“El año 2016
estará marcado por la probabilidad creciente de un conflicto global. El
ambiente turbulento en el Mar de la China del Sur, el emplazamiento de
armamento nuclear en Europa y el estilo colonial y doble rasero de la política
exterior de los EEUU, podrían arrastrar al mundo a una catástrofe nuclear en un
futuro cercano”. La sombría prognosis es la conclusión de una nota sin firma
publicada hoy en el sitio South Front (http://southfront.org), el que suele
reproducir los puntos de vista de la Federación Rusa en torno a la situación
internacional. Acá va:
Título: FOREIGN
POLICY DIARY – 2015, YEAR OF CRISIS ESCALATION. WHAT TO EXPECT IN 2016?
Texto: 2015 was
marked by a series of crucial diplomatic and military developments in the
world. The old world order established after the Cold War is rapidly changing.
Russia, China, and Iran have become the main forces openly making steps to
change the global system. In turn, the US-led block is seeking to retain the
old world order by any means. The clash of interests in crisis regions around
the world is engendering a serious escalation. Even if 2015 was successful for
Russian and Iranian diplomacy, the situation remains complicated on the ground.
While neither of the main world crises have been resolved or is there any
expectation that they will be resolved in the nearest future, it is possible to
summarize provisional results of the year.
The situation in
Libya, a center of tensions in the Mediterranean, is deteriorating with fail of
the UN-led peace initiatives. Local ISIS branch is deeply entrenched in the
war-torn country. It’s expected that flow of foreign militants into Libya from
the Syrian and Iraqi directions will grow if Syria and Iraq continue
successfully their anti-terrorist operations fueled by the Russian Air Forces’
presence in the Middle East region.
Separately, ISIS
increased activity in the Sinai Peninsula destabilizing the domestic situation
in Egypt which tries to exercise multi-vector foreign policy in the region
which not satisfy its Western-backed neighbors. The local destructive forces
are also attempting to destabilize Egypt, de facto, assisting the militants. In
turn, Cairo is strengthening its security efforts.
In the Sahel
region the humanitarian situation remains extremely fragile while the number of
terrorist attacks is increasing. Boko Haram militants stated allegiance to ISIS
remain the most dangerous terrorist threat there.
The European
migration crisis is especial acute. Since 2013, a cruel competition has been
going among migrants, European governments and local societies. Immigrants
concentrated in the entry point states move to the countries of the Central
Europe (Germany, France) and the North Europe (United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway),
spread over the whole union. The European governments impacted by critical look
of the public opinion and the economic crisis have been trying to stop this
process using the more and more gray approaches based on the wide notion of
nation security concepts and the disregarding of human rights. However, the
para-military operations in the Mediterranean sea and the usage of unadapted
camps only conducts an additional exacerbation of migrants often pushed from
their homes by the circumstances of insuperable force. In turn, inability of
governments to solve the ongoing crisis conducts the anger of European citizens
and contributes to the growth of radical parties and movements.
Thus, the
migration crisis has also triggered additional disputes between the national
elites and European bureaucracy. European nations are faced with a dilemma: to
surrender under the pressure of the main European powers and the eurocracy or
try to defend what remains of their unique national sovereignty. The projects
as the National Front Party, Marine Le Pen, aspires to renew its own national
goals are strongly opposed by the mainstream European establishment.
Meanwhile, NATO
is continuing military build-up in Europe stationing additional forces,
exercising numerous drills and even attempting to move nuclear warheads to the
Russian borders. In early December 2015, Poland’s government issued a number of
statements concerning the country’s participation in the NATO Nuclear Sharing
program, which allows NATO member countries to deliver US nuclear warheads in
wartime, using their own means of delivery.
The smoldering
conflict in Donbass, a corrupt government and unregulated paramilitary groups
consisting of criminals and radicals make Ukraine a zone of instability in
Europe. The situation is worsening due to the unavoidable economic collapse and
the Kiev’s government inability to negotiate.
The whole Middle
East is affected by the major crisis. Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict are its core, but the destabilization has been
spreading. Turkey is affected by terrorism, Kurdish insurgency and economical
instability. Israel is involved into the conflict against Palestinian. Saudi
Arabia is involved into a protracted war in Yemen and affected by Yemeni
cross-border raids. – FPD Middle East Big Game
Separately, the
Russian military operation in Syria marked a loss of the US’s monopoly on the
recourse to force. Now, the US and its partners are lossing the leadership in
the Middle East region. The success of the alternative anti-ISIS coalition will
mean that the US could lose the leadership in a great part of the world, in
Eurasia. For Western-backed states as Turkey and Saudi Arabia it means decrease
of their influence in the region.
Turkey has been
shaping its approach in the region. It includes an additional rapprochement
with Saudi Arabia and Qatar which leads to a hard anti-Iranian policy amid the
ongoing cooling in relations with Russia.
Meanwhile, the US
has sent ground forces, including special operations units, into the region.
And such countries as France, the UK and Germany has begun to operate more
actively in the region. It seems that NATO powers have realized the strategy
aimed at Assad’s ouster by a diverse range of militant groups including ISIS
has failed.
In this case, the
NATO allies urgently need a new plan to hold control at least of the northern
oil corridor from Iraq and try to take advantage of this opportunity to involve
Russia in a long expensive war, in other words, to accomplish that which they
failed to do in Ukraine. If the NATO contingent tries to occupy crucial
infrastructure including oilfields, it could easily lead to an open military
conflict in the region.
The borders
between the Central Asian states and Afghanistan have become increasingly
active in terms of militant, diplomatic and security activity. Militant
activity has increased in northern Afghanistan in recent months, punctuated by
Taliban forces’ capture of the town of Kunduz in late September and ISIS
militants have been gathering momentum and concentrating there. ISIS militants
see this region as a foothold for further expansion into Central Asia. The
important fact is they don’t fight foreign or Afghan government troops. They
conserve and gather strength. The threat is also growing in the South. The
number of ISIS militants has been growing at the borders of Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan amid serious domestic problems of the Central Asian states.
In this case, the
Central Asia is attracting attention of the key regional players: Russia, the
US and China. While the all sides state that they are interested in the
regional stability, the Washington administration is clearly seeking to expand
in the Central Asian countries amid the failing Afghan projects.
The tensions in
the South China Sea is a visible part of the ongoing US-China standoff in the
Asia-Pacific region. The Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and the US newly released
maritime strategy de facto mean that the Washington has taken a course on a
long-standing countering of the China’s influence in the region. A core but
often unstated component of U.S. national strategy is to maintain global
superiority at sea. By controlling the seas, the United States is able to
deploy military power and to control the movement goods worldwide. In the Indo-Asia-Pacific
region the US has been rapidly building political, economic and military
alliances to balance the raise of the China’s economic and military power.
Beijing can’t ignore this fact. The China’s strategy maritime strategy aimed to
defend its eastern coastal area and crucial maritime routes in the Indian Ocean
challenges the American approach.
Another hot point
in the region is the Korean Peninsula. 2015 was marked by a new standoff
between the North and South along the Demilitarized Zone conducting a
complicated environment. The situation is further challenged by an aggressive
South Korean stance supported by the US. According to Korean military sources
the US has been considering to dispatch B-52 or a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and
a nuclear-powered submarine currently stationed at Japan’s Yokosuka naval base.
The US has previously dispatched its military assets to the peninsula to
support Seoul in its stand-off with Pyongyang two years ago. In April 2013 it
had flown B-2 stealth bombers. The tensions in the Korean Peninsula will be
definitely used in the ongoing US-China dispute for the leadership in the
Asia-Pacific.
Generally, 2015
was a year of crisis escalation and a fresh source of tension in international
relations. The main directions of aggravation of the international situation
have come into full force. However, last year was only the beginning when the
system of international relations started to rebuild. Unfortunately,
international practice revealed that global actors were not able to cooperate
fruitfully to overcome mounting differences. The establishment took on the
usual clannish spirit and protected the corporate interests of the crony
elites, while the election race in the United States and the deepening economic
recession fueled the flame. The entire year was steeped in the smell of
gunpowder, but had not yet enveloped the world in the smoke of a global war.
In 2016, we
should expect continued tension in international relations. The number of local
conflicts will not be reduced. There are high chances that there will be a
significant escalation of the conflict in the eastern Ukraine. In the spring of
2016 the situation in Central Asia is expected to be destabilized, and
Afghanistan could once again turn into a full-scale civil war. The zone of
conflict in the Arabian Peninsula will expand. Turkey is at high risk of civil
war. In turn, the intensity of the fighting in Syria and Iraq will decline or
remain at current levels.
2016 will be
marked by the growing probability of a
wider global conflict. The turbulent climate in the South China Sea, the
deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe, the colonial style of US foreign
policy and its double standards are capable of bringing the world to the brink
of nuclear catastrophe in the near future.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario