Donation

Thank you for your donation.

Amount: 

Worldwide readers

Partners

UGSM-Monarch-Long2

Democratic-World-Federalists

acunts

Elkedia

Geopolitics-GR

European-Rim-Policy-Investment-Council

DSC_0792

Sponsors

Avacas-Wines

Philippides-Gallery

Synergix20logo202

Advertisement

Tsikkastel

enaila20developers

GEVO-logo1

Place your advertisement here. For more information please contact: info@inter-security-forum.org

Polls

Do you think Turkey will become a full European Union member-state?
 

At the beginning of the second quarter of 2010, the danger of a "double dip" that is, a sudden second economic plunge seems to be looming. Some of the indicators that by now must be considered structural of the new economy have been a see-sawing in performance of the major stock exchanges in the world (the Dow Jones Industrial Average has plunged by more than 200 points on at least three occasions in 2010, not including the freak 1000 point drop suffered in April.) The Euro currency has lost a lot of its value in the spring and while this would be good news for a region where manufacturing weighs heavily in the economy, this development has not had the expected effects because the more advanced European economies don't base their economic output on industrial performance but the service industry. More to the point, the doubts cast by poor performance of Greece, Spain, Portugal, and now Ireland and probably Italy, will have Eurocrats in Brussels think twice before extending the Euro to the newest members of the EU in Central and Eastern Europe. This is because there, the economic downturn of late 2008 and 2009 is still simmering.

In recent times, OSCE has become a paradox: the Organization has in fact consolidated its tendency to slide toward irrelevance at the precise time when its aims have proved to be the most current.  The strategies of the main players within the OSCE have failed to infuse new effectiveness in the organization.

The United States, during the Bush Administration, consolidated the trend  to favour the use of the Organization as an instrument for democratic transition  in the Euro-Asian region and for the U.S. policy of democratization in connection  with the events of September 200l. Despite providing 70% of the Organization’s budget, and accounting for the vast majority of its participating states, the EU has had little influence in the dynamics of the OSCE, decided mainly by bilateral agreements between the USA and Russia. The latter in particular, sees the Vienna-based Organization as an instrument of Western interests and has moved from an appreciation of its role in the nineties, to its current skepticism.

          I.  The Challenge and Objective of ‘Zero Nuclear Weapons’

The calamity of nuclear bombs and their destructive power was illustrated in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks that caused 200,000 deaths on impact and several hundred thousands of radiation related illnesses and cancers over the years. In the post cold war era, an intentional nuclear war between the USA and Russia seems remote. However, a regional nuclear war and the likelihood of nuclear terrorism and the use of a bomb in a suitcase are increasingly possible. Per expert reports, a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, can cause one billion deaths as a direct result of the conflict and its associated environmental damage to food chain and human and animal habitats which are not only limited to the region in question, but cover a much wider geographical area.

Economically, even with no wars, the costs of preparing for war are costing every one of us and particularly the needy of the world, wastage of necessities and loss of opportunities.  Per a SIPRI annual report, the 2007 global military expenditures stood at $1.3 trillion, equivalent to almost $200 per person per year.


The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the subsequent reunification of Germany were followed by the quick dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Mikhail Gorbachev timely withdrew his support from the collapsing GDR. In June 1989, the former Soviet leader stated in Bonn, where he received a rapturous welcome: “I don't think the Berlin Wall is the sole barrier between East and West. We must improve many situations in Europe." That was a very wise and poignant remark. The fall of the Berlin Wall, allowing the re-unification of Germany, was meant to be the start but in no conceivable way the end, of the project of building constructive relations between the East and the West. The jubilant mood began to spread through the following months: "a gentlemen's agreement" with the Bush administration was reached in February 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany. Gorbachev acknowledged that since no one could imagine then that the Warsaw Pact would shortly disappear, he had not pressed for formal commitments about other countries, and the US leadership had therefore not given them.

However, nobody can deny that George Bush senior promised, on the West’s part, that NATO would not take advantage of the situation by expanding eastwards. The European citizens, in particular, and the world citizens at large, naturally nurtured high expectations that the Cold War was approaching its end and that the demise of the East-West confrontation which troubled the old continent since the end of the catastrophic Second World War would soon be an accomplished fact.