The retrogression of yesterday reflects Elive Net on today’s inefficiencies, while today’s uprightness shows how progressive tomorrow can be. The judgment of days before now gives a sense of direction for today’s monumental social and political calculations.
This piece is to reflect on numerous issues around the world of today which yesterday was unable to address, here we take a look at world progressive governance and retrogression as a result of diplomatic inefficiencies which bring about world security challenge and leadership failure that makes people vulnerable to the entire game of world politics.
Yesterday has not been forgotten; the cold war experience serves as a lesson for us, the young people of today, to learn from. Today has not repented from the mistake and influence of the past negligence and failures, making the future difficult to be predicted and vindicated from world political aggression because of events that unfold every day.
As a young man of thirties and a progressive democrat, I’ve not seen peaceful resolutions to the world most distorted aggression that has besieged our world of inequalities into a conclusive metamorphosis; this is because of grievances harbored by individual, race, ethnic, tribe, nations and governments, a change of government always result in a change of tactics, policies, and crisis.
The threat from eastern Europe to the northern part of Asia, restiveness in the Middle East to North Africa, leadership failure, and negligence in Africa that has bedeviled that region for so long now have serious social, economic, and political effects on Africa today. I have not seen a change the world deserves to ensure peace and security without threat to lives and property no matter the location, race, or religion. We always cry for change, fight for change even with our blood and resources, but change is absolutely deceit because human minds are very dangerous and can never reflect the so-called change principles; Arab Springs are good examples. Change never works the way we expect. Now reasons…
War from beyond reflects on the latter part of human exigencies, making the weak more vulnerable and desperate to contend. At the same time, the strength tends to be more powerful and domineering. Now, what is the problem of the world? This missive is to reiterate on the speech delivered by former U.K Prime Minister Late Mrs. Margaret Thatcher at John Findley Foundation Lecture on 9th March 1996 at West Minster College, Fulton M.O. This re-awakening speech caught my attention while I was reading speeches made by top political and government officials.
The speech titled “New Threat for Old” emphasized the phenomenal of the world political and security challenges and the role played by Western World to ensure peace and security. The audacity and prowess of this gallant political leader were second to none. That’s why her role culminated the nerves of the Western power play in the World’s political stability.
What is the problem of the world? Is it our social differences? Our political make-ups? Our religion and beliefs? or our color and race?. Is it a result of stubborn leaders who make themselves monarchs on the people, ruling by cohesion and humiliation, or the domineering power of the West that wants to enforce democracy on the rest of the world? There must be reasons for the world problem, but the way out might not be far-fetched.
The power encrypted speech of Madam Thatcher focused on tackling international aggression. She made emphasis on the speech of Winston Churchill at the same Fulton where the former U.K Prime Minister exclusively spoke about the world’s stability not long after the Second World War. The speech was delivered due to the consequences of those wars and the world’s most adversaries.
Towards the end of that great conflict, The wartime allies had forged new international institutions for post-war co-operation. In those days, great optimism, not least in the United States, about a world without conflict presided over benevolently by bodies like the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT. But the high hopes reposed in them were increasingly disappointed as Stalin Lowered the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe, made no secret of his global ambitions, and became an antagonist rather than an ally.
Churchill’s speech here was the first serious warning of what was afoot, and it helped to wake up the entire West. The Churchill speech bore rich fruit in the new institutions forged to strengthen the West against Stalin’s assault. The Marshall Plan laid the foundations for Europe’s post-war economic recovery. The Truman Doctrine made it plain that America would resist the communist subversion of democracy.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization mobilized America’s allies for mutual defense against the Soviet Steamroller. Stalin had overplayed his hand by attempting to destroy international cooperation; he succeeded in stimulating it along more realistic lines and not just through Western “Cold War” institutions like NATO.
As the West recovered and united, growing in prosperity and confidence, it also breathed new life into some of the first set of post-war institutions like the GATT and the IMF. Without the Russian to obstruct them, these bodies helped usher in what the Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, has ruefully christened the Golden Age of Capitalism.
Today, we are at what could be similar to previous struggles. The long twilight struggle of the cold war ended about 4 decades ago with a complete victory for the West and the subject people of the communist empire. It ended amidst high hopes of “A New World Order.” But those hopes have been grievously disappointed by previous events taken place across the world. Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, and the rise of Islamic militancy all point to instability and conflict rather than co-operation and harmony.
Thatcher explained more on the causes and influence of those wars on world political stability. She frankly said that the difference between “the West and the rest is primitive political ideologies, which have been extinct in Western Europe and America for two generations,” this simply means the political mentality and perception of the West is clearly different from the rest of the world which is a major player in world social and political instability.
The West is more organized while others dangle behind; the West is of advance political empirical while others are purely monarchical. The West with high moral challenges characterized by the lack of moral discipline, which is absolutely abnormal in other regions. Once a man from the other part of the world gets accustomed to Western madness, he’ll think that his culture is primitive and of no values; that’s why Putin stood against same-sex marriage madness.
Moreover, we learn in positive ways that can positively impact our lives and society as leaders, not to be influenced by the wrong practices. Most Western gestures are deceptive in nature and are of enslavement despite much-emphasized gains. When you stand on the other side, you become an enemy of the West; it’s a fact that everything is in two ways. We have positive and negative, which does life works; once the positive is active, the negative becomes supportive of making the positive productive. In case the negative refused to co-operate, the positive will overrule the negative either by cohesion or by submission. In today’s case, the positive seems to be the West, while the negative is trying to scramble upon the potent of the positive with their aggression.
The speech of Mrs. Thatcher indicated that if the West failed to police the world, the situation would get out of hand; the rise of world extremists and Islamic militants are indications. The international bodies, in which our hopes were reposed anew after 1989 and 1991, have given us neither prosperity nor security. There is pervasive anxiety about the drift of events. It remains to be seen whether this generation will respond to these pervasive threats because U.N negotiations and peace deals are becoming ineffective.
Based on the relative events of the past and the happenings of today, trust is one significant thing missing in the world’s political and economic affairs. U.S foreign policies are always under the question of trust, while no one can predict Russia’s position in world politics. A revival of Russian power will create new problems, just like the World was struggling to cope with problems that the soviet collapse has created outside the USSR’s old borders.
When the Soviet power broke down, so did the control it exercised, however fitfully and irresponsibly, over rogue states like Syria, Iraq, and Gaddafi’s Libya. In effect, they have been released to commit whatever mischief they wish without bothering to check with their arms supplier and bank manager, but today, the game has changed with the influence of the West.
The Soviet collapse has always aggravated the single most awesome threat of modern times with the proliferation of mass destruction weapons. These weapons were acquired by middle-income countries with modest populations such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria. China and North Korea also sell out those weapons too, but most ominously from Soviet arsenals, or unemployed scientists, or organized criminal rings, all by way of a growing international black market.
According to Stephen Hadley, former President Bush’s assistant secretary for international security policy he said “By the end of the decade, we could see over countries with ballistic missiles, 9 with nuclear weapons, 10 with biological weapons and up to 30 with chemical weapons, which is now being used by rogue nations.
Whether Syria of today surrenders her chemical weapon to the U.N as being proposed by her defense country Russia, the aggression continues because neither Russia, Syria, nor other rogue States can be trusted. These new threats to World security are even more serious than other extremist countries might be piling up strategies to use their weapons anytime, either against their own people, neighbors, or the rest of the world. The West has to deal with some possible adversaries, each with different characteristics. In some cases, their mentality differs from the West even more than those of the old Cold War enemy. So the potential for misunderstanding is great, and there must be a clear mind about strategic intentions and just as clear in signaling these potential aggressors.
The battle for the world superpower continues between the moderate and extremist; an act of policing the world by the West guarantees peace and security. As Mrs. Thatcher bluntly recalled that the dissolution of the former USSR would birth the emergence of the world’s aggression through extreme cohesion of foreign policy and alignment of the Islamic militants where terrorism and abuse of power are at their peak. Russia has always been in opposition to the West; the previous bombardment of Georgia, diplomatic rift with the U.K, and recent support for Assad amidst the world’s condemnation of the Syrian chemical attack on her people invasion of Crimea in Ukraine were clear indications.
The U.S has always been trying to coddle Russian opposition and aggression. It has had several romances with Russia on treaties, including Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, which both countries signed. This is to pressure down the diplomatic tensions that may result in a world security problem. The accusation of who is spying has always been traded between both countries in the past. Both countries tried to control their diplomatic exigencies but never relent on the value of their foreign policies.
While Putin admitted that he had a constructive and meaningful discussion with Obama over Syria but never had a conclusive agreement, this was an indication that talks cannot be ruled out in the world political game but might not be an absolute solution to World disputes for both the moderates and extremist to embrace. Obama reiterated his policy of ending wars not to start them, but Syria’s situation calls for military intervention, which Putin bluntly opposed. Constructive discussions and negotiations can never end in world politics, while diplomatic conspiracy will always have its way; that’s why the world will continue to remain on the perpetual threat.
In 2013, Russia paraded her military hardware with President Putin in attendance to witness the country’s spectacular show of military might, the biggest since the days of the old Soviet regime, involving 160,000 troops and 5,000 tanks across Siberia and the far eastern region. At Lake Baikal, 130 combat aircraft and dozens of Russia’s Pacific fleet ships took part. The country’s Deputy Defense Minister, Anatoly Antonov, said, “it is part of regular combat training and not directed against any particular nation. Main while, in 2012, overseas sales of Russian military hardware topped the 11billion euros mark a record figure and surpassing all forecasts by around half a million euros. Russian news agencies quoted President Putin as saying the country’s defense industry also sealed export contracts worth another 11.3billion euros for 2012. The news confirms Russia as the world’s second arms exporter after the U.S. Russian government has unveiled an ambitious arms modernization program that envisages spending over 20 trillion rubles (400 billion pounds) on new weapons in 2020.
My observation is that the acquiring of weapons is only for domineering and causing frictions in the world. Russia and her allies are the opposite of the progressive moderate who respect humanity and the rule of law. Russian support for Bashar al-Assad has two-sided positions that are clearly understood.
The current World Order has been violated, abused, and jeopardized by Russian continuous aggression and show of might. The invasion of Crimea can be seen as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, a breach of international law. It’s obvious that Russia doesn’t want to be taken for a ride by the West and will do everything possible to ensure distinct clarity from the West; America’s restriction from adopting Russian orphans is a clear example.
When President Putin took back Dmitry Medvedev’s power, in his address, he said, “lots of Russians are living outside Russia,” he’s determined to protect them from Western influence and win them back into Russian territory. Georgian invasion was a clear example. The Crimea invasion is another evidence of what Putin has in mind of forceful reclamation of Russians outside Russian borders; the Baltic States might be next on Putin’s agenda.
The large numbers of Crimeans are not helping the situation as their alliance and loyalty to Russia are stronger than Ukraine’s. At the same time, the memory of Soviet eulogies is solid in their heart.
Russia is aggrieved of Soviet collapse and will do anything possible to humiliate smaller neighbors who are not in alliance with her through her military might. The approach taken by Russia is worth condemning, which violates international law. If Russia succeeded in annexing Crimea with her military invasion like in Georgia, we should be looking out for other stronger nations encroaching smaller nations’ territories just like the case of Falkland Island being taken by the U.K. This action will result in total anarchy and gross violation of international law while the present World Order is subverted.
A New World Order has to be in place to prevent violation of the human right and International law, to prevent loss of lives and property across the world. The experience of the past should be able to guide our activities as students of history. We cannot afford to allow someone to cause friction that will drag the world backward and into another war; there are works to do, goals to achieve, economic battles to fight to make the world a unified entity for growth and development. The U.N has a lot to do to ensure peaceful co-existence, freedom of rights and privileges of all nations, and smaller nations’ territorial integrity to be preserved. Education, internal democracy, freedom of speech, and association must be guaranteed in all countries that will make all people equal before the law.
The warring states must come to a peaceful resolution under a New World Order. The influence of religious practice cannot be undermined in human methodology, but access to quality education can change people’s perceptions and thinking patterns. Therefore, the international Institutions should switch into action to prevent a breakdown of law and order instead of just being mediators during a crisis. If peace can be maintained, a crisis can be prevented, and if the crisis is inevitable, then peace can be enforced.
The U.N must rise to put an end to serial violence, attack innocent souls across the world, and invade weaker nations by the stronger ones. The injustice meted out against individuals and opposition in those derailing states that has always led to cohesion and rebellion must stop. The recent uprising across Arab nations indicates a change in perception and mental development of the people, which culminates in new thinking and new sacrifice for new leadership. Education and access to information play vital roles in our present days, which also played a major role in the uprising for the kind of nation the new generation deserves. A New World Order is inevitable in ensuring peace, development, and co-existence in our world, facing population outbursts and struggling to meet the MDGs.
The battle for the world power between the moderate and the extremist has taken a new dimension; an act of policing the world by the West guarantees no more peace and security. The state of the world’s recent events indicates that foreign policies, interests, negotiations, and international co-operation cannot proffer a solution to the world’s most human-made disaster. The rise of religious extremists, racial contentions, and civil unrest across the world indicates failure in government and international co-operation whereby the surge in killings and refugees has become inevitable.