open Democracy News Analysis - A world in the balance , Paul Rogers - Comments

Jeff Mowatt on "A world in the balance "

Jeff Mowatt — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:20:38 +0000

It's the same call we made 12 years ago, with a paper on digital and economic inclusion delivered to the Committee to re-elect the President, followed 5 years later by the attacks of 9/11. Since then we've been involve in activism to enable it, most recently in out microeconomic strategy advocacy.

http://www.p-ced.com/about/history/

This discussion with the leader of a diaspora in Washington may be of interest.

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html

Jeff

merlin landwu on "A world in the balance "

merlin landwu — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:03:55 +0000

For any form of effective change to take place with the opportunities the present global problems offer, traditional thinking has to come into question, as do traditional values.
We are in a place we have never been before as a species, with the "global village" and the ability to talk to each other directly and without censorship, through modern communications.
Traditional barriers of race, creed and country are falling away and in this new era new thinking and new values are essential for us to adapt and move forward.

SamEllison on "A world in the balance "

SamEllison — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:44:25 +0000

"..the entrenchment of an even more divided global system that intensifies the marginalisation and bitterness of much of the world's population."

The stuff that terrorism is made of.

Lawrence Efana on "A world in the balance "

Lawrence Efana — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:52:51 +0000

Too many things to do parallel to too many to remember about how to make our world a better place for all hence reasons not to rest until we see them done. It is partly what the series of efforts of most oD short and long papers keep us alert about. For those who love God, peace and life, too much is at stake to letgo or be mute and not partake in search of 'humane' and 'constructive' solutions to varieties of the problems not promoting the much needed balance in our world.

Paul Rogers' paper: "A world in the balance", is by its title, we well imagine "wishful" and that is not bad. In normal situations when we wish or what we wish is quite often what we truly also want.

The paper focuses the old issues: Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, al-Qaida as a treacherous movement, tensions between the West and Russia and the immanent security implications of global economic recession, as well as the uniquely new as an issue: Obama and his new administration. the idea of old and new explains relative states of interdependence of the issues, and above all clearly seeing the old as a problem for the new. In other words, outgoing president and his administration saddle the new with its problem-legacies hence put it on the horns of a dilemma.

Rogers' appraisal does not necessarily 'magnify' that dilemma, but respects the possibility of new policies of change able to temper-down the dilemma - otherwise what is anyone to gain by preempting too much before the new president and his team assume office.Clearly so because besides election campaign speeches and promises - the routine of any democractic approach in politics, we were already seeing the problems dimensioned "foreign-policy" and "economic" by nature. So far systematic steps taken by the transition committee show neither weaknesses nor extreme deviations. The new president and his Vice (Joe Biden), coupled with the likely appointment of Hilary Clinton Secretary of State - the rumour goes: no bad match at all on the front for foreign policy challenges, that in which flexibility is not ruled out for whoever in doubt and fearful! At the same time, it is likely not to mean captulating or condoning circles of senseless killings and waste of scarce resources with the economy and national debts of a "super power nation" where they currently are.

Those demanding too much or coupling arguments to economic advancement and maintainance of status-quo driven by military demonstration of strength, many would argue are certainly not seeing or appreciating magnitudes of the problem, or still decieve themselves playing the usual game. It is here that idea of informed and constructive DIALOGUE and participation in issues at hand are two things to be driven beyond familiar ways of thinking - with participants acting as facilitators of peace not war, sensitive to empathic intelligence and sensible/unselfish in their understanding/definition of human needs and motivations. Both Oxford Research Group, and on my initiative I add: JOHAN GALTUNG'S Transcend Organization - the latter regrettably seldom mentioned in these connections] are indeed rich in their contributions to understanding range of solutions to apparent deadlocks over conflicts and parties to them hence worthy of mention, because they propagate progressive ethical values mindful of sustainable human environment and equal opportunities.

Policy-makers in representative governments do at times rely on consultants so are aware of the softspots. G20 representativeness might be in question at the same time, on issues at hand, moving from G8: this much dramatically, is no bad sign of conquering "mob democracy" and hopefully making sense as well as strengthening trust for the culture of representation in politics - the dirty game many still find it to be! Everyone is aware of its challenges and risks, which is a strong enough reason also to sit-up!

Regrettably, it must frankly be added that, besides the typical differences in the conflicts we see, for example, in the Middle-East and Afghanistan, it would seem they are not ready to learn from the United States. In a country as divided as we came to know recently - thanks to the openness of the presidential campaigns, WHO WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COULD WIN THE WHITE HOUSE? Democracy has shown that it is possible in such a diverse culture with so many sentiments and taboos as well as real differences. While there is the need to assist countries overcome their conflicts, they must now have reason to learn to work things out internally not holding others - with their problems too much to ransom. Openning our hearts, learning to love, share and tolerate and above all listen and dialogue, add up to what has given the world Obama. Is that not a good enough encouragement and lesson? Lobbyists did not put him to power but the common people who donated their dollars or two, because he spoke frankly in the political language they saw sense and reason to rally round, wishing, reasoning and praying for the promises of change.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

A world in the balance , Paul Rogers

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:11:12 +0000

It can be useful at moments of transition to stand back from the flux of immediate events and try to identify wider patterns that can help make sense of them - and where they might be heading. The election victory of Barack Obama in the United States provides such an opportunity. This column outlines five principle areas of concern that the new president will inherit: Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan, the al-Qaida movement, tensions between the west and Russia, and the security implications of the global economic recession. The analysis here is developed further in the Oxford Research Group's latest international-security monthly briefing (see "The Tipping Point?", ORG, October 2008).

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001

Paul Rogers's most recent book is Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed

Iraq: time of flux

The security situation in Iraq has eased over 2007-08, for a mix of reasons that reflect the changing dynamics of conflict there. The American military's "surge" strategy has undoubtedly had an effect, though the singling out of this by its neo-conservative and other supporters in the United States as the main or even the sole factor is misconceived. The enforced division of Sunni and Shi'a communities as a result of violence and insecurity, involving the displacement of millions of people, has also played a role; as have the ceasefire by the Mahdi army of the radical Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Sunni "awakening movement" which turned against al-Qaida and established an alliances of convenience with the Americans.

In any event, these security improvements remain fragile. A series of attacks in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq since the last week of October 2008 is one indication of this; an even more potent one is the persistent reluctance of US military commanders to redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, no matter how firm the requests for reinforcements from the commanders there.

The negotiations on the status-of-forces-agreement (SOFA) to secure the future of United States troops in Iraq have proved difficult. Whether or not they are brought to a successful conclusion before Barack Obama's inauguration on 20 January 2008, it is highly likely that the new administration will seek a more rapid drawdown - which may well improve relations with the Nouri alMaliki government.

A bottom-line remains, however, and it will influence the thinking of the new administration as it has shaped the departing one: Iraq is immensely important to the United States, both for its own oil reserves (nearly four times as great as those of the United States) and for its geopolitical location. The promise of the first two years of an Obama administration is of a complete withdrawal of US combat-troops and a scaling-down of the remaining forces, leaving less than 20% of those currently deployed. If this is fulfilled, the outlook for the US in the immediate region could become calmer; if it is not, then Iraq could remain a jihadist combat-training zone for many years to come.

In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group (ORG); for details, click here

This column draws on the ORG briefing for October 2008, "The Tipping Point?", the Oxford Research Group's latest international-security monthly briefing - published on 13 November 2008

Afghanistan-Pakistan: hard terrain

The easing of the security situation in Iraq has gone alongside a major deterioration in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. This has boosted both the disparate Taliban militias and helped the al-Qaida movement. As a candidate, Barack Obama pledged to enhance US military forces and even to be more forceful in taking the war into western Pakistan is sustained - a stance that has led to suspicion of him among the Pakistani populace.

It is not clear whether this was a position developed with a domestic audience in mind for electoral purposes. The political rationale is evident: to oppose an unpopular war is one thing, but even to entertain the possibility of withdrawal in defeat from two war-zones might be risky indeed. In any event, if the commitment made during the campaign was sustained, an Obama administration would be close to George W Bush on this issue at least.

Many senior military officers (and not a few civil servants) in Canada and Britain are, however, very dubious about the prospects for any kind of military victory in the Afghan theatre. Whatever else it does, an Obama administration will be consciously engaging with close allies, especially those mired in Afghanistan. Here, above all, is where alliance pressure might lead to a serious rethink. It is still a lot to expect, since any rethink must be part of a wider realisation that the days of western occupations across the region are over; but the sheer disarray in Afghanistan and the degree of instability and risk in Pakistan might change minds.

Russia: open door

The heightening of tensions between the west and Russia - over energy pipelines, the August 2008 war with Georgia, and the United States's missile-defence installations, among other issues - will be an area of serious concern to the new president and his team.

This is one policy-field where Barack Obama could make a difference. The sharp falls in energy prices have made Moscow increasingly preoccupied with its economic problems. Moscow is also aware that its intervention in Georgia over South Ossetia has provoked intense hostility and fear in the west, notwithstanding the clear evidence of Georgian provocation. Thus, Russia has an interest in cooling tensions, and a more emollient stance would find a ready echo in several western capitals (the summit between the European Union and Russia on 14 November 2008 is a signal of the desire of both sides to repair relationships frayed by the war).

Obama's team can help improve ties, not least by delaying the missile-defence programme in Poland and the Czech Republic; and more broadly by developing a more consciously multilateral approach in the US's relations with Europe, both east and west. The chance of avoiding the escalation of cold-war-style tensions is in his administration's grasp.

Global order: crisis, crises

There is increasing awareness among many experts in armed conflict and insurgency of the need to go beyond conventional understandings to see how far such security issues are rooted in socio-economic divisions and environmental constraints.

The global leaders of the kind who will gather at the G20 summit meeting in Washington on 15 November 2008 have not yet registered this insights. At present it seems likely that the summit will concentrate on measures designed to contain and manage the current banking crisis. The result may be useful but in itself will have little or no relevance to a wider global predicament in which unsustainable inequality, social tensions, dysfunctional or absent governance, and climate change are destroying or threatening the lives of millions.

The G20 meeting and equivaalent regional and global gatherings need to see the financial crisis in relation to these other large-scale problems (see Andre Wilkens, "The global financial crisis: opportunities for change", 10 November 2008). This would itself be a step-change in beginning to realise that the present moment also offers an opportunity to introduce fundamental economic reforms which begin to take a systemic approach to accumulating and interlocked problems (see "A crisis-opportunity moment", 23 October 2008).

There has been exponential economic growth in the world since the 1970s, but most of its benefits have been concentrated in the hands of a trans-global elite community of about 1.2 billion people, mainly in the countries of the Atlantic community and the west Pacific; as well as emerging privileged groups numbering millions in countries such as China, India and Brazil. At the same time, many existing or newly marginalised people have used improvements in education, literacy and communications in this period to increase their awareness of unjust distributions of wealth (see "A tale of two towns", 21 June 2007)

If present trends are allowed to continue, many hundreds of millions of people among the poorest communities across the world will suffer most. This is likely to lead to the rise of radical and violent social movements which will in turn provoke a forceful, repressive backlash by states. The intensifying Naxalite rebellion in India and the extensive problems of social unrest in China are early indicators (see "China and India: heartlands of global protest", 7 August 2008). In this light, the most important task - not for some distant future, but for the next twelve months - is to respond to the current economic crisis in a way that emphasises emancipation and the reversal of the widening of the global socio-economic divide (see Simon Maxwell & Dirk Messner, "A new global order: Bretton Woods II...and San Francisco II", 11 November 2008).

This would entail, for example, trade reform aimed at improving the economies of countries in the global south; debt-cancellation; and investment of aid for sustainable development. These moves are required as a matter of urgency to prevent the entrenchment of an even more divided global system that intensifies the marginalisation and bitterness of much of the world's population.

The G20 summit and related meetings face a choice: they can begin to evolve an imaginative and integrated response that emerges from and represents a genuinely global community, or they can produce a set of discrete measures that reflect the concerns of a narrow group speaking for world elites. The choices made in Washington and other capitals in 2008-09 will do much to decide whether the world becomes more or less peaceful over the next ten years.

Average rating

(6 votes)