RelationsInternational

22 May 2014
by Brandon Valeriano
0 comments

Punishing China for Cyber Espionage: Spitting into the Wind

The United States recently indicted five Chinese military operatives for cyber espionage. The grand jury charges bring about 31 different counts that could result in sentencing the individuals to 227 years in prison combined (by my count). Many are calling the U.S. Justice Department’s latest move to punish Chinese citizens for cyber espionage an unprecedented step (a Google news search brings up an amusing number of articles that seem to basically copy each other). While this goes a bit too far in that the U.S. Government has punished individuals for state crimes before, this move to charge five Chinese military officials with espionage is clearly an escalatory step that also at the same time represents doing the least that can be done beyond doing nothing.

A strong reaction is likely. Jon Lindsay, notes that “it [the charges] does broach new ground by fingering Chinese military personnel actively serving in China. Retaliation by China, perhaps even outing US intelligence personnel serving at the NSA, is probably inevitable, although accusations are sure to be more rhetorical than evidence-based.”

In fact, China has taken the first step by calling the charges preposterous and charging the U.S. with double standards. They have called in the ambassador to launch a formal complaint and canceled cooperation on a cyber initiatives for the time being. Further action in private or in public is clearly forthcoming. China has also taken the step to ban Windows 8 on all government computers. A strong step in that Windows XP was so popular there and it was assumed that Windows 8 would be just as prevalent in the future. They are reacting both to these moves but also Microsoft’s abandonment of the XP operating system leaving current Chinese systems vulnerable.

Continue Reading →

22 May 2014
by Barak Mendelsohn
0 comments

The War of Words between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Part 2

In my previous post I introduced al-Qaeda’s explanations for the rift for the ISIL. In this post I will discuss ISIL’s response as presented in recent statements by the group’s leader al-Baghdadi and its spokesman al-Adnani. Because the discussion is too long for one blog post I decided to divide it to two. Today I will focus on ISIL’s effort to contradict al-Qaeda’s claim that there was a relationship of subordination between al-Qaeda and ISIL previous incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), and that the expansion of the Iraqi group into Syria thus represents a rebellion. According to ISIL when al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to bin Laden in 2004, it was in order to enhance Muslim unity and raise the moral of the Mujahideen. But when conditions were ripe, the Iraqi branch, together with others, raised to the next level by founding the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006. For all intent and purposes, that means ceasing to exist as an organization and the disbanding of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Despite the end of the authority relations between the Iraqi affiliate and al-Qaeda Central, the Islamic State of Iraq continued to view al-Qaeda as a symbol of the ummah and its Imams. Thus when al-Zarqawi’s successors proclaimed their loyalty to al-Qaeda, it was a symbolic measure that indicated respect to al-Qaeda and acknowledgement of the latter’s role in leading the global jihad. It was intended to show the State’s commitment to the unity of the Ummah, but did not reflect organizational subordination. In the view ISI leaders, once the State was established it had complete authority over the arena in which it operated. Moreover, once an Islamic Emirate is established it reaches a status that surpasses that of any organization. As a result it would be inappropriate for it to pledge allegiance to an organization. ISIL even reminds al-Qaeda that this principle is reflected in its own pledge to Mulah Omar in his role as the leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

To strengthened its claim that there were no tangible relations of authority between the ISI and al-Qaeda the State emphasized that it did not get any real support from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda never exercised any effective control over the State’s activities, operational or bureaucratic. In sharply drawn words, ISIL’s spokesman even ridicules al-Qaeda for the extent of its irrelevance to the operation of the Islamic State. Deridingly he asks the al-Qaeda’s chief al-Zawahiri “what did you give to the State if you were its Emir? With what did you supply it? For what did you hold it accountable? What did you order it to do? What did you forbid it to do? Who did you isolate or put in charge of?”

Continue Reading →

21 May 2014
by R. William Ayres
1 Comment

Joining the Dark Side, Part 2: Why Not?

In my previous post I talked about the reasons why faculty might want to go into academic administration (chair, dean, director, provost, etc.) Some of those reasons are good ones and some are not – the kind of administrator you become is in part a function of the motivations you carry into the job.

What you get out of administration can also affect your longevity in it. As Anakin Skywalker proved, even becoming Darth Vader isn’t an irreversible process. Most folks who go into administration can go back again – there is no River Styx that, once crossed, cannot be crossed again. So if you end up not liking it, escape is possible.

Before you take that step, however, it makes sense to think not only about why you’re doing it and what you might gain but also what you might have to give up. Most things in life involve value trade-offs, and moving from faculty to administration is no different. Here is a list of some of the things you can expect to cough up in exchange for your new-found administrative position (with commentary):

Continue Reading →

21 May 2014
by Laura Sjoberg
10 Comments

‘Mansplaining’ International Relations?: What Walt Misses

Following the tradition of Saturday Night Live’s Father Sarducci, Steve Walt turned the “Five Minute University” from the 1970s into a lesson for the undergraduate class of 2014 on Foreign Policy yesterday, providing a five-minute lesson as a substitute for a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations. Walt’s lesson included five key concepts: anarchy, balance of power, comparative advantage, misperception/miscalculation, and social constructivism. While Walt acknowledges there is much more to know about the discipline (including deterrence and coercion, institutions, selection effects, democratic peace theory, and international finance), he suggests those might be “graduate level” and that “all you really need to know about the discipline” can be found his five-minute, five-concept lesson.

I’d like to introduce Steve and his audience to a (sixth) concept that comes from outside of International Relations but applies to it: ‘mansplaining.’ A term introduced by Rebecca Solnit in 2008, the idea has gained traction both in popular circles and in academic ones. Though many different ‘definitions’ of ‘mansplaining’ exist, a picture of Steve’s post could be in the dictionary next to mine: it is a short, humorous ‘explanation’ of the discipline of IR, from one of its male/masculine/(masculinist) elite aimed at its feminized/feminine/(female?) margins: new trainees and potential trainees. In that explanation, Walt accounts for a global political arena in which it appears that men and women; sex, gender, and sexualities; masculinities and femininities; masculinizations and feminizations do not exist. This might be where my definition of ‘mansplaining’ differs from others: I think a ‘mansplanation’ is an explanation made in a masculinized tone that endogenizes, makes invisible, or leaves out gender. Walt does this almost artfully: the global political arena that we can learn about from Walt in five minutes is indeed one where it is possible that women do not exist at all. That, among other things, makes it both a ‘mansplanation’, and deeply problematic.

My problems start at what Walt does not talk about, and continues as I read what he does discuss. Let’s start with five ideas that I’d characterize as key to understanding global politics, which Walt leaves out:

Continue Reading →

20 May 2014
by Brandon Valeriano
0 comments

What Blogging Can Do for You

It should go without saying that blogging is an important and beneficial part of the academic landscape. The problem is that we still need to have these conversations. Some don’t see the benefits of blogging (the whole ISA debacle reinforces that idea), while others see this avenue as a distraction. In this piece, my first for RelationsInternational, I just want to highlight the benefits of blogging, which might not be obvious to some. I also want to encourage you to think about submitting to RelationsInternational if you are interested in speaking to the larger International Relations community and think you have the chops to blog (handy link here and above).

Continue Reading →

20 May 2014
by Barak Mendelsohn
3 Comments

The War of Words between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Part 1

Over the past couple of weeks we had lots of excitement here at Haverford with a commencement controversy that got us (unwelcome?) media attention like never before. But now it is time to finally focus on research. As part of my work on a book dealing with the relationship between al-Qaeda and its franchises I spent recent days going over some fascinating statements made by leaders of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the past couple of months. The exchange is primarily between al-Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, and ISIL’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. As a reminder, in early February al-Qaeda announced that it is disowning ISIL, keeping Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) its official franchise in Syria. Since then the conflict between the groups escalated, both through rhetoric in messages posted online and through violent clashes on the ground in Syria. The battle of statements is fascinating and deserves to be treated at length as it sheds light not only on the heart of the conflict but also on the discourse that is deemed legitimate in an intra-jihadi rivalry. In this post I will present al-Qaeda’s arguments for distancing itself from ISIL and add some analysis of its statements. In a couple of days I will return with the Islamic State’s response which is even juicier. I apologize that the post is not edited properly and wave my foreigner card and time constraints as my excuses.
Al-Qaeda Central (AQC) explains the decision to distance itself from ISIL as the result of the difference in approaches. It maintains that it is focused on fighting against the US and does not want to fall into engagement with ‘side skirmishes.’ Al-Qaeda seeks to unite the ummah and establish the Caliphate. These objectives require care not to shed innocents’ blood and the projection of a positive image; they cannot be accomplished if the group is viewed as seeking domination and as usurping others’ rights. As implied, ISIL, in contrast, wastes energies on secondary priorities, failing to identify accurately the central threat to the ummah, and consequently its strategy is bound to fail. The Islamic State is also committing a serious mistake as its aggressiveness severely damage its reputation and as a result alienate the public whose support it requires.

Continue Reading →

19 May 2014
by R. William Ayres
5 Comments

Joining the Dark Side, Part 1: Why?

Where is my career going? Am I building the academic career path I really want? And would I ever really want to be … department chair? Dean? Am I tempted to Join the Dark Side?

Academics face a series of important decisions throughout their careers. Where do I apply for jobs, and what kind am I looking for? Do I accept this position or wait for a better one? Do I put more effort into research or teaching? Where should I publish my stuff? Should I write books or articles? Will serving on this committee help my career? Should I volunteer as a section program chair for the big conference next year? Each of these decisions, and a thousand more like them, collectively make up the trajectory of our careers through academia.

In graduate school we are trained first and foremost as researchers, and there is no doubt that decisions about our research productivity and publication are among the most impactful on our future career prospects. My colleague Laura Sjoberg has done an excellent job shedding light on a number of those decisions with regard to publishing journal articles, the bread-and-butter of our field. It is no surprise that her series “The Hard Way” has gotten far more hits than anything else yet posted here at RI.

In addition to research, many of us also get some help in learning how to teach along the way. Some institutions care more about teaching than others (though few know how to measure it nearly so well as we measure research productivity), but there are some excellent resources out there. You can go to entire conferences on teaching political science, and both the APSA and ISA have panels at every annual meeting devoted to teaching ideas.

The third category, “service”, gets almost no attention at all. When’s the last time you saw a conference panel on how to chair a committee? I’ve seen a few conference sessions on how to build new programs, but those are at conferences attended almost exclusively by administrators, with very few “real faculty” in the room.

And herein lies the Great Divide: the tribal gulf we have created between Faculty and Administration. To cross from one to the other is most frequently referred to as “joining the Dark Side”. I have a colleague who was given a Darth Vader mask as a “gift” by her faculty colleagues when she took up her new administrative job. Faculty complaints about administration are matched in frequency only by administrators’ complaints about faculty, and at many institutions the two tribes see each other as adversaries.

In one sense this is odd, because most academic administrators started their careers as faculty members. At some point along the way, they made a decision – or, in many cases, a series of them – to take advantage of an opportunity that led them down the path towards a more administrative role. These decisions to redirect an academic career towards administration are some of most important ones we make – yet we spend almost no time talking about them.

The drama of Darth Vader masks aside, transitioning from faculty to administration is often not one decision, but a series of them. Nor is there anything inevitable or irreversible about the process. I have known faculty who are content to stay at department chair, while others see being chair as a step towards greater administrative responsibility. Some folks are happy being center directors but would never want to be dean; others want to be dean as a stepping stone to provost or even president. And of course there are plenty of faculty who will eschew formal administrative positions altogether but get drawn in to helping create, and then run, academic programs.

Continue Reading →

14 May 2014
by Laura Sjoberg
0 comments

The Hard Way #6: Anonymity and the Review Process

Wouldn’t it be great if this post were anonymous, and I could say everything that I think about anonymity in the review process?

Maybe I will anyway. Here’s the caveat that I think makes me have something to offer here. I’ve published in about 30 journals, reviewed for more than 40, and edited two of them in a meaningful capacity. This is post is mostly about journals because book reviews are usually single-blind, but I edit two book series and have published a couple of books. So, here’s my take in a nice, ordered list:

Journal peer-review is in theory double-blind, where the author does not know the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the authors.
This almost never works perfectly. Some people [insert normative judgment here] google the paper title when they are reviewing. Others recognize a conference presentation, a research program, a research community, or a writing style familiar to them and can therefore easily deduce authorship. Still others [insert normative judgment here again] ask around their research communities until they find out. The more well-connected a reviewer is in the discipline (a quality you want in reviewers), the more likely they are to be able to deduce authorship of a piece. While this is easier to avoid for junior scholars, the better networked you are, the bigger the risk of non-anonymity is. Some reviewers also identify themselves, either intentionally (by a signature catch-phrase) or unintentionally (by being all mad you don’t cite their work enough.
Nonetheless, it is important (in my view) to preserve the blindness when you can and to treat the process as if it is blind even when it isn’t. The rest of this post will try to explain why I think that, since it is somewhat controversial these days.

Continue Reading →

13 May 2014
by Laura Sjoberg
7 Comments

Whose Girls?

Questions around #bringbackourgirls came up a number of times this weekend at the International Feminist Journal of Politics 2014 conference, and Megan MacKenzie brought up a number of like-minded concerns on the Duck of Minerva yesterday. In conversations that appeared unrelated at the IFjP conference, we also talked about some of the positives and negatives of the legacy of radical feminism. While I do not intend to solve the problems of sexism, feminization, racism, nationalism, and/or militarism that I see as inherent in the hashtag, or the complicated legacy of radical feminism, I think its important as the US military mulls intervening to “bring back” “our girls,” some radical feminist questions about property might be incredibly important.

In 1994, Catharine MacKinnon first outlined her view of the difference between womanhood and humanity in women’s ‘human rights’ advocacy, where “what is done to women is either too specific to women to be seen as human or too generic to human beings to be seen as specific to women.” This builds on an earlier argument that “sexuality is to feminism what work is to marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away.” I don’t think you have to buy the radical feminist outlook on the world to think that this position says something meaningful about #bringbackourgirls. And while I would never want to minimize the terrible tragedy that remains ongoing in Nigeria, I do think it is important to look at some of the tragedies its critics are generating and reifying.

Continue Reading →

12 May 2014
by R. William Ayres
0 comments

The Helsinki Accords, “Normal” International Relations, and Our Terrible Historical Memory

The conflict in Eastern Ukraine and Russia’s actions in Crimea continue to dominate headlines and capture international attention. It’s been a while since we’ve seen irredentism as a relevant concept, but hostile boundary-shifting has again become de rigueur.

This has shocked a lot of people, not least many journalists, who tend to have some of the shortest historical memories on the planet. What Russia has done in Crimea, and appears possibly poised to do in eastern Ukraine – annex territory though the use or threats of force – seems so, well, 19th century. I mean, people just don’t do that sort of thing anymore, do they?

In fact, the standards of international behavior that we have come to expect – in particular, the rule that we don’t change boundaries by invading and annexing chunks of land – has a relatively recent provenance. Moreover, there was never anything inevitable about it. We didn’t arrive at the “no hostile takeover” rule by some process of inevitable progress towards a more civilized world. This means that any such rule can evaporate as quickly as it came.

As my friend & co-author Steve Saideman has recently pointed out, the “don’t change boundaries with force” rule in Europe actually dates back to the Helsinki Accords, which were signed only in 1975. This in itself was a signal accomplishment – Europe was divided into two armed camps at the height of the Cold War, and getting NATO and the Warsaw Pact to agree on fundamental rules was both remarkable and strongly stabilizing for Europe. Although other agreements (SALT, START, INF) tend to get more attention, the Helsinki Accords may be the greatest achievement in the effort to stabilize the Cold War conflict and prevent World War III.

Continue Reading →