“ISIS Video Claims Beheading of Russian Spy Threatens Russian People” December 2nd 2015
Today, it is reported that a Russian Spy is behaved by ISIS. ISIS claimed that it was a proper fight back to Putin administration’s air strike last month. So far Moscow has not made any comment about this incident.
Reflection:
Although the US’s military was operating air strike in Syria and Iraq as the fight back to ISIS’s murder of American citizens and so did the Russians, ISIS’s terrorism tactic are not working with countries like China and Japan, after their citizens are behaved as well. NATO countries especially the USA asked China as the rising power, to take action on ISIS. However, even though China has not few interests including oil in Iraq and other Middle East area, China is not taking any actions. As Moscow took actions against ISIS last month, it is predictable that Moscow will do it again, using the murder of its citizen as an excuse.
Bringing Back:
Tilly states the idea that government is the criminal organization that can legally use violence, including waging war. Moreover, he mentions that initially groups that want to become the legitimate ruling institute have to use illegal violence to fight. When one of them come to power, the party would make everything it did before become legal and glorious. ISIS is an example. It uses illegal violence and organize war against current regimes. Supposed ISIS take over Iraq or even Syria in the future, their illegal violence would suddenly become the legal force of the state.
Clausewitz’s notion that “war is politics by other means” make me think that either USA’s military action or China’s disregard is the result of the calculation in politics. War could never be waged without a purpose, usually a political one, and there is also a political goal when war is avoided by political actors.
If ISIS were to take over Iraq or Syria and their violence became the "legal force of the state" as a consequence, would that legitimatize their violence? In other words, do you think that it is possible for a government to be an illegitimate power? What makes a power legitimate?
ReplyDeleteTo Rachel's point over whether ISIS could gain traction as a legitimate user of violence, I see many parallels between this scenario and that of the Somalian pirates. As we discussed in class, the pirates of Somalia view themselves as absolutely legitimized violence users, regardless of its legality. I don't feel that "legality" of force should be the determinant of if violence is legitimized, since there are processes between the achievement of this status of legality and to simply be legitimate. Therefore, a power that is not government should, in theory, be able to become legitimate, though on the other hand legality (being a government) does not assure legitimization of violence.
ReplyDeleteYour example of how China doesn't take actions and how Russian "utilizing" this issue to demonstrate their power manifests Foucault's point,"Politics is war"...I just think it may be interesting to point it out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo Jia's point that China does not take actions in contrast to Russia and the US, it is not a surprise, since its interests are at stake. This could also be connected with the recent events between Turkey and Russia and the deterioration of their relationship because Turkey refused to allow access to Russia over its territory as it knew that Russia wanted to attack ISIS through air strikes. However, Turkey's interests would have been at stake had Turkey allowed Russia to do so. Hence, this proves your final point of the post - that war is always waged with a purpose, usually a political one, and there is also a political goal when war is avoided by political actors.
ReplyDelete