Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA New Cold War?
Military alliances are always sold as things that produce security. In practice they tend to do the opposite.
Thus, Germany formed the Triple Alliance with Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to counter the enmity of France following the Franco-Prussian War. In response, France, England and Russia formed the Triple Entente. The outcome was World War I.
In 1949, the United States and Britain led the campaign to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to deter a supposed Soviet attack on Western Europe. In response, the Soviets formed the Warsaw Pact. What the world got was not security but the Cold War, dozens of brushfire conflicts across the globe, and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth a dozen times over.
NATO Lives On
The Cold War may be over, but you would never know it from NATO's April meeting in Bucharest. The alliance approved membership for Croatia and Albania, and only French and German opposition prevented the Bush administration from adding the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia.
"NATO," President Bush told the gathering, "is no longer a static alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions."
NATO will soon begin deploying anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems in Poland and the Czech Republic that are supposedly aimed at Iran, but which the Russians charge are really targeted at them. The alliance has encircled Russia with allies and bases, is increasingly sidelining the United Nations, has added troops to Afghanistan, and is preparing to open shop in the Pacific Basin.
But politics is much like physics: for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Shanghai Strikes Back
In this case the reaction is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an organization that embraces one quarter of the world's population, from Eastern Europe to North Asia, from the Arctic to the vast steppes and mountain ranges of Central Asia. Formed in 2001, its members include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
The SCO is, in the words of a Financial Times editorial, "everything that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger -- who sought to keep Russia and China apart -- tried to prevent."
According to Chinese Foreign Minister Yeng Jiechi, last August's SCO meeting in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, prioritized "mapping out Sino-Russian ties and upgrading bilateral strategic coordination." The two nations also agreed "to join forces to tackle other major security issues, in a concerted effort to safeguard the strategic interests of both countries."
It is useful to remember that it was less than 40 years ago that Chinese and Soviet troops clashed across the Ussuri River north of Vladivostok.
According to China's People's Daily, SCO discussions included strengthening the UN and "the common challenge facing the two countries, emanating out of the U.S. plans to deploy the missile-defense plans targeting Europe and the East."
China is deeply concerned about the Bush administration's anti-ballistic missile system (ABM) which could cancel out Beijing's modest Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force. This past May 23, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement condemning the ABM as a threat to "strategic balance and stability."
The Bishkek summit adopted a declaration that took direct aim at the Bush administration's foreign policy, including condemning "unilateralism" and "double standards," supporting "multilateralism," and "strict observance of international law," and underlining the importance of the UN.
Is the SCO evolving into a political alliance with a strong military dimension, like NATO? Not yet, but its member states have carried out joint "anti-terrorist" maneuvers, and the organization is closely tied to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
The Un-NATO
The CSTO, established in 2002, includes Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. It is a full-blown military alliance whose members have pledged to come to one another's support in case of an attack. It is currently developing a rapid-reaction force similar to the one being built by NATO.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat who served as India's ambassador to Uzbekistan, argues that that the two organizations may eventually merge. "The SCO may focus on the range of so-called 'new threats' [terrorism] rather than on the conventional form of military threats, while the CSTO would maintain a common air-defense system, training of military personnel, arms procurement, etc."
In the same week that the SCO met in Bishkek, the Russians announced their response to NATO's ABM system: a resumption of strategic air patrols, improving Moscow's anti-missile system, modernizing the Topol-M ICBM, and constructing new missile firing submarines.
Next Stop: Central Asia
To counter the SCO's growing influence -- the organization now has official observer status at the UN, and a working relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations -- the United States launched a "Great Central Asia" strategy to try and drive a wedge between Central Asian nations and Russia, and to woo India by playing on New Delhi's apprehension of China's growing power.
But, according to Bhadrakumar, the Central Asian part of the strategy is not likely to be very successful, with the possible exception of Turkmenistan. With the United States deeply mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, he says, "U.S. stock is very low" in the region.
Washington may have more success with India, but New Delhi is clearly of two minds about the SCO. On one hand, many Indians are nervous about the growing power of China. On the other, India desperately needs the energy resources of Central Asia.
India will probably chart a middle course, keeping itself free of political alliances, but making sure it doesn't do anything that might disrupt the flow of gas and oil to its growing industries. For instance, New Delhi sharply rejected the Bush administration's efforts to halt a pipeline deal between India and Iran.
Whether the SCO will turn into an eastern NATO is by no means clear, but the economic side of the alliance is solidly grounded in self-interest.
NATO in Trouble
NATO, on the other hand, is an alliance in trouble. While the organization has agreed to help bail the United States out of the Afghan quagmire, member nations are hardly enthusiastic about the war. At the April meeting the U.S. plea for more troops turned up 700 French soldiers. As Anatol Lieven, a professor of War Studies at King's College London, points out, this comes to one for every 400 square miles of Afghanistan.
NATO did back the ABM deployment, but no one besides Washington is breaking out the champagne. Some 70% of the Czech public opposes it, and the Poles are using the issue to blackmail the United States into modernizing its military. As one U.S. policy analyst cynically remarked to Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman, the ABM is "a system that won't work, against a threat that doesn't exist, paid for by money we don't have."
The U.S. ABM program has run up a bill of over $100 billion and, according to a recent Government Accounting Office report, it hasn't been successfully tested with "sufficient realism."
Translation: the tests are rigged.
If NATO falls apart, and the SCO never develops into a military alliance, history suggests that we will probably all be better off. Military alliances have a way of making people miscalculate, and miscalculating in a world filled with nuclear weapons is a dangerously bad idea.
Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
15 Comments so far
Show AllSiouxrose: I am digressing, but, I think as Americans we have taken two steps back from real progress; that is, progress that is beneficial to all, not just the chosen few. We live in an era when everything is hyped; the products we consume, the services we use, the politics we deliberate on, the war. . .it is hard to know what to do at times. As women, we will survive this onslaught of nastiness and hopefully with a new President, we can get back to what most of us know as American, a country built on work, education, prayers, freedom, knowledge, fair-play and rule of law [for everyone, not just some]. This dark time will soon be over.
I love films; fantasy on DVD. The key, I think is to only support those things which truly elevate our society and reinforce our belief structure. I only buy products from companies or program sponsors that respect women and people in general.
I don't want a man who needs drugs/meds to get his manhood in gear; sort of defeats the purpose don't you think? Anyway, I thought performance enhancing drugs were illegal, or is that only in sports? Maybe this is part of the problem. . .men can now extend their usefullness and male logic to expanding warmongering activities, I guess that is more engaging that whoremongoring and gives them something to do once they've conquered all the females in the neighborhood! Chow!
Since when is Italy is an ally of Germany in World War I?
It's wrong, I thought the Ottoman Empire is the one.
Italy is only a part of the Axis in World War II, not World War I.
I think it's also wrong to assume that because you don't have an alliance that other people will not form an alliance. In history, there's are always alliances of one form or another, whether formal or informal. Therefore, NATO should be strengthened, not destroyed. The more nations in it, the stronger we are.
It is not rational to build missile defense.
Infact, it squarely violates the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaties that took so many years to construct. And it violates the MADD doctrine... that as strange as it is... has prevented us from going to nuclear war for 50+ years. The MADD doctrine has one very important caveat- that neither side shall attempt to build a missile defense system. Because- a missile defense system is seen and acknowledged by both sides that it creates a first strike posture... and therefor is to be interpreted as an OFFENSIVE move. Both Russia and the US have agreed upon this principle for a long time.. and have abstained from building missile defense for that reason.
I hate nuclear weapons. But the best thinkers maintain that the MADD has been successful at avoiding nuclear war.. and therefor should be maintained while we simultaneously forge new and ongoing nuclear disarmament agreements... reducing the number of weapons maintained by both sides.
There is no logic in keeping 10,000-20,000 nuclear weapons per side. And no missile defense system can be effective in this context. Instead, with just a small handfull of a few dozen, or few hundred weapons there is more than ample deterent to any would be opponent who would dare launch an attack.
MADD docrine + Disarmament = a tested and proven solution. Don't mess with something that works... especially in an attempt to stave off a recession with asinine military spending.
Senator Joseph Biden illuminates many of these issues very succinctly:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news00/000627-nmd-usia1.htm
Perhaps preparation for war is a rational response to an unfavorable situation. It would be better if there were no wars. But they do happen. When they do, you have no time to prepare. It is just a rational response to reality, although it would be better if we could find a way to do away with war. But Lockheed needs to make a profit....
ROCKER BABE: You did raise issues that many don't like to address, sexism and racism, so many think these ism divisions have been overcome. Ha! In this Bush era everything my generation fought for in the way of improving female presence in media is now gone retrograde...
I remember attending a seminar on script writing at the Literary Seminar in Key West (an annual event), and William Goldman, who wrote "All the President's Men" was chief speaker. He said the average Hollywood script is geared to the teenage boy who wants to get laid on a Friday night. And isn't it possible there really is a link between Viagra sales to old impotent men and their lust for making war at no probable cause? I mean didn't nature turn off their testosterone for a reason?
TURCE: You have honored the Goddess!
PARANOID PESSIMIST: Didn't the women give in first in Lysastrada?
RICH M: Kivals and I had this debate once before. The dominant paradigm, which is a paradigm centered on HIERARCHY and DOMINATION is a patriarchal construct. It has alloted most freedoms and privileges to males, especially white males of some fiscal substance. History, note the word, HIS-story, is full of examples of one group or another fighting for basic rights and representation.
That women often taken on "male" traits, shall we say aggressive traits, is an adaptation to the existing power structure/paradigm.
BOTH genders are capable of cruelty and self-interest, but the socialization process has been fostered by the church-state and given women a LOW status for CENTURIES. Many women sell-out their sisters and their sons for their own security. In a world where access to water, food, basic security was more equitable, where cultures taught a sanctity for life and an equal evaluation of both genders, we would see an entirely different "human nature" emerge. What we find ourselves observing is the wounded human nature that has resulted from several millennia of programmed traits that champion self-interest on the part of individuals, a Darwin-like "survival of the fittest" protection of the strong at the expense of the weak, and militarism!
Some women identify with this model, and most women who make it in the world must adapt to it. Again, HUMAN nature has been wounded by societies navigating with only one oar--that of masculine, patriarchal, logic-based (no heart or soul) thinking for centuries! The separation of state from church is a relatively new phenomena, one already under siege.
Rich M: I generally agree with you, but you are looking at this matter through "male-colored lenses."
Our souls are comprised of traits of BOTH genders, and those who believe in reincarnation recognize we incarnate as BOTH genders... thus many men, and I would surmise gay men, have had more previous experience embodied in the feminine gender. Women like Condi and Hillary are rather new at the experience of the "kinder, gentler" gender...
And if enough people ask, I will once again explain about the panoply of archetypal energies, the celestial "DNA" that flesh is heir/heiress to.
Sweet dreams... it's a full moon, gang... the spirit world is VERY active right now!
Now back to the topic at hand- thank you CD for carrying this on point, timely, and extremely relevant article. A great examination of what the superpowers are really doing while everybody is distracted with the War on Terror.
As strong as this article is, however, it does fail to mention several significant developements.
* The May 9th, 2008 Russian Military Parade through Red Square. Something like 2 days after the new president Dmitry Medvedev is sworn to power- they bring the ICBM missiles for a spin around the block. The first time in 18 years this has been done!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7QFG8z0I66s
(there are better videos available without the editorializing)
* Canadian Airforce, as well as European airforces intercepting Russian nuclear bombers sent on patrol towards western nations. Putin has made it very clear that Bush has instigated him to put these bombers back on patrol due to the neocons missile defense projects.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDMygUxxHPQ
*American bombers flying cross country with 6 nuclear bombs on board... unknown to the crew. Well how did that happen? I speculate because we have also resumed nuclear patrols... in response to the above. Probably we've pulled our nukes out of the storage bunkers and we are moving much more the just 6 around god only knows where. Anybody want to guess what DEFCON level we are currently at? I don't know- I'm asking.
*missile defense radars in Alaska? Yeah that makes sense- because Iran might take a shot the long way around the globe (with the zero nuclear missiles that they posses in the first place).
http://aprn.org/2007/07/23/anti-missile-radar-installation-headed-to-juneau/
*Alexander Litvinenko- a guy who must have known too much, or, a sacraficial lamb used as a warning shot across NATO's bow... I don't know, but something big is behind this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6190144.stm
* and how about the good old 'must avenge 9/11' mindset. Maybe the conversation went a little like this:
Prez-"Who did this?"
Intelligance-"20 terrorists from Saudi Arabia"
Puppet handlers- "Great. Thanks for the info. Let's Invade Afghanistan."
Prez- "Where's that?"
Intelligance- "On the border of Russia and China"
Puppet Handlers- "Stop asking questions Sir. Ok well now that that's settled it's time to go to the make-up van."
rockerbabe, you need to go to the Hill and have a chat with women of character, women who care so deeply about ending this occupation they usually fight with such ferocity for the Troops and us Veterans lives they win many a man over. As A Veteran, now VFP, I have met them and just a bit ago on Cspan watched them vehemently deny the rationale used to justify $$$ for the Troops deaths, Suicide by PTSD, Stop-Loss not stopping, G.I. BILL and stopping this illegal Occupation, NOW! Rocker meet Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee. All we need is CINDY!! She'd set that House in order, right quick.
Rockerbabe is correct about the role women have played throughout history, with the exceptions (Cleopatra, Catherine the Great) being just as ferociously militant as their male counterparts.
But the women, in their roles as mothers, could have put a stop to it several thousand years ago by not sentimentalizing their soldier sons. If as Rockerbabe says, women are "less prone to violence and more into non-violent forms of problem solving," then they have failed throughout human history by not making more of an effort to inculcate these traits into their male offspring. Admittedly a lot of them would have been beheaded or stoned or burned at the stake as witches had they tried, but there really isn't much of a record of much of any effort.
The Greek comedic playwright Aristophanes, in the play Lysistrata, showed an approach that women could have taken that might have cut down on the historical record of slaughter a bit.
RichM,(scottstlouis, ladybug): It is you who missed the point, not me. The MEN have been running everything, with rare exception, since before the dawn of recorded time. The military is one big boys' club and has been except for the last 50 years or so. Privately, many male military officiers do not like women in the ranks; the recent sex abuse scandals (at the academy and the rapes in Iraq) have laid open the attitudes that still hold women hostage to outmoded thinking and criminal acts which appear to go unpunished and unacknowledged despite the victims for help and their supporters pleas for help.
As for the question, "A New Cold War?". Does it not strike you as to the SAMENESS of the thinking globally? The way to deal with conflict and perceived threat, is to arm oneself to the teeth? Talk about miscalculation! The article list all the major global alliances that have military connections and they all are doing the same thing; getting bigger, buying more arms, are more verbally belligerent and spend increasingly more money to defend themselves against who knows what. The only real difference is the scheer number of players beyond the US and its allies and the former Soviet Union bloc. The money spent on military might could easily go to improving the domestic homefront and/or tranquality (ie. women, children's education, healthcare, infrastructure, water resources, climate change, care of the elderly, building homes, etc).
As for women in government. . .this country has had the men running things since before its inception. When was the last time anyone was really satisfied with the government, its direction, how it spends its money and how it awards it "perks" and treats it citizens? When was the last time you felt that a change in leadership would really make a difference? I think women, who are inherently different from men, should have a "run" at things. Women are less prone to violence and usually more into non-violent forms of problem solving; women know that more arms doesn't make for more peace anywhere at anytime for anyone and under most conditions. I suspect that you already know that.
Your comments about the current and recent past crop of political women was more telling than you know. These women all work in male-dominated arena and thus have to deal with male attitudes on how to get things done. It takes liberal women willing to compromise with status quo men to get anything really changed and then only in baby steps over a long periods of time. Just talk to a lot of women in male dominated professional fields; hell, talk to most wives, mothers and older sisters. New Cold War? I don't think so; just a continuation of the old one with more players doing the same things in different parts of the globe. The insanity continues.
Rockerbabe, I for one await your response to RichM.
I am a proud feminist but Rockerbabe your commentary is totally out of place
Rockerbabe1 (3:08) is one of these pathetic uber-"feminists" who's unable to see anything in any issue except her own personal battle of the sexes. She whines, "The current political and military climate is all about the boys, their toys and their games and the hell with the rest of us. .....Now, the boys have employed a new strategy ... they employ gang and mass rape of women....What the world needs is more women heading up the governments and controlling the military and its lunacy."
- Actually, Rockerbabe, the article has nothing to do with gender or mass rape. Why don't you read it before wasting bandwidth? Your earlier constant commercials for Hillary sound indistinguishable from your "analysis" of an article about "A New Cold War."
The world doesn't necessarily need "more women in government." It would depend on the quality of the women, not on their genitalia. (To borrow a line from MLK, it would depend "on the content of their character," not on the content of their underpants.) For instance, suppose we had more women like Margaret Thatcher, Condi Rice, Madeleine Albright, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Hillary ("Obliterate Them!") Clinton, Sandra Day O'Connor, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Wendy Gramm, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, etc, in high office. Would that be a big improvement?
The current political and military climate is all about the boys, their toys and their games and the hell with the rest of us. It amazes me that these games are so similar in nature, goals and use of weapons to achieve their aims. And, it doesn't seem to matter where the boys are located, what their culture happens to be, their historical ties or the predominent religious thinking. It is a kill or be killed strategy that just preputates more of the same. Now, the boys have employed a new strategy (as if the old ones weren't bad enough); they employ gang and mass rape of women.
What the world needs is more women heading up the governments and controlling the military and its lunacy.
Why not invite Russia into NATO and the EU? The problem isn't making alliances, it's not extending them to everyone.