Nobel Peace Prize Goes to anti-nuclear group, ICAN

This year's Nobel Prize went to the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a group made up of more than 450 civil society organizations in some 100 countries around the globe. To give some background on their campaign from their webpage:

"ICAN began in Australia and was officially launched in Vienna, Austria in 2007. Our campaign’s founders were inspired by the tremendous success of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which a decade earlier had played an instrumental role in the negotiation of the anti-personnel mine ban convention, or Ottawa treaty. Since our founding, we have worked to build a powerful global groundswell of public support for the abolition of nuclear weapons. By engaging a diverse range of groups and working alongside the Red Cross and like-minded governments, we have helped reshape the debate on nuclear weapons and generate momentum towards elimination."

Source: http://www.icanw.org/campaign/campaign-overview/

I was a bit surprised that a diffuse transnational umbrella organization like ICAN would receive this year's peace prize, which usually resonates more strongly (in my opinion) when its awarded to a single individual or organization, rather than a campaign. When the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was awarded the prize in 1997, it was jointly awarded with its founder, Jody Williams. Perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee felt the issue of nuclear disarmament was especially important this year given the North Korea crisis and the potential unravelling of the Iran nuclear deal. But other "political" reasons may include the trouble/controversy of giving the award to an individual who may not deliver, as noted by the growing criticism against Nobel winner Aung Sang Suu Kyi and her silence in the face of the Rohingya crisis. Or perhaps there was a lack of clear consensus or frontrunner for the peace prize this year. Finally, it may just be a nod to large scale transnational campaigns like ICBL which won the prize two decades ago, and to give an idealistic movement like ICAN extra credibility and symbolic leverage in the fight to bring about a nuclear free world.


If I were still doing research on transnational campaigns, I would explore how activists from ICAN learned from and emulated the experience of ICBL. For my current research on the politics of peace, I would probably want to interview a number of ICAN activists and study their profile to understand how and where their beliefs about nuclear disarmament come from and how they engage proponents of nuclear deterrence.

Hagel Announces Pentagon Budget Cuts...and Peace Activists are Unhappy?!

I was almost certain the peace activist community would rejoice at Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's announced budget cuts, much in the same way that I'd expect conservatives such as Dick Cheney to argue that cuts would be "absolutely devastating."  Other news outlets  such as NPR and  NYTimes also predicted a backlash from Army proponents, defense contractors, Congressmen etc... Thus, I was surprised to see Hagel's announcement drawing flak from activists like Bruce Gagnon who wrote, "Despite mandates for cuts in military spending after agreements with Congress under sequestration, Hagel actually calls for an increase of more than $115 billion for war making." Gagnon's focus is more about where the budget is being reallocated (i.e. what the Pentagon is buying) rather than cuts to troops, housing, and military pensions. As Gagnon writes, "The writing on the wall is clear - cuts in troop levels and increase in high-tech space directed war-making capability." Anyone want to fact-check this?

Update: David Edelstein at Georgetown suggests that military cuts functions as a signal from Washington to our allies and adversaries that the U.S. is "tying its hands." That is we're letting adversaries (i.e. Iran) know that we really do have no intentions of attacking by decreasing are capabilities. And we're telling allies (i.e. Japan, Korea) that they will need to contribute more for their own defense. Over at the Duck, Musgrave and Ward have their own take on the tying hands logic...that this will prevent future administrations from taking on costly, unilateral actions.  Of course, this assumes that the Obama Administration made the decision based on a long term horizon  - why would he care how future administrations address security crises which may require having all options on the table. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that given the United States' tremendous military edge, the U.S. could still engage in some misguided adventure. 

No wonder why peace activists don't see this announcement as relief. Joe Gerson at AFSC announced that "the reduction of the size of the U.S. Army grows in large measure from its new Air-Sea Battle doctrine for possible future wars in Asia and the Pacific."

Anti-War Protests, Pacificism, and Syria

I've avoided discussion on Syria since there are a million other outlets pontificating on this issue already. However, two articles appeared on my radar, both in reaction to the recent surge in activity from anti-war groups so I'll comment on anti-war protests. Liberal anti-war groups largely supported Obama'd bid for election in 2008. However, Syria provides the first major break between the administration and demonstraters. It's no suprise that activists, who we often assume are principled actors, can too play politics, forming coalitions with lawmakers, disparate groups, and whoever will help them push their short term agenda. Who would have thought conservative libertarians and left-wing pacificists jumping in bed! But this also shows that coalitions are fluid, and their relationship with formal political parties are complex as argued by Michael Heaney and Fabio Rojas here. More related to my own (not-yet-off-the-ground) research is a confirmation about the worldviews and constraints of policymakers and activists. They are socialized into two completely different worldviews such that no permanent coalition could be ever formed in finding a solution to peace.

Source: Nikki Kahn/Washington Post

The second article is an op-ed from documentary filmaker Sebastian Junger titled " When the best chance for peace means war." It's essentially a rebuke of pacifism in the wake of humanitarian disaster as Junger writes, "At some point, pacifism becomes part of the machinery of death." Evoking just means for the use of force, he adds, "Every war I have ever covered — Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Liberia — withstood all diplomatic efforts to end it until Western military action finally forced a resolution." This last point is the tough question for pacfisits. The pacifist reponse is to always look for diplomatic solutions, even when such solutions have been exhausted. At times coercion, or the threat of coercion, are needed to bring about a diplomatic breakthrough.

Civil Society, Civil Nuclear Cooperation, and Nuclear Disarmament

Back in June during the Mansfield Foundation's U.S.-Korea Scholar-Policy program, Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists and Mary Beth Niikitin led an interesting discussion about the 123 Agreement and US-ROK civilian nuclear energy cooperation. I expected a boring talk, but it turned out to be one of the most interesting panels. Civilian nuclear diplomacy seemed to touch on every aspect of IR theory relevant to me: international security, two-level games, foreign policy, transnational activism, civil
society etc..

In a nutshell, Korea wants to expand its civilian nuclear energy capabilities and become a global supplier. However, Korea is prohibited from taking these steps under the U.S.-ROK "123" Agreement (following section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act agreement). As Mark Holt argues, U.S. consent is required for any reprocessing or enrichment activities related to U.S.-supplied materials and technology. Unable to come to an agreement, the U.S. and Korea decided to extend the current terms of the 123 Agreement and return to negotiations in 2014. The issue is complicated because

1. South Korea has growing energy demands and as their deal with the UAE suggests, a lot of money can be made from exporting the technological know-how. 
2. At the international level, the U.S.has to consider non-proliferation norms without appearing as if it carries double-standards. If  Korea is granted permission to expand its civilian nuclear program, why not North Korea? Why not Iran? These were some of the criticisms faced by the Bush Administration over the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement in 2005. South Korea must also consider global non-proliferation norms, as well as its alliance partnership with the U.S.
3. At the domestic level, we might see three reactions: a) From the right: This is a matter of national sovereignty, Korea has the right to develop its nukes; b) From the left: nuclear energy is a dangerous option; c) From businesses: nuclear energy export leads to profit.

The issue of civilian nuclear cooperation can get technical very quickly, but it does seem like a great case for political scientists to explore, especially those who are into two-level games type research.

And although not related to civil nuclear cooperation, the role of civil society and nuclear disarmament has again come to my attention. The research conducted by the Nautilus Institute reminds me that it is not just left-wing peace activists who support disarmament, but those in the policy world as well. Another link on transnational civil society and disarmament is here.

.

Peace Activists, Realism, and the Asian Pivot

Peace activists concerned about Washington’s strategic re-balance towards Asia organized the Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific. I hadn’t received their e-newsletter in a while but I received one today. Their opinions tend to veer to the left, but they do a great job (and service) presenting news and updates. For instance, I learned about the upcoming meeting between Washington and Tokyo next week where the two sides will discuss revisions to the defense cooperation guidelines. The last review was in 1997. Both sides will likely strengthen relations which have flat-lined a bit under the DPJ. Two issues to watch are cooperation in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and the possibility of Japan expanding the role of its Self-Defense Forces (SDF), a move more plausible under the newly elected LDP.

The newsletter also alerted the group to the impending “boom” in arms sales to Asia as a result of the strategic re-balance. I was aware that the U.S. had approved sales of the Global Hawk to South Korea (the post didn't mention though that the Koreans intended to play hard-ball). But other allies also have their wish lists: Japan selected the F-35 to replace its fleet of F-4s; Singapore and South Korea are also eyeing this plane; Taiwan is upgrading its existing fleet of F-16A/B fighters.

I'm interested in how these news and facts are interpreted. Activists are informing their network about the impending danger and perils heading towards Asia as the region further militarizes. Many policymakers probably take these facts as a positive sign that Washington is playing an active role in supporting our allies and keeping the peace in the region. Who is right in this debate? It's a bit ironic that both sides resort to realist arguments to stake their claim. It's the security dilemma for peace activists and the balance of power for policymakers.

Code Pink and Drone Wars in Pakistan

The Post ran an interesting story about the peace march organized by populist former cricket-star turned politician Imran Khan. Apparently Khan organized thousands of protestors to join him at a rally in South Waziristan to protest the drone campaign being waged against Islamist militants in the region. Joining this effort was a small contingent from the U.S. women's peace group, Codepink.  Now that takes balls (yes, the irony) to walk into a region known best for breeding insurgents.

(Un)fortunately, the Pakistan military prevented Khan and his entourage from entering South Waziristan because it couldn't guarantee security for the peace marchers. I'm not surprised that Pakistanis would organize a rally against drone strikes in their own country. And we shouldn't be surprised that Pakistanis might be joined by other transnational peace groups also committed to ending drone strikes which carry questionable legal and moral implications. In fact, the Drone Campaign Network has declared this week "Drones Week of Action."  But the willingness of U.S. peace groups to march into region which saw fierce fighting before Pakistani forces subdued the insurgency only a year or two ago gives us reason to pause.

I was curious to see what comments readers posted on the Washington Post article. As usual, you had both supporters (of Khan's movement) and haters chiming in. What is striking here is the different assumptions and conception readers have about peace and security. Here are a few comments.

I had reactions similar to the commenter below:

“You hit people with these drones and you create instant enemies,” said JoAnne Lingle, a silver-haired Mennonite from Indianapolis. “It’s supposed to be increasing our national security and it’s doing the opposite.”"

Gee, I hope Code Pink told the Taliban, al Qaeda and their Pakistan Army masters that when you hit people with suicide bombers and IEDs you also create instant enemies. This protest is ridiculous. For the terrorist gangs like the Taliban and al Qaeda, civilians are the primary target. For the U.S., enemy insurgents are the primary target. Drones allow much tighter targeting of the enemy and greatly reduced civilian casualties. 

 Here's a comment siding with Khan and Codepink in support of world peace:

By all standards the current war in Afghanistan is quite ugly and the allied forces are in a morass; they are stuck in a quagmire and they do not see any way out. In 11-years old war the allied forces from 44 countries have failed to defeat these militants who are wearing sandals, turbans, and wielding AK-47 Rifles. Many see the use of the drones as a frustration tool as it's kill ratio is: 2% terrorists as they are called, and 98% innocent women and children. DRONES FLY CHILDREN DIE! 

As the march was taking place my mind flashed back to that brave American girl Rachel Corrie who in 2004 stood between a marching Israeli bulldozer and a Palestinian house. This innocent, angel-like girl thought that the Israeli bulldozer will stop because after all she was from a friendly brotherly country USA, but the arrogant bulldozer did not stop and crushed her to death. Later, the Israelis dubbed her as "terrorist" because she was trying to save "an enemy's house" from demolition.  

The delegation of 32 Americans headed by Mary Ann Wright had a conscience, they traveled all along from USA to Islamabad using their own funds, to stand with Imran Khan against the drone strikes because they felt that the drones are counter-productive and as a result of that the USA is facing more resistance and hatred. I think these individuals are the true Americans, they love their country, they love Pakistan, and they love the humanity. They certainly won hearts and minds of the people. And, yes, the struggle between right and wrong, between the good and the bad, between the Satan and the righteous, will go on! People were even ready to throw stones at Jesus Christ! 

Imran Khan is the leader not only for Pakistan but for the world also. With people like him there will be peace in the world. 

Let's unite to wage peace in the world!

 And here's someone calling on readers to take part in a virtual march against the drone wars:

Join the virtual march against the US drone war

Hundreds of thousands of people in my country, Pakistan, are under siege from US drones: robot weapons that indiscriminately kill children, and terrorise families every day. This weekend I am leading a peace march against this secret war, and if all of you join me virtually, we could create a public storm to stop this torment.

America’s deadly drones campaign is illegal and counterproductive -- instead of beating terrorists it is driving more people to anti-American extremism. Families across the border region in Waziristan, the flash point of this war, live in constant fear of being targeted, under the deafening buzz of these remote-controlled planes 24 hours a day. Extraordinarily, the US denies any civilian deaths, but will not reveal the names of those killed, while independent reports tell of the trauma and killing of hundreds of civilians, many of them children.

This weekend, if you join me on the march, we have the chance to bring global attention to this war zone and show the United States that people across Pakistan and the world want an end to this robot war. Sign the petition now and tell everyone. We will announce all those marching virtually to the media, we will carry a flag from every country where people have signed, and when we reach 500,000 signatures I will demand a meeting with President Obama to present the petition:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Join_the_virtual_march_against_the_US_drone_war/?tponBdb

-----------
Update #1: So who makes up the coalition against drone strikes.  In the U.S., probably anti-war, civil liberties, and international law groups in the U.S. Internationally, you have peace groups, local indigenous populations, and anti-American elements.

Japan's Dilemma: Nuclear Energy

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has a problem. Noda faces stiff opposition not only from anti-nuclear activists and a Japanese public still grappling with the effects of the Fukushima disaster, but even leaders within his own Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).

This Asahi Shimbun article captures the dilemma of adopting a nuclear zero policy. It's a tough call. Japan clearly needs energy which nuclear reactors have provided for decades. Anti-nuclear activists claim Japan can achieve these goals without nuclear power. But what are the costs (economic, environmental, and social) of using alternative energy sources? Who seeks to gain/lose from a nuclear zero policy - and I don't mean the obvious vested interests in the energy sector, but in terms of your everyday Japanese citizen.

NATO Counter-Summit

Much of downtown Chicago was shutdown last weekend due to the NATO summit. Media coverage focused largely on the summit's main agenda: ending the war in Afghanistan. Surprisingly, there wasn't a whole lot of coverage on the protests, even though a few brief moments of violence erupted. I suspect protestors did not make a huge issue out of "police brutality" since this would have undermined the credibility and distracted attention from the message of peace activists. Most activists were not looking for confrontation.

There's already been a lot of coverage about the summit. Steve Walt, who called the summit a "useless waste of time, money, and fuel" had by far the funniest comments (I don't think he intended to be funny). Anyway, what some may not have been aware about was the NATO "counter-summit" which took place at the same time in Chicago. Since the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, parallel counter-summits have often accompanied global summits (i.e. G-8 Forum, IMF/World Bank Annual Meeting, etc...). Counter-summits are organized by peace and global justice activists who use this media platform to voice their concerns and views about peace, global capitalism, the environment, human rights etc... This particular NATO counter-summit focused on ending the Afghan war; moving U.S. tax dollars from the Pentagon to meet human needs at home, and dissolving NATO. A longer list of reasons to oppose NATO (although many of the points are only marginally related to NATO if at all) and the counter-summit conference agenda and daily schedule can be found in the provided links. And here is information about the Network for a NATO-Free Future.

I'm trying to understand how and why activists and government officials come to such radically different conclusions about peace and security, and what international relations theory might tell us about these divergent worldviews. For most of the world (or at least the West), NATO is an organization which provides security, protection, peace and stability. Yet, peace activists see NATO largely as an organization that bombs, maims, and destroys. So is NATO good or bad? Or is this nothing but a contest about the meaning and interpretation of NATO? World leaders met in Chicago to work on an exit strategy so in some ways it was ironic to see protests against the Chicago summit.