- Corey Robin writes about the Hayek-Pinochet connection over at Crooked Timber. “Hayek came away from Chile convinced that an international propaganda campaign had been unfairly waged against the Pinochet regime (and made explicit comparison to the campaign being waged against South Africa’s apartheid regime).” Yikes.
- If life imitates art in Syria, we’re all screwed. An imagined (and amusing) CIA vetting of a Syrian rebel.
- Speaking of Syria… Reuters’ Oliver Holmes and (the very charming) Alexander Dziadosz have a number of excellent pieces from inside rebel-held territory, detailing a changing sectarian landscape, cooperation in service provision between the warring parties, Islamists’ upper hand compared to moderate fighters (plus, how they “govern with guile and guns“), and an interesting portrait of a jihadist in Syria whose “…accent and swagger are pure London.”
- As India is drafting rules for foreign universities to operate campuses in the country, we’d be curious to know who decided to insert this proviso: “They would not be allowed to offer any course that adversely affects the sovereignty and integrity of India or its friendly relations with other countries.”
- Poor William Dalyrmple is getting beaten up in the Indian blogosphere for his recent essay claiming, “The hostility between India and Pakistan lies at the heart of the current war in Afghanistan.
- Egypt’s low-boiling political dysfunction seems set to ratchet up in intensity. There has been scattered violence and heated rhetoric as supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi have mobilized ahead of large protests against the president planned for June 30 — all with the military watching from the wings (not to mention its head making ominous remarks about intervention) . Eric Trager laid out a pessimistic (and plausible) assessment of the current situation on Monday that’s worth checking out, as is Sarah Carr’s (characteristically) funny and biting articulation of the conundrum facing democratically-inclined opponents of the president.
- New efforts to predict war using GDELT. Every paper using GDELT should have a long section entitled, “We are not data-mining or over-fitting and we can prove this to you.” This one doesn’t.
- The FBI had an informant in Wikileaks who was also the little-known Icelandic character from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
- Interesting analysis by Garman and Young. In a nutshell: shifting demands — due in part to Brazil’s recent economic success — drove millions to the streets. As you read it, listen to this 2001 tune that is back on radio stations all over Brazil.
- Tom Edsall reviews recent debates about how to best measure inequality, and what those measurements tell us. Shorter version: researchers need to go beyond the Gini coefficient.
- Jenna Krajeski explores how the headscarf has become a useful symbol both for the Gezi protesters and Erdoğan supporters alike. Unfortunately, these women in Turkey are often treated more as prizes to be won over by a particular side, rather than as complex individuals with nuanced views about politics and religion.
- Peter Bergen’s “Ultimate AfPak Reading List“.
Beheadings get people’s attention. This week, the India-Pakistan ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir broke down in dramatic fashion. The Line of Control serves as the de facto boundary between India and Pakistan in the disputed territory of Kashmir, the product of the first India-Pakistan war of 1947-1948 with a few adjustments in the 1972 Simla accord. Despite a ceasefire since 2003, small skirmishes have been fairly common in the last decade and, while this one was more gruesome than most, I would not be surprised if the ceasefire is restored in the coming days or weeks with no long-term consequences. But the episode does appear to illustrate Robert Jervis’s spiral model fairly well. So before getting into the more grisly elements of the episode, let’s review theory and then turn to its application.
Jervis sketched out the spiral model as one pathway to conflict, where insecurities feed on one another, generating conflict even when states are not inherently aggressive. Imagine a situation in which one state, let’s call it India, attempts to make itself more secure through an action that intentionally or unintentionally makes another state less secure. When faced with this circumstance, a second state, let’s call it Pakistan, makes a countermove to increase its security, which in turn makes the first state (India) even less secure. This basic security dilemma might be exacerbated by psychological tendencies. Decision-makers know that they are taking actions for good reasons, and do not understand that their actions might be viewed as dangerous by others. When the other state reacts, the initial state views its reaction as a sign of perfidy or aggression, rather than a product of its own initial moves.
Normally at this stage, hardliners in one or both of the states demand “firm” or “strong” retaliatory steps to demonstrate that unacceptable activity by the adversary will not be permitted. And now a tit-for-tat spiral is underway. And these spirals can be difficult to control even if there is just a little “noise” in the “signal.” What if states have imperfect information or if they sometimes take action out in their phalanges about which central leaders remain unaware? It becomes very difficult to modulate tit-for-tat responses. Almost thirty years ago, Downs, Rocke, and Siverson demonstrated that even a little misperception of the adversary’s action or a just a bit of incomplete control of one’s own actions can lead to very bad outcomes for actors that are just trying to pursue benign tit-for-tat strategies (by which I mean they will cooperate so long as the other side plays nice).
Ok, so that is what the theory tells us.
Last Sunday, January 6, the Pakistan military announced that one soldier was killed and another injured in what it described as an Indian raid on a Pakistani post along the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The raid was followed by cross-border shelling by both states, a relatively frequent occurrence along the Line of Control despite the ceasefire. India, for its part, denied that a raid had occurred, though it had admitted to taking some undefined steps to respond to what it said was a Pakistani ceasefire violation prior to January 6. Pakistan, India claimed, had “initiated unprovoked firing” and whatever occurred on January 6 was just India responding to the Pakistani provocation. The Indian response had been calibrated, Indian spokespersons assured the Indian media. Then on Tuesday, January 8, the Indian Army reported that two of its soldiers were killed in an ambush on the Indian side of the Line of Control, and one of the soldiers was beheaded, and his head was apparently carried back by the Pakistani intruders. The Indian defense minister called the episode a “serious provocation” and “inhuman.” The opposition BJP party said the Pakistani attack was “an unprovoked act of aggression” and called upon the Indian government to respond “firmly.”
All of these occurrences took place along one stretch of the Line of Control. On Thursday, January 10, the Indian media provided an account of the whole episode that was much more complicated, with guilt dispersed across Indian and Pakistani actors. The reports suggest that the Indian military had become aware last fall of gaps in their ability to control movement along this portion of the Line of Control. They decided to construct new bunkers along the Line of Control that may have been in violation of the 2003 ceasefire. Pakistani troops protested the move—first verbally and then with harassing fire. The local Indian commander obtained permission to take action to try to stop the harassing fire. As one senior government official told Praveen Swami of the Hindu newspaper, “Let’s just put it this way. There was no formal permission to stage a cross-border raid to target [the Pakistani post]. However, in the heat of fighting, these things have been known to happen.” An Indian intelligence official similarly told Saikat Datt of Daily News and Analysis, “We believe that this was a local action purely in retaliation [for] the raid our troops carried out in the Uri sector.”
Obviously the decades-old spiral model is not the only theoretical tool that sheds light on this episode. The role played by media institutions in both countries, but particularly in the less institutionalized Pakistani democratic milieu, touches on a literature on nationalism, media, and mass opinion (see Van Evera 1994, Gagnon 1994-1995, Snyder and Ballentine 1996). The role of public pronouncements and opposition statements seems consistent with a literature on audience costs and the process by which democracies generate resolve (see Fearon 1994 and Schultz 1998). But those are other posts for another time.
The biggest international news in the quiet months before 9/11 was the collision of a U.S. Navy spy aircraft and a PLA fighter jet in China, during which 24 American crew members were detained. Even though the incident was lampooned on SNL, there was real concern that the incident would blow up, damaging already-tense relations between the two countries. But it quickly faded and both sides reached an agreement. Quiet diplomacy prevailed.
Flash-forward a decade later and we have a similar border incident of a spy plane being shot down between Turkey and Syria. Cue the familiar drumbeats for war on both sides. To save face, each side has ratcheted up its hostile rhetoric (even though Syria’s president did offer something of an admission of guilt). But, as in the spring of 2001, I wouldn’t get too worried. One of the least noted global norms to emerge in recent decades has been the persistence of state restraint in international relations. Retaliation has almost become an unstated taboo. Of course, interstate war is obviously not a relic of previous centuries, but nor is it as commonplace anymore, despite persistent flare-ups that have the potential to escalate to full-blown war.
Forget for a minute about parsing the nuances of Iran’s controversial nuclear program—whether, for example, the officially ‘civilian’ program has a covert agenda aimed at developing nuclear weapons, how far along such a component might be, and whether this merits a pre-emptive strike by the United States or its allies. Forget that and stop agonizing. The sooner Tehran gets the bomb, the better. A nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the Middle East.
At least, that’s what one of the most famous theorists of International Relations (IR) has to say in the cover story of the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. No one familiar with Kenneth N. Waltz’s work should be surprised with this analysis as the article strikes the same basic theme that the doyen of IR has been sounding for the last three decades, namely, that a balance of power is what keeps the peace in the international system. What is surprising is that the IR school of realism, with which Waltz is so closely associated, has advanced in recent years, but insights from this literature and from history are missing from the ongoing policy debate. Between blithe optimism and pre-emptive striking there are other ways of dealing with Iran’s controversial nuclear program, one that doesn’t require accepting a priori all of the assumptions on which Waltz’s analysis depends, and one that ought to include regional states beyond Israel, notably Washington’s Arab allies.
You know, it’s a good thing that these Americans were taken by the Bedouin; there’s no chance they will be harmed. Maybe if they were taken by someone else, you would never see them again. But we never worried that these Americans were you, since no one traveling with Bedouin would ever be taken, only with Egyptians.
This was the prevalent attitude among the Bedouin of Dahab, a group of Arabs descended from the great nomadic tribes of Arabia and who form a distinct social group in Egypt, in our discussions the morning after the kidnapping of two American tourists. Bedouin members of the Terabin tribe seized the tourists at gunpoint near the town of Nuwayba in South Sinai, Egypt on May 30th. And that seems to be the way it goes out here, where the rule of law is tenuous, a sense of balance and honor regulate politics more than any formally defined law, and the state struggles to make its presence felt outside of a few towns dotting the coast.
For the third time this year, foreign tourists have been taken by Bedouin gunmen, to be used as leverage to secure the release of detained members of their tribe. And in every case, the resolution was quick and the tourists were released unharmed, claiming fair treatment from the Bedouin. In this most recent incident, one of the hostages told reporters they were being treated “extremely well.” This may be confusing to an American audience, familiar with the tragic endings to various hostage situations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Lebanon in the 1980s, leading them to ask “What is the point?” Are Americans being explicitly targeted? And if so, is it because, as some in the United States would claim, they resent our freedom and our success? And more immediately, is this phenomenon actually connected to the bloodier violence that is reported from North Sinai and the Gaza Strip? This claim has been made by reporters from sources such as CNN and ABC, who have taken to disingenuously describing the Sinai and its inhabitants as “lawless” and “notoriously dangerous,” even insinuating an al-Qaida connection where none exists.
While it certainly makes for a better story, I am afraid to say that reports coming from international media sources are not only inaccurate but grossly sensationalized. These events have no place in the American “Clash of Civilizations” narrative of the War on Terror, as some sources, citing an al-Qaida presence in the Peninsula, would have us believe. Nor, as CNN reported, does this have any connection to the often brutal human trafficking that occurs in the North across the Israeli border, undertaken by a different tribe faced with a different set of political pressures and economic incentives. But this sensationalism, in itself, is an integral part of the story.