David Kennedy's Threat RankingsProfessor David Kennedy’s threat rankings on the global security matrix seem to have been based primarily on his conception of the state and system as needing several components in order to sustain itself. Thus, whereas a different interpretation of the matrix might have led to a perceived high level of threat to the state from terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, his interpretation of terrorism and WMDs as necessary to the existence and continuation of the state and the state system is distinctive for his systemic view of threats to global security. On the human level, Kennedy encountered difficulties in distinguishing between threats to the individual in different contexts. Whether he provided an interpretation of perceived threats from an individual living in a nation such as the U.S. or whether he tried to average the perceived level of threats to individuals across the world was unclear. Based on his threat rankings, the highest threats to individuals, those of resource conflict and environment, seem to apply to all individuals regardless of the strength or economic power of the nation from which they come. His discounting of warfare and failed states as significant threats indicates that he interpreted threats at the individual level from a more outsider-looking-in perspective, one in which the threats to an individual living in a warring state are canceled out by the greater majority of individuals that do not face this threat. His ranking of threats at the state and system level are based more on what he sees as the central factors that feed the state or system’s survival. From this view, whereas destruction from warfare is still a significant threat at all levels, the possibility of terrorism/crime or WMDs is not in itself a threat to the continuation and existence of the state or system of states. Kennedy’s comment that states want terrorism, or at the very least to convince their citizens of the threat of terrorism, seems in line with the view that external threats can foster a government’s role of providing security. Terrorism seems to be equated with a ‘threat of war’ that can foster a state’s survival, although warfare itself poses a higher level of threat. Kennedy’s questioning of whether failed states are endogenous or exogenous to the system of states, is also an important consideration in interpreting the threat of failed states that deserves consideration. From his ranking of states at risk to the system, he determines that states at risk are exogenous to the system. Thus, Professor Kennedy sees the threat of environmental degradation, pandemics, and resource conflict as the biggest threats, as these threats actually threaten the very existence of the system, whereas the threat of terrorism or WMDs that select states encounter is not as significant to the continuation of the state system. This view extends to the threats that networks (international organizations, think thanks) perceive, because perceived threats such as environmental degradation could actually foster more connections and networking among institutions, thereby strengthening the role of these very networks. Thus, the threats that networks perceive to global security is seen as distinct from what the networks need to sustain themselves. Thus, he adds an additional level to the interpretation of threats, one in which networks themselves have separate interests from global security. On the global level, Kennedy distributes the threats evenly, with the notable exceptions of WMDs and Infowar. Kennedy did not seem to consider the cultural factors from an Infowar as a significant factor, either due to the belief that information disseminated for specific interests could not affect state capabilities, or due to a misunderstanding of the concept of Infowar. Thus, Kennedy’s threat rankings coincide with the view that if states were not rational actors seeking to maximize their gains, there would be no need for an international system of states. The system of states provides a means through which states can foster their role as security providers and assure their future existence. However, Kennedy’s discounting of WMDs as a significant threat overall is puzzling in light of the threats that nuclear proliferation or weapons trafficking could pose to regional and global security. It is unclear whether his low ranking of the threat from WMD proliferation derives from a belief that nuclear deterrence has been effective or whether the threat of WMD proliferation has been embellished to foster alliance-formation or domestic agendas (an interpretation more relevant to the U.S.) The low threat ranking of WMD proliferation overall contrasts with the high level of threat that warfare poses at all levels. For example, how could the current North Korean nuclear crisis, with its potential to trigger regional militarization and security buildup, be explained by this global security matrix? North Korea’s nuclear crisis can also be seen as the ‘last gasp’ of a state acting out on the brink of its collapse, which raises questions for the overall low threat ranking given to states at risk and the threats they pose to regional and global security (North Korea’s nuclearization triggering Japan’s military normalization, which could produce parallel buildups in China’s military, creating further competition between the U.S. and China for authority in the region).
Posted by Joanne Park on October 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Permalink |
Prof. Kennedy's Rankings Analysis Professor David Kennedy of the Harvard School of Law visited IR135 on Thursday, August 12 and participated in ranking the threats in the Global Security Matrix. As a guest, Professor Kennedy had both an interesting take on the Matrix and a unique way of assessing threats. Posted by Christopher Keys on October 16, 2006 10:15 PM | Permalink |
David Kennedy's RankingsBefore jumping in to an explanation of Prof. Kennedy’s remarks, I think it is prudent to note several items. First, Kennedy went through the matrix vertically, looking at groups and then each risk. As a class, we worked through the matrix horizontally, focusing on the threats and how they relate to different human groups. Although one should ideally consider each box as though it were isolated and independent, it seems that Kennedy had a different context than the class for assessing threats. One of the more interesting, and certainly unscientific, areas of Kennedy’s assessment was in his use of averages. When looking at the threat of warfare to an individual, Kennedy remarked that a person in the U.S. would be ranked at a 7 while a person in a place such as Chad would be assessed a 2. To issue a ranking, Kennedy averaged these two numbers (sort of) to 5 for the entire category. I am surprised that the same method was not repeated for all other categories. For example, one might say the risk of warfare to Canada is low while it is high to Israel. The threat of states at risk was almost entirely discounted by Kennedy, who regarded the collapse or pending collapse of a nation as a threat of isolated impact that rarely occurs. This view negates a far reaching effects of a failed or failing state. After North Korea’s recent foray back into the arena of testing nuclear weapons, it has been hypothesized that the nation is indeed on verge of crumbling. On that assumption, a failing state with nuclear weapons is a serious threat to all levels of analysis on this matrix. Such a state could undoubtedly threaten the use of its nuclear arsenal in hopes of securing aid from the international community. At the same time, I think that it is difficult to underestimate how much damage a failed state with no nuclear capabilities would cause. The former Yugoslavia and now the Sudan are prime examples of this. Violence spills over borders and international forces get involved in these circumstances. Failed states cannot control their illicit exports, such as drugs or human trafficking, which certainly has an impact on people and organizations around the globe. Infowar was not a concern to Kennedy, who balked at the suggestion of media causing a threat to any of the levels of analysis besides the state. I do not think Infowar was described properly to him, however. Cyberterrorism and the use of electromagnetic pulses to destroy electronic devices were never brought up, leaving Kennedy under the assumption that the category is only referring to information transmitted through various forms of media. Prof. Luong, who teaches a course focusing on global security at Brown, lectured on Cyberterrorism and EMPs last week. Luong was particularly concerned about assaults on the computers that control electrical grids or if attacks were used to delay emergency response in conjunction with a conventional strike. Kennedy also viewed networks as international businesses, discounting what he called “do-gooders” as a small percentage of transnational networks. That’s fair, he has written a book on “do-gooders” and the lack of good they actually do titled The Dark Side of Virtue, but I am not sure that businesses aren’t destroyed by information. At the very least, we should say that many businesses are forced to adapt or change due to negative information about their practices being conveyed to the public. Just think of how much money McDonald’s has poured into creating media arguing that its products are healthy or how much the menu has changed since it became fashionable for experts to ridicule their food as fattening or harmful. Posted by Joshua Rosenthal on October 16, 2006 05:47 PM | Permalink |
Interpretation of the "Threat" Rankings by David KennedyThe IR135: History and Theory of International Relations class welcomed Professor David Kennedy of the Harvard Law School last Thursday. The class, led by Professor James Der Derian, requested that Prof. Kennedy perform a "threat ranking" within the Global Security Matrix. Kennedy contested the fundamental nature of threat ranking, an action which may or may not further the GSM's progressive goals of rethinking global security, and presented his own opinion on the subject of security. For Kennedy, the concept of absolute threat represents an abandonment of the culture of "tolerated insecurity" embodied in our legal system. This, in turn, undermines the spaces and practices enabled by this tolerated insecurity, such as our ability to engage in uncertain behavior that we perceive to promise a greater social good (e.g. innovate). As such, he was somewhat skeptical of the utility of the rankings, the validity of their criteria, and the [implied] methodology for completing a ranking. He did not, however, seem to comprehensively apply his conception of security within his rankings, likely due to the manner in which the rankings were completed (a back-and-forth intellectual exchange between the two professors). Professor Kennedy performed his rankings by assuming the position of the various actors (columns). It is interesting to note, however, that he was not entirely methodologically consistent with this perspective, often explicitly acknowledging the large magnitude of the perceived threat while simultaneously discrediting it with expert knowledge. For example, Kennedy said that while people perceive terrorism as a major threat, in reality one is unlikely to be affected. In contrast, he described resource conflict as a major "threat" to humans because one always has to worry about "what the Jones' have." At the level of the state, Kennedy concluded that the largest dangers were warfare, resource conflict, and the environment (particularly in the case of small island states). Kennedy described systems as "agnostic" in that they do not care about their current state. Thus, systems do not fear transition, just as individuals do not fear religious conversion because conversion presupposes a new belief system in which the end-state (post-conversion) is correct. He then concluded that terrorism, pandemics, WMD, and, to a lesser extent, the environment were threats to systems because they challenged their very being (but not their state). Kennedy imagined networks not as Slaughter's description of transnational NGOs and judges, but rather as a realistic total of all network activity (he also initially ignored networks as physical). This led him to conclude that networks, which are "cooly rational," should fear terrorism, pandemics, and WMD proliferation. Meanwhile, they would simply reroute around failed states, and be mechanisms for, rather than victims of, infowar. This actor-based analysis supposedly extends to the global level, where Kennedy asserted that warfare, pandemics, and the environment were the largest threats (followed closely by resource conflict and terrorism). However, one must wonder how these rankings were rationalized, as terrorism was given a high value despite being written off elsewhere. It is probably wise to assume that Prof. Kennedy did not strictly follow his earlier goal of positioning himself as the actor for this portion of the GSM, in part due to the incredible difficulty of imaging oneself as the "global level," and the implicit debate that would have to take place over exactly how that actor should be imagined (Gaia, a cold dead planet, the sum total of living things, the sum total of humans, etc.). In conclusion, Professor Kennedy's rankings are illustrative of the difficulty in performing a threat ranking within the GSM framework. Exactly how, and from where, one should evaluate threats makes individual expert rankings vary markedly. However, this is not a demonstration of the failure of the GSM. Rather it is a demonstration that the GSM is not a tool for understanding which threats must be addressed and when, but a mechanism for understanding the contentious nature of global security. Posted by Nick Greenfield on October 16, 2006 04:26 PM | Permalink |
David Kennedy's RankingsI thought it was extremely interessting to hear Professor Kennedy's justifications for his threat rankings in the Global Security Matrix. As we were going through the exercise again, I realized that I did not have a terribley good understanding on who the actors in the global system were and what their specific functions were when I made my initial rankings. I thought it was clever of him to average the rankings that he proposed for each actor and individual threat in the Matrix, depending upon the circumstances of the actor involved. For instance, when he ranked States at Risk he first looked at individuals in the United States, giving them a low ranking of a 6 or 7, and then individuals in a failed state to which he gave a ranking of a 1 or 2. By averaging these two values together, he was able to come up with a more appropriate threat ranking somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. When I did my rankings I was not anywhere near as objective as Professor Kennedy, and basically concluded threats based on my own personal experiences. If I had looked at the world as a whole, not just at the United States and my life as a New Yorker, I think my threat rankings would have been much less severe. Posted by Allison Wright on October 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Permalink |
My interpretation of Professor Kennedy's rankings (Emeline Lemoine)Anybody taking a look at Professor David Kennedy's global security matrix will notice that the spectrum of his rankings is very wide. Professor Kennedy gave a lot of high and low rankings. I found it interesting to see that, to give his rankings, Professor Kennedy literally put himself in the shoes of the different actors. For example, he asked himself: “If I were a State, would I consider terrorism as a threat?” I think that this way of thinking has a substantial impact on his rankings. When I gave my own rankings to the matrix, I proceeded in a different way. I wondered: “Do I (as a student of International Relations) think that terrorism is a major threat for a State or not?” As a result I gave a medium ranking to terrorism (between 4 and 5 probably) because I thought that, indeed, as a surprise attack, terrorism can destabilize the State. Professor Kennedy had a different and interesting approach. Embodying the State, Professor Kennedy asked himself a different question: “Do I (as a State) fear terrorism or do I want it?” In other words, he wondered if terrorism is only a bad thing or if the States can take advantage of it as well. As a consequence, his answer was that even though terrorism can destabilize the State, States can take great advantage of it as well, through a renewed legitimacy, a new sense of unity among the population, a new enemy to unite against… In short, Professor Kennedy reflected in terms of a balance between the advantage and the inconvenient. He wondered if, as a State, he would consider terrorism as weakening or strengthening his power. As his answer tended towards the latter, he gave terrorism a quite low ranking. In the same way, Professor Kennedy considered that war is not an important threat to the State System because war is a constitutive element of the State system. For example, war can be used to maintain the balance of power. One of the lowest ranking Professor Kennedy attributed was the threat of failed states (states at risk). I think that it can be understood by the statistical method that Professor Kennedy used for his rankings. While he was thinking about the threat represented by failed states over individual human beings for instance, Professor Kennedy said that it obviously constituted an important threat for the people that are living in such states but that the threat was almost non-existent for the inhabitants of other states. On this basis, Professor Kennedy logically argued that, failed states representing a very small fraction of all states, the threat of states at risk over individuals was low. If we follow his argument, Professor Kennedy’s ranking makes sense. However, I am not convinced by Professor Kennedy’s hypothesis that states at risk only constitute a threat to individuals living in them. I personally think that through the spread of war from a failed state to another state or the development of terrorism, crime, drugs and other international traffics in failed states, states at risk can constitute a threat to individuals all around the world. Also, unlike Professor Kennedy, I do not think that because failed states do not belong to the state system, they do not represent any threat to it. I think that the simple risk of contagion from a failed state to another state is a threat to the state system. According to Professor Kennedy, Information Warfare is not an important threat in the international society. If he invented the matrix himself, I do not think that he would have mentioned infowar among the threats. I think that even when Professor Kennedy gave a medium/high ranking to infowar – as a threat to states, he did so under the pressure of the class. His first reaction was to say that information warfare was not an important threat because states use it on a daily basis (through propaganda or spying for example). I think that Professor Kennedy might have underestimated information warfare as a threat, especially to networks. Also, Professor Kennedy had a different approach towards the State system than Professor Der Derian notably, considering that such a system does not actually exist since states live in anarchy. In conclusion, I would like to say that I found it interesting to see that the rankings in the matrix can be very different not only from one person to another but also according to the method one chooses to reflect on the threats. For example, there are several different approaches to the relevance of every threat: the damage that the threat can cause, the likelihood of the threat to actually happen, the perception of the threat etc. According to what approach you give more attention, the matrix can be really different. Today, after looking at Professor Kennedy’s rankings, but also at the rankings of the other students of the class, I realize that if I had to rate the threats again, I would probably give a different ranking because I might favor a different approach. Posted by Emeline Lemoine on October 16, 2006 03:29 PM | Permalink |
My Interpretation of David Kennedy’s Threat AssessmentDavid Kennedy’s approach to the threat assessment with the global security matrix was quite unique. He made a point before he began his assessment to explain his position regarding what his approach would be in assessing the threats presented by the Global Security Matrix. Although he found it would difficult for anyone to assess a threat by placing oneself in the place of others to asses the threat ranking, at times he would estimate it the threat based on the percentage of actors concerned or involved with the threat level he was analyzing. His approach was interesting and different from my own individual approach and that of the collective approach of the class, because he brought up the point of tolerated levels of insecurity in his assessment. This is quite different from the approach of security because it suggests that some of the various actors benefit and even promote certain levels of insecurity to promote their goals and agendas. He brought to light some examples in the field of law that also led to his point in approach of the GSM by providing examples of when people are allowed to have privileged injury and how in order to promote society, in his example of the neighbor playing loud music being at the domestic state level, a certain level of injury is tolerated. He then suggested the question for permissible injury at the international level and whether things that are security risks could be considered “a cost of doing business” in order to achieve an end or goal. With this in mind David Kennedy began to fill out the GSM. Posted by Ivan Maldonado on October 16, 2006 01:42 PM | Permalink |
My interpretation of David Kennedy's GSM Ranking {Aaron Wee}Prof Kennedy's Threat Ranking was based on his conception not so much of direct threats or potential for harm to the actors, but of the limits and tolerances of unfavorable conditions levelled against them. In that thinking, his belief in the potential for serious destabilisation is in marked contrast to the Class Aggregate (which paints a nearly uniform yellow shade of danger). However, it was apparent in the class discussion that Prof Kennedy did not fully understand the concept and role of InfoWar in the threat matrix, or perhaps he did not even regard it as a worthy destabilisng factor in the greater scheme of things. That being said, it was perhaps not surprising to note that Resource Conflict and the Environment were apparently of a greater concern than Warfare and Terrorism. To Prof Kennedy, the amibugous transhuman is constantly in a struggle for resource conflict, a stance that I share with him. What is the history of human activity without the history of economic activity, the endless cycle of demand and supply and the eternal problem of limited resources unable to satiate unlimited wants. Human economic competition, be it a struggle for basic needs or the oneup-manship that has dogged bourgeois society since its haughty beginnings, has been of prime and utmost concern for all of humanity. As the resource conflict turns from wants to needs, when our basic survival and need for food, water and living space gets threatened, society will come to the terms that it has reached its productive limit. To overcome, first economic, then social then violent conflict will consume the common man. With very good reason, Prof Kennedy realises the immediacy of the threat, perhaps not in such dire terms, but as an immediate limit to our respective tolerance levels. Of note is Prof Kennedy's interpretation of the System actor, especially telling in his playing down of the threats posed by warfare, states at risk and resource conflict, to its existence and continuation. The reassertion that there is no state system and that we live in essentially an international anarchy, was the basic underlying of his understanding. However, for him to see terrorism as a greater threat to the state system is a little perplexing. If one is to consider internal revolutions of the scale of Bolshevism (that essentially shunted the Soviet Union from the international community for a decade) as terrorism and crime and not as say warfare or states at risk, then the justification of terrorism's threat to the system is apparent. However, as it stands, there is no greater threat to the existence of state systems then external influence as manifested by warfare. As evidenced by imperialism when European powers forcibly dismantled the internal systems of Africa, the Americas and Asia, warfare is a great impetus for the revamping and reorganizing of state systems. Continental conflicts have sometimes, while not demolishing existing state systems, repudiated international structure within the European context and replaced concepts and ideas of international relations, moving from princely actors to national actors. The conquests of Napoleon and Hitler have redefined European polities and their views on sovereignty and what it means to be a part of the international system of states. The concept of networks and their role in the InfoWar was also, I feel, not fully explored. One of the key consequences of our new information age is the rapid ability for any single individual to utilise the network advantage of technology to diffuse thoughts and ideas and use that network as a force multiplier. This is the age where information and the battle for hearts and minds are won and lost through the power of networks. Networks are more than just infrastructure components of our modern society; they are slowly but determinedly integrating into our common agenda. Any individual with basic access to the world wide web can, with very little knowledge and capital, disseminate radical views that oppose conventional state-sponsored information sources, and with eloquence and luck, reach just as broad or an even broader audience. The multiplicative impact of networking abilities has enabled information to become a critical resource and acts as a focus for the transhuman actor to band together to form supra-national entities with international influence. Broad, loose coalitions of politically-minded individuals with differing social goals have been known to exert influence over mainstream media and local government to enact significant changes, and more radically, militant groups have harnessed that same collaborative power to draw more to their ranks. Individuals may now see themselves as extensions of networks rather than states themselves, a drawing together of ideology and belief rather than by nationality or state. Last seen in a broader context in the Middle Ages, that was known as the Crusades. The ability to harness hearts and minds and to gear them towards singular goals and methods can be used to great effect and can only be ignored at one's own risk. States at Risk recieves disappointingly low attention on Prof Kennedy's ranking, perhaps duly so considering the sometimes criminal lack of interest by the average civilian of unaffected regions and the much lower than average people directly affected by it. However, once again, states at risk are fertile jumping off points for a series of myriad problems for states, systems and networks in general. An immediate effect would be the great influx of refugees into neighbouring states that would inevitably further burden and exacerbate existing resource conflicts, from tangible items like housing and basic necessities, to intangibles like employment, education and social rights. There is also the distinct issue of conflicts and problems from states at risk spreading into these neighbour states, either through an extension of the conflict or as a result of tensions brought about by the refugees. In the modern failed state conflict, national boundaries are not as hard and fast as they once were and paramilitaries and guerillas that often dog these states at risk are not beholden to respect international laws and treaties. Additionally, when states fail, law and order are often the first to be lost in the conflicts and struggles that arise. With that comes the distinct but remote possibility of international crime and terrorism. This has been graphically illustrated in Afghanistan, but can also be seen in Indonesia's failure to rein in the pirates of the Straits of Malacca, the trade in conflict diamods in sub-Saharan Africa, the long civil conflict in Uganda and the drug-related trade in Colombia and Burma. States at Risk, though they may not pose immediate state- or system-existentialist threats, contribute significantly to the dangers that exist to confront international order. Posted by Aaron Wee on October 14, 2006 03:14 PM | Permalink |
Ranking ExplanationHuman & States at Risk Human & Terrorism/ Crime Global & Environment Posted by Rukesh Samarasekera on October 10, 2006 12:31 PM | Permalink |
Jonah Stuart Brundage - Critique of Global Security Manifesto and MatrixThe Global Security Matrix and Manifesto provide an excellent model for understanding what constitutes global security in the world today. The Manifesto’s professed goal of carrying the current dialogue on international politics beyond its myopic focus on terrorism is highly commendable. More generally, by presenting global security as the realm of a heterogeneous set of actors and threats, but also revealing the considerable overlap and common ground between its constituent components, the GSM makes a compelling case for scholars and practitioners of international relations to broaden their conceptions of security. Nonetheless, despite its professed claim to the diverse nature of security threats, the focus of the GSM remains (with the exception perhaps of the environment and pandemics threats) primarily on the threat of violent conflict, a conception that needs to be broadened further. Although the Manifesto defines human security (3.2) as both freedom from fear (safety) and freedom from want (well-being), the GSM seems to give issues of want short shrift. Poverty, for example, certainly leads to violent conflict but, more fundamentally, it also kills people directly, through malnutrition, famine, and disease. Although these more direct effects of poverty are significantly addressed in the Manifesto under the heading of Resource Conflict (4.3), when it comes to the descriptions found in the Matrix itself, the category of Resource Conflict—as its title would suggest—puts primary emphasis not on the damage caused by the inequitable distribution of resources (i.e., poverty), but rather, that caused by the violent conflicts over their distribution. I would thus propose placing the emphasis of the resource section more on the structural violence of scarcity and inequitable distribution, to complement the emphasis on the explicit violence of conflict that is a corollary to these issues. Several other actors and threats described in the Manifesto and depicted in the GSM also exhibit potentially problematic ambiguities. The category defined as networks, for example, may be too broad and heterogeneous to adequately assess the threats posed to its security. Nevertheless, the approach of leaving these categories relatively ambiguous is certainly preferable to its alternative—creating a matrix of narrowly-defined, non-overlapping categories. It may render the ranking of threats more difficult, but this becomes less of a concern if we view the process of ranking not as the end goal of the Matrix but rather as one means of furthering dialogue on global security. If we conceive of the ranking component of the GSM as a functional approach to furthering our qualitative—not quantitative—understanding of threats, then ambiguity of and fluidity between categories become not a detriment but a necessity. In conclusion, the Global Security Matrix and Manifesto provide a highly accurate but certainly not all-encompassing picture of global security threats in the world today. Most importantly, they help to incite a dialogue to broaden our understanding of international relations, a dialogue that may one day render all-encompassing models useless and place an emphasis on an international relations that views and respects the world as a multi-faceted and heterogeneous place. Posted by Jonah Stuart Brundage on October 10, 2006 04:39 AM | Permalink |
Chris Keys' Justification for Most Extreme Rankings -- Orignally 9/30 under Allison WrightChris Keys' Justification for Most Extreme Rankings The biggest threats that I assessed were Environment and InfoWar for Humans, Resource Conflict for the state, and the Global Environment. The environment is such an integral part of human life that an awful one destroys humans' ability to live in a certain area. As the world becomes more and more polluted, the quality of human life will decrease far faster than any threat of war, terror or WMDs could cause. When taken to a global scale, this could potentially mean the end of mankind. InfoWar is similarly important for humans because many, if not all, of the other categories can be swayed by it. People who don't believe in Global Warming won't care about the environment. Small children in the Middle East who grow up hearing about the wrongs of Israel and America can later perpetuate hatred by way of terrorism and warfare. Finally, resource conflict has historically lied at the core of warfare and conflict for states. As resources are depleted in the future, this could become an extremely relevant category again. The smallest threats that I assessed were terrorism for people and the globe, WMDs for people, and WMDs and InfoWar for the globe. Terrorism and WMDs are extremely unlikely to ever affect the lives of individual humans. As Dr. Der Derian has stated, the average bathroom is more dangerous than WMDs/Terrorism for the average person. Additionally, the globe is too broad a stage for terrorism to ever seriously affect its stability. The same rings true for InfoWar, as the human population is too different for all people to be truly affected by its presence. Posted by Christopher Keys on October 9, 2006 06:53 PM | Permalink |
Chris Keys' Manifesto Critique -- Originally 9/30 under Allison WrightI think that, overall, the Manifesto does a solid job of explaining the various aspects of Global Security that Dr. Der Derian would like to analyze. I do feel, however, that certain aspects are lacking. Firstly, I am still somewhat confused by the term "networks." While a potentially important category, I feel that that its nebulous nature hurts any attempt to accurately assess how threats affect this category. It seems as though networks are either too disparate or too subject to overlap with other categories to judge according to the matrix's terms. Similarly, I believe that writing (accurately) that WMDs are one of terrorism's greatest potential weapons and then separating the two categories is, like networks, either hurtful or duplicative in assessing the threats posed by terrorism and WMDs. If only traditional, state-sponsored WMDs are meant by WMDs, then this would help alleviate this situation but it seems difficult to accurately analyze the threat of terrorism without the threat of WMDs. Like Allison, I believe that the last area of overlap could be in Resource Conflict, which is mainly dangerous when it manifests itself in other areas. However, certain actors (such as humans) are affected by resource conflict regardless of warfare, so it seems necessary for it to remain as is. Finally, I would like to applaud several aspects of the Manifesto. The updated definition of warfare to include more actors makes it a much more relevant category. Additionally, the inclusion of the environment is an all too often overlooked part of worldwide threats. Overall, the Manifesto does a very solid job of explaining and assessing the various aspects that threaten today's world. Posted by Christopher Keys on October 9, 2006 06:52 PM | Permalink |
My RankingsMy critique of the manifesto proposes that cyber-terrorism is an excellent addition to the Global Security Matrix. In theory, the category makes much sense, but I wanted to conduct some research to further investigate this topic. A 2002 article written by Mark Ward for the BBC blames overzealous American officials for hyping up the idea of terrorists attacking their targets in cyberspace. The article points out that disrupting services we have all come to depend on via the Internet pales in comparison to bombings and other physical acts of terrorism. Ward quotes security expert Bruce Schneier: “Breaking pager networks and stopping e-mails is not an act of terror…If I cannot get my e-mail for a day, I am not terrorised. [sic]” A 2005 article in the Christian Science Monitor is much more specific and less pessimistic about the prospects of such attacks creating large-scale ramifications. The article mentions cyber assaults on power grids and chemical processing plants as possible tangible manifestations of this form of terrorism. The author, Nathaniel Hoopes, also presents the notion of a cyber attack that is coupled with a physical assault resulting in a debilitated response by officials during the subsequent emergency. My conclusion mirrors that of the Global Security Matrix’s manifesto in some ways. Although cyber-terrorism is currently regarded as a minor threat, it has the potential to cause immense damage to an economy and could be used to augment the impact of an attack if used properly. Links: Cyber-terrorism Failed States Posted by Joshua Rosenthal on October 6, 2006 12:40 PM | Permalink |
A Critique on the Global Security ManifestoThe Global Security Manifesto (GSM) explains varying factors with supplementary examples that threaten to penetrate or weaken the defense systems of the world. Personally, I was pleased to see that the document sufficiently addresses the notion that, “security, by its very nature, is a metaphysical as well as physical challenge.” While there are certain missing variables in the manifesto as a whole that I’ll explicate in the paragraphs to follow, it is clear that a great deal of work, research, and time was invested into drafting this document. First, this manifesto significantly looks at security from the vantage point of globalization. It does not explicitly address the phenomenon of reverse globalization that is by every means a real threat to security. As Herbert Oberhänsli and Oscar Vera Vevey state in their paper on globalization and its concerns and opportunities for people in the developing world, “…there is a real risk of reverse globalization; i.e., the excesses of the West as a reason to stop development in the South. In emerging economies there is a fear that environmental issues are being used by the North as a means to slow down the emergence of new competitors, or as former Mexican President Zedillo formulated it: "A peculiar alliance has recently come into life. Forces from the extreme left, the extreme right, environmentalist groups, trade unions of developed countries and some self-appointed representatives of civil society, are gathering around a common endeavor: to save the people of developing countries from ... development." This was reiterated by Clayton Deutsch, a director at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. He stated McKinsey believes reverse globalization is one of the top ten problems facing the globe. Oberhänsli and Vevey’s report also states specific examples of this trend that has elevated in visibility since the 1980s. 1.4 speaks about the insecurity inherent in security. It states, “…in tightly networked matrices, auto-immune reactions which exceed the harm produced by the initial attack can result, further eroding the foundations of a democratic civil society.” This is reminiscent of an article from CNN that reports there have been more U.S. deaths in Iraq than there have been from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 3.2 In the discussion on human security I believe it important to mention the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 4.2 While failed states do carry disturbing global threats one must examine this issue with an extra level of analysis. A large number of states have failed or are struggling in light of colonialist actions that have placed them in a position of jeopardy. For instance Belgium’s involvement in Rwanda left perverse imprints in the country’s social fabric that directly led to genocide in 1994. It is important to recognize that TIMs may be caused by sovereign states. While it maybe easy to recognize that failed states pose a problem, assuming responsibility or assisting these countries to elevate themselves from desperate conditions is considerably more complicated and difficult. 4.3 Resource conflict can and will be a major obstacle for many states. However, one must distinguish between the problems of consumption, and over-consumption –the latter is one that the U.S. is facing today. In terms of oil, the price of gas significantly increased in the past two years yet SUV production also increased. These and more statistics point to a troubling trend. There’s more resource consumption per capita or per person than ever before. 4.4 deals with terrorism/ crime. It states, “terrorism has now come to dominate international security discourse, as the United States, the global hegemon, reconceptualized its international security strategy, and sought to fully distinguish terrorism from crime by declaring it an act of war (albeit with a loose interpretation of the international conventions concerning conduct in war) If this were truly the case then why is all the focus on one group; al Queada. What about groups like the LTTE? While I would like to elaborate on the points mentioned above I feel it important that I keep my critique concise. In conclusion, I enjoyed reading the GSM and believe it has great didactic potential. Posted by Rukesh Samarasekera on October 4, 2006 05:39 AM | Permalink |
Ranking ExplanationMy threat ranking focused on the ever exacerbated problem of resource conflict and failed states to the stability of the international system. I do not see pandemics and environmental degredation as posing a threat to system survival and continued expansion anywhere comporable to the competition of actors over natural gas, oil, metals, timber, and other necessary goods that fuel the global economy. A pandemic, while devastating when it strikes, is a spontaneous event and periodic in its devastation. The Bubonic Plague, which cose Europe one quarter of its population between 1347-48, was a consequence of overcrowding, almost non-existent sanitation standards, and horrific urban management. Nevertheless, the impact of the plague did not see Europe fundamentally shift its political and economic foundations (with the possible exception of reduced Church attendance and increased banditry). Westphalia would take place more than three centuries later. In fact, it is during periods of modern pandemics or threats from them (e.g AIDS, SARS, of the Avian Flu) that states strengthen pre-existing levels of cooperation and the international system becomes less exposed to critical danger. In my estimation, therefore, pandemics pose little true danger to states, systems, or networks. Their periodic occurence reduces them as a sustained global threat. Failed states and resource conflicts are, however, lethal and continuous threats to the international system that cannot be underestimated. Increased competition and the desire for strategic advantage has led to higher rates of intrastate rivalry (Sierra Leone for the diamond trade, Somalia for basic food stuffs, Cote D'Ivoire for ivory, and Middle Eastern oil). These resource conflicts have led to fundamental adjustments of foreign policy. Putin is eyeing for a possible military reaction to Iranian moves in the hopes of driving up oil prices for his national reserves. The Chinese import close to 1/4 of their crude from Iran, and had previously invested heavily in Saddam Hussein's regime. Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, has argued for increased coca leaf production and nationalized his state's natural gas facilities, leading to ire from Washington. Posted by Boris Ryvkin on October 1, 2006 03:16 PM | Permalink |
Rankings of MatrixI am going to focus on explaining why the most red blocks/ highest security threats of my matrix are concentrated on humans for States at Risk, Resource Conflict and Pandemics. I believe that individuals are greatly affected when states fail. The government is no longer able to provide important needs such as education, security or governance. Without these basic functions, people fall victim to competing factions, civil war, poverty, displacement etc. For example, the war in Bosnia which took 200,000 lives and up rooted thousands of people was caused by the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. (Lecture by Professor Andres of PS40) It is the people who suffer the most from a failed government and even though it might not seem like a huge threat to us in the United States but it is a huge threat to more unstable states. Another area in my matrix where humans on an individual level are threaten the most by is resource conflict. I picked resource conflict as a great threat because as I mentioned in my critique of the Global Security Manifesto, people are being hurt and killed because of the need and want of vital and luxury resources. If the United States is fighting the war in Iraq to safeguard its oil interest, think about how many lives of soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being negatively affected by this? Also, there are so parts of the world like India, China, Philippines, Africa where people don’t have enough water or food and this lowers the standard of living for them and puts safety and well-being at stake. The last area which I want to discuss is the threat of pandemics to human individuals. We all know that diseases like AIDS and SARS are life threatening diseases, however, they might seem removed or distant threats to a lot of us who have had no interaction with people who have the disease or no interaction with the disease itself. I lived in Hong Kong during the SARS epidemic and experienced it first hand. At that time it was very much a real and scary threat. People were catching it everyday and people were dying every week. I felt that if there was something that was going to hurt me it would have been SARS. Posted by Brietta Tsang on October 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink |
Rankings Explanation - Cristina FoungIn the following few paragraphs, I will attempt to explain my rankings of high risk in the areas of environment, resource conflict, and pandemics, and how all three are interconnected. The environment affects everyone and everything. Since the Industrial Revolution, human impacts on the environment have increased exponentially. For example, climate change is a threat to all actors, from human to state to system to global. Change in weather patterns and intensification of storms cause damage to homes and businesses and affects agriculture. Sea level rise threatens the very existence of small island states and coastal regions. Environmental degradation and changes can cause human health impacts, such as the spread of disease. As we (as the human race) overexploit our resources, conflict will arise. This resource conflict is and will continue to be exacerbated by climate change and its impacts on ecosystems. It is interesting to note that few people have noted pandemics as a global security threat. I agree with Emeline Lemoine that pandemics are in fact a great risk for human health. As Emeline notes, HIV and AIDS are continuously destructive. Other illnesses are also risks. The reemergence of infectious diseases thought to be eradicated, such as tuberculosis, is a serious threat. Environmental changes can cause the spread of diseases such as malaria and cholera through contaminated water supplies. As temperatures rise and as certain areas become moister, mosquito borne illnesses will arise where they have not been seen before. However, currently the big name pandemic that everyone is talking about is bird flu. While I do not think that I will contract bird flu from the organic smoked chicken breast I ate yesterday, pandemics are real. And while the spread of avian flu has mostly been seen due to sick domesticated and farmed birds and human-to-human transmission appears to be rare, influenza viruses change. Beyond the potential for the development of new strains (and particularly more resistant, infectious strains), avian influenza is interesting given the system of globalization: in a study of influenza patterns, two researchers with Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School indicated that a 27% decrease in flight activity delayed the spread of flu viruses by two weeks; they estimate that given air travel reductions, an avian flu pandemic could be delayed by up to two months. Resource conflict is widespread. The definition of the Global Security Manifesto includes “critical and scarce resources,” such as water, food, medicine, and oil. Water access has been an important issue throughout history. It is just as important today: Article 1; Article 2. Water in turn affects agriculture as well as human health. In many states, where water is an issue, access to medicine and health care is also an issue, giving rise to a double-edged sword. Without access to clean drinking water, illnesses can be contracted. Without access to medicine, illnesses cannot be alleviated. However, as noted by Joshua Rosenthal, resource conflict can be extended to include luxury goods, such as coffee and diamonds. Conflict and harm have been widespread due to such goods which can hardly be classified as necessities. A hazardous environment is the greatest global security threat because it affects all aspects of human life. No network or system or state or human can be effective if the globe is unhealthy. Posted by Cristina Foung on October 1, 2006 12:07 PM | Permalink |
Global Security Matrix and Manifesto CritiqueAfter reading the Global Security Manifesto I believe that it puts together a clear and coherent analysis of the threats facing our world today as individuals, states, systems, networks, and as a world as a whole. The Matrix and the Manifesto without a doubt lays out the various threats ranging from traditional warfare to modern terrorism so that both International Relations students and non- International Relations students can easily be reminded of the most of the obvious security threats. There are three areas though that I would like to more closely examine. First is Resources Conflict (4.3), second is Terrorism/Crime (4.4) and last is Environment (4.5). As someone mentioned in class last Tuesday, in section 4.3 for Resources Conflict, conflict caused by luxury goods is not fully addressed. Like the other student, I believe that goods that are not basic necessities (diamonds and drugs) can cause just as much conflict and strife as vital goods (water, food and oil). The diamond trade is just one example but one example that speaks for itself. Due to the world’s constant demand for precious stones, various states have had to endure civil war, hunger, displacement and overthrow of the government by tyrants like the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) who take over the diamond trade and who will do it at any cost. Conflict diamonds have led to the amputation of innocent children’s limbs in Sierra Leone have had their limbs amputated, up to 1,000 people dead every day in Angola (reported in 1993) and massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In section 4.4 for Terrorism/Crime, the threat of nuclear weapons used by terrorists and cyber-terrorism are listed, however, the threat of chemical and biological weapons (CBWs) are not. CBWs are not relatively new and unknown experiences. For example, the native Americans were weakened by the common cold and during WWI and WWI infectious gasses was used. They have also been instances where people have used some sort of form of CBWs against civilian like the anthrax attacks on various journalists and US senators as well as the Japanese On Shinrikyo group that released nerve gas into the subway system. In the last paragraph of section 4.4 it says that attempts to use nuclear weapons and cyber-terrorism have “proved difficult”. CBWs, however, have been used and been successful giving it even more reason to be listed alongside nuclear weapons and cyber-terrorism as important terrorist threats. The last section I want to discuss is Environment under section 4.5. I believe that environment threats are not only caused by a government’s inability to handle the consequences of natural disasters but also consequences of their lack of pollution controls. What I mean by this is that our environment is greatly affected by the pollution that comes with a country’s rapid industrial growth. China for example is rapidly expanding and its economy is booming, however, what are the consequences of all the growth? The pollution in cities like Beijing and Shanghai is so bad to the point where its hard to find a clear day. This puts its citizens’ well-being at stake. Although I understand that not every little thing can be included in the Manifesto but I believe that the topics above are important enough to be considered. Posted by Brietta Tsang on October 1, 2006 12:01 PM | Permalink |
Rankings on the Global Security MatrixThe rankings I proposed for the Global Security Matrix are the result of my interpretation of global security threats. The key levels to consider here vary depending on the threat that is being considered. Due to the word limit, I will focus on the rankings which I considered most important and why. Posted by Ivan Maldonado on October 1, 2006 11:55 AM | Permalink |
Justification of Rankings - Nick Greenfield In performing my threat analysis, I tried to constrain myself in a few ways which I thought might enhance an outsider’s ability to compare my rankings. I performed my ranking horizontally rather than vertically; an action that I hope will emphasize the relative danger of various threats within each paradigm. I find this preferable to a horizontal ranking, because it allows me to rank (1 through 8) the dangers to a specific category, and then compare the gravest threats by paradigm (the horizontal approach, it seems to me, requires a somewhat arbitrary assignment of values as the number of values (8) exceeds the number of categories (5)). By forcing each threat into a hierarchy, I hope not to express one’s supreme importance, but rather to facilitate easy comparison. Posted by Nick Greenfield on October 1, 2006 11:45 AM | Permalink |
My Critique on the Global Security MatrixThe Global Security Manifesto sets out on a mission to bring together the various variables that constitute global security as a whole. This mission is a daunting one, however, the Global Security Manifesto, I believe, does a good job in bringing together at least the major variables and actors involved. The inclusion of the various types of threats and the various types of actors makes for a very comprehensible tool that will allow people in the very least to explore the subject and a good part of its many dimensions. Considering the word limitations to my post I will simply the address the points of critique I found the most relevant. Posted by Ivan Maldonado on October 1, 2006 11:26 AM | Permalink |
Explanation of my RankingsOut of the rankings that I choose, I feel that the biggest threat on a global scale which incorporates all other levels, is the environment. I think that we can all agree, except for some ultra-conservative denying scientists that this is a huge threat which we all equally face. The article which I bookmarked deals with how NASA;s mission was recently changed. This obviously is a concern for the environment, since if organizations like NASA have their ability to research the effects of global warming ripped from under them, this not only is a problem for the environment because we are ignoring the problem, but also since we are controlling the discourse. If research of the environment is slowed down or even halted in some areas, it keeps the problem out of the limelight, a major bonus to the energy sector which is invested in this issue being pushed to the margins. The other ranking which I believe is a large threat on the state level is the proliferation of WMD’s. Countries like North Korea which has 100,000 well-trained special operations forces and one of the largest biological and chemical arsenals poses concern for state security. Supposedly North Korea has stockpiles of biological weapons like anthrax and the plague (see the bookmarked article on North Korea that I posted). It is also impossible for us to know how much of a threat Russia poses to us since we do not have a correct count on what and how many WMD’s they have. Posted by Samantha Munro on October 1, 2006 10:32 AM | Permalink |
Critique of Global Security Matrix While the Global Security Manifesto gives us some substance by which we can begin to look at the individual components of security threats, the categories themselves seem almost a telling sign about how one can not divide such things into categories. It is only by necessity of analysis that threats are attempted to be contained into neat subdivisions, allowing for some spillover and blurring to occur, but still differentiated. Without this starting point it would almost be impossible to begin an analysis of the components and mix of components that make up the global security matrix. I believe that the Global Security Manifesto goes to lengths to explain how the divisions are hard to make, even more so as technology, and as different actors multiply on the global scene. Knowing this, it is easier to understand how the need to model global threats, and the reality of the issue may not match up so perfectly. Posted by Samantha Munro on October 1, 2006 09:26 AM | Permalink |
Explanation of my RankingI just completed my ranking of the international threats. As I can’t justify myself for each one, I chose to explain three of them. The three examples I chose are: the impact of pandemics on humans, the impact of terrorism on the system and the impact of WMDs on a global scale. I did not choose to examine those three rankings because I consider that they are the biggest threats but rather because my ranking is higher than the class’s average and I think that it is interesting to justify my decision. I consider that pandemics are one of the most important threats for humans nowadays, especially considering the impact of AIDS in the world. My argument is mainly based on a study made by UNAIDS in 2005: Secondly, in my matrix grid, I gave a quite high ranking to the terrorism threat on the international system. As much as terrorism can threaten humans and states, I think that it is mostly disruptive for the system. Indeed, terrorism clearly undermines the state system by giving it a fugitive adversary. Terrorism directly challenges the authority of the state and reconfigures the shape of the international society as terrorists become a new type a combatant. I consider that it is a threat to the current international system because terrorism blurs the limit between soldiers and criminals. The controversy over Guantanamo Bay prison and whether or not the presumed terrorists imprisoned there should be protected by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as prisoners of war is a good example. I think that the attacks on 09/11/2001 not only hit the United States as a country but also had an impact on the whole international society. It had consequences on the international society because it was the beginning of what it called a new type of terrorism bringing about a great deal of casualties but also because of the reaction of the states after the initial attack. Although the United Nations, as early as September 12th 2001, stated that the United States had a right to retaliate after the terrorist attacks and though the war in Afghanistan was authorized by the UN Security Council and encompassed an international coalition; the American “war on terror” caused a lot of controversies between countries, especially when the US took the decision to invade Iraq. The war in Iraq was illegal in the sense that it was not backed up by the Security Council. So terrorism modifies the international society directly by challenging the system of states and indirectly, through the way states respond to this new threat. Finally, I consider that weapons of mass destruction are a very important threat on a global level. I do not think that WMDs are the most important threat facing the world today and I gave environment and resource conflict a higher ranking but I consider that those two threats are almost self-explanatory and do not need as much clarification. During the cold war, any student would have put WMDs as the most critical threat facing the earth. But, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed that the threat of a nuclear apocalypse was fading away. I partially agree with this statement. Indeed, I think that the prospect of a nuclear war between two countries is quite modest. However, I do not think that WMDs do not represent any threat anymore. I think that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially to terrorist groups is still an important threat nowadays. Indeed, the research of the French analyst, Bruno Tertrais (see for example http://www.eusec.org/tertrais.htm or http://aei.pitt.edu/1607/) shows that proliferation of WMDs is a serious threat in the world. The Non Proliferation Treaty (from 1968) on which the whole system of non proliferation of nuclear weapons is based, is clearly in crisis especially since it could not prevent North Korea or Iran from developing nuclear facilities (or even detect their programs). Moreover, networks such as the Doctor Khan’s network reveal an important breach in the regulation of WMDs. Considered as the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapon; A. Q. Khan provided nuclear technology and information to different countries, including North Korea and Iran. The biggest threat associated with WMDs is certainly terrorism. Without even considering the possibility of a transfer of technology to a terrorist group, the threat of seeing a terrorist organization launching a massive biological or chemical attack is high and could have very important consequences on the world. Posted by Emeline Lemoine on October 1, 2006 12:00 AM | Permalink |
