11-Jan-2010
No we’re not talking about the Sci-Fi fantasy motion picture; we’re talking about President Obama’s recent executive order granting Interpol full diplomatic immunity from American law.
The Obama administration still has not publically commented on the order. However Interpol’s Secretary General, Ron Noble has issued an after-the fact-response to the order even though Interpol has not publically stated that American laws were interfering with their policing activities.
03-Jan-2010
President Obama’s recent executive order involving INTERPOL and his visit to the ‘Copenhagen’ climate summit have sparked increasing interest into the ideas of internalnational law and how it can apply to the United States; more specifically how the Obama administration envisions how it can apply to the United States. Some critiques on the left would have us believe that international law is irrelevant and that only a sovereign states law really matters. If this was true and internal law is in reality useless, then it would make no sense as to why so many countries devote so much time, money and effort into negotiating new legal regimes and augmenting existing ones. It would make our arguments about the legality of such rules, especially here in the United States, irrelevant. And there would be no need for organizations like the United Nations to exist. The topic that many statists and supporters of international law dodge is how these laws affect a nation’s sovereignty, in particular America.
28-Sep-2009
President Obama promotes the decreasing of weapons of mass destruction, yet how exactly can we stop a country from developing (and possibly using) Nuclear weapons if we ourselves aren’t willing to confront them head on? This administration needs to take a real hard look at how Reagan handled the Cold War, because we are headed for a similar situation…except this time it won’t be just between two countries. This administration has been played and used like a pawn by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Russia since Obama has taken office. All of this inaction, pandering and apologizing for America’s past actions has proven to the world that America (or at least its government) has become weak and out of touch with the global world of politics and is unwilling to commit to anything of real global importance. A clear signal to our allies and our enemies that America has “changed” can be seen when we abandoned our plans for placing ballistic missile defense (BMD) installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. We’ve turned our backs on our allies, betraying and exposing them to the threat of nuclear retaliation and blackmail; while our enemies continue to build up their military arsenals. The world’s leaders can clearly see this administrations lack of experience, and they know that Obama is an empty suit.
In the face of the Obama administration just days after being condemned over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility that was being secretly constructed, Iran announced that it successfully test-fired short-range missiles during elite Revolutionary Guard drills. This was obviously a show of force as it was done only days after Obama’s “tough” United Nations speech.
And to make matters worse, we now have Venezuela asking for Iran’s and Russia’s help in detecting uranium deposits on its soil. As I had written about in a prior post, this “friendship” between our enemies is the beginning of a real problem for the United States. These anti-US countries have too much invested financially and economically with each other to turn back now. Our shaky relationships with these nations are hanging by very thin unraveling pieces of string.
On Monday, Iran has said that it will test fire its Shahab-3 short range missile; which according to Tehran can travel approx 2,200 km…that’s capable of hitting Israel and even some US bases in the Gulf. Clearly tensions are rising in the east, and our great savior Obama is running out of time and out of options to save the world.
09-Sep-2009
When I hear that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says that President Obama has good intentions and that he has to help him succeed, I get chills running up my spine. Not the same kind of chills that ran up Chris Mathew’s leg either, I’m talking about the kind of chills that keep you up at night wondering what changes tomorrow will bring. This was all stated while in Venice the other day while Chavez attended the world premiere of “South of the Border,” a pro-Chavez, anti-America, anti-capitalism movie by controversial director Oliver Stone.
When you think about it, why wouldn’t Chavez want to befriend President Obama? They are in fact very much alike. Both are good speakers, charismatic but deceptive leaders with strong Marxists ethics that believe in absolute power, populism, big government, state run media, deceit; increased taxes for the perceived wealthy and are about destroying the existing order of their societies…this list could go on and on. It’s scary to think that President Obama could be so closely compared to a Communist Dictator.
I for one am not comfortable when leaders from countries that have had a history of hating America feel that they can be ‘chummy’ with my countries President and government. One minute they bash our nation and out values and the next they are praising Obama. It makes me wonder what they know, and what we don’t. Maybe its that they see that he is on a path to destroying America, giving them the opportunity to do things that they were unable to do because of our power and influence.
And to make things worse, our sworn enemies are increasingly becoming friendlier with each other as well. For example North Korea has warmed up to Iran, and both of those countries along with Russia have warmed up to Venezuela. Most recently Chavez sealed an agreement with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to export 20,000 barrels per day of gasoline to Iran. It would seem that they have realized that their “friendships” are useful in pressuring American Foreign policy issues, which has not been this administrations strong suit. Chavez has pledged to deepen ties with Iran and stand together against what he called the imperialist powers of the world. Gee I wonder who he is referring to when he says that.
Obama is now in a unique position, as he is first U.S. President to chair the 15-member U.N. Security Council. The main issues for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 are going to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, both of which are presumably going to cause more issues with Korea and Iran. Will Obama weaken the U.S. foreign policy positions by negotiating with Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il? Or will he take a hard lined approach to the issues at hand and do what is best for the United States and our E.U. allies? Considering how many times this administration has flip flopped on the issues, it’s really anyones guess.
© American Political Analysis
03-Jun-2009
By Keith Sipmann
Without a doubt the two most popular international disputes that the United Nations is dealing with currently are Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Both issues have been referred to and are being handled by the United Nations Security Council and General assembly. The two cases are very similar in that both nations have routinely violated United Nations Security Council resolutions or bans against the development of Nuclear weapons; however both situations will not have the same outcome.
Iran, which is governed by a radical Islamist regime in Tehran, and ultimately ruled by a clerical dictatorship, will most likely be harder to control through United Nation sanctions and Security Council resolutions because of its ultimate goal to annihilate Israel and because of its alliances with countries like North Korea, Syria, and especially Russia and China. Russia and China routinely cause problems when the United States or European Union purposes stiffer sanctions against Iran. They have historically provided diplomatic protection by opposing tougher sanction and rigid United Nations resolutions against Iran. This diplomatic protection is accomplished because both Iranian friendly nations weld United Nations Security Council veto power effectively canceling out any potential UN, US or EU strategy against Iran.
The North Korean dispute has more of a chance to get resolved at some point by the United States or United Nations than the Iran crisis, albeit that resolve will most likely be only temporary. North Korea isolated from the world and ruled by its version of a communist dynasty, has demonstrated a behavior of intimidation and provocation throughout the last 60 years with the intent to frighten the world and receive more humanitarian aid as a result. Iran’s threats seem to be more motivated by radical religious views and hatred; whereas North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are seen as a way for it to protect its sovereignty amid signs of preparations for naming leader Kim Jong Il’s successor. Unlike Iran, North Korea has not vowed to destroy a race of people or fulfill a religious prophecy; therefore their aims for nuclear power have been described to be more on the side of a political bargaining chip for aid and international recognition of power rather than true aims of destruction.
Another reason that many foreign policy experts feel that the North Korean crisis has a more hopeful United Nations resolution is that Russia and China have recently joined with Western powers and the rest of the world to voice strong opposition to North Korea’s uranium enrichment program, the rogue nations recent 20 kiloton underground nuclear explosion and their threat to launch a long-range missile toward Hawaii (Lederer, Associated Press).
In the broad view of international crisis, North Korea still has much more to lose than Iran does. Other than the backing off on its nuclear ambitions which are causing an international conflict and creating an unbalanced region, North Korea doesn’t have much to negotiate with to acquire needed resources. It is much more dependent on its surrounding nations and foreign aid. Iran on the other hand is not isolated from the world economy and has a strong strangle hold on several nations energy supplies.
The new tougher sanctions that are being imposed on North Korea by the United States may or may not work to help the crisis. Only time will tell. History has shown us that past sanctions have not worked on radical regimes, but many believe that this new direction will eventually lead to bilateral talks with North Korea.
© American Political Analysis
09-May-2009
Category : International Relations, US Government
NEW YORK, NY - The United Nations
Global governance may sound like a something out of a conspiracy theorists handbook, or some kind of new world order or global government solution geared up by global elitists to handle today’s growing international conflicts, but it’s not. Global governance deals with the interaction, action and inaction of international political actors and non-governmental institutions, like the United Nations. These institutions have goals that are aimed at regulating behaviors and actions within sovereign nation states and regions when those behaviors and actions have a direct impact on more than one state or region, especially when there is no power of enforcing compliance or regulation. Global governance or world governance is a response to the acceleration of globalization and the interdependencies that the world has. Global governance defines the elaboration and collaboration between nation states and regions of regulations within the same global scale.
Our current form of global governance, mainly organized by the institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other various international non-governmental actors, are used as affective tools in many regions with regard to the economy, peace, security and conflict resolution. However they are equally ineffective in other regions for the same reasons. This is mainly due to the instability and weak structure of our growing and changing global world. True global governance is only possible when all states within a region abide by the same international laws or regulations that the institution has set. Today we have several rogue nations with extremist regimes at the helm, like Iran and North Korea for example, that cannot be expected or trusted to follow the laws and regulations that have been set by the international community. In fact many of our world conflicts have started because those rouge states have not abided by many of those regulations due to the political ambitions or objectives of that nation’s regime.
World conflicts have changed drastically in form and intensity since the boom of globalization. The main parties within the United Nations who have the right of veto are more or less responsible for most of arms sales throughout the world. Proposals for governance of peace, security and conflict resolution should really begin by addressing ways to prevent the causes of these conflicts, whether they are economic, social, religious, political or territorial. Instead of a reactive approach to world conflicts, these global governing bodies should start to take a more proactive approach to world issues.
In the past our system of global governance has had its main challenges with the actions or in-actions of nation states in regards to territorial boundaries or land disputes, the world economy, globalization, human rights, war, etc. Today the institutions of global governance have new challenges to face such as terrorism and the increase of weapons of mass destruction within rouge nation states. These issues are much more complex to deal with because they often are not associated with sovereign nation states that can be sanctioned or regulated. Many of these threats are orchestrated by non-governmental organizations or groups of extremist non-political actors like theTaliban, al-Qa’ida, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and so on (International Summit on Democracy).
Sovereign nations, like the United States may be able to make a great impact in the world today, but as the world continues to experience an increase in the evolution of the human society and globalization, only the strengths achieved through the international collaboration of several nation states and non-political institutions will be able to handle the new global crisis and developing threats.
08-May-2009
With the election of a new president, many concerns and issues have surfaced as to how the new administration will stand on national security and defense and the issue of the economy. President Bush and the Republican Party made national security and national defense the main issue for a majority of his presidency, much of that direction was not by choice due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. However since President Obama has been in office, there has been a more liberal approach to security and the economy. The two president’s ideologues on both subjects couldn’t be more different.
Liberals generally believe that the United States can enhance national security by creating an environment of openness and transparency. Many on the left believe that national defense can be achieved by collaboration with allies and possibly even with nations that have been historically hostile to the western world. This strategy is based on the liberal’s belief that an open, democratic society will inherently be more peaceful towards the United States and our allies and that through time this strategy would eventually erode extremism.
Most liberals are eager to promote and share their liberal-democratic principles with other counties preferably through western-oriented multilateral institutions and international law. The idea is that liberal-democratic ideas and values could be transplanted to foreign nations and cultures, and if abided by, would result in less war and conflict. Liberals generally prefer to converse and negotiate with hostile countries and regimes, rather than engage or isolate them. This liberal strategy can clearly be seen by observing the current administration’s policies on the way it is handling the North Korean and Iranian nuclear crises.
It’s important to note that during President Bush’s first term in office after the terrorist attacks, the national security views of both Liberals and Realists were nearly the same. They fell more in line with the Realist’s ideology of national defense through international engagement, which is contrary to main stream liberal ideology. The same cannot be said when it comes to the issues of the economy. While liberals are eager to have the government step in and take control of certain sectors and industries such as healthcare, Realists generally promote an environment of free trade, global growth, competitiveness and global capitalism. Government control over private industry does not improve the growth or strength of the international economy; it actually may retard its growth and adversely affect that nation’s economic sovereignty. Due to the relationships between institutions and liberals, the competitive environment of the Realist would not flourish under the liberal-democratic ideology of international order because it concentrates on having a rational choice, directly impacting the balance of power as opposed to the liberal’s idea of multi-national or mutual growth. The Realist believes that each state is sovereign and that it alone is responsible for its own economic growth and strength.
In conclusion, foreign affairs and economic decisions certainly influence trade and security policies among sovereign states and nations. The world of globalization and international trade can have a direct impact on both the global economy and the security of a nation. Therefore although Liberalism and Realism differ in many ways, economic growth and capacity are the undisputed sources of power. Economic and political goals, including the goals of national and global security, are complimentary in the long term.
© American Political Analysis
03-Jan-2009
By Keith Sipmann
There is considerable debate on the role of the traditional nation-state in a globalized world; however it would be fair to assume that no one denies that globalization has had a profound effect on the way nation-states function. In fact, many economists and politicians feel that in today’s modern society the impersonal forces of our world markets are more powerful than the states that should have the supreme political authority over their national issues.
Globalization with its all-pervasive nature often spreads and intensifies across international borders in areas relating to economic, political, social, technological and cultural relations. With an increasingly worsening economy, state sovereignty seems to be at risk largely due to the effects of modern globalization. We are now witnessing situations in which countries bargain economically to influence each other’s internal affairs, cultural values and even civil rights due to the characteristics of modern globalization.
With modern globalism a participating nation-state generally adopts the ideas of languages (English in particular), new technology, a growth in cross-cultural contacts; and the desire to an increased standard of living. All of this contributes to a cultural transformation of its society. This westernized standard of living has generated significant international opposition, especially in Middle Eastern nations which have vast religious and cultural divides. None the less throughout international history the idea of globalization has infused itself with different cultures and made it into something different and unique bringing us one step closer to a integrated society.
Globalized nations, generally advanced industrialized democracies like the United States, achieve faster economic growth, lower inflation, higher incomes and greater economic freedom than non-globalized nations like North Korea who practice a form of isolationism. The practice of isolation in an increasingly interdependent world is not a good strategy for a nation-state. However, economic globalization makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for sovereign nation-states to control economic developments within their own borders. Globalizations exposure to the risks of uncertain global markets can cause great stress and domestic disorder as seen in various cases all throughout many African countries. These weaker developing countries are not equipped to make the transition into a globalized world economy and thus they face considerable educational, political, social, technological economic and infrastructural challenges to make globalization work.
Globalization entails more than just open economies and markets; it also has a direct impact on a nation-states political stability. Generally more globalized countries like the United States, Japan, China and Germany, offer greater political stability than nations like Venezuela, Pakistan, Thailand and North Korea. There are many pros and cons of the effects of globalization, but there is one aspect in particular that is indeed remarkable. Globalization has brought global politics and the quality of governance in nation states into the international spotlight. The political organization and the competence of the administrative offices of governments have been singled out as a key factor in the process and success of globalized development.
The negative effects of modern globalization can undoubtedly cause stress to various aspects of a nation-states economic society and infrastructure. But with proper planning its effects on political and social pressure help breakdown political and cultural borders that hamper trade, prosperity and interdependence. Politicians have realized that the use of an effective globalization strategy can be used to lessen the chances of international conflict and possibly even decrease the chances of future war. For example, in 2002, India’s powerful electronic sector, which feared that a war with Pakistan would disrupt ties to U.S.-based multinationals, successfully pressured New Delhi to deescalate its conflict with Pakistan.
Globalization is a true phenomenon which affects every society, nation and state for both better and for worse. There cannot be a denial of modern globalizations impact on international trade and economic growth, but the most important factor lies in how the states use globalization to deliver proper governance and achieve the economic, political and social goals of state.
© American Political Analysis
Headlines
