Chat Session with prof. James Fearon, Department of Political Science, Stanford University . April 4, 2004

Kate_Kuhns : Hello Everyone. We are having a chat this evening with Prof. Fearon. I hope you are all ready.

Kate_Kuhns : What universities are here?

Kate_Kuhns : The order of universities is: Yakutia/Amur/Saratov/Yaroslavl/N. Ossetian/Moscow/Tyumen/Chelyabinsk/Petrozavodsk/Ekaterinburg

kiselev : Hello dear participants, YSU is here

Alexandrov : Hello to everyone.

Fearon : Hello to all. I'm here and ready to start whenever you are.

shapovalov : Yakutsk State Univerity is here

Kate_Kuhns : Hello! Alexandrov, what is your university?

Kate_Kuhns : Hello Prof. Fearon. let's give a few minutes for more people to join us.

Alexandrov : YSU

Kim : Hello everyone ! Saratov State University is here !

Kate_Kuhns : Hello everyone. Let us wait for a few minutes. Yakutia, you have the first question when we start.

Kate_Kuhns : The order of universities is: Yakutia/Amur/Saratov/Yaroslavl/N. Ossetian/Moscow/Tyumen/Chelyabinsk/Petrozavodsk/Ekaterinburg

Khriaschov : Hello all! Greetings from Yaroslavl !

Kate_Kuhns : We will take one question from each university. Then we will ask Prof. Fearon to pose questions for you for the last part of the chat. PLEASE LOOK FOR MY COMMANDS TO AVOID CHAT ROOM CHAOS!

mikhailov : What is the best campain of UN peasekeeping?

Kate_Kuhns : Okay, let us go ahead and get started. Yakutia, please pose the first question.

shapovalov : What are the perspectives of UN in solving of international conflicts?

Kostenko : My name is Pavel Balakin, I am instructor of idl-104 coursr in SUSU. So, we are here.

Kate_Kuhns : HOLD YOUR COMMENTS, QUESTION BEING ANSWERED.

Kate_Kuhns : We have two questions in the chat, from Mikhailov and Shapovalov. HOLD ALL OTHER QUESTIONS>.

Fearon : hard question to address in two sentences. Until the end of the cold war, the UN's basic posture was a mediator that facilitated agreements between warring parties, and would, with mutual consent, provide verification and monitoring services for cease fires and peace deals. ...

Fearon : Since the end of the cold war, and with a huge move into UN interventions into civil war torn states, the UN has in effect experimented with (or been forced to experiment with) much more active postures, in settings where it is hard to say that there is mutual consent in a meaningful sense. UN people I've talked to are generally very uncomfortable with this. e.g., the idea of being sent to do a big UN PKO in Iraq horrifies most of them, because they think the UN is not presently equipped to carry out such a task.

borisova : what is the possibility of the humanitarian intervention to grow into a new war against the outside newcomers? (YkSU)

Fearon : Mikhailov, do you mean what is the best example of a UN PKO mission (most successful)?

Kate_Kuhns : Thank you. Next question from Saratov .

Cherkasova : USU is here

Kate_Kuhns : Borisova, please hold your question. What university are you from?

Kim : From Saratov: NY Times recently published an article about Rwanda's government attempts to officially "outlaw ethnicity" work towards creating a society of "Rwandans" rather than Hutu and Tutsi. Do you think this policy will be effective against possible ethnic conflicts in Rwanda in the future?

mikhailov : The fastest and the most resultative(no victims)

Kate_Kuhns : HOLD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. Question from Mikhailov being answered. Then question from Kim.

Fearon : re Rwanda : that was a fascinating article. It is interesting to note that this is a long standing issue -- in the late colonial period, an early Hutu political organization petitioned a visiting UN delegation to the effect that ethnic identities must be kept on id cards. Tutsis never like this, even when they were the dominant group in colonial times -- they were aware of the danger, in a democratic age, of being identified as of a different nation/ethnicity, whereas the Hutus were all in favor of this. I don't think this by itself will have much effect today, though if the current RPF government doesn't get too autocratic, other things might.

Kate_Kuhns : Next question from Kim.

Kate_Kuhns : I don't think Mikhailov's question was answered yet.

Kim : Another from Saratov : What do you think is the main cause of recent escalation of violence in Iraq ? Is it the resistance to the presence of American troops, old Shiite - Sunni opposition, or the result of "radicalization" of Iraqi Islamic population during the last year ?

Kate_Kuhns : Kim, please only one question per university. We have other people wanting to ask questions.

Alexandrov : YSU question 1. One year after the anti-terrorist operation in Iraq this country is far from being stable. What actions can undertake the USA and international community to put the situation under control, reach the goals of democratization (Iraqi Freedom). Can you name the general formula , general principle that should be kept in mind in such situations.

Fearon : re best UN PKO: The ones most often mentioned as successes are those regarding El Salvador , Mozambique , Eastern Slavonia, perhaps Guatemala and Nicaragua , and Cambodia in some regards. It's very hard to assess the total effect of a PKO, e.g. regarding deaths.

Kate_Kuhns : Next question from Yaroslavl .

Kate_Kuhns : Is there anyone here from Amur State ?

Kate_Kuhns : We have a question from Alexandrov at YSU. HOLD QUESTIONS.

Fearon : I am deeply depressed about what is happening in Iraq . Though I thought there was actually a reasonable humanitarian argument for intervention in the first place (not the argument Bush admin made!), I opposed the war on the grounds that I thought the US would be stuck there forever, practically. And I think I (and lots of other people here!) were right. There is no exit now without a strong chance of a terrible bloodbath among contending militias. ...

Kate_Kuhns : HOLD COMMENTS. QUESTION BEING ANSWERED.

Fearon : Internationalizing the conflict as much as possible (which will likely only happen under a different president) may help some, but the basic problem is that there is no national security apparatus there and no way to get an effective one easily, so there is going to have to outside force to avoid a civil war, and I don't think the UN has the capacity for such a big job (US army is having trouble).

Kate_Kuhns : Next question from SUSU.

Kostenko : South Ural Uni: President Bush has said recently about transferring sovereighity to Iraqis on June 30 and adding troops if necessary. Could the new military installations make the conflict more com[licated and hard for management for the new Democratic administration?

Kate_Kuhns : If there is anyone here from NOSU, Moscow or Tyumen , please let me know.

Kate_Kuhns : HOLD COMMENTS. QUESTION BEING ANSWERED.

Fearon : I doubt that a Kerry administration would be able to radically change direction, except regarding posture with respect to the UN, Germany , France , etc., and as I just said, I'm not sure better vibes there would really matter much on the ground in Iraq . adding troops is probably a good idea at this point, especially if the Bush admin is going to take such a hard line against Moqtada types (which I'm not sure is the best course, since even if successful will dig us in deeper).

Kate_Kuhns : Thank you. Next question from Ural State .

Kate_Kuhns : If Petozavodsk is here, please let me know.

Cherkasova : what tendencies can we mention in the development of the UNO, what prognosis can we think about and how can we improve this organization?

Kate_Kuhns : HOLD YOU COMMENTS. QUESTION BEING ANSWERED.

Fearon : Without major security council reform, nothing radical can happen with the UN, and major security council reform (e.g., changing voting system to eliminate vetoes) is not going to happen with the organization. (I'm sounding very pessimistic tonight.) A more likely path for a big change in the structure of int'l institutions is a rival organization to the UN. I'm getting interested by the idea of a new organization based on the principle of only genuine democracies could be members. ...

Fearon : Such an organization would be in a better position to make decisions about and act on humanitarian intervention, and might also be more effective at constraining/regulating US power.

Kate_Kuhns : Okay we are going to try something new. I am going to ask Prof. Fearon to ask you some questions. Once he has asked a question, please only ONE answer per person. WATCH FOR MY COMMENTS.

Cherkasova : thank you

Fearon : Kate will you choose a responder, or should I try to direct questions?

Kate_Kuhns : I was going to have all students answer. But if you want to direct a question to a specific university, please feel free to do so.

Kate_Kuhns : Each student can write ONE answer.

Fearon : Given that I am so hopeless about Iraq , what are your thoughts? What would you do if you were the US president at this point?

Kate_Kuhns : Good and difficult question! Okay, ONE answer per each person.

Alexandrov : Anyway good intelligence network in the country, which would involve more local people, would bring more success to the compaign than sending down thousands of troops. The war against terrorists and radicals should be made with information and ideas and not guns and troops.

Zemtsov : First of all to adjust productive attitudes between the civil authorities of Iraq establishing a mode of an armistice and military command which continues operations and does not protect the peace population

Fearon : I think you are absolutely right that this kind of war can only be fought successfully with good intelligence. Has the Russian army gotten good at this in Chechnya ?

kiselev : If i were a president of the USA I think that i would never send my army to another country. I think that it is not right. That is not "Freedom". Population of Iraq considers americans to invadors, not peaseful people. This is a very dangerous precendent. (YkSU)

mikhailov : I'll do better-bombing region without humans or where a little number of humans. And then threat what it only beginning. May be it works.

Kondratev : (Burnakov, SUSU) The situation with a nation building is speeding toward big numbers of casualties, the U.S. should try to make more emphasis on aleviating possible war crimes, etc. through internationally based humanitarian management in the country.

Kate_Kuhns : Alexandrov, please respond.

Kim : Saratov : Keeping the troops in Iraq in some form is essential to keep the current situation stable. I'd increase intelligence efforts, try to work with moderate groups of Iraqis to reestablish political elites. Emphasize peaceful efforts in Arab world, have Arab countries involved in establishing new Iraqi state system.

Khriaschov : ( Iraq ) It's really difficult to imagine:)))), but I think it's not possible to solve this problem using only military approach.

Fearon : re "civil authorities": A big part of the problem in Iraq is that there are none, really (no local Iraqi ones). It looks now like US admin made a huge mistake by not just agreeing to hold elections to generate SOME legitimate Iraqi governing group.

Kostenko : US should not destroy Saddam state. They were to invade, to conrol him, but not alow state to be collapsed. Now ALL states must help US to get back the control of situation. Spoilers must be marginalized. US need to find a base from local powers, sombody who can really control of situations.

Kim : Saratov : we have some students here in the lab with Mikhail Strakhov and some students at homes participating in the chat. Students at home in Saratov - please participate.

borisova : The thing is not to blame each other for Chechnya and Iraq . The thing is in the humane, progressive thinking about people but nor about profit for yourself!

Alexandrov : I don't think the Russian compaign is very much different from the one the USA is having at the moment. Though Russian authorities really involved the local authorities in such kind of activities. Thus we could split the local population into 2 major groups - pro-federal and those, who support the radicals.

Fearon : I also very much agree with Kim's suggestion about increasing diplomacy to involve other Arab states. Good idea.

shapovalov : It seems to me that I would follow the strategy of US president. If I am affraid of being attacked from Iraq with weapon of mass destruction I will do my best to save people who voted for me! But I would try to prevent any unity of sunits with other confessions of muslim.

Kate_Kuhns : ANYONE, please feel free to answer question from Prof. Fearon about Russia 's performance in Chechnya

mikhailov : Chechnya . It a problem inside Ruusia. We are keep local "aborigens" from violense from majaheds.

kiselev : Yakutsk . Of course we feel free about Chechnya ! This is Russia 's territory. And that is why it is OK! And in fact, there is no war in Chechnya . There are only some stupid terrorists there...

Kate_Kuhns : Prof. Fearon, please feel free to pose a follow up question.

Kostenko : I think any invasions must have social base in invaded state. Russia found such base - Kadirov.

Fearon : Does Putin's policy in Chechnya have a reasonable chance of succeeding (reaching a peaceful situation, let's say), or is it going to be like Iraq , where fighting (perhaps at a low level) will go on indefinitely?

Kate_Kuhns : Thank you. Everyone, feel free to answer question.

Volkova : About Iraq : On the one hand, the conflict is becoming more and more terrible, as there are alot of hostages now from different countries of the world. The preassure is great. But a radical change in the course is difficult to imagine.

Alexandrov : His polict is already at a different time scale moment. There is already an elected President down there - Mr. Mashadov. This is something the USA needs to organize in Iraq and it will definitely cause troubles.

Kostenko : Problem in Chechnya could be solced only by force. There were total spoilers (Basaev, Raduev). Chechnya NOT OUR PROBLEM. At least our and Georgians.

kiselev : Chechnya and Iraq are two DIFFERENT things. Iraq is not USA 's territory and Chechnya IS Russian territory. It is one of our regions. So Putin provides policy only according to some special factors of this region.

Fearon : I'm not saying these cases are the same. But the nature of the warfare has important similarities, no?

Shishkin : I belive, that Chechnya 's conflict is more local , but Iraq can wake the islamic world to counteract the USintervation on the Iraq ground or else where in the world

Kim : We've seen a lot of improvements in Chechnya compared to mid-90s. This gives hope for a resolution. However, the conflict will probably last in some form for a long time, and will require a lot of careful attention and commitment. The history of the conflict is too long.

Kostenko : Sorry... to Kiselev. Territory does not matter - civil war is international security promblem.

mikhailov : YkSU. I thik what the main conflict is in the history. In this situation we want to keep this territorru at us. Because it still part of Russia .

borisova : The fighting in Chechnya has already ceased. The peace process is going on towards positive peace implementation.

Kate_Kuhns : Fearon: I'm not saying these cases are the same. But the nature of the warfare has important similarities, no?

Fearon : What makes Chechnya part of Russia ? (I'm not saying it is not, I just want to know what is the source of the strong sense of identification. It was conquered by a Tsar, no?)

Kostenko : Both US and Russia need long time strategy of working with local population.

kiselev : In that case tha American territory was just conquered by the white pioneers from the natives?????????????????

mikhailov : Dont forget, what Chechnia was in USSR .

Kostenko : Putin fights for ideology of "strong State". There are a lot of republic in Russais. If one of them become independent - otheras want to.

Kate_Kuhns : Prof. Fearon, please pose the next question.

Fearon : True, US territory was seized from the Native Americans. I wanted to get a sense of from when or based on what comes the sense that Chechnya is definitely part of the Russian nation. Another way to put it is this: Suppose that a big majority of people in a region vote to secede, to form a new country (as the people in Chechnya might, I don't know). Should this be allowed then?

Kostenko : There are difference between separatism and national identity. They will not allow to exit in FEDERATION.

kiselev : Chechnya has no its own currency, etc. And in fact, there already was a referendum and the majority of population voted for staying part of Russia .

Alexandrov : I do not think this should be allowed at once - this process should take years and go through the general elections both on that territory and in the whole country.

Kate_Kuhns : Prof. Fearon, please pose the next question.

Fearon : re kiselev: printing currency is not hard (see Ukraine , etc.). I don't know about the referendum or the circumstances in which it was conducted, but suppose that the result had been different -- a big majority supported secession -- would you then say, ok, they can and should go?

Mikhailenko : Chechnya was de-facto (not de-jure) independent until 1999 when it became a beachhead for invasion to Dagestan , am I right? So the question Prof. Fearon has made is even more complicated, I suppose.

Fearon : re alexandrov: That is basically saying, "No", right?

mikhailov : It is very hard problem for solving at once, as any national

Zemtsov : The constitutional procedure of secession of Russia exists, but the status of the independent state will not bring the Chechen administration of those dividends which it receives now from the help international organizations and Russia . For an example: the football club 2 battalions "Terek" from Terrible has the budget of euroclub

Kostenko : We can give them everything but independance. So this isues must be "open" untill it lose it importance.

Alexandrov : re Fearon. No - at once and Maybe depending on the results of the voting on the territory and in the country.

Khriaschov : But the main thing is to consider the STATE LAWS. If some regions is proclaimed a new country State goverment should make a decision.

kiselev : No of course. The principle of Federalism is the basic principle of Russia . And Russia is not going to create precendent.

Zemtsov : Exuse-Terek from Grozny

Kostenko : Law can not waste human rights.

Fearon : I am pushing on this issue because I think it is a really interesting and difficult one -- if you made it a rule of international law and behavior that any region that voted for secession was legally entitled to make its own state, I think this would be the end of the states system, and would lead to a lot of bad chaos, most likely. But if you don't allow this, then in many cases you seem to be condoning very undemocratic repression.

Kate_Kuhns : Everyone, feel free to comment on Fearon's comment.

Kostenko : I think UN force must be in Chechya.

Alexandrov : If such laws are made international I do not think there would be less chaos in the world. We should keep in mind that it is people, who make laws and states and not the other way roung.

Mikhailenko : I agree with Kostenko

kiselev : If Chechnya will seperate from Russia it would became a terrorist country, the capital of the world terrorism. And so it will situate right on the border with Russia and it would be very BAD. For us. Not for the USA . To my mind.

Zemtsov : The states, establish the Constitution and play by rules. It is impossible that all left structure of the state when want.

Kate_Kuhns : Prof. Fearon, it is rather late here. Would you like to pose another question?

Khriaschov : Re Kostenko. But let's consider the problem of terrorism. Many expert say that the only possible solutions is to decrease the level of freedom or human rights?

Mikhailenko : 2Zemtsov: for US too, as Chechnya was a large terrorist training camp.

Fearon : What one reform of the United Nations is most important to do?

Kostenko : We need to find the REASON of terrorizm.

Kostenko : We must not kill peasant, we need answered WHY they want to fight with us?

Volkova : The territory can't become independent if it is not able to overcome its internal problems, inclueding ithnical, religious and all the violence that follow them

Mikhailenko : IDL103 :)

Alexandrov : Reform of President Election system. I think this time in the US will much depend on that and not on the number of people as it was with the last elections, when the ultimate decision was made by institutions and not people.

Kate_Kuhns : Prof. Fearon posed a question about what needs to be done to reform the UN.

Kostenko : Do you think they know the theory of independance?

borisova : to make the UN more independent from the point of view of the great powers (the USA esp.). Does the UN do anything in Iraq ? Nothing.

Alexandrov : UN should be reformed in a way, that would bring people to problem-solving and not "veto-saying".

Kostenko : Sorry...in Chechnya we need to exucuse for what that WE have done FIRST.

Fearon : The problem with the League of Nations, thought Roosevelt and others, was that it was too independent of the great powers opinions and as a result they ignored it and it became irrelevant, a mockery of itself. Hence they built in veto power to the UN system.

kiselev : I think that the authority of UN is very low now. UN tried to say against american invasion to Iraq but who listened to them? Noone.

Zemtsov : The states, establish the Constitution and play by rules. It is impossible that all left structure of the state when want.

Shishkin : UN should create a strong institution, to control any international operaton of any country all over the world.

Kostenko : We need to value THEIR losses.

Kate_Kuhns : Okay, thank you everyone for participating in our chat! I hope you enjoyed the new format that we tried. Please join me in thanking Prof. Fearon for his questions and answers!

Khriaschov : To replace the main office from the territory of US. It will show the independence of UN from Great Power for some countries.

Fearon : re strengthening the UN: Do you think Putin's government would support the creation of a standing army for the UN?

Alexandrov : But veto right does not help if other "great powers" do not accept the general principles and can always ignore that as well.

Kostenko : Before supers powers want to reform UN - in can ban not be reform. So we (population) must make them to make this decision

Alexandrov : THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS AND THE QUESTIONS! :-)

Kate_Kuhns : Fearon posed a question - would Putin support a standing army for the UN.

borisova : lots of thanks for a very competitive chat and for challenging ambiguous questions!

Kostenko : WE must push on our government to reform the UN.

kiselev : Thank you ! It was very nice to hear your not PRO-Russian opinion!

Fearon : I am not anti-Russian!!

kiselev : YSU: thank you everyone! And especially a great thanks to Professor Fearon!

Kate_Kuhns : We have one last question on Putin's support for a standing UN army. If there are not answers, then we can stop.

Kim : Saratov: We think Putin would support a standing army for the UN

shapovalov : It was ratherinteresting to know what others think about RF and our internal politic, but our changing of oppinions will not solve any problem

Kostenko : If Russia is wrong, YOU MUST BE ANTI-RUSSIAN.

Kim : It looks like Russian government generally favors UN system for solving conflicts etc

Mikhailenko : Re Fearon: Why not? Russian army is a monster which 'eats' too much for our economy. If there was a chance to reduce its appetites, we should use it.

Kate_Kuhns : No one here is anti- or pro-anything ;-) We are all students of political science!

Kondratev : Thanks! Good-bye.

Kostenko : We are indepandant citizen. Not puppets.

Alexandrov : I am definitely a pro - political science student. THANK YOU FOR THE EXCELLENT CHAT.

Kate_Kuhns : Okay, thank you everyone for your participation!

Kate_Kuhns : Special thanks for Prof. Fearon for his great questions.

Kate_Kuhns : And thanks to all of you for participating in our final chat of the semester. You have all done very well!

Mikhailenko : Moreover, our army is an actor of domestic and foreign policy which is generally conservative... Thanks, it was a really interesting discussion to read (and participate a bit).

Khriaschov : Thank you prof. Fearon for interesting discussion! Thanks to Kate Kuhns and all people who join the chat!

Fearon : I can't resist a final plug: I have a draft paper called "Separatist Wars, Partition, and World Order" available on my (new, and primitive!) website, which you can find a link to at my page on the Stanford Political Science dept., or (I think) directly at http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/

Kim : Saratov State University: Thank you, Kate, thank Prof. Fearon for a very interesting discussion.

Fearon : the paper addresses the issue we were discussing about the dilemma of secession.

Kate_Kuhns : Thank you for the link to your paper. We will advertise it to all of our students.

Fearon : thanks to all, and to all a good night!

Kate_Kuhns : Thanks to everyone. Good night!

Kim : Good night/morning/day !

Back to other news