Archives for November 2017

17 Nov 2017, Filed Under: Uncategorized

Nations without a state: why hold an independence referendum?

1648

The Peace of Westphalia brought relative peace to Europe. The Westphalian system is established, and sovereignty is endowed in a new political body, the state. Now, this political entity enjoys the principles of equality and non-intervention, amongst and between states.

Since then, empires have fallen and states collapsed, wars fought and borders drawn. Concepts of identity have shifted, as some people begin to identify with the state, while others hold on to an identity molded by their ethnic and linguistic history.

2017

There are now 195 independent states in the world. In today’s world, independence movements like the Kurdish referendum and the Catalonia referendum demonstrate the frustration of groups who have been left behind in modern state building and border drawing.

Both the Kurds and Catalans have a strong sense of nationhood that comes from a shared heritage, including their linguistic identity and ethnicity as well as

shared moral values. And ultimately, they see themselves as social and cultural entities who lack their self-determined right to political sovereignty.

What do you do if you are a nation without a state?

One option is to hold an independence referendum. This can result in movement towards political independence, meaning that you earn sovereignty over your affairs and gain the equality that is granted to independent states in the international arena.

Independence referendums hold a variety of possibilities, but also many consequences.

Why hold an independence referendum?

After the Kurds were denied statehood following World War I, they became scattered across several states. In the following years, they were forced to live in states which would inflict human rights violations and violent atrocities on the Kurdish people. It was exactly their statelessness that made the Kurds vulnerable. Without their own borders, the Kurds had no power to claim their sovereign rights and no formal government dedicated to representing and protecting their voice. So, a reasonable question to ask is, why would the Kurds want to be apart of a state that has repeatedly denied them their own right to identify as Kurds and then attacked them for that identity?

Catalonia too has experienced waves of repression and autonomy under Spanish rule. Once an autonomous region, the nation has a remembrance of their defeat. In 2010, Spain removed Catalonia’s status as an autonomous nation with its own certain independences. This action halted the region’s independence movement, and attacked the Catalan ability to choose their political and educational language.

In the past two months, both the Kurds and the Catalans have held independence referendums despite threats from Iraq and Spain. Though political independence seemed unlikely, holding a referendum means more than seceding from a hostile state. An independence referendum with a democratic vote holds significant meaning to the international community, signaling that they feel that their state fails to serve their needs.

A vote is a statement for change.

Catalonia wants Spain to allow for more Catalonian autonomy and to recognize Spain’s multilingual, multicultural nature. An independence referendum is an expression of self-determination and is an symbolic action for a strong ethnic group. The Kurds want to express their determination for a state formed by Kurds and that will protect not only Kurdish people, but anyone living within their borders, unlike the Iraqi government. Independence referendums often lay the groundwork for future dialogue, and for a more democratic process where political and social change can take place that will benefit marginalized identities.

Both nationalities have faced increasing backlash from Iraq and Spain. Catalan voters faced shocking violence from Spanish forces, while Iraq violently took back Kirkuk and other areas previously under Kurdish control. Each referendum has affected regional politics, and both caused significant economic backlash for the normally thriving regions. In recent days, Carles Puigdemont fled to Belgium after declaring Catalonian independence from Spain, and Madrid responded with rebellion and sedition charges. Meanwhile, the President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government, Masoud Barzani announced he would step down.

It seems that a failed independence referendum is a catastrophe for its leaders, but perhaps, the people will feel the benefits in the future.

10 Nov 2017, Filed Under: Uncategorized

Former CIA Director and UT Alumnus John Brennan speaks on the Ethos of Public Service

Former CIA Director and Longhorn alumnus John Brennan made his first appearance at the University of Texas since accepting the honor to return as a Distinguished Scholar. He will serve as an advisor to the Intelligence Studies Project, a joint initiative of the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law and Clements Center for National Security.

The conversation, held at the Blanton Museum of Art, centered on the “Ethos of Public Service”. With decades of experience serving the interests of the United States, Brennan provided the audience with personal insights on an array of issues:

Brennan began by highlighting the solemn duty carried by those who are called to interpret, defend, and enforce the law. In safeguarding American exceptionalism, such individuals must be devoted to the welfare of all citizens, irrespective of party alliance. In fact, the first time Brennan voted in a presidential election, he supported Gus Hall, the Communist candidate.

As someone who has served directly under four presidents, Brennan stressed that the American people should carefully weigh the credibility of public officials and hold them accountable. He went on to say that like those most superior to him, he realizes he has made plenty of mistakes but that it is critical that no decision was ever made out of self-interest, a trait necessary of any successful leader. Brennan did not, however, directly acknowledge the current president even though earlier this year he provided testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on efforts by the Russian government to influence the campaign.

Rather, Brennan warned that we are at an important juncture to define what it means to be ethical on behalf of your fellow American and fellow man. An important recommendation he had was mainstreaming diversity initiatives, something he made a priority while serving as Director of the CIA. There is no institutional durability, he countered, in merely employing women and minorities to senior positions. Such individuals need training and mentoring to be sustained and allow for their success. Above all, whoever accepts the role of a public servant must realize that they represent the United States while home and abroad, a responsibility Brennan characterized as “most humbling”.

To further his point on what it means to inhabit the role of a public servant, he referenced his recent re-watching of the 1960 Presidential Debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. He said that he was both shocked and refreshed to observe the degree of civility between these two public figures. In a final appeal to convey the great weight and privilege it is to serve the United States, Brennan echoed the words of Kennedy in his 1960 Inaugural Address:

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility-I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world… And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man… Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

By: Jacquelyn Clark, current Brumley Next Generation Scholar

To see what Jacquelyn and other Scholars are up to, check out this previous post.

01 Nov 2017, Filed Under: Uncategorized

What in the world? Kathleen Hicks and “Shifting Global Trends”

Kathleen Hicks is the director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, policy research organization. She writes on U.S foreign policy and strategic futures. Hicks spoke at the LBJ School as apart of the Women and National Security Speakers Series.

Her lecture “Shifting Global Trends and the Collapse of the American Foreign Policy Census”, started with her run down of global trends. Which of course, came off just as overwhelming as she might have hoped. Hicks point: what do Americans see every morning when they wake up and look to their smart phones? And, knowing this answer, how should foreign policy respond?

Just touching the surface of the current stream of international crises and their effects, Hicks mentioned terrorism and ISIS, the Syrian and Yemen Civil Wars and the resulting migration to Europe. Iran and North Korea entered the discussion for a moment, as did China and its increasingly powerful role in the global arena. Hicks further convoluted the situation for American foreign policy makers and mentioned the current and future implications of urbanization and climate change. We are seeing this global churn and its dangerous effects, the growing appeal of populism and the rise of autocrats. Both of which, further muddy the water for global policy makers.

At the end of all of this, in a world where Americans can use their smart phones to analyze world happenings, Hicks then asked, what do Americans really care about?

Americans don’t want to lose their jobs. Americans want to earn a living. They fear trade, immigration, and automation. But Americans also care about the increase in political polarization in the US and rising partisan apathy. They care about the U.S role as a super power, despite the range and type of challenges that are increasing and continue to face the U.S.

If this seems like a rambling discussion of world politics and U.S. foreign policy, it is. And, I hope that’s what Hick’s wanted. At the end of her overview of our world and its effects on the American populace, Hicks offered a few recommendations for American foreign policy-makers. Despite the shift in America’s role as a super power, Hicks says there is no need for an overcorrection. She is confident that the world still needs a global leader and that U.S. isolation is not a viable option. But at the same time, she claimed that Americans want the attention and resources. They want policy-makers to focus on the U.S.

So, policy-makers need to channel most of their energy to the American people. The U.S. first needs to get their house in order before we can continue to be a global leader and hope to influence any events.

Hicks ended by recommending that policy-makers change the narrative in problem prevention. She thinks that development aid and assistance needs a better narrative with better measures. We also need to follow a multi-lateral approach in our security and development policy. We need alliances and allies around the world.

In the end, how do you respond to a lecture that is meant to overwhelm, but never actually provides concrete guidance? In fact, Hicks recommendations for shifting American foreign policy didn’t clarify any of the major issues our nation is facing. I found this discouraging, as I know that she is an expert in analyzing global affairs to strategically plan for the future. If her answers are vague and add no further certainty, I know that as I emerge as a policy informant I will probably struggle to make decisive, concrete recommendations for foreign policy-makers.

Ultimately, I agreed most with Hicks’ last point. We do need to reframe how we talk about development aid and foreign assistance. I think that there is a clear link between development and international security. In a political environment that continues to cut international aid budgets we need to emphasize the importance of increasing literacy rates overseas and how this can combat the extremism. Or, how access to clean water might be an increasing cause of conflict in the future.

But I’m also troubled by her addition that we need better measures for development aid. What does she mean by this? The development community has an excess of indicators, indices, rankings and ratings. Does she think we need more or do we need to sift through the excess and determine what measures are most useful?