The Supreme Court of Pakistan has disqualified Nawaz Sharif after the Panama Papers verdict. The Pakistani Prime Minister had for a longtime had vast influence over the political system and it seemed that he was not going any where soon. His children and himself were facing charges of corruption that escalated over the past two years. There were previous attempts to have him step down, specifically with Imran Khan and the Pakistan Movement of Justice. This sudden turn of events could destabilize the region. This is not the first time Sharif fell from power. The coup of 1999 saw Musharraf Pervez come to power. There are rumors that his brother could take over, but he also is accused of corruption. Nawaz Sharif could not explain how certain funds were amassed to his as well as his family's accounts. If he had remained there could have been street protests, but there may still be as Pakistanis lose faith in their government. This has implications beyond Pakistani borders. An unstable Pakistan could jeopardize the China Pakistan Economic Corridor and the New Silk Road project. Afghanistan would feel after shocks with a Taliban still active and undefeated. India could benefit the most from a weakened Pakistan, because at the moment India seems to be interested in increasing its power. This does not mean it wants to challenge its traditional enemy Pakistan, but conflate border issues with China. Soon if not already, the Indian Ocean will be a point of conflict. China has in its foreign policy been more supportive of Pakistan. The change in leadership holds a level of uncertainty and fear when analyzing other regional sources of contention.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Friday, July 14, 2017
Sunday, July 2, 2017
World Leader Profile: Yoweri Museveni
Yoweri Museveni is the current president of Uganda. He has held the office since 1986. His presidency has been described as authoritarian by some observers, yet there has been some stability in a country know to have internal strife. Uganda will certainly become more of important power in Africa. This could be as positive development depending on the decisions of President Museveni. Involvement in Sudan, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and more of the East African region proves to be problematic. These efforts are not out of cross continental solidarity or security, but to extend Ugandan influence. Far from being a Pan-Africanist supporter, he may espouse such sentiments when it suits his government politically. Yoweri Museveni was active in insurrections against the governments of Milton Obote and Idi Amin. When these two leaders were deposed Museveni vowed that Uganda would never fall in to instability again. Using the tumult of past regimes as a justification for extended rule, it almost appears as if he will become president of life. Currently serving his fifth term, opposition cannot organize effective political counters. As a politician he skillful at maintaining power and control. When he was a warlord he mastered the art of survival. The local and international political landscape changes rapidly, yet Yoweri Museveni is able to remain the face of Uganda. This African leader has been a permanent fixture for 31 years and still remains a mysterious figure. Questions and rumors circulate about his background and involvement in regional conflicts.
Yoweri Museveni was born in 1944. There have been claims that his birth date may not be accurate. The issue surrounding this is regards to an age requirement for the Ugandan presidency. The age limit is 75 and at that age a candidate can no longer run for reelection. The Ugandan constitution is subject to change however. Yoweri Museveni has stated that he does not know the exact date of his birth. The reason for this were that his parents were illiterate and thus could not write or document the date of his birth. Southwaest Uganda was not as developed and records or birth certificates may not have been widely distributed in the 1940s. It was clear even in his youth he was anticipating a political career. When attending the University of Dar es Salaam he studied law, political science, and economics. After graduating he would later become an officer in the General Service Unit in 1970. This was the Milton Obote period and Uganda was still trying to recover from British imperialism including economic challenges. Another problem was the increasing power of the Ugandan military. The GSU was formed to prevent overreach of their legally defined powers. They failed to prevent the rise of a military government and in 1971 Idi Amin came to power. The coup forced Museveni into exile and from that point on he plotted to become leader of Uganda.
Yoweri Museveni was born in 1944. There have been claims that his birth date may not be accurate. The issue surrounding this is regards to an age requirement for the Ugandan presidency. The age limit is 75 and at that age a candidate can no longer run for reelection. The Ugandan constitution is subject to change however. Yoweri Museveni has stated that he does not know the exact date of his birth. The reason for this were that his parents were illiterate and thus could not write or document the date of his birth. Southwaest Uganda was not as developed and records or birth certificates may not have been widely distributed in the 1940s. It was clear even in his youth he was anticipating a political career. When attending the University of Dar es Salaam he studied law, political science, and economics. After graduating he would later become an officer in the General Service Unit in 1970. This was the Milton Obote period and Uganda was still trying to recover from British imperialism including economic challenges. Another problem was the increasing power of the Ugandan military. The GSU was formed to prevent overreach of their legally defined powers. They failed to prevent the rise of a military government and in 1971 Idi Amin came to power. The coup forced Museveni into exile and from that point on he plotted to become leader of Uganda.
Museveni then went on to form the Front for the National Salvation of Uganda. Camps were active inside the country to undermine the Amin regime. FRONSA was formed in 1972 and Museveni was the most recognizable figure of opposition. Idi Amin's regime collapsed in 1979 when Tanzania waged war. FRONSA was also fighting intensely during the conflict. Yoweri Museveni was able to get a government post as defense minister under the Yusuf Lule government. The interim government under Lule was fragile and it was a matter of time that conflict would erupt once more. Yusuf Lule's successor was less capable at solving the issues surrounding political factionalism. Godfrey Binasia was the next leader of Uganda and was also fearful of Museveni's rise. Yoweri Museveni was then removed as defense minister and made minister of regional cooperation. The year 1980 was a major shift in the Ugandan political landscape. The government of Binasia was replaced with a Military Commission under the supervision of Paul Muwanga. Yoweri Museveni was then promoted to vice chairman. Elections were held and Milton Obote returned to the country. Obote would return to power, but political disagreements and general discord did not disappear. Allegations of electoral fraud and vote rigging were rampant. Museveni wanted to seize power and by 1981 he formed another guerrilla resistance movement. The National Resistance Movement and the armed group National Resistance Army would continue to fight the second Obote government throughout the 1980s. The Obote government would fall again this time from a coup by General Tito Okello. Yoweri Museveni thought it would be better to seek collaboration with the new administration. A peace pact was signed in December of 1985 with the hope the two leaders could form a unity government.
The ambitions of Yoweri Museveni were too great to share power. He was now at a position to take power and nothing was going to stand in his way. Museveni was able to remain a survivor through a combination of force and deceptive tactics. The National Resistance Army under Museveni fought the Ugandan army and took Kampala by force in 1986. He then went about presenting an image of peace maker, offering reconciliation to formerly opposed groups. This false olive branch did not convince the other armed groups opposed to his rule. Limited elections were allowed in 1989, but full national elections were not permitted until 1995. Opposition by 1990 was so marginalized that it was no longer a threat to his rule. When presidential elections occurred in 1996. no candidate could defeat or pose a serious challenge.
Armed rebellion continued even with Museveni firmly in control. Sometimes Museveni's actions contributed to violence outside its borders. When Museveni expelled Rwandan troops from the Ugandan military, they went on to join the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The RPF would then go onto fight the government of Juvenal Habyarimana in 1994. The result of his assassination would lead to war and genocide in Rwanda. The Lord's Resistance Army has been a persistent adversary with the Museveni government. The group based in Sudan has since the mid-2000s lost much of its fighting power. Mainly this is because Sudan broke into two countries in 2011. The complexities of Sudan and South Sudan conflict as well as the Neur and Dinka conflict only undermines the Lord's Resistance Army's fighting strength. To compensate the group has spread to neighboring states. The West Nile Bank Front also is an internal concern for Yoweri Museveni. The West Nile is not completely under control. Another armed group fighting the government is the Allied Democratic Forces. They are mostly based in the Ruwenzori Mountains. So far none of these armed groups have accomplished their goal of removing Museveni. They do not collaborate in combat and obviously have separate objectives. Yoweri Museveni can use these armed insurgencies as an excuse to rule continuously. His term limits could either be extended or he could become president for life. Museveni has a powerful military on his side and has a background in armed conflict. Museveni also intervened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early stages of their civil war in 1998. This was mostly in the eastern region of the DRC. Museveni aligned with Rwanda against President Laurent Kabila. The Tutsi population was in full scale insurrection. Yoweri Museveni justified the invention saying it was designed to protect borders and lives. The reality was that it was an attempt to remove Laurent Kabila from power.
What Museveni saw in the Tutsi rebels was a means of extending his reach and simultaneously fighting armed groups opposed to him from abroad. The Second Congolese Civil War would be one of Africa's most brutal conflicts Museveni even at one point came close to conflict with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. Both Rwandan and Ugandan units began exchanging fire. The issues between the two countries were resolved in 2002. This incident made Yoweri Museveni realize there were dangers of being too involved in the affairs of neighbors. Museveni then decided to sign a peace agreement with President Joseph Kabila, which allowed for the withdraw of Ugandan troops. By 2003 most of the Ugandan troops were removed and the conflicted ended that same year. This intervention could hardly be seen as a victory. Most of the armed groups that Museveni want to eradicate remained active and he was unable to depose the Kabilas. While President Museveni does not like opposition the armed groups to serve to legitimize his authoritarian political tactics.
There are many ways that Yoweri Museveni has been able to survive politically. President Museveni appeals to the youth of Uganda by engaging in the latest trends. He released his own rap song specifically targeting young voters in the last election. Yoweri Museveni also has his own Twitter account which maintains thousands of followers. The use of social media and adopting youth culture ensures limited opposition in the future. Museveni wants to maintain his rule by presenting himself as a reformer, but still has the same authoritarian tendencies. Multiparty elections were held in 2003 mainly to placate US and European Union critics. Uganda at this time was moving closer to a western orbit. A persistent challenge internally was coming from Kizza Besigye. He challenged Museveni in 2001 and came out of exile from the US in 2005. Museveni realizing how much of threat he was to his rule and amended the constitution. When the 2006 election occurred the outcome was apparent. Besigye lost again, but there were allegations of electoral fraud, intimidation, and violence. Kizza Besigye has faced jail time mainly for being opposed to the Museveni presidency. A constant political activist he was involved in the walk to work protests over increasing food and fuel prices. Besigye and Museveni were once allies when fighting the Obote government in the 1980s. This seems to be a cycle in Ugandan politics. A longtime leader clinging to power, which induces armed uprisings. It seems that Museveni over the decades has morphed into another version of Idi Amin. Being involved in the inner workings of Ugandan politics for so long, Yoweri Museveni has learned to manipulate the political system. Amending the constitution, being unclear about a successor, and blaming armed insurgencies for all of Uganda's problems protects his political power. The system of governance known as the Movement system was Museveni's version of democracy in which individuals would compete for office based on merit. This system was basically officials competing for his favor and blessings. While Yoweri Museveni's electoral victories are guaranteed, his relations with the West are not. Coming into his third term US and EU leaders began to become more critical. Aid and diplomatic relations were deteriorating.
Yoweri Museveni was at one time seen by the West as a model leader. The reason for this thinking was that countries like the UK and US thought they had a leader they could easily manipulate. Former colonizer of Uganda, the UK wanted to reestablish ties to a land that was once under its domination. The UK provided aid, but reduced it after the 2006 election controversy. President Bill Clinton provided aid to Museveni during his administration in the 1990s. It was actually the Ronald Reagan administration that was the first to embrace the Museveni presidency. President Clinton even said that Museveni was a "new breed of leader." The US and UK were well aware of the atrocities that Yoweri Museveni committed during his forceful take over of the government. It is estimated that at least 500,000 people died in the five year war prior to 1986. At the end of the Cold War the US wanted to have a strong foothold in Africa. This meant keeping close alliances with leaders who were in line with US foreign policy objectives. The reason the United States continues to remain close to Yoweri Museveni is because of Al-Shabab in Somalia. He is seen as a reliable leader in the fight against the terrorist organization. However, it has been alleged that Ugandan officers were selling weapons to Al-Shabab in 2014. Since the Arab Spring and the subsequent refugee crisis, President Yoweri Museveni has formulated another foreign policy direction. If the West is not reliable or helpful to him he can always back armed groups across various borders. If external criticism becomes to much of an irritant he merely can look abroad.
Yoweri Museveni has a larger regional and international political ambition. He wants Uganda to become a First World economy. Corruption within the National Resistance Movement has halted this. Although the discovery of oil could lead to new economic opportunities, it could make the country a target for Western intervention. The resource does give Uganda a level of power, but basing an economy off of one finite natural resource could lead to future economic turmoil. Through the years Uganda has engaged in military intervention and it is clear it has a regional purpose. Yoweri Museveni dreams of an East Africa federation. He normally explains this in the context of Pan-African ideology. However this is not to promote unity, cooperation, or peace across the continent. Uganda would serve as a leader in this East African federation with neighboring states being either subordinates or followers to the Ugandan core. This to an extent is being experimented with in South Sudan, with a heavy Ugandan troop presence.
The alliance with South Sudanese President Salva Kiir is the start of a possible implementation of Museveni's dream of an East African federation. His support for President Kiir will bring him in to conflict with President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan. Kenya and Sudan may not approve of such aggressive and what some believe reckless decisions. Just like in the Second Congolese Civil War, Museveni is taking sides in South Sudan's civil war. Yoweri Museveni needs military equipment, weapons, and supplies to remain involved in various conflicts. One place it got military aid was from North Korea. The relations with North Korea go back as far as 1963. Since 2007 North Korea has provided instructors for training programmes for Ugandan army and police forces. North Korea would sell weapons to Uganda and both nations had security agreements. This agreement would collapse under Kim Jung Un. The reason could have been due to the UN sanctions in regards to North Korean nuclear weapons tests. The Ugandan government claimed they did this because they valued nuclear non-proliferation. South Korea could have been more responsible for this outcome, providing Uganda with a much more attractive aid package. Former President Park Geun Hye was able to negotiate this during her East Africa tour in 2016. It is uncertain how South Korean policy will change under a new administration, since her fall from power. South Korea reaching out to Uganda was done as early as 2013 to undermine the North Korean position in Africa.
Yoweri Museveni no matter what happened between North Korea and South Korea would still benefit. International tension elsewhere can provide new opportunities for Yoweri Museveni to legitimize his long term rule and policies. The revived tension between Europe and Russia means that these countries will competing for influence around the world. Yoweri Museveni can go to either Russia or China if the West attempts to isolate him. So, far he avoided the pariah state label mostly due to the fact the Bush administration considered him an ally in the War on Terror. Africa was unfortunately swept up in the American policy of perpetual warfare with the Trans-Saharan Counter-terrorism Initiative. With the NATO invasion of Libya and the collapse of the Amadou Toure government in Mali, the West is looking for leaders to keep certain areas stable. Yoweri Museveni has gained more power from the chaos that followed western military intervention. He took advantage of this condemning the invasion of Libya as attempt to reinforce his Pan-African credentials. The real intent was to show that he was a strong leader and never would be submissive to European powers. Always a calculating politician, he knows how to out maneuver his foes. His foreign policy has shifted from a west to east direction, while getting more involved in the affairs of neighboring states.
Yoweri Museveni's fifth term will not be his last. His rule has been so long that he has become the face of Uganda. His supporters claim that under his leadership Uganda is functional. There are prices that have been paid under a stern leadership. The persecution of the Acholi, a Christian fundamentalist fanaticism resulting in anti-LGBT legislation, and wars across borders have caused harm to thousands. It would seem such war crimes and abuses of power would result in an uprising. Removal would bring various complications. Ethnic and political conflict could breakout. A long term civil war could follow resulting in a failed state. The only solution is for Uganda to have a peaceful transfer of power. There have been too many violent overthrows of previous governments and coups. Sparking another incident would only repeat previous cycles. Yoweri Museveni has shown he is a political and military survivor. His removal would only become another chance for the West to establish a puppet state. If Museveni is to be challenged it has to be done by Ugandans who no longer see his leadership as legitimate. Yoweri Museveni now holds office, but still understands there is still opposition within the National Resistance Movement Party. This could be more perilous than armed insurgencies or external interventions. The internal threat coming within his party requires him to reinvent himself continuously to appeal to a generation that does not remember the past. For now, Yoweri Museveni 's position remains secure.
References
Arnold, Guy. Civil Wars in Africa . Toronto: The Scare Crow Press Inc , 2008.
"Uganda Halts Military Alliance with North Korea amid Talks with South." Enca.com. N.p., 30 May 2016. Web. 02 July 2017. <http://www.enca.com/africa/uganda-halts-military-alliance-with-north-korea-amid-talks-with-south>.
Yoweri Museveni - Uganda's President Profiled." BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 July 2017. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12421747>.
Epstein, Helen. "Uganda: The General Challenges The Dictator." The New York Review of Books. The New York Review of Books, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 02 July 2017. <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/04/24/uganda-general-challenges-dictator/>.
Imaka, Issac. "As Elections Sweep Africa, Uganda Stands out." Miamiherald. Miami Herald, 13 June 2015. Web. 02 July 2017. <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article24054751.html>.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
President Uhuru Kenyatta Appeals to G7 Leaders to Enhance Partnership with African Countries
President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to see more Western investment in Kenya and across the African continent. The G7 African Session Summit was the platform make this appeal to counter challenges such as immigration, climate change, and terrorism . The emphasis was on partnership, not dependency. However, given the economic and political situation, African states could fall into a new status of dependency. The NATO war on Libya, the Trans-Saharan counter-terrorism initiative, and the War on Terror have weakened the continent by acts of aggression. These actions are disguised imperialism in which the France, the UK, and the United States can advance geopolitical agendas. While the positive development of innovation and technological advancement is exciting, it must be done under African guidance, not a European assisted program. There are security challenges which include Al-Shabab, ISIS, and Boko Haram, but these entities emerged due to European foreign policy. The largest threat to Africa and the wider world is the prospect of humanitarian intervention, which will result in endless warfare. The reason a select number of African leaders are going to be invited to the G7 is to ensure that they do not develop economic independence. No African head of state should accept such offerings, but instead seek to challenge the European dominated economic order. President Kenyatta must take all factors into consideration and be suspicious of promised made by the G7. Real investment starts with educating the youth, building infrastructure, and creating a currency that can challenge both the dollar and the euro.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
South Africa and Tanzania Look to Establish Stronger Cooperation
Tanzania is looking to establish stronger relations with South Africa, while obtaining a loan from BRICS. President Jacob Zuma met with President John Magufuli in a state visit to discuss economic and political matters of concern. A number of agreements were signed and a Binational Commission established. Both presidents will become chairs. Tanzania wants investment, but South Africa has shown it has financial problem of its own. These two countries are encouraging private sector investments, but fail to see the importance of of the public sector. If both countries want to see the advancement of their peoples social policies such as education, healthcare, and jobs should be top priority. These countries have a legacy of socialism as represented by the ANC and Chama Cha Mapindauzi. However, they have adopted centre-left politics and adopted neoliberal capitalist practice as a path way to development. This will not work given the present circumstances. The solution has to be a new model of thought specifically designed to solve African problems. The positive element about this is that African countries are collaborating, which means a stronger continent as a whole.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Is World Peace Attainable?
Conflict is a constant factor in human history. Warfare has devastated many lands and populations. Society has advanced technologically, socially, and politically, yet humanity cannot live in peace. There are numerous factors why war starts. The desire for resources, belligerent governments, ethnic and racial hatreds are the major factors. There also is a major economic incentive, which as formed a vast military industrial complex that profits from destruction. The United Nations which proclaims itself to be the supporter of international law, authorizes aggression and continues to be dominated by major world powers. Aggression is now disguise under the cover of humanitarian intervention. Some still maintain that world peace can be attainable in the distant future. They believe that if there are governments that respect rights and the rule of law this would reduce tension around the world. However, the absence of war does not mean peace in society. The world functions on conflict and there is limited chance it shall cease. Society is full of racial and class struggle. Oppression, racism, and reduced social mobility create a void of discord in various communities. When examined from this perspective world peace cannot be attained simply because of the discontent that festers internally with nation states. Another dynamic is that every nation wants to compete for global influence and dominance that would inevitably lead to confrontation. International power politics is the system in which the world functions and it could ultimately result in the eradication of human civilization itself. Pacifism has been suggested as a solution to problem of chronic international violence, but in terms of praxis not feasible.
The arms industry has become a lucrative business. The export of weapons and their production has been tied so deeply that it is causing instability. Arms find their way to conflict zones enabling warring parties to inflict damage. The United States, China, and Russia are major powers that distribute arms around the world. Other countries are attempting to catch up in the global arms trade. The United States is a fascinating example due to the fact it evolved a military-industrial complex. Business and the US military have converged in a common interest of profit. The US military, Pentagon, and the Department of Defense employs many people and if a permanent peace were to come their services would no longer be needed. The arms industry is dependent on constant conflict. The end of the Cold War made it seem as if the arms industry would be troubled by a world of reduced tension. However, new threats were either imagined or new wars were induced. The Gulf War gave the US a new imperialistic mission : be the enforcer and policeman of the world. Invading authoritarian regimes was not enough to justify aggressive war; it had to be presented in the context of human rights. This was a falsehood that benefited the arms industry. When the War on Terrorism was declared by the Bush administration, this was essentially a license for perpetual warfare. Lockeed Martin and Boeing were the two corporations that had the most to gain from the September 11th attacks. Planes, tanks, and new drone technologies make the arms industry a billion dollar business. The irony is that many guns and weapons fall into the hands of the terrorist organizations that the US claims to be fighting. There is always some existential threat that is manufactured to justify the creation of more lethal weapons. This is but one part of the economic dynamic that stops peace.
There are economic and resource related factors for conflict. The prevalent source is for fossil fuel . Oil and natural gas are sought after by various nations even though it is a finite resource. This reliance on such fuels will one day become obsolete due to technological advancements. However, the companies that are involved in the oil and gas industry do not want to accept this fact. The control of fossil fuel and which nations they reside in has been a major source of war. Nations that are rich in natural resources are targeted by Europe and the majority of the West for military action. This pattern of behavior goes back to the age of European colonial empires. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium colonies various ares in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. When they arrived and embarked on conquest they extracted the natural resources of various lands without developing the colonized areas. When a wave of national liberation movements emerged in the Third World, many attained political independence, but not economic independence. There were factories and industries still owned and operated by the vary same countries that were former colonizers. There were attempts and some success of gaining economic independence. Libya was able to use oil revenue to fund development projects under Muammar Qaddafi. Singapore under Lee Quan Yew instituted a level of protectionism and emerged as an economically powerful nation. China went through a period of radical change under Mao Zedong and after a rapid shift toward economic liberalization. Non-Western countries that become economically competitive will either be demonized or attacked. When countries of the global south attempt to beak free of a Western directed economic system they face the threat of violence. The wars waged in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia are connected to the fact major world powers are fighting for control of oil and natural gas reserves. The US and China are in this contest of control. This explains why the West seems alarmed about China's foreign policy in Africa and abroad. The consumption of numerous natural resources continues to increase for these two nations.
Neo-liberal capitalism cannot be compatible with world peace. This dominant economic system requires the rapid expansion of new markets. Vladimir Lenin stated that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. Colonized subjects provide a cheap labor force, which therefore enhances profit maximization. A free independent nation-state will not be subject to a conquering power. While colonization has ended, nations such as the US, UK, and France seek to have nations of the global south economically dependent. The nations of the global south that do not have the wealth of the West either have to turn to the International Monetary Fund or World Bank for assistance. Structural Adjustment Programs are implemented to make a particular nation more suitable for foreign investment. The problem is that social services are cut in terms of education and healthcare, while loans are difficult to pay off. When global south nations look to other nations such as Russia and China they could face forms of economic and diplomatic isolation. The neo-liberal capitalist system demands that there should be no alternatives to the free market. If it demonstrates that it can provide for people better than what it can do, the credibility is damaged. Yugoslavia a federal socialist republic was dismantled not solely due to ethnic strife, but by the US, Germany, UK, and France who did not want to see an economic alternative. Instead of being mediators in the conflict they aided its collapse during a period of civil war. This culminated in the bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Yugoslavia ceased to exist by 2003. The democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia although not as fanatic about neo-liberal capitalist policies, were more so reformers rather that being in favor of a restructuring of the economic system. New markets will not open unless military force is applied. The Eurasian landmass has not been fully exploited. The Central Asian states and Russia itself remain untapped areas for neo-liberal capitalist projects. The Soviet Union no longer exists,yet Russia is being viewed as an international threat. The sudden attention and the subsequent sanctions are designed to weaken Russia enough to make it proper for foreign investment by Western powers. Dismantling Russia would allow for greater access to the oil and natural gas of Central Asia. if tariffs were adjusted US and other Western products could be sold in these territories. The desire to open new markets will cause war. Neo-liberal capitalism cannot survive without war or some form of conflict. This drives consumption and profits favoring the business elite.
Hate is a destructive emotion. Racism and ethnic tension continue to cause disturbances globally and locally. The horrible combination of both hate and aggressive nationalism have cause major confrontations. World War II saw immense destruction driven by an ideology of intolerance and aggression. Fascism by its nature believed that were nations to be conquered and their superior rulers . Although such an ideology has been rejected in the mainstream political discourse, its remnants still live. Terms that are used such as "the civilized world" and "uncivilized world" demonstrates the social darwinist philosophy. This term is used in relation to certain regions, such as the Middle East. The West wants to believe that it is the most advanced and superior form of civilization. This ignores that historical fact that Africa, Asia, and Latin America have civilizations that are far more ancient. The nations of Europe and the United States operate their foreign policy in the context of white supremacist agenda. No African, Asian, or South American country should be allowed to peacefully rise or assert its national sovereignty. The nations that are in compliance with Western objectives are either protected or shielded from certain abuses that would otherwise be criticized by various international bodies. Israel continues to violate basic human rights of the Palestinian people. The UN does not sanction the country nor pass harsh resolutions condemning war crimes in the Gaza Strip. While there is a war being waged by the West on the global south , there are also ethnic conflicts within particular nations. South Sudan has conflict between the Nuer and Dinka. Myanmar has been in a state of civil war among its ethnic groups. The Rohingya are being persecuted seeking safety in Bangladesh. The Arab, Kurdish, and Persian ethnic hatreds further fuel conflict in the Middle East. The hate becomes so pervasive it also morphs into hate against a different culture. This strife can be explained by ancient civilizations, European imperialism, and the artificial boundaries that were from from previous time periods. The rise of ethnic nationalism makes it impossible to accept others into a new state. Civic nationalism seems to be more accepting of different ethnic groups, because it puts emphasis on the principles of the state rather than race. The problem with ethnic nationalism is that it will foment hatred of the other. The tension between Hutus and Tutsis in both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo demonstrate the destructive force of ethnic nationalism. Genocide and civil war were the product of that hatred. Ethnic cleansing has been done in the Balkans, Turkey , Myanmar, and parts of the former Soviet Union. Ethnic conflict continues to destabilize South Asia in the context of the long standing Indo-Pakistani conflict. Aggressive nationalism and intolerance are the main causes of war in the modern world.
The world functions on a system of international power politics. This system is a contest in which each nation of the world competes for some form of dominance. The struggle is for political, cultural, and economic influence. Smaller nations which are not as powerful either seek to become dominant in their own region, rather than internationally. Weaker ones in terms of economic and military power tend to align with a stronger nation as a form of security. This vicious competition between nations further increases the chances for mass global conflict and wars of proxy. Rival alliance systems are a threat to peace, which forces nations to choose a side of foreign policy alignment. The end of World War II the world was divided into three blocks. There was the First World consisting of the Western democracies, which were in conflict with the Second World communist states. The Third World consisted of the former colonies of the European colonial empires. The Third World was in a struggle to maintain its independence, while the rivalry between the US and U.S.S.R was for control of the world. When World War II ended there was a spirit of cooperation between the US, U.S.S.R, France, China, and Great Britain. The United Nations was founded on the basis of preserving peace and upholding international law. These ideals were destroyed mainly because the mindset of the most powerful nations did not change. International power politics was still in place and the US and U.S.S.R let the wartime alliance deteriorate. Nations are driven by the desire for power and this will cause friction. The US remains the sole superpower after the Soviet collapse, but this has cause other complications. The US wants to maintain sole dominance and that has cause numerous reactions. Russia and China are reacting to this viewing it as an act of belligerence. They have also become engaged in boosting their military power in response to the United States. Nations should not compete with each other in such a manner. This antiquated system is the product of past empires both ancient and 19th century based. The contemporary world is the product of globalization and is more interconnected than ever. If there is a serious desire for stability and security nations from all over the world must collaborate. If not, then another violent world conflict will be unavoidable.
World peace considering historical and sociological factors is not attainable. It is a goal in terms of foreign policy that is unrealistic. If there is no internal peace in a nation-state, then proposing such an agenda does not seem likely. Countries like Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia , Libya, and South Sudan are in states of civil war or failed state status. It attracts foreign states who either intervene and cause more damage and instability. The United Nations has failed every time to prevent abuse from major world powers. This demonstrates a level of weakness and hypocrisy the institution has been facing for the past half century. It seems that the military industrial complex has become global with an ever growing arms trade. The fight against international terrorism has been used as a justification on fighting wars all over the world. This obviously cannot be done due to the fact terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism can never be fully eliminated and that is not the desired goal. Neo-liberal capitalism needs the military industrial complex and new markets to opened by aggression to survive. The cycle of warfare and avarice continues with the business elite and their interest. The unfortunate reality is that most of the public is convinced that war can be humanitarian. Such violent acts are referred to as liberation or promotion of democracy. This clever public relations method plays on ignorance and emotion to get the US public to support conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia. Humanitarian intervention is another example of imperialism updating itself and presenting a more acceptable face. This does not disguise that same brutality and atrocities that occur regularly.The mainstream media either ignores or promotes the war agenda. Seeing as this is the only source of information for some individuals it distorts their thinking. Political leaders are also persuaded as well. The world is explained in terms of simple binary opposition in the context of good versus evil. A simplistic view creates perilous results. The pursuit of power has caused much devastation. World peace is not attainable, but the reduction of conflict is possible.It can only happen with a radical change in foreign policy thought.
The arms industry has become a lucrative business. The export of weapons and their production has been tied so deeply that it is causing instability. Arms find their way to conflict zones enabling warring parties to inflict damage. The United States, China, and Russia are major powers that distribute arms around the world. Other countries are attempting to catch up in the global arms trade. The United States is a fascinating example due to the fact it evolved a military-industrial complex. Business and the US military have converged in a common interest of profit. The US military, Pentagon, and the Department of Defense employs many people and if a permanent peace were to come their services would no longer be needed. The arms industry is dependent on constant conflict. The end of the Cold War made it seem as if the arms industry would be troubled by a world of reduced tension. However, new threats were either imagined or new wars were induced. The Gulf War gave the US a new imperialistic mission : be the enforcer and policeman of the world. Invading authoritarian regimes was not enough to justify aggressive war; it had to be presented in the context of human rights. This was a falsehood that benefited the arms industry. When the War on Terrorism was declared by the Bush administration, this was essentially a license for perpetual warfare. Lockeed Martin and Boeing were the two corporations that had the most to gain from the September 11th attacks. Planes, tanks, and new drone technologies make the arms industry a billion dollar business. The irony is that many guns and weapons fall into the hands of the terrorist organizations that the US claims to be fighting. There is always some existential threat that is manufactured to justify the creation of more lethal weapons. This is but one part of the economic dynamic that stops peace.
There are economic and resource related factors for conflict. The prevalent source is for fossil fuel . Oil and natural gas are sought after by various nations even though it is a finite resource. This reliance on such fuels will one day become obsolete due to technological advancements. However, the companies that are involved in the oil and gas industry do not want to accept this fact. The control of fossil fuel and which nations they reside in has been a major source of war. Nations that are rich in natural resources are targeted by Europe and the majority of the West for military action. This pattern of behavior goes back to the age of European colonial empires. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium colonies various ares in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. When they arrived and embarked on conquest they extracted the natural resources of various lands without developing the colonized areas. When a wave of national liberation movements emerged in the Third World, many attained political independence, but not economic independence. There were factories and industries still owned and operated by the vary same countries that were former colonizers. There were attempts and some success of gaining economic independence. Libya was able to use oil revenue to fund development projects under Muammar Qaddafi. Singapore under Lee Quan Yew instituted a level of protectionism and emerged as an economically powerful nation. China went through a period of radical change under Mao Zedong and after a rapid shift toward economic liberalization. Non-Western countries that become economically competitive will either be demonized or attacked. When countries of the global south attempt to beak free of a Western directed economic system they face the threat of violence. The wars waged in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia are connected to the fact major world powers are fighting for control of oil and natural gas reserves. The US and China are in this contest of control. This explains why the West seems alarmed about China's foreign policy in Africa and abroad. The consumption of numerous natural resources continues to increase for these two nations.
Neo-liberal capitalism cannot be compatible with world peace. This dominant economic system requires the rapid expansion of new markets. Vladimir Lenin stated that imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. Colonized subjects provide a cheap labor force, which therefore enhances profit maximization. A free independent nation-state will not be subject to a conquering power. While colonization has ended, nations such as the US, UK, and France seek to have nations of the global south economically dependent. The nations of the global south that do not have the wealth of the West either have to turn to the International Monetary Fund or World Bank for assistance. Structural Adjustment Programs are implemented to make a particular nation more suitable for foreign investment. The problem is that social services are cut in terms of education and healthcare, while loans are difficult to pay off. When global south nations look to other nations such as Russia and China they could face forms of economic and diplomatic isolation. The neo-liberal capitalist system demands that there should be no alternatives to the free market. If it demonstrates that it can provide for people better than what it can do, the credibility is damaged. Yugoslavia a federal socialist republic was dismantled not solely due to ethnic strife, but by the US, Germany, UK, and France who did not want to see an economic alternative. Instead of being mediators in the conflict they aided its collapse during a period of civil war. This culminated in the bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Yugoslavia ceased to exist by 2003. The democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia although not as fanatic about neo-liberal capitalist policies, were more so reformers rather that being in favor of a restructuring of the economic system. New markets will not open unless military force is applied. The Eurasian landmass has not been fully exploited. The Central Asian states and Russia itself remain untapped areas for neo-liberal capitalist projects. The Soviet Union no longer exists,yet Russia is being viewed as an international threat. The sudden attention and the subsequent sanctions are designed to weaken Russia enough to make it proper for foreign investment by Western powers. Dismantling Russia would allow for greater access to the oil and natural gas of Central Asia. if tariffs were adjusted US and other Western products could be sold in these territories. The desire to open new markets will cause war. Neo-liberal capitalism cannot survive without war or some form of conflict. This drives consumption and profits favoring the business elite.
Hate is a destructive emotion. Racism and ethnic tension continue to cause disturbances globally and locally. The horrible combination of both hate and aggressive nationalism have cause major confrontations. World War II saw immense destruction driven by an ideology of intolerance and aggression. Fascism by its nature believed that were nations to be conquered and their superior rulers . Although such an ideology has been rejected in the mainstream political discourse, its remnants still live. Terms that are used such as "the civilized world" and "uncivilized world" demonstrates the social darwinist philosophy. This term is used in relation to certain regions, such as the Middle East. The West wants to believe that it is the most advanced and superior form of civilization. This ignores that historical fact that Africa, Asia, and Latin America have civilizations that are far more ancient. The nations of Europe and the United States operate their foreign policy in the context of white supremacist agenda. No African, Asian, or South American country should be allowed to peacefully rise or assert its national sovereignty. The nations that are in compliance with Western objectives are either protected or shielded from certain abuses that would otherwise be criticized by various international bodies. Israel continues to violate basic human rights of the Palestinian people. The UN does not sanction the country nor pass harsh resolutions condemning war crimes in the Gaza Strip. While there is a war being waged by the West on the global south , there are also ethnic conflicts within particular nations. South Sudan has conflict between the Nuer and Dinka. Myanmar has been in a state of civil war among its ethnic groups. The Rohingya are being persecuted seeking safety in Bangladesh. The Arab, Kurdish, and Persian ethnic hatreds further fuel conflict in the Middle East. The hate becomes so pervasive it also morphs into hate against a different culture. This strife can be explained by ancient civilizations, European imperialism, and the artificial boundaries that were from from previous time periods. The rise of ethnic nationalism makes it impossible to accept others into a new state. Civic nationalism seems to be more accepting of different ethnic groups, because it puts emphasis on the principles of the state rather than race. The problem with ethnic nationalism is that it will foment hatred of the other. The tension between Hutus and Tutsis in both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo demonstrate the destructive force of ethnic nationalism. Genocide and civil war were the product of that hatred. Ethnic cleansing has been done in the Balkans, Turkey , Myanmar, and parts of the former Soviet Union. Ethnic conflict continues to destabilize South Asia in the context of the long standing Indo-Pakistani conflict. Aggressive nationalism and intolerance are the main causes of war in the modern world.
The world functions on a system of international power politics. This system is a contest in which each nation of the world competes for some form of dominance. The struggle is for political, cultural, and economic influence. Smaller nations which are not as powerful either seek to become dominant in their own region, rather than internationally. Weaker ones in terms of economic and military power tend to align with a stronger nation as a form of security. This vicious competition between nations further increases the chances for mass global conflict and wars of proxy. Rival alliance systems are a threat to peace, which forces nations to choose a side of foreign policy alignment. The end of World War II the world was divided into three blocks. There was the First World consisting of the Western democracies, which were in conflict with the Second World communist states. The Third World consisted of the former colonies of the European colonial empires. The Third World was in a struggle to maintain its independence, while the rivalry between the US and U.S.S.R was for control of the world. When World War II ended there was a spirit of cooperation between the US, U.S.S.R, France, China, and Great Britain. The United Nations was founded on the basis of preserving peace and upholding international law. These ideals were destroyed mainly because the mindset of the most powerful nations did not change. International power politics was still in place and the US and U.S.S.R let the wartime alliance deteriorate. Nations are driven by the desire for power and this will cause friction. The US remains the sole superpower after the Soviet collapse, but this has cause other complications. The US wants to maintain sole dominance and that has cause numerous reactions. Russia and China are reacting to this viewing it as an act of belligerence. They have also become engaged in boosting their military power in response to the United States. Nations should not compete with each other in such a manner. This antiquated system is the product of past empires both ancient and 19th century based. The contemporary world is the product of globalization and is more interconnected than ever. If there is a serious desire for stability and security nations from all over the world must collaborate. If not, then another violent world conflict will be unavoidable.
World peace considering historical and sociological factors is not attainable. It is a goal in terms of foreign policy that is unrealistic. If there is no internal peace in a nation-state, then proposing such an agenda does not seem likely. Countries like Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia , Libya, and South Sudan are in states of civil war or failed state status. It attracts foreign states who either intervene and cause more damage and instability. The United Nations has failed every time to prevent abuse from major world powers. This demonstrates a level of weakness and hypocrisy the institution has been facing for the past half century. It seems that the military industrial complex has become global with an ever growing arms trade. The fight against international terrorism has been used as a justification on fighting wars all over the world. This obviously cannot be done due to the fact terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism can never be fully eliminated and that is not the desired goal. Neo-liberal capitalism needs the military industrial complex and new markets to opened by aggression to survive. The cycle of warfare and avarice continues with the business elite and their interest. The unfortunate reality is that most of the public is convinced that war can be humanitarian. Such violent acts are referred to as liberation or promotion of democracy. This clever public relations method plays on ignorance and emotion to get the US public to support conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia. Humanitarian intervention is another example of imperialism updating itself and presenting a more acceptable face. This does not disguise that same brutality and atrocities that occur regularly.The mainstream media either ignores or promotes the war agenda. Seeing as this is the only source of information for some individuals it distorts their thinking. Political leaders are also persuaded as well. The world is explained in terms of simple binary opposition in the context of good versus evil. A simplistic view creates perilous results. The pursuit of power has caused much devastation. World peace is not attainable, but the reduction of conflict is possible.It can only happen with a radical change in foreign policy thought.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Anug Sang Suu Kyi Denies Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing
The human rights icon has now tarnished her reputation by not addressing the Rohingya crisis. Aung Sang Suu Kyi had said in a BBC interview that "she did not believe what has happened could be considered ethnic cleansing. This is obviously not true considering there has been a mass exodus of refugees to Bangladesh. Suu Kyi travels abroad as a de facto head of state continue to demonstrate the problem of her government. While it is clear that political factionalism and military power continue to be obstacles denying racism is still an ethical failure. There continue to be protests against giving the Rohingya citizenship throughout Myanmar. It is dubious whether sanctions could be reimposed on the country if the violence continues. Considering Western nations are attempting to stop Myanmar from falling into a China foreign policy orbit, such actions could induce that. This further complicates other matters in Asia concerning North Korea and the South China Sea dispute. East Asia is gradually being divided by standoffs between the US, China, and Russia. Myanmar will certainly be drawn into one of the rival alliance systems. It could possibly reject this and follow a relatively neutral stance as it did during the Cold War. The Rohingya crisis will certainly be a stain on Suu Kyi's legacy. Failure to address and solve the crisis brings into question her ability to form a new Myanmar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)