Is Counter-Terrorism incompatible with Human Rights?

Counter Terrorism is the use of political or military activity with the motivation to prevent or thwart the threat of terrorism. This has been a mode of response adopted in the face of 'New Terrorism' in particular, as in the 21st Century we have seen an exponential growth in acts of terrorism in the Western World, from the 9/11 attacks, to the 7/7 London bombings, from the Madrid bombings in 2004, to the recent 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. The 'War on Terror' has significantly changed the way that democratic governments have responded to terrorist tactics, as we have extended beyond the boundaries of both state laws and international laws and committed acts against terror suspects that have been controversial in their breach of human rights and civil liberties.

Countering Terrorism has taken on many forms, taking a significant turn during the ongoing 'War on Terror' The United States government, under the Bush Administration, took action to eradicate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Counter Terrorism techniques adopted were various; including the use of military force and presence in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) counter-insurgence in an attempt to diffuse the threat and stabilise the governments of these nations through hard power capabilities, in efforts to install a democratic and representative leader e.g. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's election as President of Afghanistan in September 2014 as a consequence of overthrowing the Taliban before the withdrawal of troops from the nation, as well as the support of Nouri al-Maliki, the previous Shia Muslim Prime Minister of Iraq in a way that resembled soft power. However, this has created a backlash as any Western intervention in the Middle East has become one of the main concerns of these terrorist organizations that conform to 'global terrorism' in that they wish to damage the power or image of the United States and it's allies, therefore, in a sense these actions of counter-terrorism are seen as adding fuel to the fire. The strengthening of state security is also a measure taken by governments to decrease the terror threat level which has been adopted by nations such the UK, Spain, Sri Lanka and Israel, while political deals are also designed to create co-operation to reach a political end in a liberal form in place of conflict or resorting to terror tactics.

However, there are a number of ways in which we have exemplified a breach of human rights during the interrogation, detainment and punishment of terrorist suspects. A case study for this is the treatment of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the idea of 'extraordinary rendition' means that a government or intelligence agency such as the CIA, is able to transport a prisoner to another country that does not practice the same Human Rights laws as the United States, which allows these agencies to take part in torture techniques such as water boarding and mock executions, a breach of human rights as well as dismissing the right to a fair trial, detaining prisoners without charge, two prominent suspects being subjected to this were Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is considered to be controversial due to this use of counter-terrorist techniques creating a slippery slope towards becoming an authoritarian state system, giving up the moral high ground and giving the enemy morale, despite the need for intelligence or the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number in a 'Ticking Bomb Scenario'.

On the other hand, there is evidence that counter-terrorism is compatible with human rights, along with the use of soft power to influence the ideals of others, military involvement and political deals, there are examples of attempts to quash terrorism without compromising the moral high ground or depriving suspects of their human rights. If we are to maintain a liberal and democratic political system, we must look into the movement of work such as that of the "Human Rights and Terrorism Project" (2005-2008). During the project, seminars took place to develop an innovative, inclusive and just approach to the drafting of UK counter-terrorism legislation, this made steps towards an equilibrium between respect for human rights and the need for national security, which led to the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill which made sure that the interrogation and imprisonment of suspects did not infringe upon the rule of criminal procedure in the UK. The Bill was a success in relation to it's influence on post-charge questioning as well as prosecution and punishment. In 2009, it was claimed by David Miliband that "There is no military solution to terrorism." It is agreed that soft power could be significant in the issue of eliminating the terrorist threat, this has been achieved in smaller ways by establishing regional centres and forums in states such as Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on de-radicalization and the idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. In terms of highly capable terrorist groups such as ISIS, this could be important as it has emerged that most of the terror threats in the UK are from citizens which identify with the terrorist organization's ideology. When referring to groups such as ISIS, the severing of funding to the wealthy organization is vital, as they earn £28 million in ransom payments annually as of 2015. The co-operation of nations such as France with terrorist groups can encourage tactics such as hostage situations and beheadings, for this reason, another counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and US is the illegalization of funding ransom payments. This ends the dilemma of forced co-operations and funding.

Ultimately, the strategies used since 2001 by the United States in particular have been in violation of human rights and civil liberties that are not part of the claimed liberal democracies highlighted as a Western model of social framework. However, there has been movement concerning the need to limit counter-terrorism tactics to a more compatible format to create an aforementioned equilibrium between the "respect to human rights while maintaining national security."

Is Identity Politics a liberating or oppressive force?

Identity Politics are the political arguments that focus on the interest and perspectives of the groups with which people identify. Therefore, this can be a way of shaping aspects of people's identity by relating to a social organization. Social organizations of this kind can be based on race, gender, religious beliefs, culture, sexual orientation etc. This has traditionally been considered as liberating to social groupings that are often at a disadvantage and introduce social change, however, more recently, belief has grown that identity politics can become an oppressive force.

Identity Politics is commonly seen as a liberating idea that can free social organizations from oppression, a positive example of this is feminism, which has for the most part, brought about gender equality in the 21st Century. For example, First-wave feminism in the 19th and 20th focused upon and succeeded in gaining the right to vote for women, which did not disadvantage men, but liberated women as equals. Second-wave feminism was based on bringing other aspects of feminism to worldwide attention, particularly in terms of sexuality and equality in the workplace which furthered liberation of women in parts of Europe and Asia. While third wave feminism is focused on the abolishment of gender roles and stereotyping, proving the liberating qualities of identity politics.

It has been described by political journalist that "Identity politics is spreading, filling the chasm where the politics of ideas used to be. Even the general election looks to be a festival of identity... ...Politicos rarely speak of the 'electorate' any more. Instead they prefer to change their message based on the ethnicity, gender or generalisation pocket they're talking to." claims Brendan O'Neill of The Spectator. This shows a recognition of the issues that can be brought about by the aspiration of gender politics and the negative effects it can have on other members of a community which do not identify with the policies of a minority, which in reaction, oppresses the majority.

The rise of nationalism throughout Europe since 2009, highlighted in the popularity of far-right movements and parties such as the UK Independence Party, is an example of how identity can be oppressive towards other social groupings. In this case, the oppressed are the immigrants from within the EU currently residing in the UK. This shows how identity politics can create a parallel negative force for other communities.
Ultimately, it is clear that Identity Politics can both liberate and oppress social organizations, more commonly, the differentiation can be found in how these social groups pressure governments and populations. If a group resorts to counter-oppression and violence to gain recognition, it can become the oppressor in itself, while the diplomatic approach and suffrage for example can reach a liberal outcome.

Will there ever be another European War?

Since the events of World War II (1939-1945) there has been very little prevalence of war between the borders of Europe. Complete Introduction

To begin, the devastation of the Second World War has led to measures being taken by nation states to prevent the occurrence of war within Europe. This was mostly achieved by the creation of Inter Governmental Organizations (IGO's), mostly regarding The United Nations (UN). However, there can also be seen to be tactics to combat conflict between states in institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which through both trade agreements and military alliances help to further the liberal approach to negotiating peace through cooperation, For instance, the United Nations was set up in October 1945 to promote international peacekeeping and collective security, At it's conception, the UN has a total of 51 member states, which in 2014 has risen to 193 member states with 2 observer nations. This body comprises of four major organs; The General Assembly; The Security Council; The Secretariat and The Social and Economic Council (ECOSOC) which collectively ensure; international peacekeeping, social and economic development around the world, the value of fundamental human rights and create a platform for international cooperation. This has evidently been a much greater success than the failed League of Nations established after World War I, which failed at preventing the following World War in 1939. This, I believe has prevented tensions in Europe as the nations develop a harmony of interests and therefore gain a common ideology based on the need for democracy and capitalism.

Furthermore, the idea of trade liberalism to ensure peace and stability between nations has resulted in the creation of the EU, the replacement of the EEC (European Economic Community)  formed in November 1993. The EU bases it's operations on the deterritorialization of borders between European states, now complete with 28 member nations. The most prominent policies of the European Union include free trade with no taxes or tariffs on imported goods, furthered through the free movement of labour and people. This means migration between the states has some of the highest rates in the world. Finally, the common international laws provide a basis for legal justice, for instance, 50% of UK laws stem from the EU while Germany's laws are 70% derived from the trade bloc. This shows the political stronghold of the European Union's power over European countries.

According to Samuel P. Huntington, there is an emergence of a new scale of conflict centred around the world's primary civilizations. In his book "The Clash of Civilizations", published in 1993, Huntington claims that wars were no longer based on regional powers but fought over society, culture and religion. By this understanding, it can be surmised that wars between less powerful states are considered historical or as proxy wars with the rise in ideological conflict; for instance, the Iraq War (2003-2011) can be seen as a struggle between the USA and the Middle East, while the Cold War has been the only conflict in recent decades that has torn the composition of Europe by Eastern Bloc and the West. This shows how wars are not fought on a regional scale any more, but on a global scale. Furthermore, Europe is a group of solely democratic nations in past decades which align with conditions of the "Democratic Peace Thesis" that state that two democratic countries have never been to war. This further emphasises the unlikelihood that there will ever be tensions among Europe that will ever again result in war.

Ultimately, there are strong conclusions to be drawn that indicate that the nation states of Europe will never go to war again, at least on the scale that was the World Wars, if not due to wars between civilization, the spread of democracy and the fall of communism and IGO's furthering of international cooperation, then also due to the changing nature of war which dictates an escalation in weapons and terms of warfare, meaning that wars do not evolve to the point of "mutually assured destruction" any more. This leaves us with the idea of peace among European states for now, if not the long term.

What is China's role in a multipolar world, especially in reference to Russia?

The United States, after World War II, became a hegemon and the primary superpower in a uni-polar world. However, in recent decades there has been a challenge to the uni-polar global order in the form of China. Multipolarity means that there are multiple influential powers in the world, rather than uni polarity or bi polarity.

China is growing to be an economic superpower as the rise of the BRICS has meant that economic power is 'transitioning' from West to East according to theorist Joseph Nye.  With China's economy set to overtake the USA's in 2016 as researched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth is seemingly exponential in most of the BRICS. The establishment of a 'new development bank' is a way for the countries promoting multipolarity to build upon infrastructure, fund projects and distribute resources as the efforts of China and Russia strive for a multilateral global order. Multilateral being the "international governance of the many." as defined by Miles Kahler.

Graph showing China's economic growth in comparison to the United
States between 1980 and 2030

In reference to Russia, the China - Russia Constructive Partnership Agreement of 1994 (China - Russia Strategic Agreement of 1996) promoted the belief of both countries not only in terms of a partnership between nations, but the importance of the presence of multipolarity in a world to achieve a fair and just society which was at that time uni-polar - and is still considered to be led by the United States in the current decade.

Overall, China is in a position to overtake the United States and other global actors in terms of hard power such as economy, however, it fails to establish itself in other ways which make it difficult for the nation to become a global superpower rather than a regional one. For instance, it lacks the influence of human rights, prominent allies, acts of diplomacy and the use of 'soft' power or 'smart' power.

Is conflict between Islam and the West inevitable?

The realist view that war is inevitable is difficult to deny when applied to the relationship between Islam and the West. The conflict can be traced back to it's origins in the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. The causes of past conflicts in the Middle East can be surmised as caused by the United Nation's support of a right wing Israel established by the Western World, The West's insatiable thirst for dominance of resources in an opportune area of the world cementing itself in neo-colonialism in other corners of the planet or the responsibilities of developed core countries to help those in less fortunate places in terms of human rights and humanitarian aid.

"Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington
looks at the relationship between the contrasting
civilizations, particularly Islam and the West.

In the four to five centuries, Islam has found itself in disrepair, once being the center of civilization for around 800 years in regards to philosophy, arts, medicine and technology it's a culture shock for the Middle East to find itself dominated and exploited by a unbeatable Western Civilization and left behind by the 16th Century. This is most likely the origin of the Muslim or Arab animosity towards the West.
In the post-Ottoman Empire age beginning after the events of 1918. The drawing borders between states by the victors of World War I has been considered a mistake made by England and France. Prior to World War I, the Middle East operated as a whole, but after the drawing of international borders of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria  between states conflict and domination have been rife in these areas.

A reason for the inevitable conflict between Islam and the West is ideological based, lying in religion. This creates a global culture in which Christianity or Atheism cannot co-exist with Islam without the prevalence of conflict. For centuries, this has been the reason behind wars, executions etc. This inevitability of conflict results in "Holy Wars" - a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. These can be discovered and tracked back to the Crusades. The spread of these two religions has caused a clash that reaches to one another's borders.

Western support of Israel is also an important factor in the fractured relationship between the Middle East and the West. An example of how this can cause conflict is the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Due to the US support of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict, helping by supplying weapons to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) spurring the OPEC countries to slow their oil production in an attempt to raise prices to countries in the West on the side of Israel, despite production only decreasing by 4% this caused panic buying of oil and the skyrocketing of oil prices which in effect caused tensions between the civilizations once again. However, could the oil industry be preventing an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam? despite oil production being the primary reason that the Middle East is able to compete with Western powers economically, it could be considered as a catalyst for treaties - if not peace.

Culture and customs of the two civilizations also do not mix, the values held by the West are not upheld in the Middle East which will never improve while the Middle East is not embracing a more democratic policy focused on human rights, equality (particularly that of women), freedom of both speech and religion etc. However, due to religious differences, this is feared not to be occurring anytime in the near future. Furthermore, there is a lack of willingness, almost a rebellion against the neo-colonialism of the US and other nations as their influence of capitalism and democracy is rejected in reaction to "Westernization" that can be seen in the Far East particularly. However, this is contradictory of the many Islamic or Muslim people which move to UK etc. which despite racial and cultural tensions, for the most part are encouraged to live in harmony with natives in these countries. Not only does this promote the ethnic mixing of varying cultures, it means that we are now more able to understand the more non-radical views and values that go against the stereotype of culture and religion in the Middle East.

The last point leads on to the current situation regarding ISIS and the prevalence of other Jihad extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These reactionary movements in reaction to Western intervention in the Middle East are only gaining momentum and are leading towards a situation which inevitably will end in war. Terrorist organizations, often looking to provoke nations into intervention cause tensions between states. ISIS is an example of how radicalism resorts to war crimes and killing of innocent people which coaxes the West and Islam into war time and time again - examples of this also lie in the war in Afghanistan as Taliban harboring of Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks resulted in an all out war in 2001, which only ended in October 2014. This is also a way in which the civilizations are mixing with negative consequences, with Western countries seeing thousands of their populations disappearing to fight for Islamic State. This shows how conflicting ideologies are propelling us towards conflict not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world including up to 2000 fighters from the UK, 493 from Chechnya, 3000+ from Tunisia, 930 from France and 1500 from Morocco.

The origins and targets of Terrorism map showing the countries where
terrorism effects most, particularly in the Middle East; Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Libya as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan where influence is
spreading.

Exploitation and Neo-Colonialism of the Middle East is seen in the way that the West attempts to side with and exploit countries such as Iraq and Saudi-Arabia due to their vast oil reserves by which OPEC produces oil for 60% of the globe's consumption. This is a reason for NATO and UN interest in aiding the Middle East. 61% of Americans agree at an ever increasing rate, that US intervention in the Middle East was a mistake, and most believe there was no clear plan to the 2003 War in Iraq. Questions have also been raised particularly since the US left Iraq in early 2014 and the emergence of Islamic State on the effectiveness of the US intervention. It has been theorized by realists that the war Iraq was very little about the protection of the Iraqi people and more about the protection of US national interest, primarily being the overseeing of oil production and installing a democratic government which has recently happened in Afghanistan. By intervening, the West keeps up the appearance of an increased relationship in the Middle East. However, as these terrorist organizations previously mentioned grow in power and influence, the need for them to be removed grows stronger alongside the relationships between Western and Middle Eastern countries. The coalition to remove Islamic State has seen a new found diplomacy between rich core countries such as the US, UK and Australia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (previously in political tensions with the West under the civil war led by Al-Assad's corrupt regime) the West supports countries which puts an emphasis on the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Although the coalition with these countries is unstable and the countries themselves do not support Western values, is this not a promising expression of peace?


Ultimately, the belief in who is to blame for the inevitable conflicts fought in the Middle East by the West is shifting from the stereotype of Islamic causes to the issues of US foreign policy. It explains the idea of the United States acting as the "global police" to protect national interest and finite resources which are rich in the Middle East. To answer the question "Is war between Islam and the West inevitable?" liberals would argue that with co-operation and the promotion of a harmony of interests we could end all war and conflict with the Middle East, however, in Western terms, the distance from democracy and equality in the Middle East is still too far to be embraced. In realist terms, they would argue that Islam and the West will always be heading towards a "Clash of Civilizations" and that cannot be changed while the world still maintains the same contrasts in values and culture, believing that any peace is only temporary and treaties or coalitions between these states will be illusionary and not long lasting.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.

Is the UN an outdated body?

The United Nations is an Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) set up in 1945 to maintain international peace and security after World War II (1939-1945) and was committed to by 51 countries to promote social progress, human rights and higher living standards, which has gradually evolved into a political forum of 193 member nation states in 2014. The UN was founded on the basis of the outdated and unsuccessful League of Nations in 1920 after the events of World War I, the goal being the same as that of the United Nations.

The United Nations logo, based on the Olive Branch which
represents the co-operation of member states in terms of its
security and peacekeeping around the globe.

There are 5 current components of the United Nations; the General Assembly is a proactive deliberative organ, being the only body of the organization whereby every member state has equal representation; the Security Council is made up of 19 members with 5 permanent members (US, France, China, Russia and the UK) which formulate resolutions to peace and security issues, international sanction and military force, a problem being the permanent members ability to veto any resolution; ECOSOC or the Economic and Social Council which co-ordinates the management and activity of the 14 UN socio-economic agencies; the Secreteriat provides results to the UN based on research, studies, information and facilities and the International Court of Justice - the primary judiciary body responsible for the trial of war criminals.

The effectiveness of the UN is frequently called into question by critics, but is the United Nations outdated? Firstly, with a emphasis on the spread of democracy, and more countries embracing the ideology, it's become ever apparent that the United Nations do not operate to reflect this form of co-operation. An example being Jacob Zuma's claims that the IGO is "undemocratic" and might have "by now outlived it's usefulness." There is also significant evidence supporting it's undemocratic nature in the modern day, post World War II. For instance, the only democratic organ of the UN being the General Assembly, all other parts of the organization are based on an unfair voting and power system, mostly criticizing the powerful role role of the US in decision making to flex it's muscles, taking a vitally important stance on international decision making.

On the other hand, the United Nations has been successful in it's contribution to humanitarian aid and initiatives providing help for those in countries with high rates of poverty and struck by disaster with the help of ECOSOC and the World Food Organization (WFO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this is a way in which the UN is still effective in solidifying the interdependence and co-operation of it's member states, as it promises to provide help to any country within it's sovereignty. Also, the 'Millennium Development Goals' look to help the population and peoples of individual states rather than maintaining power and influence with all countries agreeing to achieve goals by 2015 of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and ensure a global partnership for development. This helps to further develop the support network for the rise of human rights in countries suffering from humanitarian issues, poverty and civil war, spreading the ideology of democracy.

An image showing tents provided by the United Nations to Syrian Refugees in 2013, as they described humanitarian aid
is required for over 7,000,000 people who were under threat by the Al-Assad regime.

 Furthermore, the undemocratic nature of the UN extends into the vetoing power of permanent states on the Security Council. This means that France, UK, China, Russia and the US have the power to dismiss any of the other proposals made by the other 10 members. This is made even more problematic as the permanent members of the council are polarized in their ideologies and their stances on global affairs. For instance, when the Security Council led by the United States was voting on the decision of intervention in Syria during the 2013 Civil War, the opposition was led by China and Russia against the proposal. This meant that ideas that may be important to the security of the countries within  the United Nations cannot be upheld with a veto from only one country. This causes a deadlock in decision making which means that motions are difficult to put forward without rejection.

The United Nations is also a basis for which all countries are interconnected and still interdependent with other countries emphasized by the Cobweb Model, and from a Liberalism viewpoint, this can help to create a harmony of interests within a global scale and reduce the risk of war and conflict, instead looking to negotiations, debates, discussions and sanctions. The UN also benefits from it's status of extraterritoriality which means it's exempt from any local laws which makes for an ease of decision making in some respects and the judiciary of war criminals means that this body works in a way that can help, where local laws cannot.

Ultimately, it is evident that in most instances the United Nations has been unsuccessful or not fulfilled it's goals, clear in the ever increasing prevalence of wars between both civilizations and member states, showing that the main goal of peacekeeping is largely ineffective as involvement in conflict is based on realist ideas of egoism, selfishness and nationalism. However, it could be argued that the UN is still a significant power and constantly evolving in terms of it's regards to soft power and how we must adapt with the rise of globalization and democratization. For instance, the success of the body in terms of it's humanitarian aid, efforts in human rights, equality, education, world hunger and poverty cannot be denied. Based on these aspects is could be surmised that the importance of the hard power of the UN has been taken away by military alliances such as NATO but left a platform for human development.

In what ways has Globalization created the recent war against Islamic State?

Islamic State is a Sunni Jihadist extremist militant group who are currently attempting to establish a 'caliphate' in the Middle East, most recently in Iraq and Syria. A 'caliphate' is a state of Islam led by a supreme political and religious leader known as the 'caliph', thought to be a direct descendant of Muhammad. The brewing war in the Middle East is once again a fight initiated by radicalized Muslims to gain state sovereignty and rise to power. However, the United Nations has categorized ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to countries including the US, UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Turkey and Indonesia. IS is led by 'caliph' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who is the forefront of the group which began in 1999 using an array of names linked to the organization and is forcing the implementation of Shariah Law along with the ethnic cleansing of different races including that of Kurdish, Yazidis and Christian population.

October 2014: Current extent of Islamic State's occupation of
Iraqi and Syrian cities.

Globalization is often blamed as the reason for the allowance of the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East and around the world. ISIL are seen as a unique threat to other nations worldwide as they grow in power exponentially with a large pool of resources, weapons and wealth and well as western influences which help to raise the profile and further the Radical Islamist cause. However, is globalisation the real cause for the threat posed by Islamic State?

Firstly, Colonialism is an important term used in reference to the Middle East in past centuries, as great powers in history have moved to colonize and exploit the Middle East for it's opportunities, one of these being the British Empire after the events of World War I left Europe devastated, constant rule over Middle Eastern partitioned states had left the nations to implode and caused resentment of the Middle East upon the Western World. Furthermore, after the ruin caused by three Gulf Wars in the region, Neo-Colonialism was established by the United States and other nations. Neo-Colonialism is an important means of globalisation as it spreads influence and demonstrate power while attempting to exploit a country for it's resources or workers for instance. In the modern day, neo-colonialism is carried out by TNC's and the movement of settlers within an area. This related to Islamic State, as our actions in Iraq, for instance the war in 2003, was largely seen as not to help the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein's oppression, but to exploit the country for our own means. Reasons for intervention in the Middle East, when encompassed in terms of realism sees invasion of Iraq as a selfish action only in Western national interest such as the enormous reserves of oil in Iraq known as the 5th largest in the world or as a method of controlling the volatile country. These events in history have caused a stigma for the United States as well as the UK as the world now questions motives for Western democracies going to war in the Middle East, which is often a considerable topic to extremists in Iraq and Syria who threaten US intervention with acts of violence.

ISIS Fighter flying the Islamic State Flag, the "Black Standard"
which claims "There is no God but God, Muhammad is the
Messenger of God."

Secondly, the Islamic State have been seen as revolutionary in how they spread propaganda and encourage recruitment which has been unseen before even in the largest terror groups in the world including Al-Qaeda who  despite having a large amount of wealth were very much out of touch with Western communications. IS have been reported to use social networking and the internet as a platform to spread their message. For example, part of the reason for the abrupt rise of ISIL is down to it's ability to reach all corners of the globe, using YouTube videos featuring beheading to spread fear among the West, war glorifying propaganda to lure Muslims from around the world to the cause and the use of twitter accounts and other forms of computer technology to further spread the message of IS. This is caused by the advancements in technology and the way it has changed the way we communicate both in local terms and internationally. Also, this problem is furthered by the laws and regulations that communications are bound to in relation to freedom of speech and an uncontrolled forum for a population to voice their opinion and impose their views on others. This technology has been used both to recruit and encourage people towards the agenda as well as instilling shock and horror among democratic, peaceful communities.

Immigration and the prevalence of permeable borders around the world has allowed the free movement of people around the world, from different walks of life to migrate across the planet. Although a major part of globalization in recent decades, particularly following the year 2004, including the boosting of economies, multiculturalism and refuge, there are also significant negative impacts caused by the change in demographic around the world in terms of ethnicity. On a smaller scale, migration can cause a change in cultural identity, ethnic tensions and violence. But on a larger scale, immigration has caused problems in history. For instance, in recent years, young people may go abroad as a tourist or a migrant and while in other nations, is radicalized, an example of this being the perpetrators of the London 7/7 bombings who had recently returned to the UK after being sheltered by groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. This is a common way in which terrorists are able to carry out threats thousands of miles away. Examples of this within Islamic State include the attempted beheading on an Australian Citizen, a threat to the United States Subway System and Street violence in the UK. This works in line with known Islamic extremists working within the states such as the UK. An example being the Cleric Anjem Choudary arrested recently who appeared to be radicalizing Muslims within the UK borders. This shows that there are issues as permeable borders means that ethnic mixing can cause issues along with the unknown origins of the people entering countries of the coalition, the current Islamic State population in the UK is thought to be around 2,500.

October 2014: Where are Islamic State Fighters coming from?

Finally, the spread of democracy over past decades has seemingly gone hand in hand with the spread of globalization, as countries are developing and consolidating their own sovereignty the domination of democratic power has spread with increasing numbers of switched on countries and influencing the public to push for 'people power'. The ideological sectarianism within borders is often detrimental and an instigator of an unstable government. An unrelated example of this is evident in the city of Hong Kong as students protest for introduction of a democratic vote for their leader, this is relevant as it demonstrates how the exposure of the public of an oppressed country are fighting for liberalisation and while they fight for a more fair political system this can cause governmental issues. In the context of the country where IS consolidated it's control in Iraq, the unstable political system faults could be used in the militants' favor. Prime Minister Maliki, the former leader of Iraq is a Shia Muslim who was biased and rewarded the Shia population while pushing down the influence of Sunni Muslims who were favored during Saddam Hussein's rule. Most Sunni's wished for a more balanced cabinet in Iraq, while disenfranchised Sunni fighters became 'freedom fighter rebels' or 'militants'. However, when new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi took office, the government was unstable and unable to fight off the Islamic State fighters. Furthermore, there are also issues in Syria where the Western countries are unwilling to work with President Al-Assad's regime due to recent tensions caused by his dictatorship style of leadership. This shows how the tensions between democratic states, dictatorships and unstable governments are unable to work together due to the gaps in development of their political systems highlighting a deep running disparity.

In conclusion, the rise of Islamic State has empirical evidence that leads us to the idea that globalisation is the key to their success as a foreign terror organization and their current influence over global politics and worldwide issues regarding communications and technology, spread of democracy, impacts of immigration and neo-colonialism which is drawing attention to the problems in the Middle East once again, for possibly the fourth Gulf War in the past century.

Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics

Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.

Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.

Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).

In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.

Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.

Rise of The State and the Nature of State Centric International Politics

The Rise of the State is a development of the world that has taken centuries and is still a concern in modern politics. However, the beginning of this concept started back in the 1500's. To set the scene, life and politics in the 16th Century would be very different. There were no boundaries or maps drawn up and people were less connected and knew less about the outside world, it was not a matter of concern. The development of the State could said to be a result of globalisation and the issues it creates. But, in the 1500's there was less structure to a country, with no governments, the country relied on both the Feudal Lords and the Monarchy which led to major differences in practice of laws etc. throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Firstly, a state is described as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." while a nation state is of a similar description but emphasizes the "unity of the population by factors of the nation, for instance language or descent." The former began specifically in Europe where Henry VII was a notable figure in English history. His victory at the War of The Roses in 1485 and his role as King resulted in a development of the nation state as he looked towards the beginning of foreign policies and alliances, trade, and the separations of power so beginning the rise of the English nation state and changed the way states began and interacted. Furthermore, 7 years later in 1492 it followed that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled the Muslim's from the country and consolidated Spain as a state. The first Russian nation state was created by Ivan The Terrible by 1584, when an absolute monarchy was created in France in the late 17th to early 18th Century, a 'dominant power' was founded in Europe. By the late 19th Century, the states of both Italy and Germany emerged as new nation states.

In 1648, The Treaty of Westphalia was established developing one of the first maps of Europe, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty of state over internal affairs legally. This Treaty not only ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) within the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years War (1568-1648) between the Dutch Republic and Spain. Held in Osnabruck and Munster (modern day Germany) the treaty involved around 194 states including Kingdoms of France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and many other territories. As well as allowing the independence of Sweden from Austria and the Netherlands from Spain, the Treaty also noted the importance of a states authority and sovereignty over it's own territory and disallowed the interference of other states in internal matters, therefore, strengthening the idea of the nation state and propelling state centrality further towards the modern day.

A Treaty of Westphalia era map of Europe as sovereign
 states are created in 1648.

 This is the point where State-Centric Politics come into action as it is decided that a state has the ability to govern it's own people with legitimacy without state intervention from other nations. The term 'state centric' is based on an approach that identifies "International relations that the main participants in the international arena are states and that decision making processes are done by the states as the active actors."

As study of modern Politics became more established a number of theories and models were created to record and exemplify how states interact as they develop and grow as powers and nation states. For example, the 'Billiard Ball Model' founded in the 20th Century is supportive of 'global interdependence' and is a realist theory, it determines that the distribution of power among states is relative to a pattern of conflict and cooperation between nation states. The Billiard Balls translate as hard shells that do interlink only touching each other, with only leaders and officials as points of relation and contact. Despite there being common legalities and formalities between states, it has been noticed that some states are simply more powerful than others. This is called the billiard ball model due to the fact that balls collide and deflect with different effects. However, this idea is under pressure and is debated with the emergence of superpowers and globalisation, interdependence is prevalent as states begin to rely on each other increasingly, based on the influences of economic power and trade, nuclear weapons and military and the introduction of deadly diseases and sources of non-renewable energy in some cases.

The idea of interdependence and global groupings has also been highlighted as a viable and increasing approach to global politics, the 'Cobweb Model' is an important development that has put the 'Billiard Ball Model' on the back burner as outdated. The metaphorical cobweb indicated that nation states are closely connected and rely on links to one another to establish strength and power as a nation state. This is evident through global groupings, particularly that of the relationship between the state and intergovernmental organizations (IGO's)  and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as the UN, G7, EU, NATO which often revolve around international decision making and distribution of global wealth and power, this has becoming very important in a constantly developing world that changes in patterns of both these factors.



The evidence shown based on approach to global politics models and nation states and treaties throughout history are all contributing factors to how the world has moved forward politically and globally and how the development of nation states, leading up to how the interconnected states work today, is an engine for the globalized world we live in today. This is clear in the links between global powers, global patterns of co-operations and conflicts and the global ties and groupings affected by this.

How were the 9/11 attacks a major turning point in Global Political History?

The events of September 11th 2001 had a number of consequences both within America and internationally in both long and short term consequences, the attacks on the World Trade Center were undoubtedly a point at which the political landscape began to change regarding foreign policy, anti-terrorist legislation and social change.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out on four American Airliners which are known to have been hijacked by the Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, killing at least 3,000 people and causing $10 billion worth of damage to property and infrastructure. The devastation the attacks caused was quickly met by the American government with aggression that resulted in what George.W. Bush described as the "War on Terror", however, in recent years under the pressure of a public that no longer support the war in the Middle East, the government under President Obama has tried to stop intervention in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the US, the immediate response to the attacks was to prevent further occurrences, causing a major turning point in terms of US security measures. For instance, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set up to protect the territory and airspace of the United Space as well as response to disasters, it is responsible for the screening of cargo and baggage, preventing terrorist threats, screening passengers etc. Furthermore, The USA Patriot Act was signed by George. W. Bush and passed by Congress to change the terms of a number of laws to make it easier for the US in their counter-terrorism effort, e.g. allowing a court order to gain information on suspected criminals, helping law enforcement to track the terrorist without a tip-off as well as the use of technology and further surveillance to detect crimes of terror. Ultimately, the US undertook a tough anti-terrorism legislation to prevent further terrorist attacks, which although effective has changed political history in terms of security and surveillance.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been of global influence, particularly resulting in conflict within the Middle East. The War in Afghanistan was sparked by the belief that Afghanistan was harboring Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden under the Taliban militant group. Quickly gaining the support of UK in a bombing campaign, future support is also given by Canada, Australia, Germany and France. However, the war began to be critiqued when the US did not take an active enough role in a battle resulting in the escape of Al-Qaeda, the war has now been ongoing for 13 years and although there is a withdrawal of US and UK troops, Afghanistan is still a heavily unstable country with little reliance on government despite attempts at implementing democracy.

Since the 2001 attacks, Public trust in Government has severely declined, as seen in the Line Graph it is shown that during the Bush administration and the years following which highlight the public's doubt in the credibility of the war in the Middle East, which is still not recovering in 2014 as a permanent solution to the conflict and terrorism across the world is not eradicated with the rise of groups such as Islamic State and Al-Shabaab the effects of the terrorism can be seen to reach a tipping point in the September 11th Attacks with an increasing number of countries being targeted particularly in the West, Middle East and Africa.

In societies all over the world, attitudes have changed in regards to immigration, multiculturalism and diversity. The 9/11 attacks have ignited further issues in many countries which record more violence, hate crimes and racial profiling. For instance in the US anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 1600%, similarly, rising by around 60% in the UK. This is important in global political history as it is a measure of the public's opinion on the events and how the political implications have affected the population.

However, media has played a major part in the turning point occurring on September 11th with news articles for the past 13 years, internet and television, the influence of the attacks would inevitably be worldwide. This has both caused an awareness of the threat that terrorism of this scale poses to the rest of the globe, but it also has been shown to aid the growth of terrorist organizations in the past such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and most recently ISIS as it spreads there propaganda and widens the sphere of influence.

To conclude, the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath have been extremely influential to Global Political History and as highlighted, the consequences of the disaster are still being felt now as a tipping point at which the War in the Middle East, Global Terrorism and Social Changes based on race, religion and immigration are all contingent to bringing the effects into the modern day.