Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War and coerced US military cooperation in Syria helped shift focus away from the Ukraine Crisis, which minimized fears of a third World War. The collapse of US-Russian sponsored peace efforts in Syria, along with the likely loss of Russian-preferred candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 US Presidential Election, has shifted US-Russian relations back toward a Cold War-era dynamic, which has allowed fears of armed conflict between superpower America and world military power Russia to resurface. The ultimate question is whether Russian President Vladimir Putin, or the next US President, will escalate tensions to the point that the world faces the threat of a nuclear war.
Quite frankly, the threat of a US-Russian armed conflict is always a possibility, which varies with the rise and fall of bilateral tensions between the global competitors, but it is a threat no one can anticipate until it actually happens. Unless underlying issues are address, the best the US can do is try to appease Russian frustrations and provocations to temporarily ease concerns of an impending armed conflict and vice versa. In Syria, for example, US, Russian-led peace talks and military cooperation between US and Russian forces helped avoid a conflict between the US and Russia, but they could do nothing to address the actual causes of the Syrian Civil War or US-Russian tensions. Like all superficial and dishonest relationships, coerced US-Russia cooperation is doomed to collapse into a standoff or explode into a fight, which is what is happening over Syria.
Comments
The Columbian-FARC Peace Deal was narrowly defeated by a lack of voter participation and a slim majority. Although the failed referendum on the adoption of the peace agreement represents another hurdle in the finale of the 1960’s-era conflict, the willingness of rebels to finalize the agreement suggests FARC members have accepted their role as a political minority and overcome their violent pursuit of forced representation. No longer motivated by the call of war, FARC leaders now only seem to be fighting for clemency. Where the Columbian government and its international partners share these goals of FARC, the Columbian People apparently do not.
It is tempting to assume “no” voters rejected the peace referendum, because they want to return to war or cannot overcome their desire for revenge. It is also tempting to dismiss the referendum outcome as a minority opinion due to the fact turnout was only one third of Columbian voters, yet voter apathy suggests many Columbians might be inclined to agree that FARC leaders should not be pardoned for their crimes and receive guaranteed representation in government. Recognizing forgiveness is a very personal and very difficult process, “no” voters were not turning away from peace. They were simply asking for accountability. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), also known as the 9/11 Bill, was drafted and pushed into law with a veto override by the US Congress, because a groups of American citizens wanted the power to hold state-sponsors of terrorism accountable. In giving people the ability to sue foreign governments and official in US courts, the objective of JASTA was to offer victims of the September 11th 2001terrorist attacks closure by exposing any potential links the Saudi government might have had with Al Qaeda. The broader goal of JASTA is to empower Americans through the authority of the US legal system in order to hold foreign governments and officials accountable for their wrongdoing.
In a democratizing world where technology is forcing transparency, the pursuit of justice and the individual power to hold governments accountable has a universal appeal. As such, activists around the world are likely to follow America’s lead and seek similar provisions to hold foreign governments and officials accountable. It was, of course, this very appeal that compelled the Obama Administration to veto JASTA. Due to the fact voting against something called the “9/11 Bill” is political suicide, most members of the US Congress voted to override Obama’s veto, but they will seek to weaken JASTA for the same reasons Obama opposed it. Instead, they must both address JASTA’s legitimate faults and make government more accountable. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|