Georgetown Security Studies Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
0 Georgetown Security Studies Review Volume 8, Issue 2 November 2020 A Publication of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service http://gssr.georgetown.edu 0 1|| Georgetown Security Studies Review Disclaimer The views expressed in Georgetown Security Studies Review do not necessarily represent those of the editors or staff of GSSR, the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, or Georgetown University. The editorial board of GSSR and its affiliated peer reviewers strive to verify the accuracy of all factual information contained in GSSR. However, the staffs of GSSR, the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and Georgetown University make no warranties or representations regarding the completeness or accuracy of information contained in GSSR, and they assume no legal liability or responsibility for the content of any work contained therein. Copyright 2012–2020, Georgetown Security Studies Review. All rights reserved. Volume 8 || Issue 2 GEORGETOWN SECURITY STUDIES REVIEW Published by the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Editorial Board Samuel Seitz, Editor-in-Chief Caroline Nutt, Deputy Editor Lauren Finkenthal, Associate Editor for Africa Felipe Herrera, Associate Editor for Americas Daniel Cebul, Associate Editor for Europe Emma Jouenne, Associate Editor for Gender and IR Anna Liu, Associate Editor for Indo-Pacific Paul Kearney, Associate Editor for the Middle East Kelley Shaw, Associate Editor for National Security and the Military Shruthi Rajkumar, Associate Editor for South and Central Asia Talia Mamann, Associate Editor for Technology and Cyber Security Christopher Morris, Associate Editor for Terrorism and Counterterrorism The Georgetown Security Studies Review is the official academic journal of Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program. Founded in 2012, the GSSR has also served as the official publication of the Center for Security Studies and publishes regular columns in its online Forum and occasional special edition reports. Access the Georgetown Security Studies Review online at http://gssr.georgetown.edu Connect on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/GeorgetownUniversityGSSR Follow the Georgetown Security Studies Review on Twitter at ‘@gssreview’ Contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected] 3|| Georgetown Security Studies Review Table of Contents You Can’t have Women in Peace without Women in Conflict and Security……………………5 Kyleanne Hunter and Rebecca Best Does Democratic Peace Theory Hold in Cyberspace?…………………………………………19 Samantha Randazzo Childress Just Robots, Just Collection: The Implications of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems for Ethnical Intelligence Collection…………………………………………………….34 Ainikki Riikonen China’s Influence in Central and Eastern Europe, European Responses, and Implications for Transatlantic Security……………………………………………………...41 Julia Warshafsky Five Models of Strategic Relationship in Proxy War……………………………………………50 Amos C. Fox The Critical Importance of Brown-Water Operations in the Era of Great Power Competition…59 Hugh Harsono Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………….67 Endnotes: You Can’t have Women in Peace without Women in Conflict and Security………………………………….67 Endnotes: Does Democratic Peace Theory Hold in Cyberspace?...............................................................................71 Endnotes: Just Robots, Just Collection: The Implications of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems for Ethical Intelligence Collection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………73 Endnotes: China’s Influence in Central and Eastern Europe, European Responses, and Implications for Transatlantic Security……………………………………………………………………………………………………………75 Endnotes: Five Models of Strategic Relationship in Proxy War……………………………………………………………79 Endnotes: The Critical Importance of Brown-Water Operations in the Era of Great Power Competition…………...82 Volume 8 || Issue 2 Letter from the Editor This November, we are excited to present the Georgetown Security Studies Review Volume 8, Issue 2. This cycle, we received a multitude of excellent pieces. With articles on women in conflict and security, cyberspace norms, the implications of artificial intelligence, China’s growing influence, and proxy wars, this issue will address a wide array of national security issues. I want to thank all authors for submitting such high-quality articles. I also want to thank each author for exuding incredible patience amid an incredibly uncertain times due to the coronavirus pandemic. I would also like to thank the GSSR editorial board for dedicating many hours of editing and refining these pieces for publication, while also contending with stresses of the pandemic, finals, and comprehensive exams. Thank you. Moreover, I would also like to thank Dr. Keir Lieber and Annie Kraft for their leadership and support in ensuring GSSR operations run as smoothly as possible amid the uncertainties this year has brought. This publication would not have been possible without the unrelenting dedication of our entire team, so once again, thank you. I want to emphasize the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on GSSR operations, and that, in light of the many complications it has brought about for authors, editors, and GSSR operations alike, we were unable to publish in our normal format. However, we have done our best to present the below works in the best possible way. Moreover, I ask that you read the articles in this issue with this in mind, as our authors did not have the usual amount of time to prepare their pieces for submission given the rather unusual nature of this semester’s timeline. I sincerely hope that the ideas presented in this issue allow you to deepen your understanding of some of the most pressing national security issues of our time. Thank you for reading our work! I hope you all stay healthy and safe. All the best, Caroline C. Nutt Editor-in-Chief Georgetown, Washington D.C. 5|| Georgetown Security Studies Review You Can’t have Women in Peace without Women in Conflict and Security Kyleanne Hunter and Rebecca Best Since the passage of UN Resolution 1325 there has been a call for an increase of women in post- conflict negotiations. Indeed, research shows that the presence of women in these negotiations improves prospects for lasting peace. However, there has yet to be a meaningful increase in women's participation in such negotiations. Similarly, despite an international focus on increasing women’s participation at all levels of government, women remain underrepresented in both elected and appointed positions. One area where women are increasingly present is as combatants - both in formal militaries and in rebel groups. In this article, we argue that the social gender norms related to women participating in combat are a key driver/reason of the lack of women’s meaningful participation in peace processes and government bodies. We introduce a model of cognitive-institutional reinforcement that shows how institutions designed to give former combatants access to public life undermine women’s credibility and result in lost opportunities. We use evidence from Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs and veterans’ services to show how this model explains the continued lack of women’s participation. “General Martin Dempsey, USA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has recognized that we undercut the contributions of women at our own peril. We cannot deny ourselves half the talent, half the resources, and half the potential of the population.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton and Leon Panetta 2015i In the 21st century, women are increasingly conflict negotiations and governance. serving as combatants in state militaries and Despite this, women are still largely excluded non-state politically violent groups. from, or included only as tokens, in peace Concurrently, against the backdrop of UN processes and heavily under-represented in Resolution 1325, the social status of women many governments. In 2010, then United has taken center stage as part of a broader States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham “human security” agenda. Additionally, Clinton observed, “still, we hear the question: public opinion about the status of women is Why should women be part of peace optimistic, especially among the younger negotiations if they were neither combatants generation. Yet, despite this trend, gendered nor government officials?” In response, she perceptions are not shifting to reflect the noted that while women are rarely included reality that more women are engaging in in formal peace negotiations, “More and combat operations. Both public perception more, [women] are being recruited into and formal institutions deny this reality, regular armed forces and terrorist groups.”iii ultimately to the detriment of both women’s Secretary Clinton’s words highlight the fact political and economic equality, and the that women’s increasing contributions in prospects for peace. Research is increasingly combat are not being publicly recognized, indicating that the involvement of women in which stymies efforts toward women’s governance, peace processes, and public equality in other arenas such as politics and socioeconomic life leads to more peaceful business, where military service or the and stable conflict outcomesi and official UN perception that one has (or could have) Resolutionsii have been adopted calling for served, improves an individual’s prospects of women’s equality in all facets of post- success.iv This,