There are three aspects of the Syrian imbroglio: First,
what was originally a political struggle has become a
progressively more devastating civil war. Second, those
fighting against the Assad regime have fragmented into
several distinct and contending elements - the Western
and Gulf countries’ backed Syrian National Coalition,
now the weakest of the opposition groups in terms of
fighting ability; a large array of Islamist groups, many
armed and funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,
significant numbers of whom have come together under
two different Islamist fronts; the Nabhat Al Nusrah, an
effective fighting unit largely composed of Syrians but
an affiliate of Al Qaeda; and, the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), an Al Qaeda outfit, consisting
mainly of Iraqis, the most extremist, brutal and effective
fighting unit, whose agenda goes much beyond the mere
removal of Assad and is the establishment of a
fundamentalist Islamist Emirate. The involvement of so
many different groups makes the possibility of any
solution very difficult. Third, the active involvement of
foreign countries – France, Iran, Qatar, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, UK and the US; this has led directly to
Syria getting to the point where it is now. The
enormous complexity of the situation should be self
evident.
Those advocating regime change need to seriously
ponder over the fact that that the internal situation
today in both Iraq and Libya is far worse than it was
when Saddam and Gaddhafi were in power. Intrusive
military interventions by foreign countries in Libya and
Iraq are not examples to be emulated but shunned.
Indeed, externally encouraged efforts towards regime
change in Arab countries must stop forthwith. Given the
current ground realities in Syria and its diverse ethnic
and sectarian makeup, regime change in Syria could
lead to a much worse outcome than in those two
countries, even the breakup of the country with deeply
destabilizing consequences for the Levant as a whole.
In the past year Assad has regained a lot of lost ground.
All other opposition rebels are now spending greater
effort fighting the ISIL considering it a more detestable
and dangerous enemy than the Assad regime. The very
recent Turkish air strike on a convoy of the ISIL and
Premier Erdogan’s visit to Iran suggest that Turkey is
rethinking its policy in Syria. There is increasing
reluctance of Western countries’ to aid rebels fearing
that arms will fall into the hands of extremist groups.
Thus, Assad is much stronger today vis-a-vis both his
domestic and international adversaries than in June
2012 when the first Geneva conference “agreed on
guidelines and principles for a political transition that
meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people”. It
is now increasingly highly unlikely that Assad can be
defeated on the battleground. Therefore, he is hardly
likely to agree to his handing over power in a conference
room. Pursuing regime change now is a no brainer.
Humanitarian issues such as ensuring that aid should
reach the millions in dire distress and urgently attending
to the desperate conditions of the 4 million plus
internally displaced should be accorded top priority. The
second priority must be addressing the growing violence
much of which, for all practical purposes, has now
morphed into pure terrorism. Geneva II can be said to
represent the beginning of a peace process and an
encouraging sign is agreement that the next meeting
will be held starting Feb 10th.
Another hopeful feature of Geneva II was, in the words
of UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, “there is of course
agreement (amongst the fighting entities) that terrorism
…is a very serious problem inside Syria but there's no
agreement on how to deal with it”. Another good omen
is that both sides of internal Syrian conflict observed a
minutes silence together to remember those killed. Now
that a door has been opened, the warring parties within
Syria need to pursue these two issues on a priority
basis. However, the boycott of hard line extremists
suggests that in the unlikely event of any agreement, its
implementation would be sabotaged. This is a risk that
will have to be taken and should not become an excuse
for no action.
Iran was not represented even though the UN Secretary
General had invited it; the invite had to be withdrawn
due to strong US opposition. Iran commands the
greatest influence with Assad; Iran and Russia acting in
tandem are the only two countries that can persuade
Assad to make meaningful compromises. Iran’s
participation therefore is absolutely vital to the success
of any conference on Syria.
An agreement amongst the main players – the patrons
of the different contending parties within Syria: the P- 5,
EU, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - on a common
approach is a prerequisite. Therefore a separate
conference involving them should be held soonest
possible complementing a resumption of the Geneva II
talks on February 10. A priority subject should be taking
on the ISIL and similar extremist groups head on.
8 Jun 2014
SAUDI ARABIA -US ESTRANGEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA SUBCONTINENT
The Arab Spring strongly compounded Saudi Arabia’s
progressively increasing disillusionment with the US
when, to its utter consternation and deep anger, the US
failed to prevent the overthrow of Mubarak, a faithful
ally for more than three decades. US criticism of Gen Al
Sissi’s overthrowing of the Muslim Brotherhood
government of President Morsy and cutting off economic
and military assistance added fuel to the fire.
The West’s holding back of arms supplies to rebels
fighting against the Assad regime in Syria and the US
decision not to take military action against it for
breaching a publicly announced red-line, the use of
chemical weapons, added to Saudi Arabia’s growing
anger. After these disappointments, the sudden opening
of negotiations on the nuclear issue with Iran, the
rapidity with which an interim agreement was reached
and the continuing pursuit of a thaw in relations with
Iran represent in Saudi eyes a willful disregard of its
security concerns and sensitivities. Saudi Arabia has
maintained that no agreement will constrain the nuclear
programme and Iran would still be able to make the
bomb very quickly should it finally decide to do so.
From 2009, Saudi Arabia started sending signals from
the King downwards and has more than once since then
stated publicly that in the event Iran acquires the
capability to make nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will
do so also.
Pakistan-Iran relations have been witnessing a serious
downturn in the past few months – Iran has threatened
military intervention to secure the release of its security
personnel and in the context of the continuing killing of
Shias; Iran has cancelled the much flaunted gas pipeline,
etc. A flurry of exchange of visits between Pakistan and
Saudi Arabia are coincidentally taking place during this
downturn. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud’s sudden
visit to Pakistan in January 2014 followed very soon
thereafter by the new Pakistani Army Chief’s visit to
Saudi Arabia and now Prince Salman choosing Pakistan
as the first country to visit after becoming Crown Prince
and Defence Minister has prompted a lot of speculative
commentary in the Western strategic community. Those
who closely follow Saudi Arabia’s relations with South
Asia believe that the Saudi Arabia-funded Pakistani
nuclear programme and payback time may be
approaching. Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan was
given privileged and complete access to Pakistani
nuclear installations in 1999 (and again in 2002) and
soon thereafter Dr AQ Khan visited Saudi Arabia. US
experts such as Bruce Reidel and Gary Saymore, who
should know, say that a secret and long-standing
agreement exists that Pakistan would provide the
Kingdom with nuclear technology and weapons should
Saudi Arabia feel threatened by a third party nuclear
programme. This would inevitably invite strong
reactions from the US and Iran and would also almost
surely evoke strong opposition from China which would
not want to jeopardise its overarching relationship with
the US for an issue far removed from its core national
interests. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strongly
denied any such intention and also reports that
Pakistan will, at Saudi request, be supplying
sophisticated weapons to rebels in Syria – this would
greatly anger Iran but will hardly make a difference in
Syria. However, both these contingencies are unlikely to
happen.
It is far more likely that these visits are in the context
of the domestic situation in Saudi Arabia. These are
delicate and sensitive times in Saudi Arabia – Crown
Prince Sultan and Crown Prince Nayef passed away in
quick succession in October 2011 and June 2012
respectively; the King is in his mid-nineties and his
health is fragile; Crown Prince Salman’s health is not
particularly robust; Saudi Arabia is approaching
uncharted territory in relation to the succession to the
throne. Massive unemployment, the popular appeal of
the Arab Spring, Sunni Islamic extremism, Shia
restiveness particularly in the oil-rich eastern provinces,
are factors that present serious putative security
concerns. Given the one-of-its-kind rather unique
Saudi-Pakistan relationship, assertively Sunni Pakistan
may be the perfect security partner to help meet internal
threats. Western security partners cannot be used while
Arabs will always be more problematic and risky.
Crown Prince Salman also paid a highly satisfying
three-day visit to India during which an MoU on defence
cooperation was amongst agreements signed which
build upon the relationship spelt out in the Delhi
Declaration of 2006 and the Riyadh Declaration of 2010,
both landmark, path-breaking documents signed
personally by King Abdullah with the Indian Prime
Minister. These established a wide-ranging strategic
partnership. An Indian defence minister had paid a first-
ever visit to Saudi Arabia in 2012. In contrast to
Pakistan, the interaction with India is in the context of
tentative beginnings of a potential reorientation of Saudi
foreign policy to move away from complete and total
dependence on the US. Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi
Foreign Minister, had given a thought provoking speech
in Manama, Bahrain, on 5 December 2004. The subject
was ‘Towards a New Framework for Regional Security’.
He said, inter alia, that "the international component of
the suggested Gulf security framework should engage
positively the emerging Asian powers as well, especially
China and India." Since then, this theme is increasingly
reiterated by leading Saudi personalities.
progressively increasing disillusionment with the US
when, to its utter consternation and deep anger, the US
failed to prevent the overthrow of Mubarak, a faithful
ally for more than three decades. US criticism of Gen Al
Sissi’s overthrowing of the Muslim Brotherhood
government of President Morsy and cutting off economic
and military assistance added fuel to the fire.
The West’s holding back of arms supplies to rebels
fighting against the Assad regime in Syria and the US
decision not to take military action against it for
breaching a publicly announced red-line, the use of
chemical weapons, added to Saudi Arabia’s growing
anger. After these disappointments, the sudden opening
of negotiations on the nuclear issue with Iran, the
rapidity with which an interim agreement was reached
and the continuing pursuit of a thaw in relations with
Iran represent in Saudi eyes a willful disregard of its
security concerns and sensitivities. Saudi Arabia has
maintained that no agreement will constrain the nuclear
programme and Iran would still be able to make the
bomb very quickly should it finally decide to do so.
From 2009, Saudi Arabia started sending signals from
the King downwards and has more than once since then
stated publicly that in the event Iran acquires the
capability to make nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will
do so also.
Pakistan-Iran relations have been witnessing a serious
downturn in the past few months – Iran has threatened
military intervention to secure the release of its security
personnel and in the context of the continuing killing of
Shias; Iran has cancelled the much flaunted gas pipeline,
etc. A flurry of exchange of visits between Pakistan and
Saudi Arabia are coincidentally taking place during this
downturn. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud’s sudden
visit to Pakistan in January 2014 followed very soon
thereafter by the new Pakistani Army Chief’s visit to
Saudi Arabia and now Prince Salman choosing Pakistan
as the first country to visit after becoming Crown Prince
and Defence Minister has prompted a lot of speculative
commentary in the Western strategic community. Those
who closely follow Saudi Arabia’s relations with South
Asia believe that the Saudi Arabia-funded Pakistani
nuclear programme and payback time may be
approaching. Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan was
given privileged and complete access to Pakistani
nuclear installations in 1999 (and again in 2002) and
soon thereafter Dr AQ Khan visited Saudi Arabia. US
experts such as Bruce Reidel and Gary Saymore, who
should know, say that a secret and long-standing
agreement exists that Pakistan would provide the
Kingdom with nuclear technology and weapons should
Saudi Arabia feel threatened by a third party nuclear
programme. This would inevitably invite strong
reactions from the US and Iran and would also almost
surely evoke strong opposition from China which would
not want to jeopardise its overarching relationship with
the US for an issue far removed from its core national
interests. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strongly
denied any such intention and also reports that
Pakistan will, at Saudi request, be supplying
sophisticated weapons to rebels in Syria – this would
greatly anger Iran but will hardly make a difference in
Syria. However, both these contingencies are unlikely to
happen.
It is far more likely that these visits are in the context
of the domestic situation in Saudi Arabia. These are
delicate and sensitive times in Saudi Arabia – Crown
Prince Sultan and Crown Prince Nayef passed away in
quick succession in October 2011 and June 2012
respectively; the King is in his mid-nineties and his
health is fragile; Crown Prince Salman’s health is not
particularly robust; Saudi Arabia is approaching
uncharted territory in relation to the succession to the
throne. Massive unemployment, the popular appeal of
the Arab Spring, Sunni Islamic extremism, Shia
restiveness particularly in the oil-rich eastern provinces,
are factors that present serious putative security
concerns. Given the one-of-its-kind rather unique
Saudi-Pakistan relationship, assertively Sunni Pakistan
may be the perfect security partner to help meet internal
threats. Western security partners cannot be used while
Arabs will always be more problematic and risky.
Crown Prince Salman also paid a highly satisfying
three-day visit to India during which an MoU on defence
cooperation was amongst agreements signed which
build upon the relationship spelt out in the Delhi
Declaration of 2006 and the Riyadh Declaration of 2010,
both landmark, path-breaking documents signed
personally by King Abdullah with the Indian Prime
Minister. These established a wide-ranging strategic
partnership. An Indian defence minister had paid a first-
ever visit to Saudi Arabia in 2012. In contrast to
Pakistan, the interaction with India is in the context of
tentative beginnings of a potential reorientation of Saudi
foreign policy to move away from complete and total
dependence on the US. Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi
Foreign Minister, had given a thought provoking speech
in Manama, Bahrain, on 5 December 2004. The subject
was ‘Towards a New Framework for Regional Security’.
He said, inter alia, that "the international component of
the suggested Gulf security framework should engage
positively the emerging Asian powers as well, especially
China and India." Since then, this theme is increasingly
reiterated by leading Saudi personalities.
US IN ASIA: A NON-ALIGNMENT STRATEGY?
As territorial and maritime disputes in Asia have sparked
regional cold wars, the United States appears to have
adopted a non-aligned strategy to navigate in troubled
political space of the continent.
George Washington and Non-Alignment
Non-alignment as a diplomatic instrument of state craft
has been known to American Administrations for
centuries. Although the term “non-alignment” was not
used, the need of such a strategy was first articulated
by first President of the United States—George
Washington. In his farewell address, Washington warned
against the folly of getting involved in the European
entanglements.
In order to keep the US out of European quarrels,
controversies and collisions, he pleaded that “Europe
has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or
a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in
frequent controversies, the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it
must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial
ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the
ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships
or enmities.”
Three centuries later, as the US recognizes the
economic and strategic significance of Asia for its
national interests, it encounters myriad Asian quarrels
and controversies over “sovereignty” issues. Such
disputes are “essentially foreign” to American
“concerns”.
Asia Pacific Today and the American Non-Alignment
Turbulence in the Asia Pacific is discernible in Sino-
Japanese rivalry over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. The
spat over the islands, islets and reefs in the South China
Sea between China and five other claimants, such as
Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei
threatens to contaminate the cooperative ties of China
with these countries. China-Taiwan conflict remains
unresolved despite a series of confidence building
measures and rising trade and investment ties.
During the Cold War days, Washington shunned the
non-alignment foreign policy championed by India and
many others. But the strategic compulsions and
economic imperatives of the post-Cold War era have
tempted the US policy makers to innovate “non-
alignment” strategy and apply in the mini-Cold Wars of
Asia.
TheUS political support to the idea of creation of a
“Palestinian State” in the post-9/11 incident and
building of pressure on Israel to seriously negotiate
peace; Washington’s policy of making India a “strategic
partner”, while elevating Pakistan’s status as “major
non-NATO ally” during the anti-terror operations in
Afghanistan; constructing a rock-solid economic
partnership with China, while maintaining defence and
security ties with Taiwan; giving lip service to
multilateral dialogue for resolution of South China Sea
disputes, yet conducting joint research with China for oil
exploration in the waters of this sea; refraining from
backing Japanese claim of sovereignty over Senkaku/
Diaoyu islands, but standing by the US-Japan bilateral
alliance treaty are some of the prominent illustrations of
American non-alignment.
It is true that non-alignment emerged out of a bipolar
power structure in the international system. The two
poles, represented by capitalist USA and communist
USSR, made it difficult for a large number of newly
independent countries to take sides in the Cold War. The
enlightened self-interest compelled them to pick out a
stratagem that would enable them to seek cooperation
with both the rival power blocs. The hostility to the idea
of non-alignment by both Washington and Moscow
often posed acute dilemmas for the non-aligned
countries. Since non-alignment was not maintenance of
equidistance from the two poles, non-aligned countries’
stances on various cold war related issues were
sometimes sympathetic to Moscow and sometimes
supportive of Washington. For example, India appeared
to have appreciated the US position on the Suez crisis,
but sympathized with Moscow’s approach to the
Hungarian crisis in 1956.
The United States in the post-Cold War era has no die-
hard adversary. Although there is visible decline of the
US influence in world affairs and relative rise of the
Chinese power, the PRC is no USSR. Up-and-coming
superpower China perceives an emerging new
containment strategy of the established superpower, the
USA.
American strategic community, on the other hand,
senses a Chinese project to push US out of the Asia
Pacific. Such mutual mistrust has, nevertheless, not
sparked a new cold war. Complex economic
interdependence is almost certain to preclude a Sino-US
Cold War, though cold confrontation seems to be
mounting between the two.
China has responded to America’s Asia rebalance
strategy by picking up squabbles with most American
allies, such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and
others. But the non-aligned approach adopted by
Washington has resulted in growing Chinese
assertiveness and dwindling credibility in the US as a
security provider. The Asian allies of the US doubt, if
Washington would protect their interests at the cost of
losing business in China. American non-alignment
makes China fear less and America’s allies doubt more
about the efficacy of alliance treaties.
regional cold wars, the United States appears to have
adopted a non-aligned strategy to navigate in troubled
political space of the continent.
George Washington and Non-Alignment
Non-alignment as a diplomatic instrument of state craft
has been known to American Administrations for
centuries. Although the term “non-alignment” was not
used, the need of such a strategy was first articulated
by first President of the United States—George
Washington. In his farewell address, Washington warned
against the folly of getting involved in the European
entanglements.
In order to keep the US out of European quarrels,
controversies and collisions, he pleaded that “Europe
has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or
a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in
frequent controversies, the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it
must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial
ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the
ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships
or enmities.”
Three centuries later, as the US recognizes the
economic and strategic significance of Asia for its
national interests, it encounters myriad Asian quarrels
and controversies over “sovereignty” issues. Such
disputes are “essentially foreign” to American
“concerns”.
Asia Pacific Today and the American Non-Alignment
Turbulence in the Asia Pacific is discernible in Sino-
Japanese rivalry over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. The
spat over the islands, islets and reefs in the South China
Sea between China and five other claimants, such as
Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei
threatens to contaminate the cooperative ties of China
with these countries. China-Taiwan conflict remains
unresolved despite a series of confidence building
measures and rising trade and investment ties.
During the Cold War days, Washington shunned the
non-alignment foreign policy championed by India and
many others. But the strategic compulsions and
economic imperatives of the post-Cold War era have
tempted the US policy makers to innovate “non-
alignment” strategy and apply in the mini-Cold Wars of
Asia.
TheUS political support to the idea of creation of a
“Palestinian State” in the post-9/11 incident and
building of pressure on Israel to seriously negotiate
peace; Washington’s policy of making India a “strategic
partner”, while elevating Pakistan’s status as “major
non-NATO ally” during the anti-terror operations in
Afghanistan; constructing a rock-solid economic
partnership with China, while maintaining defence and
security ties with Taiwan; giving lip service to
multilateral dialogue for resolution of South China Sea
disputes, yet conducting joint research with China for oil
exploration in the waters of this sea; refraining from
backing Japanese claim of sovereignty over Senkaku/
Diaoyu islands, but standing by the US-Japan bilateral
alliance treaty are some of the prominent illustrations of
American non-alignment.
It is true that non-alignment emerged out of a bipolar
power structure in the international system. The two
poles, represented by capitalist USA and communist
USSR, made it difficult for a large number of newly
independent countries to take sides in the Cold War. The
enlightened self-interest compelled them to pick out a
stratagem that would enable them to seek cooperation
with both the rival power blocs. The hostility to the idea
of non-alignment by both Washington and Moscow
often posed acute dilemmas for the non-aligned
countries. Since non-alignment was not maintenance of
equidistance from the two poles, non-aligned countries’
stances on various cold war related issues were
sometimes sympathetic to Moscow and sometimes
supportive of Washington. For example, India appeared
to have appreciated the US position on the Suez crisis,
but sympathized with Moscow’s approach to the
Hungarian crisis in 1956.
The United States in the post-Cold War era has no die-
hard adversary. Although there is visible decline of the
US influence in world affairs and relative rise of the
Chinese power, the PRC is no USSR. Up-and-coming
superpower China perceives an emerging new
containment strategy of the established superpower, the
USA.
American strategic community, on the other hand,
senses a Chinese project to push US out of the Asia
Pacific. Such mutual mistrust has, nevertheless, not
sparked a new cold war. Complex economic
interdependence is almost certain to preclude a Sino-US
Cold War, though cold confrontation seems to be
mounting between the two.
China has responded to America’s Asia rebalance
strategy by picking up squabbles with most American
allies, such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and
others. But the non-aligned approach adopted by
Washington has resulted in growing Chinese
assertiveness and dwindling credibility in the US as a
security provider. The Asian allies of the US doubt, if
Washington would protect their interests at the cost of
losing business in China. American non-alignment
makes China fear less and America’s allies doubt more
about the efficacy of alliance treaties.
ASIA PACIFIC: RESET FOR QUALITATIVE CHANGE
Permeated by many turbulent events in May 2014, East
Asia served as the milieu for events from the coup
d'état in Thailand, to maritime cooperation for the
Indonesia-Vietnam boundary between President Susilo
and the Prime Minister of Vietnam, all on the backdrop
of the World Economic Forum in East Asia in Manila.
Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in Southeast
Asia, was at the center stage. During the forum,
outgoing President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono received
the Statesmanship Award, and many of his
achievements during his decade of Presidency were
discussed. During his speech, President Susilo made
direct reference to China regarding the East China Sea
emphasising that “…any disputes including maritime
border tension can be resolved peacefully - not with the
use of military might which [may] endanger stability and
peace in our region.”
East Asia, with a population of 600 million, which is
roughly double the size of the US, is planning to build a
US$4.3 trillion economy with a single market in the next
several years. The challenges to achieve these targets,
however, are many. The infrastructure to link many
ASEAN countries is weak, poverty rates are high, and
rates of corruption are staggering. It is important to
move away from the present culture of high corruption,
to a better culture that fosters development of regional
framework to fight corruption. Countries should not
confine to their own boundaries but work
collaboratively. The point of intersection between
countries has to be improved. President Benigno Aquino
in his remarks stated his leadership to introduce good
governance to Philippines to dismantle corruption is
commendable with the improving positive economic
indicators.
In the Eurasian region, a Sino-Russian partnership for
US$400 billion for energy for the next three decades has
been signed, and the sophisticated Russian military
missile system has been given to the Chinese
government. There are signs of China and Russia
moving towards a strategic relationship in the very near
future.
There is now a tripolar world with US, Russia, and China
in the new equation. The Maritime Silk Road (MSR) to
the South China Sea, disputes with Japan, and the
placement of a Chinese oil rig in Vietnamese waters, are
a few of the events that have raised many eyebrows.
According to geopolitical analyst Robert Kaplan, “This is
a region that’s going to be on the boil for years and
years to come. Seas crowded with warships,
submarines, merchant shipping, fifth generation fighter
jets – that can easily create incidents that in turn could
enable a crisis.” In Seoul during his Asia visit, President
Obama said that China “has to abide by certain norms”
when it comes to its quarrels with neighbours. With all
the notable events that have taken place in this part of
the region, the US pivot to Southeast Asia cannot be
negated.
In India, Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) has been sworn in as the new Prime Minister. The
Indian public believes that he can deliver rapid growth
in the country as he did in his 13-year tenure as Chief
Minister of Gujrat. However, India has many internal
challenges to consider first. Nearly half the country’s
households lack basic access to electricity. Modern
infrastructure is underdeveloped. Creation of job
opportunities through a large manufacturing sector,
especially for its young population aged 15-34 – which
is around 400 million people making up one-third of the
population – amidst rising corruption, is an obstacle.
These are some of the major challenges for the new
government. The question is, does India need a total
reset on its many internal and external challenges?
Sri Lanka, with whom India’s has had a love affair since
the days of the Mahabharata, always sends a tiny ripple
towards India. A line in an Indian newspaper before the
Geneva HR Council vote on Sri Lanka was, “Will Ceylon
become a Cyclone to India?” The Sri Lankan President’s
visit for the swearing-in ceremony created certain
political turmoil in South India and Sri Lanka’s Northern
Province Chief Minister Vigneswaran. Despite the stormy
atmosphere, both leaders, PM Modi and President
Rajapaksa, held successful talks as both possess high
resilience levels when facing challenges. Hopefully, an
improved and stronger relationship between both
countries is on the cards in the coming years, not
cyclones.
All of these episodes, however, have failed to address
one fundamental issue: bringing qualitative change to
the people living around the world. How can one thrive
in a world where 1 billion people go to bed hungry each
night? Can progress be made in a global community
where 1.2 billion of the poorest people on the planet
account for just 1 per cent of global consumption? 1
billion people are without food and 1 billion who are
obese. 85 of the richest people in the world have as
much wealth as 3.5 billion of the poorest. The inequality
gap is widening every day. So, is a world of 9 billion
people to be catered to in the future? This is a topic
that should be looked at seriously. World leaders must
look to improve points of intersection between
countries, rather than focus on internal boundaries with
nationalism or hubris. Does every country need to reset
its strategies to bring that qualitative change?
Asia served as the milieu for events from the coup
d'état in Thailand, to maritime cooperation for the
Indonesia-Vietnam boundary between President Susilo
and the Prime Minister of Vietnam, all on the backdrop
of the World Economic Forum in East Asia in Manila.
Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in Southeast
Asia, was at the center stage. During the forum,
outgoing President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono received
the Statesmanship Award, and many of his
achievements during his decade of Presidency were
discussed. During his speech, President Susilo made
direct reference to China regarding the East China Sea
emphasising that “…any disputes including maritime
border tension can be resolved peacefully - not with the
use of military might which [may] endanger stability and
peace in our region.”
East Asia, with a population of 600 million, which is
roughly double the size of the US, is planning to build a
US$4.3 trillion economy with a single market in the next
several years. The challenges to achieve these targets,
however, are many. The infrastructure to link many
ASEAN countries is weak, poverty rates are high, and
rates of corruption are staggering. It is important to
move away from the present culture of high corruption,
to a better culture that fosters development of regional
framework to fight corruption. Countries should not
confine to their own boundaries but work
collaboratively. The point of intersection between
countries has to be improved. President Benigno Aquino
in his remarks stated his leadership to introduce good
governance to Philippines to dismantle corruption is
commendable with the improving positive economic
indicators.
In the Eurasian region, a Sino-Russian partnership for
US$400 billion for energy for the next three decades has
been signed, and the sophisticated Russian military
missile system has been given to the Chinese
government. There are signs of China and Russia
moving towards a strategic relationship in the very near
future.
There is now a tripolar world with US, Russia, and China
in the new equation. The Maritime Silk Road (MSR) to
the South China Sea, disputes with Japan, and the
placement of a Chinese oil rig in Vietnamese waters, are
a few of the events that have raised many eyebrows.
According to geopolitical analyst Robert Kaplan, “This is
a region that’s going to be on the boil for years and
years to come. Seas crowded with warships,
submarines, merchant shipping, fifth generation fighter
jets – that can easily create incidents that in turn could
enable a crisis.” In Seoul during his Asia visit, President
Obama said that China “has to abide by certain norms”
when it comes to its quarrels with neighbours. With all
the notable events that have taken place in this part of
the region, the US pivot to Southeast Asia cannot be
negated.
In India, Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) has been sworn in as the new Prime Minister. The
Indian public believes that he can deliver rapid growth
in the country as he did in his 13-year tenure as Chief
Minister of Gujrat. However, India has many internal
challenges to consider first. Nearly half the country’s
households lack basic access to electricity. Modern
infrastructure is underdeveloped. Creation of job
opportunities through a large manufacturing sector,
especially for its young population aged 15-34 – which
is around 400 million people making up one-third of the
population – amidst rising corruption, is an obstacle.
These are some of the major challenges for the new
government. The question is, does India need a total
reset on its many internal and external challenges?
Sri Lanka, with whom India’s has had a love affair since
the days of the Mahabharata, always sends a tiny ripple
towards India. A line in an Indian newspaper before the
Geneva HR Council vote on Sri Lanka was, “Will Ceylon
become a Cyclone to India?” The Sri Lankan President’s
visit for the swearing-in ceremony created certain
political turmoil in South India and Sri Lanka’s Northern
Province Chief Minister Vigneswaran. Despite the stormy
atmosphere, both leaders, PM Modi and President
Rajapaksa, held successful talks as both possess high
resilience levels when facing challenges. Hopefully, an
improved and stronger relationship between both
countries is on the cards in the coming years, not
cyclones.
All of these episodes, however, have failed to address
one fundamental issue: bringing qualitative change to
the people living around the world. How can one thrive
in a world where 1 billion people go to bed hungry each
night? Can progress be made in a global community
where 1.2 billion of the poorest people on the planet
account for just 1 per cent of global consumption? 1
billion people are without food and 1 billion who are
obese. 85 of the richest people in the world have as
much wealth as 3.5 billion of the poorest. The inequality
gap is widening every day. So, is a world of 9 billion
people to be catered to in the future? This is a topic
that should be looked at seriously. World leaders must
look to improve points of intersection between
countries, rather than focus on internal boundaries with
nationalism or hubris. Does every country need to reset
its strategies to bring that qualitative change?
INDIA-US: WILL MODI AND OBAMA COME TOGETHER?
After denying Mr Narendra Modi a visa for nearly a
decade the US saw the writing on the wall and started
changing its tune just before the 2014 elections were
held. Mr Modi is now officially welcome in the
Washington but it will be a long time before the US-
India relationship will reach the same levels it was at
during the second term of George Walker Bush.
Obama’s Compulsions
The US, once again, has had its focus shifted from
China to a series of brush fires around the world - Syria
and Ukraine being the most prominent. The Bush
administration when it came to power named China as
a strategic competitor but was forced to shift its
attention to Afghanistan because of the September 11
attacks. These traditional battlegrounds have their
constituents in Washington. The bottom line is that
quite a few American strategic analysts are obsessed
with the Middle East and would like to revive the Cold
War even though President Obama quite correctly
dismissed Russia as a regional power. Because brush
fires have overridden grand strategy in Washington, the
Obama Administration’s Pivot to Asia and enhanced ties
that go with it have been put on the backburner and,
instead, the focus is on regions that both present
unsolvable problems and provide little reward to the US.
The Middle East, after its flirtation with the so-called
Arab Spring, has swung back to soft authoritarianism,
and Russia will never be in the US camp. Nor will
challenging Russia, a much diminished power, bring the
sort of global rewards that the Cold War did to the US’
position in world affairs. Now, challenging Russia does
not lead to a rise in military budgets or in a national
rejuvenation as happened with the race to the
moon. But the Obama administration is likely to be
caught up in putting out these brush fires till the end of
its term.
Coupled with the shift from a strategic to a tactical
focus is the fact that the three trends in the short to
medium term are going to make US foreign policy take a
less proactive role in world affairs. First, the country is
tired of wars and, therefore, there is a real dislike for
foreign intervention. President Obama recognised this
when he put the Syrian issue in the hands of Congress
knowing fully well that the legislature was unlikely to
authorise American troop commitments. Secondly, at a
time when the American economy has yet to fully
recover from the economic crisis of 2008, it is difficult
to tell the American people to spend more on defense
and external military commitments. Third, the bills of
the Iraq and Afghan wars are now starting to pile up
with the need for new equipment as well as taking care
of tens of thousands of walking wounded. Given these
facts, the US is quite happy in pursuing a foreign policy
where, as in Libya, it leads from behind unless its
security interests are threatened (President Obama has
argued that a terrorist attack remains the most direct
threat to the US). President Obama’s domestic critics
see all this as a sign of weakness but he has made a
more careful exercise of American military power as a
centerpiece of the last two and a half years of his
presidency as stated in his speech at West Point on 28
May 2014.
Along with this preoccupation with short term crises and
the exhibition of caution in exercising military power is
the fact that the Pivot to Asia has not been concretised
in an economic plan of action for Asia. Consequently, it
is China that is making major economic inroads in the
region as some of the US’ major allies - South Korea
and Australia - now have China as their largest trading
partner. The fact that the Trans Pacific Partnership - the
Obama Administration’s economic centerpiece for Asia -
does not include China or India means in fact that it will
have a limited impact on the US role in Asia.
All these trends should mean that the US takes the
initiative to build a stronger relationship with Asia since
as President Obama stated at West Point, “On the other
hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a
direct threat to the United States, when such issues are
at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or
push the world in a more dangerous direction but do
not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military
action must be higher. In such circumstances, we
should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilise allies
and partners to take collective action. We have to
broaden our tools to include diplomacy and
development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to
international law; and, if just, necessary and effective,
multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we
have to work with others because collective action in
these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more
likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly
mistakes.” Instead, for several reasons, the two
countries will likely take some time to warm up to each
other.
US businesses ranging from the commercial to the
defense sectors, for example, now suffer from a bad
case of India fatigue. The last five years of the UPA
government saw Indian decision-making move at a
glacial pace and simple attempts to open up the
economy were stymied by corruption charges and
coalitional infighting. The Modi government, therefore,
will have to recreate the kind of excitement that existed
in business quarters about India in the early 2000s in
order to generate renewed interest from Western and
particularly US firms. Given the economic focus of the
new Indian government, however, this is likely to
happen sooner than later as witnessed by the move to
allow 100 per cent foreign direct investment in the
defense sector.
A more difficult issue will be to see if India and the US
can develop complementary world views especially on
the issue of the rise of China and how to balance Beijing
with a pivot to Asia. While New Delhi sees the value of a
US that balances China in Asia it is not keen on being
part of an anti-Chinese alliance as some in the US and
Asia would want it to be. This is especially the case
with Mr Modi who has made several trips to China and
quite clearly recognises the role Beijing could play in the
economic development of India. Moreover, as long as
the word expeditionary is taboo in New Delhi it is
doubtful that the Indian government will agree to
participate in coalitional efforts with the US (unless of
course it is under the aegis of the United Nations).
And there is the simple fact of personalities. Mr Modi, in
his years as chief minister, spent time cultivating the
nations of East Asia because he was not permitted to
visit the West. He is likely to use that friendship to
bring quick investment to India, something that the
West will not be willing to do. Consequently, an India
that finally adopts a true Look East policy and for a
while at least adopts a wait and see approach with the
US may be seen.
Having said that, such an approach cannot be
maintained in the long run since India’s development
will require technological inputs from the West and that
means at some time either Mr Modi goes to Washington
or Mr Obama comes to Delhi. It will happen but not any
time soon.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own
and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Air Force
or the Department of Defense.
decade the US saw the writing on the wall and started
changing its tune just before the 2014 elections were
held. Mr Modi is now officially welcome in the
Washington but it will be a long time before the US-
India relationship will reach the same levels it was at
during the second term of George Walker Bush.
Obama’s Compulsions
The US, once again, has had its focus shifted from
China to a series of brush fires around the world - Syria
and Ukraine being the most prominent. The Bush
administration when it came to power named China as
a strategic competitor but was forced to shift its
attention to Afghanistan because of the September 11
attacks. These traditional battlegrounds have their
constituents in Washington. The bottom line is that
quite a few American strategic analysts are obsessed
with the Middle East and would like to revive the Cold
War even though President Obama quite correctly
dismissed Russia as a regional power. Because brush
fires have overridden grand strategy in Washington, the
Obama Administration’s Pivot to Asia and enhanced ties
that go with it have been put on the backburner and,
instead, the focus is on regions that both present
unsolvable problems and provide little reward to the US.
The Middle East, after its flirtation with the so-called
Arab Spring, has swung back to soft authoritarianism,
and Russia will never be in the US camp. Nor will
challenging Russia, a much diminished power, bring the
sort of global rewards that the Cold War did to the US’
position in world affairs. Now, challenging Russia does
not lead to a rise in military budgets or in a national
rejuvenation as happened with the race to the
moon. But the Obama administration is likely to be
caught up in putting out these brush fires till the end of
its term.
Coupled with the shift from a strategic to a tactical
focus is the fact that the three trends in the short to
medium term are going to make US foreign policy take a
less proactive role in world affairs. First, the country is
tired of wars and, therefore, there is a real dislike for
foreign intervention. President Obama recognised this
when he put the Syrian issue in the hands of Congress
knowing fully well that the legislature was unlikely to
authorise American troop commitments. Secondly, at a
time when the American economy has yet to fully
recover from the economic crisis of 2008, it is difficult
to tell the American people to spend more on defense
and external military commitments. Third, the bills of
the Iraq and Afghan wars are now starting to pile up
with the need for new equipment as well as taking care
of tens of thousands of walking wounded. Given these
facts, the US is quite happy in pursuing a foreign policy
where, as in Libya, it leads from behind unless its
security interests are threatened (President Obama has
argued that a terrorist attack remains the most direct
threat to the US). President Obama’s domestic critics
see all this as a sign of weakness but he has made a
more careful exercise of American military power as a
centerpiece of the last two and a half years of his
presidency as stated in his speech at West Point on 28
May 2014.
Along with this preoccupation with short term crises and
the exhibition of caution in exercising military power is
the fact that the Pivot to Asia has not been concretised
in an economic plan of action for Asia. Consequently, it
is China that is making major economic inroads in the
region as some of the US’ major allies - South Korea
and Australia - now have China as their largest trading
partner. The fact that the Trans Pacific Partnership - the
Obama Administration’s economic centerpiece for Asia -
does not include China or India means in fact that it will
have a limited impact on the US role in Asia.
All these trends should mean that the US takes the
initiative to build a stronger relationship with Asia since
as President Obama stated at West Point, “On the other
hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a
direct threat to the United States, when such issues are
at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or
push the world in a more dangerous direction but do
not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military
action must be higher. In such circumstances, we
should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilise allies
and partners to take collective action. We have to
broaden our tools to include diplomacy and
development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to
international law; and, if just, necessary and effective,
multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we
have to work with others because collective action in
these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more
likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly
mistakes.” Instead, for several reasons, the two
countries will likely take some time to warm up to each
other.
US businesses ranging from the commercial to the
defense sectors, for example, now suffer from a bad
case of India fatigue. The last five years of the UPA
government saw Indian decision-making move at a
glacial pace and simple attempts to open up the
economy were stymied by corruption charges and
coalitional infighting. The Modi government, therefore,
will have to recreate the kind of excitement that existed
in business quarters about India in the early 2000s in
order to generate renewed interest from Western and
particularly US firms. Given the economic focus of the
new Indian government, however, this is likely to
happen sooner than later as witnessed by the move to
allow 100 per cent foreign direct investment in the
defense sector.
A more difficult issue will be to see if India and the US
can develop complementary world views especially on
the issue of the rise of China and how to balance Beijing
with a pivot to Asia. While New Delhi sees the value of a
US that balances China in Asia it is not keen on being
part of an anti-Chinese alliance as some in the US and
Asia would want it to be. This is especially the case
with Mr Modi who has made several trips to China and
quite clearly recognises the role Beijing could play in the
economic development of India. Moreover, as long as
the word expeditionary is taboo in New Delhi it is
doubtful that the Indian government will agree to
participate in coalitional efforts with the US (unless of
course it is under the aegis of the United Nations).
And there is the simple fact of personalities. Mr Modi, in
his years as chief minister, spent time cultivating the
nations of East Asia because he was not permitted to
visit the West. He is likely to use that friendship to
bring quick investment to India, something that the
West will not be willing to do. Consequently, an India
that finally adopts a true Look East policy and for a
while at least adopts a wait and see approach with the
US may be seen.
Having said that, such an approach cannot be
maintained in the long run since India’s development
will require technological inputs from the West and that
means at some time either Mr Modi goes to Washington
or Mr Obama comes to Delhi. It will happen but not any
time soon.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own
and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Air Force
or the Department of Defense.
AFGHANISTAN ELECTION 2014.
The first round of counting is over and the contest
seems to be between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf
Ghani to become the next President of Afghanistan. No
one would have expected that the elections fwould be
such a success story. Undoubtedly, this was one of the
most historic moment in the contemporary history of
Afghanistan. Not only was this election historical, but
also likely to set an important milestone in
Afghanistan’s transition and its progress towards
becoming a democratic polity.
There was so much pessimism about the future of
Afghanistan, as could be seen from the multiple reports
during the last one year in terms of what would happen
to Afghanistan once the international security forces
leave in 2014. There were questions also about the
ability of the Afghans to take the transition process
ahead as the draw down comes closer. The elections is
a partial, but a positive answer, signaling a slow but a
steady transition.
The first round of elections in choosing the next
President took place in a particular geo-political
environment. Karzai’s tenure as the President comes to
an end with no possibility of him being elected for a
third time legally. Though Karzai could not “appoint” his
successor, he had allowed the electoral process to
decide who would be the next President. This election
was special, for the simple reason, there were not many
such examples in the recent decades in the history of
Afghanistan.
When was the last time, a ruler in Afghanistan, allowed
an electoral process to choose his successor? Mullah
Omar, Najibullah, Babrak Karmal, Nur Taraki, Daoud
Khan, Zahir Shah—the history of succession in
Afghanistan in the last hundred years has been more
through coup, forcible ouster and exile with so much of
blood shed; political and peaceful transition has never
been a part of the Afghanistan’s history from one rule
to another. That is why this election is so important
and a milestone in the history of Afghanistan.
Second, the security, political and geographic
environment was not that conducive, when the elections
took place during the first week of April 2014. The
security situation within Afghanistan and the regional
security situation outside were not too positive.
Consider the following in this context: the Afghan nation
is deeply polarised along the ethnic lines – the
pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and the Hazaras. The internal
peace process vis-a-vis the Taliban has not made any
major breakthrough; nor there has been a great success
in the efforts of the international community to
“discover” the good Taliban and strike a successful
dialogue with them.
In terms of external security, Karzai refused to sign the
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United
States, following which the latter had threatened to cut
the aid and military support to Afghanistan. Even more
importantly, relations with Pakistan had hit a low and
were yet to recover when the elections took place.
And then, there has been another great question: are
the Afghans ready for democracy? The April elections
and the Afghan vote have to be interpreted in the above
background. The Afghan nation seems to be on a
positive road towards the transition. What are the
challenges ahead? Will they be able to convert the
positive elections into a successful transition and draft
a new history?
seems to be between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf
Ghani to become the next President of Afghanistan. No
one would have expected that the elections fwould be
such a success story. Undoubtedly, this was one of the
most historic moment in the contemporary history of
Afghanistan. Not only was this election historical, but
also likely to set an important milestone in
Afghanistan’s transition and its progress towards
becoming a democratic polity.
There was so much pessimism about the future of
Afghanistan, as could be seen from the multiple reports
during the last one year in terms of what would happen
to Afghanistan once the international security forces
leave in 2014. There were questions also about the
ability of the Afghans to take the transition process
ahead as the draw down comes closer. The elections is
a partial, but a positive answer, signaling a slow but a
steady transition.
The first round of elections in choosing the next
President took place in a particular geo-political
environment. Karzai’s tenure as the President comes to
an end with no possibility of him being elected for a
third time legally. Though Karzai could not “appoint” his
successor, he had allowed the electoral process to
decide who would be the next President. This election
was special, for the simple reason, there were not many
such examples in the recent decades in the history of
Afghanistan.
When was the last time, a ruler in Afghanistan, allowed
an electoral process to choose his successor? Mullah
Omar, Najibullah, Babrak Karmal, Nur Taraki, Daoud
Khan, Zahir Shah—the history of succession in
Afghanistan in the last hundred years has been more
through coup, forcible ouster and exile with so much of
blood shed; political and peaceful transition has never
been a part of the Afghanistan’s history from one rule
to another. That is why this election is so important
and a milestone in the history of Afghanistan.
Second, the security, political and geographic
environment was not that conducive, when the elections
took place during the first week of April 2014. The
security situation within Afghanistan and the regional
security situation outside were not too positive.
Consider the following in this context: the Afghan nation
is deeply polarised along the ethnic lines – the
pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and the Hazaras. The internal
peace process vis-a-vis the Taliban has not made any
major breakthrough; nor there has been a great success
in the efforts of the international community to
“discover” the good Taliban and strike a successful
dialogue with them.
In terms of external security, Karzai refused to sign the
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the United
States, following which the latter had threatened to cut
the aid and military support to Afghanistan. Even more
importantly, relations with Pakistan had hit a low and
were yet to recover when the elections took place.
And then, there has been another great question: are
the Afghans ready for democracy? The April elections
and the Afghan vote have to be interpreted in the above
background. The Afghan nation seems to be on a
positive road towards the transition. What are the
challenges ahead? Will they be able to convert the
positive elections into a successful transition and draft
a new history?
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: CONSEQUENCES OF AMERICA EXIT.
The announcement of a drawdown timeline for US
troops from Afghanistan predictably garnered mixed
reactions. However, most of the issues that brought the
US-led ISAF to the region still remain unresolved. Where
on one hand Osama bin Laden’s killing is an ace for the
US, the al Qaeda as an entity still remains. This leaves
the second spoiler, the Afghan Taliban, as well as their
faith brothers, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Both
of them have the advantage of being sons of the soil.
There is no timeline to chase, so they have the luxury to
act as spoilers, keep the security profile turbulent in real
time and wait for the ‘foreigners’ to exit. Though the
Afghan Taliban has suffered significant losses, their
structures, ability to recruit, and countrywide operations
remain intact with new tactics and means to hold
ground.
Afghanistan today is not the one left in the wake of the
Soviet withdrawal and the faulty Geneva Accords. This
is good news, as even in the worst-case future scenario,
one cannot envision the international community leaving
Kabul in the lurch. However it correspondingly gives rise
to another problem: that too many actors with vested
interests will turn Afghanistan into their proxy strategic
playfield. For the moment, Afghans are happy with this
international focus and seemingly positive attention, but
the years to come may change this happy picture. A
larger chunk of Afghan civil society, which is highly
proactive in democratic nation-building, is drawn from
the Afghan diaspora, who despite their best intentions
may not be able to withstand a possible surge in
militancy and violence in case a situation so arises. The
law enforcement and security apparatus, ANSF, though
much improved and stronger than before still has a long
way to go and its performance post transition would at
best remain a mixed bag, which given Afghanistan’s
complex security dynamics, is not at all a good news.
That leaves the ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’
democratic and nation-building process, which like
many of the ‘Made in US’ products leaves much to be
desired. In a cross-section of Afghan nationals, there
exists deep skepticism about the ‘Afghan-owned’
component largely missing from the frame, thus once
again constructing a system that has very weak
foundations.
Much depends on the results of the forthcoming
elections. With all the presidential candidates and their
affiliates minus incumbent president Karzai consenting
to the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), Afghanistan
requires a strong representative government with
indigenous legitimacy and capacity to extend its writ
outside Kabul without external props. Will the Taliban
be willing to negotiate and agree to some non-violent
power-sharing? There are serious doubts. What would
be the impact of these developments on Pakistan?
Though the Pakistani government is already in talks
with the TTP (Pakhtun faction) and there is a temporary
respite from the US drones, bombings and civilian
killings have not reduced and nor has the US announced
a complete termination of its drone attack policy. In fact
most of the Taliban high shura has comfortably crossed
over into Afghanistan and will remain there for as long
as it suits them. Though the Afghan and Pakistani
Taliban are pursuing their independent agenda, one
must not forget their past links and the strength and
resilience of their networks. In addition, the history of
Pak-US relations is highly checkered, and even after
eleven plus years, Pakistani society remains highly
divided about whether this has been Pakistan’s war.
In case the talks with the TTP fail and there is a breach
in the security framework that would result as a part of
the agreement, would post-2014 Afghanistan be able to
provide security cooperation to Pakistan, mainly in the
shape of border closure, hot pursuit into ‘friendly’
territory to capture militants, intelligence-sharing and
perceivable joint operations? With divergent perspectives
and a strong sense of the other side being the spoiler,
there is doubt that such a cooperative security regime
could work. However, for the Afghan and Pakistan
Taliban, the post 2014 timeline would actually be a
welcoming notion. So long as there is an American
security interest and presence, there is optimism for a
better security framework. Both Pakistan and
Afghanistan can conveniently dump their bad diplomacy
on the US. It also acts as a balancer against a stronger
Indian presence.
Though Pakistani decision-makers have reinforced the
point that they have no reservations with New Delhi’s
‘legitimate’ interests in Afghanistan, they would always
remain wary of any military or strategic role India has in
Afghanistan. Realistically, every country, be it the US
(Monroe doctrine) or India (Nepal, Bhutan), has similar
concerns when it comes to its strategic interests.
Afghanistan of the future holds increased economic and
commercial activity and corresponding involvement of
the international community, as well as pressure for
increased transit and trilateral (India-Pakistan-
Afghanistan) trade. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the
changing trends and pressures. Ironically, the energy
pipelines still remain somewhat elusive; a problematic
profile for energy-stressed Pakistan specifically. The
coming months are fraught with multiple challenges that
need a sustainable, well-articulated and well thought-
out approach. The 2014 exit timeline in fact heralds a
new chapter in the region’s strategic relations, which
would largely shape future dynamics.
troops from Afghanistan predictably garnered mixed
reactions. However, most of the issues that brought the
US-led ISAF to the region still remain unresolved. Where
on one hand Osama bin Laden’s killing is an ace for the
US, the al Qaeda as an entity still remains. This leaves
the second spoiler, the Afghan Taliban, as well as their
faith brothers, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Both
of them have the advantage of being sons of the soil.
There is no timeline to chase, so they have the luxury to
act as spoilers, keep the security profile turbulent in real
time and wait for the ‘foreigners’ to exit. Though the
Afghan Taliban has suffered significant losses, their
structures, ability to recruit, and countrywide operations
remain intact with new tactics and means to hold
ground.
Afghanistan today is not the one left in the wake of the
Soviet withdrawal and the faulty Geneva Accords. This
is good news, as even in the worst-case future scenario,
one cannot envision the international community leaving
Kabul in the lurch. However it correspondingly gives rise
to another problem: that too many actors with vested
interests will turn Afghanistan into their proxy strategic
playfield. For the moment, Afghans are happy with this
international focus and seemingly positive attention, but
the years to come may change this happy picture. A
larger chunk of Afghan civil society, which is highly
proactive in democratic nation-building, is drawn from
the Afghan diaspora, who despite their best intentions
may not be able to withstand a possible surge in
militancy and violence in case a situation so arises. The
law enforcement and security apparatus, ANSF, though
much improved and stronger than before still has a long
way to go and its performance post transition would at
best remain a mixed bag, which given Afghanistan’s
complex security dynamics, is not at all a good news.
That leaves the ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’
democratic and nation-building process, which like
many of the ‘Made in US’ products leaves much to be
desired. In a cross-section of Afghan nationals, there
exists deep skepticism about the ‘Afghan-owned’
component largely missing from the frame, thus once
again constructing a system that has very weak
foundations.
Much depends on the results of the forthcoming
elections. With all the presidential candidates and their
affiliates minus incumbent president Karzai consenting
to the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), Afghanistan
requires a strong representative government with
indigenous legitimacy and capacity to extend its writ
outside Kabul without external props. Will the Taliban
be willing to negotiate and agree to some non-violent
power-sharing? There are serious doubts. What would
be the impact of these developments on Pakistan?
Though the Pakistani government is already in talks
with the TTP (Pakhtun faction) and there is a temporary
respite from the US drones, bombings and civilian
killings have not reduced and nor has the US announced
a complete termination of its drone attack policy. In fact
most of the Taliban high shura has comfortably crossed
over into Afghanistan and will remain there for as long
as it suits them. Though the Afghan and Pakistani
Taliban are pursuing their independent agenda, one
must not forget their past links and the strength and
resilience of their networks. In addition, the history of
Pak-US relations is highly checkered, and even after
eleven plus years, Pakistani society remains highly
divided about whether this has been Pakistan’s war.
In case the talks with the TTP fail and there is a breach
in the security framework that would result as a part of
the agreement, would post-2014 Afghanistan be able to
provide security cooperation to Pakistan, mainly in the
shape of border closure, hot pursuit into ‘friendly’
territory to capture militants, intelligence-sharing and
perceivable joint operations? With divergent perspectives
and a strong sense of the other side being the spoiler,
there is doubt that such a cooperative security regime
could work. However, for the Afghan and Pakistan
Taliban, the post 2014 timeline would actually be a
welcoming notion. So long as there is an American
security interest and presence, there is optimism for a
better security framework. Both Pakistan and
Afghanistan can conveniently dump their bad diplomacy
on the US. It also acts as a balancer against a stronger
Indian presence.
Though Pakistani decision-makers have reinforced the
point that they have no reservations with New Delhi’s
‘legitimate’ interests in Afghanistan, they would always
remain wary of any military or strategic role India has in
Afghanistan. Realistically, every country, be it the US
(Monroe doctrine) or India (Nepal, Bhutan), has similar
concerns when it comes to its strategic interests.
Afghanistan of the future holds increased economic and
commercial activity and corresponding involvement of
the international community, as well as pressure for
increased transit and trilateral (India-Pakistan-
Afghanistan) trade. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the
changing trends and pressures. Ironically, the energy
pipelines still remain somewhat elusive; a problematic
profile for energy-stressed Pakistan specifically. The
coming months are fraught with multiple challenges that
need a sustainable, well-articulated and well thought-
out approach. The 2014 exit timeline in fact heralds a
new chapter in the region’s strategic relations, which
would largely shape future dynamics.
AMERICAN ENDGAME IN AFGHANISTAN POST 2014
As the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
prepares to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014,
it is of significance to assess larger American interests
at play in the country and the region. How will the US
leverage its resources to secure those interests?
American Strategy: Keeping a Residual Force
Several voices in the US are of the view that the troop
drawdown is reasonable. The US has achieved the
mission of killing Osama bin Laden and has paralysed al
Qaeda's operational structure. The prevailing argument
is that the war that has been expensive and has
resulted in the loss of several thousand American lives
needs to finally end. Yet, official declarations talk in
terms of ensuring stability in Afghanistan that requires
US presence for training and supporting the ANSF while
focussing on counter-terrorism missions.
What remains understated is how Afghanistan, as an
important geopolitical asset, serves larger American
interests in the region. It is the Pentagon’s only military
base in Central Asia, with Iran to the west, Pakistan to
the east, China to the northeast, various resource-rich
former Soviet republics to the northwest, and Russia to
the north. A presence in Afghanistan would not only
serve to enhance economic and trade interests but also
help the US keep a close tab on these countries.
This explains US involvement in painstaking negotiations
to conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that
would enable it to maintain bases post-2014. The
prospect of a continued presence in Afghanistan has
also led the Obama administration to seek a peace deal
with the Afghan Taliban by offering them a de-facto
diplomatic mission in Qatar.
The charged confrontation between the US and Russia
over Ukraine has further boosted the support towards
maintaining bases. Former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in a Washington Post article , linked
Russia’s actions in Ukraine with the troop withdrawal
from Afghanistan. According to her, anything less than
the American military’s requirement for 10,000 troops
will suggest that the US is not serious about helping to
stabilise that country, which is likely to embolden
countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia.
Aid as Carrot and Stick
The US Congress has been giving out multibillion dollar
annual bills as aid to the Afghan army. However, with
Karzai sticking to his word on not signing the BSA until
after elections, the administration has claimed that the
financial assistance, whether for armed forces or
development programmes, is likely to drop steeply. In
January 2014, Congress slashed the development
budget for Afghanistan by half and even reduced
security aid by 60 per cent.
A recent report by the United States Institute of Peace
(USIP) states that the delay in signing the BSA is
compounding uncertainty and diminishing economic
confidence in Afghanistan. According to the report, the
Afghan economy is witnessing increased capital flight,
delay in investments, incipient job losses, declining
demand for goods and services, and is leading to
farmers planting more poppy. More families are
choosing to arm themselves, leading to a hike in
weapon prices. Stating that it is bound to spread into
the government and security structures, the report puts
the BSA as an anchor in navigating transition
challenges.
Using the Region to Leverage US Interests
It is a given that with or without the BSA, the US is
likely to play a lesser role in Afghanistan in the coming
months. However, the region as a whole has braced
itself for more involvement in Afghanistan, with
America’s blessings. The neighbouring countries realise
that an unstable Afghanistan is likely to become an
incubator of terrorism, poppy production and other illicit
activities. Pakistan and Iran understand the
repercussions of a failed state in their backyard that has
the potential to create unrest and instability within their
own territories. Russia and China are already worried
about the spread of insurgency in the troubled
Chechenya and Xinjiang provinces respectively.
India for its part is uniquely positioned - as a friend to
both Washington and Kabul. India remains in a position
to use its good offices to ensure that a version of the
BSA agreeable to both the countries is signed. Building
on the 'narrative of opportunity' to counter the anxiety
of withdrawal, New Delhi is attempting to shift focus to
regional confidence-building, development, governance,
trade and investment. India until now has transferred
‘no strings attached’ aid directly to Kabul despite
knowing that the Afghan government is considered
corrupt. India has also tried to deal with Pakistan’s
fears over military involvement in Afghanistan. Thus, it
has been evasive towards Afghan requests for tanks,
field guns and aircraft. As it turns out, Washington,
which was more than ambivalent regarding India’s
participation in the region, wants more from New Delhi
today.
The ‘new silk road’ initiative to link Afghanistan’s
energy, mineral and trade resources with the rest of the
world ideated by the Obama administration is also being
taken up by the region collectively to exploit the transit
potential that can accrue much needed economic growth
for the country. If successful, the project can serve as a
conduit for mutually beneficial cooperation between the
US, Central Asia and Russia, helping the US to continue
playing a consequential role in the region.
prepares to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014,
it is of significance to assess larger American interests
at play in the country and the region. How will the US
leverage its resources to secure those interests?
American Strategy: Keeping a Residual Force
Several voices in the US are of the view that the troop
drawdown is reasonable. The US has achieved the
mission of killing Osama bin Laden and has paralysed al
Qaeda's operational structure. The prevailing argument
is that the war that has been expensive and has
resulted in the loss of several thousand American lives
needs to finally end. Yet, official declarations talk in
terms of ensuring stability in Afghanistan that requires
US presence for training and supporting the ANSF while
focussing on counter-terrorism missions.
What remains understated is how Afghanistan, as an
important geopolitical asset, serves larger American
interests in the region. It is the Pentagon’s only military
base in Central Asia, with Iran to the west, Pakistan to
the east, China to the northeast, various resource-rich
former Soviet republics to the northwest, and Russia to
the north. A presence in Afghanistan would not only
serve to enhance economic and trade interests but also
help the US keep a close tab on these countries.
This explains US involvement in painstaking negotiations
to conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that
would enable it to maintain bases post-2014. The
prospect of a continued presence in Afghanistan has
also led the Obama administration to seek a peace deal
with the Afghan Taliban by offering them a de-facto
diplomatic mission in Qatar.
The charged confrontation between the US and Russia
over Ukraine has further boosted the support towards
maintaining bases. Former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in a Washington Post article , linked
Russia’s actions in Ukraine with the troop withdrawal
from Afghanistan. According to her, anything less than
the American military’s requirement for 10,000 troops
will suggest that the US is not serious about helping to
stabilise that country, which is likely to embolden
countries like Iran, Iraq and Russia.
Aid as Carrot and Stick
The US Congress has been giving out multibillion dollar
annual bills as aid to the Afghan army. However, with
Karzai sticking to his word on not signing the BSA until
after elections, the administration has claimed that the
financial assistance, whether for armed forces or
development programmes, is likely to drop steeply. In
January 2014, Congress slashed the development
budget for Afghanistan by half and even reduced
security aid by 60 per cent.
A recent report by the United States Institute of Peace
(USIP) states that the delay in signing the BSA is
compounding uncertainty and diminishing economic
confidence in Afghanistan. According to the report, the
Afghan economy is witnessing increased capital flight,
delay in investments, incipient job losses, declining
demand for goods and services, and is leading to
farmers planting more poppy. More families are
choosing to arm themselves, leading to a hike in
weapon prices. Stating that it is bound to spread into
the government and security structures, the report puts
the BSA as an anchor in navigating transition
challenges.
Using the Region to Leverage US Interests
It is a given that with or without the BSA, the US is
likely to play a lesser role in Afghanistan in the coming
months. However, the region as a whole has braced
itself for more involvement in Afghanistan, with
America’s blessings. The neighbouring countries realise
that an unstable Afghanistan is likely to become an
incubator of terrorism, poppy production and other illicit
activities. Pakistan and Iran understand the
repercussions of a failed state in their backyard that has
the potential to create unrest and instability within their
own territories. Russia and China are already worried
about the spread of insurgency in the troubled
Chechenya and Xinjiang provinces respectively.
India for its part is uniquely positioned - as a friend to
both Washington and Kabul. India remains in a position
to use its good offices to ensure that a version of the
BSA agreeable to both the countries is signed. Building
on the 'narrative of opportunity' to counter the anxiety
of withdrawal, New Delhi is attempting to shift focus to
regional confidence-building, development, governance,
trade and investment. India until now has transferred
‘no strings attached’ aid directly to Kabul despite
knowing that the Afghan government is considered
corrupt. India has also tried to deal with Pakistan’s
fears over military involvement in Afghanistan. Thus, it
has been evasive towards Afghan requests for tanks,
field guns and aircraft. As it turns out, Washington,
which was more than ambivalent regarding India’s
participation in the region, wants more from New Delhi
today.
The ‘new silk road’ initiative to link Afghanistan’s
energy, mineral and trade resources with the rest of the
world ideated by the Obama administration is also being
taken up by the region collectively to exploit the transit
potential that can accrue much needed economic growth
for the country. If successful, the project can serve as a
conduit for mutually beneficial cooperation between the
US, Central Asia and Russia, helping the US to continue
playing a consequential role in the region.
US-CHINA: THE PROBLEM OF CONGAGEMENT
Over the past two decades, China has grown
exponentially, both in military prowess and economic
might. The US, one of the major contributing factors to
China’s rise, now realises the importance of countering
this advancement. But is its policy of ‘congagement’,
apt for the issue at hand?
Inconsistent Engagement
Over the past decade, the US maintained a policy of
‘engagement’ towards China. This has in fact been a
tactic to hedge its own bets, without getting into the
primary context. Militarily, Washington has been
facilitating Beijing’s participation in multilateral defense
exercises such as the Cobra Gold and RIMPAC, thus
coming clean and allowing China to gauge US intentions
in the region. Economically, the US has granted China
the Most Favoured Nation status, thereby reducing
export control policies and allowing Beijing to operate
relatively freely in the US markets.
Washington has tried to maximise bilateral ties while
keeping existing disputes in control. Simultaneously, the
US continuously tries to bring China into various arms
control regimes dealing with WMDs, proliferation, arms
trade, etc., and also into international regimes such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Bilaterally, Washington has tried to involve Beijing in the
regional issues regarding North Korea, and may also
invite it to assist with Iran.
While there can be several intended results from this
relationship, the most practical and favorable outcome
is that of Beijing’s integration into the international
system. If China gets as engaged in international
relations as most other Western nations, the probability
of a military intervention by Beijing decreases. This is
because the leadership in Beijing understands the
benefits the current ‘rules of the game’ have to offer,
and also to avoid doing anything that would scuttle its
own off-shore interests.
However, engagement is a relatively flawed policy, as it
does not offer advice on what needs to be done, in the
event of Beijing not adhering to current international
norms. The primary assumption – engaging China on
the international stage as a primary actor, to change its
outlook towards a positive direction – is an a priori
concept. Should this prove to be incorrect, engagement
would have only assisted China in becoming a more
threatening adversary in the future.
Containment: Boon or a Bane?
Containment is seen as a more realistic approach of
dealing with a powerful China in the future. Under this
policy, all elements of the US-China relationship would
be subservient to the primary objective: preventing
China’s growth. This would entail drastically reducing
US-China trade agreements, particularly insuring non-
proliferation of technology and military
development. Furthermore, Washington will have to
enhance its regional presence in the Asia-Pacific,
engaging with other nation states in the region, into
forming an ‘anti-China’ alliance. The US would also
have to convince other potential political and security
partners into limiting their diplomatic and trade
relations with China.
As realist international theory dictates, rising powers
generally tend to assert themselves on the global scene
and challenge the predominant power. This challenge
often translates in a systematic war with the
predominant power. Washington needs to take these
containment steps to ensure this ‘systematic war’ is not
realised. Also, given its political tradition of imperial
rule, China is unlikely to democratise, and this would
only lead to an increase in its bellicosity.
In the present geopolitical scenario, containment will be
a difficult policy to implement. Obtaining domestic
consensus for subordinating other policy goals (such as
trade and commerce) to dealing with a Chinese threat
that is yet to manifest itself will not be easy. This may
even lead to Beijing becoming increasingly hostile
towards the US’ interests. Furthermore, policy will
require the total cooperation of all leading industrial and
military nations of the world to succeed – that which
doesn’t seem to be the case. In the last decade, along
with the US, other major regional players too have been
pivoting to China, and not all of them may want to
sever their economic and diplomatic relationship with
the latter.
Feasibility of a Middle Path
Not only the Obama administration, but much of the US
policy establishment is ambiguous in their reactions
towards the growing Chinese economic and military
power. Recently, the curious term called
‘congagement’ (a mix of containment and engagement)
is making rounds in the US policy circles. It describes
the current policy confusion and contortions of
Washington towards Beijing Well. Many call this a
hedging strategy.
‘Congagement’, however, is built on contradictory
policies. The aspects of engagement and containment
are incoherent – they do not complement each other.
This hedging strategy is unsubstantiated. Hedging is
defined as ‘making an investment to reduce the risk of
adverse decision movements in an asset’. In the China
policy analogy, the US position is that of engaging
China in bilateral agreements, facilitating the bridging of
the gaps between both countries, while at the same
time enhancing its own position to ensure proper
counter-measures for any future Chinese threats.
This confusing stance is the primary reason why
Washington cannot directly or indirectly retaliate to
Beijing’s influence or activities detrimental to its own
security. US President Barack Obama’s ambiguous
silence on the issue of the South China Sea dispute
stands evidence for this. Furthermore, Washington’s
inability to react more than just making international
statements in the recent case of cyber espionage by
China validates this.
exponentially, both in military prowess and economic
might. The US, one of the major contributing factors to
China’s rise, now realises the importance of countering
this advancement. But is its policy of ‘congagement’,
apt for the issue at hand?
Inconsistent Engagement
Over the past decade, the US maintained a policy of
‘engagement’ towards China. This has in fact been a
tactic to hedge its own bets, without getting into the
primary context. Militarily, Washington has been
facilitating Beijing’s participation in multilateral defense
exercises such as the Cobra Gold and RIMPAC, thus
coming clean and allowing China to gauge US intentions
in the region. Economically, the US has granted China
the Most Favoured Nation status, thereby reducing
export control policies and allowing Beijing to operate
relatively freely in the US markets.
Washington has tried to maximise bilateral ties while
keeping existing disputes in control. Simultaneously, the
US continuously tries to bring China into various arms
control regimes dealing with WMDs, proliferation, arms
trade, etc., and also into international regimes such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Bilaterally, Washington has tried to involve Beijing in the
regional issues regarding North Korea, and may also
invite it to assist with Iran.
While there can be several intended results from this
relationship, the most practical and favorable outcome
is that of Beijing’s integration into the international
system. If China gets as engaged in international
relations as most other Western nations, the probability
of a military intervention by Beijing decreases. This is
because the leadership in Beijing understands the
benefits the current ‘rules of the game’ have to offer,
and also to avoid doing anything that would scuttle its
own off-shore interests.
However, engagement is a relatively flawed policy, as it
does not offer advice on what needs to be done, in the
event of Beijing not adhering to current international
norms. The primary assumption – engaging China on
the international stage as a primary actor, to change its
outlook towards a positive direction – is an a priori
concept. Should this prove to be incorrect, engagement
would have only assisted China in becoming a more
threatening adversary in the future.
Containment: Boon or a Bane?
Containment is seen as a more realistic approach of
dealing with a powerful China in the future. Under this
policy, all elements of the US-China relationship would
be subservient to the primary objective: preventing
China’s growth. This would entail drastically reducing
US-China trade agreements, particularly insuring non-
proliferation of technology and military
development. Furthermore, Washington will have to
enhance its regional presence in the Asia-Pacific,
engaging with other nation states in the region, into
forming an ‘anti-China’ alliance. The US would also
have to convince other potential political and security
partners into limiting their diplomatic and trade
relations with China.
As realist international theory dictates, rising powers
generally tend to assert themselves on the global scene
and challenge the predominant power. This challenge
often translates in a systematic war with the
predominant power. Washington needs to take these
containment steps to ensure this ‘systematic war’ is not
realised. Also, given its political tradition of imperial
rule, China is unlikely to democratise, and this would
only lead to an increase in its bellicosity.
In the present geopolitical scenario, containment will be
a difficult policy to implement. Obtaining domestic
consensus for subordinating other policy goals (such as
trade and commerce) to dealing with a Chinese threat
that is yet to manifest itself will not be easy. This may
even lead to Beijing becoming increasingly hostile
towards the US’ interests. Furthermore, policy will
require the total cooperation of all leading industrial and
military nations of the world to succeed – that which
doesn’t seem to be the case. In the last decade, along
with the US, other major regional players too have been
pivoting to China, and not all of them may want to
sever their economic and diplomatic relationship with
the latter.
Feasibility of a Middle Path
Not only the Obama administration, but much of the US
policy establishment is ambiguous in their reactions
towards the growing Chinese economic and military
power. Recently, the curious term called
‘congagement’ (a mix of containment and engagement)
is making rounds in the US policy circles. It describes
the current policy confusion and contortions of
Washington towards Beijing Well. Many call this a
hedging strategy.
‘Congagement’, however, is built on contradictory
policies. The aspects of engagement and containment
are incoherent – they do not complement each other.
This hedging strategy is unsubstantiated. Hedging is
defined as ‘making an investment to reduce the risk of
adverse decision movements in an asset’. In the China
policy analogy, the US position is that of engaging
China in bilateral agreements, facilitating the bridging of
the gaps between both countries, while at the same
time enhancing its own position to ensure proper
counter-measures for any future Chinese threats.
This confusing stance is the primary reason why
Washington cannot directly or indirectly retaliate to
Beijing’s influence or activities detrimental to its own
security. US President Barack Obama’s ambiguous
silence on the issue of the South China Sea dispute
stands evidence for this. Furthermore, Washington’s
inability to react more than just making international
statements in the recent case of cyber espionage by
China validates this.
US, UKRAINE AND THE END OF UNIPOLARITY
When Ukraine became a sovereign independent republic
following the Soviet disintegration, a unipolar world
order was born. Now with Crimea’s secession from
Ukraine and the annexation to Russia, the death of the
unipolar world seems certain.
US unilateralism during the era of a unipolar world order
remained unchallenged.
There was no one to question then US President Bill
Clinton’s decision to rain missiles on Afghanistan as a
response to the bombing of two US embassies in Africa;
no one could challenge then US President George Bush’s
decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, withdraw from Kyoto Protocol, invade
Iraq, and overthrow Saddam Hussein from power.
Incumbent US President Barack Obama promised to
promote a liberal world order; employ more diplomacy
and less force; end occupation of Iraq; talk Iran out of a
suspected nuclear weapon programme; bring North
Korea back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; positively
engage the Islamic world; strive for establishment of a
nuclear weapon free world; reach out to the largest
democracy of the world; make China a responsible
stakeholder; make Russia a partner for peace; and many
more.
However, project Obama, although partially successful,
it has largely failed. President Obama can be given
credit for Iran’s decision to accept the détente with the
US, Syria’s willingness to destroy its chemical weapons,
US Navy Seal’s spectacular assassination of Osama bin
Laden, and his successful approach to stemming the
country’s downward economic spiral.
Nevertheless, his foreign policy flops appear more
stunning. The Arab world is clearly on fire with
dangerous political upheavals and unrelenting violence.
The White House will have to accept a fair share of the
blame for the Libyan chaos, Egyptian instability, the
interminable civil war in Syria, and the North Korean
nuclear tenacity.
Additionally, the US is not in a position to inspire
confidence among its Asian allies at the time of growing
Chinese assertiveness. All goodwill between India and
the US appears to have become a thing of the past
following the fierce diplomatic discord sparked by the
arrest and perceived mistreatment of an Indian consular
officer by the New York Police Department. The
Marshall Plan aid to Europe in the post World War II
period remains in the history books, and the present day
US is simply incapable of instituting a similar
assistance programme to rescue Europe from its current
economic calamity.
In other words, the unipolar world order was already
facing the risk of extinction, when Russia’s response to
the political turbulence in Ukraine threatened to alter
that order. During the period of Soviet disintegration,
pundits could not predict the final outcome of events in
Moscow. Similarly, in the case of the Ukrainian political
turmoil, no one could imagine the speed with which
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be able to
dismantle Ukrainian political geography and annex
Crimea.
The Obama administration’s response was slow and
meek. Along with the EU, it imposed sanctions against
some Russian individuals. Although Russia’s
membership from the G8 and its voting rights in the
Council of Europe was suspended, no sanctions could
be imposed on critical sectors of the Russian economy,
and nor could any military measure be contemplated.
High rhetoric and docile measures highlight
Washington’s response.
All these are the result of the resilience of a resurgent
Russia and the relative decline of the US. The US
military presence in Europe is far less today compared
to that during the height of the Cold War. There are no
US aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean; US navy
personnel numbers in Europe have reduced to 7000 from
40,000; and army personnel numbers have been
reduced to 66,000 from over several hundred thousand
in the recent past.
Reduction in the US military presence has coincided with
the increased Russian leverage in Europe, especially in
the energy sector. Germany purchases one-third of
Moscow’s gas; Russia accounts for over half of
Austria’s gas imports; and Finland imports all of its gas
from Russia. Germany’s exports to Russia stand at $40
billion a year; France’s banks have over $50 billion
claims from Russia; and UK reaps billions of dollars of
profit from the indulgences of Russian Oligarch in
London.
How can the US and the EU unite to resist expansion of
Russian sway over Ukraine?
While the European allies have developed mistrust in the
US since the Snowden episode, Asian allies lack
credibility in the US in the wake of Chinese muscle
flexing. Brazil is upset with the US’s eavesdropping
activities and India is more than offended by the State
Department’s handling of the Devyani Khobragade
incident.
President Obama managed his relations with US allies,
strategic partners and emerging powers shoddily, and
finds it difficult to deal with Russian advances in
Ukraine. South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea have
fallen into Russian hands, and three provinces in
Eastern Ukraine seem to be in the queue. As the
dominoes fall, the unipolar global order also appears to
be breaking down.
following the Soviet disintegration, a unipolar world
order was born. Now with Crimea’s secession from
Ukraine and the annexation to Russia, the death of the
unipolar world seems certain.
US unilateralism during the era of a unipolar world order
remained unchallenged.
There was no one to question then US President Bill
Clinton’s decision to rain missiles on Afghanistan as a
response to the bombing of two US embassies in Africa;
no one could challenge then US President George Bush’s
decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, withdraw from Kyoto Protocol, invade
Iraq, and overthrow Saddam Hussein from power.
Incumbent US President Barack Obama promised to
promote a liberal world order; employ more diplomacy
and less force; end occupation of Iraq; talk Iran out of a
suspected nuclear weapon programme; bring North
Korea back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; positively
engage the Islamic world; strive for establishment of a
nuclear weapon free world; reach out to the largest
democracy of the world; make China a responsible
stakeholder; make Russia a partner for peace; and many
more.
However, project Obama, although partially successful,
it has largely failed. President Obama can be given
credit for Iran’s decision to accept the détente with the
US, Syria’s willingness to destroy its chemical weapons,
US Navy Seal’s spectacular assassination of Osama bin
Laden, and his successful approach to stemming the
country’s downward economic spiral.
Nevertheless, his foreign policy flops appear more
stunning. The Arab world is clearly on fire with
dangerous political upheavals and unrelenting violence.
The White House will have to accept a fair share of the
blame for the Libyan chaos, Egyptian instability, the
interminable civil war in Syria, and the North Korean
nuclear tenacity.
Additionally, the US is not in a position to inspire
confidence among its Asian allies at the time of growing
Chinese assertiveness. All goodwill between India and
the US appears to have become a thing of the past
following the fierce diplomatic discord sparked by the
arrest and perceived mistreatment of an Indian consular
officer by the New York Police Department. The
Marshall Plan aid to Europe in the post World War II
period remains in the history books, and the present day
US is simply incapable of instituting a similar
assistance programme to rescue Europe from its current
economic calamity.
In other words, the unipolar world order was already
facing the risk of extinction, when Russia’s response to
the political turbulence in Ukraine threatened to alter
that order. During the period of Soviet disintegration,
pundits could not predict the final outcome of events in
Moscow. Similarly, in the case of the Ukrainian political
turmoil, no one could imagine the speed with which
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be able to
dismantle Ukrainian political geography and annex
Crimea.
The Obama administration’s response was slow and
meek. Along with the EU, it imposed sanctions against
some Russian individuals. Although Russia’s
membership from the G8 and its voting rights in the
Council of Europe was suspended, no sanctions could
be imposed on critical sectors of the Russian economy,
and nor could any military measure be contemplated.
High rhetoric and docile measures highlight
Washington’s response.
All these are the result of the resilience of a resurgent
Russia and the relative decline of the US. The US
military presence in Europe is far less today compared
to that during the height of the Cold War. There are no
US aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean; US navy
personnel numbers in Europe have reduced to 7000 from
40,000; and army personnel numbers have been
reduced to 66,000 from over several hundred thousand
in the recent past.
Reduction in the US military presence has coincided with
the increased Russian leverage in Europe, especially in
the energy sector. Germany purchases one-third of
Moscow’s gas; Russia accounts for over half of
Austria’s gas imports; and Finland imports all of its gas
from Russia. Germany’s exports to Russia stand at $40
billion a year; France’s banks have over $50 billion
claims from Russia; and UK reaps billions of dollars of
profit from the indulgences of Russian Oligarch in
London.
How can the US and the EU unite to resist expansion of
Russian sway over Ukraine?
While the European allies have developed mistrust in the
US since the Snowden episode, Asian allies lack
credibility in the US in the wake of Chinese muscle
flexing. Brazil is upset with the US’s eavesdropping
activities and India is more than offended by the State
Department’s handling of the Devyani Khobragade
incident.
President Obama managed his relations with US allies,
strategic partners and emerging powers shoddily, and
finds it difficult to deal with Russian advances in
Ukraine. South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea have
fallen into Russian hands, and three provinces in
Eastern Ukraine seem to be in the queue. As the
dominoes fall, the unipolar global order also appears to
be breaking down.
7 Jun 2014
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Since its creation, the Electoral College has faced debate
between those who believe it benefits the electoral
process and those who view it as detrimental. The
Electoral College debate focuses around various issues,
including the relevance of the popular vote, the
allocation of voting power between states and how the
system affects minority groups.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that one of the
main benefits of the system is that it requires the
winning candidate to have a broad appeal throughout
the nation. By requiring candidates to appeal to voters
throughout the country, the Electoral College prevents
candidates from winning based on winning the support
of urban areas alone, which would allegedly
disenfranchise rural voters. In a similar way, proponents
of the Electoral College argue that the current system
empowers minority groups because it requires
candidates to appeal to minority groups to win enough
states to win the election.
Supporters also claim that the current system is in line
with the federal character of the US government. This is
because the current system gives more voting power to
less populous communities, and proponents of this view
argue that even the opinions of a sparsely populated
area should matter to the federal government. They take
the position that the Electoral College provides for
greater national stability. By requiring candidates to
appeal to a broad collection of voters, new ideas and
innovations have to meet with broad-based approval
before those who hold those views can gain power in
the government.
Those who criticize the Electoral College often do so on
the grounds that it makes the popular vote irrelevant
and point to four elections, those in 2000, 1888, 1876
and 1824 where the candidate who won a victory
through the electoral college did not have a plurality of
the total votes cast. This is generally viewed by
detractors of the Electoral College as not in line with the
principles of a democratic society. Detractors also argue
that the present system encourage candidates to appeal
only to certain swing states in each election. They
argue that instead of finding broad-based appeal,
candidates tailor their campaigns to win over swing
voters in a handful of states.
The Electoral College Debate Continues
Those who support changing the present system also
argue that the Electoral College discourages voter
participation in states that are not identified as
battleground states. They argue that this is because of
party domination in certain states that renders the votes
of those not in that party irrelevant to the national
election. In this way, detractors of the Electoral College
believe that the present system disenfranchises minority
groups.
between those who believe it benefits the electoral
process and those who view it as detrimental. The
Electoral College debate focuses around various issues,
including the relevance of the popular vote, the
allocation of voting power between states and how the
system affects minority groups.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that one of the
main benefits of the system is that it requires the
winning candidate to have a broad appeal throughout
the nation. By requiring candidates to appeal to voters
throughout the country, the Electoral College prevents
candidates from winning based on winning the support
of urban areas alone, which would allegedly
disenfranchise rural voters. In a similar way, proponents
of the Electoral College argue that the current system
empowers minority groups because it requires
candidates to appeal to minority groups to win enough
states to win the election.
Supporters also claim that the current system is in line
with the federal character of the US government. This is
because the current system gives more voting power to
less populous communities, and proponents of this view
argue that even the opinions of a sparsely populated
area should matter to the federal government. They take
the position that the Electoral College provides for
greater national stability. By requiring candidates to
appeal to a broad collection of voters, new ideas and
innovations have to meet with broad-based approval
before those who hold those views can gain power in
the government.
Those who criticize the Electoral College often do so on
the grounds that it makes the popular vote irrelevant
and point to four elections, those in 2000, 1888, 1876
and 1824 where the candidate who won a victory
through the electoral college did not have a plurality of
the total votes cast. This is generally viewed by
detractors of the Electoral College as not in line with the
principles of a democratic society. Detractors also argue
that the present system encourage candidates to appeal
only to certain swing states in each election. They
argue that instead of finding broad-based appeal,
candidates tailor their campaigns to win over swing
voters in a handful of states.
The Electoral College Debate Continues
Those who support changing the present system also
argue that the Electoral College discourages voter
participation in states that are not identified as
battleground states. They argue that this is because of
party domination in certain states that renders the votes
of those not in that party irrelevant to the national
election. In this way, detractors of the Electoral College
believe that the present system disenfranchises minority
groups.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative action programs are created in an attempt to
make sure that all groups within a given society have
the same opportunity to succeed. The term "affirmative
action" was coined by President John F. Kennedy and
expanded by President Lyndon Johnson. Although
different terms are used for affirmative action in different
nations, the concept is the same; affirmative action
means making sure that active steps are taken so that
minority groups are represented and hired in
organizations, government and businesses. Employment
decisions, admission to educational institutions, public
health policies and other arenas have all been affected
by a commitment to affirmative action.
Instituting an affirmative action policy comes from a
particular assessment of a nation's past; it is seen as
necessary as a compensatory measure in cultures that
have a history of discrimination or of withholding
economic opportunities based on race or national origin.
While some countries refuse to participate in affirmative
action because they have so-called "color-blind" laws
mandating that all races simply be treated equally,
other countries feel that favoring previously oppressed
groups, often called "reverse discrimination," at least for
a period of time, is the only way to restore complete
equality in the long term. This belief can lead to the
adoption of hiring quotas in which a certain number of
hires or appointments must come from previously
under-represented groups of people. In the United
States, affirmative action has been widely practiced, but
nearly as widely critiqued.
Critiques of Affirmative Action
Proponents of affirmative action point out that the
groups it currently favors are coming out of
backgrounds such as slavery, which made it nearly
impossible for them to succeed; thus, they deserve a
positive advantage when competing for jobs or
positions against others who experienced no systemic
barriers to success. Without a special opportunity to
enter into the system, disadvantaged groups might
never be able to overcome the handicap which was
forced on them by the exclusive priorities of their
culture. Eventually, all should be able to compete
equally, but discrimination is too recent to expect
underprivileged groups to do so now. In the end, the
goal is a free and equal society in which nobody gets a
head start to success. There are, however, many people
who are skeptical about these claims. These critics of
affirmative action point out that selecting someone
purely based on their ethnicity or origin actually
devalues the person's real accomplishments; they also
say that this devaluation ends up hurting the wider
ethnic or racial group from which a candidate comes.
Another common criticism is that as a form of reverse
discrimination, affirmative action keeps societies aware
of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates
alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse
groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial
tension. Another concern is that affirmative action may
encourage individuals to misrepresent themselves as
members of an underprivileged group so that they can
get a job or appointment.
Finally, critics claim that racially-based hiring or
appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform
at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get
the position anyway, and the privileged, because they
cannot be hired no matter how well they perform. The
affirmative action debate is heated; while most
Americans favor affirmative action when it is focused on
gender and seeks to make sure that enough women are
hired, fewer of them claim to support racially-based
affirmative action programs.
make sure that all groups within a given society have
the same opportunity to succeed. The term "affirmative
action" was coined by President John F. Kennedy and
expanded by President Lyndon Johnson. Although
different terms are used for affirmative action in different
nations, the concept is the same; affirmative action
means making sure that active steps are taken so that
minority groups are represented and hired in
organizations, government and businesses. Employment
decisions, admission to educational institutions, public
health policies and other arenas have all been affected
by a commitment to affirmative action.
Instituting an affirmative action policy comes from a
particular assessment of a nation's past; it is seen as
necessary as a compensatory measure in cultures that
have a history of discrimination or of withholding
economic opportunities based on race or national origin.
While some countries refuse to participate in affirmative
action because they have so-called "color-blind" laws
mandating that all races simply be treated equally,
other countries feel that favoring previously oppressed
groups, often called "reverse discrimination," at least for
a period of time, is the only way to restore complete
equality in the long term. This belief can lead to the
adoption of hiring quotas in which a certain number of
hires or appointments must come from previously
under-represented groups of people. In the United
States, affirmative action has been widely practiced, but
nearly as widely critiqued.
Critiques of Affirmative Action
Proponents of affirmative action point out that the
groups it currently favors are coming out of
backgrounds such as slavery, which made it nearly
impossible for them to succeed; thus, they deserve a
positive advantage when competing for jobs or
positions against others who experienced no systemic
barriers to success. Without a special opportunity to
enter into the system, disadvantaged groups might
never be able to overcome the handicap which was
forced on them by the exclusive priorities of their
culture. Eventually, all should be able to compete
equally, but discrimination is too recent to expect
underprivileged groups to do so now. In the end, the
goal is a free and equal society in which nobody gets a
head start to success. There are, however, many people
who are skeptical about these claims. These critics of
affirmative action point out that selecting someone
purely based on their ethnicity or origin actually
devalues the person's real accomplishments; they also
say that this devaluation ends up hurting the wider
ethnic or racial group from which a candidate comes.
Another common criticism is that as a form of reverse
discrimination, affirmative action keeps societies aware
of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates
alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse
groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial
tension. Another concern is that affirmative action may
encourage individuals to misrepresent themselves as
members of an underprivileged group so that they can
get a job or appointment.
Finally, critics claim that racially-based hiring or
appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform
at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get
the position anyway, and the privileged, because they
cannot be hired no matter how well they perform. The
affirmative action debate is heated; while most
Americans favor affirmative action when it is focused on
gender and seeks to make sure that enough women are
hired, fewer of them claim to support racially-based
affirmative action programs.
GAY MARRIAGE
Same-sex marriage is defined as a union between two
people who are of the same gender or biological sex.
Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have
made this type of union legal. Whether or not to
recognize such marriages remains a source of debate as
far as civil rights, political and social issues go.
Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often
comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The
word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across
cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a
relationship of one or more men with one or more
women that is recognized by law and involves certain
legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are
married also carry a legal responsibility for children that
they produce together. Modern definitions of the word
have much more variation. The Oxford English
Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex
marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many
conservative publications have not yet changed their
definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for
the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage
between two people of the same gender. Associated
Press uses the term "gay marriage" and warns that this
can refer to marriage of both gay men and lesbian
couples.
Gay Marriage Debate Controversy
It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage
that this topic carries with it a large amount of
controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage
often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage,
regardless of sexual orientation. Those who are opposed
often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the
rearing of children as the main reasons for their
opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not
a simple one. It involves many legislative, cultural,
religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of
the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of
marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the
opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that marriage
is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those
of a particular sexual orientation.
Gay Marriage and Religion
Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate
often involve religious factors. Some religious
associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-
sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex
marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people
were created as such by God and should have the same
rights as others. Those who are against it argue that
same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will
and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to
produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its
approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith
openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in
Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-
sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family.
Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a
father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a
homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the
other hand, scientific studies have found that children
raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable
of providing heterosexual parenting to their own children
later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one
because of the many social and legal factors involved.
Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage,
political and social groups everywhere are working hard
to form their own opinions and arguments.
people who are of the same gender or biological sex.
Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have
made this type of union legal. Whether or not to
recognize such marriages remains a source of debate as
far as civil rights, political and social issues go.
Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often
comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The
word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across
cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a
relationship of one or more men with one or more
women that is recognized by law and involves certain
legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are
married also carry a legal responsibility for children that
they produce together. Modern definitions of the word
have much more variation. The Oxford English
Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex
marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many
conservative publications have not yet changed their
definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for
the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage
between two people of the same gender. Associated
Press uses the term "gay marriage" and warns that this
can refer to marriage of both gay men and lesbian
couples.
Gay Marriage Debate Controversy
It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage
that this topic carries with it a large amount of
controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage
often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage,
regardless of sexual orientation. Those who are opposed
often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the
rearing of children as the main reasons for their
opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not
a simple one. It involves many legislative, cultural,
religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of
the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of
marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the
opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that marriage
is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those
of a particular sexual orientation.
Gay Marriage and Religion
Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate
often involve religious factors. Some religious
associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-
sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex
marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people
were created as such by God and should have the same
rights as others. Those who are against it argue that
same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will
and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to
produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its
approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith
openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in
Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-
sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family.
Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a
father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a
homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the
other hand, scientific studies have found that children
raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable
of providing heterosexual parenting to their own children
later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one
because of the many social and legal factors involved.
Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage,
political and social groups everywhere are working hard
to form their own opinions and arguments.
LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION
Prostitution is defined as the act of providing sexual
services to a person in exchange for money, goods or
other services. Worldwide, this practice produces over
$100 billion in revenue annually. Prostitution practices
vary greatly from country to country. Prostitution is
legal in some countries; however, prostitution is
considered so serious a crime that it is punishable by
death in other countries. Currently, prostitution is illegal
in the United States with the exception of a few small
jurisdictions in Nevada. Some believe that legalizing this
industry would bring many benefits, while others have
identified many negatives of legalized prostitution.
Arguments in Favor of the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents for the legalization of prostitution generally
believe that, since prostitution is a harmless act, it
should not, by definition, be considered a crime. Many
believe that criminalizing prostitution only exacerbates
the spread of diseases, and if the practice were legal, it
would encourage cleaner working conditions and better
STD testing for prostitutes. Those who support
legalization also believe that there is nothing immoral
about sex, and since it is freely dispensed, there is no
harm in charging for it. Many also believe that
criminalizing the industry only brings discrimination and
poor working conditions for sex providers and
purchasers. Current laws do not stop prostitutes from
selling sex, but seems only to make them more prone to
violent acts while working. Many also think that if
women could legally participate on their own free will,
the likelihood of underage prostitution and sex slaves
would decrease.
Arguments Opposed to the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents opposed to the legalized prostitution debate
believe that prostitution is simply immoral and should
be considered a crime. They also believe that legalizing
prostitution would increase the spread of disease,
stating that it takes several weeks to get the results
from STD tests allowing an infected prostitute to
continue infecting her clients. Many also believe that
since most sex workers are female, the practice is
demeaning to women and enhances the changes of rape
and violence. Some go so far as defining prostitution as
a type of rape, since it turns a woman into an object for
a man's use. Others state that prostitution increases
the involvement of sexual predators and the use of
minors as sex slaves.
services to a person in exchange for money, goods or
other services. Worldwide, this practice produces over
$100 billion in revenue annually. Prostitution practices
vary greatly from country to country. Prostitution is
legal in some countries; however, prostitution is
considered so serious a crime that it is punishable by
death in other countries. Currently, prostitution is illegal
in the United States with the exception of a few small
jurisdictions in Nevada. Some believe that legalizing this
industry would bring many benefits, while others have
identified many negatives of legalized prostitution.
Arguments in Favor of the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents for the legalization of prostitution generally
believe that, since prostitution is a harmless act, it
should not, by definition, be considered a crime. Many
believe that criminalizing prostitution only exacerbates
the spread of diseases, and if the practice were legal, it
would encourage cleaner working conditions and better
STD testing for prostitutes. Those who support
legalization also believe that there is nothing immoral
about sex, and since it is freely dispensed, there is no
harm in charging for it. Many also believe that
criminalizing the industry only brings discrimination and
poor working conditions for sex providers and
purchasers. Current laws do not stop prostitutes from
selling sex, but seems only to make them more prone to
violent acts while working. Many also think that if
women could legally participate on their own free will,
the likelihood of underage prostitution and sex slaves
would decrease.
Arguments Opposed to the Legalized Prostitution Debate
Proponents opposed to the legalized prostitution debate
believe that prostitution is simply immoral and should
be considered a crime. They also believe that legalizing
prostitution would increase the spread of disease,
stating that it takes several weeks to get the results
from STD tests allowing an infected prostitute to
continue infecting her clients. Many also believe that
since most sex workers are female, the practice is
demeaning to women and enhances the changes of rape
and violence. Some go so far as defining prostitution as
a type of rape, since it turns a woman into an object for
a man's use. Others state that prostitution increases
the involvement of sexual predators and the use of
minors as sex slaves.
OCCUPY MOVEMENT
The Occupy movement is an international movement
with the goals of enhancing social and economic
equality. One of the movement's main objectives is to
reorganize the power relations in society in order to
close the gap between the rich and the poor. There are
many local divisions of the Occupy movement; each has
some of its own goals and aspirations. However, one of
the unifying concerns is the large degree of control that
financial systems have in the world economy and the
fact that only a small minority of people benefit from
this economic arrangement. Those who support the
Occupy movement believe that this arrangement
undermines democracy and makes the government and
world economy unstable. The Occupy movement relies
on picketing, general strikes and demonstrations to
make its goals known. Participants are known to camp
out for weeks or even months in large cities and form
tent communities in which they live and promote their
cause. Their slogan is "We are the 99 percent." Occupy
movements have sprung up in many nations, such as
New Zealand, Malaysia, Germany, France, England, the
United States and even Norway.
Occupy Movement Debate Supporters
Those who support the Occupy movement believe that
economic inequality has grown over the years and that
somebody needs to do something about it before it gets
any worse. The top 1 percent receives 23 percent of all
U.S. income. The movement calls attention to these
disparities in a way that is hard for politicians and
citizens to ignore. Its worldwide nature calls attention
to the fact that economic disparities are not just a
problem in the United States, they are, in fact, worsening
worldwide.
Occupy Movement Debate Critics
There are many people who find fault with the Occupy
movement. Most are not against the movement
because they do not believe that economic disparities
do not exist or that the financial system is not marred.
However, the major disadvantage to the Occupy
movement, they believe, is that it lacks focus and is
inefficient at making its goals known. Many protesters,
when questioned, do not know exactly what they are
protesting. Those who are against the movement call
attention to the fact that some nations have made
strides towards greater economic equality, and that it is
not necessarily a worldwide problem. China, for
example, has increased its economic equality over the
last several decades.
with the goals of enhancing social and economic
equality. One of the movement's main objectives is to
reorganize the power relations in society in order to
close the gap between the rich and the poor. There are
many local divisions of the Occupy movement; each has
some of its own goals and aspirations. However, one of
the unifying concerns is the large degree of control that
financial systems have in the world economy and the
fact that only a small minority of people benefit from
this economic arrangement. Those who support the
Occupy movement believe that this arrangement
undermines democracy and makes the government and
world economy unstable. The Occupy movement relies
on picketing, general strikes and demonstrations to
make its goals known. Participants are known to camp
out for weeks or even months in large cities and form
tent communities in which they live and promote their
cause. Their slogan is "We are the 99 percent." Occupy
movements have sprung up in many nations, such as
New Zealand, Malaysia, Germany, France, England, the
United States and even Norway.
Occupy Movement Debate Supporters
Those who support the Occupy movement believe that
economic inequality has grown over the years and that
somebody needs to do something about it before it gets
any worse. The top 1 percent receives 23 percent of all
U.S. income. The movement calls attention to these
disparities in a way that is hard for politicians and
citizens to ignore. Its worldwide nature calls attention
to the fact that economic disparities are not just a
problem in the United States, they are, in fact, worsening
worldwide.
Occupy Movement Debate Critics
There are many people who find fault with the Occupy
movement. Most are not against the movement
because they do not believe that economic disparities
do not exist or that the financial system is not marred.
However, the major disadvantage to the Occupy
movement, they believe, is that it lacks focus and is
inefficient at making its goals known. Many protesters,
when questioned, do not know exactly what they are
protesting. Those who are against the movement call
attention to the fact that some nations have made
strides towards greater economic equality, and that it is
not necessarily a worldwide problem. China, for
example, has increased its economic equality over the
last several decades.
DATING SECRETS FOR SPLENDID RELATIONSHIP
1. Be Open Minded : The number one rule we
have heard from both sides of the fence is to go
into every date with an open mind. Your ideal
partner, based on your personal checklist, may be
completely different from the person that you could be
truly compatible with. Everyone has this warped sense
of who their perfect partner should be, but when
interviewing countless older couples who have been
married for more than 50 years – their life partners were
completely different from the person they initially
imagined.
2. Don’t Research Before a First Date: In these days of
Google and Facebook, it’s easy to be tempted to do a
little research before you even go out on a first date.
Don’t do it! You’ll get a false impression of the person,
and can make strong judgments without even knowing
him/her yet.
3. Don’t Bring Baggage : Avoid talking about old
relationships, negative experiences, etc. Have those
conversations only after several dates. There is little to
gain by dwelling on the past.
4. Be Honest About Yourself: You can avoid specific
topics early on, but don’t lie about things. Starting a
relationship based on lies is never a good idea.
5. Leave on a High Note : Keep a first date short, and
it’s always better to leave on a high note. Meeting for
coffee or a meal is great, but don’t make long drawn
out plans for another date – excuse yourself and say
goodbye. Better to leave the person wanting more.
have heard from both sides of the fence is to go
into every date with an open mind. Your ideal
partner, based on your personal checklist, may be
completely different from the person that you could be
truly compatible with. Everyone has this warped sense
of who their perfect partner should be, but when
interviewing countless older couples who have been
married for more than 50 years – their life partners were
completely different from the person they initially
imagined.
2. Don’t Research Before a First Date: In these days of
Google and Facebook, it’s easy to be tempted to do a
little research before you even go out on a first date.
Don’t do it! You’ll get a false impression of the person,
and can make strong judgments without even knowing
him/her yet.
3. Don’t Bring Baggage : Avoid talking about old
relationships, negative experiences, etc. Have those
conversations only after several dates. There is little to
gain by dwelling on the past.
4. Be Honest About Yourself: You can avoid specific
topics early on, but don’t lie about things. Starting a
relationship based on lies is never a good idea.
5. Leave on a High Note : Keep a first date short, and
it’s always better to leave on a high note. Meeting for
coffee or a meal is great, but don’t make long drawn
out plans for another date – excuse yourself and say
goodbye. Better to leave the person wanting more.
STIMULUS SPENDING
On February 13, 2009 the American Recovery and
Investment Act of 2009 was passed by the United
States Congress. The act is also known as President
Obama's stimulus package and was only approved by
three Republicans in all of Congress. The package,
composed of $787 billion in tax reductions and
expenditures for education, energy, infrastructure, health
care and many other projects, was created to help get
the U.S. economy out of the recession by creating
several million jobs and replacing money in the
economy. Read on to learn more about the major ups
and downs to the stimulus package.
Stimulus Spending Debate Pros
The biggest pro for the stimulus package is, of course,
that if it works it can pull the U.S. economy out of a
terrible recession. The stimulus package has the ability
to upstart the economy and provide millions of jobs.
This would stop the ever-increasing unemployment rate.
Additionally, the stimulus package has the backing of
economic historians, who argue that the Keynesian-
style spending inherent in the package has shown
previously great success in ending the Great Depression
and propelling economic growth during the 1950's and
1960's.
There are also a number of smaller, more specific pros
that come out of the stimulus package. First, the
package calls for a great deal of repair to U.S.
infrastructure. The repairs are certainly needed and
affect roads, power, bridges, airports, sewage systems
and more. Next, the package provides a great deal of
aid to school districts. The package works to expand
public transportation, with funds dedicated to a high-
speed rail system. There are increased unemployment
benefits. The package increases food assistance for
Americans with low-income and increases medical
coverage for military members, families and veterans.
Criticisms of the Stimulus Spending Debate
There are a great deal of critics of the stimulus
spending debate as well. Those who criticize the
package consider a number of cons. First, the money
funding the package must come from outside sources,
increasing the national deficit. Economists predict that
within a few years the hole in the economy will triple the
amount spent in the package, so the package is
potentially not nearly enough to do anything worthwhile.
Among the biggest criticisms of the bill by those who
lean right politically is about the nature of government
involvement in economics itself. Many Republicans feel
that the federal government was already too large prior
to this crisis. They objected to the stimulus on the
grounds that the federal government should get reduced
in size, scope and responsibility. They argue that this
government contraction would create breathing space
for the economy to correct and revive itself.
Investment Act of 2009 was passed by the United
States Congress. The act is also known as President
Obama's stimulus package and was only approved by
three Republicans in all of Congress. The package,
composed of $787 billion in tax reductions and
expenditures for education, energy, infrastructure, health
care and many other projects, was created to help get
the U.S. economy out of the recession by creating
several million jobs and replacing money in the
economy. Read on to learn more about the major ups
and downs to the stimulus package.
Stimulus Spending Debate Pros
The biggest pro for the stimulus package is, of course,
that if it works it can pull the U.S. economy out of a
terrible recession. The stimulus package has the ability
to upstart the economy and provide millions of jobs.
This would stop the ever-increasing unemployment rate.
Additionally, the stimulus package has the backing of
economic historians, who argue that the Keynesian-
style spending inherent in the package has shown
previously great success in ending the Great Depression
and propelling economic growth during the 1950's and
1960's.
There are also a number of smaller, more specific pros
that come out of the stimulus package. First, the
package calls for a great deal of repair to U.S.
infrastructure. The repairs are certainly needed and
affect roads, power, bridges, airports, sewage systems
and more. Next, the package provides a great deal of
aid to school districts. The package works to expand
public transportation, with funds dedicated to a high-
speed rail system. There are increased unemployment
benefits. The package increases food assistance for
Americans with low-income and increases medical
coverage for military members, families and veterans.
Criticisms of the Stimulus Spending Debate
There are a great deal of critics of the stimulus
spending debate as well. Those who criticize the
package consider a number of cons. First, the money
funding the package must come from outside sources,
increasing the national deficit. Economists predict that
within a few years the hole in the economy will triple the
amount spent in the package, so the package is
potentially not nearly enough to do anything worthwhile.
Among the biggest criticisms of the bill by those who
lean right politically is about the nature of government
involvement in economics itself. Many Republicans feel
that the federal government was already too large prior
to this crisis. They objected to the stimulus on the
grounds that the federal government should get reduced
in size, scope and responsibility. They argue that this
government contraction would create breathing space
for the economy to correct and revive itself.
FOOD CRISES
For two decades, leading up to the millennium, global
demand for food increased steadily, along with growth
in the world’s population, record harvests, improvements
in incomes, and the diversification of diets. As a result,
food prices continued to decline through 2000.
But beginning in 2004, prices for most grains began to
rise. Although there was an increase in production, the
increase in demand was greater.
Food stocks became depleted. And then, in 2005, food
production was dramatically affected by extreme
weather incidents in major food-producing countries. By
2006, world cereal production had fallen by 2.1 percent.
In 2007, rapid increases in oil prices increased fertilizer
and other food production costs.
As international food prices reached unprecedented
levels, countries sought ways to insulate themselves
from potential food shortages and price shocks. Several
food-exporting countries imposed export restrictions.
Certain key importers began purchasing grains at any
price to maintain domestic supplies.
This resulted in panic and volatility in international grain
markets. It also attracted speculative investments in
grain futures and options markets. Perhaps as a result,
prices rose even higher.
Subsequently, food commodity prices appeared to be
stabilizing. But prices are expected to remain high over
the medium to long term with devastating consequences
for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
demand for food increased steadily, along with growth
in the world’s population, record harvests, improvements
in incomes, and the diversification of diets. As a result,
food prices continued to decline through 2000.
But beginning in 2004, prices for most grains began to
rise. Although there was an increase in production, the
increase in demand was greater.
Food stocks became depleted. And then, in 2005, food
production was dramatically affected by extreme
weather incidents in major food-producing countries. By
2006, world cereal production had fallen by 2.1 percent.
In 2007, rapid increases in oil prices increased fertilizer
and other food production costs.
As international food prices reached unprecedented
levels, countries sought ways to insulate themselves
from potential food shortages and price shocks. Several
food-exporting countries imposed export restrictions.
Certain key importers began purchasing grains at any
price to maintain domestic supplies.
This resulted in panic and volatility in international grain
markets. It also attracted speculative investments in
grain futures and options markets. Perhaps as a result,
prices rose even higher.
Subsequently, food commodity prices appeared to be
stabilizing. But prices are expected to remain high over
the medium to long term with devastating consequences
for the world’s most vulnerable populations.
ATOMIC ENERGY
The UN and the nuclear age were born almost
simultaneously. The horror of the Second World War,
culminating in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, brought home the need to address the
nuclear issue. By its first resolution, the General
Assembly established the UN Atomic Energy
Commission to deal with the problems raised by the
discovery of atomic energy. And a landmark address by
United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953,
“Atoms for Peace”, led to the establishment in 1957 of
the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA).
Today, 439 nuclear power reactors produce
approximately 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. In
nine countries, over 40 per cent of energy production
comes from nuclear power. The IAEA, an international
organization in the UN family, fosters the safe, secure
and peaceful uses of atomic energy and helps ensure
the use of nuclear technology for sustainable
development.
Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons ( NPT ), the IAEA conducts on-site
inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are used
only used for peaceful purposes. Prior to the 2003 Iraq
war, its inspectors played a key role in uncovering and
eliminating Iraq’s banned weapons programmes and
capabilities. In 2005, the Agency and its Director
General, Mohamed ElBaradei were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy
from being used for military purposes and to ensure that
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the
safest possible way.”
The UN Conference on Disarmament, the sole
multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament,
produced the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ,
which was adopted in 1996. The Office for
Disarmament Affairs promotes nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space produced the 1992 Principles on the use
of nuclear power sources in outer space . The UN
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
reports on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing
radiation, providing the scientific basis for protection
and safety standards worldwide.
Addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, the UN has
also produced the Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980), and the International
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (2005).
simultaneously. The horror of the Second World War,
culminating in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, brought home the need to address the
nuclear issue. By its first resolution, the General
Assembly established the UN Atomic Energy
Commission to deal with the problems raised by the
discovery of atomic energy. And a landmark address by
United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953,
“Atoms for Peace”, led to the establishment in 1957 of
the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA).
Today, 439 nuclear power reactors produce
approximately 16 per cent of the world’s electricity. In
nine countries, over 40 per cent of energy production
comes from nuclear power. The IAEA, an international
organization in the UN family, fosters the safe, secure
and peaceful uses of atomic energy and helps ensure
the use of nuclear technology for sustainable
development.
Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons ( NPT ), the IAEA conducts on-site
inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are used
only used for peaceful purposes. Prior to the 2003 Iraq
war, its inspectors played a key role in uncovering and
eliminating Iraq’s banned weapons programmes and
capabilities. In 2005, the Agency and its Director
General, Mohamed ElBaradei were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy
from being used for military purposes and to ensure that
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the
safest possible way.”
The UN Conference on Disarmament, the sole
multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament,
produced the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ,
which was adopted in 1996. The Office for
Disarmament Affairs promotes nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space produced the 1992 Principles on the use
of nuclear power sources in outer space . The UN
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
reports on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing
radiation, providing the scientific basis for protection
and safety standards worldwide.
Addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, the UN has
also produced the Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980), and the International
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (2005).
BOKO HARAM
Boko Haram is the Islamic sect that have
emanated from the northern part of Nigeria
agitating for cancellation of western
education in Nigeria and also to make Nigeria
and Islamic country. They are the Islamic
fanatics that are using religious to carried out
their destructive plans on the innocent
Nigerians.
Boko Haram is the Islamic groups that started
carrying out their evil intension and action
on Nigerians since late last year their first
place of operation was Bauchi state police
stations, second was outside Eagle square
Abuja after last year independence
celebration, thirdly was the bomblast on
united Nations office in Abuja killing about
twenty- six expatriates.
Boko Haram, the Islamic fanatics that came
from the northern Nigeria has become a
serious threat to the security of lives and
properties in Nigeria, Boko Haram groups
does not know what they want because what
they are saying can never be possible as long
as this great nation is concern, the
cancellation of western education and making
Nigeria an Islamic country will be practically
impossible. Boko Haram groups activities and
operation is a threat to the national security,
also their operations does not give peace,
harmony, unity and love a place or chance in
this country.
emanated from the northern part of Nigeria
agitating for cancellation of western
education in Nigeria and also to make Nigeria
and Islamic country. They are the Islamic
fanatics that are using religious to carried out
their destructive plans on the innocent
Nigerians.
Boko Haram is the Islamic groups that started
carrying out their evil intension and action
on Nigerians since late last year their first
place of operation was Bauchi state police
stations, second was outside Eagle square
Abuja after last year independence
celebration, thirdly was the bomblast on
united Nations office in Abuja killing about
twenty- six expatriates.
Boko Haram, the Islamic fanatics that came
from the northern Nigeria has become a
serious threat to the security of lives and
properties in Nigeria, Boko Haram groups
does not know what they want because what
they are saying can never be possible as long
as this great nation is concern, the
cancellation of western education and making
Nigeria an Islamic country will be practically
impossible. Boko Haram groups activities and
operation is a threat to the national security,
also their operations does not give peace,
harmony, unity and love a place or chance in
this country.
REFUGEES
A peaceful and prosperous world is one in which people
can feel safe and secure in their homes, with their
families and in their communities. It is a world in which
they can feel confident in their country, their culture and
in the family of nations and peoples on our common
planet.
Sometimes, for economic or other personal reasons,
people choose to leave their homes, to begin and new
life in a new location. For better or worse, these
decisions are made as a matter of conscious choice.
But when nature intervenes in the form of natural
disasters people's homes are washed away, blown
away, or shaken to the ground, uprooting entire
communities. When war or civil unrest ravages a
community, masses or people are forcibly displaced or
simply flee to protect life and limb. At the extreme, they
are left with only two options: death by privation,
assault or genocide, or life in exile. One need only think
of those forced to flee the violence in Darfur to glimpse
the severity of their need.
This is the plight of the refugees and the internally
displaced today. In 2010, the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR)
counted 43.3 million forcibly displaced people worldwide
—the highest number since the mid-1990s. This
included 27.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs),
15.2 million refugees and 983,000 asylum-seekers. Of
the 15.2 million refugees, 10.4 million were under
UNHCR’s responsibility, and 4.7 million
were Palestinian refugees under the mandate of the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East ( UNRWA ).
More than 26 million people—10.4 million refugees and
15.6 million IDPs— were receiving protection or
assistance from UNHCR at the end of 2009, one million
more than in 2008.
By 2010, UNHCR had identified some 6.6 million
stateless persons in 60 countries. Yet it estimated that
the overall number of stateless persons worldwide could
be far higher, at around 12 million.
Unfortunately, conflict and natural disasters continue to
take their toll on such persons. But their lot is much,
much better than it might have been, thanks to the
commitment of the UN family to help them return to
their homes, and to protect and sustain them until their
return becomes possible.
When their homelessness results from conflict, UN
peacekeepers are often there to protect the camps in
which they must live. When they are left without access
to such basic necessities as food, water and sanitation,
the UN family provides it. When their health is
endangered, the UN system sees to its protection.
Much of this support is provided through the United
Nations humanitarian action machinery. The Inter-
Agency Standing Committee ( IASC), through its “cluster
approach”, brings together all major humanitarian
agencies, both within and outside the UN system, for
coordinated action. UNHCR is the lead agency with
respect to the protection of refugees and the internally
displaced. With the International Organization for
Migration ( IOM ), it is the lead agency for camp
coordination and management. And it shares the lead
with respect to emergency shelter with the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
UN bodies actively involved in this cluster approach
include the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations ( FAO ); the United Nations Development
Programme ( UNDP); the United Nations Children’s Fund
( UNICEF ); the Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA ); the World Food
Programme ( WFP); the World Health Organization
( WHO ); and the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights ( OHCHR).
AGEING
The world is in the midst of a unique and irreversible
process of demographic transition that will result in
older populations everywhere. As fertility rates decline,
the proportion of persons aged 60 and over is expected
to double between 2007 and 2050, and their actual
number will more than triple, reaching 2 billion by
2050. In most countries, the number of those over 80 is
likely to quadruple to nearly 400 million by then.
Older persons are increasingly seen as contributors to
development, whose abilities to act for the betterment of
themselves and their societies should be woven into
policies and programmes at all levels. Currently, 64 per
cent of all older persons live in the less developed
regions — a number expected to approach 80 per cent
by 2050.
To begin addressing these issues, the General Assembly
convened the first World Assembly on Ageing in 1982,
which produced a 62-point “Vienna International Plan of
Action on Ageing ”. It called for specific action on such
issues as health and nutrition, protecting elderly
consumers, housing and environment, family, social
welfare, income security and employment, education,
and the collection and analysis of research data.
In 1991, the General Assembly adopted the United
Nations Principles for Older Persons , enumerating 18
entitlements for older persons — relating to
independence, participation, care, self-fulfillment and
dignity. The following year, the International Conference
on Ageing met to follow-up on the Plan of Action,
adopting a Proclamation on Ageing . Following the
Conference's recommendation, the UN General Assembly
declared 1999 the International Year of Older Persons .
Action on behalf of the ageing continued in 2002, when
the Second World Assembly on Ageing was held in
Madrid. Aiming to design international policy on ageing
for the 21st century, it adopted a Political Declaration
and the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing .
The Plan of Action called for changes in attitudes,
policies and practices at all levels to fulfil the enormous
potential of ageing in the twenty-first century. Its
specific reommendations for action give priority to older
persons and development, advancing health and well-
being into old age, and ensuring enabling and supportive
environments.
PEACE AND SECURITY
Saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war
was the main motivation for creating the United
Nations, whose founders lived through the devastation
of two world wars. Since its creation, the UN has often
been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating
into war, or to help restore peace when armed conflict
does break out, and to promote lasting peace in
societies emerging from wars.
The Security Council, the General Assembly and the
Secretary-General all play major, complementary roles in
fostering peace and security.
Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous
conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council
— the organ with primary responsibility, under the
United Nations Charter , for the maintenance of
international peace and security. When a complaint
concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the
Council's first action is usually to recommend to the
parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In
some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation
and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or
request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his
good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful
settlement.
When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first
concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On
many occasions, the Council has issued ceasefire
directives which have been instrumental in preventing
wider hostilities. It also deploys United Nations
peacekeeping operations to help reduce tensions in
troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and create
conditions for sustainable peace after settlements have
been reached. The Council may decide on enforcement
measures , economic sanctions (such as trade
embargoes) or collective military action.
According to the Charter , the General Assembly can
make recommendations on the general principles of
cooperation for maintaining international peace and
security, including disarmament, and for the peaceful
settlement of any situation that might impair friendly
relations among nations. The General Assembly can
also discuss any question relating to international peace
and security and make recommendations, if the issue is
not currently being discussed by the Security Council.
Pursuant to its “Uniting for Peace” resolution of
November 1950 ( resolution 377 (V) , the General
Assembly may also take action if the Security Council
fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent
Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat
to or breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The
Assembly can consider the matter immediately with a
view to making recommendations to Members for
collective measures to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Two of the General Assembly’s six main committees are
involved in matters of peace and security. Besides the
First Committee which is concerned with disarmament
and related international security questions, the Special
Political and Decolonization Committee deals with a
variety of political subjects not dealt with by the First
Committee, including decolonization, Palestinian
refugees, human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer
space , public information, atomic radiation and the
University for Peace .
The Charter empowers the Secretary-General to "bring
to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of
international peace and security". One of the most vital
roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his
" good offices " – steps taken publicly and in private that
draw upon his independence, impartiality and integrity
to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating
or spreading.
was the main motivation for creating the United
Nations, whose founders lived through the devastation
of two world wars. Since its creation, the UN has often
been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating
into war, or to help restore peace when armed conflict
does break out, and to promote lasting peace in
societies emerging from wars.
The Security Council, the General Assembly and the
Secretary-General all play major, complementary roles in
fostering peace and security.
Over the decades, the UN has helped to end numerous
conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council
— the organ with primary responsibility, under the
United Nations Charter , for the maintenance of
international peace and security. When a complaint
concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the
Council's first action is usually to recommend to the
parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In
some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation
and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or
request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his
good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful
settlement.
When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first
concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On
many occasions, the Council has issued ceasefire
directives which have been instrumental in preventing
wider hostilities. It also deploys United Nations
peacekeeping operations to help reduce tensions in
troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and create
conditions for sustainable peace after settlements have
been reached. The Council may decide on enforcement
measures , economic sanctions (such as trade
embargoes) or collective military action.
According to the Charter , the General Assembly can
make recommendations on the general principles of
cooperation for maintaining international peace and
security, including disarmament, and for the peaceful
settlement of any situation that might impair friendly
relations among nations. The General Assembly can
also discuss any question relating to international peace
and security and make recommendations, if the issue is
not currently being discussed by the Security Council.
Pursuant to its “Uniting for Peace” resolution of
November 1950 ( resolution 377 (V) , the General
Assembly may also take action if the Security Council
fails to act, owing to the negative vote of a Permanent
Member, in a case where there appears to be a threat
to or breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The
Assembly can consider the matter immediately with a
view to making recommendations to Members for
collective measures to maintain or restore international
peace and security.
Two of the General Assembly’s six main committees are
involved in matters of peace and security. Besides the
First Committee which is concerned with disarmament
and related international security questions, the Special
Political and Decolonization Committee deals with a
variety of political subjects not dealt with by the First
Committee, including decolonization, Palestinian
refugees, human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer
space , public information, atomic radiation and the
University for Peace .
The Charter empowers the Secretary-General to "bring
to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of
international peace and security". One of the most vital
roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his
" good offices " – steps taken publicly and in private that
draw upon his independence, impartiality and integrity
to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating
or spreading.
AIDS.
In 2011 the world commemorated 30 years of AIDS and
the AIDS response.
In June 1981, scientists in the United States reported
the first clinical evidence of a disease that would later
become known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
or AIDS. Its cause, the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), was identified in 1983. Thirty years later the AIDS
epidemic has spread to every corner of the world and
more than 60 million people have been infected with
HIV.
HIV is found in the bodily fluids of a person who has
been infected - blood, semen, vaginal fluids and breast
milk. It can be transmitted through unprotected sexual
contact. It is also spread among people who inject
drugs with non-sterile injecting needles, as well as
through unscreened blood products. It can spread from
mother to child during pregnancy, childbirth or breast
feeding when the mother is HIV positive.
Over the ensuing decades, the rate of infection soared
dramatically, as did the rate of fatalities. But
eventually, new antiretroviral treatment began to extend
the lives of those who were infected. More than 5
million people had access to antiretroviral treatment in
2009, which has reduced AIDS-related deaths by more
than 20% in the past 5 years.
Also in the past ten years at least 56 countries have
either stabilized or reduced new HIV infections by more
than 25%. New HIV infections have been reduced by
nearly 20% and new HIV infections among babies have
dropped by 25%—a significant step towards achieving
virtual elimination of mother-to-child transmission of
HIV by 2015.
The UN family has been in the vanguard of this
progress. Since 1996, its efforts have been coordinated
by UNAIDS — the Joint United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS. The Programme is co-sponsored by 10 UN
system agencies: UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP , UNFPA,
UNODC , the ILO, UNESCO , WHO and the World Bank .
In 2000, world leaders set specific goals to stop and
reverse the spread of HIV at the General Assembly’s
Millennium Summit. A 2001 special session of the
General Assembly expanded on that. Heads of State and
Representatives of Governments issued the Declaration
of Commitment on HIV/AIDS which set out a series of
national targets and global actions to reverse the
epidemic. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria was created in 2002. And in 2006, the
Assembly held a high-level review of progress made
since its special session, adopting a 53-point Political
Declaration on the way towards universal access to HIV
prevention, treatment, care and support services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)