A good has come out of the Ossetian Crisis.
Several countries have made the first steps towards a stronger NATO and (perhaps) a more united Europe. The creation of identity often requires an 'other' and 'outsider', and Russia has conveniently fashioned itself as such. Kudos to Vladimir!
According to Defence News research, the Swedish military budget may see an increase from $5.9bil to $6.5bil next year and the Norwegian budget from $5.8bil to $6.3bil. A substantial increase in budget and spending in the Nordic states is spurred no doubt due to the 'unanticipated' events of Georgia in August. Premier Fredrik Reinfeldt's 4-party center-right coalition govt in Sweden had to suspend further cuts to core military operations, after facing increasing criticism over his government's handling of defense reorganisation programs since 2006.
Russia's flexing of its muscle has also rekindled the debate as to whether Finland and Sweden - neutral and non-NATO countries- should join the alliance. According to Finland's foreign minister Alexander Stubb, "We should consider the possibility of NATO membership. [though] We cannot draw the conclusion from the crisis in Georgia that now the door to NATO membership is open." Even so, there is the widespread realisation that current trends of military modernisation and spending are untenable. Opposition leaders in Sweden have laid barrage on hard-hitting cuts to defence spending leaving Sweden 'fundamentally defenseless'. Urban Ahlin, the Social Democrats foreign affairs spokesman, commented that 'Russia crossed a line, which I thought would be impossible after the post-Soviet drawing of the European map... We must now reassess the need for a stronger defense and security strategy.'
Even Lithuania's military is pushing for increased spending.
While it is disheartening that European integration can only take place with the increased prospect of war, it could also be hoped that these nations would find a policy of positive integration and engagement with each other and not merely create marriages of conveniences, in order to weather the current political storm. It is good that these events are happening without direct US involvement, though we cannot discount that the probability of US blessings, and that a stronger stand (not hardline as yet) is needed to be taken by Europe in order to maintain the fragile balance of power in the region. Russia may not be expansionist, but soft power needs to be countered actively before it is too late.
MR D.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Pakistan and the Taliban
Defence News, 22 September 2008.
US Lt. Col. Chris Nash has alleged that Pakistan has repeatedly flown helicopter missions into afghanistan to resupply the Taliban during a fierce battle in June 2007. According to Nash, The Pakistani forces not only sent helicopter missions, but also provided logistical support, training, and even direct and indirect fire for the Talivan and its allies in his area of operations.
Apparently, the Afghan government's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, had sources which confirmed that the helicopters were on a supply mission. While Nash hardly relies on Afghan reports, they were confirmed by a separate set of Marine trainers advising an Afghan National Army Battalion in the region.
While there is dispute both in the US military and Pakistani officials as to the truth of the matter, it is an undeniable fact that the fluidity (i use this word extremely flexibly) of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has indeed provided the Taliban/Al-Qaeda with a secure hiding base. As to whether Pakistan is helping the Taliban, that awaits to be seen. But it is not too far a deduction to say that corrupt and inept Pakistan is sabotaged by it's own people - insiders perhaps, who may surreptitiously aid the enemy in return for monetary benefits. OR maybe tribal-religious ties are stronger than national ties in that region. OR maybe it's a grand Pakistani plan to keep the US 'interested' in the region and use their soft power to legitimise their clearly not-so-democratic political scene.
Whatever the case, the Republican policy towards Pakistan is horribly naive.
MR. D
US Lt. Col. Chris Nash has alleged that Pakistan has repeatedly flown helicopter missions into afghanistan to resupply the Taliban during a fierce battle in June 2007. According to Nash, The Pakistani forces not only sent helicopter missions, but also provided logistical support, training, and even direct and indirect fire for the Talivan and its allies in his area of operations.
Apparently, the Afghan government's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, had sources which confirmed that the helicopters were on a supply mission. While Nash hardly relies on Afghan reports, they were confirmed by a separate set of Marine trainers advising an Afghan National Army Battalion in the region.
While there is dispute both in the US military and Pakistani officials as to the truth of the matter, it is an undeniable fact that the fluidity (i use this word extremely flexibly) of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has indeed provided the Taliban/Al-Qaeda with a secure hiding base. As to whether Pakistan is helping the Taliban, that awaits to be seen. But it is not too far a deduction to say that corrupt and inept Pakistan is sabotaged by it's own people - insiders perhaps, who may surreptitiously aid the enemy in return for monetary benefits. OR maybe tribal-religious ties are stronger than national ties in that region. OR maybe it's a grand Pakistani plan to keep the US 'interested' in the region and use their soft power to legitimise their clearly not-so-democratic political scene.
Whatever the case, the Republican policy towards Pakistan is horribly naive.
MR. D
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
'Tit for Tat'. Hegemons, Impunity, and the end of International Law
International Law is dead, but the Russians are not the only murderers.
The fragile international system erected at the end of WW2 has never worked as it was supposed to. Up till today, the UN rests upon a flimsy charter that postulates the need for collective security in order to deter aggression and ensure peace. This ideal has never been fulfilled in the ways which it's founding father envisaged it to. Collective Security only happens effectively when a hegemon chooses to step forward and lead the world into the maelstrom of a disaster - or so we think. Contrary to our beliefs in the benefits of a 'benevolent hegemony', this has been more of a bane than a boon, and the world must repudiate this concept in order to restore the sanctity of international law and create conditions stable enough for global peace to ensue.
The recent Ossentian crisis has given cry to a few claims. These will be addressed and debunked.
1) The Russians were doing the Ossetians a favour.
Wrong. Yes, the Georgians were about to pulverized them. Yes, the Russians have protected the Ossetians momentarily by intervening on their behalf, hereby preventing a massacre of sorts comparable to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It is seeming blindness however, to ignore the larger implications of the matter. Russia, until very recently, has been obstructing attempts by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) to conduct observation patrols in the 'security zone' created, displaced Georgians residing in the troubled regions in order to shake the faith placed in the Saakashvili government, discredited the Saakashvili regime further by hitting hard at the very nationalist mandate the government rests upon (to restore the seccessionist territories of Ossetia and Abkhazia), and have even resorted to imposing a regime of fear instigated by an ethnic chechen battalion caleld the 'Vostok' with a reputation for cruelty and looting. Continued Russian presence in Georgia is a devious attempt to cripple the country in the long-term.
Russia has been attempting to reassert it's sphere of influence, which had eroded via multifold political and economic problems, not just withstanding the terrible transition from communism back into the fold of socialist democracy, but also partly due to the lost of strategic influence over the Slavonic states, with the expansion of EU and NATO possibly up to it's borders. The crippling occupation of Poti, Georgia's largest Black Sea port, Senaki, home to a Georgian military base, and coming close physically to Tbilisi itself is the attempt to exert both real and psychological influence in the region, and internationally. This is not just about distracting a domestic polity from ongoing economic woes at home. This is the attempt to tighten the reins and consequently demand 'respect' and 'authority' as a world power. This is not the harbinger of international peace.
2) This is the beginning of a New Cold War.
Wrong. The crisis is not premised upon an ideological rivalry with the West. Rather, Russia was merely appropriating the 'practices' of the West, and merely using it in a seemingly childish 'tit-for-tat' way that makes international law and regimes a mockery. For this, we have America to thank. The US fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown the world that it exemplifies a pityful double-standard - or perhaps, a single-standard, as Prof. Chomsky has shown in his various books, that the opinion and dictates of others are necessarily subservient to US interests. This mask of benevolence has been violently ripped off their faces. With this loss of credibility, the US has lost the moral high-ground to criticise a returning hegemon, Russia, for its impudence in the international scene.
The lesson learnt then, is that the promises of the hegemon, be it their verbal declarations or our high idealistic expectations, cannot and will not always be fulfilled. The dangerous precedent set by a loose and rampant America in the previous decades could very well spell the end of sovereignty, and the sanctity of international law as we speak, for they have shown that every and any hegemon can do whatever it wants.
3) International Peace is best secured in a bi-polar world.
A terrible lie and falsehood.
The hegemon's idea of international peace is that which is ensured when the goals of it's 'underlings' match with their own. However while the states within the sphere of influence are free from the other faction, freedom cannot be guaranteed from the hegemon itself. They are free, and yet imprisoned. As such, any attempts to return to a bipolar system would necessarily abrogate the basic tenets and fundamentals of international law, which includes the sanctity of sovereignty of the nation-state and non-intervention in domestic affairs. These are necessarily freedoms in order to ensure relative domestic peace and prosperity, before international peace can ensue.
In order to protect our world from the ruthless war-mongering of a few, we need to take a strong stand against unilateral aggression, and the belief in the benefits of hegemony. A world without hegemons is a better bet for international security as everyone would be equally weak, and therefore need international law and the regimes to ensure their survival. The hegemons must be forced to be as free as the rest of the world. While an 'inter-state communism' is not going to happen because of the necessary geopolitics facing each state, the international community, and especially the EU, needs to unite and strongly repudiate and discourage countries with hegemonic intentions.
MR D.
16 September 2008
The fragile international system erected at the end of WW2 has never worked as it was supposed to. Up till today, the UN rests upon a flimsy charter that postulates the need for collective security in order to deter aggression and ensure peace. This ideal has never been fulfilled in the ways which it's founding father envisaged it to. Collective Security only happens effectively when a hegemon chooses to step forward and lead the world into the maelstrom of a disaster - or so we think. Contrary to our beliefs in the benefits of a 'benevolent hegemony', this has been more of a bane than a boon, and the world must repudiate this concept in order to restore the sanctity of international law and create conditions stable enough for global peace to ensue.
The recent Ossentian crisis has given cry to a few claims. These will be addressed and debunked.
1) The Russians were doing the Ossetians a favour.
Wrong. Yes, the Georgians were about to pulverized them. Yes, the Russians have protected the Ossetians momentarily by intervening on their behalf, hereby preventing a massacre of sorts comparable to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It is seeming blindness however, to ignore the larger implications of the matter. Russia, until very recently, has been obstructing attempts by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) to conduct observation patrols in the 'security zone' created, displaced Georgians residing in the troubled regions in order to shake the faith placed in the Saakashvili government, discredited the Saakashvili regime further by hitting hard at the very nationalist mandate the government rests upon (to restore the seccessionist territories of Ossetia and Abkhazia), and have even resorted to imposing a regime of fear instigated by an ethnic chechen battalion caleld the 'Vostok' with a reputation for cruelty and looting. Continued Russian presence in Georgia is a devious attempt to cripple the country in the long-term.
Russia has been attempting to reassert it's sphere of influence, which had eroded via multifold political and economic problems, not just withstanding the terrible transition from communism back into the fold of socialist democracy, but also partly due to the lost of strategic influence over the Slavonic states, with the expansion of EU and NATO possibly up to it's borders. The crippling occupation of Poti, Georgia's largest Black Sea port, Senaki, home to a Georgian military base, and coming close physically to Tbilisi itself is the attempt to exert both real and psychological influence in the region, and internationally. This is not just about distracting a domestic polity from ongoing economic woes at home. This is the attempt to tighten the reins and consequently demand 'respect' and 'authority' as a world power. This is not the harbinger of international peace.
2) This is the beginning of a New Cold War.
Wrong. The crisis is not premised upon an ideological rivalry with the West. Rather, Russia was merely appropriating the 'practices' of the West, and merely using it in a seemingly childish 'tit-for-tat' way that makes international law and regimes a mockery. For this, we have America to thank. The US fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown the world that it exemplifies a pityful double-standard - or perhaps, a single-standard, as Prof. Chomsky has shown in his various books, that the opinion and dictates of others are necessarily subservient to US interests. This mask of benevolence has been violently ripped off their faces. With this loss of credibility, the US has lost the moral high-ground to criticise a returning hegemon, Russia, for its impudence in the international scene.
The lesson learnt then, is that the promises of the hegemon, be it their verbal declarations or our high idealistic expectations, cannot and will not always be fulfilled. The dangerous precedent set by a loose and rampant America in the previous decades could very well spell the end of sovereignty, and the sanctity of international law as we speak, for they have shown that every and any hegemon can do whatever it wants.
3) International Peace is best secured in a bi-polar world.
A terrible lie and falsehood.
The hegemon's idea of international peace is that which is ensured when the goals of it's 'underlings' match with their own. However while the states within the sphere of influence are free from the other faction, freedom cannot be guaranteed from the hegemon itself. They are free, and yet imprisoned. As such, any attempts to return to a bipolar system would necessarily abrogate the basic tenets and fundamentals of international law, which includes the sanctity of sovereignty of the nation-state and non-intervention in domestic affairs. These are necessarily freedoms in order to ensure relative domestic peace and prosperity, before international peace can ensue.
In order to protect our world from the ruthless war-mongering of a few, we need to take a strong stand against unilateral aggression, and the belief in the benefits of hegemony. A world without hegemons is a better bet for international security as everyone would be equally weak, and therefore need international law and the regimes to ensure their survival. The hegemons must be forced to be as free as the rest of the world. While an 'inter-state communism' is not going to happen because of the necessary geopolitics facing each state, the international community, and especially the EU, needs to unite and strongly repudiate and discourage countries with hegemonic intentions.
MR D.
16 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
