After Iranian parliament approved on Sunday the bill concerning downgrading Iran-UK relations and expelling the British ambassador, thousands of Iranian people and students, protested the latest British sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic, demanded Tehran break relations with London completely. It was the greatest Iranian people protest against the British policies against Iran which led to closure of Iranian embassy in London and expelling British diplomatic staff from Tehran.
The main question relating to these developments is “What the expelling of British diplomats from Tehran tells the west?”
First of all, it proved that Iranian government would not come to negotiation table by toughening sanction against it. Putting more pressure on Iran to convince this country to change its behavior is a wrong old irrational policy which has not been succeeded during more than 30 years of Iranian revolution.
Second, putting more sanction on Iran may force Iran to take stricter approaches on different issues rather to soften its position on them.
Third, the west will lose any kind of Iranian people sympathy in this situation. Iranian nationalism is a great element which if arise could not be stopped by any action and in this case the west cannot find any supporter within Iran to pursue its policies. The Iranian students’ reaction to UK polices was a single simple response to that policies which must be taken seriously from the west.
Forth, the Iranian people protest against UK was a response to British policies during long time of history since their presence in the Persian Gulf and the region since 17th century. It was not only a response to sanction which recently has been adopted by the UK on Iranian central bank. So the west cannot simply interpret the students’ entering in British embassy as a response to increasing sanctions. The sanction was only a catalyst to do so.
Fifth, continuing diplomatic and political relations with the west while they are gathering everyday to put more sanction against Iran and even threat Iran to military attack, is meaningless. They cannot use political relations with Iran as leverage to increase pressure on the country.
Last not the least; Iranian people have proved that they do not consider the diplomatic limitations of relations between countries. While the Iranian government and parliament have some kind of conservatism in their polices, the Iranian people do not have these kinds of restrictions. This indicates that Iranian people not only do not fear economic isolation, but also do not fear political isolation too.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
World Uprisings: a Paradigm Shift in Political Sciences?
World Uprisings: a Paradigm Shift in Political Sciences?
We are witnessing general revolutions and many movements all over the world from the Middle East to Athens, Madrid and even in the US streets. Regardless of their causes, motives and even their effects on the real world, I think these movements have great influences on the political sciences and even in international relations as scientific disciplines in two ways. First, these uprisings are the people’s revolt against their governments and the structure of power of the states within which they are living. In Hobbesian words, people learned that their man-made leviathan- government- is not that horrific and can be toppled or altered in a way that their interest be achieved. In better words, the new world requires the new structure of government and that’s why even in developed European and American countries such protests have been occurring. Second, borrowing Joseph Nye’s theme in IR, we can discuss that advances in technology- especially in information technology- have helped people compete on a national level with their governments, leading to a “diffusion of power” in which the new source of power relations emerged. Consequently, we're on the brink of a fascinating experiment of changing relation between people and governments. In this case the science of explaining, theorizing etc of these relations –politics- should be changed.
We are witnessing general revolutions and many movements all over the world from the Middle East to Athens, Madrid and even in the US streets. Regardless of their causes, motives and even their effects on the real world, I think these movements have great influences on the political sciences and even in international relations as scientific disciplines in two ways. First, these uprisings are the people’s revolt against their governments and the structure of power of the states within which they are living. In Hobbesian words, people learned that their man-made leviathan- government- is not that horrific and can be toppled or altered in a way that their interest be achieved. In better words, the new world requires the new structure of government and that’s why even in developed European and American countries such protests have been occurring. Second, borrowing Joseph Nye’s theme in IR, we can discuss that advances in technology- especially in information technology- have helped people compete on a national level with their governments, leading to a “diffusion of power” in which the new source of power relations emerged. Consequently, we're on the brink of a fascinating experiment of changing relation between people and governments. In this case the science of explaining, theorizing etc of these relations –politics- should be changed.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Right Track in Afghanistan?
Right Track in Afghanistan?
President Obama declared the Afghanistan War Strategy Review in a press conference on Thursday. To assess this Review I summarize the main points of it in the following pattern:
1. According to president Obama the U.S is on the right track to achieve its goals.
2. Al Qaeda and Taliban’s leadership is in its weakest situation since 2001. They possess very limited areas in Afghanistan than before.
3. To improve the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is necessary to promote the political and economic conditions in these countries.
4. The U.S should bridge the gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
5. Pakistan must do more to dismantle terrorist havens and to shut down the terrorist connection with its tribal areas.
6. U.S insists on reconciliation with those Taliban individuals who are not affiliated to al Qaeda.
7. The U.S is committed to NATO’s Lisbon summit agreement on withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and handing over the security to the afghan forces.
8. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible.
To sum up, the U.S president called his strategy on Afghanistan as successful but he was very cautious on his words. Because he knows that there are too many variables which should come together to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. I just refer to the above-mentioned points of the Review.
Beginning with the first point, we have been witnessing during two recent years that the U.S administration does not have clear-cut policy toward Afghanistan. The different opinion within Obama administration and especially among the U.S Generals on the ground caused a non-coherent strategy in US administration on Afghanistan. The main difference appeared on adopting the counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism strategy to combat Taliban and al-Qaida.
The second point comes from this wrong analysis that Taliban and al-Qaida fight for land and territory. Of course it would be good for them to achieve land but now they fight to force the foreigners to withdraw from Afghanistan and then in a proper time come back and take control of the situation.
The third point is a long run strategy which can help to eradicate terrorism. But as I mentioned the U.S administration cannot resort to it as a short term strategy and would not work in one or two following years.
The fourth and fifth points which relate to Pakistan, have been the main U.S crisis in the region for several years. Pakistan’s dual policies towards the U.S and Al-Qaida exacerbate the situation for U.S strategies in the region which does not have clear prospect in the future.
The sixth point refers to this fact that the U.S administration differentiates between good Taliban and bad Taliban. This is a grave mistake and as the recent failures prove that cannot be achieved. The identity of Taliban and al-Qaida is interconnected and it is not possible to differentiate them. So this policy won’t help Obama to improve the condition in Afghanistan.
NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and before that, U.S pullout from the country in July 2011 is a crucial moment for coalition troops and specially the United States in Afghanistan. Afghanistan war is Obama’s war. He vowed to pullout U.S troops in 2011. This can grant the vital momentum to Taliban an al-Qaida to accomplish their missions in the country. So this policy is paradoxical in its nature. Not to withdraw from Afghanistan according to the timetable can damage the Obama’s prestige in the verge of us presidential election and on the other hand doing so, can bolster the enemy’s condition in Afghanistan.
The last not the least, is a confession which I think is the crux of the matter. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible. The 2010 was the bloodiest year for the coalition forces in the country. The negotiation with Taliban has not clear results. Nation and state building in Afghanistan has not any progress. The corruption indexes in the country are high. There is gap between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is getting widening. The afghan officials criticize publicly the U.S policies in Afghanistan etc. These are not good signals to the U.S administration and the day still young to talk about “right track” in Afghanistan.
President Obama declared the Afghanistan War Strategy Review in a press conference on Thursday. To assess this Review I summarize the main points of it in the following pattern:
1. According to president Obama the U.S is on the right track to achieve its goals.
2. Al Qaeda and Taliban’s leadership is in its weakest situation since 2001. They possess very limited areas in Afghanistan than before.
3. To improve the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is necessary to promote the political and economic conditions in these countries.
4. The U.S should bridge the gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
5. Pakistan must do more to dismantle terrorist havens and to shut down the terrorist connection with its tribal areas.
6. U.S insists on reconciliation with those Taliban individuals who are not affiliated to al Qaeda.
7. The U.S is committed to NATO’s Lisbon summit agreement on withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and handing over the security to the afghan forces.
8. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible.
To sum up, the U.S president called his strategy on Afghanistan as successful but he was very cautious on his words. Because he knows that there are too many variables which should come together to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. I just refer to the above-mentioned points of the Review.
Beginning with the first point, we have been witnessing during two recent years that the U.S administration does not have clear-cut policy toward Afghanistan. The different opinion within Obama administration and especially among the U.S Generals on the ground caused a non-coherent strategy in US administration on Afghanistan. The main difference appeared on adopting the counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism strategy to combat Taliban and al-Qaida.
The second point comes from this wrong analysis that Taliban and al-Qaida fight for land and territory. Of course it would be good for them to achieve land but now they fight to force the foreigners to withdraw from Afghanistan and then in a proper time come back and take control of the situation.
The third point is a long run strategy which can help to eradicate terrorism. But as I mentioned the U.S administration cannot resort to it as a short term strategy and would not work in one or two following years.
The fourth and fifth points which relate to Pakistan, have been the main U.S crisis in the region for several years. Pakistan’s dual policies towards the U.S and Al-Qaida exacerbate the situation for U.S strategies in the region which does not have clear prospect in the future.
The sixth point refers to this fact that the U.S administration differentiates between good Taliban and bad Taliban. This is a grave mistake and as the recent failures prove that cannot be achieved. The identity of Taliban and al-Qaida is interconnected and it is not possible to differentiate them. So this policy won’t help Obama to improve the condition in Afghanistan.
NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 and before that, U.S pullout from the country in July 2011 is a crucial moment for coalition troops and specially the United States in Afghanistan. Afghanistan war is Obama’s war. He vowed to pullout U.S troops in 2011. This can grant the vital momentum to Taliban an al-Qaida to accomplish their missions in the country. So this policy is paradoxical in its nature. Not to withdraw from Afghanistan according to the timetable can damage the Obama’s prestige in the verge of us presidential election and on the other hand doing so, can bolster the enemy’s condition in Afghanistan.
The last not the least, is a confession which I think is the crux of the matter. The U.S progress in Afghanistan is fragile and reversible. The 2010 was the bloodiest year for the coalition forces in the country. The negotiation with Taliban has not clear results. Nation and state building in Afghanistan has not any progress. The corruption indexes in the country are high. There is gap between Afghanistan and Pakistan which is getting widening. The afghan officials criticize publicly the U.S policies in Afghanistan etc. These are not good signals to the U.S administration and the day still young to talk about “right track” in Afghanistan.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon
Iranian Islamic Revolution's Triumph in Lebanon
President Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was really the show off of Iranian power in the region. The importance of the visit is much more when we take into account that the Iranian president repeated his anti- zionist literature close to Israeli borders- most of them mentioned less than five kilometers away from enemy's border in Bint Jbeil.
Through the realists' framework of analysis Iran-Lebanon relations can be justified as an alliance against a common enemy. In other words Iran sees Lebanon at the frontline of a probable Israeli-Iranian conflict and that's why Iran is backing Lebanon and Hezbollah. The realists believe that Iran's policy toward Hezbollah is absolutely rational and it does not related to their common ideology. In this kind of analysis Hezbollah and Lebanon is just a scapegoat for Iran's foreign and strategic policies. I am not going to explain the shortcomings of realists view on this matter but we cannot ignore their mere materialistic point of view. What really happened in Lebanon during Ahmadinejad's visit was the demonstration of Lebanese people's ties to the Iran's revolutionary ideas and discourse which translated and reflected fully in Lebanese society ironically to some extent more than Iranian society. Lebanese people do believe to the Imam Khomeini and ayatollah Khamenie's attitudes and goals. The attendance of tens of thousands of all Lebanese groups in meetings was not the victory of Ahmadinejad himself. He was the representative of Iranian ideology- although we cannot neglect the importance of his anti-Zionist rhetoric. The bottom line is that the Iran's relation to Lebanon cannot be understood through state-centric, materialistic viewpoints. The Iranian-Lebanese relation is rooted in strong common belief in Islamic Republic revolutionary ideas. Of course it can be justified through realistic approaches but that’s not the whole story.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
President Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon was really the show off of Iranian power in the region. The importance of the visit is much more when we take into account that the Iranian president repeated his anti- zionist literature close to Israeli borders- most of them mentioned less than five kilometers away from enemy's border in Bint Jbeil.
Through the realists' framework of analysis Iran-Lebanon relations can be justified as an alliance against a common enemy. In other words Iran sees Lebanon at the frontline of a probable Israeli-Iranian conflict and that's why Iran is backing Lebanon and Hezbollah. The realists believe that Iran's policy toward Hezbollah is absolutely rational and it does not related to their common ideology. In this kind of analysis Hezbollah and Lebanon is just a scapegoat for Iran's foreign and strategic policies. I am not going to explain the shortcomings of realists view on this matter but we cannot ignore their mere materialistic point of view. What really happened in Lebanon during Ahmadinejad's visit was the demonstration of Lebanese people's ties to the Iran's revolutionary ideas and discourse which translated and reflected fully in Lebanese society ironically to some extent more than Iranian society. Lebanese people do believe to the Imam Khomeini and ayatollah Khamenie's attitudes and goals. The attendance of tens of thousands of all Lebanese groups in meetings was not the victory of Ahmadinejad himself. He was the representative of Iranian ideology- although we cannot neglect the importance of his anti-Zionist rhetoric. The bottom line is that the Iran's relation to Lebanon cannot be understood through state-centric, materialistic viewpoints. The Iranian-Lebanese relation is rooted in strong common belief in Islamic Republic revolutionary ideas. Of course it can be justified through realistic approaches but that’s not the whole story.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?
Does Really Mission Accomplished in Iraq?
After a seven and a half year of US invasion on Iraq the US president declared the “end of combat mission” in this country. Nonetheless it is not a complete US forces withdrawal from Iraq because near the 50000 troops including six brigades with combat capabilities will remain first to train Iraqi troops and second to support Iraqi forces especially by the air force. On the other hand while the 82 percent of US military bases are closed or transferred into Iraqi government, 4500 US Special Forces stayed there for counter-terrorism missions. In addition let’s not forget that the US government spent nearly one trillion dollar in Iraq war.
The main question is now that does really the mission accomplished in Iraq. My answer is clearly NOT. Iraq’s supposed to be an ideal type of democracy for the Arab world but it does not have even embassy in several Arab states now. As I wrote in earlier post about Iraq democracy, because of lack of democratic experiences in Iraq the new political system would not work properly; the main evidence is that Iraqi politicians have not formed a government since March parliamentary election which it means a 6 month political deadlock in the country. On the other hand the violence in recent months has escalated and hundreds of Iraqi people have been slaughtered in explosions. This means that terrorism is not curbed in Iraq as well.
I believe we should find the main reason of the security handover in Iraq in US domestic affairs and especially upcoming congressional election. President Obama during the presidential election campaign pledged to fulfill several polices including ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing the Guantanamo prison and improving the social security and health insurance internally and creating more jobs during the global economic crisis. But he did nothing to the US people. That’s why the GOP is criticizing the Obama administration and calling him as one term president. Obama’s foreign and security policies put the democrats in jeopardy and as Joe Biden said in Iraq “this war divided Americans”. This can cause the democrats lose the majority in both chambers which it means making Obama’s policies’ performance sluggish in the rest of his term in office.
At this crucial moment Obama must has done something to rescue his party. The easiest thing to do was the handover the security command to Iraqi government. So this is a policy for domestic market while nothing important has been achieved. I think the US administration has a lot to do from now on to achieve its goal in Iraq as the US vice president, Joe Biden, during the “change of command ceremony” in Iraq said “ US engagement will continue in Iraq” and he announced that “operation Iraqi freedom is over but operation New Dawn has begun”. He did not mention what kind of policy it is but we can assume that the US government alongside its military presence desires to deepen its economic ties with Iraq in different area of reconstructions, oil sector etc. so it’s not a real withdrawal but changing in US role in Iraq. We should know that this is not a strategic change in US policy. There are many challenges on the way ahead for Iraqi people and the US policies in Iraq still regarded with great doubt. Suffice it to say that Iraq issue from the US viewpoint has several subjects from high politics to low one which cannot be solved easily and because of existence of lots of domestic, regional and international variables declaring the end of war does not have any sense.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Iran’s Options to Respond to the West
After adopting the new UN Security Council resolution 1929 against Iran, the EU and some other US allies such as Australia has been discussing on the new round of sanction against Iran in addition to the UNSC ones. It seems that there is some kind of monolithic actions in this regard against Iran in the West front but on the other side of the game which is Iran we have not witnessed any particular measure in spite of long rhetoric to respond to the sanctions.
In this article I’m trying to briefly clarify the Iranian options to respond to these actions. Iran can take into consideration five strategies to respond to the current situation.
First, acceptance of UNSC resolutions on Iran’s nuclear issue. This policy means that Iran halts its nuclear program and uranium enrichment and cooperates fully with the IAEA and approves the additional protocol in its parliaments. This may reduces the pressures on Iran and stop some of sanctions. On the other hand this policy certainly damages the Iranian prestige among Non- Allied Movement and Islamic nations. Internally the Iranian people would lose their confidence on the government and criticize it for withdrawal from their absolute right of using atomic energy. This also means that the Iranian government wasted its energy, resources, etc for near 8 year, for nothing.
Second policy is relative cooperation. According to this policy Iran accepts some part of resolutions in order to make confidence and show its good intention. For example Iran can suspend uranium enrichment for certain period of time and enforce the additional protocol voluntarily. This may result in more negotiations and reduce some sanctions. The aim of this policy is to ensure the international community about the good will of Iranian party. The course of history proved that this policy because of profound distrust between two parties would not operationalize.
Third policy is to continue the current situation which I mean by that resuming the Iranian nuclear issue in spite of the new sanctions and do nothing in particular in response to the sanction. This policy would complicate the situation. The continuation of the current situation may increase the sanction and put more pressure on Iran and in the worst case may bolster the idea of attacking Iran. So this situation is not desirable for Iran.
Fourth policy is to reduce the level of cooperation with the IAEA and the hostile states. Preventing IAEA inspectors to come to the country and restricting their access to some sites perhaps are some options in this regards. This may be a quick response to the new sanctions and has some domestic consumption. But on the other side it may increase the sanction on Iran and disappoints some Iranian allies in the world and proves the arguments of the west about Iranian non-compliance nature.
The fifth policy is a confrontation strategy which can be divided into two main categories: low-intensified conflict as a result of enforcement of the resolution 1929 to inspect Iranian ships and cargos and Iran’s retaliation in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Limited conflicts in this regard would be occurred. Another category is high-intensified conflict as result of Iran’s change policy to exit from the NPT and trying to make bomb. This policy has the deterrence function for Iran but on the other hand can pave the way for the west to resort to article 42 of UN charter and attack Iran in a way that they did against Iraq in 2003.
I believe that Iran must assess the west strategy and intention of the current measures. They may have four purposes from their actions:
1. Increasing the pressures and sanctions to change the behavior of Iranian government through threat.
2. Continuing the current situation which is bargaining and trying to adopt new resolution.
3. Increasing the sanctions and limited confrontation with Iran in different areas.
4. Increasing the pressure and sanctions to change the Iranian regime.
This is exactly the fact that should be clarified. I think current situation should be changed by Iranian government. If we come to this conclusion that the west cannot tolerate the Iranian regime and this is the beginning of trend to topple Iranian government in Iraq-like manner then Iran should keep every option on the table even achieving to atomic bomb.
For now Iran should apply a combination of all aforementioned policies which it means trying to back the 5+3 to negotiation table and also some confidence building measures and at the same time reduce its cooperation with IAEA and warn the west that Iran can move beyond if they continue their hostile actions. In this regard the fifth way- exiting NPT and making bomb- should not be off the table. The West problem is the nature of Islamic Revolution and all of these actions are excuses to curb Iran. Solving the nuclear issue, this country cannot be sure that another issue would be presented.
To sum up, I extremely emphasis on solving the Iranian nuclear issue through political methods and cooperation with the international community but if the rival powers try to exhaust the country through counterproductive measures, Iran should take into account all possible options to deter the west from interfering and defend itself from probable attacks even by nukes.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
In this article I’m trying to briefly clarify the Iranian options to respond to these actions. Iran can take into consideration five strategies to respond to the current situation.
First, acceptance of UNSC resolutions on Iran’s nuclear issue. This policy means that Iran halts its nuclear program and uranium enrichment and cooperates fully with the IAEA and approves the additional protocol in its parliaments. This may reduces the pressures on Iran and stop some of sanctions. On the other hand this policy certainly damages the Iranian prestige among Non- Allied Movement and Islamic nations. Internally the Iranian people would lose their confidence on the government and criticize it for withdrawal from their absolute right of using atomic energy. This also means that the Iranian government wasted its energy, resources, etc for near 8 year, for nothing.
Second policy is relative cooperation. According to this policy Iran accepts some part of resolutions in order to make confidence and show its good intention. For example Iran can suspend uranium enrichment for certain period of time and enforce the additional protocol voluntarily. This may result in more negotiations and reduce some sanctions. The aim of this policy is to ensure the international community about the good will of Iranian party. The course of history proved that this policy because of profound distrust between two parties would not operationalize.
Third policy is to continue the current situation which I mean by that resuming the Iranian nuclear issue in spite of the new sanctions and do nothing in particular in response to the sanction. This policy would complicate the situation. The continuation of the current situation may increase the sanction and put more pressure on Iran and in the worst case may bolster the idea of attacking Iran. So this situation is not desirable for Iran.
Fourth policy is to reduce the level of cooperation with the IAEA and the hostile states. Preventing IAEA inspectors to come to the country and restricting their access to some sites perhaps are some options in this regards. This may be a quick response to the new sanctions and has some domestic consumption. But on the other side it may increase the sanction on Iran and disappoints some Iranian allies in the world and proves the arguments of the west about Iranian non-compliance nature.
The fifth policy is a confrontation strategy which can be divided into two main categories: low-intensified conflict as a result of enforcement of the resolution 1929 to inspect Iranian ships and cargos and Iran’s retaliation in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Limited conflicts in this regard would be occurred. Another category is high-intensified conflict as result of Iran’s change policy to exit from the NPT and trying to make bomb. This policy has the deterrence function for Iran but on the other hand can pave the way for the west to resort to article 42 of UN charter and attack Iran in a way that they did against Iraq in 2003.
I believe that Iran must assess the west strategy and intention of the current measures. They may have four purposes from their actions:
1. Increasing the pressures and sanctions to change the behavior of Iranian government through threat.
2. Continuing the current situation which is bargaining and trying to adopt new resolution.
3. Increasing the sanctions and limited confrontation with Iran in different areas.
4. Increasing the pressure and sanctions to change the Iranian regime.
This is exactly the fact that should be clarified. I think current situation should be changed by Iranian government. If we come to this conclusion that the west cannot tolerate the Iranian regime and this is the beginning of trend to topple Iranian government in Iraq-like manner then Iran should keep every option on the table even achieving to atomic bomb.
For now Iran should apply a combination of all aforementioned policies which it means trying to back the 5+3 to negotiation table and also some confidence building measures and at the same time reduce its cooperation with IAEA and warn the west that Iran can move beyond if they continue their hostile actions. In this regard the fifth way- exiting NPT and making bomb- should not be off the table. The West problem is the nature of Islamic Revolution and all of these actions are excuses to curb Iran. Solving the nuclear issue, this country cannot be sure that another issue would be presented.
To sum up, I extremely emphasis on solving the Iranian nuclear issue through political methods and cooperation with the international community but if the rival powers try to exhaust the country through counterproductive measures, Iran should take into account all possible options to deter the west from interfering and defend itself from probable attacks even by nukes.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com/
Thursday, June 17, 2010
When the Oil Spill Does Matter!
It seems that the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico is going to deteriorate Obama’s political future and overshadow his internal agenda. The Spill makes Obama to talk to his nation for the first time from the Oval Office of the White House and call the event as “the worst environmental and economic disaster” for America. He also mentioned that this is “an assault on American shores and citizens”. A sentence which reminds me of George W. Bush’s rhetoric after the 9/11 attacks. I am not going to say that the Oil Spill is the 9/11 of president Obama but it seems that he himself insist on that. Obama accused British Petroleum of failing to do proper measures to control the Spill and requested from BP to pay compensation to the victims. Obama’s strong rhetoric against BP made British new prime-minister to react to the accusation. It seems that after a century of “special relation” between the US and UK the environmental event deteriorated the liaison. This event has some implications on the US administration and also has some lessons for the International Relations as an academic discipline as follow.
First of all, as I mentioned before the Obama’s political gesture is now at risk by this environmental crisis. Because of the importance of the issue he traveled four times to Louisiana to show his commitment to solve the problem. This is exactly what we can call it a showdown of Obama. According to a poll 52 percent of American people disapprove Obama’s handling of the crisis. This a clear reason for Obama’s concerns. His second term of office may be at stake, so he angrily makes pressure on BP and deployed 27000 national guardsmen to curb the oil leakage to the gulf. History shows the Obama’s legacy in the subject.
The second point is incremental importance of environmental issues in domestic politics and international relations. We are witnessing some kinds of tensions happening in the US-UK relations because of environmental issue. It’s not new but it shows the importance of low politics in International Relations discipline. Some events like climate change, the Iceland volcanic ash, poverty, infectious diseases, Louisiana oil spill etc are going to shape the agenda setting of international arena.
The last point not the least, is the growing significance of NGOs in International Relations. In Oil Spill issue once again we are witnessing that a super-power confronted with an NGO which is simply BP. This event shows that the states are not sole actors of International Relations and some new actors which are not necessarily weak have been appeared. After September 11th the world has recognized terrorist groups as NGOs which can change the trace of history and all the states determined to fight them. It seems that now another kind of NGOs which is economic giant challenged the sovereignty of a super-power. Regardless to the result of this confrontation, these new entities-NGOs- are in the chessboard of International Relations and cannot be ignored whether the states like them or not.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com
First of all, as I mentioned before the Obama’s political gesture is now at risk by this environmental crisis. Because of the importance of the issue he traveled four times to Louisiana to show his commitment to solve the problem. This is exactly what we can call it a showdown of Obama. According to a poll 52 percent of American people disapprove Obama’s handling of the crisis. This a clear reason for Obama’s concerns. His second term of office may be at stake, so he angrily makes pressure on BP and deployed 27000 national guardsmen to curb the oil leakage to the gulf. History shows the Obama’s legacy in the subject.
The second point is incremental importance of environmental issues in domestic politics and international relations. We are witnessing some kinds of tensions happening in the US-UK relations because of environmental issue. It’s not new but it shows the importance of low politics in International Relations discipline. Some events like climate change, the Iceland volcanic ash, poverty, infectious diseases, Louisiana oil spill etc are going to shape the agenda setting of international arena.
The last point not the least, is the growing significance of NGOs in International Relations. In Oil Spill issue once again we are witnessing that a super-power confronted with an NGO which is simply BP. This event shows that the states are not sole actors of International Relations and some new actors which are not necessarily weak have been appeared. After September 11th the world has recognized terrorist groups as NGOs which can change the trace of history and all the states determined to fight them. It seems that now another kind of NGOs which is economic giant challenged the sovereignty of a super-power. Regardless to the result of this confrontation, these new entities-NGOs- are in the chessboard of International Relations and cannot be ignored whether the states like them or not.
http://stratfor.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)