Kelsey Roberts: Reflections on the Dynamics of International Affairs with Kosovo

      One thing that really stuck out to me in this week’s research on the Kosovo War, was the political dynamic between several countries, international organizations, and even within particular countries, like the United States, deciding to act.  Through reading interviews with several officials on why they chose their course of action at the time, it was clear that the dynamics of politics came into play time and time again.  It amazed me that each expert could have their own opinion on the situation and best course of action but, if not backed by another organization or because of historical alliance circumstances, could do nothing to impart their ideas upon others and in many cases, could not take action they knew was best.  It was clear in the interviews that to this day some of these officials are still defending what they thought was best, but what was not actually done, which troubled me with questions about international affairs in politics and the dynamics of competing interests and the checks and balances on actions in a crisis. 

       Who has the final word in deciding what is in the best interest of the entire world? How do the actions made in the interests of one country affect another country and if they are in competition, who takes priority? And furthermore, what overarching right and/or responsibility does each country have to defend the best interests of other countries?  Presumably, this last question is a question of moral integrity that is decided by each country’s leaders, and if one country were to act to harm another, then international organizations such as NATO and the UN would take the responsibility to step in.  However, it is clear this is not how things always play out, and often other countries, like the US, take on a personal mission to help, as was evident in this case in then United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s stance on Kosovo.  

      I think this is a fascinating struggle in international affairs throughout the world that has existed for centuries and will continue to exist, with no clear right or wrong answers, forever.  I am excited to continue to learn more about the Kosovo War and the political history of the Balkans, how it has affected the entire world, and what we, as members of society, can take away from it as lessons to help to shape the future to come.

Preston Culbertson - America's Burden, and the Morality of Armed Intervention

As I was speaking with Virginia earlier today, she reminded me of an incredibly insightful quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence...

I've come to realize this an incredibly relevant and poignant lens through which to view military intervention.

I think it is important to first point out that the chief moral and respected authority on both international relations and human rights is the United Nations (UN). This is the main point of the organization - to ensure common relations between states, and to protect the rights of all men. That said, due to a fundamental principle of the organization intended to promote unanimity of the world "superpowers," the Security Council veto, the UN is often unable to reach a consensus on how to intervene in a international crisis.

Despite this inefficacy, I have to question how NATO has the moral authority, or even the legal basis, to intervene unilaterally in a conflict. On one hand, it is hard for a western state to stand by and merely endure such tragedies such as the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the systematic oppression of people in Iraq and Libya, or the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But without acting with the full support of the international community, NATO's actions can serve to propagate more violence and misunderstanding.

The United States in particular has a long and sordid history in not respecting the rights of sovereign nations. Throughout the 20th century, much of our foreign policy involved protecting US business and defense interests at any costs necessary (see US intervention in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, and even Yugoslavia, to name a few). This willingness to topple regimes, support dangerous (but pro-US) rebel groups, and dismantle economies, combined with the "burden" of its superpower status, has led to the US intervening in affairs around the globe. This effectively kills any "moral authority" that the US, or any self-interested state may claim - since every state acts to shore up their own regional interests, I posit that it's effectively impossible to act solely on moral grounds.

I reject that the United States, or even NATO, has the right to intervene militarily where they see fit. Military interventions, like the NATO bombing of Serbia, can lead to generations of international tension, and I feel sets up a dangerous precedent on which future international relations will be based. In a world where NATO, or Russia, or China, or any superpower can act unilaterally to enforce international law (or to protect their interests underneath this guise), creates an international community once again based on force instead of principle. This undermines not only the work of the United Nations, but also seriously jeopardizes decades worth of work towards nuclear non-proliferation. In a world where states can aggress unilaterally, the only insurance of  safety is to become a tacit superpower by holding nuclear arms.

Due to the destabilizing effect of military intervention, I think it should only be used in cases where the entire international community supports it as a last resort to diplomacy, sanctions, and the international judicial system. Since every state is primarily self-interested, they cannot claim moral authority, and thus must act with international approval to ensure the end of imperialist/meddling foreign policy. In future blog posts, I hope to plumb the actual morality of these interventions, and the historical results of conflicts resolved militarily.

Week One Post: 3/7/14

If I'm being totally honest, I did not expect this ASK trip to be as involved and student-led as it has proven to be over these past few weeks. When I applied, I thought that it was going to be similar to the expeditions that we freshmen went on this past summer,  where the primary goals were to acclimate the members in our PS class with one another and foster an organic method of bonding. While I'm sure that plenty of bonding will be occurring throughout this trip, I have realized that the major focus is to become more aware of the world around us and to use our leadership skills to plan and execute an incredible adventure. Initially, this was a very intimidating task for me. In high school, I was accustomed to being the "smart girl" that knew all there was to know about school related topics, including history and geography. I learned exactly what I needed to learn in order to make As on my tests, and then basically forgot about the material when it was over. When I got to Tech, I realized that I no longer was the smartest girl in school and that some people learned about topics that genuinely interested them, not just things that would get them good grades. This was an entirely foreign concept to me, and part of the reason why the Balkans trip is so intimidating for me right now. I feel like everyone has so much more background knowledge on the subject and the area's history, while I'm struggling to just remember where the Balkans are.
I have found a lot of the material that we've read to be emotionally stirring and somewhat upsetting. To see that there were such different reactions and stories about the same exact conflict depending on what perspective they were told from really bothered me. I'm the type on person who likes to be blunt and know exactly what is going on, and in the Timeline article especially, it was very difficult to figure out what was true and what was being exaggerated. I like to think that everyone was being completely honest, but judging by the different responses to the same event, I could see that this was not possible.
I by no means want to come off as sounding naive and uneducated, but I do feel as though I am much less cultured than my peers and not as familiar with the Balkans conflicts. However, this is exactly why I am so excited about this ASK trip! It's giving me the chance to completely immerse myself in not only an area that I'm unfamiliar with, but an activity that I have no idea how to handle. I am learning about an area that I have absolutely no prior knowledge about and that I unfortunately never planned on learning about. I now have the opportunity to expand my breadth of knowledge, and I'm so excited to see what that will look like in the upcoming months!

Nicole Kennard Reflections-- Week 1

Whenever we are faced with reviewing such tragedies, it is easy to imagine how we would act in these situations. It’s easy to say we wouldn’t hate anyone, we wouldn’t judge anyone, we wouldn’t have participated in the conflict. I’ve always enjoyed reading accounts from different sides because it becomes clear that we are in fact not different at all. If you truly believed ethnic cleansing was a way to protect your family, would you not do so? If you truly believed fighting Serbians was the only road to freedom, would you not do so? Did we not already do that ourselves earlier in history? It’s a vicious cycle that human beings cannot readily accept each other, that they become so clouded from beliefs, and as Ben said, psychological effects like groupthink. I believe that the most tragic part of all of this is that many Serbians never even wanted this war—it was a political struggle, one that the people and the soldiers were merely pawns in. Only 2-3% of the Serbian soldiers were volunteers—most did not commit the vicious crimes they are known for. As in many wars, the innocent suffer the most grueling losses while those of higher power seem to glean the rewards, which is just what Milosevic did.

Reading these articles also brings up a point that I thought was interesting, which was NATO’s intervention. While [most of] the KLA appreciated the help, many on both sides thought foreign countries should not be intervening in a matter in their own home. The bombings were an emotionally scarring event for civilians on both sides.  Again, the idea that the U.S. can never seem to be present at the right times (which Chaffee brought up today) seems to recur over and over in history, and it makes me wonder if there is ever a right time for U.S. intervention. It seems that the U.S. government often intervenes in cultural struggles that we do not completely understand ourselves. However, as most will argue, is it not the U.S.’s job as a superpower to intervene in struggles that disparage basic human rights? This has always been an issue in American politics, and it will, of course, continue to be one in the future.

I believe the most important point that I took away from reading these articles is that the apparent racism between the groups of the Balkans isn’t just some prejudice—there are historical and culturally sound reasons for the tensions, and I am interested to see just how prominent these tensions still are today.

Andrew Warren : So Much More to Learn - Week 1

I find myself at this stage feeling like an adventurer on the edge of a cliff. Of course, I'm the adventurer. I've always felt that way, always will. There are a lot of problems with cliffs. For one, they're steep and hard to traverse down from. But more importantly, you find yourself gazing down them (careful not to teeter and fall!), squinting at the world that lies below and trying to make sense of the ant-sized world below.  I feel like I'm standing at the Balkans Cliff. I'm extraordinarily far away from the experience, both physically and mentally.  I still don't grasp much of the history, neither the culture nor even the capitals of the nations. I can't pronounce the names of the cities or famous people ( I find myself pronouncing many of the names in a British Accent after watching that BBC documentary).  I'm begun the trail to the ledge and await the leap in May.

A common sort of ASK theme (if I even understand the idea of an ASK theme) that I've been pondering is that of ignorance and more specifically political ignorance. To build on Chandler's ideas, it seems to me that the populations of these Balkan Nations knew very little about the sources of the conflict they were involved in.  In the same way, I find myself coming to terms with the depth of my own ignorance of current events, fulling immersed in the GT Bubble: I'm still out-of-the-loop of the real details of the conflict in Ukraine and apparently there has been political turmoil in Venezuela.

I think it's important to remember that we're not going on this trip just to vacation to another part of the world.  This trip is the opportunity to break out of our norms and dispel our own ignorance, whether it's about a piece of history, a cultural divide that still exists, or even something about ourselves. Let's make this trip about expanding our horizons.

Chandler Barre: Reflection - Week 1

It is important to understand that culture frames perspective. Reading interviews of Serbian soldiers and KLA soldiers truly highlighted the misunderstandings of the citizens on each side. The Serbian soldiers were acting on the commands to eliminate terrorists while the KLA were attempting to stop the slaughter. This brings to the forefront how much of a political war this was. The actions were not that of the people, but instead actions of the government driven by the thirst for power. The Serbian soldiers were merely a pawn to the government's actions. However, why would the Serbian soldiers trust Albanians over their own government? Coming from a culture of discrimination, they had no reason to believe what their government said was not true.

Reading interviews from each side truly highlights the differences in perspective of each member involved. The US saw the outcome as a success because it proved NATO's strength. The KLA saw the outcome as a victory because the slaughtering of Albanians was over. The Serbian soldiers saw it as an ultimate loss because Milosevic so easily signed over the lives they had lost, the ideals they were fighting for. Milosevic won either way because all he wanted was power and he was able to maintain it even after the NATO campaign. The war is part of the Balkan past and it also shapes the future because culture frames perception and perceptions lead to the opinions and actions of the future.

Ben Ashby: Reflections 3/3/2014

It's interesting to me how much our environment impacts the way we live. While it can be debated that some people in this world are just evil, it seems highly unlikely that everyone involved in the deep hatred of the Kosovo conflict was simply evil. What made soldiers volunteer? Why was there such a deep-seated hatred in the first place? Groupthink helps to explain at least a part of this situation. It helps to explain a flawed NATO policy and the beliefs of both Kosovo Albanians and Serbians. Groupthink is a recently developed concept in psychology where the desire for harmony within a group leads to an irrational or poor decision. Groupthink can be caused by information biases, inspiring leaders, and pressure to reach a solution. When a child grows up in a neighborhood full of Albanians who hate Serbians she will be hard-pressed to not follow suit. Even if she eventually realizes that there are many kind and loving Serbians the fear of being ostracized from a group or the fear of conflict may keep this child from speaking out. Groupthink has its roots in what we've all grown up hearing about: peer pressure.

When reading interviews of NATO generals and soldiers on both sides of the battlefield it was obvious that these people had very different ideas of the war. There was passion on both sides of the war, with strong beliefs in both purposes. The officials in charge of the NATO involvement believed that their actions would speed Milosevic's loss of power, while impacted citizens believed that NATO involvement was delaying a solution. Even Milosevic and his highest officials probably believed to some extent that their cause was just. How did all of these rigid opinions form and remain for so long? I believe that this is caused by the inability of an individual to speak out confidently against a group with such strong opinions. All of the social implications of going against the grain keep people from speaking out.