International Relations, assignment help
Topic: International Relations
Post 1
The most critical issues surrounding the Northern Ireland Conflict in the late 20th century (aka The Troubles) were rooted in ethnic conflicts. The top three cultural and/or historical concerns that had to be addressed during the Northern Ireland Peace Process were 1) the sectarian segregation (and discrimination) of the political parties, 2) the constitutional status of Norther Ireland, and 3) the length of the conflict.
First, the sectarian segregation of the political parties was the primary dividing line between the two conflict parties. The Irish nationalists (Sinn Fein) were made up of mainly Catholics and the Irish unionists (Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party) were made up of mainly Protestants. There was significant contention between the two parties, which was backed by sectarian support and violence. Sinn Fein (and nationalists) wanted a unified Ireland whereas the Unionists wanted a political union with Britain. Generally, this led to institutional discrimination against Catholics, although there was indiscriminate violence against both sides.
This leads nicely into the second key issue – the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Since the nationalsists wanted a unified Ireland (between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State) and they saw the separation of the Irish Free State as a huge threat to Northern Ireland’s territorial integrity. On the other hand, the unionists wanted to remain as part of the United Kingdom with Great Britain. This also raised security concerns and issues between the nationalists and unionists as well as a lack of trust because they each saw the other side as dangerous and ruinous to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
Last, the length of the war needed to be a huge concern (Dixon 2013, 113). It had be ongoing for 3+ decades and therefore, the negotiators and arbiters needed to understand that they were not going to undo the issues and reach an agreement overnight.
I think that the group of individuals who had the most impact in achieving the negotiated settlement were external political leaders. First, the British conservative leader, John Major “paved the way” for the Good Friday Agreement, but did this through talking with terrorists and deceiving both British and Irish citizens – playing a “contradictory role” (Dixon 2006, 66). Although there was a lot of back and forth on the peace process during his rule, he was able to convince the nationalists and unionists to talk to one another (thus the labeling of his approach as the “pragmatic realist” approach). The deception that Major carried out led the British citizens to support the Labour Party in 1997 with a strong majority and thus allowed Tony Blair and the Labour Party to continue the “pragmatic realist” approach that John Major had started (Dixon 2015, 21). British leaders were primarily concerned with stability in Ireland and they seemed to take the approach of doing what they thought was best even if it went against tradition (Ibid. 72).
The approach of all of these external political leaders relied heavily on political skills (which often involved deception of even their own citizens as well as the conflict parties) to get enough support from both the nationalists and unionists to accept the Good Friday Agreement. They were able to make the negotiation look like a step toward unification of Ireland for the nationalists and a step toward improving relations with Britain and strengthening the union to unionists (Ibid. 21).
Besides the various British political leaders, the United States and South Africa also play a role in pushing the nationalists and unionists toward peace. President Bill Clinton’s visit to Northern Ireland in 1995 increased Sinn Fein’s status within the peace process (even if he seemed to at times contradict the British government) (Gormley-Heenan 2005, 201). Nelson Mandela’s visit and handshake with Gerry Adams (leader of Sinn Fein) had a similar and amplifying effect (Ibid. 210). Additionally, Clinton made many phone calls to key players in the days leading up to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (Ibid. 202).
Post 2
Thank you for your following thoughts on Senator Mitchell: “George Mitchel who was an Ex-senator in the United States and who had been previously send by Whitehouse to Northern Ireland in an effort to boost the local economy was invited by the British and Irish governments to spearhead the peace talks. His approach was based on building trust among the two conflicting groups and he managed to chair the peace talks up to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998. In this agreement, compromise was the key element as the two governments developed a new political framework for Northern Ireland. The peace deal solved the problem by forming a power-sharing-basis of governance in the country. It ensured that no single community or party could dominate in the important national decisions as well as in the assembly. Moreover, the agreement devolved important powers into Belfast from Britain such as the police and judiciary. Furthermore, the committee led by Mitchel ensured that there was a fifty-fifty recruitment scheme between the Catholics and Protestants in the national police force (Stevenson and Jonathan, 1998).”
What were the specific traits that made Senator Mitchell such an effective arbitrator and mediator?
Topic: American Government
Post 1
The United States government has countless agencies and groups at its disposal, and all of which excel specifically in something different. The list is long; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration, Border Patrol, Federal Marshals, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, National Guard, The Coast Guard, and the 4 different branches of the military- Marine Corps, Navy, Army, and Air Force just to name a few. While most every single agency serves a crucial role in some way shape or form, there are a couple that stand out from the crowd in their ability to have a large impact on national security both in far off foreign lands and on our own home turf. The one that I will be discussing in particular is very near and dear to me personally as a member of the Intelligence Community that works very closely with them, The National Security Agency (NSA).
As the cyber realm expands and a mind numbing pace, it is vital to keep up, this is one of the main focuses of the NSA. The NSA is led by the Director of the NSA (DIRNSA) who sits a dual seat as the Commander of the US Cyber Command as well (NSA.gov, 2017). The mission of the NSA comes in the form of two parts. The first of which is Signals Intelligence (SIGINT). This is the collecting data from around the globe to gather intelligence for an array of reasons. As a SIGINTer myself, I have seen the effects range from an effort to provide policy makers with accurate depictions of hostile forces and capabilities, all the way down to aiding troops on the front line by answering critical RFI’s (requests for information) that may make or break a mission. The second half is that of Information Assurance. This can be very roughly described as guarding our nation’s Classified Information from unauthorized disclosure (NSA.gov, 2017).
Some of the more high profile impacts the NSA has had since its creation in 1952 (NSA.gov, 2017) have been in the realm of decryption software and the ability to intercept and decode foreign communications to develop persons of interest of the Global War On Terror (Perlroth, 2013). The hardest part of this post is finding a recent event in which the NSA had a big hand in. Normally this type of work is clandestine or covert while working closely with other agencies and the military, and is rarely ever shared to the public. However just last month, the Ransomware attack that effected more than 200,000 computers over 150 different countries exploited a gap in programming of older Microsoft operating systems with a variant of the WannaCry software. This was first discovered by the NSA before the attacks had begun to surface (Goldman, 2017).
Post 2
In the grand scheme of national security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the most influence. More specifically, they are the Lead Federal Agency for counterterrorism operations (FBI). They actually have a branch known as the National Security Branch. Furthermore, one of the services that the FBI provides is the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) (FBI). According to the FBI website, the “TEDAC coordinates the efforts of the entire government, from law enforcement to intelligence to military, to gather and share intelligence about these devices—helping them to disarm and disrupt IEDs, link them to their makers, and most importantly, prevent future attacks” (FBI). An article by Berkeley Brean illustrates how the FBI managed to thwart one terrorist attack.
According to the article, two FBI agents were able to stop an attack from being committed in a matter of 4 days (Brean). The individual who planned the attack had been on the FBI’s radar since 2014, and became an imminent threat when he switched allegiance from Al Qaeda to ISIS (Brean). One interesting point is that the article notes that he was planning to kill his wife, as well as attack the Merchant’s Bar near his home (Brean). According to one of the FBI agents, the suspect was told by an ISIS recruiter to simply video himself beheading someone and swear his oath of allegiance, so when they learned he was going to kill his wife they had to act quickly (Brean). Although this is one example of success, there are other examples of the FBI performing a counterterrorism function.
There has been some question over the lengths the FBI goes to in order to stop terrorism in the past few years. According to a NY Times article, two out of three cases involving supporters of ISIS now involve undercover operations (Lichtblau). Interestingly, “unlike wiretaps or searches, undercover operations do not require a judge to sign a warrant. They are overseen by F.B.I. supervisors and Justice Department prosecutors, and so can usually be started more quickly” (Lichtblau). This can be imperative in the day of social media, where terrorist recruiters call for sympathizers to strike quickly, sometimes within days of being radicalized (Lichtblau). The NY Times article goes into detail about the Rochester incident, stating that a paid informant and helped the suspect purchase supplies for the planned attack (Lichtblau). Even so, it could be argued that such actions are necessary in order to prevent attacks. Especially since small scale attacks by recently radicalized individuals take little time to plan and carry out.
Although some of their methods to combat terrorism in the United States are controversial, the FBI is still the Lead Federal Agency when it comes to preventing attacks. They oversee Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the country, coordinate intelligence activities, and investigate potential attacks on US soil. Therefore, the FBI should be considered the agency with the most influence over national security for the federal government.
