|
| 01 Mar 2008 01:04:29 am |
 The Kosovo Dilemma |
|
|
In politics, the best courses of action are invariably fraught with uncertainties and dangers; the wrong solutions always attractive and popular, two conflicting realities that make the latter appears irresistible to politicians. Even before Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia on February 17, it was understood Serbs and Kosovars would never be able to co-exist peacefully in what the Serbs invariably referred as the cradle of their state and religion. Although the United Nations had placed the breakaway province under its authority and mandated a NATO-led force to secure the territory in the aftermath of the Kosovo war in 1999, the formal declaration of independence nonetheless created a rift among the Five permanent members of the U.N Security Council, (Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S), that is threatening the legitimacy of the new state.
A province of Serbia in which ethnic Albanians made up 90% of the population, Kosovo is the last region of the now-defunct Yugoslavia to acquire its independence after a protracted and murderous struggle with Serbia, which ended with NATO's involvement on the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). On February 17 of this year, despite Russia's virulent objection and the Chinese's lukewarm reservation, both members of the powerful U.N Security Council, the Kosovars, with the U.S and European Union's encouragement, finally achieved the dream that had eluded them since the break up of Yugoslavia in 1991. With this development, will the final chapter in the short history of Yugoslavia (1918-1991) bring lasting peace to the historically turbulent Balkan?
The history of Europe is replete with border re-arrangements that seldom survived the passage of time because of their heavy-handedness and impracticability. Nevertheless, the practice, recently discredited with the violent break-up of Yugoslavia, continues without the least concern for precedents. Like the dismemberment of Germany (1945) that elicited no armed resistance from the defeated and demoralized Germans, Kosovo's extraction from Serbia would encounter no military response from the Serbs despite their emotional attachment to the province. However, the seeds of future armed-conflicts in Europe have been planted, although the prevalence of weapons of mass destruction and other geopolitical realities on the Continent make the scenario appears implausible.
Kosovo's independence is without a doubt a victory for every persecuted group that aspire to live free and independent of their oppressors. However attaching parts of Kosovo to Albania and granting Serbia a token share of the province would have been the ideal solution. Unfortunately, re-arranging borders in Europe has historically been done to punish or reward a particular entity and the Kosovo's episode epitomized that tradition. Consequently the Kosovo situation, which parallels Germany's losing Silesia and Prussia to Poland and the USSR (present-day Russia) at the end of WWII, would enflame Serbs for generations to come.
Allowing the Kosovars to create another Albanian State instead of incorporating parts of Kosovo into Albania is a step back toward Balkanization of Europe, the period when city-states abounded and wars of consolidation and supremacy permeated the Old Continent's landscape. No doubt, Kosovo's independence may serve as catalyst for ethnic Albanians living in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, where they constitute a little more than a quarter of that country's population, to also assert their right to live as an independent entity.
Moreover, the Orthodox Serbs who consider their self-sacrifice against the Ottoman Empire (1456-1521) as having saved Christian Europe from Islamization would now resist any entreaties to join the European Union, despite the benefits associated with it. With a resurgent Russia as their protector, the Serbs might revert to their old nationalistic sentiment of being a persecuted nation with permanent enemies and no friends, thereby setting the stage for ethnic Serbs' restlessness in Bosnia, Montenegro, Croatia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
With this development, the perennial nationality question in the Balkans could once again resurface and threaten the carefully crafted attempt by the Europeans at achieving civility throughout the Old Continent, through economic integration and social progress. Incidentally, while Westerners associate Moscow's uncompromising opposition to Kosovo's independence with Russia's inherent fear it would encourage secessionist tendencies in its constituent republics, the opposite may actually be closer to the reality. Of the major western European countries, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, only Germany does not have a secessionism movement in its midst while linguistically homogenous Italy is grappling with a regional separatism that is threatening its 138-year of existence.
Therefore, the possibility of Kosovo's independence opening a Pandora box in Europe, though remote, should not be discounted because nationalism is a potent force that transcends the economic benefits of being a member of the European Union. Russia, which traditionally held its constituent republics within the barrel of a gun, would continue to do so. Chechnya of course epitomized that thinking. Whereas western countries such as Britain, France and Spain could hardly use Russia's scorched-earth tactics to keep Northern Irish, Corsicans, Basques and Catalans within their fold without losing their credibility as democratic nations. Even the relatively civil union between Belgium's Dutch and French speakers (1830-?) is collapsing under the strains of nationalism.
With Russia, a major world player, declaring Kosovo's independence illegal, the chances of the new country getting admission to the U.N are slim and complicated Whichever way one puts it, the Kosovo episode could well destabilize the Old Continent in the least anticipated way, and the Europeans would only have themselves to blame.
— Contact Max A. Joseph Jr. at ddjougan@yahoo.com. |
|
| |
Category : General
| By : max1 |  Comments [11] |  Trackbacks [0] |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2008 11:05:56 pm |
| Most Of Africa Could Soon Be Under Mandated Supervision |
|
|
Besides the biennial Africa Cup of Nations currently playing in Ghana, news from Africa remains depressing. Even Mother Nature seems to be taking part in what conspiracy theorists would regard as a coordinated assault against the Continent.
The overflowing of the Zambezi, Africa’s fourth largest river, has compelled more than half-a-million people to evacuate their homes in Malawi, Mozambique, Northern Zimbabwe and Zambia, putting additional pressure on these unstructured and financially strapped countries. Fortunately, Africa’s other calamities are man-made, thus solvable, provided the Africans themselves take control of their destiny by putting aside the peculiarities that condemned the Continent to abject poverty and humiliations.
In less than two generations, Africa tragically drifted from colonialism to neo-colonialism to mandated-supervision, the latter being more potent than the formers, since it is executed under the aegis of the all-powerful U.N Security Council, and therefore not subject to discussions. Under the arbitrary rules of mandated-supervision, any country can be labeled "politically unstable" or "failed state", if it fails to meet certain criteria that powerful nations deemed indispensable to world peace and security, as was the case with Haiti in 2004.
For example, post-Mugabe’ Zimbabwe would endure some type of occupation on order of the U.N Security Council because the economic and social chaos created by the western powers’ economic boycott would make that country ungovernable, making it a prime candidate for mandated-supervision. History will certainly hold Robert Mugabe’s obstinate obscurantism and the Western powers’ unfettered arrogance responsible for this unpleasant outcome.
In Ivory Coast, a civil war born out of French interference has turned into a stalemate between the North and the South. Three years ago, the country’s Parliament’s Speaker, Mamadou Koulibaly, predicted "Vietnam will be nothing compare to what we will do here to the French". Well, Mr. Koulibaly’s statement turned out to be an empty threat because Paris still maintains 3500 troops in the country under the explicit authority of the all-powerful Security Council of which France is a permanent member. France’s delusion of grandeur and the Ivoirians themselves are responsible for the tragedy.
In Nigeria, the Federal government seems uninterested in finding a formula that allocates the lion share of oil revenues to the producing states, a situation that leaves the shortchanged natives with no other option but armed insurrections. Moreover, an anti-corruption drive that nailed 8 former governors on embezzlement charges and helped the government recover 5 billions dollars in stolen money is now in jeopardy with the abrupt firing of Nuhu Ribadu, the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In spite of these structural deficiencies, which also include simmering ethnic and religious warfare, Nigeria sees itself as Africa’s superpower, deserving the right to represent the Continent as a permanent member in any reorganized U.N Security Council.
In South Africa, Jacob Zuma, a man who had unprotected sex with an HIV-infected woman and casually claimed that having taken a shower immediately after the encounter made him immune to the possibility of getting infected, could be that country’s next president. The fact that Zuma, whom the woman in question had accused of rape, was charged and acquitted for the offense is certainly irrelevant. Nevertheless, having a man of such exceptionally flawed judgement at the helm of South Africa would cripple that country’s ability to be an effective advocate on behalf of the Continent in international forums.
In Kenya, the December 27 presidential vote that pitted incumbent Mwai Kibaki and challenger Raila Odinga epitomized what is arguably Africa’s foremost deficiency: its leaders’ emotional attachment to power that makes them oblivious to the problems affecting the Continent. A relatively stable country by African standard, Kenya is now on the verge of becoming another battlefield of ethnic and tribal hatred.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, an estimated 5.5 millions Congolese have died since the forces of Laurent-Désiré Kabila (1997-2001) overthrew Mobutu Sese Seko’s autocratic rule (1965-97). With approximately 250 spoken languages and an equal number of ethnic groups, the DRC, desperately poor but abundantly rich in natural resources, exemplified the abhorrent practice of lumping dissimilar groups into administrative units that was the hallmark of 19th century European colonialism gone wild. Even the Roman Empire (27BC-476), which spanned much of the then-known world, never had that many distinct nationalities within its boundaries. Despite the mandated-supervision of the U.N, which has since 2000 been ineffective in bringing peace to the country, the DRC will eventually disintegrate.
The People’s Daily, China’s government official newspaper, commenting on the current turmoil in Kenya, put the blame squarely on the Western-style democracy that was "tyrannically imposed on the Continent by former colonial powers". However, given China’s authoritarian form of government, Westerners would instinctively disagree with that assessment, although the reality in the Continent supports the Chinese argument that democracy carries with it the roots of disaster and therefore unsuitable under the present conditions.
African nations, burdened with the destructive legacy of colonialism and age-old tribal, religious and ethnic hatred, are being asked to do in record time what its former masters failed to accomplish for centuries. Under the rules of mandated-supervision, most of Africa could find itself under foreign domination in the next two decades, even its politically unstructured giants. For the architects of this policy, it amounts to a win-win situation that allows them unrestricted access to the Continent’s riches while avoiding potential confrontation with resources-hungry countries such as China and India in the incoming geopolitical realignment.
— Contact Max A. Joseph Jr. at ddjougan@yahoo.com. |
|
| |
Category : General
| By : max1 | Comments [9] | Trackbacks [0] |
|
|
| 17 Jan 2008 06:33:36 am |
| World's Future is at Stake |
|
|
When Iowans caucused on January 3rd, the final phase of an epic battle for the presidency of the United States, the most powerful office in the world, began in earnest. The 2008 vote may be remembered as a turning point in U.S history, as whoever wins will have the responsibility to skillfully steer the country into uncharted territory where its status as the world's lone Superpower is under challenge because of new geopolitical realities.
Indeed on Jan. 20 2009, the new president will have to decide whether staying the course is in the U.S' best interests or move toward a consensus where the U.S remains first among equals. Moreover, he or she might need the visionary qualities of FDR, Harry S. Truman and Richard M. Nixon, as the next decade would be fraught with challenges requiring extraordinary leadership.
Moving from unilateralism to collectivism no doubt will not be easy because the U.S, accustomed with possessing the moral authority to lead as the slayer the evil empire i.e. the former Soviet Union, might be reluctant to relinquish its role as the world's global policeman.
Though historians would correctly conclude that the Soviet Union disintegrated as a result of systemic deficiencies ranging from overstretching its capabilities and other fundamental flaws that proved beyond repairs despite Mikhail Gorbachev's desperate efforts at salvaging the system, the U.S, as the Soviet Union's Cold War adversary, certainly deserves some credits for containing the juggernaut. However, from this victory by default, the U.S becomes the villain that friends and adversaries have come to fear, which mirrors Cesare Borgia's famous quote "It is better to be feared than respected" in Machiavelli's The Prince. Understandably, it creates animosities even among admiring countries.
Presently because of its status as the world' lone Superpower, every corner of the globe is theoretically part of U.S prerogatives. When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Siberian riches are too enormous for one nation to control, she was making the case for the U.S to act as distributor of the world's resources, an utopian idea that U.S policy planners nonetheless perceive as practical. As a result even justifiable indigenous political reforms have become a threat to U.S interests, as was the case with Haiti's Jean Bertrand Aristide's attempt at reforming that country's oppressive society. Accordingly, if it does not rain in the Sahara or the Antarctica remains too cold, which is normal, the U.S is automatically blamed for these incidents of nature.
While the U.S has the momentum on its side because its political system is far superior to past or potential adversaries, the multitude of problems facing the world may determine the outcome of other nations' loyalty. As the earth's resources become scarce, the result of increased demands, competition among powerful nations over their use or access to them could lead to regional wars fought on their behalf by surrogates, a step below a direct confrontation that will most likely be a conflagration.
Nothing displeases the Russians and the Chinese more than U.S domination of the Gulf region, albeit for different reasons. Russia, rich in oil, simply wants to revive the glory of Soviet diplomacy in the region while China, an ascending global power, wants unhindered access to the region's oil because any interruption will have an adverse effect on its growing economy. In light of these developments, will the U.S agree to protect the world's most volatile region with the help of the Russian and Chinese navies?
Because such hypothesis remains anathema to U.S policy makers, Russia and China, the U.S' most powerful rivals, are arming Iran and disregarding that country's drive toward the production of nuclear weapons as part of a strategy to dilute U.S influence in the region, which both Beijing and Moscow perceive as detrimental to their national interests. This policy however is shortsighted and may come back to haunt both countries as a nuclear-armed Iran might try to assert its influence over the Muslims of Central Asia, including those of the western Chinese province of Xinjiang Uyghur.
The inevitable squabble over raw materials notwithstanding, other issues such as global warming, terrorism, illegal immigration, nuclear proliferation, poverty, hunger and diseases could only be comprehensively addressed trough consensus among the world's great powers. Indeed some of the world's most utilized resources would have to be declared humanity's natural inheritance, thus preventing their use as political weapons as has been the case with oil and, to a lesser extent, water.
We are riding the same boat, despite the cultural, social, military and economic imbalances determining a country's importance in world affairs. For example, while the U.S is currently the primary target of Islamic terrorism, other nations may find themselves facing the scourge, albeit for different reasons, because the only constant about terrorism is its metamorphosis associated with long-held grievances. Therefore, it would not be surprising to see environmentalists, frustrated over what they perceive as willful destruction of the planet by unconcerned governments and other entities, resorting to terrorism in the near future. After all, haven't anti-abortionists, who incidentally valued human life, killed in defense of their philosophy?
The changing geopolitical reality poses a tremendous challenge to the next U.S president, the one individual who could actually decide whether there will war or peace in an increasingly unstable world. Humanity's future is at stake in this particular election, and the world is certainly watching and awaiting.
— Contact Max A. Joseph Jr. at ddjougan@yahoo.com. |
|
| |
Category : General
| By : max1 | Comments [9] | Trackbacks [0] |
|
|
| 10 Jan 2008 05:05:29 am |
| Individualism Is Key To Social Changes And Development |
|
|
As we enter 2008 our planet continues to have as many problems as its 6 billions plus inhabitants. The most important issues: global warming, religious fanatism, poverty, terrorism and corruption, have long been identified but no discernible efforts, excluding the war on terror, are being made to eradicate these scourges, which could well bring the destruction of humanity. Sadly, despite the valiant efforts of unsung individuals, 800 millions of the world's inhabitants still lack basic education, an unfortunate situation that perpetuates the cycle of poverty and hatred fueled by unfathomable ignorance.
In Tanzania, albinos are being murdered because local witch doctors believe their body parts can make people rich. In Canada, a young woman was murdered by her own father for refusing to wear the traditional Muslim veil. Female circumcision remains a sad reality for many young African girls despite its dubious medical value and the countless deaths attributed to it. Gambia's president Yahya Yammeh claimed AIDS could be cured with a mixture of a green herbal paste and bananas. In Mali, five journalists and a teacher found themselves in trouble with the authorities for writing a humorous essay about a fictional mistress of an African president. Even poverty, an intractable societal disease affecting one-third of the world's inhabitants, is practically ignored by the very institution designed to cure it.
Since the advent of nation-states, the notion they bear sole responsibility to fixing anything pertaining to human social evolution and development evolved into an article of faith, but as the social imbalances in our world indicate, the assumption is ill-conceived and anachronistic. Moreover, it dangerously leads to unwarranted accumulation of power and the development of all-powerful states whose primary function revolves around defending and strengthening their system of government rather than catering to the needs of their people, particularly the poor.
Indeed since their inception as defenders of territorial integrity, constituent states have become a conspicuous impediment to human development by impairing or suppressing individualism. Even in structurally-sound societies, the state's suffocating power sometimes borders on incredulity. In Italy, for instance, a couple, wanting to name their newborn "Friday" was denied this alienable right by the state. Adding insult to injury, the patronizing bureaucracy provided the couple with an alternative name. Some states even have the power to nullify their natives' citizenship, imprison or expel them for political reasons, recurring nightmares for millions inhabitants of the Third World.
Indeed it is absolutely unrealistic to imagine a world without a set of rules, ethics and morals. Though some of these conditions, unwarranted and oppressive, impede human development, they nonetheless represent the best deterrent to humans' propensity to self-destruct. That said, the central authority of established governments remain as indispensable to humanity as the sun, but their power to micromanage the lives of their citizenry ought to be curtailed.
If, as some believed, the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007 was the handiwork work of that country's security forces, it highlighted the tragedy associated with all-powerful governments which considered themselves keepers of their citizenry's destiny. Conversely, if it is proven her death was orchestrated by Al-Qeada/Taliban, it underscored the extent to which religious fundamentalists would be willing to go in destroying secularism in the Islamic world. Unquestionably, bridging the gap between a state's avowed prerogatives and individual self-determination may actually be the greatest threat facing humanity, since it creates a permanent adversarial attitude between the two fundamental components of our modern world.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Anarchists, wishing the abolition of central governments, embarked on a campaign of political violence that ironically strengthened the authority of established states, and from that ill-conceived adventure arose totalitarian concepts such as communism, fascism and Nazism. Consequently, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mengele, and Eichman not only personified evil but could handily win any name recognition contest against some of the most famous biblical characters.
Nevertheless the well-documented failure of these totalitarian systems highlights the superficiality of oppression and the immeasurable power of individuals to achieve changes consistent with their fundamental rights as human beings. Naturally, I was a passionate believer in the concept of a state's constitutional responsibility to induce peaceful social changes within its confines, however the CNN's Christmas Day show honoring everyday heroes throughout the world made me rethink my conviction. Indeed it was an epiphany for me to realize the unlimited power of the individual to affect his or her environment regardless of the odds, and the story of Peter Kethene of Muhuru Bay, Kenya, inspirational and poignant, was the catalyst.
Having lost his parents and siblings to diseases that could have been treated had they had access to health care, Peter, despite the odds, stayed in school and, with the help of scholarships, attended the University of Washington in Seattle from which he graduated. He returned to Kenya and founded an organization that brings medical care to the poor. His pet project, the Mama Maria Clinic in Muhuru Bay, Kenya, has since treated 18000 patients, some of them could have died from the same treatable diseases that killed his family.
From Peter Kethene's action and those of well-known philanthropists and other unsung heroes, one gets the feeling that saving humanity is fast becoming a crusade, and ultimate success rests on the inclination of concerned individuals desiring to make a difference.
— Contact Max A. Joseph Jr., at ddjougan@yahoo.com. |
|
| |
Category : General
| By : max1 | Comments [7] | Trackbacks [0] |
|
|
| 20 Dec 2007 04:46:34 am |
| Time Is Running Out In Haiti |
|
|
The armed rebellion against a democratically elected government that led to the military occupation of Haiti (2004-?) proved the superficiality of guns in settling political differences arising from poverty and exclusion. Guns naturally intimidate, terrorize and historically helped rearrange political landscapes in many countries. Permanent social changes however happen with investments, which provide a wider range of opportunities to a larger number of people rather than gun-backed repression, the conventional method of tyrannical minorities. Hence the UN-supervised military occupation of Haiti could only produce more of the same, because the ephemeral capability of repression has been the only constant in that country's tumultuous history.
Social engineering and economic development, two omnipresent issues affecting humanity since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, clearly established the primary role of investments and guns in promoting socio-economic changes. Nowhere the propensity to use the repressive power of guns so prevalent than Haiti, which has, since its inception in 1804 to the present, consistently relied on that power to stifle legitimate aspirations as evidenced by the magnitude of its underdevelopment and the revolutions and counter-revolutions that marked the country's history.
Forty-six months into the calculated and ill-intentioned military occupation of Haiti, the country remains as divided as ever through the machinations of political bandits acting at the behest of the powerful elite. Taking advantage of the imperfections of the Haitian Constitution, which confers extraordinary powers to the Legislature at the expense of the executive, some legislators are unduly interfering with the day-to day running of the government with threats of censure over matters such as traffic stops and arrests of members of the country's elite suspected of frauds and other crimes.
Meanwhile a resurgence of violent crimes, fueled by chronic unemployment, poverty and despair, is attributed to kidnappers wanting to buy presents for the Christmas season. This simplistic analysis of the situation naturally defies common sense and smacks of racism, because it is hard to imagine criminals hibernating for 11 months and reverting to their predatory ways at Christmas for the sake of buying themselves presents. To redeem themselves to the parents of the murdered 8 year-old who could not pay the 680 dollars ransom that caused his death, the occupiers should simply abolish Christmas, a strategic move that would deny would-be kidnappers of a motive and spare the nation further misfortunes.
Despite the glowing picture of lower inflation, increased government revenues and the MINUSTAH doing a remarkable job providing security, painted by the IMF and the World Bank, the facts on the ground tell otherwise. The much-talked about economic improvement is a myth that any self-respected economist would frown upon as Haiti practically produces nothing and imports everything it needs. Moreover, the unsolved disappearance of Pierre-Antoine Lovinsky, human rights campaigner and outspoken opponent of the occupation, and threats against crusading journalists, which compelled Guy Tyler Delva to seek temporary refuge in the U.S, he has since returned, clearly established the source of the insecurity plaguing the country.
An insider account of the events surrounding the February 29th Franco-American invasion of Haiti, chronicled by Guy Phillipe in an interview by Prof. Peter Hallward, author of the book (Damming the flood: Haiti and the politics of containment), is undeniable proof of the oligarchy's suffocating hold on the country's destiny. The whole enterprise, according to former rebel and presidential candidate, Guy Phillipe, currently on the run from U.S authorities, was financed by the country's leading families and a Canadian mining company operating in Haiti.
Elaborating on the February 29th 2004 invasion of Haiti by French and American forces, Guy Phillipe voluntarily admitted that it was the Machiavellian Andy Arpaid, an American citizen, who actively lobbied the U.S for the military intervention in a move to prevent him from establishing a Chavez-style dictatorship in Haiti. Because the interview was conducted well before Chavez' losing a referendum in early December of this year, I was nonetheless taken aback by Guy Phillipe's analogy to the Venezuelan leader, because historically dictators never lose elections.
Egotistic, bitter and unrepentant, Guy Phillipe, the alleged drug trafficker and would-be generalissimo, emphatically refused to acknowledge he had in fact been conned by the Apaids, the Boulos, the Bakers and other financial backers of the enterprise. With such blatant disregard for the facts, one can only wonder what would have happened had Guy Phillipe been allowed to take power. The self-serving interview was neither contrite nor truthful but calibrated toward endearing himself to the millions of Haitians who were denied the opportunity to peacefully commemorate the bicentennial of an epic event in human history.
Mao Tse Dung's assertion of power coming only through the barrel of a gun, invariably considered a revolutionary credo, could also be applied to any established government that uses the power of the gun to subjugate its population, a recurring and unhelpful situation in Haiti. Appropriately the emphasis on repression in Haiti continues, and an investment, the proven method of peaceful social engineering, seems to be a dirty word, creating a powderkeg ready to explode at the most inopportune moment.
The over-reliance on the power of the gun in Haiti actually causes more damages to the aspirations of the oppressors than any perceived malevolence of the oppressed, as it foments instability, which affects everyone including the cosmopolitan elite. No wonder the situation is routinely characterized "a threat to international peace and security" since the fallout would exceed any worst case scenario.
— Contact Max A. Joseph Jr. at ddjougan@yahoo.com |
|
| |
Category : General
| By : max1 | Comments [23] | Trackbacks [0] |
|
| |
| 1 2 3 ...6 7 8 Next |
|
|
