Today's global sociopolitical landscape is painted in red. Violence, terror, fear, turmoil and sadness have become commonplace themes in an increasingly internationalized and interdependent world that seems to fall victim to its own selfish aspirations which benefit a few, while marginalizing huge masses of internally displaced people. The global crises of today are at a scale unparalleled in human history. Darfur has witnessed close to 400,000 people dead and 2.5 million people displaced from their homes. These inconceivable numbers only appear to increase with each passing day. Iraq is now in a brutal and chaotic civil war in which there is no conceivable end in sight. A fundamentalist religious war now embroils the greater Middle East forcing entire nation-states to struggle for their own survival. The opportunities for a global peace are few and far between.
With so many enduring global assaults on basic human rights, the popular media tends to overlook some of the most pressing concerns facing the international community today. The humanitarian and political crisis in Somalia is a prime example. The coastal East African nation has been without a proper government since 1991, when Siad Barre was ousted from presidential power and the nation was plunged into a spiral of lawlessness and clan warfare. Since that time, Somalia has experienced the secession of three of its territories (presently known as Somaliland in the northwest, Puntland and Jumbland), United States military intervention and various failed United Nations peacekeeping overtures to restore central governmental authority and provide sustainable humanitarian support.
What makes the plight of Somalia so disheartening is that as a nation, it has endured so much civil strife. As an early colony that bounced between West European giants, eventually declaring its independence just 50 years ago, the experience of total economic stagnation and political mismanagement has contributed to a deep loss of basic human necessities. Many Somalis have never even seen the minimal elements of a sustainable life that we take for granted in America. By any measure, the levels of malnutrition and education are among some of the lowest in the world. Despite recent improvements, only 22 percent of children have access to primary school education, the worst figure globally. Child malnutrition rates of 15 to 20 percent have become normal for Somalia, while 10 percent or more would be regarded as an emergency elsewhere. Basic healthcare services are generally nonexistent and the rate of infectious diseases spreading throughout the country is increasing rapidly. Water sanitation is horrendous. For reasons such as this, Somalia has become the "optimum" breeding ground for extremism.
The international community has largely forgotten about Somalia with aid dropping precipitously since a failed military intervention ended eleven years ago. No other country has experienced that kind of total abandonment by the international community. For many western politicians and international aid organizations it is seen as too difficult and too dangerous to offer substantive support. The retrospective trauma of the failed peacekeeping attempt greatly limits the number of powerful politicians willing to openly assert the necessity of saving this region.
The nation's humanitarian crisis arises in the context of extreme political turmoil. The two are invariably interconnected and in many respects each can be seen as a causal agent for the other. Somalia's modern political regression can be traced to the ousting of Siad Barre. By the mid-1990s, international troops had become enmeshed in tribal conflicts that had undone the nation. With clan-based fighting increasing to such a degree, the last of the international troops left the country. Somalia was left to deal with its own turmoil. Without a governing body, how could it? The recurring civil war that encapsulated the entire region and was felt in neighboring states such as Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya caused much of the world to relinquish hopes for peace. In many respects Somalia was written off.
Though Somalia has been mired in state chaos for the past 15 years, new eruptions of violence emerged in May 2006. Somalia is now a resurgent hot zone that deserves conscientious international attention and intervention to avert insurmountable chaos and brutality. It seems, for now, that the supremacy of the warlords and their faction-based clan tensions are being replaced through force by a new threat: Islamic militias. Led by the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), the emergence of a dominant fundamentalist Islamic bloc as the new power brokers is sparking widespread international fear. Western nations fear the state will become a breeding ground for international terrorism while Somalia's neighbors are accused of influencing the nation's internal violence to serve their own interests.
Pitted against the Islamists is Somalia's internationally recognized transitional government, which was created in October 2004. The government wields very little, if any power. After convening for the first time in February 2006, it was moved outside of the highly unstable capital, Mogadishu, and placed in the southern city of Baidoa. Interestingly, many of the Parliamentarians and cabinet officials, including the current President, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, are former warlords, many with ties to Ethiopia, one of the principal external promoters of the instability. Just this past September, the president narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by a suicide bomber in Baidoa. Yusuf blames the ICU and, more specifically, al-Qaeda. Ethiopia, a close ally of the president, condemned the attack, noting, "This act is intended to wreak havoc and bring more instability not only to Somalia and its fledgling Transitional Federal Institutions, but also to the entire region of the Horn of Africa." With the warlords pushed out of Mogadishu, tensions between the ICU and Transitional Federal Institutions are rising. The government held talks with the ICU in June, but backed out of a second round in July. The parliament voted in favor of an African Union peacekeeping force against the wishes of the ICU. The African Union approved a force of Ugandan and Sudanese peacekeepers, but experts say the arrival of these troops is unlikely.
The role of the Islamic courts is a highly significant component of the conflict. Courts imposing sharia (traditional Islamic law) have been active in Somalia since the mid-to-late 1990s. In a nation that has been largely anarchic for the last decade and a half, these courts became increasingly popular because they demonstrated their ability to provide some semblance of order. By early 2005, eleven of these tribunals had joined the ICU. Business owners began doling out funds to fund privately supported ICU militias in hopes of bringing about a moderate level of stability to relieve them of the seemingly unending conflict. With this financial and military backing, the ICU spread their area of control from central Somalia south towards the entirety of Mogadishu.
Recent reports suggest Mogadishu's residents are pleased with the ICU's rule. The warlords' militias were notorious for indiscriminate violence; women and girls were often raped and locals could not move about the city without fear of being killed. Since the ICU took control, experts say there are noticeably fewer guns on the streets, and people move freely throughout the city without fear of attack. Historically, Somalis have been resistant to more extreme forms of Islam, and some of the ICU's measures could well draw the ire of the populace. Cinemas have been banned, women have been pressured to wear veils, and people found watching the World Cup soccer tournament were reportedly beaten or fined and, in one instance, shot.
While the ICU is credited by some residents in Mogadishu as having clamped down on criminal activity in the city before the recent upsurge in violence, there are elements within the Islamist militia pushing for an Islamic state. The militias became increasingly powerful as a military force after Mogadishu's main warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism this year. The alliance said it wished to root out al-Qaeda members being sheltered by the courts. The widespread fear is that the ICU will garner enough support and resources to institute a Taliban style regime as previously seen in Afghanistan.
Despite its name, the ARPCT probably does little to combat terrorism and is more interested in maintaining the lawless status quo in which the warlords thrive. The moniker is most likely an attempt to make the group appealing to Western governments, highlighting their battle against the spread of an Islamic militia. The scheme seems to have worked. In June there were widespread reports the United States was providing financial support to the ARPCT. These reports resulted in a surge of support for the Islamic courts among residents of Mogadishu, who hold the warlords largely responsible for the rampant rapes and murders in the capital. Since their ouster at the hands of the Islamists, experts say the warlords who comprised the ARPCT have been largely marginalized.
Somalia's highly unstable political system and factionalized social structures only serve to worsen the already horrific situation the people of Somalia are forced to face and endure. This two-decade long civil war has been borne on the backs of the innocents: families that have been dislocated; children in poverty and on the verge of death and the countless individuals who begin to wonder if the hell they live in is the way the wider world really is. The people of Somalia can do nothing but stand idly by and watch any semblance of stability and happiness ripped from their very beings, leaving them powerless.
Every year, Somalia is among the lowest ranked of the 163 countries in the Human Development Index compiled by the United Nations Development Program. It currently ranks at 161. One in four Somali children will die before the age of 5; fewer than 25 percent of Somalis have access to clean water; 2.6 percent of all citizens make it past the age of sixty-five, and of the twenty-two percent of children who are enrolled in primary school, only one in eight is a girl.
By all estimates Somalia can be seen as a failed state, a fourth world region that has lost potential for social and economic development. But we cannot write off an entire civilization of people just because the barriers seem too formidable to penetrate. Many people will ask why not. Why is it in the interest of the global community, let alone our own, to save a population of people that lack the resources toward achieving social advancement? Is it not better to let these people perish than have them survive through such depravity and poverty?
The answer here lies in the resilience of the human spirit and the fact that we are all human as well. This is a question of morality and basic human dignity. Somalia is similar to many of its African brethren; while they have all experienced massive depravity, they share hope, believing that someone will come and save them. These people are not going anywhere. They will remain where they stand no matter how much turmoil they incur.
While countries like Uganda, Sudan, and Ethiopia receive billions of dollars in aid from various intergovernmental and supranational coalitions, Somalia is still largely ignored. This cannot continue. There needs to be a cohesive international contingency that brings forth various rich powers under the cloak of the United Nations. Shuttle diplomacy has proven to be inadequate. Diplomacy must now be aggressive, with deals being made and rival factions being forced to compromise. Somalia's neighbors must no longer stir the conflict, and a UN-led mission must be established to implement political stability.
It is also important to bring the Africans in themselves. In conjunction with a strong international force, they can implement change. Furthermore, humanitarian access is a vital precondition to peace. Somalis crave education for their children, greater nutritional access and increased exposure to proper healthcare before peace. Due to these perceivably unrelenting problems and increased violence between the Islamists and the warlords, over 25,000 Somalis just this year alone have fled conflict in south and central Somalia and arrived in Kenya รข‚¬" including more than 5,000 in September alone. One refugee said, "I walked for 45 days. I fled because of the violence in Somalia".
The mounting problems of AIDS, drought, education, the protection of Somalia's most vulnerable groups, unbelievable malnutrition, the lack of sustainable human resources, and the implementation of basic human rights need to be addressed immediately. A call to action must be heard and met with equal passion.
For the human soul, there is only so much grief one can take. As Americans and university students, we are incredibly fortunate to live in a society that fosters and promotes individual freedoms and civic values, which, of course, many of us take for granted. We have such a strong ability to induce change in this world. For this reason, humanity cannot afford to let this region of intense culture and beautiful history be forgotten.
Unfortunately, many of us find ourselves so immersed in our daily routines that we neglect to seek enrichment and insight on these "forgotten" societies. Why? Because it does not seem to directly affect our own ways of living. The sad truth is that what goes on in these regions greatly impacts not only our future, but that of posterity. It is our inherent duty to promote constructive discourse and seek tangible solutions to this pandemic virus. If we do not, we risk losing our own cultural ideals and freedoms.
After traveling throughout the world extensively for the past two years, witnessing and experiencing some of the most marginalized regions, I can say with confidence that amidst so much turmoil these peoples have their souls intact and they will not sell them for anything. The people of Somalia deserve freedom. No longer shall this ideal stay a fleeting reality.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The United Nations: A Viable Institution to Maintain Peace
Truth, justice and democracy are words easily thrown around in a world that seems to impart black and white judgments on issues that are much more complex and not readily discernible. We live in an increasingly integrated, interconnected and interdependent global community that cannot pursue policies based on separate national interests. With increasingly viable threats emanating from North Korea, and Iran, and populist resurgence in Latin America, as well as a host of other intercontinental conflicts, diplomacy is the key word.
Ideological predilections aside, the world cannot withstand another global conflagration. International institutions like the United Nations must have a firm grounding as important forums of negotiation and substantive action. With the appointment of Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, to succeed Kofi Annan as the next U.N. Secretary General effective this January, there is the hope that effective reform will serve to radically transform this needed institution to deal effectively with the unique problems of the twenty-first century.
In the era of globalization we need the U.N. more than ever to promote democratic global governance, human rights and positive relations along intergovernmental lines, which transcend national boundaries, penetrate the cultural divide and unite societies toward the vision of global peace. The U.N. steps forward as an association of governments intent on facilitating cooperation in international law, security, economic development and social equity.
As an umbrella organization, the U.N. has the ability to bring leaders from all over the world to the table to negotiate, make compromises and create resolutions that have great potential to bring peace to nation-states mired in perpetual struggles. It must espouse internationalism in its most Wilsonian sense and reject the evidential ambitions of foreign policy realists who believe that power politics is the only way to deal with "juvenile" states that may be stable, but lack the necessary social, political and economic institutions to converge with the more industrialized and wealthy countries.
Since its creation in 1945, following the end of World War II, the U.N. has imprinted an enduring mark on the face of international relations. One of its hallmark functions (which has not been explicitly outlined in its founding Charter) is the "peace-keeping operation". This is intended to prevent the recurrence and expansion of a dispute by sending a cease-fire supervision group or peace-keeping force, mainly consisting of personnel contributed by smaller countries, with the consent of the parties to the dispute. This function has become increasingly meaningful amid the realities of today's international community. Since 1948, there have been over 60 mostly successful U.N. peacekeeping missions with 16 of them ongoing.
While U.N. peacekeeping has seen its failures, most notably in Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica in 1995, these events have served to awaken the organization to the changing nature of regional conflicts and the necessity to instill and maintain effective leadership that takes into account the precedence to promote peace over all other ambitions.
One of the most remarkable advancements of the U.N. in the past decade has been the organization's transformation to reflect the structural reform of the international community. In the post-Cold War era, there has been a marked increase in the presence of third-world or developing states and a rise of emerging economic powers. The predominance of these developing nations emphasizes the need to have proper channels of influence and communication to maneuver toward the democratic trajectory that is necessary for constructive and beneficial relations among global partners. The nature of these global partnerships changes with newly introduced crises. For this reason, the fluidity and complexity of the U.N. accelerates.
Like all organizations that have bureaucratic underpinnings, the U.N. has experienced scandals, examples of inefficiency and instances of oversight that have done more to harm the institution's reputation and political clout than to uphold it. But we must understand that unlike individual countries, the U.N. does not attempt to politicize executive arrangements; the organization does not seek to fill its ranks with "yes" men but rather a host of different global actors who all hold unique interests and worldviews. Many believe that it is precisely this characteristic that prevents the U.N. from acting in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Because the five permanent members in the Security Council have a veto but tend to disagree (usually with the U.S. on one side and China and/or Russia on the other), some think there is a lack of significant action because no nation can practice unilateralism. While this may be the case in some instances, it is not in many others. We only need to look at the developing situation regarding the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, the insistent efforts of the U.N. to take strong action in Darfur at the dismay of the Khartoum government, as well as the Israel-Lebanon crisis of this past summer to understand the need for a cohesive international response. Global conflicts such as these need strong and complete international consensus. If nation-states are to unilaterally pursue eradication of conflict, the world risks falling into a debacle much worse than the current situation in Iraq.
Despite the conspiracy theories and arguments against the effectiveness of the U.N., there is little doubt that the institution has done much to promote international peace. The Human Security Report 2005 notes that since the end of the Cold War there has been an 80 percent drop in the most deadly conflicts, an 80 percent reduction in genocide and politicide and a 40 percent drop in violent conflict. The improvements, according to the report, are attributed to "international activism," which in large part has been spearheaded by the U.N. through important policy action, missions and peacekeeping operations. To the extent that the reputation of the U.N. suffers today, it does so largely because so many of its member states are not democracies; they do not believe in and practice the U.N.'s universal principles of human rights. And because of their large numbers, they have a great deal of influence in its affairs. Democratic nations need to be the conscience of the U.N. and stand up for what they and the U.N. should believe.
One of the major contentions of today's U.N. opponents is its lack of efficacy in positioning nations toward actually implementing the resolutions they accept. This is an obstacle that can be overcome with a restructuring of the U.N.'s internal leadership and an increased desire toward pursuing reform. With the Secretary General position now changing hands, there is great potential for this to occur. Ban Ki Moon has already expressed his intentions to "streamline" the U.N. with proposed radical personnel, budgetary, and administrative changes.
The U.N. gains its legitimacy from its members. It does not hover above a host of nations but is rather a reflection of these nations in their pursuit to espouse moral imperatives and international principle. The surge in demand for U.N. services attests not only to the U.N.'s abiding relevance but also to its central place in advancing human dignity. The U.N.'s core mission in the previous century was to keep countries from fighting each other. In the new century, the defining mandate is to strengthen the inter-state system so that humanity may be better served amidst new challenges. From the Balkans to Africa, from Asia to the Middle East, we have witnessed the weakening or absence of effective governance leading to the ravaging of human rights and the abandonment of long-standing humanitarian principles. We need competent and responsible states to meet the needs of "we the peoples" for whom the U.N. was created. And the world's peoples will not be fully served unless peace, development and human rights, the three pillars of the United Nations, are advanced together with equal vigor.
Ideological predilections aside, the world cannot withstand another global conflagration. International institutions like the United Nations must have a firm grounding as important forums of negotiation and substantive action. With the appointment of Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, to succeed Kofi Annan as the next U.N. Secretary General effective this January, there is the hope that effective reform will serve to radically transform this needed institution to deal effectively with the unique problems of the twenty-first century.
In the era of globalization we need the U.N. more than ever to promote democratic global governance, human rights and positive relations along intergovernmental lines, which transcend national boundaries, penetrate the cultural divide and unite societies toward the vision of global peace. The U.N. steps forward as an association of governments intent on facilitating cooperation in international law, security, economic development and social equity.
As an umbrella organization, the U.N. has the ability to bring leaders from all over the world to the table to negotiate, make compromises and create resolutions that have great potential to bring peace to nation-states mired in perpetual struggles. It must espouse internationalism in its most Wilsonian sense and reject the evidential ambitions of foreign policy realists who believe that power politics is the only way to deal with "juvenile" states that may be stable, but lack the necessary social, political and economic institutions to converge with the more industrialized and wealthy countries.
Since its creation in 1945, following the end of World War II, the U.N. has imprinted an enduring mark on the face of international relations. One of its hallmark functions (which has not been explicitly outlined in its founding Charter) is the "peace-keeping operation". This is intended to prevent the recurrence and expansion of a dispute by sending a cease-fire supervision group or peace-keeping force, mainly consisting of personnel contributed by smaller countries, with the consent of the parties to the dispute. This function has become increasingly meaningful amid the realities of today's international community. Since 1948, there have been over 60 mostly successful U.N. peacekeeping missions with 16 of them ongoing.
While U.N. peacekeeping has seen its failures, most notably in Rwanda in 1994 and Srebrenica in 1995, these events have served to awaken the organization to the changing nature of regional conflicts and the necessity to instill and maintain effective leadership that takes into account the precedence to promote peace over all other ambitions.
One of the most remarkable advancements of the U.N. in the past decade has been the organization's transformation to reflect the structural reform of the international community. In the post-Cold War era, there has been a marked increase in the presence of third-world or developing states and a rise of emerging economic powers. The predominance of these developing nations emphasizes the need to have proper channels of influence and communication to maneuver toward the democratic trajectory that is necessary for constructive and beneficial relations among global partners. The nature of these global partnerships changes with newly introduced crises. For this reason, the fluidity and complexity of the U.N. accelerates.
Like all organizations that have bureaucratic underpinnings, the U.N. has experienced scandals, examples of inefficiency and instances of oversight that have done more to harm the institution's reputation and political clout than to uphold it. But we must understand that unlike individual countries, the U.N. does not attempt to politicize executive arrangements; the organization does not seek to fill its ranks with "yes" men but rather a host of different global actors who all hold unique interests and worldviews. Many believe that it is precisely this characteristic that prevents the U.N. from acting in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Because the five permanent members in the Security Council have a veto but tend to disagree (usually with the U.S. on one side and China and/or Russia on the other), some think there is a lack of significant action because no nation can practice unilateralism. While this may be the case in some instances, it is not in many others. We only need to look at the developing situation regarding the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, the insistent efforts of the U.N. to take strong action in Darfur at the dismay of the Khartoum government, as well as the Israel-Lebanon crisis of this past summer to understand the need for a cohesive international response. Global conflicts such as these need strong and complete international consensus. If nation-states are to unilaterally pursue eradication of conflict, the world risks falling into a debacle much worse than the current situation in Iraq.
Despite the conspiracy theories and arguments against the effectiveness of the U.N., there is little doubt that the institution has done much to promote international peace. The Human Security Report 2005 notes that since the end of the Cold War there has been an 80 percent drop in the most deadly conflicts, an 80 percent reduction in genocide and politicide and a 40 percent drop in violent conflict. The improvements, according to the report, are attributed to "international activism," which in large part has been spearheaded by the U.N. through important policy action, missions and peacekeeping operations. To the extent that the reputation of the U.N. suffers today, it does so largely because so many of its member states are not democracies; they do not believe in and practice the U.N.'s universal principles of human rights. And because of their large numbers, they have a great deal of influence in its affairs. Democratic nations need to be the conscience of the U.N. and stand up for what they and the U.N. should believe.
One of the major contentions of today's U.N. opponents is its lack of efficacy in positioning nations toward actually implementing the resolutions they accept. This is an obstacle that can be overcome with a restructuring of the U.N.'s internal leadership and an increased desire toward pursuing reform. With the Secretary General position now changing hands, there is great potential for this to occur. Ban Ki Moon has already expressed his intentions to "streamline" the U.N. with proposed radical personnel, budgetary, and administrative changes.
The U.N. gains its legitimacy from its members. It does not hover above a host of nations but is rather a reflection of these nations in their pursuit to espouse moral imperatives and international principle. The surge in demand for U.N. services attests not only to the U.N.'s abiding relevance but also to its central place in advancing human dignity. The U.N.'s core mission in the previous century was to keep countries from fighting each other. In the new century, the defining mandate is to strengthen the inter-state system so that humanity may be better served amidst new challenges. From the Balkans to Africa, from Asia to the Middle East, we have witnessed the weakening or absence of effective governance leading to the ravaging of human rights and the abandonment of long-standing humanitarian principles. We need competent and responsible states to meet the needs of "we the peoples" for whom the U.N. was created. And the world's peoples will not be fully served unless peace, development and human rights, the three pillars of the United Nations, are advanced together with equal vigor.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
America's Energy Gamble: A National Security Concern
Oil is viewed as an indispensable natural resource that protects this country's economic supremacy. It provides fuel to the nation's incessant desire to surpass geopolitical competitors in technological innovation and monetary wealth. Our nation's psyche has been consumed with the false ideal that it is prudent, albeit necessary, to be the world's unquestionable hegemonic power. But, it is precisely this deluded vision that has exposed a major strategic vulnerability. Our dependence on foreign oil and the way we use hydrocarbons pose a serious threat to America's security, economy and the health of our planet. It is not too late to take smart steps towards pursuing cleaner energy alternatives; nor is it quixotic to believe we can. What we need most urgently is renewed American leadership.
In the past, America felt that the best approach to meeting our national energy needs was through free market competition of private companies. Now, with the re-nationalization of the energy patrimony, international energy trade is increasingly being influenced by political considerations at the expense of the free play of open markets and commercial actions by competitive oil companies. Some producing nations are now utilizing these resources as active and latent strategic power to be used for political as well as economic purposes.
The economic troubles for America arise in the form of international competition. While vying for capital, American companies are now confronted in the marketplace by state-owned entities that are protected by national governments. Some of the producer states are unilaterally reneging on lucrative, previously negotiated contracts, and in some instances expelling western oil companies that have put considerable investment into new production fields. We are seeing a rise in politically-driven bilateral supplier-consumer deals. To be fair, not all state-owned oil companies are infiltrating the global political and economic sphere in adverse ways. Aramco of Saudi Arabia and Statoil of Norway are two good examples of companies that demonstrate world-class management and efficiency.
A revamped American leadership must first realize that the world has begun to play by a different set of rules concerning the energy industry. Petropolitics has always been a common theme in international relations, but the past decade has witnessed its critical alignment as a deciding factor in upholding the global balance of peace. It is now readily accepted amongst many security strategists that the structural rise in global crude oil prices has contributed to much of the geographic instability in our world today. In fact, the minimal political and social freedoms afforded to Iranians, Russians, Venezuelans, and Nigerians (among others) by their own government are directly associated with the high oil prices that flush the state apparatus with money. In response to the average global crude oil price being higher, a nation that is able to sell crude at the large markup is much more likely to erode the fundamental rights of the rule of law, free and fair elections, establishment of an independent judiciary, free speech, and fair competition amongst independent political parties. These negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less sensitivity petrolist leaders have to how the world perceives them. The same holds for a decrease in prices and a move towards civil freedoms: the lower the price of oil, the more incentive these leaders have to move towards transparent government.
There are numerous historical examples that affirm this theory, one of which lends clarity to a common misconception. While it may be great to believe Ronald Reagan brought an end to the Cold War, the truth is there were many other overriding factors that fragmented the Soviet Union. Even Robert Kagan, a renowned neoconservative scholar, notes, "The collapse in global oil prices around the late 1980's and early 1990's surely played a key role". When the Soviet Union was officially disbanded in December 1991 the price on a barrel of oil remained at roughly $17. This markedly low price indelibly aided the reformist Yeltsin towards his woeful democratization efforts. We need only look to Putin today for similar patterns. At the time of his official inauguration in 2000, Putin was ostensibly committed to further democratizing the Russian state and strengthening diplomatic ties with the industrialized nations. Oil prices were roughly $30 a barrel. Today the price of crude hovers at $70 per barrel and Putin has been anything but democratic to the international community and his own people, pursuing programs reminiscent of oligarchic capitalism. His efforts include centralizing state power by renationalizing the Russian oil and natural gas giant Gazprom as well as numerous private businesses and institutions, intimidating former Soviet states including Ukraine and Georgia, and jailing dissenters as well as powerful industrialists he deems a threat to the Russian state. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once the richest man in Russia and chief of the now defunct Yukos oil giant is a prime example. He is now enjoying a pleasurable stay at a dismal prison camp in eastern Siberia.
Much of the reason for these exorbitant oil prices are attributed not only to globalization fully integrating the global marketplace in which billions of new consumers from developing nations are brought into the mix, but also to a general malaise and sense of insecurity in global oil markets due to the violence in places like Iraq and Sudan, two nations rich in this resource. In fact, oil revenues are fueling the Darfur genocide. The Khartoum government exports over seventy percent of its oil production to China. In turn, eighty percent of the oil revenues received are transformed into arms provided to the janjaweed (state-sponsored death squads).
Our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general are having serious national security and planetary implications. Climate change is a horrifying reality and an ignominious contribution by man. A recent strategic report authored by some of America’s most venerable military leaders states that the consequences of not acting on this pandemic as soon as possible are dire. The report notes, “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” The continual burning of fossil fuels will lead to extreme weather events and increase the spread of life-threatening diseases all of which have the potential to disrupt of our ways of life and threaten our physical security. The officials further that the creation of sustained natural and humanitarian disasters “will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope”.
With climate change being a universal phenomenon, some of the hardest hit peoples will be in the underdeveloped and developing regions; places where populations are most robust. The people of Africa, the Middle East and Asia will suffer dramatically. Marginal living conditions will be exacerbated, political instability will strengthen and spread, the probability of failed states will increase, and economic and environmental conditions in these already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies. As a result, the U.S. will be increasingly drawn into these regions to provide sustainable humanitarian support, provide military stability to prevent the spread of extremism that will inevitably arise, and partake in reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun.
As a nation, we continue to believe that a market-oriented, commercially competitive oil industry is the most efficient means to ensure the supply of energy at the lowest cost. We can no longer be passive about this belief. While promoting energy independence is an end result, it can only occur through gradual, coordinated steps. Granted, by any objective measure, the United States will need to import oil and gas in considerable quantities for decades to come. That is the most efficient way to supply our energy needs and to attain compromise within our highly polarized government. But, by ensuring strong safeguards in this area we can mitigate some of the instability seen in the world today. America can be a forerunner in firmly standing its ground and convincing other nations to find alternatives to importing from repressive nations.
While energy security should be our primary policy, we need to pursue new technologies and new approaches to energy. Developing an environmentally-acceptable expansion to coal use as well as pursuing nuclear power generation for electricity are two endeavors worth investing in. Eighty percent of France’s electricity is produced with nuclear power. There is no reason why we cannot do the same. Our government also needs to become more active in defending market principles in our international negotiations. We need to promote greater transparency, adherence to contractual obligations, and a dropping of barriers to foreign investment in the energy sector front.
A market-based approach that will set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions coupled with increasing federal investment in energy efficiency and advanced energy technologies are the most viable options towards creating an America that is less reliant on oil, energy independent, and safer for democracy. America and the other industrialized nations of the West serve as a model for the rest of the world to act boldly, prudently, and with utmost haste.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’s global image has been tarnished with the current administration. We have forgone and thus lost our ability to exercise what Harvard professor Joseph Nye calls “soft power”, or the ability for a nation to use diplomacy and a sharing of common values with another international actor to forge peaceful, mutually beneficial partnerships. He argues that what America needs to adapt to the changing global political climate is a “smart power” strategy. According to Nye, the United States needs to “develop a bipartisan strategy for integrating the instruments of foreign policy to help restore our standing in the world”. This can be accomplished only with new American leadership. Using the channels of public diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, foreign aid, cultural outlets, education, and technology, the US will have the leverage capacities to convince the world that first, climate change is a reality, and second, we as a planet must take aggressive measures to slow its pace. With rational global actors aboard, the coalition can then pursue unified, coordinated avenues to subvert the aspirations of repressive states. With the US committed to fostering global partnerships, less developed nations can build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts, and our national security will be ensured.
In the past, America felt that the best approach to meeting our national energy needs was through free market competition of private companies. Now, with the re-nationalization of the energy patrimony, international energy trade is increasingly being influenced by political considerations at the expense of the free play of open markets and commercial actions by competitive oil companies. Some producing nations are now utilizing these resources as active and latent strategic power to be used for political as well as economic purposes.
The economic troubles for America arise in the form of international competition. While vying for capital, American companies are now confronted in the marketplace by state-owned entities that are protected by national governments. Some of the producer states are unilaterally reneging on lucrative, previously negotiated contracts, and in some instances expelling western oil companies that have put considerable investment into new production fields. We are seeing a rise in politically-driven bilateral supplier-consumer deals. To be fair, not all state-owned oil companies are infiltrating the global political and economic sphere in adverse ways. Aramco of Saudi Arabia and Statoil of Norway are two good examples of companies that demonstrate world-class management and efficiency.
A revamped American leadership must first realize that the world has begun to play by a different set of rules concerning the energy industry. Petropolitics has always been a common theme in international relations, but the past decade has witnessed its critical alignment as a deciding factor in upholding the global balance of peace. It is now readily accepted amongst many security strategists that the structural rise in global crude oil prices has contributed to much of the geographic instability in our world today. In fact, the minimal political and social freedoms afforded to Iranians, Russians, Venezuelans, and Nigerians (among others) by their own government are directly associated with the high oil prices that flush the state apparatus with money. In response to the average global crude oil price being higher, a nation that is able to sell crude at the large markup is much more likely to erode the fundamental rights of the rule of law, free and fair elections, establishment of an independent judiciary, free speech, and fair competition amongst independent political parties. These negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less sensitivity petrolist leaders have to how the world perceives them. The same holds for a decrease in prices and a move towards civil freedoms: the lower the price of oil, the more incentive these leaders have to move towards transparent government.
There are numerous historical examples that affirm this theory, one of which lends clarity to a common misconception. While it may be great to believe Ronald Reagan brought an end to the Cold War, the truth is there were many other overriding factors that fragmented the Soviet Union. Even Robert Kagan, a renowned neoconservative scholar, notes, "The collapse in global oil prices around the late 1980's and early 1990's surely played a key role". When the Soviet Union was officially disbanded in December 1991 the price on a barrel of oil remained at roughly $17. This markedly low price indelibly aided the reformist Yeltsin towards his woeful democratization efforts. We need only look to Putin today for similar patterns. At the time of his official inauguration in 2000, Putin was ostensibly committed to further democratizing the Russian state and strengthening diplomatic ties with the industrialized nations. Oil prices were roughly $30 a barrel. Today the price of crude hovers at $70 per barrel and Putin has been anything but democratic to the international community and his own people, pursuing programs reminiscent of oligarchic capitalism. His efforts include centralizing state power by renationalizing the Russian oil and natural gas giant Gazprom as well as numerous private businesses and institutions, intimidating former Soviet states including Ukraine and Georgia, and jailing dissenters as well as powerful industrialists he deems a threat to the Russian state. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once the richest man in Russia and chief of the now defunct Yukos oil giant is a prime example. He is now enjoying a pleasurable stay at a dismal prison camp in eastern Siberia.
Much of the reason for these exorbitant oil prices are attributed not only to globalization fully integrating the global marketplace in which billions of new consumers from developing nations are brought into the mix, but also to a general malaise and sense of insecurity in global oil markets due to the violence in places like Iraq and Sudan, two nations rich in this resource. In fact, oil revenues are fueling the Darfur genocide. The Khartoum government exports over seventy percent of its oil production to China. In turn, eighty percent of the oil revenues received are transformed into arms provided to the janjaweed (state-sponsored death squads).
Our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general are having serious national security and planetary implications. Climate change is a horrifying reality and an ignominious contribution by man. A recent strategic report authored by some of America’s most venerable military leaders states that the consequences of not acting on this pandemic as soon as possible are dire. The report notes, “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” The continual burning of fossil fuels will lead to extreme weather events and increase the spread of life-threatening diseases all of which have the potential to disrupt of our ways of life and threaten our physical security. The officials further that the creation of sustained natural and humanitarian disasters “will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope”.
With climate change being a universal phenomenon, some of the hardest hit peoples will be in the underdeveloped and developing regions; places where populations are most robust. The people of Africa, the Middle East and Asia will suffer dramatically. Marginal living conditions will be exacerbated, political instability will strengthen and spread, the probability of failed states will increase, and economic and environmental conditions in these already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies. As a result, the U.S. will be increasingly drawn into these regions to provide sustainable humanitarian support, provide military stability to prevent the spread of extremism that will inevitably arise, and partake in reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun.
As a nation, we continue to believe that a market-oriented, commercially competitive oil industry is the most efficient means to ensure the supply of energy at the lowest cost. We can no longer be passive about this belief. While promoting energy independence is an end result, it can only occur through gradual, coordinated steps. Granted, by any objective measure, the United States will need to import oil and gas in considerable quantities for decades to come. That is the most efficient way to supply our energy needs and to attain compromise within our highly polarized government. But, by ensuring strong safeguards in this area we can mitigate some of the instability seen in the world today. America can be a forerunner in firmly standing its ground and convincing other nations to find alternatives to importing from repressive nations.
While energy security should be our primary policy, we need to pursue new technologies and new approaches to energy. Developing an environmentally-acceptable expansion to coal use as well as pursuing nuclear power generation for electricity are two endeavors worth investing in. Eighty percent of France’s electricity is produced with nuclear power. There is no reason why we cannot do the same. Our government also needs to become more active in defending market principles in our international negotiations. We need to promote greater transparency, adherence to contractual obligations, and a dropping of barriers to foreign investment in the energy sector front.
A market-based approach that will set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions coupled with increasing federal investment in energy efficiency and advanced energy technologies are the most viable options towards creating an America that is less reliant on oil, energy independent, and safer for democracy. America and the other industrialized nations of the West serve as a model for the rest of the world to act boldly, prudently, and with utmost haste.
Unfortunately, the U.S.’s global image has been tarnished with the current administration. We have forgone and thus lost our ability to exercise what Harvard professor Joseph Nye calls “soft power”, or the ability for a nation to use diplomacy and a sharing of common values with another international actor to forge peaceful, mutually beneficial partnerships. He argues that what America needs to adapt to the changing global political climate is a “smart power” strategy. According to Nye, the United States needs to “develop a bipartisan strategy for integrating the instruments of foreign policy to help restore our standing in the world”. This can be accomplished only with new American leadership. Using the channels of public diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, foreign aid, cultural outlets, education, and technology, the US will have the leverage capacities to convince the world that first, climate change is a reality, and second, we as a planet must take aggressive measures to slow its pace. With rational global actors aboard, the coalition can then pursue unified, coordinated avenues to subvert the aspirations of repressive states. With the US committed to fostering global partnerships, less developed nations can build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts, and our national security will be ensured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
