Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
March 3, 2014
Amid waning global clout
Ali Wayne
Published — Saturday 1 March 2014
As it prepares to release a new national-security strategy, the Obama administration is working to counter the growing conviction that US influence in international affairs is receding. At the recently concluded Munich Security Conference, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry declared that he could not “think of a place in the world (where the United States is) retreating, not one. … This narrative … is flat wrong and it is belied by every single fact of what we are doing everywhere in the world.”
While assessments of declining US influence are exaggerated, few would dispute that it is experiencing relative decline. Strategic missteps have contributed, as have systemic economic weakness and a perception that the United States is increasingly incapable of competent self-governance. But the central driver of that phenomenon is one over which the US has little control: An ever-growing roster of powers is ascending militarily, economically, and politically.
While many events could slow or even disrupt “the rise of the rest” (such as a global recession on the scale of, or more severe than, that of 2008–2009), none will reverse it. It would thus be imprudent for the United States to focus on staying No. 1. Should it do so, it will conclude not only that it is in decline, but also that its decline is absolute and accelerating. After all, China already leads the world in many areas, including foreign exchange reserves, manufacturing output, and exports. Based on current trends, moreover, it will soon top the pecking order in consumer spending, stock-market capitalization and gross domestic product. Further down the road, China could even overtake the United States in defense spending.
A more sensible foreign-policy course for the US would proceed from a simple but powerful proposition: America’s pre-eminence is inextricably linked to and contingent upon the health of the liberal international system whose creation it nurtured after World War II. Those who want US leadership to remain a linchpin of international affairs should accordingly strategize to make that architecture more resilient, more inclusive, and more nimble.
Amid waning global clout
http://www.arabnews.com/news/532876Amid waning global clout
Ali Wayne
Published — Saturday 1 March 2014
As it prepares to release a new national-security strategy, the Obama administration is working to counter the growing conviction that US influence in international affairs is receding. At the recently concluded Munich Security Conference, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry declared that he could not “think of a place in the world (where the United States is) retreating, not one. … This narrative … is flat wrong and it is belied by every single fact of what we are doing everywhere in the world.”
While assessments of declining US influence are exaggerated, few would dispute that it is experiencing relative decline. Strategic missteps have contributed, as have systemic economic weakness and a perception that the United States is increasingly incapable of competent self-governance. But the central driver of that phenomenon is one over which the US has little control: An ever-growing roster of powers is ascending militarily, economically, and politically.
While many events could slow or even disrupt “the rise of the rest” (such as a global recession on the scale of, or more severe than, that of 2008–2009), none will reverse it. It would thus be imprudent for the United States to focus on staying No. 1. Should it do so, it will conclude not only that it is in decline, but also that its decline is absolute and accelerating. After all, China already leads the world in many areas, including foreign exchange reserves, manufacturing output, and exports. Based on current trends, moreover, it will soon top the pecking order in consumer spending, stock-market capitalization and gross domestic product. Further down the road, China could even overtake the United States in defense spending.
A more sensible foreign-policy course for the US would proceed from a simple but powerful proposition: America’s pre-eminence is inextricably linked to and contingent upon the health of the liberal international system whose creation it nurtured after World War II. Those who want US leadership to remain a linchpin of international affairs should accordingly strategize to make that architecture more resilient, more inclusive, and more nimble.
March 3, 2014
Obama’s double game on Turkey
MURAT YETKİN
It may be interesting for many to observe that there is no improvement in Turkey mentioned on the 2013 Human Rights Report from the U.S. Department of State.
On the contrary, from freedom of the press to the freedom of non-violent assembly, from arbitrary arrests and long detention periods to police brutality, there are areas where the rights situation in Turkey has deteriorated over the last year, according to the critical report, released Feb. 27.
As one can imagine, on top of the usual violations in the country’s pre-dominantly Kurdish regions, this year, the Gezi protests and the government’s use of police force to suppress them received special emphasis.
In addition to that, in this year’s report there is a new chapter. A new concept on “human rights violations” in Turkey has been added. According to the U.S. Department of State, corruption has reached a level of a “violation of human rights.”
Obama’s double game on Turkey
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/obamas-double-game-on-turkey.aspx?pageID=449&nID=63057&NewsCatID=409Obama’s double game on Turkey
MURAT YETKİN
It may be interesting for many to observe that there is no improvement in Turkey mentioned on the 2013 Human Rights Report from the U.S. Department of State.
On the contrary, from freedom of the press to the freedom of non-violent assembly, from arbitrary arrests and long detention periods to police brutality, there are areas where the rights situation in Turkey has deteriorated over the last year, according to the critical report, released Feb. 27.
As one can imagine, on top of the usual violations in the country’s pre-dominantly Kurdish regions, this year, the Gezi protests and the government’s use of police force to suppress them received special emphasis.
In addition to that, in this year’s report there is a new chapter. A new concept on “human rights violations” in Turkey has been added. According to the U.S. Department of State, corruption has reached a level of a “violation of human rights.”
March 3, 2014
Putin's Crimean Anschluss
By Victor Davidoff
Mar. 03 2014
In the 1940s, Soviet poet Nikolai Glazkov wrote that "the more an era is interesting to historians, the more it is heartbreaking for the people living through it." Watching the breaking news as events unfold rapidly in Crimea, it is hard to shake the thought that you are reading a history textbook. Only which one? Is it a book about the annexation of Sudetenland by Hitler in 1938? Or it is about Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states in the 1940s?
It looks like President Vladimir Putin took the lessons of both events to heart. Like Hitler, who justified his aggression as "concern for the lives of our German compatriots," Putin also justified the occupation of Crimea by concern for the Russian-speaking population on the peninsula. Putin provided asylum to Viktor Yanukovych, who said he still remains the president of Ukraine and its commander-in-chief and declared the decisions of the Ukrainian parliament illegitimate.
Meanwhile, to provide legislative justification for this Anschluss, the State Duma is already reviewing a legally insane draft law that allows the Kremlin to declare any territory part of Russia if the leaders of the territory request it. There are no stipulations on determining the legitimacy of the leaders. It might be noted that in the last election, the party of the current head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, who was elevated to that position with the help of the Russian military, got only 4 percent of the vote.
Worst of all, in the face of this aggression, Western democracies are in the same position as they were in the 1930s. According to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the U.S. and Britain are obliged to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Nevertheless, despite strong statements made by U.S. President Barack Obama and the representatives of the European Union, it is hard to imagine what meaningful actions the West might take. Any action — a sea blockade of the peninsula or a no-fly zone — would put NATO troops in direct conflict with the Russian army. It would be a European remake of the Cuban missile crisis — the worst nightmare of even the most militant hawks.
Putin's Crimean Anschluss
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-crimean-anschluss/495462.htmlPutin's Crimean Anschluss
By Victor Davidoff
Mar. 03 2014
In the 1940s, Soviet poet Nikolai Glazkov wrote that "the more an era is interesting to historians, the more it is heartbreaking for the people living through it." Watching the breaking news as events unfold rapidly in Crimea, it is hard to shake the thought that you are reading a history textbook. Only which one? Is it a book about the annexation of Sudetenland by Hitler in 1938? Or it is about Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states in the 1940s?
It looks like President Vladimir Putin took the lessons of both events to heart. Like Hitler, who justified his aggression as "concern for the lives of our German compatriots," Putin also justified the occupation of Crimea by concern for the Russian-speaking population on the peninsula. Putin provided asylum to Viktor Yanukovych, who said he still remains the president of Ukraine and its commander-in-chief and declared the decisions of the Ukrainian parliament illegitimate.
Meanwhile, to provide legislative justification for this Anschluss, the State Duma is already reviewing a legally insane draft law that allows the Kremlin to declare any territory part of Russia if the leaders of the territory request it. There are no stipulations on determining the legitimacy of the leaders. It might be noted that in the last election, the party of the current head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, who was elevated to that position with the help of the Russian military, got only 4 percent of the vote.
Worst of all, in the face of this aggression, Western democracies are in the same position as they were in the 1930s. According to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the U.S. and Britain are obliged to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Nevertheless, despite strong statements made by U.S. President Barack Obama and the representatives of the European Union, it is hard to imagine what meaningful actions the West might take. Any action — a sea blockade of the peninsula or a no-fly zone — would put NATO troops in direct conflict with the Russian army. It would be a European remake of the Cuban missile crisis — the worst nightmare of even the most militant hawks.
March 3, 2014
Strictly speaking, America’s involvement in World War I actually violated the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of mutual nonintervention, which means that from then on America no longer upheld the Monroe Doctrine.
What Gave Rise to America’s Monroe Doctrine?
Huanqiu , China
By Xing Yue
Translated By Chase Coulson
13 February 2014
Edited by Gillian Palmer
In 1823, U.S. President James Monroe declared in a report to Congress, “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers ... America will not intervene in the affairs of state of any existing Powers, but also does not allow European Powers to intervene in the affairs of the Americas.”* This message is what is often called the Monroe Doctrine. Contained within it are two principles — a principle of noncolonialism on the American continent and a principle of mutual nonintervention between America and the European powers.
Strictly speaking, America’s involvement in World War I actually violated the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of mutual nonintervention, which means that from then on America no longer upheld the Monroe Doctrine. However, due to the “the Americas are for the Americans” implication within the Monroe Doctrine, whenever subsequent generations would speak of the doctrine, they would mainly point to the fact that it left nations within the American continent to the sole intervention and control of the U.S. In a Nov. 18, 2013 address, Secretary of State John Kerry declared the end of the Monroe Doctrine, which must be understood to say that American would no longer brandish its big stick and wave it around the American continents.
That being said, regarding the Monroe Doctrine, the puzzling question on everyone’s minds has always been this: According to the historical conditions at the time, why would America, a relatively weak country compared to the European powers, make such a brazen statement to Europe as, “you’re not allowed to intervene in the affairs of the Americas”? Moreover, wouldn’t it then need to back up that statement?
How Could the Monroe Doctrine Come into Being?
During the time of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a revolt in Spain’s American colonies; multitudinous colonies on the western edge of Latin America gained their independence from the empire. The U.S. welcomed this, showed vigorous support for the Latin American revolutions and was the first to recognize many of these nations’ independence.
What Gave Rise to America’s Monroe Doctrine?
http://watchingamerica.com/News/233471/what-gave-rise-to-americas-monroe-doctrine/Strictly speaking, America’s involvement in World War I actually violated the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of mutual nonintervention, which means that from then on America no longer upheld the Monroe Doctrine.
What Gave Rise to America’s Monroe Doctrine?
Huanqiu , China
By Xing Yue
Translated By Chase Coulson
13 February 2014
Edited by Gillian Palmer
In 1823, U.S. President James Monroe declared in a report to Congress, “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers ... America will not intervene in the affairs of state of any existing Powers, but also does not allow European Powers to intervene in the affairs of the Americas.”* This message is what is often called the Monroe Doctrine. Contained within it are two principles — a principle of noncolonialism on the American continent and a principle of mutual nonintervention between America and the European powers.
Strictly speaking, America’s involvement in World War I actually violated the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of mutual nonintervention, which means that from then on America no longer upheld the Monroe Doctrine. However, due to the “the Americas are for the Americans” implication within the Monroe Doctrine, whenever subsequent generations would speak of the doctrine, they would mainly point to the fact that it left nations within the American continent to the sole intervention and control of the U.S. In a Nov. 18, 2013 address, Secretary of State John Kerry declared the end of the Monroe Doctrine, which must be understood to say that American would no longer brandish its big stick and wave it around the American continents.
That being said, regarding the Monroe Doctrine, the puzzling question on everyone’s minds has always been this: According to the historical conditions at the time, why would America, a relatively weak country compared to the European powers, make such a brazen statement to Europe as, “you’re not allowed to intervene in the affairs of the Americas”? Moreover, wouldn’t it then need to back up that statement?
How Could the Monroe Doctrine Come into Being?
During the time of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a revolt in Spain’s American colonies; multitudinous colonies on the western edge of Latin America gained their independence from the empire. The U.S. welcomed this, showed vigorous support for the Latin American revolutions and was the first to recognize many of these nations’ independence.
March 3, 2014
The U.S. cannot look Sergei Lavrov in the eye while he continues to tell John Kerry what to do.
America … One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Al-Jarida, Kuwait
By Saleh Al-Qelab
Translated By David Marcus
24 February 2014
Edited by Phillip Shannon
We'll keep beating a dead horse, insisting that the United States give up its strange policies and shift positions with regard to the Syrian crisis, which will soon enter its fourth year, just as Americans keep taking one step forward and then two steps back. In the beginning, a red line was drawn at the use of helicopters against the opposition. This opposition began peacefully and has ended up armed and militaristic. Then the red line was replaced with the use of warplanes, then heavy missiles, barrel bombs and, finally, chemical weapons. This all was while the U.S. did nothing in the face of sectarian armies and militias.
Because of these strange policies and shifting positions, which included denying sophisticated weaponry to opposition groups (even to the Free Syrian Army and other moderate groups), Russia has taken control in Syria and used its veto power, along with China, three times to block the U.N. Security Council from a decision; the distribution of humanitarian aid, food and medicine to camps inside Syria has also been hampered.
In all of this, the United States, the only world power since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early '90s, has become an inefficient secondary player. The U.S. cannot look Sergei Lavrov in the eye while he continues to tell John Kerry what to do. Vladimir Putin comes out as a world leader, forcing the president of the largest nation on Earth to finally disappear from the world stage and learn, along with the people of his country, that it is better not to go head-to-head with the Russian boulder. It is better to keep a low profile behind the oceans separating America from the new world.
Of course, the United States’ excuse for shifting positions is that it doesn’t need the oil and strategic water resources of the Middle East after discovering shale gas. The U.S. is looking more toward the Far East and relying on China, which has become quite the economic giant. This is really an excuse for the "penniless," and it is politically dishonest to deny the irrefutable evidence that the area of the Middle East will remain the knot tying the whole world together and the most important strategic area in the world for maybe a century or more.
America … One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
http://watchingamerica.com/News/233676/america-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/The U.S. cannot look Sergei Lavrov in the eye while he continues to tell John Kerry what to do.
America … One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Al-Jarida, Kuwait
By Saleh Al-Qelab
Translated By David Marcus
24 February 2014
Edited by Phillip Shannon
We'll keep beating a dead horse, insisting that the United States give up its strange policies and shift positions with regard to the Syrian crisis, which will soon enter its fourth year, just as Americans keep taking one step forward and then two steps back. In the beginning, a red line was drawn at the use of helicopters against the opposition. This opposition began peacefully and has ended up armed and militaristic. Then the red line was replaced with the use of warplanes, then heavy missiles, barrel bombs and, finally, chemical weapons. This all was while the U.S. did nothing in the face of sectarian armies and militias.
Because of these strange policies and shifting positions, which included denying sophisticated weaponry to opposition groups (even to the Free Syrian Army and other moderate groups), Russia has taken control in Syria and used its veto power, along with China, three times to block the U.N. Security Council from a decision; the distribution of humanitarian aid, food and medicine to camps inside Syria has also been hampered.
In all of this, the United States, the only world power since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early '90s, has become an inefficient secondary player. The U.S. cannot look Sergei Lavrov in the eye while he continues to tell John Kerry what to do. Vladimir Putin comes out as a world leader, forcing the president of the largest nation on Earth to finally disappear from the world stage and learn, along with the people of his country, that it is better not to go head-to-head with the Russian boulder. It is better to keep a low profile behind the oceans separating America from the new world.
Of course, the United States’ excuse for shifting positions is that it doesn’t need the oil and strategic water resources of the Middle East after discovering shale gas. The U.S. is looking more toward the Far East and relying on China, which has become quite the economic giant. This is really an excuse for the "penniless," and it is politically dishonest to deny the irrefutable evidence that the area of the Middle East will remain the knot tying the whole world together and the most important strategic area in the world for maybe a century or more.
March 3, 2014
Morality should matter in US' Gulf policy
By Hossein Askari
Feb 28, '14
The United States' policy objectives in the Gulf since the end of World War II should come as no surprise - stability, a free flow of oil, and growing economies. Morality never comes up, but the US forgets morality at its own peril. It is only a matter of time before the America policymaking establishment will have to emerge from its comatose state.
The United States has been, and continues to be, entirely focused on short-run stability in large part because of corporate and personal business interests in the region. American companies buy and refine oil from the Gulf and sell billions of dollars worth of arms and other goods to the region; influential Americans (including former presidents and cabinet members), lobbyists and universities receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually in retainer fees, gifts and charitable donations; financial institutions manage and advise on trillions of dollars of Gulf external investments; and thousands of Americans have found gainful employment with their savings flowing back to the United States.
These are significant economic interests that cannot be easily dismissed. Turmoil would undoubtedly endanger them.
So to avoid turmoil, the United States holds its nose and supports dictators and all associated evils - oppression, human rights abuse, corruption, the pillage of oil wealth by rulers and their cronies and on and on. And then the US points to stability as its policy success, forgetting what the abuse really means for its own longer-term interests and for the inhabitants of the region.
Morality should matter in US' Gulf policy
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-280214.htmlMorality should matter in US' Gulf policy
By Hossein Askari
Feb 28, '14
The United States' policy objectives in the Gulf since the end of World War II should come as no surprise - stability, a free flow of oil, and growing economies. Morality never comes up, but the US forgets morality at its own peril. It is only a matter of time before the America policymaking establishment will have to emerge from its comatose state.
The United States has been, and continues to be, entirely focused on short-run stability in large part because of corporate and personal business interests in the region. American companies buy and refine oil from the Gulf and sell billions of dollars worth of arms and other goods to the region; influential Americans (including former presidents and cabinet members), lobbyists and universities receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually in retainer fees, gifts and charitable donations; financial institutions manage and advise on trillions of dollars of Gulf external investments; and thousands of Americans have found gainful employment with their savings flowing back to the United States.
These are significant economic interests that cannot be easily dismissed. Turmoil would undoubtedly endanger them.
So to avoid turmoil, the United States holds its nose and supports dictators and all associated evils - oppression, human rights abuse, corruption, the pillage of oil wealth by rulers and their cronies and on and on. And then the US points to stability as its policy success, forgetting what the abuse really means for its own longer-term interests and for the inhabitants of the region.
March 3, 2014
Carnival in Crimea
By Pepe Escobar
Feb 28, '14
Time waits for no one, but apparently will wait for Crimea. The speaker of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, has confirmed there will be a referendum on greater autonomy from Ukraine on May 25.
Until then, Crimea will be as hot and steamy as carnival in Rio - because Crimea is all about Sevastopol, the port of call for the Russian Black Sea fleet.
If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a bull, this is the red flag to end all red flags. Even if you're deep in alcohol nirvana dancin' your troubles away at carnival in Rio - or New Orleans, or Venice, or Trinidad and Tobago - your brain will have registered that NATO's ultimate wet dream is to command a Western puppet Ukrainian government to kick the Russian navy out of its base in Sevastopol. The negotiated lease applies until 2042. Threats and rumors of reneging it have already emerged.
The absolute majority of the Crimean peninsula is populated by Russian speakers. Very few Ukrainians live there. In 1954, it took only 15 minutes for Ukrainian Nikita Krushchev - he of the banging shoe at the UN floor - to give Crimea as a free gift to Ukraine (then part of the USSR). In Russia, Crimea is perceived as Russian. Nothing will change that fact.
Carnival in Crimea
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-05-280214.htmlCarnival in Crimea
By Pepe Escobar
Feb 28, '14
Time waits for no one, but apparently will wait for Crimea. The speaker of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, has confirmed there will be a referendum on greater autonomy from Ukraine on May 25.
Until then, Crimea will be as hot and steamy as carnival in Rio - because Crimea is all about Sevastopol, the port of call for the Russian Black Sea fleet.
If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a bull, this is the red flag to end all red flags. Even if you're deep in alcohol nirvana dancin' your troubles away at carnival in Rio - or New Orleans, or Venice, or Trinidad and Tobago - your brain will have registered that NATO's ultimate wet dream is to command a Western puppet Ukrainian government to kick the Russian navy out of its base in Sevastopol. The negotiated lease applies until 2042. Threats and rumors of reneging it have already emerged.
The absolute majority of the Crimean peninsula is populated by Russian speakers. Very few Ukrainians live there. In 1954, it took only 15 minutes for Ukrainian Nikita Krushchev - he of the banging shoe at the UN floor - to give Crimea as a free gift to Ukraine (then part of the USSR). In Russia, Crimea is perceived as Russian. Nothing will change that fact.
March 3, 2014
Will a Multi-Polar World be more Peaceful? The Failure of the Project for a New American Empire
By Juan Cole | Mar. 3, 2014
(By Tom Engelhardt)
~snip~
Geopolitically speaking, when it comes to war and the imperial principle, we may be in uncharted territory. Take a look around and you’ll see a world at the boiling point. From Ukraine to Syria, South Sudan to Thailand, Libya to Bosnia, Turkey to Venezuela, citizen protest (left and right) is sparking not just disorganization, but what looks like, to coin a word, de-organization at a global level. Increasingly, the unitary status of states, large and small, old and new, is being called into question. Civil war, violence, and internecine struggles of various sorts are visibly on the rise. In many cases, outside countries are involved and yet in each instance state power seems to be draining away to no other state’s gain. So here’s one question: Where exactly is power located on this planet of ours right now?
There is, of course, a single waning superpower that has in this new century sent its military into action globally, aggressively, repeatedly — and disastrously. And yet these actions have failed to reinforce the imperial system of organizing and garrisoning the planet that it put in place at the end of World War II; nor has it proven capable of organizing a new global system for a new century. In fact, everywhere it’s touched militarily, local and regional chaos have followed.
In the meantime, its own political system has grown gargantuan and unwieldy; its electoral process has been overwhelmed by vast flows of money from the wealthy 1%; and its governing system is visibly troubled, if not dysfunctional. Its rich are ever richer, its poor ever poorer, and its middle class in decline. Its military, the largest by many multiples on the planet, is nonetheless beginning to cut back. Around the world, allies, client states, and enemies are paying ever less attention to its wishes and desires, often without serious penalty. It has the classic look of a great power in decline and in another moment it might be easy enough to predict that, though far wealthier than its Cold War superpower adversary, it has simply been heading for the graveyard more slowly but no less surely.
Such a prediction would, however, be unwise. Never since the modern era began has a waning power so lacked serious competition or been essentially without enemies. Whether in decline or not, the United States — these days being hailed as “the new Saudi Arabia” in terms of its frackable energy wealth — is visibly in no danger of losing its status as the planet’s only imperial power.
Will a Multi-Polar World be more Peaceful? The Failure of the Project for a New American Empire
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/peaceful-project-american.htmlWill a Multi-Polar World be more Peaceful? The Failure of the Project for a New American Empire
By Juan Cole | Mar. 3, 2014
(By Tom Engelhardt)
~snip~
Geopolitically speaking, when it comes to war and the imperial principle, we may be in uncharted territory. Take a look around and you’ll see a world at the boiling point. From Ukraine to Syria, South Sudan to Thailand, Libya to Bosnia, Turkey to Venezuela, citizen protest (left and right) is sparking not just disorganization, but what looks like, to coin a word, de-organization at a global level. Increasingly, the unitary status of states, large and small, old and new, is being called into question. Civil war, violence, and internecine struggles of various sorts are visibly on the rise. In many cases, outside countries are involved and yet in each instance state power seems to be draining away to no other state’s gain. So here’s one question: Where exactly is power located on this planet of ours right now?
There is, of course, a single waning superpower that has in this new century sent its military into action globally, aggressively, repeatedly — and disastrously. And yet these actions have failed to reinforce the imperial system of organizing and garrisoning the planet that it put in place at the end of World War II; nor has it proven capable of organizing a new global system for a new century. In fact, everywhere it’s touched militarily, local and regional chaos have followed.
In the meantime, its own political system has grown gargantuan and unwieldy; its electoral process has been overwhelmed by vast flows of money from the wealthy 1%; and its governing system is visibly troubled, if not dysfunctional. Its rich are ever richer, its poor ever poorer, and its middle class in decline. Its military, the largest by many multiples on the planet, is nonetheless beginning to cut back. Around the world, allies, client states, and enemies are paying ever less attention to its wishes and desires, often without serious penalty. It has the classic look of a great power in decline and in another moment it might be easy enough to predict that, though far wealthier than its Cold War superpower adversary, it has simply been heading for the graveyard more slowly but no less surely.
Such a prediction would, however, be unwise. Never since the modern era began has a waning power so lacked serious competition or been essentially without enemies. Whether in decline or not, the United States — these days being hailed as “the new Saudi Arabia” in terms of its frackable energy wealth — is visibly in no danger of losing its status as the planet’s only imperial power.
March 3, 2014
The Crimean Crisis and the Middle East: Will Syria & Iran be the Winners?
By Juan Cole | Mar. 3, 2014
The Russian intervention in the Crimea is more direct and dramatic than the one in Syria, with actual troops deployed. But there are similarities. One of the little-noted rationales for Russian support for the Baath government in Damascus is that it is seen as more favorable, being secular and minority-dominated, toward Syria’s roughly 2-3 million Christians, the bulk of them Eastern Orthodox (i.e. the same branch of Christianity that predominates in Russia and among ethnic Russians in the Ukraine). Indeed, there are more Eastern Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Crimea. Russian President Vladimir Putin is giving as a rationale for troop deployments in Crimea that the ethnic Russian population there is in danger from Ukrainian nationalists.
In both cases, Russia is exaggerating. The vast majority of Syrians who rose up against the Baath were moderates. Only when the regime of Bashar al-Assad responded to peaceful protests with massive military force did the opposition militarize, at which point Sunni extremists and al-Qaeda affiliates came to the fore as seasoned fighters with substantial Gulf money. Most oppositionists are still moderates and most Syrians want more freedoms, not a Taliban state on the Euphrates. The Russian official press often slams those who oppose its provision of huge amounts of money and arms to al-Assad as backing “al-Qaeda,” but that is propaganda.
Likewise the popular movement in Ukraine against President Viktor Yanukovych was not primarily led or fueled by nationalist extremists. Most who went to the streets in Kyiv were disturbed at Yanukovych’s neo-authoritarian tendencies, his acquiescence in Moscow’s demand that he move away from the European Union, and his jailing of his opponent in the 2010 elections (Yulia Tymoshenko) on what seem likely to have been trumped up charges. There is zero evidence of ethnic Russians in Crimea being menaced by Ukrainian nationalists, but plenty of evidence of foreign Russian forces intervening there. Of course, now that Putin has violated Ukrainian sovereignty so blatantly, there could be a backlash against Ukrainian Russians; Putin might even secretly hope for such polarization as a pretext for further intervention.
~snip~
Turkey is the country with most at stake. In essence, it is surrounded by countries it which Russia has intervened, with Syria to its south and Crimea just across the Black Sea to its north. Turkey has a special interest in Crimea. Today, on the order of 12% of the 2 million residents of the peninsular are Tatars, i.e. Turkic-speaking Muslims, though before Russia’s annexation of the territory from the Ottoman Empire in 1784, it was all Tatar. Russians immigrated in (they are now almost 60% of the population, with a quarter being ethnically Ukrainian). Stalin ethnically cleansed the Crimean Tatars during WW II, but after the fall of the Soviet Union some 300,000 have gradually returned. Turkey is as interested in the fate of the Crimean Tatars as Russia is in that of the Crimean Russians.
The Crimean Crisis and the Middle East: Will Syria & Iran be the Winners?
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/crimean-middle-winners.htmlThe Crimean Crisis and the Middle East: Will Syria & Iran be the Winners?
By Juan Cole | Mar. 3, 2014
The Russian intervention in the Crimea is more direct and dramatic than the one in Syria, with actual troops deployed. But there are similarities. One of the little-noted rationales for Russian support for the Baath government in Damascus is that it is seen as more favorable, being secular and minority-dominated, toward Syria’s roughly 2-3 million Christians, the bulk of them Eastern Orthodox (i.e. the same branch of Christianity that predominates in Russia and among ethnic Russians in the Ukraine). Indeed, there are more Eastern Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Crimea. Russian President Vladimir Putin is giving as a rationale for troop deployments in Crimea that the ethnic Russian population there is in danger from Ukrainian nationalists.
In both cases, Russia is exaggerating. The vast majority of Syrians who rose up against the Baath were moderates. Only when the regime of Bashar al-Assad responded to peaceful protests with massive military force did the opposition militarize, at which point Sunni extremists and al-Qaeda affiliates came to the fore as seasoned fighters with substantial Gulf money. Most oppositionists are still moderates and most Syrians want more freedoms, not a Taliban state on the Euphrates. The Russian official press often slams those who oppose its provision of huge amounts of money and arms to al-Assad as backing “al-Qaeda,” but that is propaganda.
Likewise the popular movement in Ukraine against President Viktor Yanukovych was not primarily led or fueled by nationalist extremists. Most who went to the streets in Kyiv were disturbed at Yanukovych’s neo-authoritarian tendencies, his acquiescence in Moscow’s demand that he move away from the European Union, and his jailing of his opponent in the 2010 elections (Yulia Tymoshenko) on what seem likely to have been trumped up charges. There is zero evidence of ethnic Russians in Crimea being menaced by Ukrainian nationalists, but plenty of evidence of foreign Russian forces intervening there. Of course, now that Putin has violated Ukrainian sovereignty so blatantly, there could be a backlash against Ukrainian Russians; Putin might even secretly hope for such polarization as a pretext for further intervention.
~snip~
Turkey is the country with most at stake. In essence, it is surrounded by countries it which Russia has intervened, with Syria to its south and Crimea just across the Black Sea to its north. Turkey has a special interest in Crimea. Today, on the order of 12% of the 2 million residents of the peninsular are Tatars, i.e. Turkic-speaking Muslims, though before Russia’s annexation of the territory from the Ottoman Empire in 1784, it was all Tatar. Russians immigrated in (they are now almost 60% of the population, with a quarter being ethnically Ukrainian). Stalin ethnically cleansed the Crimean Tatars during WW II, but after the fall of the Soviet Union some 300,000 have gradually returned. Turkey is as interested in the fate of the Crimean Tatars as Russia is in that of the Crimean Russians.
March 3, 2014
Labour Party to overhaul spy agency controls in response to Snowden files
By The Guardian
Sunday, March 2, 2014 21:18 EST
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian
Yvette Cooper says debate over privacy, civil liberties and the role of the intelligence agencies has barely started in Britain
Labour will on Monday propose substantial changes to the oversight of the British intelligence agencies, including the legal framework under which they operate, in response to the revelations emerging from files leaked by Edward Snowden.
The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is preparing to argue that the current arrangements are unsustainable for the government, and that it is damaging to trust in the agencies if ministers continue to hide their heads in the sand.
In a speech that represents Labour’s most serious intervention since the controversy about the scale of state surveillance broke last summer, she will say: “The oversight and legal frameworks are now out of date. In particular that means we need major reforms to oversight and a thorough review of the legal framework to keep up with changing technology.”
Labour Party to overhaul spy agency controls in response to Snowden files
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/02/labour-party-to-overhaul-spy-agency-controls-in-response-to-snowden-files/Labour Party to overhaul spy agency controls in response to Snowden files
By The Guardian
Sunday, March 2, 2014 21:18 EST
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian
Yvette Cooper says debate over privacy, civil liberties and the role of the intelligence agencies has barely started in Britain
Labour will on Monday propose substantial changes to the oversight of the British intelligence agencies, including the legal framework under which they operate, in response to the revelations emerging from files leaked by Edward Snowden.
The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is preparing to argue that the current arrangements are unsustainable for the government, and that it is damaging to trust in the agencies if ministers continue to hide their heads in the sand.
In a speech that represents Labour’s most serious intervention since the controversy about the scale of state surveillance broke last summer, she will say: “The oversight and legal frameworks are now out of date. In particular that means we need major reforms to oversight and a thorough review of the legal framework to keep up with changing technology.”
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
