to go to war because of it, how do you overcome the security dilemma: with reassurance from various countries that they will not use those weapons, is it wise to believe a leader that reassures multiple times that he will not use those weapons? There might be betrayal or even worse. You can move to negotiations about transparency about weaponry; there are also treaties of disbarment that however will show that you are weaker than your enemy GREEN. *What is the so-called balance of power?* The balancing behaviour is the most common policy between states, however there are certainly a lot of exceptions to this; we have to consider the concept of polarity and war; a multipolar war and bipolar wars, when there is a rising power in the system, the system itself is not stable and will undergo a series of changes; one can be very powerful but if you're not able to achieve what you want, regarding the behaviour that you would want another state to take, then there will be some problems with your credibility; the perception of power is what matters after all, and the ability that one State has to conceal their power or fake it; the world is anarchical and there is reciprocal suspect and fear towards each other; only the big powers matter: there will equilibrium between these powerful countries which will bring peace and stability.The system is made so that there is not dominant power. Lesson 8 (22/10) During the Cuban missile crisis Castro begged Khruschev to launch a nuclear strike to the US to protect Cuba, the concept of deterrence did not work with him, the lesson with Cuba was about how actually terrifying nuclear weapons are and at the same time it was about leaving the enemy's reputation. The escalation issue in Ukraine acts like it is like in slow motion, since it started the day of the invasion. War on terror: terrorism is a tactic using or threatening to use violence to induce fear in an attempt to intimidate government or societies to achieve political or religious objectives. Fear is what terrorists want; when France was targeted the question was about their capabilities and resources. Lesson 9 (5/11) Al Qaeda is organized; there is a complex organization, a hierarchy and a structure. After the Islamic state was destroyed, al Qaeda was spread at the local level, their agenda is not global anymore, it's about local grievances; the most significant reasons of why terrorist attacks happen in the various countries is linked to the same country's effort in attacking the terrorist regimes in the Middle East. The foundations of counter terrorism are the addressing of the threat, prevention and pursuit, addressing vulnerabilities, preparation and protection. Prevention is usually the one element that governments focus on in the strategy against terrorism. Lesson 10 (12/11) WRITE A PAPER ABOUT IS UKRAINE BECOMING A WORLD WAR? START BY SAYING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN PRECISELY (CITING CLAUSEWITZ), SAY THAT WHILE THE QUESTION OF UKRAINE AS A WORLD WAR AS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT, IT HAS SURGED AGAIN BECAUSE OF TRUMP AND NORTH KOREA INTERVENTION, MENTION TRUMP SECRETARY OF STATE AGAINST UKRAINE AID AND ZELENSKY CALL "EXCELLENT CALL" GO ON EUROPEAN ALLIES AND RETIRING AMERICAN HELP, CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT WHILE WE DON'T KNOW WHATS GONNA HAPPEN, IT WILL PROBABLY BE AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE THE WAR (NO ONE WANTS A NUCLEAR WAR). Conquest may replace the liberal humanitarian operations; used as an alibi, human rights can be dangerous. For Clausewitz, war is but a clash of wills, and the main objective is to change the enemy's will with force. Lesson 11 (19/11) The future of war: with the invention of the computer, warfare changed forever, with all the interconnection there is in nowadays world, you can strike the enemy in a matter of hours, this is leagues away from the infantry stile warfare. Speed is becoming the key element of war, all depends on communication and the pixels on a screen, who is detected first will die first; with the advent of robots, war changed again, there is now war without risks? There are many different generations, with each becoming more and more efficient and powerful tools for war. Initially they were used for mine clearance and several other difficult, dull and dangerous jobs that humans did not want to do. Drones are also a game changer for war, cheap and deadly, they pose no risk for human lives and are still very deadly, AI is also getting integrated with war, with possibly very scary results; AI strategic decision making, Autonomous weapons with devastating consequences. Lesson 12 (26/11) The exam will be made of 2 parts; a definition and illustration of 4 concepts discussed in class; the second part will be an open question among 2 or 3 broad questions, here examples to convince are useful. For the essay it is important to know where to start and to end. How do wars end? There's not a lot of strong theories and notions on how wars end, it's important to know why wars are so long, the strategic model of war ending, decisive victories, negotiations and meetings. We also have the international model of war termination, brought up by major powers, the domestic model of war termination. The bargaining model of war termination is another way trough combat as an information and adaptation. There are just some hints on the ending of wars, there are however several elements that must be assessed, such as military strength during and after the war, the balance of power, the power of loss, the reason why we don't have theories on how wars ending is because it's too complicated to know, back to Clausewitz and the uncertainty of war. The reasons why wars are so long: the underestimation of the enemy's strength and resolve prevents from an attainable and quick victory. The problem of sunk cost: for the defence and your goals we sacrifice the best of the best, not reaching your goal; very few leaders are ready to cut their loss, they will actually double down on the sacrifice. The example is many, Afghanistan and Ukraine. the leader's reputation is another big element, Ukraine is Putin's war, and this is an important element to continue fighting. The commitment issue is related to the intention that the enemy has to not communicate, and his words are worth nothing in your eyes. The strategic model of war termination War will end when there is a decisive victory, when one side cannot continue fighting and can have his will changed, and you can impose yours simply because you can fight, and the enemy cannot. A war ends when a political objective is reached, but the battlefields itself can change these objectives, like with Hitler in WW2; another way a war can end can be achieved trough the acceptation of defeat, which can be really harsh to accept for who has spent so many lives in war. In the international model of war termination, what can or also cannot end a war is the pressure and taming by the great powers of the world to enter the negotiation table, by pressuring the enemy, supporting him through the negotiations or by blackmailing him. Sanctions also are difficult issues to discuss within war termination; it could pressure an enemy into surrender, even if it's extremely hard and honestly sometimes it is not even that useful if it is towards a great power rich with resources; also, because these sanctions to be extremely effective must be accepted by everyone, and most of the times it's not the case. In the domestic model of war termination, public opinion, or new leadership or both can actually help towards the end of a conflict. in the bargaining model, combat is seen as information; the bargaining will open when the info of both parties about winning will meet each other. The battles gives you information that you search for in a conflict, and once both info are complete, then a process of bargaining can have some space; the point is to take the war itself into the negotiations.