To anyone that reads this blog,
I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from posting because I'm in the middle of football camp getting ready for the season.
I realize news and politics never sleeps but at the end of the day I'm banged up and bruised and all I want to do is lay down with a bag of ice.
I'll be back in a couple of days.
- blenCOWe
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Russia's already won
According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Russia's true intentions
Like most people around the world, my recent free time has been dominated by watching the Olympics and cheering on my home nations (Great Britain and Canada). Nevertheless, my ears perk up when I hear the few stories that are reported concerning the war in Georgia/South Ossetia.
The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...
Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.
Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.
But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.
Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.
So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?
Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.
Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.
These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?
Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.
Now for the other why...
Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.
Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.
So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!
-blenCOWe
The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...
Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.
Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.
But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.
Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.
So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?
Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.
Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.
These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?
Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.
Now for the other why...
Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.
Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.
So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!
-blenCOWe
Monday, August 4, 2008
Defending Louise Arbour
Outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour has been receiving a lot of negative press lately as she prepares to end her term without an attempt for re-appointment. Watchdog NGO, Human Rights Watch has been recently critical of her time in office, claiming that she was not critical enough of major powers Russia and China.
Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.
Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.
Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.
- blenCOWe
Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.
Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.
Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
