A developing issue of aid

The critical condition in Vanuatu once again has brought the issue of aid to the forefront of the global consciousness and with it the same old problems.

While the devastation reeked upon the country by Cyclone Pam has destroyed what little infrastructure the country, considered as one of the poorest in the world, it seems unlikely that the international community will do much more than symbolic handwringing.

Based on the economics principle of game theory to maximise stability in the international system it is better if all countries invest. If only one country invests then stability does increase slightly, although not as much as the accumulated investment of all. For an individual state therefore it makes sense not to invest as stability will still be increased. The issue arises however that if all states decide to not invest, thinking that the others will, then the level of instability will remain in the international system, and potentially in the face of such an emergency as in Vanuatu increase.

The barrier to effective aid therefore is that states will act in their own interests if they believe that another state will shoulder the burden, essentially free riding.

Over repeated games however if all states invest then it may occur to each state to decide that as stability will be increased whether or not they invest it makes sense for them to stop donating development aid and invest that money elsewhere. As each state only has the same information though this would logically lead to all  states stopping investment.

For a positive distribution of development aid to be determined using game theory players must be playing a coordination game, whereby they cooperate with each other while still potentially receiving different payoffs. When players in a coordination game have reached a mutually agreeable decision they will gain nothing by defecting from it. For the purposes of development and aid programmes this could mean that despite disagreement in putting together a proposal once it has been agreed upon all players will either remain with it or leave it all together. This has been seen in the way states have continue working towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals despite initial differences of opinion when they were being created.

An alternative form of game however can see individual states defecting from an agreement if they feel that they can increase their gains. Such a game may reduce the trust among other actors however and therefore make future long term cooperation harder. If all players in a game know that any of them may leave an agreement at any point if it benefits them then it can reduce the legitimacy of the agreement as a whole. This distrust amongst actors will prove a lasting barrier to global governance.

Vanuatu's problem, aside from the near whole scale destruction of its economy, is that it does not pose enough of a risk through instability to be of concern to much of the international community. It is unlikely therefore that there will be a coordinated effort among donor countries to provide a concerted and long term approach to development aid. The issue is instability is not strong enough to create an atmosphere of global governance, as few countries will feel their own interests are threatened by an destabilised Vanuatu. It would seem likely that it's richer neighbour Australia, fearing perhaps an influx of refugees among others, will be the only country to see the need to help, and even then it will only be through preservation of its own self interest.  

Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

The madness of nuclear non proliferation

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to US congress this week and American President Barack Obama's announcement of a landmark deal with Iran have reawakened old animosities, and questions.

The issue here isn't whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, we know they don't and we know that no matter what the rhetoric spouted is they are unlikely to do so in the near future. The issue is the hypocrisy within the international system regarding the acquisition and maintenance of nuclear weapons in general.

The five permanent members of the Security Council America, Russia, France Britain and China are all signatories to the treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as is Iran for that matter. Israel, which has an outstanding if not just a little bit redundant policy of "deliberate ambiguity", is not. Neither are Pakistan and India, two other nuclear states, or North Korea which withdrew from the treaty, essentially showing how pointless the whole thing is.

The five original nuclear powers have long maintained an argument that they should be the only ones entrusted to possessing nuclear weapons as they are the only ones which can be trusted to maintain peace in the international system. The fact that the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in an aggressive act seems lost on the current policy makers.

Iran voluntarily signed up to the NPT without any actual need to do so, and has remained with it despite an inability among other signatories to do so. Meanwhile Iran's greatest opponent, Israel, is known to have nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT, they also refuse to allow independent inspection of non military nuclear facilities however that is an entirely different issue. Unlike the renowned realist academic Kenneth Waltz I do not believe that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would increase the stability of the Middle East, an argument being that it will create an element of mutually assured destruction, MAD, the same principle argued between Russia and the West during the Cold War. The fact is though that if stability is to be maintained within the international system there must be an equality of action and reaction between states, e.g. Israel cannot complain about one party developing nuclear weapons outside of international oversight when they are doing the exact same thing. 

In the cases of Iran et al there is an additional issue of 'dual use' technology, the ability for a crossover of non-military nuclear applications, such as power generation. Germany, Japan and South Korea all have the capability from their nuclear energy industry to start a nuclear weapons program, they are known as 'recessed nuclear weapons states'. If we are to argue that Iran should not be allowed any nuclear capacity then does this mean that we are going to force these countries to dismantle their power stations? 

A nuclear free world is a lovely idea but it won't happen. The genie is well and truly out of that bottle and no amount of good intention will shove it back in. The only alternative is to find a common ground. Global governance of the nuclear sector is a possible course, however, so long as countries such as Israel continue to develop nuclear weapons as refuse to acknowledge it this will not happen. At the end of the day only one thing can be done, treat each state equally, allow for trust within the system and pray that each state understands the consequences of its actions. Mutually assured destruction may be MAD but it is the only way to peace we have.