The deterioration 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 reflects on numerous issues around the World today that yesterday was unable to address; here, we take a look at world progressive governance and degeneration as a result of diplomatic inefficiencies, which bring about world security challenges and leadership failure that make people vulnerable to the entire game of world politics.
Yesterday has not been forgotten; the Cold War experience serves as a lesson for us, today’s young people, to learn from. Today has not repented from the mistakes and influence of past negligence and failures, making the future difficult to predict and vindicated from world political aggression because of daily events.
As a young man in his thirties and a progressive Democrat, I’ve not seen peaceful resolutions to the World’s most distorted aggression, which has besieged our World of inequalities into a conclusive metamorphosis; this is because of grievances harbored by individuals, races, ethnicities, tribes, nations, and governments. A change of government always results in a shift in tactics, policies, and crises.
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 and fight for change even with our blood and resources, but change is deceitful because human minds are very dangerous and can never reflect the so-called change principles; Arab Springs is a good example. Change never works the way we expect. Now reasons…
War from beyond reflects on the latter part of human necessities, making the weak more vulnerable and desperate to contend. At the same time, the strength tends to be more powerful and authoritative. Now, what is the problem of the World? This message is to reiterate the speech delivered by former U.K. Prime Minister Late Mrs. Margaret Thatcher at the 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 global political and security challenges and the role played by the West in ensuring 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 West’s power play in the World’s political stability.
What is the problem of the World? Is it our social differences? Our political makeup? Our religion and beliefs? Or our color and race? Is it a result of stubborn leaders who make themselves monarchs of the people, who are ruled by cohesion and humiliation, or the oppressive 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.
Madam Thatcher’s power-encrypted speech focused on tackling international aggression. She emphasized Winston Churchill’s speech 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 cooperation. In those days, there was 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. However, their high hopes were increasingly disappointing 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. Churchill’s 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 breathed new life into some of the first post-war institutions like the GATT and the IMF. Without the Russians 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 four 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 previous events across the World have grievously disappointed those hopes. Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, and the rise of Islamic militancy all point to instability and conflict rather than cooperation and harmony.
Thatcher explained 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 means the political mentality and perception of the West are different from those of 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 advanced political empirical, while others are purely monarchical. The West has high moral challenges and is characterized by a lack of moral discipline, which is normal in other regions. Once a man from another part of the World gets accustomed to Western madness, he’ll think that his culture is primitive and of no value; 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 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 work; once the positive is active, the negative supports making the positive productive. If the negative refuses to cooperate, the positive will overrule the negative by cohesion or submission. In today’s case, the positive seems to be the West, while the negative tries to scramble upon the potential 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. Whether this generation will respond to these pervasive threats remains to be seen because U.N. negotiations and peace deals are becoming ineffective.
Based on the past’s relative events and today’s happenings, 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 would create new problems, just like the World was struggling to cope with issues that the soviet collapse had made 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. Middle-income countries acquired these weapons with modest populations, such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria. China and North Korea also sell out those weapons, but most ominously from Soviet arsenals, 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 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 those of other extremist countries. They might be piling up strategies to use their weapons anytime against their people, neighbors, or the World. The West has to deal with some possible adversaries, each with different characteristics. In some cases, their mentality differs from that of the West, even more than that 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, 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’s invasion of Crimea in Ukraine were clear indications.
The U.S. has always tried 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 diplomatic tensions that may result in a world security problem. The accusation of spying has always been traded between both countries. Both countries tried to control their diplomatic exigencies but never relented 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 could not 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 starting 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 remain under 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. In 2012, overseas sales of Russian military hardware topped a record figure’s 11 billion euros mark and surpassed 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 11.3 billion 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.
I observe that acquiring weapons is only for domineering and causing friction in the World. Russia and her allies are the opposite of the progressive moderates 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, he said in his address, ” Lots of Russians are living outside Russia.” He was determined to protect them from Western influence and win them back into Russian territory. The Georgian invasion was a clear example. The Crimea invasion is more evidence of what Putin has in mind for a forceful reclamation of Russians outside Russian borders; the Baltic States might be next on Putin’s agenda.
Many 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.
The Soviet collapse aggrieves Russia, and she 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, as it violates international law. Suppose Russia succeeded in annexing Crimea with her military invasion, like in Georgia. In that case, we should be looking out for other stronger nations encroaching on 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. At the same time, the present World Order is subverted.
A New World Order has to be put in place to prevent violations of human rights and international law and to avoid the loss of lives and property worldwide. The experience should be able to guide our activities as history students. 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, and economic battles to fight to make the World a unified entity for growth and development. The U.N.. has much 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.
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, international Institutions should act to prevent a breakdown of law and order instead of just being mediators during a crisis. If peace can be maintained, a situation can be prevented, and if the crisis is inevitable, 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 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 the 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 day, and they also play 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 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 World’s recent events indicate that foreign policies, interests, negotiations, and international cooperation cannot solve the World’s disaster. Tdisastersof religious extremists, racial contentions, and civil unrest across the World indicate failure in government and international cooperation, whereby the surge in killings and refugees has become inevitable.
