What is a Cold War?

After the Soviet Union had fallen, the Russian economy was in shambles, whereas the United States was the world’s only remaining superpower. Many areas of goodwill had already begun to emerge, and many believed the Cold War was over. The United States had little to fear from the new Russian government, but was this also true of Russia? Though the Warsaw Pact was had been dissolved, NATO remained, and in fact would begin expanding through old Warsaw Pact members. In recent years, nuclear arms talks would end. The United States would abandon the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and would not only begin building a ballistic missile shield in the United States, but in Eastern Europe as well. In response, the Russian Federation withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. Many have asserted that this is the beginning of a new cold war. But what is a cold war? What actually makes tensions into a cold war, and is it possible to stop it?

MLK and International Justice

This article comes from IRWatch Senior Correspondent, Janelle F.

Today the US remembers and celebrates Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man known for his profound influence on the Civil Rights Movement and its intersections with American social politics. This is also a fitting time to recall Dr. King's activism in the realm of US foreign policy and world politics, specifically in his reactions to the Vietnam War. He saw the war in Vietnam as a symptom of a greater disease, one in which people's rights were denied and their welfare jeopardized – the same disease causing the ugly symptom of social injustice in the US.

On April 4, 1967, Dr. King gave a speech to Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City (the full text of the speech can be found here). He called for an end to the violence in Vietnam, but also for more than that. He called for sympathies that crossed racial, political, and national boundaries – for all people to unite in their common humanity, and allow that commonality to be the driving force in relations among nations and people.

"Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
…

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and non-violence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

Through mutual respect and compassion, Dr. King believed we could achieve a greater peace and find mutual benefit. However, he also had a rather sentient vision of the alternative:

"There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit. And if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing Clergy and Laymen Concerned with committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy."

Perhaps the best way to honor the legacy of Dr. King is not simply to rejoice in the great strides that have already been taken, but to continue to push forward toward the realization of his vision of true justice, equality, and peace.

______________
Source
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

"Japan plans Tokyo missile shield"

Missile Shields aren't just for Eastern Europe and Alaska anymore. According to the BBC:

The Japanese military carried out their [Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)] assessment in the capital overnight.

According to a military spokesman, the two sites surveyed were Shinjuku Park, a business hub in central Tokyo, and a site in Ichigaya, not far from the Imperial Palace and key government offices.

...

PAC-3 missile defence systems have already been installed at two bases in Japan, with authorities planning an expansion to a total of 11 sites by 2011.

The Japanese government is also co-operating with the US on ship-based missile defence systems.

In December 2007, a Japanese warship successfully shot down a mock ballistic missile off Hawaii, in the first test of a system that will ultimately be installed on four destroyers.

Interesting. While Japan has more of a definable threat from North Korea than Eastern Europe from Iran, this leads me to bigger questions. Is the US actively proliferating ABM technology? Certainly seems that way.

______________
Source
BBC News - Asia Pacific, Japan plans Tokyo missile shield

Encirclement of Russia via NATO?

This perspective is from Robert Alvarez and is in interesting contrast to the previous one I posted from Peter Brooks (here). At the time, Robert Alvarez was a senior policy adviser and U.S. Secretary of Energy for National Security.

The Russian under Putin has asserted in a more authoritarian manor, none the less he enjoys a great deal of popular support... At the same time the United States has been pushing the envelope in my opinion in terms of encirclement of Russia through NATO alliances, particularly in terms of seeking to have NATO troops in Ukraine and places like that. And given the long history of Russia and its extreme sensitivity about military encirclement, these are not looked upon kindly by Russia.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia and Oil from a former senior DoD official

This is another interesting perspective from an older Diane Rehm show, this time from Peter Brooks, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Bush Administration.

They [the Russians] are using energy today as Russia's Cold War Red Army, the source of mother Russia's strength.

While I agree that the Russians are in fact using oil as a significant bargaining tool, I think the tone and vocabulary he uses is as interesting as the point he was making.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia, Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror"

This perspective on Russia's views of Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror" from Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program. This is from an interview from the Diane Rehm Show, this one from July 2006. He gives several interesting perspectives on some of the key issues of contention between the US and Russia.

Diane Rehm: Are there parallels between the US war on terrorism and Russia's differences with Chechnya?
Andrew Kuchins: Well it gets to the way the US and the Russians perceive the war on terrorism, and for the Russians the war on terrorism is primarily Chechnya and the northern Caucasuses, and to a secondary degree would be Central Asia and then Afghanistan, which the Russians care a lot about and that's why the Russians supported us five years ago in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. When we get to our military effort in Iraq which we all know the Russians opposed, and when get to Russian concerns about a military operation in Iran which they also oppose, it gets to the differences in how they perceive the war on terror. Especially on Iran, this is interesting I think, for the Russians Iran is viewed more of as a strategic partner, a geopolitical partner. The Iranians have never, to my knowledge, supported terrorist groups or terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. In fact, the Iranians worked together with the Russians in diffusing the civil war in Tajikistan back in the 1990s, they worked together of course with the Russians and even us to supply the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban five years ago. So the Russians I think are quite wary about doing something which would associate themselves with punitive actions against Iran.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Welcome to new commentators!

I wanted to welcome two new commentators to IRWatch! My good friends Robert M., Carl M., and Janelle711 have joined IRWatch to give their unique perspectives on international issues. Watch out for their commentaries coming soon!

NYU Professor weighs in on increasing tensions between the US and Russia

I've come up with a new way of researching for my thesis, I've been listening to old radio programs that are on US - Russian foreign relations. It works surprisingly well because I can listen during work and after work, go back and transcribe the interesting parts (and even search for the commentors' other works). Here's one I found yesterday: Stephen Cohen, an NYU professor on Russian history, commenting on increasing tensions between the US and Russia. A quick search for his other works included "Failed crusade : America and the tragedy of post-Communist Russia" (Book, 2000), "Second Chance with Russia" (article, 2001), "The Struggle for Russia" (article, 2003), "The Media's New Cold War" (article, 2005), "The New American Cold War" (article, 2006), and "The Soviet Union, R.I.P?" (article, 2006).

You always have to ask how another country has seen us. We have a habit in the United States of always asking how we see things or how we should see things. But in such an important relationship as between the United States and Russia, it is important to understand, in my judgment, that there has grown in Moscow the view, it's very widespread and it's even among the people we used to call democrats, that Russia has been betrayed by the United States. Not once, not twice, not three times but repeatedly since the end of the Soviet Union. That American policy is essentially based on three things: broken promises, the military encirclement of Russia, by which they mean the movement of NATO forces and American forces around Russia, and a persistent view left over from the Soviet era in American policy that when push comes to shove that Russia has no legitimate interest apart from those of the United States. Russians now, many Russians, I'm talking about those in the policy elite not ordinary folk, see this and see it with bitterness in their hearts and in their minds because they expected something different from the United States. Now, the question for us should be, "is that a reasonable fact based interpretation of our behavior in Russia?" I believe that is substantially a reasonable perspective of the dynamics of American policy going back to the Clinton administration and continuing through the bush administration. So therefore this question if whether they've helped or not with terror has to be put in that context. … They did more than any other country in the world to help the United States fight the land war in particular in Afghanistan against the Taliban. We could go into all of the details which range from intelligence to the decision to allow the United States to use a Russian trained force inside Afghanistan. They also acquiesced to the stationing of American military bases in Central Asia, which Russia considers its Mexico, its backyard. The questions the Russians now ask themselves, instead of asking what more Russia did, is what they got in return. What did Russia get in return for that contribution during the first six months to a year of the war against terrorism? And there view is that they didn't get anything. In fact they were betrayed; NATO continued to move eastward. For example, the Americans have made clear, breaking an implied promise, that they are not leaving Central Asia. For example, the sudden arrival of American troops in Georgia also in the Caucus, in Russia's border. So the world is not only how Russia is seen from Washington, but how America is seen from Moscow. You've got to somehow put those two views together and that's the job of diplomacy.


...

If you were to ask me what factor most of all in Russia will influence the fate of democracy, and which factor has most influenced it negatively, since the democratic reforms began with Gorbachov, I would say it's this. When the Soviet Union broke up, all of the property of the Soviet state and that was virtually all the meaningful property in the land, billions and billions of dollars in assets, everything from oil and gas to tv stations, and railway lines, and buildings flew into the air and the struggle to catch it became the driving force, the quest for property, vast property, incredible property, became the driving force of Russian politics. And when most of that property was caught, by a very small group of people we call Oligarchs, but not only them, others who were in that oligarchical system, it was regarded as fundamentally illegitimate by the Russian people, in part because so many Russians at the same time fell into terrible poverty, where they remain today. It's those two circumstances, mass poverty and mass perception that wealth in Russia is illegitimate that has driven forward an anti-democratic politic. Just think about how Mr. Putin became president and why. Yeltsin, who had presided over these developments, fearful for his own security, wanted in power a man he was sure could protect him, and so Putin was chosen because who and what he was, put into power and maintained there. And it is interesting that Yeltsin has remained silent on all of this.

Cohen was wrong on this point, the next day Yeltsin and Gorbachov would speak out together against this move by Putin, read more about in this article from the Jamestown Foundation. Unfortunately the original source from the Moscow News has been removed.

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: September 15th, 2004 (Listen Online: Real Media)

Tensions with Russia - A Retrospective (Thesis Introduction continued)

During the Cold War, international relations were easy for the lay person to understand. The United States was and much of the western world was united against a common enemy: the Soviet Union. This enemy was unquestionably a military threat, but it was not this merely this military threat that the United States challenged during the Cold War, it was the idea of Soviet communism. For years, the United States embarked on a strategy of containment of this significant threat. On the surface it seemed to be a Manichaean world, the United States and Russia competed in the build-up of nuclear arms, in space programs, and even competed for the favor of third world countries, sometimes with military consequences.

This world-view was shattered in the early 1970s when the United States began to negotiate and even agree upon nuclear weapon limitations with the Soviet Union. By 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed upon their first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT1) and an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM). In 1975, Russians and Americans shook hands in orbit in the first international space mission, Apollo-Soyuz. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited conventional military deployment throughout Europe in the late 1980s, and by the early 1990s, the Soviet Union dissolved and Russia gave up its communist ways. By definition, this was not a military, but a diplomatic victory for the United States. Despite Russia's identical nuclear arsenal, America learned to work with its former enemy on economic issues and further strategic arms reduction. In 1998, the United States even invited Russia to enter the G8.

Yet in recent years, tensions have begun to increase again with Russia. Why?

Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

Back in December 3rd, I heard an interesting interview on the Diane Rehm show on U.S. - Russian Relations. One of the panalists was Yegor Gaidar, a self described pro-American former Prime Minister of Russia. He made some very interesting points regarding the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

Diane Rehm: Dr. Gaidar, President Putin is also opposed to a US missile defense system in Europe, please talk about why.

Yegor Gaidar: Well that is extremely delicate, the problem. And I am afraid that not even the high ranking officials in both the [US] State Department and my own [Russian] Ministry of Foreign affairs do understand the technical details like speed of the rockets, possibly the material targeting, possibility of the defense of decision making process, and I cannot share this information with you I am afraid. But to tell you frankly, if I would be in the place of President Putin, taking in mind that I am one of the last persons who could be accused of anti-Americanism in Russia, I would be extremely worried about this program. Not because of its anti-missile capabilities, they are entirely unimportant for Russian security, but because I know very well the systems which were elaborated in my country with double targeting anti-missile and ground to ground. I know when they were elaborated, I don't know when they were tested, I don't know the technical characteristics.

Our military thinks that they know about the similar systems elaborated at approximately the same years in the United States, so they inevitably because of their profession they have to count, to regard this system as potentially ground to ground system with they flying time of four minutes to Moscow. When we installed the missiles with the eight minute flying time to Washington [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] the world was the closest to the destruction of the ?? (pronounced. mi-no-na). And that is not eight minute, it is four minute flying time.

Of course, once again for one single second, I myself do not regard them as offensive missiles targeted to Moscow. But if you would place yourself in the position of Chief of Russian general staff, can you, just because you believe that America does not have any offensive intentions against Russia, to ignore this danger, then you would be irresponsible and unprofessional.

While I am not convinced that the anti-missile capabilities are 'entirely unimportant,' this does bring up several points worth considering. How far is this issue alone deepening the divide between the US and Russia? If the control of this system was a joint control between the US and Russia, how far would it go to alleviate tensions? For that matter, how far would discontinuing the program go to alleviate tensions? Are we, in America confident that this missile shield is exclusively to protect against Iranian missiles (which last I checked could barely get to Israel, much less to Europe or America)? And perhaps most importantly, is this missile shield making the United States safer?

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: December 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

International Law - Law Schools

I have been applying to enter the Foreign Service for some time now, but I've come to realize that I can't place all of my hopes on that one goal. Instead, I have begun to put some effort into my backup plan: to become an international lawyer. I've already begun studying for the law school application exam, but admissions deadline for many law schools is February 1st.

In order to decide which law schools I would like to apply, I found a list of International Law journals and crossreferenced it with US News & World Report's list of the Top 100 Law Schools (and the US News' International Law Speciality list). This left thirty-eight possible options, which was a little more than I was expecting. Of course I can't apply to them all so I made a spreadsheet and tried to give additional pros and cons to each of them, and then sorted them by total number of "stars" and by their admission deadlines.

Does anyone have any ideas about other good law schools in international law or think I should reconsider any of these? My spreadsheet of schools can be found online here.

--
Update:
I started school at one of my top choices, American University - Washington College of Law!  Hurray!  The paid version of USNews rankings (which I recommend) ranks it as:

#2 in Clinical Training
#5 in International Law
#9 in Trial Advocacy
#21 in Intellectual Property Law
#39 in Legal Writing
#46 overall ("Tier 1")

What it doesn't take into account is location. Washington DC and New York are really the only two locations that should be considered for anyone interested in International Law... and DC is also a top location for anyone interested in working for a government agency. 

Of these five programs, as a first year student, I've only had the chance to participate in the Legal Writing program, but so far it has been excellent.  As it turns out, I really like Legal Writing, in its best form it's well researched, logical and concise... which I'll grant you aren't exactly new concepts to me, but it's nice to have prospective employment where I will get to use these skills on a regular basis.  I'm really looking forward to putting them into practice in a mock court setting next semester, I think that will be even more fun. 

"Tribalism" and the News from Kenya

I have been mulling over the current violence in Kenya since the New Year, trying to congeal my feelings into coherent thought. I had previously heard that the Kenyan electoral system was revered as being one of the best in Africa, and of course this violence is a tragedy. Three hundred people have died in rioting, many burned to death seeking sanctuary within a church. From what I understand, the violence was sparked by a close election, the confusion of the news media being shut down during the election, the unilateral declaration of victory by the incumbent and the statement from the election chairperson saying that he could not say who had actually won.

However I believe one of the biggest problems with this issue is its coverage in the news. I not a person who comments on the political correctness of words, however I do have a problem with inaccurate and misleading terminology. In particular, I am referring to the words tribal and tribalism. A quick scanning of headlines on Kenya include "Tribalism Isn't on the Ballot, But in Kenya It's Key Issue" (- Washington Post), "Tribalism's latest stalking ground" (- National Post) and "Old scores settled in Kenya's tribal war" (- Daily Telegraph).

So what's the problem here? The word "tribalism" incorrectly simplifies a complex situation, worse yet it is a slur. It conjures up images of nomads, of pre-industrial society, and of irresolvable blood rivalries. Thus the use of the word tribalism is at best inaccurate, and at worst bigoted. Is it too much to ask for accuracy and dare I say it a little nuance in our news? The spark was a close election and confusion, the fuel was political opportunists using existing racial mistrust as tool to get themselves more power in the chaos.

Additional Source:
Diane Rehm Show: January 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

_________________________
Addendum:
I found this BBC article after writing my editorial. I thought I would add it because it comes to many of the same conclusions and goes into more depth on the details.

"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," screams the front page banner in the International Herald Tribune. "Kenya plunges into interethnic violence," says Le Monde.

But headlines can be misleading.

It is certainly true that the post-electoral violence in Kenya has taken on a tribal character.

Members of the incumbent (and controversially re-installed) President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been pitted against other smaller tribes.

But that is only part of the story.

A more complete headline might be: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population. ..." - BBC Africa News

Pakistan Delays Elections

The Pakistani government postponed national elections for six weeks until Feb. 18, raising fears of a violent reaction by the supporters of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and protests from other opposition parties.

News of the delay could spark protests by opposition groups -- including Ms. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party -- which have demanded that the vote be held as scheduled, in hopes of capitalizing on sympathy arising from Ms. Bhutto's assassination Thursday.

Ms. Bhutto's husband ... has called a meeting of its leaders for today to discuss unleashing street demonstrations. ...

"We will not accept the delay in the polls even for one day," said Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for the PPP. "We will resist any attempt to postpone the elections," he added, warning of the potential for further violence after several days of rioting in the wake of Ms. Bhutto's death. -Wall Street Journal

So now there will be massive protests, will now have to watch what the Pakistani government does to quell these protests and if the protests become violent

Financial Winners and Losers in 2007

Acknowledging of course that stock markets are only a small window on the actual health of economies, it is interesting to note the winners and losers in 2007 in the major world stock markets.

American Stock Markets:
Nasdaq: +9.8%
Dow Jones: +6.4%
S&P 500: +3.5%

World-wide winners:
Shanghai Composite: +97%
Hong Kong Blue Chips: +39%
Germany's DAX: +22%
London's FTSE: +3.8%
France's CAC: +1.3%

And I'm sorry to say to my Japanese friends that Japan's Nikkei was the big loser of 2007 with an overall decline of 11%.

残念だけど不幸中の幸いだ。

__________________________
Sources: Forbes (Asian Markets), Reuters (US Markets), AFP (European Markets)