The day was sunny, the leaves of the trees were so very green and the sun glistened, dancing playfully as the laughter of the stream rolled up from the moss covered rocks.  The water ran around my ankles, cool, refreshing and bringing life back to my tired feet.  I was there, in the stream, alone, captured by the breeze as it swept across my face.  The scent of all that is enveloped me, I was the earth.  My feet grew into the ground as it fed me full of knowledge and strength.  I drew upon her for nourishment, life, energy, and wisdom. 

My fishing rod, an antique fly, was my only accompaniment.  I cast long and steady, the line arching beautifully, a scene captured only in movies.  The line sang, as it tossed the hand woven bait through the air, tickling the tip of the water and enticing the object of my moments being.  I caught one; a champion trout was in my hands.  Beautifully it glistened, its flesh, reflecting the colors of hope, and then I noticed.  The eyes of the fish seemed to be staring intently at me, they burned into me, begging me for something, its face frowning, and startled.  Taken by the image, I lost track of what I was doing.  It wrestled its way free from my hands and descended back into the cool water.

I looked down where the fish had landed, expecting that, with a flick of its tail, it would dart away, back to its life, free from harm and capture once again…but it didn’t.  In a panicked motion, it kicked its tail and turned, the pain and anguish still on its face, it could not swim.  Paralyzed, it wriggled in place once more and then lay lifeless in the stream whose waters had become still and now displayed signs of perfect stagnation.  I looked deeper into the lifeless pool and realized the hundreds of other dead fish mounting, the look of defeat, sadness, and pain upon their faces.  The once clear water had now clouded with dust upon its surface and the image that was once transparent… was no more.  Still standing in the pool, I began to weep for the lifeless beings, my heart ached and the type of sadness that only stems from loss overwhelmed me.  I awoke from this dream, only to experience it again, and even once again.  It has been three times now and I believe there is a reason.  Since this dream, I have realized visions of these scenes several times and cannot seem to let go of the unheard screams pouring from the very souls of what was once life.

Yes, this is only a dream and some dreams are strange, others horrifying.  In this case, the emotions felt were overwhelmingly sad.  Some would take this, and shrug it off, saying “that’s just crazy, dreams don’t mean anything” and venture so far as to make fun.  This comes only from insecurity and the inability to relate at such levels as to delve into one’s own emotions let alone publicize them.  This is a direct display of weakness and self insecurity.  Others will remain silent, read and relate, while others will chime in, voice their opinions and interpret something for themselves from these writings.  Nonetheless, regardless of response, I will disclose, at the risk of speculation and scrutiny, precisely what I have construed and understand to be the message. 

People often ask of me, from where do I draw my strength and energy.  Well, let me tell you, I draw it from a new found relationship with my God and prayer.  While my religious focus may not be aligned with the majority, I draw my synergy from God and feel closer to this being more and more intensely each and every day.  My primary prayer is for wisdom.  I am very intent on this and draw upon my relationship with God and others through the wisdom that I’ve been afforded, which, incidentally is not very much!  However, I take what I can get and I listen.  God speaks to us in so many ways the problem is people have lost their ability to really listen.  The words of God are not as complicated as one may think.  Am I saying that God has spoken to me?  What I’m saying is God has spoken…he speaks to everyone, but few choose to listen.  There was meaning in this dream, and I have chosen to listen.

The foundation of life is water.  Our earth primarily consists of water as do our bodies.  Without water, there can be no life and with poisoned water, life becomes death.  The greater population within waters, as most of us comprehend, is fish.  No one can argue that water provides life, which is populated by fish and other basic life forms.  The oceans serve as the womb of life, giving breath to new forms each and every day.  We discover these over time, and the adventures associated with new discovery continue.   The trees, the breeze, and the life that I experienced prior to witnessing my dying fish are all results of the life giving waters.  Once these became still, so did all of life.  So the core of this dream is in fact water.  The remaining questions are as follows:

What does the water represent?

How did the water become poisoned?

Why was I standing in the water?

And how do we keep the waters flowing so as not to experience the death associated with its poisoning?

Simple…water represents hope.  It provides the essence that the people require in order to live, thrive, grow, and love.  Water represents habitat.  The homes over our heads, the areas where we go for long walks, that single favorite spot where we dwell when we need to escape.  I am in a world where hope, habitat, and faith are waning.  The people here are screaming for help but their voices are not being heard.  I have been told by two local citizens in just twenty four hours that, and I sadly quote, “Iraqi people are bad people, we have done wrong and the God is punishing us, I live in a world of dogs, and there is nothing I can do, we deserve this” and the other, without knowing what his comrade had stated, declared “I hate my country, I must leave, we are going to destroy ourselves because we are broken, no one cares and I must just get out of here.” 

 We, the people, are the fish.  We scream for help and false promises made by governments along with misconstrued hopes are the poison from which our water contaminates.  We live in a world that we are unable to change.  We look upward, panic stricken, saddened by our deeds, looking for someone to help and we see no one, the water has clouded because it has become stagnant.  Hope has failed and no longer flows. 

I stand over and observe, unsure of what to do, but continue with diligent prayer.  My feet embedded in the earth from whence the water once flowed, are frozen in place, and I am forced to look down and see, without the ability to make change or influence, the sadness of those that truly feel lost.  We must remain cognizant of the plight that our world is going through.  It is, in fact, suffocating us and because we, as a world, have become so “international,” the plight of one will, consequently, be the doom of another. 

I write today, because I feel designated and obligated, to deliver to all who will believe, a reminder that God has charged us with the care of this earth and its inhabitants.  We can no longer stand as a single entity, thinking only of the self, relying on fate to carry us through.  We must look to reach out an encouraging hand to one another because times will worsen.  Do not let our daily lives of comfort mis-guide us on a path in which we choose to squander the present at the cost of building a future for our children and our children’s children, pushing us far from the harsh reality of what may come.  Do what you can with what you are given.  Give hope to those that will listen, give reason to those that doubt, and lead those who are lost back home to clear waters, so that they may live once again.  This is our charge, and this is my dream, and perhaps now, it is yours.

IRAQ – I was driving down one of the war trodden main supply routes the other week. Concentrating on the road, looking for anything suspicious, I could not help but acknowledge to my gunner what destruction does to a society. It seems that every time we “roll out” our discussion includes this topic in some form. The trash piling in the dirt, the once emblazoned buildings, and the people, wrinkled, somewhat sad, and hardened by war and the stress it brings, paints a very plain picture of true struggle and broken will. With the exception of an occasional flash of traditional red, or the dusty green leaves of the palms, the image is bland and dry, leaving one in a pre-conditioned saddened state of mind even before realizing the true meaning of our presence here. Of note, up ahead, was an animal on the side of the road, lifeless, and still.

Even the grayness of this donkey seemed to fade.  In part, abandoned, no master in sight, his eyes closed, as if he had chosen this very spot along the road to lie down and die, there stood above him the most saddening scenes of the day.  Another donkey, obviously in mourning for his lost companion, he stood above his friend, loyal even in death, as traffic nonchalantly passed by.  The passers by failing to acknowledge the fact that donkey or not, something or perhaps someone lost a companion and friend, continued on with their day failing to witness what was, perhaps, a most tormenting experience.  The tears in the eyes of this innocent being, was too much for me to manage.  I got back to my forward operating base, found a private spot, and wept. 

Such is life…we come, we go, but what have we done to provide ourselves with the loyalty and commitment to each other that, even as human beings, we would stand with those lost.  Regardless of background, race, religion, or sex, we as the residents of this world have responsibilities as caretakers, charged by God to manage and take care of the world he provided.  Whether by natural causes or in war, who will come to the comfort of those who have experienced loss?  The donkey, though his existence may be menial on a day to day basis, epitomizes what it is to serve and what it means to be loyal.  They live in peace and experience only that which their master charges.  We continue to forego peace and destroy that which our God has designated our responsibility.

So here we are, another holiday season comes and goes and another year approaches with promises of strained interpersonal, intranational, and international relationships.  The will of the people moves with the ebb and tide of unpredictable governments and the struggle between what is right and not right ensues.   We, as the responsible inhabitants of this planet must begin to realize that the happenings and events, not only within our designated borders and territories, but throughout, are directly the end result of individual decision-making and consequential actions.  Recognizing that human beings, alone, possess the ability to influence the physics of nature (as it relates to climate and global conditions), of economy (as it relates to recession and the plethora of issues surrounding economy), and relationships along the full spectrum of their ability to exist (individual through international), is where we must begin before the seeds of peace can be planted.

Consider this….  Individuals make decisions; Decisions produce outcomes; Outcomes, both negative and positive, produce leaders; Leaders influence individuals and individuals decide whom to follow.   Coagulated groups then form as leaders gain followers.  Still with me?  This is probably better depicted graphically, and I will provide one at a later time.  This sequence then recycles itself and at times gains enough momentum to provide those identified as leaders with power.  The power to influence people is only as strong as the collective group allows it to be.  That said, should not the equation for peace be legitimately easy?  Trust me, it is.  The difficulty lies within the spirits of our global leaders.  All may say they want peace, but few have decided collectively what exactly this means. 

When considering the road to a peaceful world, the burden of leadership rests with those appointed and/or supported by the people.  I would argue that the burden and responsibility is misplaced.  Each of us, individually, remains wholly responsible for the status of our world.  Whether it is peace or war, we the people of all states, make the decisions that influence outcomes.  Whether it is who we vote for during an election or to pull a trigger on a roadside bomb, whether we throw our trash outside of a car window or start a recycling program in our own homes, the decision rests with each of us.  We must honestly look inward and ask, “What have I done this year to bring peace to the part of the world that I remain responsible for?”  We must examine the inner being, the self, and decide what we are capable of accomplishing toward making our world just a little cleaner, a little better, a little brighter.  When we all, as a world, accomplish this and work together to achieve, then and only then may peace be possible.  Leaders are no different than followers.  They bleed the same blood; they breathe the same air and receive an education at the same schools.  Leaders are people; the difference is that you and I, people, have chosen to support their dreams and desires.  Consequently, we all remain wholly responsible.

I traveled the same route the very next day.  The donkey, whose companion had died, was now lying next to his loss.  Still along the side of the road, his head had come to rest on the stomach of his loss.  I observed closely, and then, found myself sobbing.  I could no longer hold back the tears that welled from within.  I looked up at my gunner who was sobbing too; my driver was in the same state.  The donkey, whose companion had died, had finally found peace.  He too had passed…surely from a broken heart.  The cars nonchalantly drove by, no one stopping, no one caring for anyone or anything but themselves.  In a world that is torn by war, a world that faces climate crisis, a world that faces threats from our fellow mankind, can any of us afford to think of just ourselves?  Where does this leave tomorrow’s children?  Perhaps they won’t care either.  After all, we’ve taught them to care only for the single most important person…themselves. 

To all who are still reading, I wish you a sincerely beautiful Christmas and many returns for the New Year.  The tone of this blog may seem dark, but the idea is bright!  We have a world that needs some work.  We must, united, stand together, roll up our sleeves, and do what we were originally charged with by God.  That is to take care of that which he bestowed upon all of us…this earth…and each other.  We must continue to pray but we must also continue to stand only for peace, differences exist, but let us hope that people, on the whole, are smart enough to see through these and find resolution.  Our world calls to us.  We must listen!

The scope of any organization is limited to that of the desires of the membership contained therein.  Therefore, the ability and influence of an organization to shape the behavior of its members is limited to the allowances prescribed within the realm of its active participants.  The membership that controls the balance of power within the organization, in fact, possesses the ability to influence the direction and behavior of those retaining the lesser power.  Given this premise, the United Nations, as it exists today, possesses zero capability to influence powerful nation-states and must rather succumb to their will or face, when it comes to approaching the decision making table, intractability which the world has played witness to time and time again.  Referencing my earlier posts on ‘Nuclear Defiance’ and the blatant power plays of Iran and North Korea, you can not argue my prediction that sanctions would not work and that the abilities of the United Nations continue to falter. 

So, rather than beat around the bush, just who are the powerful nation-states that we make reference to?  Arguably, the title is awarded to those who possess the decision making ability within the most powerful section of the United Nations, the Security Council.  The permanent members followed by the non-permanent members have been dubbed the most powerful as determined by position and status quo within the organization.  Article 23, Chapter V of the Charter of the United Nations lists these as The Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States as the permanent member of the Security Council while the General Assembly elects ten other members to be non-permanent members.  So just what ability does the UN possess in shaping the behavior of these nations?  None.  That is…not directly. 

What the UN does provide is a forum for which these nations can come together to discuss the issues surrounding them as the world, through the process of globalization, becomes a smaller place.  This, in turn, may provide for indirect influence of those deemed as “power players” though ultimately, the criticisms of one member state of another are usually presented unilaterally versus from a united platform such as the UN Security Council.  The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 presents a solid case for this.  While the US and others offered harsh criticism to the invasion, there was no evidence of unified criticism or attempts to thwart such an invasion from the UN Security Council.  However, one could argue, that the forum the UN presents certainly provides for open discussion of the events, platforms for indirect criticisms, and perhaps some limited influence from within.  Is the value of an ‘open forum’ for more discussion what the world needs right now?

Keep in mind that the removal of a member, especially one that is permanent, would most likely be catastrophic to the United Nations.  This would only occur in the instance of another global conflict where a truly intractable situation amongst the members of the Security Council presented itself.  This multi-faceted marriage of the P5, in itself, limits the ability of the UN to truly influence those that hold the cornerstones upon which it gains its strength, core,  and structure.

RESOURCES

Bennett, Leroy A. and James K. Oliver. 2002. International Organizations, Principles and Issues, 7th Ed. New Jersey: Prentie Hall

Mobley, Victor. “World Response to Russian Invasion of Georgia,” Associated Content News. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/950265/world_response_to_russian_invasion.html. accessed on 13 December 2009.

Interdependence, a common, single word at the core of both globalization and neo-imperialism is beginning to take form as a war of semantics begins to ensue amongst international relations theorists and today’s current policy makers.  I would argue that the idea of “interconnectedness” is a more accurate description of exactly the premise behind globalization.  However, interdependence as presented by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in an article published in Foreign Policy magazine, “Globalization what’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” suggest that the term is, in fact, intertwined with the definition of globalization.  “Globalism is a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multi-continental distances.”  Examples of this are sited as they pursue a discussion on economic interdependence, military interdependence, and environmental globalism, social and cultural globalism and use the relationship between Asia and the United States as solid descriptors to support their definition.  My criticism lies not in how they define the occurrences between a growingly interconnected world, but that notable theorists and policy makers are failing to recognize that interconnectedness when transformed to interdependence, especially when considering economic and military interdependence, becomes neo-imperialism.

Using economy and capitalism as the means of expansion, Lenin in his 1917 pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, recognizes that imperialism is given birth from capitalist existence.  “Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general.”  Imperialism and neo-imperialism is grounded on the capitalist idea that expansion is necessary.  Expansion drives globalization.  The collection of wealth drives the capitalist, and the idea that when it comes to economy, more is better, provides for autonomy within the capitalist society.  When paired with such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) neo-imperialism finds strength from within, versus the old imperialist reliance of military force to provide geography (colonization) which in turn provides growth of economy.

“What sets imperialism of the capitalist sort apart from other conceptions of empire is that it is the capitalist logic that typically dominates….” DAVID HARVEY, The New Imperialism

Theorists today should take into consideration that globalization represents interconnectedness while neo-imperialism is a viable explanation for interdependence.  We cannot argue that globalization is occurring throughout all worlds. The reliance of the global population and the emergence of such organizations as the IMF, WTO, EU the African Union are all evidence of this.  The interconnectivity amongst member states is noted.  However, the world is predominantly capitalist driven.  Capitalism drives expansion, which in turn provides the opportunity to create the need for long term interdependence.

RESOURCES

Keohane, Robert and Joseph Nye. “Globalization What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?).” Foreign Policy, Spring 2000.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. “Coping With Antiglobalization: A Trilogy of Discontents.” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.

Lenin, V. I.. (1963) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin’s Selected Works, Volume 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, Moscow. Week 1 Lecture Notes

Saddam Hussein, former militant dictator of Iraq, ruled his nation using measures of extreme control exercised through the manipulation of fear tactics and the deployment of catastrophic consequences dealt when the population failed in their ability to abide by the rules of the land. These procedures while, inhumane and unacceptable at times, were the means by which the people were able to acceptably live and survive. Today the people of Iraq tell a story of justification as to why Saddam Hussein was an acceptable dictator.

 “Saddam was able to keep the hundreds of cockroaches that exist within our country constrained; keeping them under control and punishing those that defied his bidding. Once Saddam was removed, these cockroaches were no longer contained and now run wild amongst us spreading corruption and hate across the land. When Saddam was in power, we had only one tyrant. Now we have hundreds.”

 We’ve just previously stated that the “state is a commodity of the people.” In a dictatorship this is not the case. The people are, in fact, a commodity of the state which is held under the finger of a single leader. This leader benefits from the needs of the people and this, in fact, violates the principles behind decent humanity. The ability to make one’s own decisions and freedom of voice, influence, and life in general are all jeopardized under a dictatorship. So, is the answer to evolving a state government which consisted of a former militant dictatorship to replace it with the same? Obviously not, but institutional principles, policies, and theory will not work either. The state, because it is a commodity of the people, is a living, breathing organization, designed by the people to evolve, change, and mold in accordance with the evolution of basic human needs. State building must begin with the basic requirement that people have immediate needs that must be met. These include, and will be discussed in detail further, food, water, a place to discard waste, shelter, and security. These needs have existed since the beginning of humanity and will never change. Biology, physiology, and psychology drive these basic needs and arguably have a tremendous impact on any government. Dictatorship or democracy, supremacy or capitalism, we can argue that any government which fails to address the basic needs of the people who, in fact, own government will indeed collapse.

Solving the problem of nation-state building through democratic reforms that are ‘cookie cutter’ in governmental theory and practice are inadequate solutions to the challenges which face the architects of today’s modern state. The simple answer to the “why?” of this question is the fact that the needs of one individual differ from another. For instance, one man has employment, is able to feed his family, and owns a house, while the other remains desolate, without food or employment, and his family has abandoned him considering him without value and shameful. In a world where these situations are rather common, reform requires that it address the needs of the majority. In a war torn nation, these needs tend to be those as described in the latter scenario. The problem with the ‘cookie cutter’ democratic solution of “all people will have a voice, and this voice will be heard through a free vote process” is, in fact, the very freedom enablers provided through this democratic “practice.”

Corruption is fed by the needs of the people and they will flock to those that can provide. Iraq again poses monumental examples of this. A multitude of organizations continue to form within the borders of this ancient land presided over by a youthful government. These organizations are collectives of people, some of which are driven by ideologies, both religious and non-religious, while other organizations have grown out of spiteful retribution which they feel are owed to those that have destroyed what they believe as acceptable. The success of these organizations thrive because they, through the absolute control of resources (mostly financial), are able to meet the needs of its members, paying them for acts of misconduct against the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, coalition forces, and other organizations. These rogue organizations, for those who live within their immediate areas, in essence, are meeting the very basic of needs better than the government who reside only in Baghdad.

So is the democratic process all for naught? Absolutely not. It is the timing with which the principles and practice of democracy are implemented that is so critical to the survivability of a democratic state. First and foremost, the needs of the people must be met. Second, the corruption which has surfaced must be eliminated to the best of the state’s ability. Third, the government must be fluid enough to avoid corruption from within and realize that they exist in the short term to evolve into what will become a long term democracy.

If you are reading this on here please keep in mind that this is the text of a developing book on the art of state building in today’s world.  The thoughts here are of my own convoluted ideas and may or may not be substantiated with academic resources.  That said, the writings contained herein remain my property and due credit is requested when using these expressions throughout your own work.  As this book develops, I sincerely hope you are able to enjoy the experience of its creation.  Of course the complete ideas will not be exposed until the final product is finished.  Please feel free to challenge the ideas and thoughts and, by all means, make comments!  Thanks and enjoy!

James Pradke

INTRODUCTION

Whether we like to admit it or not, the United States has immersed itself in the business of state building.  Entering into strange worlds, committing itself to a war based on enemy ideologies and techniques that are elusive and frustrating, the government is finding the task more daunting that it could have ever imagined and support of the people in general is waning.  One cannot fault the US involvement in these worlds, after all their efforts are, in fact, “justified.” How so?  The issue is security.  The protection of those needs that are basic and considered the “inalienable right” of the human race is arguably, one of the primary responsibilities of any government.  Albeit tedious, accepting the responsibilities associated with state building as a means toward improving national security has generally proven successful.  The process has taken the worse of enemies and, over time, evolved them into powerful and long term allies.  The remnant states of key enemies during World War II are good examples of this. The price, however, is always catastrophic and requires that all parties involved understand the definition of the state, its basic premise for existence, the purpose of governance, and how to sustain and grow the final product, in this case, the nation.

DEFINING THE STATE

First and foremost we must discuss the definition of what exactly is the “state.”  Is it a collective of people co-existing within a set of boundaries that have happened to evolve over time resulting in cultural differences with which that group chooses to associate?  Well, yes, that is it…in part.  However, the state as we recognized it yesterday cannot simply be brushed off today in a single one sentence definition.  Today’s nations are complex with abstract problems.  Not only are there challenges with international relations, the intranational relations within every nation’s boundaries pose new challenges for state builders, maintainers, and sustainers.  In today’s world, some intranational relations challenges have just as great an impact on the international community as the local community.  That said, the approach to state building must target the core of any problem, no matter if it be inter- or intranational, before it ends catastrophically. 

First things first, the state is not an institution.  An institution is an organization or group gathered for the specific purpose of collecting and managing assets.  Examples of such organizations are financial institutions where their primary focus is the collection and management of financial assets.  Others might argue that the policies of a state’s government, responsible for the establishment and organization of laws, constitute the government entity being recognized as an institution.  The state, though it may possess institutions within, is not an institution.  Throughout this text, the state will be treated as “for the  people by the people.” 

Each of us possesses the capability of creating and collecting laws that we manage within ourselves.  These are known as morals and ethics, codes that we choose to live by and thus these codes are essentially turned into laws.  We define this as self governance.  The moment that we begin treating the self as an institution we begin to eliminate the human elements which exceed the capabilities of an institution.  This is the difference between the institution and state.  The human factor, the ability and right of each individual to live within their own sets of collective ideas and norms, and the ability to manipulate these to an ever changing environment, negates the states qualification as an institution. In other words, financial assets, no matter how governed, do not possess the ability or capacity to change the rules or laws during an economic downturn.  People, individually or collectively may impact and dictate change.  Bottom line, people are not commodities of the state.  The state is a commodity of the people.

Iran, North Korea…continued defiance and manipulation.  In a world where nuclear powers identify with the most destructive, violent, and devastating weapon known to man, these two states insist that they must have the capabilities, if not for war, then for energy production.  Can we as a nation possessing the capability to produce nuclear energy and weapons deny or even control the rights of any other nation to possess this?  Whether third world, developing nation, communist, imperialist or even rogue, these nations feel that they possess the  inherent right to acquire the ability to manipulate nuclear energy for their needs (whether peaceful or not) and we (the United States and others) are trying to deny them what they deem legitimate.

The problem with these states having nuclear capabilities is not energy.   According to the most recent agreements discussed amongst key members of the UN, support on an international level would be provided.  With enrichment taking place outside of the state (in France and Russia) and regular monitors and assessments from the IAEA, Iran could, in fact, achieve what it states is the end result of its ambitions…energy.  The objective for North Korea, however, remains, in fact, to become a nuclear power.

Iran is considered by many as an unstable state using deception shrouded by false presentations of consideration to fuel the core of its tactical development program.  The idea that nuclear energy is the platform upon which Iran is developing its program remains highly suspicious and erroneous by the international community.  They (Iran) have consistently turned away the IAEA inspection teams along with other monitors and have demonstrated the capability to tactically develop enrichment plants and labs without the knowledge of key international players.  In today’s environmentally challenged world, does pure nuclear energy production require such manipulation and secrecy?  One could argue that if the intentions of Tehran were pure, then the UN solution presented before them would be acceptable.  A blatant denial of such a proposal represents further attempts at a cat and mouse game in which the mouse might just prevail.  If the UN has failed to make an immediate and aggressive contingency plan in response to the “what if Tehran decides not to accept” then Ahmadinejad will surface as the victor with a possibility of having acquired his coveted nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, the UN isn’t exactly known for their plannings of “what ifs” and tends to “shoot from the hip” when it comes time to making decisions.  This reactionary decision-making system will, very soon, catch up with the United Nations rendering it useless when trying to sway international policy and influence member states toward the ideas of the majority.  This outcome will be catastrophic.

Time is of the essence.  The war of words that continues to rage between North Korea, Iran, and the rest of the international community provides these two nations just that…time.  The debate over what to do, the development of sanctions, the invitation of inspectors into facilities followed by immediate turn back are all tactics used which lengthen the window of opportunity for further development.  They understand the essence of this commodity (time) and have continued to use their understanding tactically to hold off the international community.  The ability to manipulate time in their favor has strengthened the roots of these budding nuclear regimes and in turn weakened the resolve of any sanctions which may have been emplaced.  Appropriate caution, due to reactionary decision-making practices, fails to be exercised when sanctions are administered and the end result of the suffering rests with the people not the government.  

The UN must remember that with sanctions comes the eventual loss of basic human needs.  Collateral damage caused by sanctions can lead to the eventual development of corruption, rogue regimes, and terrorist organizations with political platforms founded upon ideologies which provide hope and strength in times of apparent need.  Either societies evolve with these losses, determining other ways to provide, or they deteriorate.  Deterioration leads to intractability, intractability leads to events of catastrophic measure.

The one state that seems to recognize the games that are being played in the Middle East remains Israel.  While it remains undermined as to whether or not they themselves are a nuclear power, the fears of this nation are founded on solid ideas and firsthand knowledge of historical cultural norms that lend a distinct advantage to understanding the games being played.  The state of Israel has committed itself to the prevention of Iranian nuclear armament as they realize, not only from the threats that have directly come from the very mouth of Ahmadinejad, but also from the social dynamics of the region, that a nuclear Iran will result in an attempt at regional domination and persuasive influence via military might by the government. 

Both North Korea and Iran believe that nuclear armament will place them into a league of nuclear powers with the ability to provide stand-off power to perceived international threats and persuasive influence through diplomacy backed by military.  With nuclear armament the fear platform upon which these regimes dominate the people of their nations becomes a plausible means of diplomatic policy in unstable regions. 

The presence of the United States paired with South Korea, Japan, and China brings more stability to Asia.  Consequently, North Korea continues to remain a step child in a region where China possesses nuclear capability, the US is considered a primary threat, and South Korea and Japan both have long-term diplomatic ties with Washington.  North Korea has recognized themselves as a minor player in a globalized world economically and politically.  They, as a result, have identified themselves as a military power, focusing on increasing the size and capabilities of their state and aligning themselves with China as much as is considered feasible.  Therefore, nuclear armament becomes a necessity versus an additional capability and their quest for this capability obviously runs sour in the mouths of those in the region who could potentially be harmed by such empowerment.

The Middle East continues to remain an unstable region with very few key state governments holding on to the stability within their own borders through savvy based politics and religious manifestation.  Corruption is on the rise, terrorism is prevailing, and the US, while making continued efforts to bring stability, struggles within its scope of responsibilities domestically and is beginning to falter internationally.  Economic woes are contributing to the regional instability with the continuous flux of oil prices taking its toll on governments, namely Iraq, and budget projections essentially become useless pieces of paper hanging in empty offices.  All eyes remain turned on Iraq.  As the government continues to stumble over the new shoes that it wears, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and others must ensure that Iraq, in essence continues to wane in its efforts.  Beyond them, the US, Europe, Russia and others need to ensure that Iraq becomes solid with the potential to become the new Middle East super power.  A stable Iraq would indicate that the abilities of influence coming from Iran would never come to fruition.  With this realization, comes the necessity for Iran to make an aggressive attempt at a power play which would essentially make it the single most influential Middle Eastern state in the region.  Geographically, both Iraq and Iran present themselves as strategic strongholds.  Economically, oil throughout the region, logistics, and natural resources are prevalent and would permit long-term gains.  When considering military power, Iran presently holds a few valuable cards but in comparison to the rest of the region, namely Israel, requires an edge.  This edge is the ability to destroy its enemy through the use of nuclear weapons. 

Tactical deception and time manipulation are the tools with which Iran and North Korea have kept the UN watchdog at bay.  Their desire to obtain nuclear energy is arguably a ploy used to find good faith amongst sympathizers at a time when it is strategically important to improve a world that is faced with a potential climate crisis.  Momentum is growing as nations come together to address these issues and of course, Iran and North Korea are going to do their part by obtaining and switching over to nuclear energy.  The problem is not nuclear energy but the capability and capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

The United Nations must begin a process by which all nations come together to agree on capability versus capacity.  Sanctions, in regards to North Korea and Iran need to be followed now by actions.  Enough sanctions have been placed, and the time has drawn nigh to put an end to the cat and mouse game.  The international community requires a champion who will rear his head and pursue an end to continued efforts toward disarmament.  The US is not in a position to pursue this.  In spite of the recent statements made by the President, there is apparent diversity on the appropriate agenda for the country’s own nuclear agenda.  These efforts must come from the United Nations, the single organization with representation from all recognized states.  Penalties for those who violate sanctions and continue a pursuit of armament against the recognized intent of international law needs to be swift and aggressive.  The games that the global community continues to play with these two minions, North Korea and Iran, are tiresome, costly, and degrade what credibility the UN has remaining as an influential body.

The concept of neo-imperialism is not necessarily new.  In fact, the idea of imperialism still holds true today as it did in the days of ancient Rome.  The “neo” portion has been added in order to identify that methods of colonialism and expansion have, in fact, changed.  Though some would argue against this, these methods differ greatly from the days of ancient Rome where legions were employed in order to ensure successful expansion and growth.  Today’s imperialists focus on growth and expansion not through the recognition of expanded sovereignty but rather economy.  Geography, in today’s modern imperialist world, has been exchanged for economy and the impacts are phenomenal.

Imperialism, as defined in an August 2003 article from the Irish magazine Workers Solidarity, is “the process whereby powerful groups try to extend their power and increase their wealth by bringing ever more of the world under their domination.”  The first imperial period is largely recognized as taking place from 221 B.C. to around 210 B.C. with China being recognized as the primary expansionist.  Rome is to be included and in fact, had established a trading relationship with China accepting Chinese silk as a primary import.  Expansion and commerce were accompanied largely by warring factions from China whose responsibility was to secure trade routes for moving caravans.  The primary difference between the First Imperial Age and what is commonly becoming known today as neo-imperialism is the absence of military…or is it? 

“America’s entire war on terror is an exercise in imperialism. This may come as a shock to Americans, who don’t like to think of their country as an empire. But what else can you call America’s legions of soldiers, spooks and Special Forces straddling the globe?”

                                                                                                Michael Ignatieff, New York Times, Jul 28, 2002

Today’s primary neo-imperialist nation is recognized by many as the United States.  Using economy and capitalism as the means of expansion, Lenin in his 1917 pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, recognizes that imperialism is given birth from capitalist existence.  “Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general.”  Imperialism and neo-imperialism is grounded on the capitalist idea that expansion is necessary.  The collection of wealth drives the capitalist and the idea that, when it comes to economy, more is better provides for autonomy within the capitalist society.  When paired with such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) neo-imperialism finds strength from within, versus the old imperialist reliance of military force to provide geography (colonization) which in turn provided growth of economy. 

“What sets imperialism of the capitalist sort apart from other conceptions of empire is that it is the capitalist logic that typically dominates….”

                                                                                                                        DAVID HARVEY, The New Imperialism

Kegley, in his book World Politics: Trends and Transformations,  provides a more succinct definition of neo-imperialism as the economic rather than military domination of foreign countries (2009).

            The justification driving the recognition of the US as the primary player in the new imperialist era is the economic provisions that the state possesses as well as the geographic pairing for key businesses which have expanded throughout the global market place.  The primary characteristic of a capitalist society today, much as it was in ancient China, is to build, acquire, and expand over time in order to monopolize and industrialize, in essence to destroy its competitors.

            A second characteristic of the capitalist is the ability to grow the marketplace in order to create demand of product or service.  In doing so, the three pillars of build, acquire, and expand are once again at the forefront of the agenda and economy improves.  Through the use of financial influence of the organizations mentioned above (i.e. WTO, IMF) undeveloped countries are finding that they too are now able to enter into a global market place, improving their own position economically and enveloped into the ideals of a capitalist market place.  The problem is the established dependence on the primary consumer, who in many cases, is in turn the capitalist /imperialist.

Haiti provides an example of an impoverished state relying on external sources, such as the IMF, in order to globalize and expand economy.  In order to qualify for an IMF loan, the Haitian government agreed to cut the tariff on imported rice from 35 to 3 percent. This produced a flood of rice imports from the U.S., which under sold local growers and forced thousands of them out of business. In order to accommodate American rice producers the government provided a subsidy to its local farmers (Bolshevik.org, 2009):

“…in 2003 the US government ploughed $1.3 bn into rice sector subsidies, supporting farmers to produce a crop that cost them $1.8 bn to grow—effectively footing the bill for 72 per cent of the cost of production.”

“Kicking down the door,” Oxfam Briefing Paper, April 2005

            Haiti now becomes reliant on the US for the improved rice imports and in turn must establish an open trade/economic relationship to facilitate that continued support.  The benefits, of course, include improved trade relationships, better cash flow, and recognition in the global market place.  However, one cannot help but question how this has impacted the people of Haiti.  With improved security, the formation of a recognized government, and a focus on the betterment of a nation, the situation in Haiti, though still experiencing economic strife is not as bleak as it had appeared during the term of President Aristide.  A government which was once dominated by warlords has not been replaced by stability and improved global relationships upon which they are able to grow.  While Haiti is a positive example where neo-imperialism has perhaps been beneficial to both the US and the island, the same may not necessarily be true for other parts of the world where the capitalist society of the Americans is intending to grab hold.

            Iraq and other parts of the Middle East have been a drain on the US economy.  While fighting a “war on terror” the United States has invested billions of dollars on government building with the intent to establish an economic and political foothold.  The mistake lies in the inadequate assessment of a region which focuses not on capitalist ideals as the core of its existence but on religious ideals as the practice for everyday life and governance.  Economy is second to embedded core values which have provided sound identity for thousands of years and no state has truly been able to compete with this.  The disadvantage of an imperialist nation in this situation is its lack of ability to influence, motivate, and in turn, control the economic outcome of its investment.  The economic/political influence of key players such as the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, are virtually worthless and as a result, there is no return to be found.  The neo-imperialist expansion within the Middle East is essentially a “money pit” and the inability to “capitalize” on the investment provides negative returns.

 

Ignatieff, Michael. (2002, July 28). Nation-Buliding Lite. New York Times.

Workers Solidarity. (August 2003). Imperialism. Retrieved October 4, 2009 Web site: http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2003/ws76/imperialism.html. 

Imperialism and Global Inequality. (April 2009). Retrieved October 4, 2009 Web site: http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no31/Imperialism_box.html

Kegley. World Politics: Trends and Transformations, 2009-2010 Update Edition. Wadsworth/CourseSmart, 02/05/2009. p130.

The First Imperial Period. Retrieved October 4, 2009 Web site:http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.htmlowers

Lenin, V. I.. (1963) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin’s Selected Works, Volume 1. Moscow:  Progress Publishers, Moscow.

It seems only appropriate that we begin with a discussions on democracy.  It seems that every person who has anything to do with international relations seems to have developed a vision, definition, opinion on just what democracy is and should be.  Below is a recent discussion I posted for a recent class in response to a relatively common theory that democratic based governments are not capable of conducting war amongst themselves.  Read below and please feel free to chime in…. 

“I am of the strong opinion that, when considering the fulfillment of basic human needs as identified by Abraham Maslow in 1943, wars are caused by intractable relationships which exist due to reasons of demand. After all, I have yet to realize any war where this was not the core issue and would challenge the presentation and justification where this is the case. These needs include physiological needs, safety needs, identity, esteem, and self-actualization. The idea that war does not occur between democracies is no different than saying brothers never fight. Some of the worse physical fights I personally have ever realized were those between myself and my siblings. I am sure there are others that would agree. Understanding and providing a solid definition of democracy will greatly determine whether or not exceptions to this theory exist; and thus a battle of semantics begins. Merriam-Webster would have us understand democracy as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” Relying on this as a premise for our discussion, I believe that there are exceptions to the theory that “armed conflict” does not occur between democracies and that all of mankind, regardless of political status or structure, are capable of warring in order to guarantee the securing of those needs most important (i.e. the US need for security).

A good example where two democracies have, in fact, gone to war would be Lebanon and Israel in 2006. Following the “free and fair” elections as determined by the EU and an envoy from the UN in 2005, the war between Israel and Lebanon or the Israel-Hezbollah war kicked off after militants abducted two Israeli soldiers who were patrolling the border. However, the conflict goes much deeper than just security. This is a long time battle over territorial rights, ideologies, and self-actualization. The democracies reacted and continue to react through organizations such as the United Nations. Collectively and diplomatically the UN approved UN Resolution 1701 in Aug of 2006. Much to the chagrin of Lebanon and Israel, the resolution was accepted by the warring parties and peace has, somewhat, prevailed. Democracies tend to think that they bring about resolution through diplomatic means alone. Historically, they have sometimes successfully, sometimes not, worked through the UN implementing resolutions and sanctions which are supposed to sway states into diplomatic decisions which are acceptable to all parties. While theorists are close to being accurate, they would prove more so in stating that democracies are less likely to enter into armed conflict than non-democracies. Then again, Iran, may prove another example where their theory isn’t necessarily true. “

Simons, Janet A., Donald B. Irwin, and Beverly A. Drinnien. Psychology – The Search for Understanding. West Publishing Company, New York, 1987
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/maslow.htm accessed on 24 September 2009.

White, Matthew. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm accessed on 24 September 2009.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Pan, Esther, Council on Foreign Relations Lebanon: Election Results, http://www.cfr.org/publication/8195/lebanon.html#4, June 20, 2005.

Remove post

Welcome to the Clarion Post.  A blog on everything from world events, foreign relations, thoughts and theory development on diplomacy and conflict resolution, and an expression of thoughts on social direction within normal and military societies.  Comments are certainly welcome and encouraged.

I named this blog after the sound of a medieval trumpet, the clarion.  This instrument was used in a number of ways including but not limited to hunting, anouncements, and military alerts.  Today the term is used throughout several mediums and the original intended noun has all but ceased to exist.  The term clarion has evolved into an expression meaning loud, clear, brilliant with clarity leaving the noun for which it was originally intended by the wayside.

So, why blog?  What is the purpose and do people actually get anything from them?  Are they really a serious source of information, acceptable as sources worthy of citation or are these ramblings just time wasters for both authors and those willing to read?  Regardless of what these are now or become later, they remain, and always will count as a source of expression; an outlet through which authors and readers alike may find comfort in knowing that someone out there might think the way they do. 

So, I welcome you all.  Please find yourselves a cup of coffee, put on some nice music, and enjoy these entries to their fullest.  Though mostly academic, I hope that you find them thought provoking and worthy of further discussion with those you keep near.

James 

clarion. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clarion