International Insecurity and the Use of Force - Research Paper Example

? International Insecurity and the Use of Force International Insecurity and the Use of Force Introduction The history of the world is marked by instances of international insecurity; Nazism, the two world wars, fascism, and the invasion of Iraq are examples of these instances. The issue of international (in) security has preoccupied the world and its leaders for quite a long period now as they try to find ways to maintain international peace and security (D’Anieri, 2012). The formation of various international and regional organizations has served to show how the world is putting efforts to maintain peace and security. The formation of the United Nations is the most notable as it was formed soon after the end of Second World War with the main objective of promoting international peace and security. Moghaddam (2010) notes that whereas all actors acknowledge the essence of international security and the importance of avoiding international insecurity, they have not agreed fully on how to achieve this noble endeavour. There is a section of international actors that argue that force should not be used at all in the pursuit of international security, or addressing international insecurity for that matter. On the other hand, there are those who argue that use of force is necessary in addressing international security. This paper focuses on international insecurity and the use of force in an attempt to understand how these two aspects are conceptualized. Influence Decisions and actions in the international arena do not occur in a vacuum; instead, they are influenced by transnational actors, public opinions, the media, and the interest groups. This is evidenced by how these actors have influenced the use of force (or lack of its use) in addressing international insecurity, for example in the case of the United States’ invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (Chakravorty and Neti, 2009). Events such as the Hezbollah’s attacks targeting the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, the September 11, 2001 attacks targeting symbolic locations in the United States, and the series of crises in recent times in Syria and Libya bear all the features of international insecurity. What is of more interest in this paper is how they should be responded to: should force be used or alternatives to use of force are used? Transnational actors have greatly influenced the use of force in addressing international insecurity. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the most notable transnational actor which has influenced the use of force in tackling the international insecurity (Yost, 2007). It was part of the United States invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and most recently played a key role in ousting the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. However, other transnational actors such the UN Security Council have discouraged the use of force and have been advocating for the use of diplomacy (Yost, 2007). Most of the interest groups have also been against the use of force in addressing the international insecurity; for example, the American Conservative Union and Human Rights Watch have been against the use of force and argue that such use of force often lead to death of innocent people especially women and children. There has been divided public opinions regarding the use of force as a means of addressing international insecurity; there are those who are totally against it while others (especially the victims of international insecurity) consider use of force as the best strategy to tackle international insecurity (Ersen and O?zen, 2010). Just like is the case with the public opinion, media is divided on whether force should be used as a means of solving the problem of international security. Expected Utility Theory It is no doubt that the question of whether force should be used in addressing international insecurity is a “hot” one with opinions divided in the centre with those against it on one side and those for it on the other. Expected utility theory can be very critical in helping analyze this issue. Expected utility theory holds that the actor or a decision maker make a choice between uncertain or risky prospects by making a comparison between the utility values expected out of them; that is, the total obtained through adding of outcomes’ utility values multiplied by respective probabilities associated with them (Hee Park, 2010). This theory seeks to help make a decision when a decision maker is faced with a variety of choices. Therefore, decision makers faced with the choice between using force to tackle international security or not often use this theory. In the case of United States invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States might have used this theory in determining whether to use force or not (Khalid, 2011). Based on this theory, they should have found out that the expected utility values were higher if they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Since this invasion took place after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States should have found out that invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have led to disruption of terrorist attacks significantly thereby reducing the risk of terrorist attacks to the United States. Foreign Policy The use of force in tackling international insecurity is often informed by foreign policies of a national government or transnational actor using it. In the case of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 was informed by the United States’ foreign policies. Hee Park (2010) explains that the United States foreign policy is guided by the principle that the government should pursue policies of national security that ensures that the safety of American people is guaranteed at all time. So, the use of force in this event sought to guarantee safety to the American people. Also, the use of force in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion has been informed by the United States foreign policy that prioritize the desire for the country to not only be safe, but also to be prosperous and strong in the 21st century (D’Anieri, 2012). Therefore, force has to be used to counter any aspect of international insecurity that has the potential of threatening the country’s prosperity, safety, and stability. The use of force in countering international insecurity is also informed by the United States foreign policy which is in line with the UN policy regarding promoting the international peace and security; if international peace and security can be attained through use of force, then it should be used (Chakravorty and Neti, 2009). International Insecurity International insecurity has played a critical role in the development of the event that I have chosen. As has been noted, the world has witnessed a number of international insecurity instances key among them Nazism and the two world wars. I have chosen the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan event and the use of force in the invasion as it reflects most aspects of international insecurity. Terrorism is one of the greatest elements of international insecurity. Organizations such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are terrorist groups that perpetuate international insecurity through their terrorism activities. Since they are the threat to international and specific nations’ peace and security they have to be countered. It has become apparent to the international community and the United States in particular that terrorism cannot be countered by “soft” techniques such as negotiations; instead, it can be effectively countered by use of force since terrorism itself is a manifest of use of force (Ersen and O?zen, 2010). The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore, was aimed at destroying the haven for terrorists and disrupt their networks so that their capacity to perpetuate international insecurity will be reduced if not eliminated. Use of Force and its Justification The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States in a bid to counter international insecurity involved the use of force. As noted, use of force was not an option because countering terrorism effectively requires the use of force as other means may not result to any desirable outcomes. Moghaddam (2010) argues that countering terrorism can only be achieved through the use of force mostly especially if there is evidence that a certain location is used for preparation of terrorism activities. It should be noted though that in some cases force is not used especially in arrest of terror suspects unless they resist lawful arrest. The use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan was justified. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States had reliable evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan was providing a safe haven for terror groups such as Al Qaeda and Taliban which were a threat to international peace and security (Khalid, 2011). As such, the United States took upon itself to counter these groups and authorities that sympathized with them. Alternative methods such as negotiation or request to the respective governments to deal with these terror groups was untenable and could not have materialized. Since terror threats were becoming more real, it was important to act swiftly. This explains why the United States resorted to military force to destroy the havens for terror in these countries and to disrupt their networks. The outcome of this action is evident, as the United States has become much safer than before and the terror groups such as Taliban and Al Qaeda’s networks and capacity has diminished drastically (D’Anieri, 2012). Conclusion It is evidently clear that the issue of international insecurity and the use of force is one of the main issues that the world is grappling with. It is agreeable across the world that international security should be countered, but the definite means of doing this has not been agreed upon. While it is true that alternative means to countering international insecurity should be used instead of the use of force, it can be seen from the discussion that the use of force in some instances is purely inevitable. As noted from the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion event, the use of force sometimes is the only option. The positive outcomes of the use of force in the event discussed justify it. However, the use of force should not be used always in countering international insecurity; instead it should only be used when it is the only option. References Chakravorty, M., & Neti, L. (2009). The Human Recycled: Insecurity in the Transnational Moment. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 20(2/3), 194-223. D’Anieri, P. (2012). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Cengage Learning. Ersen, M., & O?zen, C. (2010). Use of Force in Countering Terrorism. IOS Press. Hee Park, J. (2010). Structural Change in U.S. Presidents' Use of Force. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 766-782. Khalid, I. (2011). Politics of Intervention: A Case of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. International Journal of Business & Social Science, 2(11), 73-79. Moghaddam, F. M. (2010). The new global insecurity: How terrorism, environmental collapse, economic inequalities, and resource shortages are changing our world. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger Security International. Yost, D. (2007). NATO and the Anticipatory Use of Force. International Affairs 83: 39-68 Read More