World peace: Issues and

Perspectives

Assignment # 2

Submitted By: Yasir Jamal (22325)

Submitted to: Dr. Rizwan zeb
Submission Date: 8April, 2019
Q1. What are the major components of security for states?

National security has a number of component elements which, when individually

satisfied, provide a nation with security of its values, interests and freedom to
choose policy. These are listed differently by various authorities. Besides the
military aspect of security, the aspects of politics, society, environment, energy and
natural resources, and, economics are commonly listed. The elements of national
security correlate closely to the concept of the elements of national power.

Some scholars have depicted security as an 'essentially contested concept.This

contention must be addressed before we proceed to analyse the concept of
security,for three reasons: First, there is some ambiguity as to what this means.
Second,security may not fulfil the requirements for classification as an 'essentially
contested concept'. And third, even if security were to be so classified, the
implications forsecurity studies may be incorrectly specified.

Q2. In the realist perspectives, how does anarchy shape the incidence and
nature of conflict and cooperation among states?

Anarchy (international relations) is defined as the absence of some overarching

authority in the international system. The Realist theory of international relations
asserts that states are the core power players in international politics. Realists
counter to the anarchic world system by assuming a self-help doctrine, believing
they can rely on no one but themselves for defense. They believe that in the
anarchical system, the basic aim of a state’s behavior is endurance, which they see
in relative terms; holding that the bigger security of one state will necessarily lead
to reduce in security of others. Thus, states are forced to continually take into
account that others might have more power than them or are setting up to gain
more power and are so mandatory to do the same, leading to competition
and balancing.

Q4.in what ways have the collapse of cold war and the character of the post
cold war international system called into question the appeal and relevance of
the realistic approach?

A period ended when the Soviet Union collapsed on Dec. 31, 1991. The conflict
between the United States and the Soviet Union defined the Cold War period. The
collapse of Europe framed that altercation. After World War II, the Soviet and
American armies engaged Europe. Both towered over the remnants of Europe's
forces. The fall down of the European imperial system, the emergence of new
states and a struggle between the Soviets and Americans for domination and
influence also defined the confrontation. There were, of course, many other aspects
and phases of the altercation, but in the end, the Cold War was a resist built on
Europe's decline.

Lots of shifts in the international system accompanied the end of the Cold War. In
fact, 1991 was an astonishing and defining year. The Japanese economic sensation
ended. China after Tiananmen Square inherited Japan's place as a fast growing,
export-based economy, one defined by the continued pre-eminence of the Chinese
Communist Party. The Maastricht Treaty was formulated, creating the structure of
the later European Union. A vast federation dominated by the United States
reversed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Three things define the post-Cold War
world. The first was U.S. power. The second was the rise of China as the center of
global industrial growth base on low wages. The third was the return of Europe as
a massive, integrated economic power. Meanwhile, Russia, the main remnant of
the Soviet Union, reeled while Japan shifted to a radically different economic
mode. The post-Cold War world had two phases. The first lasted from Dec. 31,
1991, until Sept. 11, 2001. The second lasted from 9/11 until now.

In this new era, Europe is reeling economically and is separated politically. The
idea of Europe codified in Maastricht no longer defines Europe. Like the Japanese
economic wonder before it, the Chinese economic miracle is drawing to a close
and Beijing is beginning to examine its military options. The United States is
withdrawing from Afghanistan and reconsidering the relationship between global
preeminence and global power nothing is as it was in 1991.

Q5. Explain how and why the liberalist approach is more optimists than the
realist perspectives on the prospects for security in international politics?

The two key concepts of international relations are realism with divide a gloomy
view of human nature and liberalism that has an optimistic view to the climb of
modern states.
Realism is associate degree approach to the study and applies of international
politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption
that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national
interests disguised as moral concerns.

At its most elementary level, the national interest is generic and simple to define:
all states look for to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity.
Once these 2 interests are secured, however, national interests could take totally
different forms. Some states may have an interest in securing more resources or
land; other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into
other areas; some states may merely wish to be left alone.

Generally speaking, however, the national interest should be outlined in terms of

power. National power has associate degree absolute which means since it may be
outlined in terms of military, economic, political, diplomatic, or perhaps cultural
resources. But, for a realist, power is primarily a relative term: will a state have the
power to defend itself against the facility of another state? Does a state have the
power to hale another state to alter that state's policies?

This stress on relative, and not absolute power, derives from the realist conception
of the international system which is, for the realist, an anarchical environment. All
states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interests, enforce
whatever agreements they may have entered into with other states, or to maintain a
desirable domestic and international order. There is no authority over the nation-
state, nor, for the realist, should there be.

Implications of this refusal to acknowledge bigger authority area unit vital to

acknowledge the political realist fears centralized authority, unless that authority
springs from the facility of his or her state. The decentralization of the international
system permits greater diversity than would be the case with, say, an empire.
Since, however, the natural tendency of states is to extend their power, the
preservation of a localized system should be purchased with force.

The use of force to preserve the localized system is regulated by a system known
as the balance of power. Such a system works only if the major powers agree, at
least tacitly, that they agree that the preservation of state autonomy is an important
objective. If the major powers do agree, wars will still occur within the system, but
those wars will be constrained by the limited objectives of each major state. If one
major power does not agree with the limited objectives, then wars will be much
larger and more open-ended.

Liberalism became a definite movement within the Age of Enlightenment, when it

became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought-
after to interchange the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute
monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with
representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals additionally finished
mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead
promoting free markets. Philosopher philosopher is usually attributable with
origination liberalism as a definite tradition, arguing that each man has a natural
right to life, liberty and property, adding that governments must not violate these
rights supported the agreement. While the British liberal tradition has emphasized
expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting
authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building

Q6. How do the realist and liberalist Perspectives differ on the nature of the
power and its role in international politics?

Basically, the current work is meant to explain the key differences between the
most two dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism,
providing the precise and concise statements of some authors’ key words to help
the reader to identify the most relevant and appropriate theory to be used as a
methodological instrument to resolve the complexities of the contemporary world
issues. Therefore, this work applied the analogical and analytical approach to
pinpoint the deficiencies of each theory and to figure out smoothly the most
convincing basis of the tow controversies. Accordingly, the following main
concepts are discussed human nature, power, security, survival, security dilemma
and anarchy being the basic assumptions of each theory guiding us somewhat to
Liberalism as the appropriate approach to maintain a harmonious peaceful
environment in the world of politics.

Realism is a dominant theory of international relations focuses on state’s security

and power (high politics) primarily. Besides, states are considered the only unitary
rational actors where its survival and interests is the cornerstone of interstates
relation highly based on might rather than on right. Hence, realists believe that
people are by nature sinful and instinctively seeking power to dominant others.
Power will be everlasting in the human’s nature and the possibility to be eradicated
is a utopian aspiration.

According to Jan Jack Rousseau, people under the general will of the social
contract must scarify some of their rights to the leader of the society to live under
constant rules and regulations -liberals view of international system- to eliminate
the state of nature where the stronger intimidate the weaker to be the dominant
figure in the realm is the same condition realists view the interaction of states or
international relations as an anarchical nature in the international system.

On the other hand, Liberalism as a dominant theory of international relations

emphasizes peaceful interstates relations where the preference of states goes
beyond politics to economic and social interaction to achieve a harmonious
environment and reducing war conflicts. Basically, the liberals underline that states
are not unitary actors and non-states actors are significant to take a part in the
realm since states are not rational and all actors will function better together.
Additionally, power and security dilemma is a secondary objective.

According to (Kegley, 1995) the nature of humans is essentially good and people
are capable of mutual aid and collaboration. Besides, the essential human concern
is the public interests rather than individually as expressed in realism consequently.
The Enlightenment’s devotion in the opportunity of developing civilization is
restated. Moreover, there is nothing called sinful human nature but a bad behavior
refers to the evil institutions and structural arrangements that prompt those to
perform self-centered and to harm others including making war. Conversely,
Hobbes versus Rousseau that human nature is naturally competitive and violent
(classical realists’ view of international system).

Classical realism trace back its origins to Thucydides’ account of the

Peloponnesian wars (Hutchings, 1999).The drive for power and the eagerness to
control are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature. Power conflict lies
within the human nature and the psychological behavior which controls the mind
of humans is agreed by classical realists including Morgenthau who’s most
important point is that society is governed by objective rules engaged in human
nature. It’s worthy to mention that neorealist or structural realist such as Waltz,
Jervis, and Mearsheimer focuses on the international system instead of human
nature while states remain the main actors. Therefore, the international system is
the structure which dominate the relations among states.

Q7. From a liberalist perspective why are states not unitary actors and how
do the characteristics of states, political systems, and societies influence state
behavior in international politics?

The principal enemy of liberalism is the state. All liberals fear that the state may
act in an arbitrary manner to persecute certain groups. Even a moderate form of
paternalism is inconsistent with liberal ideology. As such, the role of the state must
be limited via constitutionalism, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. It is
imperative that the state remains a minimal influence in our lives due to its
discernible habit of encroaching upon the private lives of its citizens. In the realm
of the economy, the state should facilitate laissez-faire economics. The state must
also enable full religious expression, a notion that finds its most obvious example
within the United States. The framers of the American constitution included a
religious test clause which stipulates that no-one may be denied public office due
to their religious affiliation. The US constitution also insists upon a wall of
separation between the church and state.

Unlike conservatism, liberalism is built upon a positive view of human nature.

Liberals are resolutely optimistic about the capacity for human achievement and
self-improvement. True to this mindset, liberals believe that we should place our
faith firmly on the shoulders of the individual. In the words of John Stuart Mill an
individual is the best judge of their own interests and no authority (such as
religious institutions) can claim superior knowledge. This positive view of human
nature also shines through any number of theoretical contributors ranging from
the Rawlins difference principle to utilitarianism.

Having said this, all liberals accept the need for state involvement within society
and the economy. This marks a fundamental point of departure between liberals
and anarchists. Whilst both ideologies share a sunny outlook on human nature,
liberalism specifies a limited role for the government. There are several case
studies to consider, although the most illuminating is surely that of the Lockean
social contract.

John Locke depicted the social contract as binding on everyone. He added

that “every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one
government, puts himself under an obligation to everyone of that society to submit
to the determination of the majority.” Under this contract, the existence of
government is justified upon the basis of consent. Crucially, the people have
periodic opportunities to renew the government’s mandate or elect an alternative.
The government also agrees to operate in accordance with natural law and to
uphold our rights whilst the people accept the government’s authority.
Furthermore, the people may also consent to some curtailment of their civil
liberties provided they retain the option of reclaiming such rights.

Q8. How is the contemporary dominance of the liberalist perspectives

displayed in international politics?

Liberalism is a defining feature of modern democracy, illustrated by the prevalence

of the term ‘liberal democracy’ as a way to describe countries with free and fair
elections, rule of law and protected civil liberties. However, liberalism – when
discussed within the realm of IR theory – has evolved into a distinct entity of its
own. Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and arguments about how
institutions, behaviors and economic connections contain and mitigate the violent
power of states. When compared to realism, it adds more factors into our field of
view – especially a consideration of citizens and international organizations. Most
notably, liberalism has been the traditional foil of realism in IR theory as it offers a
more optimistic world view, grounded in a different reading of history to that
found in realist scholarship.

Liberalism is based on the moral argument that ensuring the right of an individual
person to life, liberty and property is the highest goal of government.
Consequently, liberals emphasize the wellbeing of the individual as the
fundamental building block of a just political system. A political system
characterized by unchecked power, such as a monarchy or a dictatorship, cannot
protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Therefore, the main concern of liberalism
is to construct institutions that protect individual freedom by limiting and checking
political power. While these are issues of domestic politics, the realm of IR is also
important to liberals because a state’s activities abroad can have a strong influence
on liberty at home. Liberals are particularly troubled by militaristic foreign
policies. The primary concern is that war requires states to build up military power.
This power can be used for fighting foreign states, but it can also be used to
oppress its own citizens. For this reason, political systems rooted in liberalism
often limit military power by such means as ensuring civilian control over the
military.

Q9. What is the classical security dilemma and how is it treated in the realist
and liberalist perspectives?

The security dilemma describes a situation in which one state increases its means
of defense in order to achieve a higher degree of security, which, however, is
interpreted by another state as an act of aggression and thus countered with
security measures on its side, thus possibly leading to an armament spiral.

According to Alexander Wendt, Security dilemmas are not given by anarchy or

nature" but, rather, are a social structure composed of inter subjective
understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-case
assumptions about each other's intentions.

Glaser argues that Wendt mischaracterized the security dilemma. Wendt is using
the security dilemma to describe the result of states' interaction whereas Jervis and
the literature he has spawned use the security dilemma to refer to a situation
created by the material conditions facing states, such as geography and prevailing
technology. According to Wendt because the security dilemma is the result of one
state's interaction with another, a state can adopt policies which hinder the security
dilemma. Glaser blames Wendt for exaggerating the extent to which structural
realism calls for competitive policies and, therefore, the extent to which it leads to
security dilemmas. Glaser argues that though offensive realists presume that in an
international system a state has to compete for power, the security dilemma is a
concept mainly used by defensive realists and according to defensive realists it is
beneficial for nations to cooperate under certain circumstances.

Another mode of criticism of the security dilemma concept is to question the

validity of the offence-defense balance. Since weapons of offense and of defense
are the same, how can the distinction between the two are connected with a state's
intentions? As a result, critics have questioned whether the offense-defense balance
can be used as a variable in explaining international conflicts. According to Glaser,
criticisms of the offense-defense balance are based on two misunderstandings.
First, the sameness or difference of offensive weapons compared with defensive
weapons does not impact the offense-defense balance itself. Offense-defense
theory assumes that both parties in conflict will use those weapons that suit their
strategy and goals. Second, whether both states involved in the conflict have some
common weapons between them is the wrong question to ask in seeking to
understand the offense-defense balance. Instead, critics should focus on the
influence or net effect of weapons used in the conflict. According to Glaser,
Distinguish ability should be defined by comparative net assessment" or the
comparison of the balance of offense-defense when both sides use weapons versus
when neither side is using weapons.

Q10. Which perspectives is more optimistic about cooperation in international

politics, and why?

Liberalism can be crudely defined as the “freedom for the individual” as it believes
that human’s are good natured beings. Liberalism’s core ideals stress
individualism, human rights, universality, freedom from authority, right to be
treated equally under the protection of law and duty to respect and treat others as
“ethical subjects” as well as freedom for social action.

Liberalism also argues that stability and relative peace can be achieved in the
international system via a hegemony that sets the agenda for global institutions by
playing an active part in international politics.

This theory which is known as the hegemonic stability theory holds the view that a
hegemonic in the international system of states who has more economic and
military power than other states can produce economic stability which is seen as a
collective/public good in the international system and all the states benefit from it.
The hegemony can do so without disregarding its own security interests because
other countries benefit from the economic stability that is produced regardless of
whether or not they contribute to it.
In contrast to liberalism, its theoretical opponent realism does not attempt to paint
an optimistic picture of international affairs; in fact realism’s main drive in
international relations theory is to highlight the anarchic nature of international
politics. Classical realists who are also known as traditional realists, held the view
that international politics is an amoral exercise which is blighted by war and
conflict because of human nature.

However modern realism which is known as neo-realism separates itself from the
political rules which are situated in human nature and its characteristics and takes
the view that the structure in which states exists in international relations is
anarchic due to the absence of an overarching authority sovereign.

Possibilities for peace in the neo-realist perspective which is pragmatic in its view
of international politics amidst anarchy and security competition are limited.
Unlike their neo-liberal counterparts, neo-realists are pragmatic when it comes to
discussions of peace in international politics. Regardless, there have been
suggestions that pursuing realist policies can lead to a more stable world where
there is lesser conflict.

Q11. What was the impetus for the development of peace studies in the 1950s?

Peace studies is clearly not reducible to Galtung’s work alone, nor has everyone
followed his path. Nonetheless, given that he is easily peace studies’ most prolific
and prominent writer, Galtung’s work tells us a lot about the field’s evolution.
Within contemporary peace studies one can now find work which still focuses on
some of its earliest concerns, such as arms control, analysis of the causes of wars,
critical studies of contemporary wars (including the so-called ‘war on terror’), and
conflict mediation and resolution; in short the pursuit of negative peace. Much of
this output overlaps very strongly with a range of cognate fields such as IR and
critical security studies. Since the rupture in the 1960s, the relationship between
violence, exploitation, and development has become a central concern producing
today a considerable overlap between peace studies and development studies.
Additionally, there is a huge volume of work on the much more difficult area of
building positive peace, including on human rights, environmental security and
ecological well being, gender and violence, peace education, and explorations of
non-Western thinking such as Gandhian conceptions of non-violence and the
various branches of Buddhism as the basis for constructing a culture of non-
violence 2008). It is this area of writing that can arguably be more fully described
as unique to peace studies. Two views can be taken on the state of contemporary
peace studies. Positively one might celebrate its diversity and ever-expanding
range, in spite of the fact that peace studies cannot be said to represent in and of
itself a distinctive philosophical or theoretical viewpoint. It could be understood as
a very large exercise in collation, of ideas, analyses, proposals, and prescriptions
that straddle the boundaries between formal social scientific research, normative
enquiry and political activism and which is loosely connected by an imprecise
normative orientation that can be derived from a number of sources.

Peace studies can be conceived of as a site or a space in which critical cognitive

intent is brought to bear in myriad ways upon the problem of violence and the
prospects for its eventual eradication. Peace studies are on the Curricula of
hundreds of universities, predominantly in the US but also in most corners of the
globe. There are also public and private research institutes Dedicated to the
analysis of peace and conflict throughout the world along with the half a dozen or
so dedicated journals, some being as old as the field itself. A more critical view
might wonder if the constant expansion of the purview of peace studies has meant
that it has acquired the qualities of an intellectual black hole wherein something
vital, a praxeological edge or purpose has been lost, not least because the
ostensible subject domains of violence and peace remain so essentially contested.
On this view, a case might be made for restoring a focus on the continuing problem
of direct violence at all levels of Social life. A sobering fact remains that if peace
studies are to be judged by the relative prevalence of direct violence during its
half-century life span then it would be hard to declare it a success. This is not to
suggest that peace studies should abandon its traditions of inter disciplinarians,
epistemological diversity or its historical relationship with peace activism.
However, the changing nature of warfare and the growing salience of the issue of
armed humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War era present a raft of new
challenges to peace studies. More controversially, it opens up the possibility that if
peace studies is to offer viable, less violent alternatives to the currently dominant
modalities of intervening in the various wars and complex political emergencies
that are hallmarks of the present era, then its historical association with an absolute
prohibition on the resort to violence in the name of peace may warrant critical
review In the absence of such a prohibition of course, the maintenance of a
distinctive quality to peace studies would in itself become real challenge.

Q12. Why did peace studies develop beyond its Cold war focus and how did it
come to put an emphasis a wider issues such as socio-economic divisions and
environmental constraints?

The world has transformed rapidly in the decade since the end of the Cold War. An
old system is gone and, although it is easy to identify what has changed, it is not
yet clear that a new system has taken its place. Old patterns have come unstuck,
and if new patterns are emerging, it is still too soon to define them clearly. The list
of potentially epoch-making changes is familiar by now: the end of an era of
bipolarity, a new wave of democratization, increasing globalization of information
and economic power, more frequent efforts at international coordination of security
policy, a rash of sometimes-violent expressions of claims to rights based on
cultural identity, and a redefinition of sovereignty that imposes on states new
responsibilities to their citizens and the world community.

These transformations are changing much in the world, including, it seems, the
shape of organized violence and the ways in which governments and others try to
set its limits. One indication of change is the noteworthy decrease in the frequency
and death toll of international wars in the 1990s. Sub national ethnic and religious
conflicts, however, have been so intense that the first post-Cold War decade was
marked by enough deadly lower-intensity conflicts to make it the bloodiest since
the advent of nuclear weapons It is still too soon to tell whether this shift in the
most lethal type of warfare is a lasting change: the continued presence of contested
borders between militarily potent states in Korea, Kashmir, Taiwan, and the
Middle East gives reason to postpone judgment. It seems likely, though, that
efforts to pre- vent outbreaks in such hot spots will take different forms in the
changed international situation.

A potentially revolutionary change in world politics has been a de facto

redefinition of “international conflict.” International conflict still includes the old-
fashioned war, a violent confrontation between nation states acting through their
own armed forces or proxies with at least one state fighting outside its borders. But
now some conflicts are treated as threats to international peace and security even if
two states are not fighting. Particularly when internal conflicts involve violations
of universal norms such as self-determination, human rights, or democratic
governance, concerted international actions including the threat or use of force are
being taken to prevent, conclude, or resolve them just as they sometimes have been
for old-fashioned wars. In this sense some conflicts within a country’s borders are
being treated as international.

Q13. Why there was such bitter opposition to peace studies in the 1980s and
how did it affect the subsequent development of peace studies?

The transforming promise conveyed by Peace Studies lost its character in the
standardizing of peace building policies in the 1990s, and today stumbles against
the polymorphous resurgence of realism as a discourse that is allegedly more
appropriate to the circumstances of the international relations system. The political
contraction of Peace Studies, which consigns it to a status of instrumental utility in
the management of the peripheries of the world system, also entails a theoretical
contraction. However, the genetic particularity of Peace Studies resides precisely
in its radical nature. It is this radical nature that will bring to a halt its slide to the
locus of normal science – a science closed to innovation that canonesses the future
in terms of the past.

For this reason, and in order to achieve its full post-positivist expression, Peace
Studies must now radicalize its critical approach, assuming the biases and flaws of
the concepts underlying Western modernity and, as a result, opening up to
heterogeneity, to plurality, to the periphery and to the epistemological
contributions of feminist, environmental and cultural studies. Decolonizing its
knowledge and striving for sustainable peace appear as the necessary tools for the
return of Peace Studies to its critical vocation. Only thus will Peace Studies
become a vehicle for overcoming relations of power and domination, whose
indictment and deconstruction determined its birth and affirmation. It is only thus
that its emancipator goal of social transformation will materialize and that its
conversion into a new form of social oppression can be averted.
Q14. Is it possible for peace studies to be both analytical and normative or
does this producing irresolvable tension?

Peace studies is clearly not reducible to Galtung’s work alone, nor has everyone
followed his path. Nonetheless, given that he is easily peace studies’ most prolific
and prominent writer, Galtung’s work tells us a lot about the field’s evolution.
Within contemporary peace studies one can now find work which still focuses on
some of its earliest concerns, such as arms control, analysis of the causes of wars,
critical studies of contemporary wars (including the so-called ‘war on terror’), and
conflict mediation and resolution; in short the pursuit of negative peace. Much of
this output overlaps very strongly with a range of cognate fields such as IR and
critical security studies. Since the rupture in the 1960s, the relationship between
violence, exploitation, and development has become a central concern producing
today a considerable overlap between peace studies and development studies.
Additionally, there is a huge volume of work on the much more difficult area of
building positive peace, including on human rights, environmental security and
ecological well being, gender and violence, peace education, and explorations of
non-Western thinking such as Gandhian conceptions of non-violence and the
various branches of Buddhism as the basis for constructing a culture of non-
violence 2008). It is this area of writing that can arguably be more fully described
as unique to peace studies. Two views can be taken on the state of contemporary
peace studies. Positively one might celebrate its diversity and ever-expanding
range, in spite of the fact that peace studies cannot be said to represent in and of
itself a distinctive philosophical or theoretical viewpoint. It could be understood as
a very large exercise in collation, of ideas, analyses, proposals, and prescriptions
that straddle the boundaries between formal social scientific research, normative
enquiry and political activism and which is loosely connected by an imprecise
normative orientation that can be derived from a number of sources.

Q16. Should peace studies explore underline causes of conflict or should it

main emphasis is on more immediate responses to specific conflict situations?

The area of study and practice usually group under the term conflict resolution has
been one of the fastest-growing aspects of peace studies since the 1990s, but has
not been without its controversies, involving such processes as mediation, conflict
transformation, and post-conflict peace building, it has been an active field of
academic study as well as burgeoning into an industry involving non-government
organisationsandinternationalagencies.
Two problems have emerged, one theoretical and one practical. First, at the
theoretical level, some critical theorists have argued that conflict resolution is
palliative rather than transformative being concerned with a sticking-plaster
approach that may appear to promote peace but does not address underlying
reasons for conflict. In a sense this is a replay of the maximalist controversy of the
1970s. They further argue that much of the practice of peace building carries the
risk of exporting western ideas of liberal peace which may retain an element of
exploitative equality, thus hindering effective progress in emancipation.
Second at the practical level, many of the organizations attempting to resolve
conflicts, at whatever level, need to demonstrate success, not least to ensure their
continuing sources of funding. There can, therefore, be a tendency to overstate
their claims of progress, in practice; the best forms of mediatory intervention are
those with very modest expectations of success and an ability to remain
unpublicized. Some of the peace churches such as the Quakers have a good record
in this respect.

Q18. Is Climate change threat to security?

Until recently, the debate about climate change has emphasized how large the
economic consequences are how these compare to the costs of action and whether
the United States or other nations can afford to address the issue. Extreme weather
events such as Hurricane Katrina, the fires in Greece, and the floods in Africa and
Asia suggest a different way of thinking about the issue. The macroeconomic costs
of Hurricane Katrina were minimal in the context of a large and resilient U.S.
economy but the human and political consequences were significant and painful.
Whether or not Katrina was linked to global warming climate change will likely
yield more of these kinds of episodes, which are characterized by concentrated
costs to particular places and people leading to severe local impacts and cascading
consequences for others. The concentrated impacts of climate change will have
important national security implications both in terms of the direct threat from
extreme weather events as well as broader challenges to U.S. interests in
strategically important countries. Domestically, extreme weather events made
more likely by climate change could endanger large numbers of people, damage
critical infrastructure (including military installations) and require mobilization and
diversion of military assets. Internationally a number of countries of strategic
concern are likely to be vulnerable to climate change, which could lead to refugee
and humanitarian crises and by immiserating tens of thousands contribute to
domestic and regional instability. Climate policy should seek to avoid the worst
consequences of global warming. It should start with no-regrets measures that
make sense even if the consequences of climate change prove less than severe.
These include coastal protection at home and support for military-to-military
environmental security conferences overseas. In addition, the United States should
support policies that’s simultaneously address multiple problems, such as those
that reduce security risks but also provide economic benefits investments in
infrastructure, for example. The United States must also recognize that the existing
concentration of greenhouse gases guarantees that some climate change is
inevitable. U.S. policies should thus support risk reduction and adaptation at home
and abroad. Specific adaptation policies that could be supported are early warning
systems, building codes, emergency response plans, coastal defenses, and
evacuation and relocation schemes. While risk-reduction programs are a necessary
component of a climate policy that addresses national security, the United States
and the world will need to move to a decarbonizes energy future before century’s
end it is widely agreed that a major push to support new technologies to lower
greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon is essential. But policymakers must
recognize that mitigation policies involve not only costs but also opportunities to
strengthen national security. A new compact on clean energy technology transfer
to China and India would bolster support for the rules-based global order that the
United States has nurtured since World War II. An avoided deforestation scheme,
particularly in strategically important countries such as Indonesia, could not only
reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also support stability and conflict resolution.
Finally, for these policy recommendations to have traction, institutional reform is
needed. To give voice to climate and security concerns, several new positions
should be created across the executive branch in the Department of Defense, in the
National Security Council, and in the Office of the President. The policy proposals
presented here are illustrative rather than exhaustive, but they have the potential to
strengthen national security by reducing U.S. vulnerabilities to climate change at
home and abroad, securing and stabilizing important partners, and contributing to
other goals such as energy security and industrial revitalization. In a world of new
security challenges, forging a climate policy along these lines must be a national
priority.

Q20. To what extent have the conflicts in the Persian Gulf since 1980 been
about the control of oil?

The current Gulf crisis is largely a conflict about oil. It is likely to develop into a
war which would thus become the first oil war in world history. The issues which
provided Iraq with the pretext for its invasion of Kuwait were oil pricing policies
and oiI revenues. Of course, Iraq had broader political and regional objectives, but
its most immediate and pressing concern was to loosen the economic and financial
noose that was threatening strangulation. Low oil prices, technical limitations on
arrent oil output and financial constraints on the investments required to reclaim or
expand productive capacity were causing intractable problems for the government
and severe hardship for the population. President Saddam Hussain was finding
himself pushed further and further into a corner and tried to get out of it by
invading Kuwait. This behavior was utterly unacceptable and rightly condemned
by the international community. But for the purposes of this analysis it is relevant
to recall that oil was an integral part of the story. Oil, a prime, though not excusive,
motive of Iraq’s action, was also one of the powerful spring bolts which triggered
the American reaction. The USA moved politically and militarily with
considerable might and amazing swiftness in order (a) to protect its own and
OECD countries’ access to the most important sources of world oil supplies, and
(b) to remove horn the Middle Eastern map a regime increasingly perceived as a
serious security threat to Israel. Sadly, moral outrage at a gross infringement of
international law - the occupation and annexation of a sovereign state -would not
have caused by itself such a mighty reaction. About 60-65 per cent of the Iraqi and
Kuwaiti oil and product exports in 1989 was destined to the OECD countries.
Almost half of the total OECD imports from Iraq and Kuwait went to OECD
Europe, and accounted for 11 per cent of their consumption. The distribution of
these imports within OECD Europe is uneven. Some countries imported none or
only small quantities of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil and products, while other countries
relied heavily on these imports. In addition, dependency of any particular countries
can be both direct and indirect. For example, the Netherlands, with its large export
refining industry, imported 271 thousand b/d in 1989, much of which is exported
after refining. The real degree of dependency of the Netherlands on Iraqi and
Kuwaiti oil is therefore much much less than suggested by import figures. By
contrast the apparent import dependency of West Germany on Iraqi and Kuwaiti
crude and products is fairly low, 29 thousand b/d, but real dependency is
significantly larger, since it imports considerable amounts of products from the
Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp region, some of which are refined from Iraqi and
Kuwaiti oil. Italy was also a large importer from Iraq and Kuwait. In 1989, it
imported 204 thousand b/d, of which a substantial share was oil products from
Kuwait. France imported 134 thousand b/d, mainly crude oil from Iraq. The share
of the developing countries as a whole in the total exports of Kuwait and Iraq is
small compared to that of the OECD. But this is not a very meaningful fact. The
real problems are that the import dependency of some individual developing
countries on Iraq and Kuwait is substantia1 arid that the economic impact of a
dislocation in the pattern of oil flows tends to be more severe, other things being
equal, on a developing than on an industrialized country. Brazil and India are both
large oil importers with a particularly large dependency on Iraq and Kuwait
(imports from these sources were accounting for some 26-28 per cent of oil
consumption). Pakistan is a smaller oil-importing country but its dependency on
Kuwaiti and Iraqi I imports was very high at 47 per cent of consumption.

IEA emergency sharing mechanism was created by a majority of OECD

governments in 1974 to prevent a recurrence of the situation in 1973-74 when the
international oil companies had to operate their own systems for allocating supplies
during the embargo and production cutbacks instituted by Arab states in the
aftermath of the 1973 war. The IEA system is in principle simple. Each country
has a demand restraint mechanism in place for reducing its consumption by 7 per
cent in case of an emergency in which supplies for the 1EA group as a whole are
reduced by 7 per cent or more, by 10 percent in cases where supplies are reduced
by 12 per cent or more. Any supply shortfall in excess of 7 per cent in the one case,
in excess of 10 per cent in the other, is filled by a drawdown of stock. In practice,
of course, the distribution of available supplies to IEA as a group is unlikely to be
in balance as between member countries. A calculation, therefore, is made €or each
country to establish what is its allocation "right" from the group or allocation
"obligation" to the group. The rights and obligations are then redistributed, in the
first instance by voluntary re-arrangements of supplies (e.g. by exchanges between
companies), in the find reckoning by measures decided by IEA (which may include
directives from governments to companies). There are, of course, many definitions
and rules which complicate what is in essence a simple system. The 'trigger'' that
activates the sharing system is an assessment by the IEA that supplies to the IEA
group as a whole have fallen, or can reasonably be expected to fall, below normal
supplies by 7 per cent or more. Normal is calculated by reference to the actual
historic "base period of consumption in the year beginning 5 full quarters prior to
the quarter in which the disruption occurs. In the current situation, therefore, the
"base period would be the four quarters 1989/2 - 1990/1. Apart horn the general
trigger, as described above, a "selective trigger" may activate the system. This
occurs when one individual IEA member country can demonstrate that it has Lost,
or may reasonably expect to Iose, supplies in excess of 7 per cent and that it has
restrained its demand by 7 per cent. While the sharing mechanism is an agreed and,
in theory, automatic response by EA to a supply disruption there is also a defined
process of consultation, which may last up to twenty-one days, and must take place
before the system is activated. The IEA has an additional consultative process
which was introduced in 1984 after the 1979-80 crisis when, although oil supply
was at risk and prices rapidly increased, there was no supply disruption according
to EA definitions. It was under this latter consultative process, presumably, that the
IEA governing board met after the current crisis broke.