War – Pike & Hurricane

Unnatural cycles of violence

Oliver Etchells — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:28:20 +0000

It seems that there is a consensus forming that is as rare as snow in the Sahara, shared by right and left-wing media outlets, among academic circles, and military strategists alike: Relations between the US and China are becoming increasingly sour, and if something is not done to change course, they might enter a collision course that culminates in armed conflict. Voices from the right of the political spectrum cite China’s expansion into the South China Sea and enhanced military power as proof of the threat, whilst leftwing voices point towards the US’s trade wars, and increasing nuclear stockpile. The discourse surrounding China/US relations is nothing if not foreboding, but it is supported by a questionable theory which represents deteriorating relations as a predictable and unavoidable event in the cycle of global hegemonic powers.

Long cycle theory, developed by the Polish political scientist George Modelski, is a way of explaining the relationship between economic and political supremacy, and cycles of great power conflict. It is predicated on the logic that the relative stability of the international order since 1945, a period the Historian John Lewis Gaddis termed ‘the long peace’, is maintained by the presence of the US as the global hegemon. But according to long cycle theory, this long peace is coming to an end.

Since the 1600’s each period of relative global peace has been maintained by the presence of a hegemonic power which on average lasts around 70-100 years. At the end of this period there is a process of delegitimisation and decline of the hegemonic power, followed by the rise of a challenger, and great power conflict. Thus, the next cycle begins, with another hegemon. According to Modelski, there have been five cycles since the 16th century. Portugal emerged as the hegemonic power in the 16th century proceeding the Indian oceanic wars from 1496-1516. After the Spanish-Dutch wars at the end of the 17th century, it was overtaken by the Netherlands which, in turn, was proceeded by the wars of Louis XIV and the emergence of the UK as hegemon in the 18th and 19th century. Then begins the more familiar story: World War 2 upsets the global order and the US takes its place as the hegemon after 1945 until today.

You will see why the prospect of great power conflict between the US and China has garnered such attention when it is viewed as the inevitable time bomb waiting at the end of this cycle. 76 years have passed since 1945, roughly the length of one cycle and the BBC predicts that China might overtake the US as the global economic power in 2028, five years earlier than previously thought, due to the global coronavirus pandemic. The question therefore becomes: What will happen when this transition of power takes place? Is conflict between the US and China inevitable at this point?

Much of the frantic media and military discourse has already shared predictions in line with long cycle theory. Just to name a notable few, Shi Jiangtao, writing in the South China morning post that ‘there is a growing risk of an unplanned confrontation as relations unravel at unprecedented speed’ whereas journalists writing in the left-leaning Guardian warn that the US and China are entering a ‘new cold war’. Christopher Layne, professor of foreign affairs at Texas A&M University predicts that war between the US and China ‘in the coming decades is not only possible but probable’, and an editorial in the New York Times suggested that with Biden in the white house, ‘China wants to lead a new world order’.

The US’s military strategy seems to echo these sentiments, with the 2020 US defense report regarding China stating that ‘the PRC’s (People’s Republic of China) national strategy and military aspirations will have serious implications for US national interests’. The way that China and the US relate to one another both in long cycle theory and in the wider discourse is framed as fundamentally antagonistic. The problem is that this kind of thinking is highly oversimplified, deterministic, and predicated upon an outdated and incomplete view of human nature.

Within long cycle theory war is not just probable, it is, in Modelski’s words a ‘natural product of the long cycle’ that is ‘part of the living processes of the global polity and social order’. The end of each cycle of hegemonic power, and the chaos and conflict that follow are represented as predetermined, a ‘systemic decision’. The glaring problem with this is that it denies any agency to geopolitical actors, or indeed to ourselves to stop this outcome. Following this reasoning, no changes in government, large scale protest, or new legislation will stand in the way of this dark prophecy, because the outcome is historically determined. It necessitates the logic that not only is agency absent from these cycles, but that none of the changes that occurred in-between cycles will have any effect on the outcome.

US and PRC delegation at the 2018 G20 Buenos Aires Summit

The rise of globalized capitalism, the advent of international law, and the proliferation of powerful non-state actors are simply not considered to be variables. Furthermore, long cycle theory is built upon outdated assumptions about human nature that seem untenable to many: The belief that humans, no matter their cultural and ethnic background are inherently selfish beings that, given the chance, will try to dominate others, and the only way to oppose being dominated is to dominate. It is an ideology that is predicated on paranoia and suspicion of the other because like us, they are only looking out for their own interests. Furthermore, if one opposes this mode of thinking, they are living in a dream world, unwilling to accept the inherent ugliness and reality of the world as it is today. Within this discourse, there is no alternative, and the possibility of hope that things could be different is represented as a dangerous illusion.

All of this makes it a highly flawed model, but that does not make its underlying assumptions any less attractive to political and military actors. By adhering to its structural determinism, the model absolves political leaders from any kind of responsibility to reduce the size of their military budget and act in accordance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaties signed after the cold war. Long cycle theory is the trump card in terms of realist military strategy that allows foreign policy hawks to claim innocence whilst spending vast amounts of money on amassing even greater militaries. ‘It isn’t our fault’, the standard defense goes, ‘we would love to reduce our nuclear stockpile, but the decision is simply out of our hands’. There is certainly irony in the idea that the kind of self proclaimed ruthless pragmatists that deny the historical determinism of Marx’ writing are more than happy to be caught up in a process that denies them a place in the driver’s seat of history.

We can expect this kind of ‘mine’s bigger than yours’-style nuclear posturing from states, but what is concerning is the degree to which the media seem to be complicit in the idea that great powers are fundamentally adversarial, and each of them will turn to violence at the drop of a hat. Knowingly or not, much of the media discourse has blithely accepted the pessimistic assumptions about human nature and an unshakable belief in historical determinism that theories like long cycle theory are built on.

It is neither that the US and China are or have the possibility to be inherently benevolent buddies, nor are they inherently adversarial. The point is that the nature of their relationship is produced through representations disseminated in the media that in turn affects perceptions of their relationship that serve to inform state actions. The representation on offer in 2021 is a casual acceptance of a zero-sum game that starves alternative explanations or solutions of oxygen. At its worst, this discourse takes away our ability to honestly evaluate the complex geopolitical polities of the US and China in all their imperfections and achievements, and turns the debate into an issue of us vs them, eat or be eaten. This is precisely because long cycle theory and the militarized discourse which supports it leaves no room for alternatives. Whether China or the US is viewed as the problem is of less importance, what matters is that from left to right the outcome of a transition of power is seen to pose an existential threat to peace.

Is this really the kind of discourse that should be reproduced? A point of view that sees the next human produced catastrophe as something not only likely, but inevitable, and outside of our control? The term ‘sleepwalking into war’ is often used in this context for a reason. It represents a mode of thinking that says we don’t yet know what the spark will be, nor exactly when it will come, but like an erratic drunk, it will only take one prod to begin the domino effect that leads to war. When an event takes place that causes tensions to rise between US and China, that causes grief and anger amongst their populations and nervousness among their leaders, long cycle theory and the discourse that tacitly supports it simply does not have the vocabulary to explain how states would intervene to de escalate tensions, redirect anger, and put creative human agency to work on finding a solution.

Related articles:

International Relations Theory: An Interview with Barry Buzan

The Tension of Action & Theory

Photo credits:

Lightning flashes over the South China Sea in front of USS Nimitz (CVN 68) by John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released, via Official U.S. Navy Page on Flickr, CC BY 2.0

US and PRC delegation at the 2018 G20 Buenos Aires Summit, by Dan Scavino, Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The post Unnatural cycles of violence appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Don’t Read The News

Eje Brundin — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:00:39 +0000

This is a featured article from Pike & Hurricane’s partner magazine The Perspective of Lund University.

What is the state of the world today? Where have we been, where are we, and where are we going? Weapons of mass destruction, famine, climate crisis, asteroids hitting the earth, future pandemics, arms races, overcrowded refugee camps, super-volcanoes, fascism and alternative facts are only a few of the numerous problems that humanity faces. It can get overwhelming when trying to process all of this. However, the news tends to prioritize war over reality—when, in fact, humans are doing pretty well.

As a student of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University, I see patterns of polarization, violence, and the breakdown of states everywhere I look. Democracy is in global decline, rape is used as a weapon of war, nuclear arms deals are failing and social media is polarizing us into frightening bubbles of self-righteous, aggravating rhetoric. The problems are huge and complex, and affect people and families all over the world. Being hopeful is difficult, but let me help.

“Where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.”

When we see war and cruelty, there are deep patterns of cooperation that we tend to overlook. We read about war, murders, environmental degradation, and then think that human nature is greedy, selfish and cruel. However, when we say that the winners write the history books, we forget what made the writer a winner: human cooperation. You have a war? That is two or more sides, each one cooperating to win over the other. You have a nuclear bomb? It was created by scientists that cooperated through sharing knowledge. You have THE PERSPECTIVE in your hand? I am happy to say that we cooperated to get this delivered to you. Human cooperation is everywhere and we take it for granted. War and nuclear bombs are horrific things, but where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.

Cooperation is what makes humans unique. In the widely read novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the stranded boys slowly descend into chaos and are described to hold a beast-like quality in their human core. Rutger Bregman, a Dutch historian, found the real-life example of Lord of the Flies. It turns out six boys stranded on an island in Tonga constructively cooperated to survive for more than a year. One even broke a leg, and the others compensated to let their friend heal. Lord of the Flies is a good novel, but that’s all it is. In reality, we usually do better. We are the only species on the planet that can cooperate in large numbers with other unknown humans. This is an incredible advantage we have over other animals. Animals like wolves or monkeys can only cooperate in small numbers and not outside their circle or kin. Put ten million chimpanzees in Paris and you get chaos, but in the same space ten million humans manage to cooperate and co-exist. Human reality tends to lean toward cooperation and we see it in international politics, too.

Last year the United Nations celebrated 75 years of existence. It can be considered the pinnacle of human cooperation. It has served an instrumental role in creating peaceful international relations. States across the globe come together to discuss issues, to reach agreements and to ensure international peace. This inter-state organization has been an incredible success. Since its creation, there have been no superpower-wars. Let me say that again: there have been zero wars between superpowers while the United Nations has existed. This point might sound trivial, but oh, so important to make!

The existence of the United Nations is taken for granted today. According to Our World in Data, out of the world’s population in 2019, less than 8% is 65 years or older. This means that almost nobody alive today was of an age to witness and understand the creation of the United Nations. The pinnacle of human cooperation, to us, has always been there. Our standards of international relations and peace are very different than those who lived through the first and second World Wars. To put it into perspective, imagine instead what might have happened if there had been no United Nations at all during the Cold War. The UN has given the world the Laws of War and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and much more. Without it, wars today would be much worse than what they currently are.

This positive development is a slow and long-term one, but it is an important one. There is much data to support this worldview. Since 1945, global life expectancy has gone up, child mortality has gone down, hunger has decreased, access to electricity has gone up, democracies have increased, war deaths are decreasing, homicides are decreasing—I could go on and on. This has only been 75 years. If we instead look back 300 years, it is fair to say that humanity has progressed just fine. If you want to know more, look at all this data by yourself through Our World in Data.

Now, compare these hard facts to the news. Have you ever heard reporters say “Today 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty” every day for the last 25 years? The answer is no, despite this being a truth of global human development. Our human reality is a reality of positives and negatives merged into one world. You almost give up on humanity when you read the news, but that is because these slow, positive developments are not covered in popular media.

“Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented.”

In exclusive correspondence with THE PERSPECTIVE, Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychologist, writes that “peace consists of nothing happening, which by definition is not news.” News media tend to follow the motto of “when it bleeds, it leads,” but reality is not a big pile of blood. To understand the world, you cannot only look at the news. When you look at countries at war, look at the countries at peace at the same time to get the whole picture. To be fair, the fact that the news media mainly covers problems and human suffering is a very constructive and cooperative act in and of itself as well. While being aware of the positive progress humans are making, you are also getting information about problems humans have to solve to improve human life even further.

Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented. Dr. Pinker emphasized that by looking at data and seeing trends in the long-term, we can “muster the energy to reduce [war] further.” We learn from looking at what we did wrong in the past. We also learn by looking at what we are doing right, and it seems we have more to learn about what we’re doing right. It is difficult to process all the problems we face today, but it is because we are more aware and know more about all of our problems today. We are facing immense inequality, traumatizing wars and environmental crises. Alone, it can feel impossible to deal with it, understand it, and try to change it. Luckily, we are by nature experts at cooperating and in the last centuries we have (statistically) passed the challenge of progress with flying colors.

Featured image: Japanese Women Visit Lake Success, by United Nations Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Don’t Read The News appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

YNTR – April 2020: Forest fires in Chernobyl, new fask force in Sahel, Maduro accused of drug trafficking, and more

EditorChief — Sun, 19 Apr 2020 08:50:27 +0000

Ukraine. Forest fires near the defunct nuclear plant of Chernobyl caused radation in the area to rise 16 times above the normal level. Police arrested a suspect who is accused of causing the fires that started in early April by setting grass and rubbish on fire. While the fires increased the level of air pollution in Kiev – located around 90km south of Chernobyl – making them the worst in the world, authorities claimed there was no rise in radiation levels in the Ukrainian capital. While reports said the fires were getting dangerously close to the nuclear power plant and waste storage facilities, the government assured that the fires were contained and under control.

Sahel. Eleven European states have formed a new task force, named “Takuba”, to fight terrorism in Mali and the Sahel. The states supporting the project are Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. The French-led task force is also supposed to support the French “Barkhane” mission in the Sahel as well as the joint troops of five Sahel states.

Venezuela. The United States are accusing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as well as other high-ranking politicians of drug trafficking and narco terrorism and offered a bounty of $15 million for the arrest of Maduro. According to US federal authorities, Maduro cooperated with dissident FARC members to “flood” the US with cocaine. The US government, which supports Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guidó, already imposed sanctions against Venezuela under Maduro for human rights abuses and argues that Maduro is responsibile for Venezuela’s economic and political crisis.

WHO. US President Donald Trump has accused the World Health Organisation (WHO) and European states of knowingly allowing covid-19 to spread beyond China. Consequently, hesuspended funding for the WHO. The UN agency had declared a global health emergency on Janaury 30. The day after, Trump announced a ban on all foreign nationals entering the US from China. He said: “Tragically other nations put their trust in the WHO and they didn’t do any form of ban and you see what happened to Italy […]”. Meanwhile, New York Times data suggests that almost 40 000 Americans and authorised travellers were able to enter the US from China since the travel ban was put into action on February 4 whereas Italy introduced a complete ban on all people travelling from China on January 31. The WHO criticised Trump’s travel ban for “increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit”, and Democrats and disease experts claim that the travel ban has little effect as the coronavirus had already started to spread within the US as well as internationally.

WFP. Due to fundig shortfall the World Food Programme (WFP) was forced to reduce their support for refugees in Uganda by 30% and for Yemen by 50%. In Uganda, 1.4 million refugees rely on food rations distributed by the WFP. Activists fear that these cuts will make refugees’ lives in midst the nationwide shutdown due to the coronavirus even more complicated. A speaker of the WFP said that due to a critical lack of finances they had no other option but to reduce their aid for Yemen by half, despite the humanitarian crisis in the country. According to the UN, about 80% of the Yemini population is dependent on aid. Starting in mid-April they will receive support every second month as opposed to every month.

Syria. For the first time, the UN’s Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) explicitly names the Assad regime as those responsible for the poison gas attacks of 2017. They accuse the Syrian air force to have used sarin and chlorine gas in attacks on Syrian cities in late March 2017. Human rights organisations see the OPCW’s report as a milestone in the investigation of war crimes.

Israel. On the way of forming a new government, opposition leader Benny Gantz, who holds the mandate to form a government, has been asking for more time. This was denied to him by President Rivlin. The possibility of a unity coalition that was in sight is slipping away. Since no party has a clear majority, the mandate goes back to the parliament and a fourth election round in Israel could be the consequence.

USA. Senator Bernie Sanders ended his campaign for the nomination as presidential candidate, saying “the path toward victory is virtually impossible.” Thus, Joe Biden is the only remaining candidate of the Democrats. Sanders wants to leave his name in the ballot, but assured that he is supporting Biden in the political fight against Donald Trump. Sanders is known to not only run a presidential campaign, but to mobilise the US American progressive left and to have created a movement concerned with social and environmental justice.

Photo Credits

pi-IMG_5623, zhrefch, CC0 1.0

The post YNTR – April 2020: Forest fires in Chernobyl, new fask force in Sahel, Maduro accused of drug trafficking, and more appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Portrait of a female warlord

Oliver Ösmark — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 16:00:11 +0000

The Taliban are well-versed in crime. En masse, they’ve effectively run the gamut of all crimes founded on a total contempt for humanity, in all its forms, except for those that abide by the constrictive and unaccommodating codification of ethics only they have authorship of. As is common among terror organizations and their death-worship, they set those enthralled under their tyranny up to fail, and relish in imparting the brutal—many times fatal—penalties for noncompliance. Amorality and psychopathy are rewarded with the spoils of their “holy” war, and in a society which offers no commensurate glory for the person with little aspiration for the homicidal narcissism of the Taliban Jihadist, fear prevails.

With good reason. More than 10,000 civilians in Afghanistan were killed or injured last year, of which 47% is attributed to Taliban actions. These numbers have been stable since 2014, from which they escalated at a worrying rate in 2009. The UN estimates that civilian casualties have exceeded 100,000 since the organization began documenting the impact of the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Much like ISIL’s genocidal murder and abductions of thousands of Yazidi men, women and children shortly after declaring themselves a state in June 2014, the Taliban have their own sins yet to be answered for.

In the mid-1990’s, the Taliban committed to a strategy of fear and bloodshed targeting civilians. UN officials stated that between 1996–2006 there had been as many as 15 massacres. One such was the attack on Mazar-e Sharif in August 1998, representing one of the single worst examples of killings of civilians in the wars that have raged in the Afghan region since the Soviet invasion of 1979. In what is considered an act of ethnic cleansing, the Taliban launched an attack on the city and began killing an estimated 5,000-6,000 ethnic Hazaras, Tajiks, and Uzbeks indiscriminately. This society of dread and servility under threat of death will have shaped generations that have known little else but war.

Kaftar, the dove of war

In the mountains outside of the Baghlan Province in northern Afghanistan, an ex-commander with the mujahideen that fought the Soviet forces operates out of a compound with an alleged 150 fighters. Her name is Bibi Aisha Habibi and she is Afghanistan’s only known female warlord. She is referred to as Kaftar, or “dove” in Dari; a diminutive sobriquet—by one account—given to her by her father because she would quickly move from place to place as if she were a bird. She was born in 1953, in the village of Gawi in Baghlan province’s Nahrin District, the daughter of an important community leader, or arbob. She was one of the middle children of 10, and, being as she remembers it, her father’s favorite. She’d follow him around as he worked to settle disputes and give advice to villagers on matters of farming and family affairs.

She was engaged at the age of 12 to a man 10 year her senior. This was normal practice for most girls living in rural Afghanistan; where around 80% of the Afghan population live. Unlike other girls she wasn’t removed from public life and it was agreed—and consented to by her husband—that she’d continue to be allowed to act on her father’s behalf as an arbob. She took pleasure in working as an intermediary in marriage disputes; sometimes forcing families to allow women to choose whom they wanted to marry. Also, she implemented rules to reduce dowries, which was an obstacle for many couples not able to marry under previous conditions. In the wars to come, her husband would stay at home with their 7 children while she rode into battle.

In 1979, the Soviets invaded. A group of Soviet commandos swarmed her mountain and killed many villagers, including her son. She took to Jihad and against the Soviet forces for the next ten years. She lost family both to the Soviets as well as the Taliban which was in conflict with the mujahideen. After the Soviets, the Taliban would eventually take Kabul and control up to three-fourths of the country. In the years to follow, Kaftar would lose brothers, sons, nieces, and nephews to the Taliban.

She considers herself a collector of lost and exiled men. Her fighters consist of ex-Taliban, ex-mujahedeen, fighters of dejected ethnic minorities compelled to take up arms against the threat of bandits, brigands, and Taliban. Yet, she has herself lost family that swore allegiance to the Taliban and has, on numerous occasions, been a target of assassination attempts orchestrated by relatives. Regarding this she says, “It’s really painful when your own family members come to kill you, and then later it’s painful when you kill them.”

War all the time

With the U.S. invasion in 2001, she thought that peace would be imminent. The Taliban were routed to the south and east part of the country by coalition forces and trained Afghan security forces. Armed unaffiliated militia groups like Kaftar’s were seen as a destabilizing factor, and in 2006—convinced by the prospect of peace—she agreed to surrender most of her and her fighters’ weapons as a part of the UN’s Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups programme.

But disarmament hasn’t proved an effective strategy for peace in a culture already plagued by unresolved endemic conflicts. The Taliban were revived with a fresh dynamism. Troubled by family feuds of tit-for-tat violence and regular death threats made by the Taliban, Kaftar has experienced none of the peace promised to her by the UN and the “democratic transition of power” heralded by the war against the Taliban.

As the U.S. prepares to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, many fear the return of Taliban rule. This time, however, her fighters aren’t prepared for active revolt. The legitimacy granted to the Taliban by the current peace talks give them a political advantage over the poorly armed rural resistance fighters. In a 2014 interview, she says that she would like to seek asylum outside of Afghanistan, but has to ensure the passage of 30-40 of her family members first. Without help or enough weapons, she fears that the extremist militants will target her and her family. “I was proud of my career,” she says. “But since I have been getting threats and I’m struggling and suffering, now I think I should not have become a commander. I wish I would have been just a normal housewife. That no one would know me, no one would come to talk to me, and I would have been just a normal housewife. Now I am sitting awake at night, always on guard, with a gun, ready to protect myself.”

Blood can’t wash blood

While she has, in her own way, worked to moderate the divides between men and women, and has taken an unlikely role in her society as the leader of a community and armed fighters, she is not a respected woman among warring factions and squabbling relatives. The old Afghan proverb “Zar, zan, zamin”—gold, women, land—still motivates violence in a culture of guns and rivalries. Until the paradigm of fundamentalism and lawlessness is dismantled by means of education and stable government institutions, the rule of the sword will persist and those able to fight will give their lives to protect those they hold dearest.

Kaftar knows this life all too well, but doesn’t wish it on the generations to come. The life of a warrior is a precarious one, but if it comes to the choice between fighting and submission, the prospect of subservience under Taliban rule will always inspire bloody insurgency. Despite her hardships, she knows this: “It makes no difference if you are a man or a woman when you have the heart of a fighter.”

Photo credits:

Afghanistan Observes 2007 International Peace Day, United Nations Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

High Moon over Nili, Afghanistan, United Nations Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Afghanistan-1, Ekaterina Didkovskaya, CC BY-NC 2.0

100331-F-2616H-011, Kenny Holston, CC BY-ND 2.0

The post Portrait of a female warlord appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict

Nikhil Gupta — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:59:14 +0000

Social media is a place where you will find anything ranging from a passively nihilistic moth meme– to rallying people into committing violence. The latter is slightly more concerning. How does one go about drawing a line here? Surely, social media platforms extend a certain responsibility when it comes to controlling hostile and potentially life threatening content…right? Let’s take a closer look at how the use of Facebook can be a dangerous prospect in some countries.

The Coveted Torch of Information

In a typically democratic and well-developed country- the responsibility of filtering and distributing information is bestowed onto the industry of traditional journalism. Clearly, such a responsibility is no joke and there are conventional standards set to uphold the integrity of this industry. The journalist is, for instance, required to be objective and unbiased. In this regard the press is referred to as the 4th estate, and its freedom is essential to maintain democracy. The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) substantiates this through statistical research and have found that a freer press is an integral part of freedom.

Such a status quo has encountered a post-millennial, generation Z problem. The press has been using long-established, traditional media platforms such as TV broadcasts, radio and newspapers. However, the world is changing. Social media platforms have been – either knowingly or unwittingly – competing with these traditional media platforms over the coveted torch of information. The former makes the audience its nucleus, whereas the latter puts the audience in a passive position- Nobody likes being told what’s what!

Information Rivers and Floods

An exponential rise of social media platforms has accelerated the flow of information in the world. A vast amount of information is available to us at our utmost convenience. The catch here is that its independence means that there are no conventional standards of filtering this information. Consequently, the combination of an information overload and convenience can be disastrous. This is mainly because the traditional media has been heavily undermined by the so-called fake news epidemic. The gimmick here is that people don’t like being told what’s what on the one hand – but ironically on the other hand resort to dubious sources of information that confirm their pre-existing biases. This can be observed in the watershed cases of the presidential elections in the US, and Brexit.

If the impact of misinformation via social media on countries with an established political structure and a 4th estate is this high, then what about misinformation in countries without such a system? In the cases of Myanmar and South Sudan, misinformation and hate speech spread across Facebook have contributed to ethnic conflict.

Dark Side of the Coin

I remember being immensely fascinated and inspired by my friend who participated in the Egyptian Revolution. People – in absolute solidarity – rose up against a despot in a revolution that inspired its neighbors to muster the courage and follow suit. The role of Facebook for Egyptians evolved from a place to vent into a platform to organize protests and rallies. However, Facebook was a mere tool used by Egyptians in a cause that was already echoed in the country. In the words of Professor Henry Jenkins, “We do not live on platforms, we live across platforms. We choose the right tools for the right job.” The dark side of the coin here is that false information circulating around Facebook can be misinterpreted as truth.

In Myanmar, for instance, Facebook is often seen as ‘the internet’. This is unsurprising when you realize that half a decade ago, Myanmar was one of the least connected countries in the world. In 2012, only 1.1% of its population had access to the internet. However, in 2013, the price of mobile SIM cards dropped from over $200 to $2 due to the deregulation of telecommunications. This led to a majority of the population to purchase SIM cards with internet access. Around this time, Facebook went viral and soon was considered a status symbol. In essence, people resorted to this social media platform for daily information.

The flipside is manifested in Buddhist extremists that circulate hate speech against Rohingya muslims. In 2014, a Muslim man was rumoured to have raped a Buddhist woman, and this information spread like wildfire on Facebook. Upon reading this on extremist Buddhist monk- Ashin Wirathu’s public page, people did not question the legitimacy of the information by searching for evidence. Instead, it resulted in a riot of people that ultimately ended with two people dying.

Facebook and ‘the Enemy’

Myanmar has, in recent times, been scrutinized by the international community over cases of multiple human rights violations against the Rohingyas. According to Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF), casualties are a shattering 10,000 deaths. Facebook is used as a tool by influential individuals to paint a picture of ¨an enemy¨ according to their arbitrary bidding. They have no journalistic responsibility to relay an unbiased truth. Instead, misinformation is used for the pursuit of power by the manipulation of a vulnerable people. I know, sometimes, the truth hurts.

Feeling unnerved yet? Well, it gets darker. It seems political vulnerability and Facebook’s openness have more in common than you thought, as a similar dynamic can be seen in other countries. South Sudan’s on and off civil war has left its 4th estate in shambles. Information isn’t relayed through the metric of objectivity, but as a tool to rally for the war effort. Berlin based researcher Stephen Kovats notes, “Linkages between social media, and word of mouth, and ending up with a gun in the hand or a machete, those are fairly clear.”

The logic is painfully straightforward. Unity is good for the cause and anger is a powerful fuel that unites. Someone finds a gruesome image of people killed in an unrelated war. Regardless of its truth, it is spread around Facebook with the claim that the enemy had a hand in it. The resulting anger creates a larger divide between the two factions and in the case of South Sudan, takes a racial context. In 2016, a UN report concluded that “social media has been used by partisans on all sides, including some senior government officials, to exaggerate incidents, spread falsehoods and veiled threats, or post outright messages of incitement.”

Accountability to the people

So how did this come to be? Surely Facebook must have a protocol to deal with hate speech and life threatening misinformation. The truth is that it heavily relies on users reporting the hate speech for it to be flagged and ultimately removed. However, there exists a massive problem in translation. The main languages of both South Sudan and Myanmar are in a different text and Facebook is severely understaffed in both countries to have the resources to deal with these intricacies.

In the case of South Sudan, Facebook is not equipped to recognize certain offensive discourses and there are several terms used commonly in South Sudan that go under the radar. For instance, the term ‘kokoro’ is a derogatory term used to describe people that eat too much. However, in a social context it is used to refer to the Dinka tribe in an offensive manner. Similarly, the term ‘ber’ is used to address people who do not associate with either tribes and must, therefore, be killed. In Myanmar, discourses such as ¨if its kalar, get rid of the whole race¨, and ¨just feed them to the pigs¨ are circulated on Facebook.

The truth hurts because Facebook has it all backwards. While Mark Zuckerberg has officially acknowledged these concerns, attempts to rectify this are frankly not enough because countries like Myanmar and South Sudan are nowhere near Facebook’s list of priorities.

What now?

So in a nutshell, Facebook’s prioritization of incessant expansion abroad has left the social media platform vulnerable to being a breeding ground for violence. In an attempt to expand their business, they managed to become ever-present in countries where its omnipotence has, albeit as a bi-product, resulted in a monopoly of information. This monopoly is unfortunately used for misinformation.

What can be done to change this? The main focus should be raising awareness to people in these countries about misinformation. I believe that this is a calling for the industry of journalism to evolve from the use of not only mass media, but also to be equally active and prevalent in social media. If people are -from a position of convenience i.e. social media-made aware of legitimate sources of information, it could save lives.

Related articles:

Ashin Wirathu: One Man Triggering Ethnic Conflict

Lessons Learned from Chapel Hill

Photo Credits

Ayeyarwady Bagan, Yoshitaka Ando (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Facebook Translations, Marco Bardus (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Information, Rosalyn Davis (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Myanmar: Urgent Humanitarin Needs in Rakhine State, EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Myanmar’s Rakhine State: different realites of displaced, confined and resettled communities, EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

South Sudan, Steve Evans (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The post The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Call of Duty: Reality Edition—Is It Easier to Kill with Drones?

Nina Kolarzik — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:49:20 +0000

Morality and ethics have always played a major role in human history, especially when it comes to fighting for survival. How far would you go to survive—what actions are justified? The questions remain the same over time, but the emergence of new technologies, such as drones, leads to new ethical considerations in warfare. In medieval times the use of crossbows was banned (against Christians), because it was not considered to be knightly or honourable to kill that easily from a distance. A similar discussion emerged in recent years over the use of drones. An independent researcher and wing commander for the Indian Air Force, Dr. U.C. Jha wrote in his book Drone Wars –The Ethical, Legal and Strategic Implications that, “[the] killing of a selected individual or a group through the use of drones while sitting in a safe zone […] is against the principle of chivalry”.

Multiple Critics of Drones

Drones are seen not only as a big technological step, but also as big change for legal and ethical considerations, as the British academic in security questions, Shima D. Keene, describes in Michelle Holloway’s edited book Drone Warfare: Ethical Explorations. From an ethical perspective, there exist many critical aspects on the use of drones in warfare. Dr. Jha discusses a plenitude of them, including the physical and emotional separation of the operator and the battlefield, the question of responsibility and collateral damage, and the peculiar aspect of drones; the target will never be able to see the operator of the weapon.

Keene describes, how some people make their judgement depending on whether the consequences of using drones are better or worse than with conventional weapons. Others see them as generally bad. One of the main criticisms asserts that the use of drones is morally reprehensible because of the (emotional) distance between the operator and the battlefield. This issue which is surrounded by an international moral and legal debate will be the target of this article and most likely, of many more discussions to come.

Warfare as Video Game?

According to Keene, the critical point is the so-called “push button warfare” or “PlayStation mentality”. It relates to the psychological consideration on how the physical distance from the battlefield influences the operators’ psyche and behaviour. That includes the willingness to take risks but also the making use of the weapons. Some even say, that the mutual threat to the lives of combatants gives them some equality in the use violence. However, this does not exist with drone pilots, as Dr. Jha points out.

The main problem that this article looks at (and that Keene and Dr. Jha dealt with) is how war becomes impersonal: the distance of the operator makes them target an enemy quicker, as it is easier to see the opponents not as humans but only as targets. The drone pilots do not experience the real situation, but rather only have a digital image of it, which can desensitise and physically and emotionally disconnect the pilots from the full impact of their actions.

This disconnection can make violence and moral misjudgements more likely. The operator is in a situation that is too similar to playing a war-themed computer game which is why it is feared that they would also kill as easily as people do in video games. A drone pilot admitted, as cited in Holloway’s book, that hunting of a target with a drone “can get a little bloodthirsty. But it’s … cool.” Other pilots deny strongly that flying a drone would feel like playing a game and say that they are very aware of the impact of their actions.

Dr. Jha mentions another aspect of the problem, in terms of employment: since the most important thing for operating a drone is technical proficiency, it is feared that civilians who are not trained according to the military code which involves moral guidelines, get increasingly employed. They could act in a “PlayStation mentality” manner, as they would not have a soldier’s experience when it comes to the possible impact they may have.

Deadly Consequences

In Pakistan, a giant art installation in the province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa [see the artwork here] attracted attention. The installation portrays a girl from the region, who became an orphan when her parents were killed in a drone attack. It lays on a field to be best seen from an aerial perspective—a perspective through which drone operators see the land, too. The intention behind the artwork is to raise the awareness and empathy of the operators towards all the victims, survivors and the attacked regions. Drone strikes lead to a variety of civilian casualties, many of them avoidable. In Pakistan alone, more than 1000 civilians were killed by drone strikes, over 300 of them were children.

A common critique of drones regarding the morality of their use in warfare is that through the physical distance the drone pilot also develops an emotional distance to the events, as if he or she played a real-life computer game. This affects the pilot’s moral judgement and decision-making. By looking at the long history of warfare, drones can be said to still be a new practice. We will have to see how the discussion develops in time. Some drones are already flying without an operator—not armed ones, but who knows when that time will come. To push this problem off from the wrong course, we need to participate in the moral discussion from today onwards.

By Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Photo 1: Soldiers learning how to operate the Skylark drone, by Cpl. Zev Marmorstein, CC BY-SA 3.0

Photo 2: “Predator Drone”, by Marc Buehler, CC BY-NC 2.0

Photo 3: “Drone-007”, by Ville de Nevers, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Call of Duty: Reality Edition—Is It Easier to Kill with Drones? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Masters of War—Bypassing Morality

Merle Emrich — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 08:25:47 +0000

Rheinmetall—a German arms producer, bound by regulations of the German state and international agreements. In theory, arms deals and moral values are balanced out. Yet, the devil is in the details.

Built to Destroy

Let us leave aside the question if military production and arms deals can ever be morally right. Let us assume that a balance between humanitarian values and arms deals can be achieved through (inter)national regulations, and that that is as good as it gets. Now, let us take a look at Rheinmetall and how these regulations are supposed to work.

Rheinmetall is a German, internationally active company which, aside from car parts, produces military equipment. In Germany, arms exports need to be permitted by the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA), and in special political cases even by the Federal Security Council, which limits Rheinmetall’s export options. Usually, weapon exports to countries that are involved in conflict, or that are likely to be involved in a conflict soon, will not be approved. Through these regulations exports, especially to countries in the Middle East, are supposed to be limited if not prevented entirely. But how come bombs produced by Rheinmetall are used in Yemen’s civil war? How come the UN had to stop a Rheinmetall export to Iran?

Running Gun Blues

What would a regulation be without any loopholes to bypass that very regulation? In the case of Rheinmetall, the loophole takes on the form of production abroad. Having production locations in, for example, Italy (RWM Italia) and South Africa (Rheinmetall Denel Munition), allows Rheinmetall to sell military equipment to countries that the German government does not permit exports to.

In regions with high unemployment rates, such as Domusnovas on Sardinia, Rheinmetall’s subsidiary company RWM Italia is a welcomed source of employment irrespective of possible moral considerations. In October 2016, organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, reported that Saudi Arabia had used MK 83 bombs in Yemen. These bombs had been produced in Italy by RWM Italia. Even though it is questionable whether the export of bombs to Saudi Arabia is reconcilable with Italian law, RWM Italia was able to go through with the deal due to an unclear allocation of responsibility. While Germany sees the responsibility for export controls on Italy as it is the country of production, the Italians argue that RWM Italia is Germany’s responsibility since it is part of Rheinmetall, a German company.

In South Africa, the situation is a similar one. Since 2008, Rheinmetall has a joint venture (RDM) with Denel, a South African aerospace and defence technology company. Rheinmetall profits from South Africa’s less strict export regulations and can thus bypass German export controls. In 2017, Denel planned to sell surface-to-air missiles to Iran that supports the opposition fighting Yemen’s government which is supported by Saudi Arabia. The propelling charges for these missiles are produced by RDM. Had the UN Security Council not stopped the export, Rheinmetall would have been part of arms deals with two opposing parties in the civil war in Yemen.

Through subsidiary companies and joint ventures abroad, Rheinmetall is able to bypass German regulations on arms exports. This way, military equipment produced in, for instance, Italy or South Africa reappears in countries such as Saudi Arabia which is involved in the civil war in Yemen. It is thus not merely national restrictions that are bypassed, but regulations that have a specific, and very important, purpose: the prevention of weapons being delivered to conflict zones and to governments with a disregard for human rights. All legal considerations aside, this is a matter which is highly morally questionable.

A Matter of Habit

Arms production and the following arms deals always drag along moral questions. They are a balancing act on a thin rope between humanitarian values and profit, and not only profit of the weapons producer but in form of increasing employment through arms companies. Countries such as Germany try not to fall off this metaphorical rope by placing restrictions on military exports—even though some decisions regarding arms deals remain controversial. And yet, companies such as Rheinmetall are able to bypass these regulations—to bypass morality, one might say—by moving production locations abroad where there are less restrictions or where responsibilities are not clearly defined. Thereby, they turn the moral balancing act into a one-legged spectacle that, while being profitable, is hardly going to de-escalate conflicts.

By Merle Emrich

Photo Credit:

Panzerhaubitze 2000, Tobias Nordhausen CC BY 2.0

Child in Ruins, Felton Davis CC BY 2.0

The post Masters of War—Bypassing Morality appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Women’s Leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Zarifa Dag — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:45:25 +0000

What comes to your mind when you think of a “leader”?

For three women leading various organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ‘leadership’ is synonymous with patriarchy, rape and war crimes. Rape was a common practice for soldiers in the Bosnian War and more than a decade after the conflict, some feminists claim that the acts of rape were perpetrated as genocidal acts. Others argue that rape is a tool in every war zone and that every military action is sexist.

Despite the trauma from the past, the women leaders in Bosnia are in charge of organizations aiming to help women in the post-war areas in Bosnia.

Leadership as Patriarchal Dictatorship

For Amra Pandžo, Danka Zelić and Sehija Dedović the word ‘leadership’ is a word they despise as it reminds them of a powerful dictator, hierarchy and dominance, especially on females. Amra, Danka, and Sehija struggle to call themselves leaders, as archaic leadership in Bosnia lead to the humiliation of many innocent citizens by means of a genocide, or rather ethnic cleansing.

Amra is a muslim woman leading the ‘Small Steps’ peacebuilding organisation in Sarajevo, Danka is a Catholic and a former female police officer leading UG Grahovo, and Sehija is a muslim woman with formal theological education, leading Nahla(bee). These organisations promote women’s human rights, peacebuilding and settlement during and after war.

All three women have been prominent leaders within their organisations and claim that they had no intentions of becoming leaders and this progressed throughout the years and their initiative to defend human rights, and eventually they self-trained themselves for leadership roles within their communities.

Yet, Zilka Spahić Šiljak’s article ‘Women, Religion and Peace Leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘ states that for the three women the definition of a leader is, someone who knows how to persuade others on peace and having the vision, courage, and faith to act within their communities.

On the 11th of each month the Women of Srebrenica gather in the main square of Tuzla to stand in silent protest of their missing and dead men. Photo: The Advocacy Project

Humiliation – rape for being a woman or for ethnicity?

Rape is severe torture and aggression to the intimate self and the dignity of a human being.

The book “Mass Rape: The war against women in Bosnia-Herzegovina” describes how the ultimate torture that can be caused to a woman is by violently invading her inner space. This results in loss of dignity, shame, loss of identity, and self-determination or self-confidence.

Humiliation in this case is not only targeted at women but also at men. Women were a crucial target because women in many cultures are extremely important due to the perception of a woman as the pillar in family structure. Therefore rape became a different way of waging war between different ethnicities in general. Perpetrators ritualize rape as a means to show the men of the other ethnicity that they are incompatible and are not able to ‘protect their women’. On the other hand, many victims of wartime rape were not supported by their husbands neither as they were to blame and were ostracized by ending relationships. The women were silenced and never had the chance to fight for their rights.

Unfortunately, the UN did not acknowledge rape as a war crime until 2008. In wartime and among soldiers, rape has always been embedded. A typical excuse used to justify rape is that soldiers have been in the battlefield for an extensive period, leading to a situation where the men have urges to be fulfilled. And this is what we have come to accept – a common excuse.

Giving Women a Voice Again

Amra, Danka and Sehija use the ethics of religion to teach peacebuilding in their organisations. All three peacebuilders recognised the needs in their community, of which; deconstructing the media’s idea of Islam as a terrorism, submission and oppression, helping returnees to settle back in Bosnia, and including women in recognised organisations which are dominated by men. This has helped many women to regain their voices, as the peacebuilders did not want professional and experienced people to lead in their organisations, but wanted volunteers from all over Bosnia, to exchange knowledge and build support together.

Erasing women by traumatising them by war crimes such as rape is the same as erasing a community.

On the other hand, observing how Amra, Danja and Zehija work and strive for a better definition of leadership instills hope in their communities. This provides them a sense that Bosnia can become a better place than it was before the war. The world needs more of these prominent leaders, who use their traumas to teach others wisdom, and thus not letting their horrific experiences revolve into aggression and revenge.

This article is based on the article “Women, Religion and Peace Leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina” by Zilka Spahić Šiljak and the books “Mass Rape: The war against women in Bosnia-Herzegovina” edited by Alexandra Stiglmayer and “Bosnia: A Short History” by Noel Malcolm.

By Zarifa Dag

Photo Credit:

Sarajevo, Béatrice BDM, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Women of Srebenica, The Advocacy Project, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Women’s Leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.