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.