Academic Synthesis

Logan Schaub
The process of education relies on providing a base of knowledge and then
compounding upon it for years to produce a greater understanding of topics. This is
a process that has been fundamental during my graduate studies. I frequently
found myself reading articles by written by familiar scholars, or larger studies based
on works I had studied previously, despite being a former student of history. This
compounding process was used to precipitate the base knowledge I started with
while painting a broader picture of the topic of security than would have been
possible through piecemeal studies.
The courses I took for the International Security Studies (ISS), Mater of Arts
degree have all been intertwined in one fashion or another. While some overlapped
with a significant degree of similarity, like the course International Politics of the
Middle East and one on Comparing EU and US Democracy Promotion in the Middle
East, others have had only minor associations, like Climate Change and National
Policy and the course on Armed Conflict. The following is an analysis of the
parallels and overlaps that existed between the courses I took as they layered to
provide a more complete understanding of international security and relations.
Additionally, I will examine how I have grown intellectually and what questions I
have that remain to be examined in the future.
The ISS Masters program required the completion of eleven courses that
focused on topics of international security issues and international relations, as well
as a capstone course. I will focus on the following six courses to complete my
course analysis, they are: Armed Conflict, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict, Emerging
Powers in the Global System, Comparing EU and US democracy promotion in the

MENA region, International Politics Middle East, and Climate Change and National
Security.
Example of Course Integration:
The study of armed conflict is a fascinating topic in international security due to the
dichotomy that exists between its irrational conduct in terms of cost/benefit ratios,
and the rationality of providing security to citizenry. While armed conflict is an
immensely costly activity both economically and socially, there remains a strong
belief in its use to provide security to a state and its citizens. In Emerging Powers in
the Global System, we found that the ability to control a large military force has
even become one of the most prevalent factors for many scholars in defining a
states power (see Mearsheimer, 2007; Ferguson, 2011). There is some evidence to
suggest that the US is losing its ability to maintain a dominant world order and that
the transition from a unipolar world order to a bipolar or multipolar one is fast
approaching. The emerging powers of China and Russia are quickly becoming
capable of projecting military might around the globe and have the ability to
threaten US hegemony. These threats have initiated discussions on where or not
the shift from unipolarity to bi/multipolarity can occur without a military conflict.
While history indicates that the likelihood of peaceful transition remains low, the
deep economic integration between states has provided some evidence that the
transition will occur peacefully and is the basis for the capitalist peace theory (see
Gartzke, 2007).
While armed conflict has traditionally been seen as the primary agent for
change, studies have shown that it is frequently unsuccessful. During our studies of
nonviolent conflict we analyzed the theories of Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) who

argue that nonviolent conflict is a more successful and less costly approach for
enacting political and social change. These results can be seen in the successful,
albeit limited, social movement of the Arab Spring which led to the deposition of
two Arab leaders and the implementation of reforms across the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) as well as the historic protests that led to the fall of communist
regimes throughout Eastern Europe. The evidence provided by Chenoweth and
Stephan suggests that conflict can be successfully waged through social
movements rather than armed combat, and its rising popularity is evident of its
practical application.
The limited success of the Arab Spring protest was not the result of a weak
agency, as the population was quite united and motivated, but rather the result of a
weak international support network. As shown in Comparing EU and US democracy
promotion in the MENA region, International Politics Middle East, while the EU and
US have a long history of promoting democracy throughout the world, their vital
interests rely on maintaining the status quo of power in the MENA region. The fear
of Islamization and instability has led to a difficult foreign policy situation for the
West (see Gaub, 2014; Sharp, 2006). While the West would like to see stable
democratic governments rise in the MENA, especially under the auspices of the
democratic peace theory and its effect on armed conflict, there appears to be
strong democratic support for Islamic representation, a democratic situation that
the US and EU believe would result in the loss of strategic partners and resources in
the region.
International Politics of the Middle East made it clear that the situation in the
Middle East is made all the more complicated with the influx of interest by the
emerging powers. While the MENA has largely been the playground for Western

powers following World War I, the importance of strategic oil reserves and its
position between Asia and Europe has put the region in the international spotlight.
Russia has continually exerted influence in Iran and Syria (a situation that is all the
more apparent given the recent events in Syria) and is now interested in the
development of pipelines in the region as a means to transport oil from Russia to
Europe. Additionally, the power needs of China have made the MENA a potential
source of hydrocarbons for its growing economy.
Although I have focused on this line of thinking for relating these courses, the
interconnectedness of these topics can be examined through many different lenses.
For example, the ability to conduct armed conflict a major source of tension
between the US and emerging powers but the theories developed in the study of it
have led to potential avenues of peace. The spread of democracy in the MENA is
one example of the democratic peace theory at work, while the interactions
between the US and the emerging powers are examples of the capitalist peace
theory. Certainly these examinations could benefit from their own independent
study. Additionally, the reductions in international armed conflict are juxtaposed
with the rise in nonviolent conflict which has been a significant force for
intranational and international change, especially in the MENA region and the
developing states.
These topics have all shared a significant amount of overlap but the one
course that has been left out of this analysis is Climate Change and National
Security. However, climate change is so integrated in the future of international
security that it permeates any discussion of international relations. Climate change
may be the biggest threat to security and, unlike the rest of the topics, is a problem
that has an unequivocal, although potentially economically painful, solution. Many

scholars believe that an unabated rise in global temperatures resulting from climate
change will lead to an increase in armed conflict due to increased migration,
diminishing resources, and more significant natural disasters (IPCC, 2014; Sturrock
and Ferguson, 2015). The reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG) that are necessary
to mitigate climate change will require the participation of both the developed world
and the emerging powers. At the end of 2015 we will find out whether the
negotiations at the UNFCCC meeting in Paris will produce substantive commitments
to reduce GHG emissions from the majority of the worlds countries including the
largest producers of GHGs, China and the United States. If not, there will, without a
doubt, be a rise in international conflict, both violent and nonviolent, which will
likely be concentrated in emerging states and regions where resources are already
limited. The necessity to maintain a cooperative climate change regime as a means
to address the problem also requires states to interact peacefully, responsibly and
in conjunction with the international community.
Personal Intellectual Growth:
When I enrolled in the International Security Studies program, I had entered it as a
pacifist with the idea that many of the problems in international relations could be
resolved rather simply based on the solutions provided by the European Union (i.e.
integration). While I learned in European Politics and Society that the EU is certainly
a solid example of the capitalist peace theory at work, it is also fraught with its own
problems that would be compounded on a larger scale. I now better understand the
issues that are at the forefront of international policy and that they are not as clear
as I once thought. That is not to say that integration is a failed policy, rather, it
requires broader economic and social cooperation to work and the world has not
globalized enough to reach that point. Additionally, the course in armed conflict

also showed me that while war is a rather irrational behavior, it is a behavior that is
based on the fear that domestic security is under threat and that power is the only
way to ensure it. This has led to the classification of world powers, regional powers
and emerging powers. This is a classification system that ensures a conflict of
interest remains as control of world order and hegemony is always at stake.
While the subject of international security is far more involved and
contentious at the academic level than I ever expected, I was also pleasantly
surprised to find that scholarship has pressed the issue of peaceful resolutions to a
point that they are being adopted at the grassroots level. Certainly the democratic
peace theory developed by 20th century scholars has been a leading factor in
promoting democracy and ensuring stability in Europe, a region that has historically
been enveloped in conflict. Even the emerging powers have become more
interested in economically integrated with those who are ideologically opposed than
engaging in war with them. However, the decrease in armed conflict is a welcome
sign, especially with the increase in nonviolent conflict which is a positive
manifestation of modern conflict. Have we seen the end of armed conflict both
within states and between them? Probably not, but we may be witnessing an ever
integrating world that has placed its self-interest and security concerns on the
existence of states rather than the destruction of them.
The most important thing I will take away from my studies in the ISS program
is that a country, specifically the US, does not exist in a vacuum in which its actions
are either: righteous or evil, effective or ineffective, or important and unimportant.
Instead its affairs will be seen as all of the above and are dependent on the actions
of its past and its relationships with other states. While politicians would lead you
to believe that there is a correct and legitimate course of action, the reality is that

few actions are greeted with global compliance. Failure to recognize the complexity
of international security and affairs leads to knee jerk reactions that could
potentially end up creating a larger security issue in the future. In the wake of
disaster we often want to eliminate the potential of that disaster to reoccur but fail
to recognize that rushing to a solution can create greater insecurity.
Although my graduate work has provided me with many insights, I find
myself with a desire to understand the irrationality that exists in increasing
insecurity for the benefit of economic progress, especially in developed states. The
struggle for world order seems to be an antiquated notion in a globalized world but
remains the primary concern for many world powers. This response appears to be
recipe for producing greater instability which could be reduced though a stronger
international political system vis--vis the United Nations. Alternatively, as the
world globalizes, there does not seem to be a necessity for nationality. The idea of
otherness does not stop at borders anymore but permeates many different groups
to the point that national ideology is not binding groups to cooperate, while at the
same time cooperative socialization and economics has become just as prevalent
across borders as it has become within borders.
While I have many questions, some of which will never be answered, I feel
that the ISS program has fundamentally benefited my understanding of
international relations as well as my future. I hope that I will get the opportunity to
use the knowledge I have gained through this program in my career to promote
peaceful resolutions to global issues.

Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria J. Stephan. 2011. Why Civil Resistance Works: The
Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York. Columbia University Press.

Ferguson Niall. 2011. The West and the Rest: The Changing Global Balance of
Power in Historical Perspective. Chatham House. Youtube.com.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AORm8Nvoud4. Accessed 3/25/15.
Gaub, Florence. 2014. Islamism and Islamists: A very short introduction.
European Union Institute for Security Studies.
Gartzke, Erik. 2007. The Capitalist Peace. American Journal of Political Science.
51 (1): 166-191.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp
Mearsheimer, John J. 2007. "Structural Realism," in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and
Steve Smith. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharp, Jeremy M. 2006. U.S. Democracy Promotion Policy in the Middle East: The
Islamist Dilemma. CRS Report for Congress.
Sturrock, Robert and Peter Ferguson. 2015. The Longest Conflict: Australias
Climate Security Challenge. Centre for Policy Development. http://cpd.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Climate-Change-and-Security-Paper-FINAL.pdf. Accessed:
9/3/15.