The U.S. Military should shift its focus from Terrorism

There has recently developed the argument that the time has come for military of the United States to shift its focus from terrorism to other matters which are designed to promote international peace. It is for this reason that many policy makers have increasingly started shifting their attention from the war on terror to other initiatives that involve less military involvement in combat and more on peacekeeping and diplomatic initiatives. According to McAllister (2007), the United States in recent years has come to develop some very close relationships with its former adversaries such as Russia, with which it has developed increasing cooperation in matters concerning nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The main reason for the increased cooperation between these countries, according to McAllister is mainly because of the increasing threats to international security through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states as well as the development of religious radicalism which further increases international insecurity. As world leaders, both the United States and Russia have come to realize that they have a common interest in the containment of security threats and these have been exemplified through the increasing risk of terrorist attacks against the United States as well as the radicalization that is taking place in the Caucasus region of Russia. It is mainly through military cooperation between these states, as seen through bilateral, unilateral, and multilateral initiatives, which have ensured that there is proper distribution of international power in ensuring security. McAllister concludes that while the American and Russian militaries have in recent years seen some level of cooperation, the fact remains that these two countries still have a long way to go before they can be able to fully cooperate in all matters concerning international security. It is for this reason that cases that deal directly with national security are dealt with informally, on a case-by-case starting point.

The military-led war on terror has led to a situation where a large number of suspected terrorists have been detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and it is for this reason that there has been plenty of agitation for the release of some of them, because they are deemed to be innocent. Foley (2007) states that the supporters of the policy of detaining individuals for long periods of time without trial justify their support by declaring that it provides the president with the capacity to contain terrorists and through vigorous interrogation are able to provide details of planned attacks. According to Foley, this plan has been widely criticized from its beginnings because it is a direct violation of human rights and lacks in any moral grounds making in illegal. This use of the military in the interrogation and detention of suspected terrorists, Foley states, has been a complete failure because it has led to the imprisonment of some innocent people who have only confessed to crimes they did not commit because of the fear of torture. The fact that the military is used in the development of indiscriminate dragnets, incarceration as well as the use of coercive interrogations who have not been proven to be terrorists has led to the discrediting of the American military, which many believed is a tool of American injustice. There has developed the risk of intelligence agencies being provided with false information through the false confessions of individuals who do not know anything about what they are talking about and this has led to the increasing misinformation that has hampered the progress of the war on terror. Because of the abject failure of coercive interrogations, the United States government has come to fail to comprehend the connection between detention, interrogation, and detentions and this has led to the failure to sort those individuals who are terrorists from non-terrorists through the judicial process.

It is a fact that many of the individuals who, through military action, have been detained are not accorded any of the constitutional rights that are commonplace among most Americans. This has led to the increasing disillusionment of the families of the individuals that have been detained that they will receive justice by proving their innocence. According to Jenkins (2006), in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the individuals who had been detained by the government on suspicion of being terrorists only had limited rights and that because of this; they had no ability to challenge their status as enemy combatants. Jenkins further states that it was in response to this case that the Bush government formed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), although this tribunal proved not to be effective because it functioned as the propagator of the government’s case against the detainees. This tribunal has proven to apply a broad definition to all of those individuals who have been categorized as enemy combatants and because the detainees are prohibited from having lawyers, they are not able to argue against the tribunal’s decision to detain them indefinitely. The military commissions which were developed by the Bush government to try detainees on charges of terrorism and war crimes have, according to Jenkins, been rigged against the accused. This is mainly because of the fact that these commissions rely completely on the confessions coerced from the detainees through torture, the use of hearsay, as well as the use of soldiers as jurors. Because military commissions have the power of passing the death sentence to those who are brought before them has created a situation where it is extremely difficult for the individuals who have been falsely accused to get out of the situation alive. This is the reason why some innocent detainees, in their attempt to stay alive end up falsely accusing others and confessing to crimes they did not commit as a way of avoiding the death sentence. In addition, Jenkins states that because of the rigged rules that have been put in place in the trials of detainees, it has become the norm for investigators to remain confident that they will win all the cases that are brought before them. This is mainly because investigators have come to see little need to infiltrate terrorist organizations to gain tangible or credible details for their cases, relying on the mostly false confessions of their detainees. Kim and Allard (2008) state that since its development, there have been many challenges faced by the Department of Homeland Security in its attempt to create a common culture within the intelligence agencies under its jurisdiction. It is the development of a common culture between these disparate agencies that, in addition to the military, is essential for the development of a comprehensive antiterrorism strategy. This has not been the case and has led to the failure of intelligence agencies to develop accurate databases, and this has resulted in the failure of some military operations meant to deal with terrorist threats.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States has led to the development of a new American approach to foreign policy which is intimately tied to the security of the nation. According to Miles (2012), the American foreign policy towards Africa has been based on ensuring its security and this has come to rival development as the main reason behind American involvement in this continent. All development programs and projects that are of American origin have attached to them a security dimension, developed by the department of defense, which works hand in hand with such institutions as USAID. Miles argues that the high potential for acts of terrorism to be committed in the United States has led it to adopt policies towards Africa which serve to undermine its development. This is the reason, he states, why it is important for the United States to adopt counterterrorism measures towards Africa which are fairly mild to ensure that it becomes a strategic as well as developmental defense activity. Miles, in the writing of his article uses records as well as a study of the American policies towards the Maghreb region from the Bush through to the Obama administrations. The result of this study is that since the 9/11 attacks, the American policy towards this region has seriously shifted, ensuring that the previously diverse developmental and security initiatives in the region have become converged into one initiative. The result of this has been that there has developed a wide range of sympathetic public opinion throughout Africa towards the American military involvement in their countries, with many believing that they are the best option for deterring terrorism. This, however, has not been the case in American public, where there is a large number of people who question the validity of the military being actively involved in the developmental and security programs of African nations when they can do more in fighting terrorism.

The American military involvement in the war on terror has had an adverse effect on the internal stability of some countries such as Pakistan, which has since the beginning of this initiative, been a staunch American ally. According to Khan (2010), Pakistan’s military alliance with the United States has led to a situation where it is currently facing an internal crisis. This crisis stems from the fact that the government which recently came to power has had to contend with the commitments made by the previous government to the American cause as well as maintaining a stable relationship with its neighbors that has been soured by the war on terror. Khan further states that it is because of Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror that its security has come under threat not only from India, its longtime rival, but also Afghanistan. Khan therefore offers the opinion that the only solution for this situation is for the United States to restrain the activities of India along the border close to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Moreover, according to Mohamadian (2012), there has been numerous debates among scholars concerning the unilateral military actions that the United States has taken in the Middle East which have come to affect diplomacy and international relations. While the intentions of some of these interventions might have been sound, the result has been arise in sectarian violence, especially in Iraq, as well as the prevalence of terrorist attacks, and these have come to threaten the American-led initiative to rebuild the Iraqi state. Furthermore, Ahmad (2010) states that there has developed some friction between the United States’ counterterrorism initiative and the one of Pakistan and this have created a situation where there is conflict between their national interests. Pakistan’s reliance on irregular warfare in its region is one of its instruments of national security and this has come to be challenged by the United States government which seeks to bring these activities to an end, therefore not serving Pakistan’s national interests.

LGBT Rights in Russia

The Russian government has been involved in the abuse of the rights of the gay community within it, and this has been done through the introduction of laws which have led to the outright discrimination of this community. The absolute power of the state of the state has ensured that it has been able to develop anti-gay laws which are completely discriminatory towards the gay people in Russia. This has created a situation where many people of homosexual inclination within the country have been forced to hide their orientation for fear that they might become victims of the anti-gay propaganda that has become prevalent. However, while the government has and continues to be a foremost perpetrator of the discrimination against gay people in the country, there has also developed an increasing threat from many of the ultra-nationalist groups that have come into existence. The members of these groups have been known to attack, murder and display other forms of violence against gay people in the belief that the latter are going against the cultural values of Russia by being open about their sexual orientation. The fact that some cultural values can be discriminatory towards some members of the society does not seem to occur to them, with a majority holding the belief that gay people in Russia have to be exterminated. Moreover, the government has been a passive supporter of the actions of ultra-nationalist gangs through not taking any of the cases concerning the victimization of gay people seriously. The fact that the government is able to stand by and do nothing to contain abuses against its citizens, despite their being gay, is evidence that these gangs are conducting their activities with its approval.

The Russian state is one of the biggest perpetrators of abuses against the gay people living in the country and this discrimination seems to be done with the intention of ensuring that they are completely suppressed. The fact that the state is the main sponsor of laws which prevent gay people from being open about their orientation and from having the same rights as other Russians has become a source of widespread concern for the gay community in Russia. The government has worked towards portraying homosexuality as being foreign to Russian cultural values and that it is propaganda from the decadent West which seeks to undermine the Russian state and people. While these claims by government officials can be considered to be preposterous, the fact remains that many Russians have come to be influenced by them and recent years have seen many individuals being openly discriminatory towards gay people. Gay people in Russia have come to be labeled as foreign agents whose aim is to bring chaos to Russia through the spread of gay propaganda that corrupts Russian people, especially the children. The fact that many gay people are not even politically active and whose only wish is to be accepted in the society is hardly ever taken into account and this has created a lot of problems for gay people in Russia. One would say that it has become very dangerous to be gay in Russia since the laws which have been passed by the Russian parliament against them as well as the actions of ultra-nationalist groups have made being gay taboo in the society.

Russia is a signatory of several human rights documents such as Universal declaration of Human Rights as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, but while this may be the case, the Russian state has not necessarily been bound by these international laws in its treatment of the gay community. Instead, despite being bound by these laws which prohibit any form of violation of the rights of individuals within Russia, the government has gone ahead and passed laws which are in contravention with international laws. Russia has completely disregarded the above-mentioned human rights laws, both binding and non-binding in its bid to ensure that the gay community is completely suppressed within the state. The importance of international laws when dealing with gay rights in Russia has been ignored as the government has continued to determinedly move ahead with its agenda, which is the total removal of the gay people and voice from the society. The fact that in June 2013, the Russian parliament passed a law banning any form of propaganda aimed at minors and promoting nontraditional sexual preferences is one of the steps that the government has taken against gay people. That this law is in contravention of the basic human rights of all the gay people in Russia has not been put into consideration and the fact has remained that it is being ruthlessly enforced. Many Russians of gay orientation have over the past few years found themselves in trouble for the most minor of offences and this has been because of the over-zealousness of government officials and law enforcement agencies in their bid to enforce the anti-gay propaganda law. Because of the vague wording in the law, government officials have made broad interpretations concerning it and the arrests and prosecutions that have been taking place have ensured that the voice of the gay community within Russia has been stifled. The ability of the state to disregard international laws that protect the rights of its people has created a situation where it has now become possible for the Russian government to continue conducting its repression of the gay community in its territory without any serious consequences from the international community.

In the case of LGBT rights in Russia, international law seems not to be able to protect them because of the government’s unwillingness to protect these rights. The Russian government has been a consistent opponent of the gay people in the country being able to enjoy equal rights to those of their fellow Russians and while this stance has been condemned by the international community, it has largely been ignored. The massive popularity that the Russian government currently enjoys has ensured that the bulk of the population has remained staunchly behind the law, with some individuals going as far as to take matters into their own hands by directly attacking gay people. The result has been that members of the gay community in Russia have continued to be under siege since their future within the country has increasingly become uncertain. It is currently in the hands of the Russian government to determine and assure the future rights of the gay community in Russia and this can only be done through the repealing of all laws which criminalize homosexuality.

A Geopolitical Profile of Russia

Introduction

Russia is one of the most influential geopolitical entities in the world today and this is mainly as a result of its unique position in the global arena. This country has been extremely influential in the Eurasian region for much of its history and this influence has not only been political, but cultural as well. The power of this state, from the time of the tsars to the post-communist world can be considered to have essentially remained intact within the region surrounding it. This country is normally ranked second only to the United States in its ability to project its power across the globe and it is mainly as a result of this that it has been able to retain its influence long after falling from its superpower status.

Geography

Russia is the largest country in the world with its borders stretching from northern Europe across northern Asia to the Bering Straits. As the largest country in the world, with an area of 17,075,400 square kilometres, it is one of the few countries in the world that have a diversity of natural resources, people, as well as neighbouring countries. The result is that this country has come to exert a lot of influence over a large territory as well as its neighbours for centuries. Its geographical position is unique because it allows it to wield some influence on three continents as well as being able to project itself militarily. Russia incorporates a wide range of climates and environments within its territory and these have had an effect on its historical development. Moreover, this country has borders with a diverse number of countries including China, Norway, Lithuania, Finland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the United States across the Bering Straits, among many others.  The geographical position of this country has also placed it on top of the largest oil and gas reserves on the planet and this country has been able to ensure that this resource is used to further its geopolitical power over the Eurasian region. In addition to oil and natural gas, Russia has other significant resources which include deposits of timber, coal, and as well as mineral resources that have given it an advantage over other countries in the region. As the largest producer of natural gas in the world, Russia is in a unique position to determine the futures of some of its neighbouring countries, most of which were former member states of the Soviet Union. It is through its unique position as being the number one producer of natural gas, in addition to oil, that it has been able to ensure that it maintains its influence over the region because it has the funding necessary to make its influence felt. The large forests that are found in the region of Siberia are second only to the Amazon jungle in Brazil and they are believed to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide which helps to ensure that the air in the region is kept clean. The eastern parts of Russia are relatively sparsely populated when compared to the European side which carries the bulk of the population. While this may be the case, there are a significant number of people in all its administrative regions, these being individuals who have for the most part acclimatised to the harsh climate that occurs especially in the northernmost parts of the country. While Russia has come to occupy such a large area, this was not the case in its early centuries where it was essentially divided into diverse city-states and duchies controlled by members of the Rurik dynasty. However, all this changed when these disparate city states were unified and the Russian state began its expansion in earnest during the 16th century. The result was that it ended up conquering much of the land that had once been occupied by the Mongol Golden Horde. Its occupation of new lands sealed its fate in world history because it is through its size as well as its multiethnic make up that this state has come to be recognised into the modern world. Through its new found geographical acquisitions, Russia was able to make sure that it was no longer a victim of the aggression of other European powers. Instead, its geographical position became the basis upon which its status as a great European power was established and this would continue until the fall of Communism in 1991.

History

The Russian state was established in the tenth century by a legendary group of Vikings based in Kiev and this would later expand into what came to be known as Russia. The founders of this state, according to legend, were Rurik and his brothers who would eventually end up forming the Rurik dynasty that would rule Russia until the death of Ivan the Terrible. The early Russian state was essentially a pagan one with little interaction with the outside world until Prince Vladimir of Kiev converted to Orthodox Christianity, thus establishing ties with the Byzantine Empire. The growth of the Russian state was brought to a sudden halt in the thirteenth century during the Mongol conquest which resulted in the sacking of Kiev. The destruction of the first Russian state led to a shift of power to Moscow, which was ruled by another Rurik prince and was a vassal of the Mongols. The vassalage to the Mongols of the Golden Horde ensured the survival of the Russian state in Moscow in the form of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. This would eventually rise to such great prominence that it would not only overthrow Mongol rule, but would eventually evolve into the Russian Empire, encompassing all the lands of the Golden Horde. With the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks, Russia, which had also established ties through dynastic marriage, claimed to be the heir to the power and glory of Caesars. In this way, Moscow came to be considered the third Rome and its rulers began to be called Tsars, Russian for Caesar.

Russia entered the modern age under the rule of Peter the Great whose efforts were directed at making his country a truly European state. He forced the Russians to cease some of the traditions that seemed to keep them back and were considered unEuropean. Furthermore, he established a new capital closer to Europe at St. Petersburg, essentially choosing it over Moscow as the preeminent city in the Russian Empire. In addition to these efforts, Peter the Great carried out campaigns which ensured that the empire was greatly expanded while at the same time gaining political leverage with other European states through developing modern means of shipping as well as adopting the European culture, especially that of France. However, despite these efforts, Peter was not able to end one of the institutions which held Russia back from becoming one of the most powerful states in Europe, serfdom. Serfdom had existed in Russia for centuries and this institution had developed to such an extent that individuals, particularly serfs, were essentially slaves in their own land. The serfs formed the majority of the Russian population and these were tied to the land which for the most part was held by nobles or boyars; individuals who practically owned the serfs on their land. Serfdom remained a stain in Peter’s legacy and it would eventually be the motivation behind the Russian Revolution centuries later in the early twentieth century.

The Russian Revolution and the resulting civil war is one of the most significant events to have taken place in the twentieth century because it ensured the rise of communism in the former Russian Empire, which became the Soviet Union, and later across the globe. The Russian royal family was put to death and the monarchy abolished to be replaced by a communist state under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was a charismatic leader who was a staunch believer in Marxist philosophy and sought to ensure that communism spread all over the world. His death and succession by Josef Stalin led to a new phase in the development of communism in Russia with Stalin choosing a more aggressive approach to that taken by his predecessor. He made a deal with the Nazi government in Germany for the partition of Poland and after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, he changed sides and joined the allies in the Second World War. The fall of Britain, Germany, and France as great powers after the Second World War paved the way for the Soviet Union to become a global superpower alongside the United States and this ushered in considerable rivalry between these states that became known as the Cold War. The power of these countries was based on their having considerable nuclear arsenals; the latter ensuring that there was no direct confrontation between these superpowers. The fall of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most significant events in the later twentieth century because it ensured American pre-eminence in a unipolar world.

Power

Despite its loss of power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has remained an important player in regional and global politics. One of its greatest strengths is that it has been able to maintain a level of influence over a majority of former soviet republics especially through the significant number of Russians living in these countries. Furthermore, as a result of its size as well as abundant natural resources, especially natural gas and oil, this country has been able to ensure that it exerts a level of influence over its neighbours. This is especially the case with the European Union which for years developed deals of cooperation with Russia while the latter supplied it with one third of its natural gas supplies. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has seen its influence rise on the global stage, with its becoming more assertive about its interests. Through its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council, Russia has been able to ensure that it not only protects its legitimate interests, but also those of its allies. The result has been that it has increasingly cooperated with China to break the dominance of the United States and its allies over global affairs. Russia is also a nuclear state with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and this has helped in securing its position in the globe as well as acting as a deterrent to powers that would otherwise led to its demise.

However, despite its strengths, Russia also has several weaknesses which might create a situation where it loses its geopolitical position. Among these is its overreliance on its oil and natural gas production to cater for some 50% of its budget. This overreliance on its natural resources has created a situation where Russia has essentially failed to diversify its economy and this poses a potential threat from a geopolitical perspective. Furthermore, its aggressive stance to protect its natural interests has made it a target for American and European Union sanctions with the latter seeing Russian re-emergence as a threat to their global dominance. These sanctions, imposed in 2014 at the height of the Ukraine crisis and Russian annexation of Crimea, have been harmful to the Russian economy and have led to its shrinking. The fall of global oil prices has also diminished Russia’s budgetary capabilities; hampering its continued rise as a dominant geopolitical power in the Eurasian continent.

Russia has attempted to ensure that it no longer loses its influence over former soviet republics after Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not only joined NATO but also the European Union. This is the reason why Russia has chosen to take on a more aggressive stance because it considers NATO encroachment on its borders as a threat. The wars first in Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing Ukraine civil war are actions which have been taken by Russia to prevent former soviet republics from joining NATO. Since the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency in 2012, the relationship between Russia and the United States has soured as each has come to view each other with increasing suspicion. The mutual suspicion between these two nuclear armed states has increased tensions to almost Cold War proportions and it has led to a situation where despite not confronting each other directly, they have become involved in a proxy war in the Ukraine as well as in Syria where Russian support has ensured that Bashar Al Assad has remained in power.

Conclusion

Russia has remained a powerful actor in the Eurasian region; a factor which can be attributed to its nuclear capabilities as well as the abundance of natural resources within its borders. The size of this country has also ensured that it pursues a complex foreign policy designed to address its interests with its numerous neighbours. Russia has increasingly aligned itself with such countries as China and Iran in a bid to diminish American influence over the rest of the world and in a bid to create a multipolar world. It is yet to be seen whether its geopolitical objectives will be met in the near future amid the economic sanctions that have been enforced by the United States and its allies. The rise of Russian nationalism as a result of the Ukraine crisis has seen a level of unprecedented support for the Russian government and its actions; a situation which has ensured that the government is able to pursue its objectives internationally with the full support of a majority of the Russian populace.

The Extension of Russian Sanctions is Ill-advised

The Trump administration, through its UN ambassador, recently stated that the eruption of violence in eastern Ukraine was Russia’s fault and that as a result, sanctions are going to remain in place. This action is likely to be considered hostile by Russia especially considering that the crisis in Ukraine can be blamed on both sides of the conflict. Since the election of President Trump, a considerable amount of optimist has developed in Russia that its government is going to work well with the United States to ensure that some of the most critical issues that are of common interest are addressed. The beginning of such a relationship was to be promoted by a lifting of sanctions, leading to the normalization of relations. However, this hope has receded slightly because of the American decision to extend sanctions.

The sanctions regime against Russia fails to put into consideration that it was the Obama administration, rather than Russia, which started the Ukraine crisis. It was American agents, under the direction of undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, that instigated and facilitated the so-called Maidan Revolution that led to the overthrow of a legitimately and democratically elected president. Ukraine was not an
d has never been a part of what can be considered the traditional American sphere of influence. Instead, it has consistently been a part of the Russian world. Ukraine, specifically the city of Kyiv, is considered the cradle of the Russian civilization and both Russia and Ukraine consider themselves to be descended from Kievan Rus. The close linguistic and familial ties that many Russians and Ukrainians share cannot be underestimated, and this is the reason why the crisis in Ukraine is so tragic.

Ukraine has a long history of being under Russian dominance and there was a time when most of its eastern parts were known Novorossiya, or New Russia. Its close ties to Russia cannot be denied and it is in Russia’s interests to ensure that it has friendly relations with Ukraine. This was the case until the crisis, encouraged by the Obama administration, took place. The Russian reaction to the revolution in Ukraine was highly restrained because even though its ally and democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and a nationalist government put in his place, Russia did not undertake a full-scale invasion. Russia, instead, undertook two measured actions; the return of Crimea without bloodshed, and the provision of support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine. If, for example, a similar circumstance as the Maidan Revolution had taken place in Mexico with the active support of Russia, the United States would have acted to ensure that Russian influence was pushed back because it would have been considered a threat to its nationalsecurity. The fact that there is indeed a rebellion in eastern Ukraine shows that the Maidan Revolution did not have the support of the entire Ukrainian population. Instead, the revolution brought about a situation where the country ended up being dominated by a government filled by nationalist elements that leaned towards fascism. In addition, if it were truly a genuine government, it would have sought to implement the Minsk Agreements by giving the eastern Ukrainian oblasts the autonomy that it had promised; allowing for their participation in the national elections. Currently, the government in Kyiv is dominated by western Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to any attempts to end the civil war. The result is that it is in their interest to ensure that a conflict with Russian-backed rebels continues in order for them to have some claim to legitimacy. Therefore, it is wrong for the Trump administration to continue sanctions against Russia, which essentially remains an outside actor, because despite Russian support for the rebels, it is up to the Ukrainians themselves to get to the negotiations table and sort out their own problems.