The “First” Cold War

So you thought there has been only one cold war ? think again . what if i told you that the first cold war occurred before the birth of christ ? The Peloponessian war which was between the Spartans and the Athenians shared similar characteristics of the Cold War, and thus has been dubbed as the “first cold war.” One defining characteristic which both wars shared was that they were both wars of ideologies. Also, the Peloponessian war featured mistrust and security dilemma which was very evident in the Cold war during the 20th century.

Ideologies play an important role in relations between people, more so among countries. It has been a major cause for both wars, the Peloponessian war and the Cold War. The democratic camp is represented by the USA (20th century) and Athens ( of the Medieval Age ), where as the autocratic regimes were the USSR (20th century) and the Spartans. Like the Cold War, the spartans did not like the idea that the Athenians were spreading democracy, especially when they tried to get the Melians to surrender to Athens. To the Spartans this was unacceptable because it made the authoritarian regime seem less important. Unlike in Athens where citizens were given the rights to vote, the Spartans ran a very militaristic government, where the citizens had very little democratic rights and instead they focused on trying to build a perfect utopia. Eventually these differing ideologies clashed.This mirrors the bipolar world of the 20th century, which saw the war between democracy and authoritarianism.

As happened in the cold war when the USSR and the US teamed up against the Axis powers, the Athenians and Spartans started off as allies against Persian Empire.However they had a falling out after the war against the Persians. An important reason for the launch of the war was the Spartan fear of Athen’s growing power and prosperity. Athens become the leader of the Dellian and its naval power was growing day by day. Additionally, the Athenians created a wall to protect themselves from a Spartan attack on land after the Persians had left Greece .This can be likened to the Americans creating the atomic bomb and using it as a means to intimidate the Soviet Union (revisionist school of thought.) Just as the actions of the americans angered the soviets, so did the actions of the Athenians anger the Spartans. This brewed mistrust between the to former allies. Like the Cold war which began in the mid 20th Century, a major cause for the Peloponessian war was mistrust between two allies.

What is strikingly similar to the cold war of the 20th century is that most of the fighting in the Peloponessian war took place in satellite states In the Archidamian War, Sparta launched repeated invasions of Attica, which was an island owned by the Athenians, while Athens took advantage of its naval supremacy to raid the coast of the Peloponnese.This is similar to the Korean war, where communist Korea launched an attack on South Korea (democratic). In reaction to this, United states intervened and asked the United Nations for troops to help them fight the North Koreans. and the fighting went on for about 3 years, until both sides reached a cease-fire. Once again, both wars share the similarity of both superpowers fighting hot wars on proxy states. This is one of the reasons why i think the Peloponessian war is a cold war, just an earlier form of the cold war which occurred in the 20th century.

A cause of the cold war , Security Dilemma is featured in the Peloponessian conflict. Like the Soviets, the Spartans did not like t when the Athenians created an navy. According to the Athenians, the navy was means to ward off the Persians, which sounded similar to the American reason for the creation of the atomic bomb, it was a means of deterrence. to make sure that they don’t get attacked again by Germany. However, the disbelieving Spartans, decided to mobilize, much like the Soviets who decided to create and test their own atomic bomb. they then attacked the small island which belonged to Athens. This sparked a start of the Peloponessian war. In the 20th century, Soviets also tried to make their own atomic bomb, which in turn led to the nuclear arms race.

However,the cold war analogy fails because the Spartans defeated the Athenians. In the 20th century, the American “won” the battle of ideologies. The peloponessian war has been described as the “first” cold primarily because it was seen as a war where there was a battle of ideologies between two bipolar worlds.

source : http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.ca/2007/11/peloponnesian-war-part-one.html

sources :

https://zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=39474

No comments Add a comment

Is the Korean War over

Is the Korean War over? To give a brief background, the Korean war started on the 25th of june when North Korea invaded South Korean and the South Koreans asked the UN for help. The war went for another 3 years before they signed an armistice on July 27th 1953, which gave South Korea an extra 1,500 square miles of territory; and created a 2-mile-wide “demilitarized zone” (DMZ) that still exists today.

Did you think that the Korean War ended in 1953?! Bless your heart! I know that it seems like the Panmunjom agreement which was concluded on June 27, 1953 was the end to the war, but it provided for a cease-fire, and created a demarcation line between North and South Korea.The basic definition of a cease-fire is really just a temporary truce between warring parties. It is a “total cessation of armed hostilities” between groups that are too far apart to even begin discussing a peace treaty. A peace treaty is an agreement bounded by international law. According to these two definitions, North and South Korea are technically still at war with each other.

Wars do not necessarily end when the warring factions stop firing shots at each other. It lives on in the psychological scars of the people. Some Korean people still have so much hatred, and are caught up in the mindset of deep conflict with a sense of antagonism for their counterparts who live across the border. A Korean girl in my security studies class said even when she was in the DMZ she could feel the tension between the two sides.With this much tension between the two countries, you really believe the war is over ?

Openness about a war is one of the ways to end a war. With open talks about the Korean war, North and South Korea can learn each other motives for the war, and possibly forgive each other. Open talks will be a difficult thing to achieve though especially since some cultures do not like talking about certain things upfront. Such cultural sensitivities might attribute to the proliferation of the Korean War. Talking about the war might ease the tension associated with the Korean War, and possibly lead to peace talks. However, if the memories of war continue to be bottled up, it becomes continually difficult for North and South Korea to forgive each other. Lack of forgiveness prolongs the lifespan of the Korean War.

The sad but honest truth is that the Korean War will continue to prevail as long as both countries don’t want to be reunited. Even though it is in the world’s collective interest to end the War, do these countries want the war to end? One of the biggest questions many Koreans ask about reunification is who will preside over this new and unified Korea?North Korean leaderships will not want to surrender to democracy, likewise, South Korean leadership as well as people will not want to give up democracy for communism. As long as these two countries cannot agree on a government for a unified Korea, no party will sign a peace treaty that reunifies both countries and consequently ends the war. The Korean war doesn’t involve only North and South Korea, but other international actors like the United States, China, and Canada. Some of these international actors may want this war to end, but we forget that the Koreans may not want the war to end. Like Oscar Wilde said “ we are all in the gutters, but some of us are looking at the stars.” We want the Korean war to end , but will the Koreans do what it takes to end the war ?

references :

http://opiniojuris.org/2007/10/04/is-it-time-to-end-the-korean-war/

http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war

No comments Add a comment

NUCLEAR WEAPONS – ARE THEY A THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE ?

People often have strong and differing opinions on the topic of nuclear weapons. It is either that they believe nuclear weapons are a danger to international peace, or they believe that nuclear weapons aids to maintain international peace. I believe that deciding whether nuclear weapons are a threat to international peace is not clear cut. I shall argue that nuclear weapons are a threat to international security depending on certain factors and circumstances such as the time, who owns the nuclear weapons and human error.

Nuclear weapons can be a threat to humanity by mistake or miscalculation, if not by design. During the cold war years,the nuclear weapons systems were strained by mistakes, false alarms as well as human error. So long as we are human, there is a risk of miscalculation. Miscalculation on a nuclear weapon can have some grave consequences on the world. Hence, even if by design, nuclear weapons are not a threat to international peace, they pose a threat to the world because the people who have these nuclear weapons are prone to mistakes and miscalculation.

The mere existence of nuclear weapons might not be an immediate threat to international security, but the proliferation of nuclear weapons is definitely a threat to the international system.Proliferation of nuclear weapons creates a security dilemma which then leads to the nuclear arms race. Nuclear arms can happen in terms of Horizontal proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries or non-state actors (Walton and Gray, 2007: 210) “Vertical” proliferation refers to nation-states that do possess nuclear weapons and are increasing their stockpiles of these weapons, improving the technical sophistication or reliability of their weapons, or developing new weapons. ( Sidel, Victor)“Horizontal” proliferation refers to nation-states or nonstate entities that do not have, but are acquiring, nuclear weapons or developing the capability and materials for producing them. On the grounds that some countries have nuclear weapons, other countries will want to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Some countries may may want to nuclear weapons because they are threatened by the other country’s nuclear stockpile, and believe increasing the amount of nuclear weapons in their stock will give them the security they need

Also, nuclear terrorism can be classified as a huge risk to international peace. If nuclear weapons fall into the hands of violent non-state actors, it may cause a great threat to international peace. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda have tried to acquire some nuclear weapons for some of their campaigns.Using the 9/11 attack on the United States, one can understand the danger the rest of the world faces if such non-state actors acquire such weapons. They will explode these nuclear weapons in places that will cause hundreds of death to make their political statements. They have little or no regard for human life, a disturbing fact, given what we know about the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons. What’s more interesting is that these violent non-state actors are free from nuclear retaliation, meaning they do not have much to lose anyway. Hence, they will not hesitate to use these weapons when they deem fit. It is easy to see why nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist groups can be detrimental to world peace.

Critics however believe that nuclear weapons are not as dangerous as we make them seem.

Nuclear peace is a theory of international relations that argues that under some circumstances nuclear weapons can induce stability and decrease the chances of crisis escalation.Nuclear weapons are said to have induced stability during the Cold War, when both the US and the USSR possessed mutual second strike retaliation capability, eliminating the possibility of nuclear victory for either side. Proponents of nuclear peace argue that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for inducing stability.

Nuclear weapons may have influenced political rhetoric, public defense budgets but it is not clear that they have had a significant impact on the history of world affairs since WW2. They do not seem to have been necessary to deter ww3, alliance patterns or to cause the United States and the Soviet Union to behave cautiously ( the essential irrelevance of nuclear weapons: stability in the post war world – John Mueller)

In conclusion, nuclear weapons are what you make of them. If you see nuclear weapons as a threat to international peace, then they would be. Nuclear weapons on its own, is not a threat to international peace, but may become a threat due to certain variables.

References :

Evans, Gareth. Nuclear Weapons as a threat to Global Peace.Address by Professor Gareth Evans, Co-Chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, President Emeritus of the International Crisis Group and former Foreign Minister of Australia, to the UNI Global Union 3rd World Conference, Nagasaki, Japan, 11 November

Walton, C. D., Gray, C. S. (2007) ‘The Second Nuclear Age: Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-first Century.’In Strategy in the Contemporary World, edited by John Baylis, James Writz, Colin . Gray and Eliot Cohen. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Sidel, Victor W., and Barry S. Levy. “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition.” American Journal of Public Health 97.9 (2007): 1589–1594. PMC. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

No comments Add a comment

Movie Review – “The Shadow Company”

The shadow company directed by Nick Bicanic and Jason Baroque talks about the lives of mercenaries around the world but focuses mainly on the security contractors in Iraq. Shedding more light on the lives of the private security contractors, the Shadow company is an investigative documentary that seeks to reveal the beginnings and destinations of these mercenaries. It tries to satisfy the questions of who, what and why of private security companies as well as how the rules of war have changed and how mercenaries have changed too. It is an interesting yet inaccurate look into the lives of mercenaries and how mercenaries affect past as well as contemporary conflicts.

What makes this documentary special is that it presents the issues at hand in 3 different forms. One is the personal account method where James Acroft , a security personnel tells us his personal experiences as a mercenary. In the interview sections of the documentary, the CEO’s as well as past and current members of the private security companies, shed light on the life of a mercenary by answering some questions. Lastly, the directors use the small case studies methods, where they focus on other countries that have employed private security companies and assess how successful they were.

Using the personal interview method, the directors are able to make these mysterious mercenaries more relatable. In personal interviews, the security contractors explain that there is a long procedure to getting hired as a private contractor. Although the personal interview section did shed a lot of light on mercenary life habits, it failed to address the topic of how to choose which mission to undertake. For example, it does not show that there are steps to choosing which country to work in. Alan Bell, the CEO of Global Risks let it be known that he will not go into a country “with no functioning government”, proving that the private security companies do indeed consider certain factors before accepting a contract. Some CEO’s have also said that they would not post contractors to countries where they would not go, to a large extent proving that they do take into account ethical frameworks, as well as uncovering the camaraderie amongst the private security contractors. Hence instead of dismissing the negative image of mercenaries as people who kill others for money , it perpetuates the negative image even more.

I enjoyed James personal account method as it presented the daily activities of the mercenaries. He spoke about the food they ate, the people they came into contact with, how they dealt with being so far away from home and how they were communicated with their parents. In the little anecdote which told us about his colleague reassuring his wife that things were alright on the phone during an attack, the directors were able to emphasize the vulnerable sides of these mercenaries, erasing the “Rambo” and tough guy image. Even though this documentary shows how serving in a country plagued with conflict affects their lives,it does not show how the presence of mercenaries in a conflict can affect the whole picture. It spent a lot of time on their daily activities and their training than it did identifying how their presence changes the course of a conflict.

My least favourite method was the use of small case studies. Countries like Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea employed private and had different outcomes. It talks about the death rate of civilians when the contractors become involved in the conflict but Leaves out the death rate for the mercenaries. Even though it does acknowledge that these mercenaries could die at any moment on this job, it does not make this poignant by disclosing the number of battle related casualties for the mercenaries.

After watching this documentary, I accept that mercenaries are “ a function of all the other things we do” and accept their roles in conflict.

No comments Add a comment

ARE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES REALLY INDEPENDENT?

Growing up in a third world country, I thought my great grandparents were colonized and I, a free child. I was sorely mistaken and very disappointed when I realized that colonialism still existed in the form of neocolonialism. For the purposes of this blog, Neocolonialism is “ a new imperialist system whereby developing countries are subjected to indirect dependence, subordination and exploitation in conditions when direct colonial domination has been eliminated and the balance of world- to retain political influence over the young states, to ensure the possibility of exploiting their productive forces, especially their natural resources and to keep these countries within the capitalist economy” (1).

Economics in terms of international trade agreements and foreign aid is a form of neo-colonialism. To the West, this is a “means of retaining their shaky positions”, for “giving aid is not about abolishing the backwardness of the developing countries but rather one of turning them into profitable but dependent extensions of the economic systems of the developed states of the west” (2).

Most people believe that increases in trade relations leads to a rise in employment opportunities and inherently a rise in GDP. However they fail to recognize that such aid does not come free. So let me give you an example. In 2009, when Ghana discovered its oil, there was a fuss about who should own the oil fields and whether or not it should be nationalized. Several Western countries started offering aid to poor little Ghana to help her , but with certain terms. The China National Offshore Oil Company offered $4billion dollars sought for a 30% stake in the Jubilee fields (3). Here it is folks, offering aid came at a cost of controlling a third of the stakes in the Jubilee fields. In essence, the Ghanaian government cannot make decisions on their oil sale without consent of their Chinese counterparts. This is directly controlling the economic affairs of the Ghanaian people, hence is a manifestation of economic neo- colonialism.

What is worse is that international economic bodies partake in this act of exploiting third world countries. Economic bodies like the IMF ( International Monetary Fund) are able to control the economic affairs of many third world countries. The IMF lends money at a very short time frame at full interest rate and then imposes upon the country tremendous restrictions on what a country can spend, taking away their ability to ale their own sovereign decision (4).Hence the economy of third world countries today are under the control of foreigners not necessarily under direct control but through the mechanism of debt. Anything that led to the more self reliance of their economies was discouraged by international economic bodies because of this ideology called globalisation. Neo- colonialism takes away the ability for 3rd world countries to make independent decisions, proving that these countries are not “independent” as we all like to believe.

Former imperialist powers have been involved in the politics of third world countries since they gained their “independence” and are still meddling in their political affairs. Unsurprisingly, many Francophone presidents in Subsaharan Africa were overthrown, especially because they tried to seek economic independence from France. For example the former Togolese president, Olympio after independence attempted to replace the CFA (central African franc) with Togo’s own currency. Three days after Togo started printing its new currency, Olympio was killed in a coup led by Gnassingbe Eyadema, who promptly installed Nicolas Grunitzky as President. Grunitzky’s first action was to take Togo right back into the CFA zone, consequently handing Togo over to France all over again. The same happened in Mali, where Modibo Keita wanted to take Mali out of the CFA zone, and was overthrown. However, when the leaders of the newly independent countries did not go against the wishes of their colonizers, they seemed to have had a peaceful tenure in government. As a matter of fact, only Felix Houphouet-Boigny in the Ivory Coast did not attempt at any point to break away from CFA. He was president from 1960 to 1993 in peace (5).From these examples, it is easy to see that although African countries have gained independence, colonial powers have a huge role to play in deciding which political leaders are chosen as presidents. If the people of the third world countries can not choose their own political leaders, are they really independent ?

Furthermore, France was involved in the Ivorian civil conflict of 2011. It is interesting to note that France has no “ right to invade an African country, let alone help one side of an internal conflict over- power another”(6). France’s involvement in the Ivory Coast had nothing to do with enforcing the rule of law, and everything to do with a renewed form of colonialism. A form which does not always involve direct military occupation, but rather the installation of puppet governments .

Another example of imperialist intervention is French intervention in Ivorian civil war in 2002, where they armed both sides of the conflict, and later stepped in to show them how to govern themselves. Clearly, the French still had a huge influence in the Ivorian political system.Once more, imperialist powers such as France and the United States are involved in African politics. It seems that France and the US are particularly keen to reassert their dominance over the African continent. The bombing of the Libyan army, Libyan soldiers, Libyan citizens, Gaddafi’s forces and rebel forces by these imperialist armies did not go unnoticed.

Even though third world countries like to believe they are independent, this is sadly not the case. The West and other former colonialist powers have a huge say in how these countries are run and mask their involvement through foreign aid and military aid. Why don’t former colonial powers and European countries take a look in their own backyard before trying to cover up their intentions in Africa ? I mean it when I say that I feel like third world countries deserve a break from all the exploitation. Sadly the struggle for “independence” from these colonizers continues and I hope to witness the day developing countries can be truly sovereign.

REFERENCES

1.Tarabrin, E.A. Neocolonialism and Africa in the 1970s. Moscow :Progress Publishers. 1978. Print

2. Hagen, Everett E. 1962, On the Theory of Social Change (Homewood Ill. Dorsey
Press).

3. http://www.ibrokerghana.com/news-and-market-information/sectors-a-industries/finance/118-china-oil-to-offer-4bn-for-jubilee-oil-fields-from-kosmos-energy

4. Jamaica’s economy held hostage by the World Bank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nawxO4JUzyo

5. Nwanze, Cheta. The Colonial Pact: How France retained its influence in Africa.http://omojuwa.com/2014/03/the-colonial-pact-how-france-retained-its-influence-in-africa-cheta-nwanze/.

6.McIntyre, Jody. Cote D’Ivoire: neo-colonialism in action. The independent. Web. April 12 2011.

No comments Add a comment

IS WAR A CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISM?

Do you think war is a good thing ? War and Conflict are used inter changeably and for the purpose of this post, these terms will be defined. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary conflict is a “struggle for power” where as war is “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile (fighting) conflict between states or nations” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary). Realist and Liberalist have opposing views to the idea that war can be used to solve conflicts. This blog aims to lay forth the different views on this topic and state that war is in fact a conflict resolution mechanism.

Realists are known to paint a dark picture about human nature. This theory’s main aim is to highlight the anarchic world in which we all live. According to classical realists, every state in international politics is functioned to garner safety, so they try to acquire power to ensure their survival in a system where no other state or authority will come to save them if they do otherwise. Unfortunately, this often results in conflict. There have been efforts to help resolve the conflicts, but the policies designed to avoid war and look after the larger interest of the community have often backfired and resulted in casualties of genocidal proportions. (http://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-possibilities-of-peace/). In August 1928, The Kellogg–Briand Pact was signed by the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan, and a number of other states. The pact renounced aggressive war, prohibiting the use of war as “an instrument of national policy” except in matters of self-defence. However this failed, as countries went to war against each other in WW2. (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kellogg-Briand_Pact.html). Another example of failed peace policies was when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain attempted to “preserve peace” by avoiding conflict with Germany and adopted a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, appeasement as a method of conflict resolution failed and Germany went on to conquer France , Austria and Poland, which led to the Second World War. From these two examples it is easy to see that the “great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood.” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/ottovonbis149419.html#XKRBjRTmeU38wcVV.99 ) Hence, war is indeed a conflict resolution mechanism.

Liberals on the hand, have an optimistic view of human nature and disagree with the realists. To them humans are not aggressive as they are made out to be and can thus be made to cooperate with each other to resolve conflicts. At the heart of liberalist ideology, is the belief that cooperation can translate into interdependence entailing mutual benefits for both the parties involved , solve conflicts, reduce the risk of war and increase the prospects of peace amongst nation-states. Neo- liberalist argues that stability and relative peace can be achieved in the international system by the use of institutions which help decision making by providing valuable information about cooperation. According to Liberals, the international society can reorganise itself in order to eliminate the institutions that make war likely. For example, the United Nations was created after WW2, “to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security.” (http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/) This institution came in handy during the cold war conflict, where the world was close to extinction because the two strong powers who were in the midst of an ideological conflict had nuclear weapons. With the United Nations, countries came together and created the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). NPT aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to foster the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of disarmament. (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html). Many see the NPT as a success story of liberal institutions especially because no nuclear weapons/ bombs were exploded during the cold war conflict. In essence, Liberals believe that anarchy and war is not inevitable, and the way to resolve conflict is through cooperation among countries.

Usually people think that conflict cannot be solved by war, it should be solved with negotiations. However people forget that war is the arbiter of superiority. It decides the hierarchy of nations, the superpowers, rising powers and falling powers. (http://www.debate.org/debates/Wars-are-necessary-to-end-conflicts/1/). These are things that cannot be determined by cooperation and negotiation talks. People must be hurt in order to solve issues; the end justifies the means. Hence war is a suitable mechanism to end conflict!

No comments Add a comment