Should the United States Have Intervened in Sierra Leone?

United States Intervention

            In 1961, the United States and Sierra Leone established diplomatic relations. Since then, the United States has aided the people of Sierra Leone in multiple ways, the most recent being during the Ebola outbreak in 2014. However, the United States was silent when the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), originating from Libya, entered the country in pursuit of diamonds in the early 1990s. For eleven years, the RUF terrorized the people of Sierra Leone, killing and cutting off the limbs of thousands. During this time, the United States was silent. Therefore, the question remains; should the United States have done more to help Sierra Leone or was it wise of the United States to keep their distance? A simple answer to this question is that it was wise for the United States to stay out of the conflict.

            It is important to mention that, in 1997, the United Nations Security Council placed sanctions against Sierra Leonne, and in 1999, the United Nations finally intervened. However, this was eight years after the beginning of the conflict, and the damage had already occurred. Also, getting a unanimous decision in the Security Council as to what to do about the conflict in Sierra Leone would have been extremely difficult to do because of the veto power of China and Russia. It does not mean the United States should have bypassed the United Nations though.

            As stated before, the United States and Sierra Leone do have diplomatic relations. However, having diplomatic relations with a country is a lot different than having a formal alliance with them. Alliances hold a more profound meaning because ties are stronger, especially when one is in need. On the other hand, diplomatic relations are merely friendly communications between two states, and the bond between these countries is not nearly as strong. Therefore, the United States was under no obligation to intervene on behalf of the Sierra Leonne government.

            It was also arguably better the United States did not send troops in to help fight the RUF. In the past, United States intervention has not led to a better government in the area, nor seen more peace. Although the civil war in Sierra Leonne happened before, the United States intervention in the Middle East after 9/11 could be an indicator as to what would have occurred in Sierra Leonne had the United States entered. Had the United States intervened, it is quite possible that they would try to take the lead in every aspect of the fighting. Thus, when the conflict was finally over, the United States would have felt that it was their obligation to “put the country back.” Had this happened, Anti-Americanism would have been a significant consequence.

            As seen in the Middle East, the United States’ intervention has seen a rise in terrorist organizations and attacks. While the Americans thought they were helping, the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria had a growing distrust in them. Had the United States intervened in Sierra Leone, this same reaction could have been a consequence.

            In the end, the United Nations applied sanctions on Sierra Leone which soon led to the conclusion of the civil war. Although the United Nations should have done something sooner, rather than waiting eight years to intervene, applying sanctions was the best option. For the United States, not intervening meant no American lives were lost, and anti-Americanism did not grow in the region.

Global Warming as a Global Security Issue

Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies

Professor Shirk

Climate Change as a Security Issue

Climate change has posed a pressing challenge for all nations as many debate how to handle the situation. Global warming is not a national security issue; it cannot be fought off with guns or the army of a nation, but instead it is a global security issue. The threat of the changing environment is universal as its effects will be seen by all nations and therefore must be addressed by all nations. While it does not connote the same violence or military strategy as national security, global security requires action from people across the world in efforts to keep the globe safe from environmental destruction. The threat of climate change must be recognized globally in order for there to be effective action taken, such as reducing emissions and working with countries to deal with the impacts.
The Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change examines how global warming is relevant as a security issue by looking at how various regions of the world approach dealing with climate change. Many who work on defense have deemed climate change as a “threat multiplier” or an “accelerant of instability” because of how it influences a range of other, already existing threats”(American Security Project 1). As it directly affects independent nations, so too does it affect their relations with other countries. The index identifies East Asia as being an ideal representation of how the rest of the world should handle climate change. The countries recognize climate change as being one of the factors of conflict. International conflicts heighten because of climate change, bringing attention to the issue in some areas. Other areas such as the Middle East and North Africa have done little to identify climate change as a prevalent issue. However, many international conflicts have direct affiliation with the effects of climate change; for example, in areas with food shortages, the problem could be heightened by increasing temperatures, leading to a conflict in resources (American Security Project 1). Similarly, as sea levels rise, many island nations are witnessing their homes deteriorate. Thus, with the destruction of such areas comes an impending refugee crisis. Therefore, nations must recognize the damaging effects that climate change has on the people of the world and its resources. 
In identifying global warming as a problem, action can be taken to reduce the effects and acquire strategies to handle the impact. The Paris Agreement is perhaps the most famous attempt at actualizing a plan for climate change. The agreement sets a long term temperature goal of keeping the global temperature increase to below two degrees celsius, and hoping to limit it to one and a half degrees above pre-industrial levels. Syria has recently announced their plans to sign the agreement, making the United States the only nation not participating in the efforts. The goal is for nations to plan to create a strategy that aids in reducing emissions and working with the global temperature outline. The timeline is that by mid-century, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be balanced. For example, there will be efforts put into growing forests in order to absorb carbon dioxide output. Yet, such an agreement is dependent upon participation and cooperation. As the issue affects all people on the globe, all nations must be willing to work towards a solution. While the current threat is largely to nations deeply impacted by the rising sea levels, everyone will ultimately be affected by global warming. 
Therefore, while it is important that climate change is recognized independently within nations, it is more prevalent as a global security issue than a national security issue. The rising temperatures and sea levels do not merely impact one nation, but rather the entire world. While some effects seem more direct (such as the rising sea levels near Tuvalu, for instance) for some areas, ultimately, the entire world will be subject to the impact of global warming. Thus, there must be a global plan or strategy that includes every nation and works to implement concrete programs in order to aid in the handling of global warming. 

Work Cited;

Deudney, “The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security”, 

            American Security Project.

North Korea

Too often are Presidents, politicians, and everyday Prince Charming’s use North Korea as another excuse for the United States to get themselves involved in another nation’s internal affairs.  Most often, this desire for American involvement is due to our dedication to democracy, and attempting to implement it around the world in order to form a strong globalist coalition of democracies.  However, such a fantasy is just that – a fantasy.  There are complexities, intricacies, and nuances within every nation that none of us will be able to understand as outsiders.  We believe that American democracy is a round peg, and every other nation happens to be a round hole.  This is simply a fallacy.  North Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of our failed interjections are triangular and square holes, but we, the persistent child, force the peg in regardless.

This is certainly not to say, however, that North Korea is given a clean record and should not be influenced otherwise.  Though, when we decide that, since our system of government and way of life is superior to theirs, we must force them to adhere to it, we find the flaws in our own ideals.  It is clear that the United States, free of human rights atrocities like the DPRK, can serve as a model to not only the Kim family, but other nations around the world.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to force this onto them.  To do so downplays and ignores those intricacies and nuances that each nation holds.  The best thing, at this point, that the United States could do, would simply be to serve as a model for North Korea to follow.  Although this is inefficient, it is much more efficient and effective than forcing it. 

Further, this is only referencing American policy on the internal affairs of North Korea and their blatant human rights violations.  There continues to be an ever-present external threat to the United States posed by North Korea, which should be handled otherwise.  The nuclear threat that the DPRK poses is real, and diplomacy is the only present way to alleviate that threat.  We have seen Presidents flaunt their attempts at diplomacy with North Korea for decades, although none seem to have made any progress.  Frankly, certain Presidents from the 1990’s made things significantly worse.

Diplomacy with North Korea seems to be a very challenging task, which it certainly is.  However, it is not impossible.  There is an abundance of stigma surrounding the nation which is almost completely negative.  This stigma creates most of the difficulty in working with them, since it is considerably frowned upon to cooperate with nations that commit such heinous acts upon their people.  If we were able, as Americans, to blind ourselves to these things and make an honest attempt to help these oppressed peoples, we may be able to see good results.  Kim Jong Un is a man that, although crazy, would be able to rationalize a discussion if given the right opportunity.  Our leaders have spent too long demeaning North Korean leaders, while at the same time, attempting to have diplomatic discussions.  Two such things are simply mutually exclusive.

The Global Influence of North Korea

            One of the biggest issues of international security currently is that of North Korea (also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK). The most obvious of potential threats the nation poses to the world is that of nuclear war. North Korea currently poses a great threat to countries such as South Korea and Japan, who are within range of its short-range missiles and may potentially pose a great threat to the rest of the world, and especially the United States. Beyond these risks, however, there also remain several other reasons to focus on North Korea and its potential impact on the world, from its geopolitical location, to its leader, human rights violations and alliances.

            In regards to the most obvious potential threat North Korea poses -nuclear war- many may argue that based on international experiences with the Cold War, North Korea is actually not much of a threat. As no one launched any nuclear weapons then, no one will utilize their nuclear arsenal now, for the same reason they didn’t then: mutually assured destruction. While that may potentially be true, there always remains the risk that Kim Jon Un may decide to act anyway, for whatever reason anyone chooses to believe: from cold-blooded, calculated cruelty, to a mass tantrum stemming from insanity and/ or immaturity and egocentrism.

            Beyond that, North Korea also poses a threat to international security due to its relationships with nearby countries such as China, with whom it shares a border and is immensely economically reliant. China holds great control over North Korea and its future actions, as it accounts for “89% of DPRK foreign trade” (Lecture 10). However, it also does not want a change in regime, for a multitude of reasons. If the North Korean regime falls, it fears an influx of refugees into China, something which it does not wish to deal with. China also fears intervening too much, as North Korea is guilty of committing terrible human rights abuses on a large scale, and pressuring change in the nation would only serve to highlight China’s own human rights abuses (such as the conditions for their factory workers). This is something that would greatly impact Chinese power, as well as trade, primarily with countries such as the U.S.  This fact alone greatly hinders any efforts to absolve the many threats North Korea poses, however, it also could potentially be utilized to solve many issues, with both North Korea, and China.

            China is one of the largest producers of consumer goods in the world. Many of the goods it produces is for western countries, most notably, the U.S. Perhaps if some form of trade sanctions or regulations could be implemented by, say the United Nations, on China and its production abilities, it could motivate China to positively utilize its influence over North Korea. Currently, one of the only things standing in the way of China properly helping the rest of the world curb North Korea’s threat level is the motivation to do so. If there was a way that could curb economic advance for China, even temporarily, perhaps such change could be inspired (along with, potentially some positive change for China’s human rights issues, if implemented correctly). This, of course, is relatively unlikely, unless such regulations could be designed to not negatively impact those countries and corporation’s dependent on Chinese labor to build their products at a cheap rate. It is also likely that Russia, unless in on the agreement, with help bail China out of any issues, as it wants its fellow communist country to succeed.

            Overall, North Korea and its importance to international security and prosperity cannot be ignored or minimized. Regardless of personal opinions of Kim Jon Un’s dangerousness, of the abilities of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, or of any other such factors, due to its geopolitical positioning and consequent relationships with superpowers such as China, its potential influence on and/ or role in international security affairs cannot be underestimated.

The Deadliest Century

20th Century: The Deadliest In Human History

The "Miracle of the Sun" on October 13, 1917 marked the final apparition of Our Lady of Fatima, having already appeared several times since April of that year. Those Marian apparitions in Portugal were a harbinger, a warning sign of what was to come within the next 100 years: the most brutal century that the world has ever seen. The casualties of conflicts in the 20th century completely dwarfed those of any centuries that came before it. With a much larger global population in the 21st century, greater technology, and civilizations once again retreating to their own ideologies, we may yet see a carnage on par with the 20th century, through war or otherwise. Even if we should believe conventional warfare to be in decline, other human security issues suggest that our era is no less bloody than those of our ancestors.

Our Lady of Fatima appeared during an unprecedented period of history. For the first time, entire societies were pitted against each other directly in war. "The Great War" encapsulated the size of destruction that occurred primarily in "civilized" Europe between 1914 and 1918. The World War I period is also important because the West found themselves in the same predicament then as they do today. In each case, there was a golden age of peace (Belle Epoque and post-Cold War), economic and technological revolutions (Industrial Revolution and Information Age), rising powers leading to hostilities (the rise of Germany and the rise of China/Russia), and political scientists predicting a continued peace, appealing to liberalism and trade interests  ("The End of War" and "The End of History"). Though we do not yet know the end result of our era, World War I ended in around 10 million deaths, and the drastic change of political boundaries that had existed since the Congress of Vienna. Since then, no European state has been able to challenge for dominant global hegemony, at least as an individual power. Therefore, all the "progress" made by humans technologically amounted to nothing socially.

More importantly, the last Fatima apparition occurred three weeks before the Russian Revolution, launching a global ideological war that would last until the 1990s. Having established the first Marxist state, it provided a serious threat to conservatism, liberalism, monarchy, and capitalism all at the same time, ideas that had dominated the world centuries before. World War II was a culmination of the conflict of these ideologies. It remains the deadliest war in history, with around 60 million people perishing during the war. In addition, it was the only truly global war so far, in that there was no nation on earth that remained unaffected by the war, whether or not they were neutral. The end of the war came about with the development of nuclear weapons, the first weapon powerful enough to destroy the earth. While the United States and the Soviet Union did not devolve into direct war with one another, there were several instances where nuclear war was a real possibility, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This time period in history was also brutal enough that it prompted the recognition of genocides. The Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Holodomor, genocides in Russia, Cambodian Genocide, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution all occurred between World War I and the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of the Armenian Genocide, these events were part of the ideological warfare between capitalism and communism. Together, these events alone have caused at least 100 million deaths. While none of these events were unique from any other historical atrocities with similar consequences, they came at a time when genocide awareness existed, and were done on a more massive scale than any time period before it. In addition, none of these examples except Armenia and the Holocaust took place during a war. The Holodomor and genocides in Russia occurred under Stalin in the 1930s. The Khmer Rouge were enabled by their victory in a war to carry out their atrocities in the 1970s, after they had gained power. Many of the victims died from execution, but also dysentery, malnutrition, starvation, or being physically worked to death. Famine during the Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions of Chinese in the 1950s. And social upheaval claimed the lives of millions during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, though no war was declared.

The post-Cold War era itself has already had many humanitarian crises as well. The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syrian wars are all well documented. Nuclear weapons are also still an issue, as India and Pakistan developed nukes after the Cold War, with the threat of Iran and North Korea gaining capabilities as well. On top of those issues, however, the Yugoslav Wars resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. In Rwanda, the Hutu murdered 800,000 Tutsi over the course of 100 days in 1994. The Second Congo War raged on from the late 1990s and early 2000s, resulting in an estimated 2.5-5.4 million deaths, the largest death toll since World War II. The War in Darfur has killed about 300,000 and displaced several million since 2003.

While diplomacy in the 20th and early 21st centuries has reduced the sheer number of conflicts, a mountain of evidence, past and contemporary, suggests that the world is still very capable of barbaric acts, and that leaders will seek to circumvent either diplomacy or direct war to abuse their people.