“The Courtroom of World Opinion”: Bringing the International Audience into Nuclear Crises

What role does the international audience play in nuclear crises? Scholars of nuclear crises and deterrence have treated nuclear crises as dyadic interactions between two sides. However, states do not only interact with each other during a nuclear crisis. They also signal to a third actor—the international audience. There are two reasons for this. First, states care about their international social reputation and want to be perceived as responsible and legitimate actors. Second, there are material benefits to states maintaining a good social reputation with the international audience, which possesses the leverage to reward, condemn, and sanction. States thus attempt to leverage this power of the international audience to apply diplomatic pressure on their adversary during nuclear crises. They also engage in costly signaling and strategic restraint to ensure that the international audience considers their actions legitimate during the crisis. I use original qualitative evidence from the Kargil War (1999) between India and Pakistan to demonstrate this dynamic. Incorporating the international audience as a critical third actor during nuclear crises has important academic and policy implications for the study of nuclear crises and their management. ¿Qué función cumple el público internacional en las crisis nucleares? Los estudiosos de la disuasión y las crisis nucleares han tratado dichas crisis como interacciones diádicas entre dos lados. No obstante, los Estados no solo interactúan entre sí durante una crisis nuclear. También hacen señas a un tercer actor: el público internacional. Esto se debe a dos motivos. En primer lugar, los Estados se preocupan por su reputación social internacional y desean que se los perciba como actores responsables y legítimos. En segundo lugar, existen beneficios materiales para los Estados que mantienen una buena reputación social con el público internacional, el cual tiene influencia en la recompensación, la condena y la sanción. Por tanto, los Estados intentan aprovechar este poder del público internacional para aplicar presión diplomática en su adversario durante las crisis nucleares. También emplean un envío de señas costoso y restricciones estratégicas para garantizar que el público internacional considere sus acciones como legítimas durante la crisis. Utilizo pruebas cualitativas originales de la guerra de Kargil (1999) entre India y Pakistán para demostrar esta dinámica. La incorporación del público internacional como un tercer actor fundamental durante las crisis nucleares presenta importantes implicaciones académicas y políticas para el estudio de las crisis nucleares y su manejo. Quel rôle le public international joue-t-il dans les crises nucléaires? Les chercheurs se consacrant à la dissuasion et aux crises nucléaires ont traité les crises nucléaires comme étant des interactions dyadiques entre deux camps. Cependant, les États ne se contentent pas d'interagir l'un avec l'autre lors d'une crise nucléaire. Ils émettent également un signal à l'attention d'un acteur tiers, le public international. Il y a deux raisons à cela. D'une part, les États se soucient de leur réputation sociale internationale et souhaitent être perçus comme des acteurs responsables et légitimes. Et d'autre part, le maintien d'une bonne réputation sociale auprès du public international présente des avantages matériels pour les États puisque ce public dispose de l'influence nécessaire pour récompenser, condamner et sanctionner. Les États tentent donc de tirer parti de ce pouvoir du public international pour exercer une pression diplomatique sur leur adversaire lors de crises nucléaires. Ils s'engagent également dans un signal coûteux et dans une retenue stratégique pour veiller à ce que le public international considère leurs actions comme légitimes durant la crise. Je m'appuie sur des preuves qualitatives originales issues du conflit de Kargil (1999) entre l'Inde et le Pakistan pour démontrer cette dynamique. L'intégration du public international comme troisième acteur essentiel lors de crises nucléaires a d'importantes implications politiques et de recherche pour l’étude des crises nucléaires et de leur gestion.

Winning Hearts and Minds

In the large wars of the 20th century, victory depended first and foremost on raw combat power. Bigger and more powerful bombs, faster and more deadly aircraft, and better tanks and warships determined who won the battle. These weapons continue to be important but now, more than ever, strategic victory hinges on cultural savvy and the ability to win over the opinion and support of the population where military operations are occurring and worldwide public opinion as well. It does little good to win a battle if, in doing so, the local population is alienated and world opinion soiled. This chapter examines how the military is going about the task of training cultural awareness and sensitivity among its members and how psychological science may be used to improve operational success by enabling military leaders to base tactical decisions, at least in part, on the social and cultural terrain. Social network analysis and negation training is described.

Mining Public Opinion on Indian Government Policies using R.

Nowadays, social media monitoring has burgeoned at a very rapid pace, so analyzing social data plays a crucial role in knowing people’s behavior. People share their views regarding trending topics that are occurring around the world. Opinion mining is used for extracting the sentiments from the textual data that are shared by peoples. In this work, we are analyzing Twitter Tweets using sentiment analysis which checks the opinion of people regarding various policies that were announced by the Indian Government. The main objective of the paper is to analyze sentiments of various Indian Government policies (namely Article370, New Motor Vehicles Act 2019, Triple Talaq, Jal Shakti Abhiyan, NRC Assam) on Twitter so that public opinions and views are analyzed. Emotions (anger, trust, fear, anticipation, disgust, sadness, joy, surprise) are analyzed using Emotion-based lexicon technique. Sentiments are classified into two categories (positive and negative) from the emotion lexicon EmoLex. The paper provides a comparative analysis of these policies and this work can act as feedback from people to the government. R programming is used for implementation and visualization.

New Perspectives in the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Righting the Wrong through metaphor in Mornings in Jenin

Majority of world opinion today is critical of Israel’s role in the current standoff with Palestine fueled by the illegitimate occupation of the West Bank, depriving millions of Palestinians of their homeland. Yet, almost all non-Islamic countries maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, recognizing it as a country. The plight of the Palestinians, especially the children uprooted from their homes and forced to lead lives of depravation as refugees as a result of Israeli occupation has become a subject for insightful writings by many writers and critics, including Abulhawa who in Mornings in Jenin, skillfully employs language to showcase not the political tragedy (though it operates as the background) but the personal one. This paper textually analyzes Abulhawa’s Mornings in Jenin to explore the author’s use of the literary metaphor to expose not only the reality in Palestine, but more importantly, the horror of Israeli violence against Palestinians, trauma both physical and psychological. The study further highlights how the author raises a significant question: Who is the real terrorist in Palestine? The findings show that the novel utilizes several literary techniques to bring forth Israeli terrorism and Palestinian agony under Israeli occupation. Via language use, Abulhawa concludes that it’s the Israeli occupation, brutality and aggression that leads to Palestinian resistance/terrorism. Mornings in Jenin, in other words, is an attempt by Susan Abulhawa to justify the means of resistance concluding that Israel is the actual terrorist and not the Palestinians who have a ‘just cause’ to resist Zionist colonization. What is remarkable is her ingenuous use of literary devices to achieve the desired effect on the readers.

Invisible Hand of International Aid to Africa: The Geoeconomy of Deprivation

In traditional societies the poor and the needy all had their place in the community, no questions asked about aid or assistance. The unfortunate needed the less fortunate and vice versa: mutual aid was a natural behavior and nobody ever thought of it in terms of assistance. Who would have imagined that the same word would one day often designate enslaving practices against persons in distress, or serve as a justification for governments to conduct military or repressive actions against their own people? The history of debates and practices around the concept of aid shows that the inconceivable has in fact become a reality. At a national or international level aid aims primarily at helping the alleged "donors" to maintain the devices that perpetuate their positions of power and social privileges, while depriving the poor of their own means to fight against poverty. We easily understand now why the promoters of major international meetings regularly held in favor of helping the poor – one of them which gathered Heads of States in March 2002 at Monterrey, Mexico, – carefully avoided any debate on the root causes of the production of misery and injustice. In fact, they are well aware that a careful examination of these cases would unveil the fraud perpetrated today worldwide under the brand of aid. Indeed, such a debate risks to disclose the perverse collusions, often structural, which, always in the name of aid, unify the leaders of the North and the South against their own "subjects". And when, for the sake of propaganda, the Northern "generous donors" threaten to reduce their "aid" on the grounds that the recipient governments are corrupt, this examination would eventually reveal all the machinery set up by these same donors to "help" these "rogue" governments rule over their own populations. Finally, a serious investigation of the underlying reasons for these maneuvers would demonstrate to the world opinion that the most of the aid destined to eligible poor countries is intended whether to strengthen military and coercive programs or to restructure their economies to be adapted to the requirements of the sole global market. Hence this bitter conclusion: what we insist on calling aid is but an expense to strengthen the structures that generate misery. However, the victims who are stripped of their real properties are never assisted since they seek to stand out from the global productive system in order to find alternatives in concert with their own aspirations.

The Geopolitical Codes of The United States Decision to Relocate Its Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

<p><strong>Geopolitical Codes of the United Dtates Policy to Relocate Its Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem. </strong>Trump’s policy to relocate the US embassy triggered Palestinian mass protests and wider political tension. Ten of thousands Palestinian took part in Gaza protests. Protests are also took place on The West Bank, where the focus was the embassy move. A mass protests turned violent, as Israeli troops responded with rifle fire. This policyraises strong reactions from world leaders. This paper aims to explain the geopolitical codes of The United States Policy : who are the allies or the supporter of the US policy in case of US embassy relocation and who are the enemies that against the US policy. We will find out whether this United States agenda will succeed in leading world opinion and influencing other countries' foreign policies and the consequences of what the United States will give to its supporters and opponents of its policies.</p>