Superpower Rivalry and Conflict

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Superpower Rivalry and Conflict Template: Royal A, Font: , Date: 11/08/2009; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT) Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415550253/dtp/9780415550253.3d Superpower Rivalry and Conflict The long shadow of the Cold War on the twenty-first century Edited by Chandra Chari Template: Royal A, Font: , Date: 11/08/2009; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT) Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415550253/dtp/9780415550253.3d First published 2010 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2010 Chandra Chari for selection and editorial matter; individual contributors their contribution Typeset in by Taylor & Francis Books Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Superpower rivalry and conflict : the long shadow of the Cold War on the twenty-first century / edited by Chandra Chari. p. cm. – (Routledge advances in international relations and global politics ; 81) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. World politics–21st century. 2. Cold War. I. Chandra Chari. D863.3.S87 2010 909.83'1–dc22 2009020745 ISBN 978-0-415-55025-3 hbk ISBN 978-0-203-86533-0 ebook Template: Royal A, Font: , Date: 11/08/2009; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT) Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415550253/dtp/9780415550253.3d 6 Pakistan and the Cold War Stephen P. Cohen Introduction Pakistan is undergoing a prolonged internal crisis, one that has been com- pounded by strained relations with its neighbours, and even with its allies. It is tempting to attribute its present difficulties to its involvement in the Cold War, and particularly to its relations with the United States.1 This is most frequently done by Pakistani analysts, but scholars and practitioners from other countries often share this approach. However, absolute judgments about the connection between the Cold War and contemporary perplexities are often misguided. History is obviously one guide to the present, but it is more often a trap, as bits and pieces of the past are coupled in order to create a reality that never existed. This chapter seeks to assess the causes and consequences of Pakistan’s engagement in the Cold War from several perspectives. What were the pushes and pulls that brought Pakistan to the point where its leaders liked to boast (especially to Americans) that it was the ‘most allied’ of American allies? What were the American and British motives in bringing Pakistan into their orbit? What were the political, economic, and ideological consequences of Pakistan’s participation in the Western alliance system, notably on the very identity of the Pakistani state? Finally, what are the lessons? Since Pakistan’s incentives for joining the alliance system were largely India-oriented, what has been the impact on India and the region? Thinking about alliances and security In 1945 ‘Pakistan’ was an idea, not a state, and very little thought was given to strategic implications in the event of its creation. If there was any concern about South Asia’s security, it revolved around India’s status, not Pakistan’s. The British themselves were ambivalent: many liked and respected ‘Muslim India’, and some favoured the idea of an independent Pakistani state. But others saw that if there were to be a split, then the larger India would be the dominant regional power. Strategically, the British thought that India and Pakistan would have to enter into some form of military confederation, Template: Royal A, Font: , Date: 11/08/2009; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT) Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415550253/dtp/9780415550253.3d Pakistan and the Cold War 75 requiring a British presence in the region for many years to come. The assumption was that both India and Pakistan would remain dependent on the former colonial power. As for the Americans, they were more familiar with India than with the still-theoretical notion of an independent Muslim state in South Asia. This familiarity arose through the writings and reputation of leading Hindu poli- tical figures, notably Mohandas K. Gandhi (the ‘Mahatma’) and Jawaharlal Nehru. Their only peer and rival in the Muslim community, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was unknown to most Americans. By 1947, the regional security debate revolved around two questions. First, how would an independent Pakistan stand between India and Afghanistan, on the one hand, and between India and the Soviet Union, on the other? Could Pakistan maintain a viable army? Would it serve as a bul- wark for India against Soviet pressure or radical Islamic movements? Jinnah, the leading figure in the Pakistan movement, and the late poet-philosopher Mohammed Iqbal, argued that a new Pakistan would enhance the defence of the subcontinent precisely because of its Islamic nature. Neither man correctly foretold Pakistan’s strategic fate. According to Iqbal, whose ideas under- pinned the Pakistan movement, the Muslims of Punjab and the Northwest Frontier Province would ‘be the best defenders of India against a foreign invasion, be that invasion the one of ideas or bayonets’.2 Iqbal wrongly believed that the Islamic nature of a new Pakistan would give it inherent strength. Jinnah, too, was excessively optimistic in thinking that the mino- rities in Pakistan would be hostages to good behaviour, and that natural cul- tural and economic linkages would strengthen relations between its various groups. The original idea of Pakistan was as a homeland for Indian Muslims, a place where they would not be dominated by the Hindu majority in a one- man-one-vote democracy. Few advocates of Pakistan dreamt that Pakistan and India would become bitter enemies, or that the armed forces of Pakistan would dominate Pakistani politics. Other Indian Muslims were more sceptical. The Congress politician Shau- katullah Ansari argued that Pakistan would have insufficient resources to defend itself without outside help, for it would face three conflicts involving two fronts. In the west there was a potential threat from both the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, in the east from Japan and China, and in both the east and west from India. Further, a united India would be a great power, whereas a divided one would be as weak as Egypt, Burma or ‘Siam’, and the British would use an independent Pakistan to control India (this idea later resurfaced in India, with the United States replacing Britain as the potentially controlling power). Ansari failed to persuade Congress to concede a sub- stantial degree of autonomy to the Muslims of a united India, perhaps as a confederation.3 The most prescient politician of them all, when it came to assessing what Pakistan would become, was the Scheduled Caste leader B. R. Ambedkar, Template: Royal A, Font: , Date: 11/08/2009; 3B2 version: 9.1.470/W Unicode (Jun 2 2008) (APS_OT) Dir: P:/eProduction/WIP/9780415550253/dtp/9780415550253.3d 76 Stephen P. Cohen who argued that India stood to benefit from a separate Pakistan, which would leave most of the subcontinent’s wealth in predominately Hindu India and make Pakistan, with its poor resource base, a weak state. Ambedkar also noted that India’s army would no longer be dominated by Muslims, and its primarily Hindu civilian government would not be vulnerable to the army. ‘A safe army,’ Ambedkar commented, ‘is better than a safe border.’4 The second strategic calculation involved Pakistan and Britain’s far-flung territories in the east, notably Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore. Some British strategists distrusted Congress and Nehru, and saw Pakistan as a more reliable ally, one that could facilitate British contacts with these colonies, and Australia and New Zealand. Eventually Americans, too, came to see the strategic value of West Pakistan’s location, particularly as a possible bomber base on the Soviet Union’s southern flank. This perception eventually led to close ties between the West and Pakistan’s fledgling army, but for the first ten years the army was too small and too junior to play any role other than a military one. It did, however, become a conduit for western influence. Into the alliance The process by which Pakistan became a Cold War ally can be quickly sum- marized. At independence in 1947, Pakistan became a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.5 It retained Britons in high administrative and military positions, and the United Kingdom was the initial source of military supplies and officer training. In 1954, Pakistan and Iraq signed mutual cooperation agreements with Turkey (a NATO member). Britain and Iran also entered into security arrangements, and the ‘Middle East Defence Orga- nization’, more popularly known as the ‘Baghdad Pact’, was formed in 1955, loosely modelled upon NATO. The United States never became a full member. The name of the organization was changed to the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) after the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958. CENTO had little formal structure, but the United States and Britain had access to facilities in Pakistan, notably an air base outside of Peshawar from which U-2 intelligence flights over the Soviet Union were launched. There was also an important signals intelligence centre located there.
Recommended publications
  • How Does Nato Work?
    WHAT IS NATO? Visit our website : www.nato.int #WEARENATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the These countries meet to cooperate in the field of world’s major international institutions. It is a political security and defence. In this respect, NATO provides and military alliance that brings together 30 member a unique link between these two continents for political countries from Europe and North America. and security cooperation. PROTECTING PEOPLE COMBATING NEW THREATS We often take it for granted that we can walk around freely in As the nature of threats changes, so must the methods a safe and economically stable environment. Security in all of preserving peace. NATO is reorienting its defence areas of everyday life is key to our well-being. capabilities towards today’s threats. It is adapting forces and developing multinational approaches to deal with terrorism, FORGING PARTNERSHIPS failed states and other security threats such as weapons of mass destruction. Establishing dialogue and cooperation is crucial for peaceful relations and deeper international understanding. BUILDING PEACE & STABILITY NATO provides a unique opportunity for member and partner countries to consult on security issues to build trust The benefits of stability can be enjoyed simultaneously by and, in the long run, help to prevent conflict. many parties. Through practical cooperation and multilateral initiatives, It is crucial to stabilise regions where tensions pose security countries are facing new security challenges together. threats. This is why NATO takes an active role in crisis- management operations, in cooperation with other international organisations. WHAT DOES NATO DO? NATO is committed to protecting its members efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to through political and military means.
    [Show full text]
  • Tied to Conflict: the Causes and Consequences of Rivalry Linkage
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2012 Tied to Conflict: The Causes and Consequences of Rivalry Linkage Douglas Hamilton Spence [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Spence, Douglas Hamilton, "Tied to Conflict: The Causes and Consequences of Rivalry Linkage. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1410 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Douglas Hamilton Spence entitled "Tied to Conflict: The Causes and Consequences of Rivalry Linkage." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Political Science. Brandon C. Prins, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Ian Down, Nathan Kelly, Wonjae Hwang, Carl Pierce Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Tied to Conflict: The Causes and Consequences Of Rivalry Linkage A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Douglas H.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States
    HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM and the INTELLIGENCE POLICY CENTER THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Homeland Security Program RAND Intelligence Policy Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO-Afghanistan Relations
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization www.nato.int/factsheets Media Backgrounder June 2021 NATO-Afghanistan relations Opening of a new-chapter NATO and Afghanistan will now open a new chapter in their relations, as the process of withdrawing international troops contributed to the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions is ongoing. NATO Allies are committed to continue to stand with Afghanistan, its people and its institutions in promoting security and upholding the hard-won gains of the last NATO Secretary General Jens 20 years. Stoltenberg and President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan NATO will continue to provide training, as well as financial support to the Afghan National Defence and Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, Security Forces, including through the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. November 2018. It will retain a Senior Civilian Representative’s Office in Kabul to continue diplomatic engagement and enhance our partnership with Afghanistan. The Office of the Senior Civilian Representative will engage with a range of actors, including from Afghanistan, countries in the region, the International Community and NGOs representatives. Also, in light of the importance of an enduring diplomatic and international presence, NATO will provide funding to ensure continued functioning of Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Furthermore, NATO will step up dialogue on Afghanistan with relevant international and regional partners; and all NATO Allies will continue to support the ongoing Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process towards a lasting, inclusive political settlement that puts and end to violence, safeguards the human rights of Afghans – particularly women, children and minorities – upholds the rule of law, and ensures that Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for terrorists.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Enlargement & Open Door
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet July 2016 NATO Enlargement & Open Door NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”. NATO enlargement has helped increase stability and prosperity in Europe. It is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy and common values. Free choice NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance. This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to. Process of Accession European countries that wish to join NATO are initially invited to begin an Intensified Dialogue with the Alliance about their aspirations and related reforms. Aspirants may then be invited to join the Membership Action Plan, a programme which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Participation does not guarantee membership, but is a key preparation mechanism. To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Chapter in NATO-Afghanistan Relations
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Media Backgrounder February 2016 A new chapter in NATO-Afghanistan relations NATO’s engagement in Afghanistan has started a new chapter. As of 2015, NATO’s support to Afghanistan has consisted of three inter-related components: a NATO-led Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions; a contribution to the broad effort of financial sustainment of the Afghan security forces; and the enhanced NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership, which is being developed jointly with the Government of Afghanistan. Resolute Support Mission Resolute Support is a NATO-led, non combat mission. It was launched on 1 January 2015, following the conclusion of the previous NATO-led ISAF mission, and the assumption of full security responsibility by the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF). It is designed to help the Afghan security forces and institutions develop the necessary capacity to continue defending the country and protecting the population in a sustainable manner. It carries out training, advice and assistance activities at the security ministries and national institutional levels and at the higher levels of the army and police. This new mission has several functions. These include, amongst others: • Supporting planning, programming and budgeting; • Assuring transparency, accountability and oversight; • Supporting the adherence to the principles of rule of law and good governance; • Supporting the establishment and sustainment of processes such as force generation, recruiting, training, managing and development of personnel. Resolute Support currently has approximately 13,000 personnel from NATO Allies and partner nations. It operates with one hub (Kabul/Bagram) and four spokes (Mazar-e-Sharif in the north, Herat in the west, Kandahar in the south, and Laghman in the east).
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Greek Coup of 1967
    Were the Eagle and the Phoenix Birds of a Feather? The United States and the Greek Coup of 1967 by Louis Klarevas Assistant Professor of Political Science City University of New York—College of Staten Island & Associate Fellow Hellenic Observatory—London School of Economics Discussion Paper No. 15 Hellenic Observatory-European Institute London School of Economics Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/hellenicObservatory February 2004 Author’s Note: The author wishes to thank the Hellenic Observatory of the London School of Economics for its generous support in the undertaking of this project. The author also wishes to thank Kevin Featherstone, Spyros Economides, and Dimitrios Triantaphyllou for comments on a previous draft. In the summer of 2004, Greece will host the Olympic Games. Americans attending the games and visiting traditional tourist stops in Athens are sure to be greeted with open arms. But for those who delve a bit further into the country-side seeking a taste of average Greek life, some are sure to hear some fascinating tales flavored with a strong hint of anti-Americanism. To many foreigners that visit Greece these days, it might seem like the cradle of democracy is also the cradle of conspiracy. Take these schemes, for example: (1) Orthodox Serbs, not Muslims, were the true victims of the slaughters in the Balkans during the 1990s—and the primary reason that NATO intervened was so that the United States could establish a military foothold there;1 (2) the U.S. Ambassador played a tacit role in the removal of the Secretary- General of Greece’s ruling political party;2 and (3) the attack on the World Trade Center was a joint Jewish-American conspiracy to justify a Western war against Muslims—with reports that no Jews died in the September 11 attacks.3 All of these perspectives have numerous subscribers in Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Things You Need to Know About NATO
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet July 2016 10 things you need to know about NATO 1. An International Security Hub: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of the world’s major international institutions. It is a political and military Alliance of 28 member countries from Europe and North America. The Alliance takes all its decisions by consensus. Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in discussions and decisions. Member states are committed to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are at the heart of NATO’s transatlantic bond. 2. Collective Defence: The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend NATO’s territory and populations. Article 5 of NATO’s founding charter, the Washington Treaty, sets out the Alliance’s collective defence commitment. It states that an attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO’s history, on 12 September 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks on the United States. 3. NATO’s Command Structure: NATO has a permanent, integrated military command structure where military and civilian personnel from all member states work together. The Alliance has two top-level Strategic Commands (Allied Command Operations, in Mons, Belgium, and Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, United States). Under these Strategic Commands are two Joint Force Commands (in Brunssum, Netherlands and in Naples, Italy) that can deploy and run military operations. The Command Structure also includes one air command (Ramstein, Germany), one land command (Izmir, Turkey) and one maritime command (Northwood, United Kingdom).
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO's Largest Members
    ANALYSIS PAPER July 2012 The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO’s Largest Members Clara Marina O’Donnell (editor) Contributors: Andrew Dorman, Bastian Giegerich, Camille Grand, Adam Grissom and Christian Mölling The Brookings Institution is a private non-profit organization. Its mission is to conduct high- quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. Support for this report was generously provided by the German Information Center USA. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides to any supporter is in its absolute commitment to quality, independence and impact. Activities sponsored by its donors reflect this commitment, and the analysis and recommendations of the Institution’s scholars are not determined by any donation. Copyright © 2012 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 www.brookings.edu The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO’s Largest Members 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 Clara Marina O’Donnell, Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings Institution, and Research Fellow, Centre for European Reform I. Trends within the European Union...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The US Intelligence Community and Changing World Context
    Critique: A worldwide student journal of politics Moving Targets: The U.S. Intelligence Community and Changing World Context1 Mitchell Troup Bridgewater College [email protected] Introduction In 1975, Senator Frank Church described the CIA as a “rogue elephant rampaging out of control”—going about its destructive business with impunity; accomplishing its covert tasks with overwhelming power and little regard for those in the way (Ameringer, 1990:348). In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the very same agency is facing inquiry, along with other members of the intelligence community such as the FBI and NSA, into its ineffectiveness and failure to predict the attacks. Has the intelligence community changed so much over time? The context and circumstances of global politics are rapidly changing, and with them change the threats and problems with which the state is concerned. With the growing importance of non-state threats to security such as terrorism, weapons proliferation, and the drug trade, the state-based system finds itself countering problems increasingly further removed from the historical issues and assumptions of the system. The intelligence community, while effectively structured against state-based threats, is insufficiently prepared for the emergence of new non-state actors. This shortcoming is significant, but it can and should be overcome to allow intelligence organizations to retain their effectiveness in the changing world context. Establishment of the Intelligence Community The modern intelligence community was founded in the wake of World War II by the National Security Act of 1947. Preceding the war, American leaders (including President Roosevelt) were disappointed with the rivalry, lack of coordination, and lack of expertise within the intelligence community, which was made up of the information gathering and analysis services from each branch of the armed services.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO-Afghanistan Relations
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization www.nato.int/factsheets Media Backgrounder April 2020 NATO-Afghanistan relations NATO-Afghanistan relations NATO is strongly committed to its mission in Afghanistan. NATO’s support to Afghanistan is focused on three main areas: • the NATO-led Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions; NATO Secretary General Jens • funding of the Afghan security forces as part of a broader international effort; Stoltenberg and President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan • and the NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership, which is being developed jointly with the Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, Government of Afghanistan. November 2018. Resolute Support Mission Resolute Support is a NATO-led, non-combat mission. It was launched on 1 January 2015, following the conclusion of the previous NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission, and the assumption of full security responsibility by the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF). The mission was launched at the invitation of the Afghan government and in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2189 of 2014. Its purpose is to help the Afghan security forces and institutions develop the capacity to defend Afghanistan and protect its citizens in a sustainable manner. The Resolute Support Mission currently consists of around 16,000 troops from 38 NATO Allies and partners. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also joining this NATO-led mission. This is a strong symbol of continued global support to the government and the people of Afghanistan. The Resolute Support Mission operates with one ‘hub’ (Kabul/Bagram) and four ‘spokes’ (Mazar-e-Sharif in the north, Herat in the west, Kandahar in the south, and Laghman in the east).
    [Show full text]
  • The Rivalry Between the United States and China
    Chapter 6: The Rivalry between the United States and China In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears—and that is our problem. —Thomas Friedman The Return of Great Power Competition Throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, global politics was char- acterized by a rivalry between great powers for influence. In fact, the term “great power” is typically defined in this context as a country that can exert its military or economic influence everywhere in the world. In the second half of the 19th century, the two dominating great powers of the world were the British Empire and the French Empire, with Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia challenging those two nations in continen- tal Europe and neighboring regions. The rivalry between these great powers led to constantly shifting alliances and a fragile balance that finally collapsed in the early 20th century at the outbreak of World War I. After the two world wars, great power competition shifted away from the European colonial empires toward a rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. But with the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged in the 1990s as the sole great power. No country on the planet could challenge the military or economic power of the United States, and great power competition was pronounced dead. Francis Fukuyama famously even went as far as to call for an “End of History,” wherein liberal democracy would be the only relevant political system on Earth (Fukuyama 1992). But the status of the United States as the sole great power turned out to be short-lived.
    [Show full text]