Timor Leste (East) and Nation-Building

The International Crisis Group (ICG) has a new report on the situation in Timor Leste. Some of you may be aware that Timor Leste broke away from Indonesia four years ago following a brutal war of secession, during which forces loyal to the Indonesian government were alleged to have committed horrendous crimes against humanity. Thanks to UN intervention, the killing stopped and the small state of Timor Leste gained its independence. Recently, however, the UN-directed nation-building exercise in Timor Leste has imploded, along with domestic order.

According to the ICG.

Four years after Timor-Leste gained independence, its police and army were fighting each other in the streets of Dili. The April-June 2006 crisis left both institutions in ruins and security again in the hands of international forces. The crisis was precipitated by the dismissal of almost half the army and caused the virtual collapse of the police force. UN police and Australian-led peacekeepers maintain security in a situation that, while not at a point of violent conflict, remains unsettled. If the new government is to reform the security sector successfully, it must ensure that the process is inclusive by consulting widely and resisting the temptation to take autocratic decisions. A systematic, comprehensive approach, as recommended by the UN Security Council, should be based on a realistic analysis of actual security and law-enforcement needs. Unless there is a non-partisan commitment to the reform process, structural problems are likely to remain unresolved and the security forces politicised and volatile.

The problems run deep. Neither the UN administration nor successive Timorese governments did enough to build a national consensus about security needs and the kind of forces required to meet them. There is no national security policy, and there are important gaps in security-related legislation. The police suffer from low status and an excess of political interference. The army still trades on its heroism in resisting the Indonesian occupation but has not yet found a new role and has been plagued by regional (east-west) rivalry. There is a lack of transparency and orderly arrangements in political control as well as parliamentary and judicial oversight with respect to both forces.

The situation in Timor Leste illustrates–from the perspective of comparative politics–the importance of the state and its crucial role in facilitating stability by consolidating political power and maintaining, to paraphrase Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of political violence. From an IR perspective, we see the difficulty of imposing legitimate order on a society from outside, whether–as is the case here–through intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) like the United Nations, or–as in Iraq–through unilateral, or multilateral means.

Here’s a report from the BBC on the upheavals of April-June 2006.

Australia and Japan in Whaling row

The Financial Times reports that the Australian Prime Minister has vowed to try to put an end to commercial whaling, which puts him at odds with a Pacific ally, Japan. You can find the whole story here, but here’s an important snippet:

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s new Labor prime minister, on Thursday said his government would pursue all means to end commercial whaling by Japan and other countries, dismissing claims that Japanese hunting is for scientific purposes.

Mr Rudd’s comments, which mark a significant shift in Australian foreign policy, came amid a tense stand-off that has soured relations between Japan and Australia.

The previous conservative government of John Howard, defeated by Labor in last November’s election, had avoided antagonising Japan, one of Australia’s closest allies and most important trading partners, over the issue.

We’ll look at this issue later in the semester when we analyze the state or domestic level. There is an important theory in IR that argues that there is a single, unitary national interest that is fairly consistent over time, regardless of which party or leader is in charge. What is this theory and what are the implications for that theory of the whaling row between the Japanese and Australians?

The Cold War as a Series of Confrontations–Cuban Missile Crisis

The two dominant great powers (US and USSR) during the Cold War differed in terms of national interests, ideology, and mutual mis-perceptions.  From the Berlin Blockade, through Afghanistan, these two powers confronted each other in a series of confrontations, none of which escalated to all-out war.  Many believe that the world has never been closer to nuclear power war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Summer Research and Funding Opportunity for Undergraduates

Here is a wonderful opportunity to do some faculty-monitored research this summer and get paid for it. Those of you who took my PLSC240 course may certainly be interested, but I would also encourage PLSC250 students to apply.

Here are the details:

16 January 2008

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to let you know of an opportunity for your students that I hope you will bring to their attention. Pending funding approval from the National Science Foundation, this summer (2008), the Department of Political Science at Oklahoma State University will host the fourth annual Democracy and World Politics Summer Research Program for undergraduates. This program presents a valuable opportunity for undergraduate students to conduct faculty -mentored research projects.

Supported by summer stipends, research funds, and travel funds, students will work in one of three issue areas:

  • Foreign Policy in a Democracy
  • Democratization and Democracy Promotion
  • Democracy and Conflict

The program is designed to provide undergraduate students with valuable educational experiences through its support of research participation. Oklahoma State University’s summer program has been supported by major funding from the National Science Foundation’s Research Experience for Undergraduates program, along with additional funding from the Department of Political Science and the College of Arts and Sciences at Oklahoma State University.

Successful applicants will spend about 9 weeks at Oklahoma State (June/July) during the summer of 2008, where they will work with a team of faculty members and visiting scholars to develop research questions and design and complete projects within the issue-areas just noted. Supporting activities will include research methods seminars, intensive project development workshops, guest presentations by visiting scholars, and community-forming events. Student participation will culminate in a presentation of papers at the National
Conference for Undergraduate Research (if accepted). Additionally, each year visiting scholars with substantive specialization in the programs issue areas will participate, lending their insights and expertise to the program and to student projects. . Last year, Dr. Paul Diehl (University of Illinois), Dr. Sara Mitchell (University of Iowa), Dr. Kelly Kadera (University of Iowa), Dr. Patrick James (University of Southern California), and Dr. Ralph Carter (Texas Christian University) participated. I hope to enlist these and possibly others this year.

The students who participate in the program receive the following support:

  • A stipend of $4,000.
  • Room and board at Oklahoma State University for the duration of the program.
  • Up to $500 in travel costs to and from Oklahoma StateUniversity for non-OSU students.
  • Up to $200 in research support funds (by application) for project support.
  • Funds for registration, travel, and lodging for participation in a conference in the subsequent spring (up to $900 per student).

I am writing to ask your help in recruiting good candidates for this program. Please share this information with students you believe would be good candidates for this valuable experience and encourage them to apply. All application material is located on the Oklahoma State University Department of Political Science website at
http://polsci.okstate.edu/REU%20Material%202008(2).htm. The application deadline is March 15, 2008.

You or your students may contact me for additional information about the program for applications.

Thanks. I hope to see some applications from your students!

Sincerely,

Dr. James M. Scott
Department of Political Science
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078
Office: 405-744-5569
Fax: 405-744-6534
http://polsci.okstate.edu/REU%20Material%202008(2).htm.

Kenya, ethnic diversity, and fractionalization scores

Had you taken my Introduction to Comparative Politics class in the fall of 2007, you would have been faced with writing a paper in response to this:

There is much debate regarding the determinants of, and obstacles to, democratization. Are states that rely on natural resources for a large share of their GDP less likely to become and remain democratic? Does ethnic diversity present an obstacle to the democratization and democratic consolidation of a regime? Your term paper will answer one of these two questions either in the affirmative or the negative.

In addition to making the theoretical argument, students were asked to use Iraq and one other state to illustrate and support their argument(s). A few students chose to write on Kenya. I hope they go back and read their papers in light of the current situation in that multi-ethnic state.

Is Kenya ethnically diverse? How can we measure ethnic (or religious, or linguistic) diversity? There is a formula called the fractionalization index, which essentially gives us an idea of how diverse a state is. You can find a table–in Appendix A (which I have excerpted here) of over 100 states around the world with their corresponding fractionalization scores (in three categories), in this National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper by Alesina et al. here The higher the value the higher the level of diversity. Notice the relatively low diversity of states like Poland and Norway and the high amount of diversity of almost all African states. Which is the best way to measure “diversity”? Ethnically? Linguistically? By religion?


Country
Date (Ethnicity Data)
Ethnic
Language
Religion
Afghanistan
1995
0.7693
0.6141
0.2717
Canada
1991
0.7124
0.5772
0.6958
China
1990
0.1538
0.1327
0.6643
Croatia
1991
0.3690
0.0763
0.4447
Kenya
2001
0.8588
0.8860
0.7765
Malawi
1998
0.6744
0.6023
0.8192
Mozambique
1983
0.6932
0.8125
0.6759
Nigeria
1983
0.8505
0.8503
0.7421
Norway
1998
0.0586
0.0673
0.2048
Portugal
1998
0.0468
0.0198
0.1438
USA
2000
0.4901
0.2514
0.8241
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started