Never fully overcoming the grievances of the Cold War, the Ukraine Crisis has finally managed to transform the open rocky Western-Russian relationship into one more akin to that of enemies rather than cooperative rivals. As Putin makes overtures that stoke fears of a World War III, the West must consider how to react to such provocations without provoking a war. The only thing for certain, however, is that Russian President Vladimir Putin will do as he pleases, thus preemptive steps like arming the Ukrainian military at this point are prudent measures to prepare for what may come despite how Putin could use such developments to justify his behavior.
Clearly, the world is facing a long-term conflict with Russia’s impulse to dominate and ignore globalization that must be resolved over time, but the International Community needs to take proactive steps to avoid even greater strive among the world’s most powerful nations. Although nations have inherent conflicts of interests, even with their closest allies, countries in adversarial relationships are driven by competition over power, natural sources, military supremacy and economic development to conflict in major ways. This is particularly true in our globalized, supposed “free market” world where unhealthy competition is too often encouraged instead of punished. When it comes to major global powers, there is an added need to balance competing interests in order to avoid major armed conflicts and solve global issues through constructive cooperation. When considering countries like the United States, Russia, India, and China, a major conflict between any two or more of these powers could significantly disrupt the global economy and make way for a third world war. For India, China’s partnership with Pakistan and Sri Lanka must be troubling given these highly populated nations are fiercely competing for desperately needed resources. Consequently, efforts on behalf of India and China’s rulers to build a working partnership are essential, especially when such engagements also involve honest discussions on areas where the two nations have conflicting interests. On the other hand, there will always be great potential for armed conflict as the ever-growing needs of so many people pressures regional leaders to secure food, water, energy, and other resources for their own Peoples. At the same time, it is important to recognize the United States and China share many conflicting interests as well that will drive the US to favor economic development in countries like India and away from China. As China strengthens its ties with Russia, tensions between the two powerful nations are only going to rise, especially as China seeks to exert its will as a global power alongside America. For Russia, China could be a means to an end for dealing with American military might while China’s investments in India and neighbors would serve the Russian-Chinese partnership well. After all, it could help suppress armed conflict from Asian neighbors. Putting what Putin would like to happen aside, a Chinese-American armed conflict would be thoroughly devastating while the added involvement of Russia, the rest of the West, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka etc, would be even worse. Consequently, both China and the United States need to recognize where conflicts of interests exist in their relationship then seek to resolve those flash point issues or recalibrate their relationship to avoid potential conflicts. The same is, of course, true for all international relationships. Moreover, soured relations with Russia and the potential for a major international conflict should have all global leaders on high alert. Just as the White House and the Kremlin had their “red phones” to fall back on during moments of potential conflict in the Cold War, world leaders need to proactively respond to this threat with increased diplomatic engagement.
Comments
It is quite ironic that the world should be coming together to fight for Iraq, which divided the International Community just over a decade ago, to combat the threat of the Islamic State when the presence of terrorist groups in the Middle East has become far too commonplace. Aside from the ferocity of the Islamic State and the destabilization nature of its presence during a time when the Middle East is struggling to cope with great social change, the reason so many countries are targeting this particular terrorist group is that it has managed to make everyone its enemy. Despite this common interest, however, the threat of the Islamic State, just as the threat of globalized terrorism in general, remains second to global politics.
Where it is relevantly easy for Western nations to unite when a situation presents a “clear and present danger,” i.e. there is popular/political support for taking action, the bulk of the Middle East has long been open to controlled Western Intervention while Arab countries are beginning to see the need for contributing to their own regional security interests. Russia, of course, enjoys a similar natural alliance with Syria and Iran; whereas, the US is at odds with the Syrian government as well as the Iranian government. Clearly, Russian involvement in the Ukraine Crisis and Western sanctions against Russia nullifies the ability of America to directly work with Russia when it comes to taking action against the Islamic State. If Russian President Vladimir Putin had not acted to secure Russian influence over Ukraine’s political process, the Islamic State threat would have actually represented a perfect opportunity for Russia to assert itself as a credible global power. As complicated as the Ukraine Crisis makes coalition building for Iraq, which enjoys connections with the US dominated allies and the Russian dominated allies, the fact that the United States has been trying to normalize diplomatic relationships with Iran by addressing serious grievances, such as the Iranian nuclear program, only further muddies the water. The reality is that the Iran Talks have been sidelined by more pressing issues throughout the globe and that means the best outcome now is an agreement to continue trying. Although President Hassan Rouhani represents a moderating movement in Iran, it is almost certain that hardliner “conservatives” are pushing back given the lack of immediate success, thus Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has openly voiced his frustration with diplomatic efforts, must take steps to stave off political infighting and avoid burning too much political capital in their efforts to lift US sanctions. Given this reality and the fact the United States cannot politically coordinate intervention efforts with Iran, it only makes senses why the Iranian President would so fiercely criticize US plans as the US openly discounts cooperation with Iran, which is likely experienced as a slap in the face to Rouhani. Because Iran is also interested in asserting itself as a regional power and the government faces the threat of political dissent, the Supreme Leader is compelled to distance himself from efforts to stabilize relations with the United States, henceforth, the reason he has tried to publicly delegitimize US efforts to address the Islamic State despite Iran’s interest in doing so. As Iran is allied with both Iraq, which obviously wants Western intervention yet must balance its relationship with Iran, and the Assad regime in Syria, which correctly views a coalition effort as a threat, Iran, Iraq, and Syria face serious conflicts of interests when it comes to US, Western, and Arabic League intervention. Consequently, the world will just have to wait and see if the Islamic State threat is enough to override these conflicting interests permanently or, at least, temporarily From the perspective of what political scientists would call a “rational actor,” the notion that Scotland might choose to abandon its close ties to England makes no sense given the economic and military security England offers Scotland, especially considering the ongoing threat of globalized terrorism and the ripple effects of the Great Recession. As political relations between the two partner states are stable with relatively little strive, an independent Scotland may be excluded from the Europe Union, and a potential war with Russia is brewing, among other mounting global crises, we would expect the political climate in Scotland to largely favor the security that comes with being a part of Great Britain. That said, people do not simply make economic decisions as pursuing one’s own interests is only part of the decision making process, which includes both emotional and social considerations.
A strong cultural identity, which Scotland and most European countries have, often translates into a strong national identity when nations are dominated by a unified culture. In turn, there is often great social pressuring favoring the national identity as well as strong emotional attachment to it. Even though Scotland has been part of Great Britain for over three hundred years, this is why the Scottish have never been fully assimilated into English society, despite the extensive efforts of the British Empire to “culture” the rest of the world, i.e. force others to integrate aspects of English customs and traditions into their cultures. That said, understanding why Scotland is now pursuing efforts to break away from England means going beyond efforts to analyze how poor policy choices on behalf of the English government may have pushed Scotland to pursue this course. Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, the United States replaced the British Empire as the world’s most powerful government, but America also became the truly first global Superpower. During the Cold War, the bipolar dynamics of our strengthening International Community resulted in all nations needing to either align their policies with US interests or Soviet Union interests. With the collapse of the USSR, the monopolar nature of the post-Cold War world meant the United States as the world’s only global Superpower was the only nation that enjoyed true sovereignty, i.e. the ability of a country to act without the authority of another power. Over the last couple of decades, countries have found they no longer have to align their interests and policies with America, thus we now live in a multipolar world as we did before World War II. As nations reclaim their sovereignty, the International Community is engaged in a resovereignization process where countries are continually seeking the best way to reclaim their sovereignty and national identities. Under this context, the emergence of arrangements like the European Union, where individual countries sacrifice part of their sovereignty to international institution, only make sense as part of an effort to counterbalance America’s far greater influence. On the other hand, this reasoning requires the European Union to eventually break up. It also helps explain why Scotland would want to leave Great Britain then potentially rejoin the European Union and NATO for economic and national security reasons. In many respects, resovereignization also explains why Russia has been so willing to endure huge economic costs just to dominate Ukraine while Ukraine is seeking closer ties with the European Union despite the threat of continued Russian reprisals. Over the past the couple of decades, political shifts in Japan, Germany’s willingness to take on a global leadership role, China’s increasingly aggressive pursuit of its interests, Venezuela’s harmful criticism of the US, Iran’s defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons, and so many other examples fit into the resovereignization model. Consequently, what is happening in Scotland can also be seen elsewhere. Looking at the Arab Spring revolutions, we see the Peoples of the world engaging in democratic actions, i.e. people pursuing their own interests through political means in order to force governments to be more responsive of their interests. Coupled with resovereignization, the International Community is now a democratizing system of democratizing nations instead of a slave to American dominance. An unfortunate side effect of this new world order stems from the reality that change always translates into some degree of instability, which is more than self-evident in the Middle East. Focusing on Iraq as the International Community comes together in an effort to address the threat of the Islamic State, the international forces of change clearly have taken hold of the Peoples of Iraq. Because Iraq was created from various territories held by very distinct cultures, i.e. the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and other minor groups, resovereignization has likely been helping to drive division within Iraq for years and could lead to the split of Iraq along cultural lines. Like Scotland, the regions of Iraq, which are defined by very strong cultural identities, are being pressured to form their own national identities based on their cultural identities. Unless the cultural/”national” identities of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are safeguarded by supporting a unified Iraq, Iraq can be expected to eventually split into, at least, three territories then seek new political arrangements with neighbors sharing similar identities. As the International Community takes on the challenge of engineering a proper international response to the Islamic State threat, it is important to fully consider the state of the global community. Unfortunately, the world has not fully come together as part of a comprehensive, effective effort to police global terrorism as was envisioned following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Frankly, there are far more, far worse challenges and far greater divisions than there were thirteen years ago. As such, building a regional and global coalition in order to just accomplish the stated goal of eliminating the Islamic State threat will take some time and a great deal of diplomatic effort to forge a functional alliance, though we are on our way to doing just that.
Considering the Ukraine Crisis, which is the former most pressing international issue of the day, the framing of Russia’s interference in Ukraine’s domestic policies and military support of pro-Russian rebels as unacceptable to international norms makes the US and the rest of the West appear hypocritical when it comes to addressing the Islamic State in Syria. As such, it is easy for anti-Western actors to use intervention inside Syria to frame such actions as illegitimate and threatening. While the support and involvement of the Arab League is absolutely necessary to afford US and Western involvement in the Middle East a large degree of legitimacy, i.e. Syria is directly threatening the national security interests of its neighbors and they have a right to defend themselves with ally support, simply because everyone says something is right does not make it right. Framing US and Western intervention against credible threats in unwilling nations matters, because countries like Russia use poorly justified invasions of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to legitimize their inappropriate action, such as Russia’s heavy-handed 2008 invasion of Georgia. Although Russia will do as it pleases, failure to properly legitimize action in Syria allows countries like Russia to both disarm criticism of their policies and undermine the overall legitimacy of the West in the eyes of those it is trying to incorporate into its sphere of influence and/or those who might otherwise support Western initiatives. For terrorists and other threats, the apparent hypocrisy of the West and regional governments is a great way of silencing support for anti-terrorism efforts while it serves as a selling point when it comes to recruitment. More importantly, the empowerment of Soviet thinking over modern views on international norms has tangible consequences. Although the West is now forced to openly recognize the threat of former Cold War-era hardliners, both in Russia and in the West, the reality that Russia is now a credible threat means the world must be prepared to deal with that threat and take action as needed. The prevailing wisdom over the past couple of decades has driven the intertwining of the economies of all nations, including those that have conflicting noneconomic interests, because interdependency would supposedly discourage military conflict. In reality, it has often forced nations to suppress national interests for the sake of the stability of the global economy, thus the failure to address those interests has allowed what would have been mild diplomatic conflicts to fester into potential flash points for war and economic ruin. At the same time, the interdependency of the global economy means it is far harder to discourage rogue behavior without hurting our own economies, which is a reality that will only drive more conflicts unless we address unresolved grievances and build healthier global relationships. This is especially true given the world is still dealing with the ripple effects of the Great Recession while a majority of developed countries are struggling to cope with mounting national debt as well as significant wealth distribution issues that have left Westerns too few jobs with too little pay. Addressing these economic realities will properly hinge on a major recalibration of the domestic economies of the developed world as well as the global economy. As such, economic issues are probably more pressing to average citizens than dealing with the Islamic States. Even though the political world has a bad habit of over focusing on one critical issue to the detrimental of other major issues, the governments of the world need strategies to adequately address a number of these critical issues in a parallel fashion. There is only so much to do on a issue at any given moment, thus the attention of global leaders must toggle between the global economy and the Islamic States, which hopefully will lead to a coalition capable of dealing with other ongoing terrorist threats, while they cannot ignore unresolved issues with Russian and Chinese dominance, among many, many others issues. In the Middle East, there is not only political conflicts both inside nations and between nations as seen in Westerners countries, there are also far stronger social conflicts thanks to ethnic and tribal divisions/connections. Consequently, all parties in the Middle East are always going to be reluctant to support an international effort against terrorism. Many elements of governments and ruling classes even support what others consider to be terrorist groups to serve their own interests, which the West has done as well. In the eyes of many, the Islamic State is a terrorist organization, yet it is not seen as serious of a threat as Western intervention in the eyes of others. Along with a vast web of cultural issues, the many conflicting perspectives and interests of the Middle East make it very difficult to declare any group of Muslims an enemy of Islam, thus it is challenging to garner the support of Muslims in a global war on terrorism. Given that, the broadly despised Islamic State could be a catalyst that helps the Middle East recognize the error in supporting/ignoring terrorism. Given the state of the global community, this is absolutely necessary as the US and West cannot over commitment recourses in the Middle East. Although the threat of the Islamic State is extremely serious and failing to derail its spread would threaten global security interests of all countries in addition to the risks it already poses to the regional stability of the Middle East, the Islamic State is only one threat among many. From Republican war hawks to President Obama, overzealous political leaders are on the verge of inappropriately reacting to the Islamic State threat by seeking to eliminate the Islamic State, which is a strategic nightmare of a mission doomed to failure.
First of all, eliminating the Islamic State as an organization would likely require a great deal of commitment in terms of resources, effort, and time on behalf of the United States and all of its partners. If this means an entrenchment of American forces, doing so would put America in the same position we were in during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, i.e. US military forces be overextended and bogged down in their pursuit of Islamic State members. The United States and the world cannot, under any circumstance, afford to make the same costly mistakes as the George W. Bush Administration did. Seeking to break the operational capacity of the Islamic State through airstrikes and the support of regional security forces, which in the long-term are needed to address all terrorist threats, the US would be able to minimize the Islamic State threat while retaining the freedom needed to address other threats. Second, the Islamic State is hardly the only terrorist threat in the Middle East, or even in Iraq and Syria for that matter. For example, the Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front operates in Syria against the Assad regime, thus a decline in the Islamic State creates a potential expansion opportunity for this and other startup terrorist groups. Terrorists groups are like wild fire, instead of building communities, they leave a path of destruction even as they die out. In other words, a war against the Islamic State, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, cannot be treated as a war with traditional nation-state in regards to capturing and holding territory. After all, terrorist organizations are highly mobile, thus it takes far too many troops to secure any territories that terrorist organizations might operate within. The only means of securing liberated territory from falling back into the hands of any extremist organization is for moderate local security forces to fill the power vacuum on the ground as the operation capacity of such grounds is sufficiently degraded. Third, the empowerment of individuals taking on extreme political ideologies and policies throughout countries around the world in recent years has created internal instability and external threats. Inside countries like the US, extreme polarization threatens national stability thanks to the dysfunction and reckless hardliner policies it fosters as seen in the Edward Snowden NSA revelations and the handling of the fallout of the Great Recession throughout the world. In Russia, dormant Soviet-era thinking has been awoken and former Soviet leaders empowered by events like the Ukraine Crisis, thus a revival of the Cold War world order is unfolding. Although the US and its allies have always been threatened by other nation-states, such threats were seen as minimal thanks to the successes of our International Community to the point war with other nations seemed a trivial threat until recently. Because persistent threats like crime and terrorism are always overshadowed by conflict between nations imposing credible threats to each other, the US must not sacrifice its ability to deal with Russia, and perhaps China, in order to over engage the Islamic State or any of the many other global terrorist threats. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|