RSS

October 16, 2008

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)

I found this study very useful. It complements John Robb's Brave New War in a useful way.

Humans are continually inventing new ways of interacting with each other, and in the last couple of decades two new factors have opened new possibilities for interaction. One factor is the "flattening" of the earth and the breakdown of the earlier polarization of communist and anti-communist nations. One important result of this change is that states have less motivation for imposing rigid controls on travel and association across state borders, thus making many forms of transnational organizations much more powerful than they otherwise might be. Another major factor is the networking of groups via modern communications media, especially the Internet. As Willard Van Orman Quine, a professor at Harvard University in the mid twentieth century, pointed out, an entity does not have to consist of contiguous parts.

An ethnic group or any other analogous group can function as a unity providing only that its parts can keep in contact with each other. By virtue of their diffuse nature, these groups may be able to largely escape the control of the states over which they are spread. Depending on their individual motivations, these groups may be more or less parasitic on their host nations.

One grave threat offered by criminal groups is that they may bleed off money (e.g., by the production, transportation, and sale of narcotics) from their hosts and use it to fund their own armed defense forces that in turn further weaken the host nations. Robb sees the potential for all nations to be hollowed out by this process.

Not all current transnational entities are parasitic. Some exist in very useful kinds of symbiotic relations with states. Some individuals may be members of many different transnational entities. Will some of these transnational entities fill in the gap when antisocial transnational organizations defeat the functional units (e.g., the police) of the state?

Although China is currently hopeful that it can limit its exposure to and penetration by the tendrils of the world information grapevine, doing so requires a totalitarian approach to government which may have its own drawbacks. To the extent that isolation cannot be maintained, interpenetration of nations by diffuse communities will occur. With this interpenetration will come a period of turbulence that may tend eventually toward equilibrium. Once that equilibrium is achieved it may become difficult to changes its major parameters.

How this whole process occurs can probably be influenced by intentional planning and development activities. To guide the integration of the world into a harmonious and beneficial equilibrium, it may well be helpful to think and do research in a serious way on how it would be best to have the total society function in its relatively stable integrated phase.

The easier and more irresponsible way to seek progress would be to define success in terms of the control of people and the harvesting of wealth and power in preference to the pursuit of any other goals. But it may not be necessary to settle for a world run by the most virulent transnationals capable of maintaining themselves without destroying the populations they parasitize.

Altruism or empathic behavior may usually emerge in creatures only when their own survival needs are reasonably well in hand, but that does not mean that these motivations are imaginary. Will it be possible to maintain transnational entities based on these motivations in a world populated by many transnational entities that are parasitical?

What do members of this on-line group offer to each other?

November 4, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

A couple of questions or challenges for you:

You mention multinational corporations briefly in your introduction. It seems to me that multinationals (other than PMC's) deserve their own category and more attention in your essay. Multinationals can have profound effects on world affairs.

Also, one of the most interesting areas in neo-realism (structural realism) is the interactions between the various non-state actors. For example, some NGOs rely directly or indirectly on PMCs for support, logistics, and in some cases, security. Some NGO's enter into, let us hope, pragmatic relationships with criminal non-state actors as well. So perhaps a section devoted to these interactions could be helpful.

Your mention of PMC's involved in sex scandals brings to mind the much more egregious and much less accountable sex abuses by UN peacekeeping forces. This final point probably deserves to be a separate paper all its own: Some UN peace-keeping missions are staffed by what are essentially low-cost, for-profit, state-sponsored PMCs.

UN peacekeeping missions in general pay a modest stipend to each host country, in proportion to the forces or equipment it contributes. When North American or European forces participate in UN peacekeeping efforts, the member governments do not expect the stipend to correspond to their costs. Instead, they consider it an in-kind donation in addition to their UN dues. But other countries have military units that operate at much lower costs, and therefore can use the stipend to break even or make a modest profit by participating in UN peacekeeping missions. Even breaking even is a good deal for host countries, since the cost of maintaining these units would otherwise be borne by the host country, plus the units get real-world experience.

This dynamic can result in a country's lower cost, lower quality units being detailed to peacekeeping, and in other ways dramatically alter a country's or a unit's incentives, accountability, and behavior when participating in peacekeeping. If a country is participating for financial reasons, rather than exclusively for reasons of national reputation or good will, it is much harder to hold that country responsible for mistakes and crimes committed by its forces during the peacekeeping mission. Unless, of course, the UN is willing to exercise the "power of the purse", which almost never happens. An example might be the Pakistan army's participation in any number of peace-keeping missions around the globe, although there is no reason to pick on Pakistan in particular. Thus some UN peacekeeping elements manifest the same sort of problems and abuses as would a low-cost PMC.

November 4, 2008

Jesse Schwartz, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Gold Contributor (96)

Great points, John. Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, I was restricted to a 1,500-or-so word paper, and clearly stretched that limitation. Nonetheless, you definitely raise some interesting arguments to consider.

November 4, 2008

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Jesse Schwartz: Thanks. I figured you were limited in that way. Most thesis advisers put limits to give the thesis more focus, and also for their own sanity.

If you don't mind a little advice...when faced with a limit in a paper and have critical points that you can't explore, you should leave a "placeholder". By this I mean a sentence such as "Another category of non-state actors is multinational corporations, which deserve their own paper, or fall outside the scope of this paper," or something like that. We'll call this the "I ran out of space" approach. This at least tells the reader you have considered the point and also suggests a promising line of work for future scholars who may want to expand on your work.

Better still is to focus your thesis topic more tightly so it is clear why you consider something to be outside the scope. For example, you could state in your introduction that multinational corporations as non-state actors have already got a lot of scholarly attention (and drop a few citations -- other scholars will thank you!) but you feel the types of non-state actors discussed in your paper deserve more attention, etc. In other words, your thesis presents itself as a survey of all non-state actors, when it might be more effective as a survey of under-appreciated non-state actors.