In last week's edition of the Embassy the head of the Russian Embassy to Canada's political section, Dimitry Trofimov, has an article attempting to glorify Russian President Dimitry Medvedev's proposal for a European Security Treaty (EST), claiming that"it could provide equal and indivisible security for all states, both members and non-members of any given bloc, and create a common set of co-ordinates agreed by all 56 states in the Euro-Atlantic area." He goes on to suggest "such a treaty should create in the Euro-Atlantic area a reliable collective security system on the basis of principles of polycentrism, rule of international law and the central role of the United Nations, unified and indivisible security of all states, inadmissibility of isolation of any state, and the creation of zones with different levels of security."
The problem with collective security is that it has never worked as it is supposed to function. The idea behind collective security is that it is an alternative to the balance of power. Its principle, as Earnest Claude puts it, is "that in the relation of nations, everyone is his brother's keeper." All states guarantee to secure, collectively, each and every state that is party to the system. Any threat to the peace by any state to any other state must be seen as a threat to the security of all states and they must respond accordingly. The problem with CS is that when threats to the peace are identified, the call to respond has never been recognized and responded to by all the member states of the security organization.
Now advocates of this treaty might argue that in smaller numbers, collective security is more likely to work but given the fact that on the UN Security Council, Russia has been a regular roadblock to proposals for humanitarian and other types of intervention as have other European powers, France and Germany. Furthermore, France has only just rejoined the integrated command structure of NATO, with domestic protest, after many years. With this in mind, what are the chances that these "reluctant" powers will act more often and with greater effect when history has shown them not to be.
Rather than building another toothless security organization that will only further clutter the international community, the European community might be better served to work to make the United Nation's collective security mechanisms more effective.
There are also problems with how the EST would be structured. One of the themes that Mr. Trofimov identifies is that all members would be guaranteed equal security and that no member would seek to provide for their own security at the cost of the security of another state. The problem is that this theme also "respects the right of any state to maintain neutrality." This means that if it is not in the best interests of a state to become involved in a conflict then it is not required to participate. Therefore, the same problem of participation that is faced by the UN is again confronted in this treaty. There is also the inherent conflict, routinely found in collective security, that the treaty guarantees that the other member states will come to the rescue of an embattled member, but then weakens this guarantee by allowing states to opt out of any missions it does not want to participate in. This is the same design that the UN's security mechanisms employ thus making this agreement unnecessary and possibly even make it less likely for the UN's mechanisms to work when needed.
I wonder why Russia is proposing this now when one year ago, if this agreement had been in place, Russia would likely have been confronted by the organization's members over the conflict in Georgia (not to mention Georgia's ally, the United States). But therein may lay the answer; Russia might be proposing this new security organism in response to the US presence currently found in Europe's predominant security structures. This proposal could very well be Russia's newest response to NATO eastward expansion and have no real concern for an effective security organization in Europe.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is More or Less Canada a Good Thing?
Jim Creskey has an article in the Embassy magazine right now that expounds the negative aspects of Canada's recent foreign policies and calls for "Less Canada in the World." He brings up many good points against Canada's recent policies like our recent move to focus its aid away from the continent that needs it most (Africa), the poor track record of late in repatriating Canadians being held abroad and our lack of presence in recent discussions on disarmament.
However, the author's choice to label Canada's strong stance against Russia's recent foreign policies, especially military activities in the Arctic, as a "trumped up war of words" might lead one to believe that he is not viewing these activities as a part of a larger trend of Russian militarization across the world. To use Cold War era language, Russia appears to be defending and extending its "sphere of influence" around the world. It is defending its borders through recent actions against NATO expansion to states that sit along its borders like Georgia and other former Warsaw Pact states. In addition to this, Russia is stepping up Cold War reminiscent military activities including flight exercises over the Arctic that approach Canadian and Alaskan (U.S.) airspace like the one that curiously coincided with Obama's visit to Ottawa. Russia is complimenting these defence activities with forays into the Western Hemisphere like its growing ties (including arms deals) with Venezuala and of course Cuba. Both of which have strained, if not adversarial, ties with the major power in the hemisphere and our biggest ally: the United States.
If each state focused on its individual black marks then nobody would ever act internationally. Creskey suggests that Canada involve itself "in something the Jesuits call the twice-daily examination of conscience" to evaluate its foreign policies and he concludes that if Canada did a bit more of this then there would be less encouragement for Canada to act abroad. The problem with this is that this would lead to a "retreatist" agenda where Canada would have a much diminished presence in the world to the detriment of international trade (which is necessary for Canada's survival), public image, and security. The point of foreign policy evaluation is not to retreat from the world but to identify areas for improvment. Canada cannot become better by running and hiding. Despite the problems that Canada does have, it is still a beacon of good in the world and can and should be depended upon to help make this world a better place.
Don't be so quick to apologize for our mistakes without also acknowledging our accomplishments!
- blenCOWe
However, the author's choice to label Canada's strong stance against Russia's recent foreign policies, especially military activities in the Arctic, as a "trumped up war of words" might lead one to believe that he is not viewing these activities as a part of a larger trend of Russian militarization across the world. To use Cold War era language, Russia appears to be defending and extending its "sphere of influence" around the world. It is defending its borders through recent actions against NATO expansion to states that sit along its borders like Georgia and other former Warsaw Pact states. In addition to this, Russia is stepping up Cold War reminiscent military activities including flight exercises over the Arctic that approach Canadian and Alaskan (U.S.) airspace like the one that curiously coincided with Obama's visit to Ottawa. Russia is complimenting these defence activities with forays into the Western Hemisphere like its growing ties (including arms deals) with Venezuala and of course Cuba. Both of which have strained, if not adversarial, ties with the major power in the hemisphere and our biggest ally: the United States.
If each state focused on its individual black marks then nobody would ever act internationally. Creskey suggests that Canada involve itself "in something the Jesuits call the twice-daily examination of conscience" to evaluate its foreign policies and he concludes that if Canada did a bit more of this then there would be less encouragement for Canada to act abroad. The problem with this is that this would lead to a "retreatist" agenda where Canada would have a much diminished presence in the world to the detriment of international trade (which is necessary for Canada's survival), public image, and security. The point of foreign policy evaluation is not to retreat from the world but to identify areas for improvment. Canada cannot become better by running and hiding. Despite the problems that Canada does have, it is still a beacon of good in the world and can and should be depended upon to help make this world a better place.
Don't be so quick to apologize for our mistakes without also acknowledging our accomplishments!
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Russia Maybe Misfires
In expelling two Canadian diplomats working with the NATO office in Moscow, Russia may have misfired in expressing its anger over the ongoing military exercises taking place in neighbouring Georgia.
Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.
On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.
The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.
- blenCOWe
Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.
On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.
The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, May 2, 2009
More Than Just Words
This week in the Canadian foreign affairs periodical Embassy, Jeff Davis writes that the Stephen Harper government is building up the perception of a Russian threat for political gains at home. Davis makes reference to a number of different arguments including the the Conservatives' history of strong opposition to communism and the USSR, and opposition claims that the Conservatives are trying to villify the Russians for their recent military endeavours. What the author fails to realize are the current realities in Canada-Russia relations.
First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.
Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.
Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.
The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.
This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.
- blenCOWe
First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.
Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.
Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.
The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.
This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Walt's Achievers in International Politics
Stephen Walt, Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, posted on his blog today about who he believes to be the over- and under-achievers in international politics. There are a number of interesting things that Walt points out that I believe are worth noting:
1) Walt lists Canada as an over-achiever country. As a student of international politics in Canada, I have heard for years how Canada has, historically, been able to punch above its "weight class." Despite being categorized as a "middle power," Canada is pretty good at getting involved in the major issues in international affairs. For almost a century, Canada has been getting its hands dirty in the major wars (The World Wars, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), acting as a leader in international peacekeeping, as well a being a staunch supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations. So I guess I am just happy that someone, especially someone from the prestigious Harvard University, from outside of Canada notices the actions and presence of Canada in the international community.
2) Two of the over-achievers (North Korea and Israel) are not there for their positive actions but for the attention that the world is forced to pay to them. North Korea with its rogue campaign to gain nuclear weapons and Israel with its continuing conflict with Palestine are such politically hot topics that other states have to pay attention to these states for the threat they both pose to international peace and security. Therefore, it may be appropriate to question whether or not these states are actually over-achievers rather than "thorns in the side" of the international order.
3) Three of the under-achievers (India, Russia and Brazil) are classified as the next generation of great powers. Walt recognizes this and the underlying idea that the BRIC powers are going to change the shape of the international order but doesn't seem to be convinced. His arguments for India and Brazil are definitely valid and I pretty much agree with them. However, his argument that Russia is an underachiever appears to overlook certain aspects of its international presence.
As one of the few legal nuclear powers and by holding a permanent seat and veto in the UN Security Council, Russia has a tremendous influence on international politics. Russia can effectively determine where and when the UN becomes involved in international crises which, by my account, would make Russia a major player. While it is true that following the fall of the Berlin Wall Russia suffered from economic troubles, it has definitely moved past this to becoming an emerging energy superpower. The mere fact that it supplies energy resources to much of Europe means that Russia must be accounted for when other states make their foreign policies, as Ukraine found out this year.
One last thing, I think the presence of India and Brazil on the list of underachievers may show that economic growth is not nearly enough to push a state from being an influential middle power to that of being a great power. A realization that must be examined more closely, especially in this time of great power growth and decline.
- blenCOWe
1) Walt lists Canada as an over-achiever country. As a student of international politics in Canada, I have heard for years how Canada has, historically, been able to punch above its "weight class." Despite being categorized as a "middle power," Canada is pretty good at getting involved in the major issues in international affairs. For almost a century, Canada has been getting its hands dirty in the major wars (The World Wars, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), acting as a leader in international peacekeeping, as well a being a staunch supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations. So I guess I am just happy that someone, especially someone from the prestigious Harvard University, from outside of Canada notices the actions and presence of Canada in the international community.
2) Two of the over-achievers (North Korea and Israel) are not there for their positive actions but for the attention that the world is forced to pay to them. North Korea with its rogue campaign to gain nuclear weapons and Israel with its continuing conflict with Palestine are such politically hot topics that other states have to pay attention to these states for the threat they both pose to international peace and security. Therefore, it may be appropriate to question whether or not these states are actually over-achievers rather than "thorns in the side" of the international order.
3) Three of the under-achievers (India, Russia and Brazil) are classified as the next generation of great powers. Walt recognizes this and the underlying idea that the BRIC powers are going to change the shape of the international order but doesn't seem to be convinced. His arguments for India and Brazil are definitely valid and I pretty much agree with them. However, his argument that Russia is an underachiever appears to overlook certain aspects of its international presence.
As one of the few legal nuclear powers and by holding a permanent seat and veto in the UN Security Council, Russia has a tremendous influence on international politics. Russia can effectively determine where and when the UN becomes involved in international crises which, by my account, would make Russia a major player. While it is true that following the fall of the Berlin Wall Russia suffered from economic troubles, it has definitely moved past this to becoming an emerging energy superpower. The mere fact that it supplies energy resources to much of Europe means that Russia must be accounted for when other states make their foreign policies, as Ukraine found out this year.
One last thing, I think the presence of India and Brazil on the list of underachievers may show that economic growth is not nearly enough to push a state from being an influential middle power to that of being a great power. A realization that must be examined more closely, especially in this time of great power growth and decline.
- blenCOWe
Monday, April 20, 2009
Russia Changing its Tune
"Russia has no claims on the North Pole nor does it plan to militarize the Arctic, but it aims to persuade a United Nations commission of additional territorial claims."-- National Post
Apparently this is Russia's stance on the Arctic, according to the Russian envoy to the Arctic Council. Funny enough though, this appears to contradict Russia's recent track record when it comes to the Arctic.
The short list of relevant events can be as follows:
- the expedition that planted the Russian Flag on the North Pole
- the recent, and noticeable, change in military activity like flyovers by Russian airplanes that have been approaching US and Canadian airspace
- Russia's announcement that it will create a military unit designed to operate in Arctic conditions
- not to mention the all the rhetoric coming from Russia like when "expedition leader Artur Chilingarov made a series of eye-catching claims at the time, such as: 'the Arctic has always been Russian and will remain so."
Could this be a sign that Russia has decided its case for territorial expansion into the Arctic is not as strong as it may have thought? Reasonably there must be a pretty good reason for Russia taking a step back from its claim to such a resource rich area. Maybe the time has come to change tactics and challenge Russia on what it isn't saying rather than what it has been saying.
Just a thought...
- blenCOWe
Apparently this is Russia's stance on the Arctic, according to the Russian envoy to the Arctic Council. Funny enough though, this appears to contradict Russia's recent track record when it comes to the Arctic.
The short list of relevant events can be as follows:
- the expedition that planted the Russian Flag on the North Pole
- the recent, and noticeable, change in military activity like flyovers by Russian airplanes that have been approaching US and Canadian airspace
- Russia's announcement that it will create a military unit designed to operate in Arctic conditions
- not to mention the all the rhetoric coming from Russia like when "expedition leader Artur Chilingarov made a series of eye-catching claims at the time, such as: 'the Arctic has always been Russian and will remain so."
Could this be a sign that Russia has decided its case for territorial expansion into the Arctic is not as strong as it may have thought? Reasonably there must be a pretty good reason for Russia taking a step back from its claim to such a resource rich area. Maybe the time has come to change tactics and challenge Russia on what it isn't saying rather than what it has been saying.
Just a thought...
- blenCOWe
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Playing Both Sides
The BBC is reporting today that Russia will be buying unmanned drones from Israel. The Russians apparently were so impressed with the Israeli drones in action during the conflict in Georgia this past August.
Normally, a transaction like this would not be out of the ordinary, they happen all the time. Canada does this all the time to meet its equipment demands. The difference with this situation is where Israel receives its support from. Each year Israel gets $300 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. So in effect, the military aid that the United States provides to Israel will be used to help supply the Russians.
Now I am not one to exaggerate any lingering Cold War tensions but considering the Russians and the Americans have been at odds recently over plans for a missile shield as well as during the Georgian conflict, I don't know that the United States would be too happy about this. Now they might not come right out and say this but let's be real. Russia is a rising power again; an energy giant intent of re-establishing its place in the international hierarchy that diminished at the end of the 1980s. Russia is doing a lot of posturing lately that should make observers a bit unnerved. Of late, Russia has stepped on some toes in regards to the Arctic; re-establishing Cold War era patterns of activity in Arctic airspace as well as ruffling feathers with the connections it is making with leaders like Hugo Chavez.
The reason that all of this is worrisome is because of the effect that this could have on the rest of the world. A war between two great powers is the last thing this world needs, especially when both possess the majority of nuclear weapons in this world.
Hmmm... another Israeli action that could threaten international peace and security!
- blenCOWe
Normally, a transaction like this would not be out of the ordinary, they happen all the time. Canada does this all the time to meet its equipment demands. The difference with this situation is where Israel receives its support from. Each year Israel gets $300 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. So in effect, the military aid that the United States provides to Israel will be used to help supply the Russians.
Now I am not one to exaggerate any lingering Cold War tensions but considering the Russians and the Americans have been at odds recently over plans for a missile shield as well as during the Georgian conflict, I don't know that the United States would be too happy about this. Now they might not come right out and say this but let's be real. Russia is a rising power again; an energy giant intent of re-establishing its place in the international hierarchy that diminished at the end of the 1980s. Russia is doing a lot of posturing lately that should make observers a bit unnerved. Of late, Russia has stepped on some toes in regards to the Arctic; re-establishing Cold War era patterns of activity in Arctic airspace as well as ruffling feathers with the connections it is making with leaders like Hugo Chavez.
The reason that all of this is worrisome is because of the effect that this could have on the rest of the world. A war between two great powers is the last thing this world needs, especially when both possess the majority of nuclear weapons in this world.
Hmmm... another Israeli action that could threaten international peace and security!
- blenCOWe
Friday, November 21, 2008
A Look to the Past for a Solution for the Future
So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
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
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Big Step for Kosovo
Kosovo's succession gained another supporter today when the International Monetary Fund recognized its separation from Serbia and will now go through the membership application process.
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
