Prediction

FULL ARTICLE From the way the world is going, the region where a cataclysmic event may happen is in the Middle East. There are too many sides fighting for power and dominance of the region, and each is pushing the envelope further and further, currently testing the other sides’ patience and diplomatic ability.

The world today does not want to see war, necessarily. However, the veterans of World War II are dying out. They are the ones that have seen how devastating and brutal a world war can be, and how even the most civilized countries are ready to indiscriminately kill civilians and demolish whole cities in order to gain a simple ability to sell something that is located in a different land.

Commerce is the name of the game, and those that have the most resources have the best commercial ability. Commerce is power and leverage. It is control of whole economies. The United States has been very discreet about imperial aspirations. The basics of empire expansion are control of resources for a purpose of selling them. Not everyone has the power to expand in such a manner, and most take the old-school route — that is, guns blazing and bombs flying, with tanks sweeping in and destruction in the armies’ path.

The most important resource allocation in the world right now is located in the Middle East. Also, the biggest rivalries are in the Middle East. The interesting thing is that it was Europe and the United States that created the reason for there to be conflict in this area. They sparked old rivalries anew in the Middle East by creating Israel as a state. It was a gesture of good will from the Allies and the USSR. However, dislocating a large portion of people and telling them that their rivals are now the owners of the soil is bound to get one side pissed off.

And guess who that side is: the whole Arab world. Now, I am not against the State of Israel, but it is the reason for instability in the Middle East today. With European and mainly America’s backing and support, Israel was able to muster up one of the…FULL ARTICLE

Great Game II – NATO vs. Russia in the Caspian Basin

MORE ARTICLES HERE

The Caspian basin has long been a point of contention between Russia and other world players for many years. It is the second largest oil reserve in the world and has enough resources to fuel all parties interested for many decades, also enriching those that take part in the extraction and sale of the resources. It was called the ‘Great Game’ in the 1800s, now some call it ‘Great Game II’. The Great Game was ‘played’ between the Russian and the British empires. Now, the British are part of a larger force called NATO and all nations in the alliance share Britain’s interests.

Russia is not about to give up the fight for its area of influence. Control of the Caspian would be a tremendous blow to the EU because Russia then would be controlling nearly every possible source of energy in EU’s close proximity. Since the USSR fell apart, old rivalries resurfaced and new ones emerged in Central Asia. Many European nations would love to get a piece of the Central Asian riches and, with the region being in an unstable shape, it is much easier to accomplish than it was if the old USSR or the Russian Empire was still around.

The Nabucco Pipeline

Not too long ago, Georgia signed a deal to be a part of the Nabucco pipeline that would essentially reduce Europe’s dependency on Russia as its energy supplier. Ever since the project was decided upon in the early 1990s, it has been full of intrigue, conspiracy theories, and some experts even tried to link it to the war is South Ossetia in August of 2008. The possible issues that Russia may have with this pipeline are evident. If it is completed, Russia loses its market share of EU energy imports and loses an opportunity to expand its energy exports.

It can be hypothesized that Georgia went to war in South Ossetia in order to show the rest of the world that it has a strong military and leadership that it is able to provide security for the potential pipeline and energy routes going through it. If it were successful, the EU and the US would most definitely see Georgia as a worthy partner in Central Asia and invest heavily in the country’s economy. If Russia lost, NATO would be able to draw a line in the Caucasus region between a Russian and Western area of influence.

However, Georgia showed that it was not up to the task of providing security for potential investments in Nabucco and further energy routes feeding Europe. Russia’s campaign showed that it will not settle on such a close area of influence border and is willing to further fight for its right to oversee Central Asia. In addition, Russia is planning its own pipeline, but one which would connect the Caspian and the Black Seas. That pipeline would feed Europe as well, but now with Russia controlling the flows.

NATO Exercises

Georgia’s instability and their approach to solving territorial disputes have shown the EU that Georgia is not a good guarantor of security to a possible pipeline that would be essential to Europe’s import of energy sources. On the other hand, the EU needs a second pipeline going around Russia in order to insure themselves against possible incidents like the one that happened with Ukraine in the early months of 2009, when Russia cut off the gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine. If Georgia were able to provide the needed security on their own, they would be a perfect partner for NATO, the EU, and the US to claim more territory for their area of influence in Central Asia.

NATO’s plans to hold exercises in Georgia are a bold step towards showing Russia that Tbilisi’s will not be allowed to fall and that Georgia as a whole is NATO partner. Europe’s and US leadership, along with Western press have been very quiet about events in Tbilisi and protests against Saakashvili. In the shadow of NATO’s exercises, the West cannot show that it is unsupportive of Saakashvili, for regardless of his actions they need someone friendly to them in power in order to have a foothold in the Caspian basin.

NATO’s exercises are not supposed to show Georgia’s military abilities. Their abilities were exemplified in August of 2008 in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, it is to make a statement that the EU will now begin to bolster the security of Georgia and that Russia will better allow the West to build its pipeline. NATO is reluctant to let Georgia join because it would truly anger Russia and ruin any sort of cooperation that the West was planning to get from Moscow. However, these military exercises would prove to Russia that Georgia is now under NATO protectorate and a second South Ossetian/Abkhazian incident would not be allowed to happen.

Conclusion

Europe needs to diversify their energy dependence. Too much of it is on Russia, as events in January of 2009 have shown. Russia is reluctant to allow that to happen, because Europe’s energy dependence is a trump in Moscow’s hands. The Great Game II is unfolding and it is gaining momentum. Recently, Russia won Kyrgyzstan from the West in that the Manas base is no longer available to the NATO forces for military purposes. NATO needs to answer. Their answer is military exercises in Georgia. Georgia is a strategic partner to the West because it lies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

If NATO is successful in making Georgia a secure state and able to stave off Russia’s aspirations at building its own pipeline, Georgia would become the jewel of Central Asia for the West. It would spell a large victory in the second Great Game and would cause Russia to step back from further aspirations in expanding its influence beyond the Caucasus. More importantly, Europe will be able to diversify energy exports. That in turn would mean weakening Russia’s political leverage.

How Can US Get Russia’s Support Over Iran?

FULL ARTICLE HERE

So, the gears are set in motion now as Barack Obama has sent an official letter to President Medvedev proposing to cease the European Missile Defense efforts in Poland and the Czech Republic if Moscow collaborates with Washington on pressuring Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program. This is not the way talks should begin over the European anti-missile shield and Iran between Moscow and Russia. Obama has not yet made a name for himself in the international arena, if anything, Hillary actually tainted the view of the way the world views the foreign policy of the new administration in Washington. At a press conference with the Spanish prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev stated clearly that he is not going to settle for any exchanges with regard to the anti-missile defenses in Europe and that he viewed it as an unproductive approach. The implications of decisions made on the subject of cooperation between Moscow and Washington regarding Iran were discussed in an earlier article, so now, things start moving, and it looks like not in the direction which will actually bring the results intended.

Foreign Policy of the US

It is clear to anyone paying attention to politics that Obama does not have much experience with foreign policy and most likely will stumble along the way in his first year as he learns how other countries operate and how to deal with different nations. Entrusting his foreign affairs to Hillary is more than an indication that he is not yet at the level of knowledge about the international arena as one might hope. Obama won purely because of his domestic policy promising change to save the US from total collapse and good marketing. His foreign policy platform was only concerned with telling the Americans what they wanted to hear – stopping the war in Iraq.

Now, the reality sets in, and it is not as easy as it looks. America does not have the leverage that it had in the nineties over Moscow, when Yeltsin would pull back on certain national interests in return for support for the new Russia from the West. Obama’s letter to the Kremlin seems to indicate a lot of false assumptions over the way Russia has set itself in the international politics. The White House seems to put a lot of emphasis on the European anti-missile defense, not realizing that Russia is not really concerned with it as much as it is with further extending its influence in Central Asia and cooperation with Iran on weapons trading and technological research and development.

It is extremely wrong of Obama to try and put Russia in a position that would be beneficial only to the US national interests. International politics does not work like that. In the international scene today, if one county wants to further their national interests abroad they have to take into consideration the other side’s interest as well in order to facilitate cooperation in any given area. The new administration should not put pressure on Russia’s national security in order to get what they want. They need to give Russia something to benefit their national interest abroad in order to get Moscow’s cooperation. Considering the possible benefits of Moscow-Tehran relations for Russia, Washington will have to find another way and give a lot to with regard to Russian national interests.

Evidence of Direction

Every time a person representing a foreign policy speaks to anyone, they usually think about the way their words will be viewed else where. Clinton seems to miss this point. If there are two countries bumping heads, and a third country comes in and pledges support for one of the sides, it becomes an enemy of the other. As the saying goes, “My worst enemy’s worst enemy is my best friend.” So, ipso-facto Clinton’s words… CONTINUE READING HERE

Should Russia Side With Iran or the US?

FULL ARTICLE HERE Russia halts their weapons deal with Iran until they finish talks with the US President Barack Obama. This is seemingly small news. However, the results of this can lay the foundation for long term international relations between the two countries and the way both nations’ foreign policies will be formed for many years to come. The reason is that there may be two outcomes. One potential outcome is the Russia continues on trading weapons with Iran. Another outcome is that Russia stops weapons trading and joins US in persuading Iran to halt their weapons build up and potential nuclear program.

Outcome #1

The first outcome to consider is that Russia keeps on trading weapons with Iran, sending over experts and increasing cooperation between the two countries. Iran’s weapons build up and increased might will help it achieve its result of becoming the center for the Islamic world and will put it on the map as a country to be dealt with regarding any outside nation’s interests in the Middle East. This will help Iran further its interests in global affairs and will help them decrease the pressure that US and most of the West is putting on it with regard to its military and internal affairs.

For Moscow, there are benefits in this deal coming out of cooperation with Iran. Russian domestic weapons production will have huge sales contracts with Tehran and considering that Iran most likely will not buy weapons from the West Russian weapons and military production industry will hit the jackpot in the near future. They will basically supply all of Iran’s military with the equipment needed to make its military up to par with Western counterparts.

In addition, Russian gas and oil companies will be able to get huge contracts with Iranian oil and gas industries with regard to Caspian basin natural resources. Since Western companies will not be allowed to participate in the sale of contracts, Russian companies will most likely be the winners of most, if not all, contracts that Tehran may offer to build up their oil and gas industry. Considering this, United States currently sees it as in the national interest to keep Tehran out of the oil game because US and Iran bump heads very often and it will put in jeopardy the continuous flow of natural resources because US will have to use Tehran’s pipelines if it wants to diversify places from which it imports resources.

Outcome #2

The next possible outcome is that Moscow will decide to stop trading weapons with Tehran and will start siding with the US to get Iran to cease their military build up and nuclear program. Although on the surface it looks like Russia will not gain as much from this deal with US, it actually has the potential to benefit from the externality that comes of this. That externality is a large influence in Central Asian countries, former Soviet Republics, which have access to the Caspian and all of the natural resources that …CONTINUE READING

World’s Growing Interest in Africa

MORE ARTICLES HERE

Why is Africa all of a sudden coming up in the news more often? Evidence to that is the fact that news sources are coming out with more small stories about different African nations.

The caning of teachers in Tanzania, Zimbabwe’s elections, the civil war in Congo, the Ethiopian government, the potential to create an African Union and many other stories are appearing as headlines in many newspapers.

The answer is very simple – the continent with a lot of natural resources has been neglected for way over half of a century. Business opportunities are present in many parts of Africa. However, the instability of the regimes all over the continent turns potential investors away. Nations should participate actively in brining about stability in Africa for the sole reason of providing their domestic industries with business opportunities.

Most of the Middle East has been divided among corporations already. It is expensive and difficult to make a big name for a company in the Middle East unless it already has an extensive history and a world-wide recognised name. Nevertheless, this begins to create a sense of status quo in the business world because only the big players are allowed to participate in the extraction and sale of natural resources. Thus, it is time to move to new lands that have not yet been conquered by the corporate world.

Here’s a list of some African countries and their resources listed on the website of the University of Iowa:

- Congo (Former Zaire): copper, cobalt, diamonds, crude oil, coffee
- Tanzania: cotton, coffee, sisal, cashew nuts, tobacco
- Nigeria: oil, minerals, rubber, cocoa
- Kenya: tea, coffee, horticulture products, petroleum products
- Ghana: gold, diamonds, timber, aluminum
- South Africa: gold, diamonds, metals
- Ethiopia:  small reserves of gold, platinum, natural gas, hydropower

What is important to note that all of these countries, except for Congo (due to its instability), have been recently provided with financial help from the World Bank and the IMF – the two giants of global politics that have the power to decide whether certain countries sink or float. Looking at the map of the world it is easy to see the strategic location of many of these few African nations. Some provide access to ports, some provide resources, and in most cases those that provide access to ports also provide a connection to nations that are rich with resources.

Africa may become the next business ‘El Dorado’. China is already taking advantage of this ‘unconquered’ continent. By the end of 2006 direct Chinese trade with Africa has reached $US 50 billion. That’s not considering the growth in the last two years and the investments made by the IMF and the World Bank. All things considered, expect more extensive media coverage of Africa in the close future and more international interest in the continent in the years to come.

MORE ARTICLES HERE

Russia Taking Over US’ Central Asia

FULL ARTICLE HERE The political game is all about having leverage. Russia, currently, is doing all it can to gain leverage against the American presence in Central Asia. This is a vital time to do so because the new US President has not yet established himself as a hardliner and has not made any bold foreign policy moves. The Bush administration fought hard on every level to keep anyone else from meddling in Washington’s affairs in the region. The US provided a lot of support for numerous former Soviet republics in Central Asia in order to secure their political dominance in the region.

One of the most important reasons for having friendly nations in Central Asia, especially Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, was because they provided vital supply bases for US operations in Afghanistan. The majority of US personnel, ordnance, and supplies were channeled through the US Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan. Now, however, the United States has lost that base and Moscow has acted upon an opportunity to provide a counterweight to US policies abroad.

First, Kyrgyzstan stated that the US base that was virtually sold to Russia for $2 billion can be used to still transport humanitarian supplies to US forces in Afghanistan. However, it means that Washington will have to find another base to use for directing supplies to their forces fighting the Taliban. The strategic advantage of the base in Kyrgyzstan was that it was only 1,5 hours of flight time away from the US airfield in Bagram.

Second, Moscow recently offered NATO the opportunity to use their Air Force to transport supplies to US forces in Afghanistan, since they were close to Afghanistan and it would take the burden off NATO to maintain active bases in the region. For Russia this means a lesser NATO and American presence in the region. It also gives Moscow an opportunity to control the flow of supplies intended for the war in Afghanistan. This is the most important factor in the ordeal over Central Asia, having leverage against American policies abroad. If NATO agrees to use the Russian Air Force to bring …CONTINUE READING HERE

Controlling the Caspian – Russia’s New Military Alliance

FULL ARTICLE HERE The news of seven post-soviet nations creating a military rapid reaction force should come as no surprise, for it was only a matter of time before a military alliance of some former soviet republics was created. Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are putting together a force whose central command will be in Moscow. The force will be able to dispatch a rapid reactionary force to any region in the post-soviet space.

This is actually very important because this news came out the same time that Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close a U.S. base on its territory. Most likely there was a struggle for influence between Moscow and Washington, and analysts may only guess why Kyrgyzstan chose Russia, but the fact remains that the US is not going to take this loss lightly. Trying to guess future reactions of these two powers would be a waste of time for there’s not enough information to do so. However, it is necessary to analyze why this step by these seven nations is important and what are further implications of this Rapid Reactionary Force (RRF).

Natural Resources

Every country except for Belarus is vital in its own way to protect Russia’s interest in the Caspian. Presence of Russian military bases and a joint military with these Central Asian countries gives Moscow an ability to secure their resource transit routes and the resources themselves from providing America an alternative to the Persian Gulf for oil.

It is a known fact that United States has spent a lot of time and money trying to increase their presence in the Caspian to lessen their dependence on oil coming from the Middle East. It only makes sense that Russia wants to close off this alternative for the United States. If this RRF is a successful endeavor, the United States will have to deal with another military alliance that truly does not want Washington to meddle in its affairs. The newly established RRF will also be able to react to any threat that would otherwise threaten the continuous flow of oil and gas through the pipelines and by ship to refineries in Russia and other nations of the RRF.

This military union is also a concern to Georgia and Azerbaijan as well. These two nations host foreign oil refineries and pipelines in Supsa and Baku. Especially after the recent war CONTINUE READING –>

Fighting for Resources – True Causes of Today’s Wars

FULL ARTICLE HERE

The way wars are fought has changed over time, but the reason for the wars hasn’t. It is not about religion, it is not about simply acquiring new territory. It is about acquiring resources and protecting their flow into the nation that is currently controlling those resources. Currently, not all “takeovers” have been militarily achieved.  Nations that risk too much in an open conflict will bend to the requests from more powerful nations in return for more wealth from those that are already in control. The more powerful nations or blocs are the US, China, Russia, and the EU. All the others that are on a less resource-based economic “diet” do not meddle in affairs of resource acquisition. At least not to the extent that the afore mentioned nations do.

However, armed conflicts are what this article will be about. Nations that are not developed, that are unstable, are the most probable targets for an invasion by more powerful countries in order to control the resources and vital trade routes.  Most nations that are considered as developing already “willingly” share their resources. African nations, certain Middle Eastern… FULL ARTICLE HERE

Determining Borders – Creating Internal Stability

Dear readers – please use this link to the original source of the article

In 2008 there have been numerous disputes, peaceful and not, with regard to borders. In some cases these disputes turned violent. The biggest border conflicts and disputes have resulted in tensions between Israel and Gaza, Russia and Georgia, India and Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. The peaceful border tensions are between the U.S. and Mexico and the ongoing debate about the status of Cyprus. Aside from the geographical border disputes and tensions, the economic crisis has shown the world that economic borders are not that safe as well.

In 2009, many nations that have border disputes will try to settle them. After the fall of the USSR, borders of many countries have destabilised and there are many regions and territories in the world that would like to see independence. After having numerous countries engage in open and political conflicts in 2008 with regard to borders, leaders of some nations look like they have realised that borders need to be set and finalised once and for all, preferably without the use of force.

Geographical

There is an argument that, in order to have a stable regime, whatever it may be, inside a country, that nation needs to have stable borders. Support for this argument is abundant, and there are few that would disagree. However, it seems that only now is this argument really finding its place in the global arena. Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev has assigned an advisory commission to present solutions to Russian border disputes, to map those borders, and to finalise them, so everyone knows where the nation’s borders are drawn.

As Israel has had numerous clashes with its neighbours, it has become evident that it needs to start working towards more stable and accurate borders in order to avoid conflicts such as the one in Gaza. Therefore it could definitely say that a rocket attack, or any attack, over that particular given line will automatically result in an open conflict.

Gaza’s borders are not stable. Israel set up a wall, literally and figuratively that isolates the people inside the Gaza strip. Israel even goes as far as to not allow international aid workers to bring in supplies and medication to Palestinians living in the Gaza strip. During Israel’s short campaign in the Gaza strip, the Israeli Navy went as far as ramming a ship full of humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian civilians. Israel’s conflicts have been coupled by political instability. Not that the regime has changed or has any intention to do so, it is that the Israeli government has largely been unstable and its leaders and prominent politicians have been at the center of attention for shady activities on numerous occasions.

Another country with unstable borders and even more unstable relations with its neighbours is Pakistan. It has been in the spotlight quite often recently. First of all, its borders with Afghanistan are nearly unguarded, to say the least. Secondly, after the events in Mumbai, Indian-Pakistani borders have become as tense as ever because of India’s accusations that Islamabad had trained and even organised the attack in Mumbai.

Northern Waziristan, according to U.S. sources, is a base of operations for Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military has been launching raids into Pakistan on many occasion, stating the fact that Pakistan’s military has nearly no control over the province and lets insurgents roam freely over the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Evidence of instability in Pakistan is seen through the change of power in August of 2008, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and many other events. All of this can be linked to the fact that the borders of Pakistan are very insecure.

The United States, although most stable out of the above mentioned countries, has their own instability to deal with. The U.S. erected a fence going between Mexico and the U.S. The illegal immigration of Mexicans to their northern neighbour has stirred up a lot of controversy. The fence was erected exactly for the reasons of stabilising the inside of the country, rather than the illegal immigration situation. The Bush administration was already speeding downhill at the time of the decision to erect the fence. Its hope did not do anything to stabilise their situation and slow down their descent in public approval. Nevertheless, it was an attempt at getting the situation under control.

Now, Barack Obama will try and secure the border with means other than physically trying to get in the way of the illegal migrant inflow into the U.S. Whatever the means are, they are aimed primarily at stabilising the order primarily in the Southern and Southwestern United States. Whatever the arguments may be for and against, it is a fact that illegal immigration destabilises the order in places that illegal migrants go to because they are willing to work for below the minimum wage and thus cost jobs that actually create tax revenue. This is the issue with border stabilisation between the U.S. and Mexico.

Cyprus and Turkey have another border issue to deal with on the international arena, primarily due to Turkish aspirations to join the EU. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey, and thus Turkey will need to determine what is more important: a small area that has been disputed since the British colonial rule, or the current issue of joining the EU. It will have to draw its border sooner or later and finalise the issue eventually.

Turkey, although more stable than most other Middle Eastern countries, still has problems developing a more stable democracy, to which they aspire. Its relationship with the Kurds and the Iraqi border is another issue at stake. Until those issues are finalised, it will be hard to focus more on internal issues because they are an immediate security risk.

Geographical borders will need to be covered first in order to stabilise regimes and political situations within many countries. It looks like more and more countries are recognising the correlation between stable borders and stable governments. Nevertheless, the economic expansion of many multinational corporations from all over the world brings instability as well (to be discussed in part 2 later this week).

Conclusion

There are many unresolved border and territorial disputes all over the world. After seeing many conflicts spring up between neighbours in recent years after the fall of the Soviet Union, borders have become key issues in certain regions. In recent years many conflicts and disputes have escalated to new levels primarily because many nations are not willing to look into the issues and would rather just keep at proving that they are right. Although it seems logical, nations need to compromise and resolve these issues because unstable borders nearly always lead to unstable governments and internal politics.

It is a benefit to all to find solutions to these problems in order to bring about more order within a nation. 2009 will be the founding year for nation defining their national borders and securing them in order to bring about order with regard to domestic politics.

Dear readers – please use this link to the original source of the article

Why Europe will not be the next superpower

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Many political analysts and observers have predicted that the EU will rise up to be the next power, stronger and more unified than the United States. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why this may not happen and it is important to note this in order to understand the reasons for Europe lagging behind its scheduled growth and why the EU, with its bigger markets and greater population, has not risen above America yet.

Although today Europe is a multinational union that has integrated …

FULL ARTICLE HERE

…indication enough that Europe is not sovereign enough. Western Europe is fairly independent of the US, considering the fact that they’ve blocked most major US companies from becoming major players in Europe’s economy (GE, Microsoft, Boeing to name a few). Nevertheless, Eastern Europe is not needed for the market share. It is needed for political leverage and for presence close to Russia.

Although the EU knows this, it also knows that getting in the way of US global aspirations will end up hurting them in the end. After all, it was the American Marshall Plan that rebuilt Western Europe after World War Two. It was the Americans that helped Europe keep the “evil” USSR from attacking the weakened Europe throughout the Cold War. Most of all, it was the Americans that helped Europe, including Germany, to get back up after being destroyed by war.

To reiterate – Europe will not be more powerful than the United States. It is closely tied to America economically and by past “favors”. Moreover, the fact that the EU is not socially integrated is still a problem. Eastern and Western Europe are still different and even some Western European nations are still unfriendly towards some of their partners and neighbors. Most of all, the fact that the US has some control over Eastern Europe is an indication that Brussels is still not the one in control over the whole EU. Once someone is in the US’s pocket (IMF, World Bank loans), then it will most likely not get out of it. Eastern Europe is in and thus half of the EU is under American influence. It is essential to understand this to understand relationships within Europe and of Europe to the rest of the world.

FULL ARTICLE HERE