|
"With words we govern men" – Disraeli
back to bloglist
Alexey Sazonov's column
Entries
27 May, 2009, 23:51 North Korea – a Successor is in Order
permalink
What’s going on with North Korea getting so aggressive? The UN is holding emergency sessions to decide what to do. Even Russia is condemning North Korea’s actions. The Japanese and the Americans are, of course, among those that are most concerned with Pyongyang’s missile tests. North Korea has been fairly quiet for a long time, not doing much to provoke such worldwide attention.
Read more
Around the time of the most recent Presidential elections in the United States, most countries that have been staying out of the spotlight have really began to push through their own interests. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and even the EU seem to be more independent of Washington in their decisions. One of the reasons for this is that Obama is not a hardliner. He has so far been more about diplomacy rather than using America’s military might to back up America’s interests in countries besides Afghanistan. A show of force is not his way, which shows that he is very cautious when it comes to military decisions. He has not served in the military and thus is less likely to be a hardliner when faced with other hardliners.
However, let’s get back to North Korea. The missile launches, even if they are unsuccessful in accomplishing their goals, are about getting world attention to the fact that there is still some life left in a seemingly dead country. Another reason is that Kim Jong-Il is getting old and this is the time to pick his successor. One thing to remember is that North Korea is not a strong nation by a long shot. Kim Jong-Il needs to leave at least a feeling of strength to the next leader so he can have a stepping stone. Besides, most likely it is also not Kim Jong-Il making these decisions but rather the generals within the military. They need a strong military in order to show that North Korea’s military still holds the true power in the country so the people don’t feel that with Kim Jong-Il’s dwindling life the other leaders are losing grip as well.
One of the other important things to remember is that the reason presented above is not the essence of North Korea’s actions. The internal situation is not the biggest of their worries, for the population is well under the thumb of the state and their protective measures are easy to implement. The primary reason for the military exercises is to show the rest of the world that there will be no change in the way North Korea is governed any time soon. The tests are meant to show that North Koreans are ready to protect their regime and even though the current leader is slowly moving into the shadows, the military is still there and the rest of the leadership is still strong. The world should not expect that Pyongyang will open its borders, begging to the world to help them become a democracy and help them move away from the oppressive regime that is in place today.
Obama’s administration is very soft compared to that of the Bush administration and Pyongyang is of course going to take advantage and show that they don’t care about any sanctions anymore and are looking to move forward with their interests in the Korean peninsula. They have been dormant for a long time and may erupt, like a sleeping volcano does every once in a while. The question still lingers – whoever the new successor may be, will he take military action across the 38th parallel or not? This remains the most important question. Regardless of who the next leader will be, the world needs to tighten its grip on the situation in order to avoid the continuation of the Korean War that was resolved in a simple ceasefire in 1953.
The probability of a new North Korean leader being a hardliner bold enough to move North Korean forces across the 38th parallel is higher than expected. North Koreans are raised on stories of their forefathers’ heroics in the Korean War. However, the war is not over. A brash young leader may be truly committed to ending the ceasefire and settling the conflict that never ended. North Korea has a nuclear program and has the propaganda strong enough to rise up their people to fight for the leaders’ cause.
Regardless of the speculation, it is necessary to keep an eye on the North Koreans and have a force ready to protect South Korea and Japan from North Korea, for it will destabilize the region, cause a disturbance in shipping lanes, may drag China in and thus drive up prices of nearly every good sold from the Heavenly Kingdom. One thing is for certain – leadership is about to change in Pyongyang, and the world’s actions will result in three probable outcomes: more openness from North Korea; another 50 years of the same leadership and tensions; or a clash of military forces along the 38th parallel.
Show comments (1)
22 May, 2009, 17:25 Obama’s Military Transparency
permalink
Guantanamo has been on the front pages for quite a while now. There is a lot of buzz going on with Obama's decisions concerning this Cuban based prison.
One of the biggest mistakes that the current administration has made with regard to this nasty affair is politicizing it. The Republicans were right to state that opening up the memoranda concerning the prison's details to the public weakened the national security of the United States.
Simply put, politicizing military affairs is one of the biggest threats to national security of any given country if they choose to implement such a strategy.
Openness is a great thing. A transparent government is highly admirable and highly sought after by many people. However, military affairs should always be left to the government without citizens’ intervention, for then warfare becomes nothing but a bureaucratic affair.
There will always be liberals and conservatives, communists and fascists, Christians, Jews, and Muslims arguing their differences. It is impossible to appease every party. The United States government is elected, and therefore, voting citizens give the power of determining national security and national defense policy to Congress and to the President of the United States. Military affairs are thus in the public interest.
The way prisoners of war are treated is the government's own affair. If an enemy combatant does not fear being captured, with the knowledge that he will not be harmed in any way, and will not be forced to turn over any information, it will simply mean that there is no need for prisoners of war. They can be shot on sight upon surrender. Keeping them just for the sake of humane practice is then simply a costly, unnecessary affair. I do not condone extremely cruel torture. However, there need to be methods that get prisoners of war to talk.
Obama's decision to discredit the previous administration's effort with regard to the capture and imprisonment of enemy combatants is nothing but a political move that brings support of democrats, alienation of republicans, and no progress with regard to the current military affairs with which Washington is faced.
There is another side to the way that the US military is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most war crimes are committed by the contractors that work in the hot spots. The US military generally is not faced with the same dangers as often as the contractors are. The US government does release official military KIA figures. However, private security companies are not required to release their figures on their losses.
Speculation has it that US losses are double that of official military combat deaths. What a great way for Washington officials to cover their themselves. Another way that many countries are starting to give the people a sense of transparency, is by prosecuting a few military personnel that have committed war crimes.
Basically, if a soldier is not caught, he is free to do anything he wants. There was a video on YouTube that showed United States soldiers running over civilian cars with tanks. Why? Simply because they could. No one was going to stop them and no one was going to say anything to them.
Politicizing military affairs to appease the outspoken public is not the way wars are won. First, the war should be fought and either won or lost, and then the winner should decide what was done right and what was done wrong. There is nothing else to do with regard to warfare. First of all, war should be a highly thought-out affair, for it is costly and traumatizing. Second of all, it has to be fought to the end or else there will be nothing but problems.
Obama is only now realizing what war management is like. His decision to keep the Guantanamo prisoners on trial shows that although it is hard for the public to accept the inhumane treatment of some inmates, it is a necessary evil to rectify the mistake that had been made by the Bush administration.
Show comments (4)
16 May, 2009, 17:06 South Stream 1 – Nabucco 0
permalink
Gazprom has outmaneuvered the Europeans and the US once again. The document that was signed by Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Italy, and Russia states all the sides’ roles in the construction of the South Stream project. The only country left to tackle is Austria, which may prove to be a challenge. However, Austria will have to give in eventually once the project is underway because then they will be faced with a game theory type situation – if it agrees it gets money, if it doesn’t agree it gets nothing. Austria is not extremely important for the project for it lands at the end of the north branch of the proposed pipeline. So far the progress of the South Stream, compared with that of the Nabucco pipeline, is way ahead.
The EU leadership suffered a huge blow to their aspirations regarding the “South Gas Corridor.” Recently, upon signing a document similar to the one that Gazprom succeeded in signing, the countries interested in Nabucco pipeline were not able to get Turkmenistan to sign. The countries involved are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey. However, the EU is the biggest beneficiary of this project as this will allow them gas import diversification, decreasing their dependence on Russia for natural gas. The failure of Nabucco to interest Turkmenistan enough basically makes the signature of the EU’s pet project nothing but a political show. Next-day support of the White House of the signing of this document only solidifies the doubt of this being a working document rather than a simple agreement for further discussions on the matter.
Read more
West’s Concerns
The South Stream will take away all alternatives for the EU to diversify their energy import beyond that which they already have (25% of natural gas imported into the EU is from Russia). The United States has stated that Russian domination of the EU energy import market will create a monopoly with Russia at the helm and that that will create an unfair market. Well, an unfair market is not something Washington criticizes when it comes to OPEC or its own steel industry. Nevertheless, when the conditions are right and the potential benefits are great, it is the first political tool that it uses. If anything, the US should not even be concerned with who is building what pipeline halfway across the globe.
For the United States, construction of the South Stream pipelines will mean that their pet projects in Central Asia and Ukraine will come crashing down. Simply building the Nabucco pipeline in spite of another pipeline being built will be money down the drain. It will not be a match for a less expensive and more efficient South Stream. The US, without heavy Western cash inflows stemming from the energy trade, will not be able to exert enough influence on Russia’s near abroad. It is of utmost importance in order to be able to exert pressure on Russia and to be able to twist Moscow’s arm a little when the situation calls for it. Otherwise, the United States’ power and influence in the Central Asian regions and especially Georgia will be diminished to a fraction of what it is now. After all, America will not be fueling these countries’ economy from the State Treasury forever.
For the European Union it will mean that they will have to bend to Moscow’s rules, especially in the winter. There is nothing scarier for the Europeans than to see another shortage of gas. If anything, EU leaders’ constituency will be asking them to back off the Nabucco pipeline plans and asking them to allow Gazprom to build a pipeline around Ukraine. Ukraine’s unstable government and constant challenge of Russia makes EU citizenry feel uncomfortable with regard to a consistent flow of energy to it doorstep.
I’m not trying to downplay the EU’s aspirations or their potential, or make Russia look like an unbeatable player in this game of politics and energy. However, since the turn of the new millennium, Putin and his government have been one step ahead of the West in its near abroad. One thing that the West seems not to take into consideration is that most of the politicians in Russia and the CIS countries are led by people who have known each other for a long time. Sometimes even as far back as universities or military service. Although now these leaders live in and lead different countries, they are keener to deal with their old friends than those who were on the other side of the “iron curtain” during their mentoring.
Conclusion
The Nabucco pipeline, although a very good project for Europe is simply not well enough connected politically as is the South Stream. For some it may be a terrible prediction, for others it may be promise of a brighter future, but most likely South Stream will be built instead of EU’s South Gas Corridor. The countries that are considered for this project are not such good friends in between each other as most of those participating in Gazprom’s project. To reiterate, South Stream’s participants are Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, Greece, Serbia, and Russia. Nabucco’s participants are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey. Simply looking at these side by side, Nabucco is more costly and involves countries that have not worked with each other before or are simply indifferent to others’ interest for they do not reflect their own.
Finally Georgia and Iraq are simply too unstable to provide the needed stable flow of energy sources into EU. Georgia proved its instability in the summer of 2008 and the country’s population and government are not on the same side. There is no need to list all the cons of working with Iraq on this. The United States is looking to withdraw its forces and there is no way to tell what will happen there once that goes through. All in all, South Stream 1 - Nabucco 0.
Show comments (8)
About author
My name is Alexey Sazonov. I was 11 years old when I came to United States from St. Petersburg, Russia. I have been interested in politics my whole life. I believe in rational thinking, especially when it comes to politics. Political analysis should be unbiased and verified. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and loyalties. However, public news and analysis should be based on multiple sources and facts.
I am currently a student at University of Illinois at Chicago, majoring in Economics, with minors in International Business and Political Science. I believe it is everyone's essential duty to understand the politics of today's world for everyone on this planet is effected by world leaders' daily decisions.
“With words we govern men” – Disraeli.
|
28 May, 2009, 17:06
Why everyone talks about North Korea and nuclear weapons. US occupied South Korea also possesses nuclear weapons. On the many US occupied islands in that region the US must have deployed nuclear weapons that are within firing range from North Korea, China and Russia. The US is responsible for the tensions in the Korean Peninsula. It was G W Bush who named North Korea as ‘axis of evil’ and further increased hostilities by announcing North Korea oil embargo in 2002. The US in fact is harassing the whole region.