RAND Study: Overseas Basing of U.S. Military Force

RAND recently published a massive study titled Overseas Basing of U.S. Military Forces. Commissioned by the Pentagon, it's probably the most comprehensive study on overseas bases since the Overseas Basing Commission Report released for the U.S. Congress in 2005.

I'm waiting to receive a hard copy of the report so I don't destroy my printer cartridge printing out the free pdf version online. In the meantime, you can get few snippets of the report from Michah Zenko at CFR. For a more Asia-oriented assessment of the report's findings, see this Indian Times article. Apparently, the report suggests using Port Blair in India as a site for a drone base.

Given the publication of this report, there does seem to be renewed interest on the topic of overseas bases. Stacie Pettyjohn, one of the RAND co-authors of the overseas basing study also has a concise new RAND monograph outlining the history of U.S. overseas military presence. A colleague in my department alerted me to a graduate student presenting a paper on "quasi-U.S bases" in Latin America. And of course, there's lots of interest about drone bases, particularly in the Middle East North Africa and Sub-Saharan regions.

I've moved on from base politics research but I suppose one can never fully escape one's past work, especially if they now exist as publications in the public domain. Once I get around to reading the report, I'll update this post with some insights into the RAND study.

Social Justice and the Common Good

Several months ago I posted a blog about the Justice Conference in light of a recent talk I had given on social justice. Social justice is an issue of personal faith for me rather than a topic for research, but I'm beginning to find ways to bring the two together.

 Although its less not at all obvious at my overtly Catholic institution, I do get the sense that academics have a harder time taking evangelical Christians as a group seriously. It doesn't help that the Evangelicals get a bad rap from secular liberals. 

What's sometimes lost or forgotten in the vitrol aimed at Evangelicals and Catholics is that many of these religious folks actually do care about others including the poor. I cut and taped this article by Donald Wuerl, currently the Archbishop of Washington DC, on my office door in January. His piece was in response to a petition identifying the Catholic Church as a hate group due to its position on homosexuality. In the article, he reminds us that the Archidiocese of Washington  functions as the largest non-governmental provider of social services in the DC area. I see several trucks giving out free meals to homeless outside the World Bank every evening - and I'm sure they are part of some faith-based ministry. Archbishop Wuerl writes: 

The church does not do these things for money or profit or because they’re nice to do. When the church treats the sick and injured, or feeds the hungry, or teaches, or provides assistance to those in need, it does so as an answer to the call made by Jesus Christ. We are obligated to do these and other works of mercy and to give voice to moral truth because He asks us to.

I remembered the piece by Fr. Wuerl after reading an op-ed from Michael Gerson who also linked Christian teaching with social justice. In searching for the common good, we pursue social justice (something I hear often at my Catholic-affiliated university, although clearly not practiced by all). The op-ed is premised with the idea/hope that American politics would look towards the common good.  Searching for the common good may be one way of bridging the divide and mitigating the dangers of extreme polarization in domestic politics and foreign policy.

So why am I writing about all this on my research blog?  A recurring theme in my research is how/why people come to draw different assumptions and conclusions about the world. In other words, how are beliefs, ideas, and worldviews shaped and how does politics and contention stem from these different beliefs and assumptions?  Take for instance these peace activist recently arrested for breaking into a nuclear facility. Why are they opposed to nukes? What motivated them to break the law? How does their understanding of security differ from that of the government's (and also the looney prosecutors who claim that these activists comprised American national security)?

One thing my social science training has taught me is that categories like activists or Evangelicals are rarely homogeneous, as much as we would like them to be. Christian tradition can produce contrasting conclusions as I found in my short research on North Korean human rights. Here's a comment from Gerson which particularly rang true in my findings on Evangelicals and human rights. Can you guess which group adhere to naming-and-shaming strategies and which ones focus on humanitarian assistance/engagement? 

"Nearly every Christian tradition of social ethics encompasses two sorts of justice. The first is procedural justice: giving people what they deserve under contracts and the law. The second is distributive justice: meeting some needs just because human beings are human beings. This is not the same thing as egalitarianism; confiscation is not compassion. But distributive justice requires a decent provision for the vulnerable and destitute. And this is not just a matter of personal charity. Social justice is more than crumbs from the table; it depends on the existence of social and economic conditions that allow people to live, work and thrive."

The Movement for Gun Control

I was travelling a few weeks ago and emailed this article to myself about gun-control legislation getting shot down (sorry, bad pun) in the Senate. The defeat did come as a surprise given the growing momentum for tighter gun restriction among the American public, the bipartisan nature of a somewhat watered down and thus non-controversial idea to expand background checks (which 9 in 10 American support), and the moving appeal of parents of Newtown victims in Washington.

The blog post I drafted  in my head is now lost, but re-reading this piece, it was interesting to note how gun-control advocates are relying on a healthy mix of both formal and informal politics to challenge the pro-gun lobby and their supporters: 1) Shaming opposing Senators in their own state to force them to switch positions; 2) Helping put gun-control candidates in office to replace pro-gun politicians; 3) raise awareness and public consciousness through rallies, demonstrations, vigil, advertising, public forums etc...

Following the defeat, rormer Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wrote a scathing op-ed against the Senate. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) who voted against the expansion of the national gun ­background-check program has become one of the first targets of the movement. And potentially two Republicans may reconsider their vote following some changes to the current bill.  Some form of gun control will likely pass. Whether the measures are merely token offerings or substantively meaningful remains to be seen. 

NRA and Right-Wing Social Movements

I'm the last person to get excited about constitutional rights, law, and the 2nd Amendment. But this was just hands-down one of the most fascinating articles I've read about the making (or re-making) of gun rights in America.

The 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As with the Supreme Court 30 years ago, I take this to mean that individuals have the right to carry guns only to the extent that the state needs citizens to have guns to maintain a militia. Hence the right to bear arms is a collective right of the state rather than an individual right

Yet as this article states, the NRA started supporting research, scholarships, and seminars beginning in the 1970s. After a few years, the number of academic articles interpreting the 2nd Amendment in favor of individual rights began to increase. Over time, the number of publications favoring individual gun rights began outnumbering those interpreting the amendment as one about state needs to maintain a militia. In a 30 year span, then, the NRA helped reshape the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, culminating in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of individual having the right to bear arms (the case was directed against the DC ban on guns). Here's a CRS overview of gun ownership and the Supreme Court.

Clifford Bob may have already raised this issue in his book The Global Right and the Clash of World Politics, but this is a fascinating case study of framing and norms construction. How activists (or in this case a powerful lobby) quietly work to reinterpret laws which wind up having huge implications for politics. The irony in all this is that no one even cared about the 2nd Amendment prior to the NRA's advocacy.

An excellent counterpoint to this study is what is currently happening to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Here the shift is even more astounding. The figure below tracks attitudes towards gay marriage in a span of 20 years.


From Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Clint Eastwood, Robert Porter, to President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a slew of other recent converts, it seems like support for gay marriage is spreading fast. Obama himself saw that the fight for gay marriage would take place at the state level producing a cascade-effect which would shore up a case for federal support for gay marriage in the future. Here's a PBS News Hour transcript outlining this trend. I am not a supporter of gay marriage (my reason is simple, but the rationale is complicated) but in thinking about other rights movements (civil rights in particular) we do seem to have reached some type of tipping point.

Amanda Murdie on Human Rights Treaties and Virginity Pledges

Amanda Murdie had a terrific post titled Human Rights Treaties Are Like Virginity Pledges. The basic gist is that states signing human rights treaties has little effect in improving human rights practices because 1) Enforcement mechanisms are weak; 2) States sign for reasons that have nothing to do with commitment to change behavior (i.e. don't want to be stigmatized for not signing; signing gets you some immediate benefit in return with no cost to comply). The debates outlined here raises excellent issues about compliance in international politics. It also challenges constructivist notions of human rights change (i.e. Risse, Ropp, Sikkinnk) which sees treaties as an early stage of normative change.

I posted the blog entry though, mainly for it's teaching value. Can't wait to hear how my Intro to IR students respond next fall.

North Korean Human Rights II: UN Human Rights Inquiry

Calling for an "international inquiry" into North Korean human rights abuses, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stepped up pressure on the international community to address deplorable conditions and practices in North Korea. For years, the UN Human Rights Council has assigned a special rapporteur to North Korea, but Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner seems to be ramping up efforts herself. Here's a post from HRNK on how the UN has dealt with NK human rights the past few years and why the inquiry is significant.

The U.S. has already expressed support for the inquiry. However, there was much more suspense to whether South Korea would agree to the inquiry given that the new president had pledged to improve North-South relations. Addressing human rights  at the start of her tenure would surely not be well-received by Pyeongyang, jeopardizing the opportunity to improve relations. However, not supporting the investigation would weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the UN investigation.

However, South Korea decided to support the inquiry yesterday. This is a good decision. Why turn a blind eye to North Korean human rights abuses when it clearly exists? There's no guarantee that the North will follow-up on negotiations even if Seoul defers its support.  Also, there's no reason to write off the possibility of engaging the North, even as Seoul acknowledges human rights abuses. At least Seoul would be on higher moral ground if the Park government makes an initial gesture to provide aid and the North rejected it because of South Korea's support for the UN inquiry.

Update #1: Roberta Cohen weighs in on events leading to the adoption resolution to hold a  UN commission of inquiry into abuses in North Korea.

Update #2: Steph Haggard also discusses the UN Commission of Inquiry and tags documentation. He notes  four advantages of moving ahead with the inquiry.

First, we found it interesting that the North Koreans felt compelled to respond, even if they claimed that the resolution was not worthy of response. Somewhere, someone in North Korea is reading a statement by the Foreign Ministry saying that North Korea does not have a human rights problem. As cynicism rises, such statements are rightly interpreted as implying the opposite. .

Second, the commission will galvanize organizations working on the issue, and give their activities a boost, including with respect to refugees.

Third, the action has diplomatic effect. Its hard for the DPRK to say that a resolution passed with Venezuelan support is a cabal of the imperialists; North Korea is increasingly identified with other states and conflicts with commissions of inquiry, such as Syria or Darfur.

Finally, if we are going to have international crimes as we now do under the Rome Statute it is important that allegations of them be investigated and treated with the seriousness they deserve. Building international law is a function of practice, and commissions of inquiry can contribute to that practice.

In other news: Dennis Rodman meets Kim Jong-Un on basketball diplomacy. Crazy PR stunt or an updated version of ping-pong diplomacy? NPR has a good story on this.

North Korean Human Rights: Naming and Shaming

A while back, there was an exchange between John Feffer and Roberta Cohen on North Korean human rights. John argued that naming-and-shaming are ineffective, if not counter-productive and instead argued for a human security approach to human rights (i.e. provide aid and development assistance). I later weighed in on the politics between these two camps.

I thought about John's point again on whether naming-and-shaming actually works on North Korea. Roberta mentioned that they did sign the UN Treaty on Human Rights as a sign of progress; this might be stage two of Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink's five-stage spiral model on human rights change. I was reminded though, thanks to a post on the Duck, that there actually is academic literature on the effectiveness of naming-and-shaming strategies. Amanda Murdie and Dylan Davis ran a quantitative analysis on this using some creative (in a good way) methods to measure shaming and human rights change. Cullen Hendrix and Wendy Wong also have a forthcoming article in BJPS.

The verdict: Yes, naming-and-shaming do have a qualified/conditional impact. Translation: naming-shaming has to be done under certain conditions (i.e. they're effective on autocratic but not democratic regimes) and in conjunction with some other factors (i.e. when domestic NGOs are present are INGOs are also weighing in). For North Korea then, human rights activism may have at least a weak effect on the regime: there are no domestic NGOs or civil society to support transnational activists, but there is pressure from the UN and North Korea is autocratic.