I realize I wasn't really around for the Cold War, I was born in the mid 80's so technically I was alive for the last couple years but I was a toddler so that doesn't really count. That said, I have become a big fan of studying Cold War history and politics and I am beginning to see some things in the news that lead me to think that the United States and Russia are tangled in a Cold War-styled struggle right now in international relations.
There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.
Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.
The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).
Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.
Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.
These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.
The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!
This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Canada, Obama and Afghanistan
Now that Barrack Obama has secured the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, I like many Canadians are starting to think more and more about how Canada would be affected if he were to be elected. This being a blog with a focus on international politics, the foreign policy aspects of an Obama presidency are what interest me the most.
I'm currently reading a compilation of essays by Noam Chomsky and an interesting thought struck me. In his essay titled, On Resistance, Chomsky reflects on the Vietnam War stating that,
"there is no basis for supposing that those who will make the major policy decisions are open to reason on the fundamental issues, in particular the issue of whether we, alone among the nations of the world, have the authority and the competence to determine the social and political institutions of Vietnam. What is more, there is little likelihood that the electoral process will bear on the major decisions."
I read this and see striking similarities between Chomsky's Vietnam and the current US presence in Iraq. Moving right past the overstated similarities in the US performance in these wars, both topics were contentious issues during electoral races. A major issue of debate during the primary season has been whether or not to pull out of Iraq. Obama has made it clear that he intends to remove the troops from Iraq and move some of them into Afghanistan.
"Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has has 'disastrous consequences' for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network."
Chomsky believed that major issues like this are unlikely to be solved in elections but seeing as Obama has made this a staple of his platform, I would hazard a guess that the US involvement in Iraq is more likely to be affected by the upcoming presidential election than US involvement in Vietnam was. As such, Canada must begin to look forward and see how a candidate's election would affect our policies.
Obama's proposed plan of action would have a serious impact on Canada's foreign policy and the mission in Afghanistan. Already 1,000 US troops are moving from the eastern areas to Kandahar thanks to a new French contingent moving in. So this, in addition to US troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, is going to dramatically increase the number of US forces working in close proximity to Canadian Forces. Personally, I would prefer if there would be as little escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan as possible. Now normally I am in favour of increased interaction with our neighbour to the South but not this time.
US tactics in Afghanistan have been brutally inefficient. US policy has been to "bomb away" at things that both move and don't move. In terms of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, using tactics that produce unacceptable levels of collateral damage is not the way to go. Bombing the poppy fields and/or suspected al Qaeda strongholds further pushes the the Afghan people back towards the Taliban and al Qaeda and away from the peaceful re-construction that Canadians want from the Afghanistan mission. By taking away the poppies, the Afghan people are left without their major economic resource. This is in no way meant to be support for the illegal drug trade because poppies have many other uses which include producing vital, and legal, medicines that are need around the world. Also, bombing creates a high risk of injuring non-combatants. When this happens the enemy no longer is the insurgency but the people that are injuring (and killing) their family members, e.g. the people bombing them.
Despite what many Opposition MP's might claim (or used to claim), Canada has been enormously effective in making headway to a proper rebuilding of Afghanistan. Canadian Forces are working with the people to build a stable and legal economy while battling the corruption and insurgency that threatens to drag the Afghan people back into oppression. It would be unfortunate for both the Afghan people and the Canadian people working in country (Forces and Aid workers) to have US tactics become more prominent because for this to happen would greatly hamper or even undo the positive work that has been accomplished so far.
If Barrack Obama truly wants to pull out of Iraq, all the power to him but don't screw up a "good" (I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate word to use but it conveys the right message) thing in Afghanistan. Rotate the troops that are in Afghanistan but don't increase their numbers. If the desire to send troops abroad remains, try rebuilding the US foreign image a bit by helping the UN backed missions in Congo or Darfur. But remember, I said "help" not take over.
- blenCOWe
I'm currently reading a compilation of essays by Noam Chomsky and an interesting thought struck me. In his essay titled, On Resistance, Chomsky reflects on the Vietnam War stating that,
"there is no basis for supposing that those who will make the major policy decisions are open to reason on the fundamental issues, in particular the issue of whether we, alone among the nations of the world, have the authority and the competence to determine the social and political institutions of Vietnam. What is more, there is little likelihood that the electoral process will bear on the major decisions."
I read this and see striking similarities between Chomsky's Vietnam and the current US presence in Iraq. Moving right past the overstated similarities in the US performance in these wars, both topics were contentious issues during electoral races. A major issue of debate during the primary season has been whether or not to pull out of Iraq. Obama has made it clear that he intends to remove the troops from Iraq and move some of them into Afghanistan.
"Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has has 'disastrous consequences' for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network."
Chomsky believed that major issues like this are unlikely to be solved in elections but seeing as Obama has made this a staple of his platform, I would hazard a guess that the US involvement in Iraq is more likely to be affected by the upcoming presidential election than US involvement in Vietnam was. As such, Canada must begin to look forward and see how a candidate's election would affect our policies.
Obama's proposed plan of action would have a serious impact on Canada's foreign policy and the mission in Afghanistan. Already 1,000 US troops are moving from the eastern areas to Kandahar thanks to a new French contingent moving in. So this, in addition to US troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, is going to dramatically increase the number of US forces working in close proximity to Canadian Forces. Personally, I would prefer if there would be as little escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan as possible. Now normally I am in favour of increased interaction with our neighbour to the South but not this time.
US tactics in Afghanistan have been brutally inefficient. US policy has been to "bomb away" at things that both move and don't move. In terms of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, using tactics that produce unacceptable levels of collateral damage is not the way to go. Bombing the poppy fields and/or suspected al Qaeda strongholds further pushes the the Afghan people back towards the Taliban and al Qaeda and away from the peaceful re-construction that Canadians want from the Afghanistan mission. By taking away the poppies, the Afghan people are left without their major economic resource. This is in no way meant to be support for the illegal drug trade because poppies have many other uses which include producing vital, and legal, medicines that are need around the world. Also, bombing creates a high risk of injuring non-combatants. When this happens the enemy no longer is the insurgency but the people that are injuring (and killing) their family members, e.g. the people bombing them.
Despite what many Opposition MP's might claim (or used to claim), Canada has been enormously effective in making headway to a proper rebuilding of Afghanistan. Canadian Forces are working with the people to build a stable and legal economy while battling the corruption and insurgency that threatens to drag the Afghan people back into oppression. It would be unfortunate for both the Afghan people and the Canadian people working in country (Forces and Aid workers) to have US tactics become more prominent because for this to happen would greatly hamper or even undo the positive work that has been accomplished so far.
If Barrack Obama truly wants to pull out of Iraq, all the power to him but don't screw up a "good" (I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate word to use but it conveys the right message) thing in Afghanistan. Rotate the troops that are in Afghanistan but don't increase their numbers. If the desire to send troops abroad remains, try rebuilding the US foreign image a bit by helping the UN backed missions in Congo or Darfur. But remember, I said "help" not take over.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
