Chat Session with prof. James Fearon (March 10, 2005)

Sosina: Hi Alexei

alexeis: Good morning from Moscow.

Smirnova: Good morning dear participants! YSU is here

Fearon: Hello.

alexeis: Good evening, prof. Fearon. Welcome to the chat. We will waite for a few minutes for more students to arrive and begin our chat session

Subochev: Hello from MHSE!

Levchuk: Hello all, from SUSU

alexeis: OK, WE WILL PROCEED AS USUAL, FROM WEST TO EAST, STARTING AT PETROZAVODSK. EACH TIME YOU GET ONE QUESTION. I WILL ASK OTHERS TO REMAIN QUITE AND REFRAIN FROM ASKING THEIR QUESTIONS WHEN CURRENT QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED.

Satalkina: Good morning to everyone.

alexeis: LET US USE THE NEXT 3 MIN TO SAY HELLOS AND WAIT FOR THE REMAINING STUDNTS TO JOIN THE CHAT. WE WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 8 AM/9PM

Muratova: Hi

alexeis: OK. PETROZAVODSK, PLEASE ASK YOUR FIRST QUESTION.

Ovchinnikova: Good morning to everyone from Yaroslavl.

Nazarova: Hello.

Ukhanova: Hello, dear colleagues.

alexeis: IT SEEMS LIKE PETROZAVODSK IS LATE. MOSCOW PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION

Subochev: Should a mediator always stay impartial while dealing with two conflicting parties? Is it always possible in practice?

Ivanov: hello!

popova: Hello from YaktSU

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Fearon: impartial mediators: there is an interesting debate going on about this in relatively "theoretical" int'l relations research right now in the US ...

Ukhanova: Hello, dear professor Feron. What do you think about future external policy of the USA in respect of the Russian Federation? Thank you

Fearon: Some argue that there are actually advantages in certain circumstances to having a partial mediator. One idea is that since impartial mediators only want to get peace, they can actually be less credible in transmitting info between parties, because parties may think they will say anything to get peace. ...

Fearon: I expect the right answer is that "it depends," and there are probably circumstances when it would be best to have a partial mediator, and others where it would be better to have an impartial one. It's an interesting research question as to which situation is which.

alexeis: YAROSLAVL, YOUR QUESTION PLEASE.

Zolotseva: Can UN officials come to trial if their actions or inaction have connnived at futher outbursts of violence and more deaths in a conflict? Thank you

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Fearon: which is the Yaroslavl question?

alexeis: Zolotseva: Can UN officials come to trial if their actions or inaction have connnived at futher outbursts of violence and more deaths in a conflict? Thank you

Zolotseva: Can UN officials come to trial if their actions or inaction have connnived at futher outbursts of violence and more deaths in a conflict? Thank you

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Levchuk: Hello all, from SUSU

Fearon: UN officials: I don't know what an int'l lawyer woudl say here. I don't think they would be subject to trial/tribunals just for making mistakes or bad judgements. But if they deliberately fostered genocide or mass killing, I don't see why they couldn't be brought before an int'l criminal tribunal.

Zasseyev: Good time of the day to all! Greetings from Vladikavkaz

Shmuratkina: Good morning, everybody!I'm glad to take part in the discussions.What are guarantees that intersate conflicts settled through negotiation won't turn into the further conflict if both states are not satisfied with the terms of the agreement.

alexeis: QUESTION FROM SARATOV PLEASE

alexeis: OK. SKIP SARATOV. VLADIKAVKAZ- YOUR QUESTION PLEASE

Fearon: there are no guarantees! There is no world government with the power to enforce such agreements in all circumstances. This is of course the main reason why it is so hard to get an agreement to end a civil conflict in the first place, since the parties worry that the other side will cheat on the agreement and use their advantage to destroy them utterly.

Strakhov: Hello from Saratov ! Our question: What do you think should be the criteria to intervene in a local conflict and how formal should they be?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Fearon: criteria for intervention: The new UN high level panel report proposes a set of criteria for int'l intervention which are based on just war theory and are pretty good as they go (right intention, proportionate response, alternative to force tried, etc.). But in general I'm not sure these proposals for criteria are that useful since they have to be posed in such vague and general terms that all the action is in how to apply them to specific cases, where there is tons of room for different interpretations and politics tends to take over.

Zasseyev: There were arguments and accusations about Russia not allowing UN military contingent of “blue helmets” on the ground of Chechnya. How do you render such policy of Russia? Just to assume: do you think the USA would allow UN peacekeepers if (God forbid) a clash like Chechen one took place in one of the US states?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Fearon: No, I don't think there is any chance a US gov't would allow UN blue helmets into an operation in the US. They won't even let US soldiers act as blue helmets in other countries ...

Fearon: regarding Chechnya, do you mean UN blue helmets after the end of the first war, or more recently?

Zasseyev: I mean during the wholeconflict

Zasseyev: There were no armed UN forces as far as we know

Fearon: Even leaving aside the question of whether the Russian gov't would allow it (surely not), it's hard for me to see Chechnya as a natural or promising candidate for a UN PKO, especially in recent years, where there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of peace to keep. UN forces are not really capable of operating effectively in a war zone. You need a pretty solid peace deal and a decent measure of local state capacity for a pure UN PKO to be effective.

alexeis: THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION FROM EKATERINBURG PLEASE

Zasseyev: Thank you Professor

alexeis: CHELYABINSK, YOUR QUESTION PLEASE. OTHERS, PLEASE HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY SO THAT WE DO NOT LOOSE TIME

Levchuk: Mr. Fearon, Do you agree then after Cold War some developed countries still use ethnical and ingovernmental conflict in small countries in selfish geostrategy interests. Thank you. SUSU

Fearon: do you have an example in mind?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Zasseyev: some politicians say that the US used democratization of Iraq to get a hand on it's oil in fact

Fearon: I'm not seeing a reply. In the abstract I'm not sure what to say. I don't think that ethnic conflict in small countries is almost ever purely a function of external actors, although in a very large number of cases there are certainly external influences. ...

Zasseyev: sorry for interfering :)

Fearon: ok, Iraq ... No, I think the oil theory about UN motives in Iraq is almost silly. If the US had just wanted oil from Iraq and nothing else, it wouldn't have pushed an oil embargo for so many years. And the Bush admin would not have blocked the US Congress' attempt to use Iraqi oil revenues to pay for our military costs in the intervention. One can go on an on with examples like this.

alexeis: THANK YOU. YAKUTSK -- YOUR QUESTIONS PLEASE

Fearon: sorry, I meant US motives. ...

popova: Professor Fearon what do you think about possibility of USA intervention in Iran? And what UN role will be?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Fearon: Not to say that the US doesn't have geopolitical interests in Iraq, although it is not clear to me how our intervention there has actually helped us, in geopolitical terms in the region, more than, say, Iran.

Fearon: Iran: I don't think there is any chance of US ground forces being sent to fight in Iran. There is a small chance of US air strikes on military/alleged nuclear sites, but even that I would be very surprised to see until the European diplomatic efforts AND a round of UN Security Council action/inaction takes place.

Fearon: The Bush admin has been sending various signals that they are going to follow the multilateral steps on Iran. But we'll see.

alexeis: THANK YOU. BLAGOVESCHENSK PLEASE

alexeis: BLAGOVESHCENSK, ARE YOU THERE?

Golovchenko: Mr. Fearon, what would UN do if there were a serious conflict within a country that has veto-power (for example China and Taiwan)? Would the conflict be settled on without SC permission as it was in Bosnia or other wayouts would be found? If Yes, what are they?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEIGN ANSWERED

Litvinenko: After recent events in Beslan and a set of terrorist acts throughout the whole Russia, do you believe that there is a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya

Fearon: I think the SC was behind the actions in Bosnia, though not Kosovo. By the intentions of the designers of the UN system, veto power protects the P5 from legal authorization of intervention into what they judge to be their internal affairs. ...

Fearon: Roosevelt saw this as the price necessary to have an int'l organization that was relevant and mattered (as opposed to the League of Nations).

Fearon: So in short, the UN will be mainly irrelevant for conflicts that the P5 don't want UN action on.

alexeis: PETROZAVODSK- YOUR QUESTION PLEASE

alexeis: PETRSU- WILL THERE BE A QUESTION?

Fearon: re Chechnya, you all know so much more about that case than I do. Would you characterize it as a simple "war of attrition," and if so who do you think will get tired enough to quit first?

alexeis: DEAR STUDENTS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON PROF. FEARON'S QUESTION AND THEN WE RESUME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS :)

Zasseyev: we have a question re. Chechnya, may we, Alexei?

Litvinenko: I would characterize the second campaign in Chechnya as the operation directed to restore the constitutional order

alexeis: TAMERLAN, SURE, GO AHEAD

Strakhov: Saratov: We susupect that the war in Chechnya is more about a "war of getting some people rich" rather than a "war of attrition", so as long as there're interests it will probably last

Zasseyev: Question from Nastia Ktsoeva, NOSU: It has been officially confirmed that the notorious Aslan Maskhadov was killed in Chechnya. There later appeared comments that his death will only undermine the relative stability as there is now no-one to negotiate with. How do you think the elimination of this leader will effect further development in Chechnya?

alexeis: OK, LET'S ENGAGE IN CHECHNYA DISCUSSION FOR A MOMENT. RIGHT NOW, THE QUESTION FROM NOSU IS BEING ANSWERED

Zasseyev: We mean comments of the leader of "Helsinki group" and the like

Fearon: interesting ... people getting rich on both sides or more on one side than the other?

Fearon: [I'm getting a lot "internal server error" problems so if I respond slowly, this is why. I can go beyond 10 if necessary.

Subochev: It seems that this is a war of attrition and I personally think that Russia would not sustain it for a period long enough to win. I think Russ govmt will quit Chechnya eventually. Russia is weak and its weakness will only increase.

Strakhov: I think both sides, maybe from different sources. It is well known, for example, that mostly newest Russian weapons are used by guerilla fighters in Chechnya

alexeis: I am getting the same thing.

Zasseyev: Prof., please answer Ktsoeva's question

alexeis: Zasseyev: Question from Nastia Ktsoeva, NOSU: It has been officially confirmed that the notorious Aslan Maskhadov was killed in Chechnya. There later appeared comments that his death will only undermine the relative stability as there is now no-one to negotiate with. How do you think the elimination of this leader will effect further development in Chechnya?

Fearon: I don't know enough to even try to predict the effect of Mashkadov's death. This is another area where we need good research: Are peace settlements more or less likely when the rebel side is more divided and factionalized? You can make theoretical arguments either way, and once again, the right answer ...

Fearon: is probably that it depends on some other factors that we don't yet understand. I would guess, I suppose, that since a lot of the trouble in Chechnya seems to be related in the first place to the extreme divisions and factionalization among the Chechens (though certainly not all the problems), this would only make that worse. Hence lower probability of agreement.

alexeis: NEXT QUESTION FROM MOSCOW PLEASE

Subochev: It is known that all international organizations in more or less extent are under control of some "key" states, thus latter have a great power to do anything they want to. To what extent these organizations are able to limit war actions of their powerful member states? Do institutions really matter for great powers?

Subochev:

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Fearon: One of the central problems for the UN now is just what you have identified, and it is one of the central concerns of the UN High level Panel report I mentioned earlier ...

Fearon: If the UN ignores the US, the US will ignore it and the UN will appear less relevant and powerless. If the UN does whatever the US wants, it has no legitimacy with all the other states, which again undermines it. So the UN has to figure out a fine line these days. In the best case, it demonstrates to the US admin that it actually is a useful instrument for diplomacy and crisis resolution, etc., precisely because it has the resource of the ability to confer legitimacy. I think the US admin has already seen this in its efforts to get troops to serve in Iraq. Lots of countries said "not without UN authorization ..."

kulichkin: what do you think about the international terrorism and what about the role of UN on this problem.

alexeis: THANK YOU. QUESTION FROM YAROSLAVL PLEASE

Ovchinnikova: Professor Stephen Stedman told in his lecture that UN is failed as collective security organization. Do you think that the only way is to make it humanitarian aid and reconstruction organization and there is no chance to reform the UN structure so that to revive UN as collective security organization? If UN is finally failed do you think that collective security organization is necessary for the world stability and other organization with these functions will soon be created; or such type of organizations has become obsolete now? Thank you.

Gustova: Professor Fearon,according to the three factors of prediction (high infant mortality, low level of democracy, low level of global trafe integration)what countries are likely to enter a civil war right now?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED DEAR STUDENTS, PLEASE TRY TO ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. GENERAL QUESTIONS ARE HARD TO ADDRESS IN THIS FORMAT.

alexeis: QUESION FROM OVCHNNIKOVA IS BEING ANSWERED NOW

Fearon: I don't think I would say that the UN is completely failed as a collective security institution, and I don't think Steve S. would say this either. The UNSC proved quite useful at organizing collective action on a number of civil war torn countries in the 1990s, despite some major failures.

Fearon: re civil war prediction, the three factors you cite are those that the State Failure project identified as diagnostic. My colleague David Laitin and I have a different, though related analysis. Unfortunately, I haven't looked at the predictions for a while and I can't remember which countries score high on these that haven't had a conflict yet ...

Fearon: One thing I can say is that there is a high tendency for civil wars to recur in countries that have already had them (Russian Fed. is an example). So the countries that the civil war models predict as most likely cases tend to be those with recent histories of civil war (e.g., Liberia, Sierra Leone).

alexeis: THANK YOU. QUESTION FROM SARATOV PLEASE

Strakhov: What should the UN do if the situation like Rwanda repeats in the future somewhere else?

Satalkina: Professor Fearon, how to stimulate members of the United Nations really to act as intermediaries in any dangerous case in equal degree without their own interests in conflict region involved? Thank you.

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Fearon: Intervene! Many argue that it is happening again right now in Darfur, but potential vetoes from China and Russia are blocking more forceful response from the UN.

alexeis: NEXT QUESTION FROM VLADIKAVKAZ PLEASE

Zasseyev: This week official China voiced a possibility of military actions against Taiwan to integrate it back with the mainland. What is your and/or the US int’l policy-makers forecast concerning this affair?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

Fearon: on self-interested intervention: I don't think there is any way around this and I think that the right course is to take advantage of it. Intervention in civil war torn countries is in part a public good that is costly to supply. It is natural and to some extent reasonable that more interested parties should supply it, and in return get some benefit for their own interests. ..

Satalkina: Professor Fearon, how to stimulate members of the United Nations really to act as intermediaries in any dangerous case in equal degree without their own interests in conflict region involved? Thank you.

alexeis: WE ARE NOW ANSWERING THE QUESTION FROM ZASSEEV

Fearon: that said, however, it is very important to try to limit raw exploitation and abuse of power by foreign intervening states. I would like to see more exposure and monitoring by people in the affected countries, e.g., develop systems whereby people in the affected country can petition the GA directly about abuses by an intervening state (authorized by the UNSC).

Fearon: re Taiwan: I don't know. I think the chinese actually have a lot of implicit bargaining power on that one, and that the idea of the US using force against the mainland is pretty far fetched. The chinese problem is probably not so much with the US as with the Taiwanese -- what exactly will the PRC do militarily? Invade over water? This would be really hard. Bombing would just make the Taiwanese completely intent on independence.

alexeis: THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION FROM EKATERINBURG PLEASE

alexeis: OK, WE SEEM NOT TO HAVE EKAT. QUESTION FROM CHELYABINSK PLEASE

Levchuk: Professor,re Rwanda: some people think that world has become an unipolar and all conflicts should be settled down through the world system of negotiations. Sure thousands of people are dying in ethnical conflicts and civil wars and we can prevent it. But sometimes peace procees majority religious and ethnical conflict prove to be usefull (for example in Rwanda). How you think what for OON meddle in this conflict? Thank you. SUSU

Ivanov: Dear professor,could you explain why there was little coordination and collaboration between the UN and OAU during the conflict in Rwanda?

alexeis: PLEASE BE QUITE. QUESTION IS BEING ANSWERED

alexeis: FIRST LEVCHUK, THEN IVANOV

Fearon: I'm not sure I understand your question, but perhaps you are raising the idea that in some situations it is best just to let the violent conflict occur rather than try int'l intervention, which might make things worse? I think there is an argument for this in some cases, e.g., perhaps Somalia, but not for Rwanda (though there is a reasonable question about just how effective international intervention would have been there if it had been really tried -- see Alan Kuperman's book).

Fearon: re UN and OAU: I don't know the answer to that. Traditionally, the core principle of the OAU was nonintervention, something that has wholly changed with the new AU, which is very interesting.

alexeis: THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION FROM YAKUTSK PLEASE

alexeis: YAKUTSK, WILL YOU HAVE AQUESTION?

kulichkin: What do you think about international terrorism and what about the role of UN on this problem

alexeis: IF NOT, THEN THE LAST QUESTION FROM BLAGOVESCHENSK PLEASE

ipatieva: can you call an example of successful prevention of conflict after 1990?

alexeis: OK, THE LAST TWO QUESTION ARE FROM KULICHKIN AND IPATIEVA

Fearon: I'm not sure the UN has a big operational role to play on terrorism (in the sense of actions to actively stop plots in progress, identify terrorist groups, etc.), but it can have a big role in forging an international normative consensus on what constitutes terrorist activity that should be opposed, irrespective of political goals.

Fearon: prevention: Macedonia is the usual example, with the UN preventive deployment apparently helping till the chinese vetoed continuation of the mission (because Macedonia recognized Taiwan), and then EU mediation in Macedonia prevented a big war in 2000 or so.

alexeis: THANK YOU PROF. FEARON FOR TAKING PART IN THIS CHAT. I KNOW THAT NOT ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, BUT SUCH ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS COMMUNICATION FORMAT. ON BEHALF OF IDL- THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ADDRESS OUR STUDENTS' QUESTIONS

Subochev: Professor, colleagues, thank you very much! Buy from Moscow!

Zasseyev: Thank you for your time, Professor

Fearon: thank you all very much. This is always a lot of fun. I hope to see some of you in Russia sometime in the future!

EgorovaJ: Thank you for your time and attention.

Ivanov: Thanks, bye.

Strakhov: Thank you, Professor Fearon !

Shmuratkina: Professor Fearon, thank you for the answers.Good bye!

Ovchinnikova: Thanks to everybody. Good bye!

Satalkina: Thank you for your answers. Good buy.

varlamova: thank you very much for your attention,Professor Fearon.Goodbye everybody!

Smirnova: Thank you for the interesting chat

Nazarova: Thenk you professor Fearon for your answers.

Sosina: Thank you prof. Fearon for your attention and thanks everybody for interesting time

Muratova: That was great, thanks, bye

Zolotseva: Thanks for great questions and really interesting answers. Bye!

Zasseyev: Alexei, can we have the script of the chat please?

Back to other news