Moscow's policy over Georgia is linked with its continuing concerns over Russia own territorial integrity.

Moscow's policy over Georgia is linked with its continuing concerns over Russia own territorial integrity.

In the light of the above statement discuss Russian internal security mattes as an impediment to her much desired global role.

A cornered animal is the most dangerous animal: Russia feels cornered and its frustration was a vented on Mikhail Saakhasveli's Georgia. One can not expect to ruin someone's backyard and get away with it; an irascible owner would immediately lash out in a vengeful and vindictive manner.

After the end of the cold war an agreement was signed between Russian and the West that hostilities would cease and NATO and the EU would stop their eastern expansion towards Russia. NATO is a defunct and moribund institution – it was founded purely for the purpose of providing protection to member states from Russian influence. With the cessation of hostilities and a normalization of ties, NATO should have, in goodwill, been disbanded. However, due to a European phobia of the Russian resurgent military, NATO was kept.

This, amalgamated with the EU announcement of talks to discuss the inclusion of Georgia into the EU infuriated defense analysts inside Moscow. However, to even further add to Russia's agony, the United States announced a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic to combat rogue states such as Iran. The context of this announcement was increasing Iranian missile tests; however Russia saw this as a direct threat to its military deterrence capabilities and so it threatened to bomb the Czech Republic and the proposed missile defense sites. Inevitably relations reached a nadir as Russian frustration grew.

Another source for Moscow's anguish was the recent US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq: now it really felt encircled; a growing European union to the west; an already present rival China to its south-east and now a superpower in the region to its south. Describing the Russian predicament as merely "concerning" to Russia is a gross understatement considering we are talking about a former super-power.

Russia has been nicknamed "Resurgent Russia" because of a rise in blackmail tactics to bully surrounding nations. During ex-President Putin's reign, Russia underwent a quiet revolution that is still going on under incumbent President Medvedev and Prime minister Putin. When the USA invaded Iraq and demand for oil was high – the price of oil skyrocketed to $120 a barrel. Oil rich nations such as Russia used these petro-dollars to fuel the local industry and revamp its military. It quietly reasserted itself as a regional power able to twist neighboring arms. It was going to use its resources to obtain required results. In 2007, UCOS, a Russian gas and oil company was accused of gross illegalities and was nationalized. Precocious minds can easily ascertain that these allegations were frivolous and used to gain control of a tool to be used against other nations. In 2008, Russia demanded that Georgia pay a higher price for the gas it received. Georgia rejected this demand while pointing to a previous agreement that was still binding. Tensions flared up again and, in the middle of winter, Russia stopped all gas supplies to Georgian Gazprom pointing to the non-payment of outstanding dues as the reason. The impact was exactly what Russia intended; the EU's gas supply was disrupted and the message was heard loud and clear: Russia was back and would not tolerate any further EU expansion. Eventually a deal was brokered and money exchanged hands; yet, tension flared up again soon.

On the eve of the 2008 Olympic optioning ceremony, President Saakhesveli, on the advice of his compromised intelligence agency, decided to try to take back the break-away region of Abkhazia, Russia detected a military buildup and anticipated a Georgian invasion of Abkhazia. A showdown was inevitable. As expected, the Russian army beat back the Georgian army and cut the country into two with the international community struggling to present a single voice. This gave Russia ample time and opportunity to get its message across. Russia took control of key port cities and towns whilst simultaneously bolstering Abkhazia's defense. Pictures streamed out of Georgia showed the Georgian army in full retreat and the only major city that Georgia controlled was its capital Kiev: Russia would not tolerate any further security threats. It did eventually withdraw but Abkhazia was annexed and recognized a sovereign country by Russia.

I believe that currently Russia has no desire for a global role. Instead, Vladimir Putin may envision Russia as a key regional player with a national interest based policy. An example of such a policy is its stance oven Iranian nuclear ambitions. Russia has, in the recent past, vetoed UN security resolutions calling for sanctions against Iran. As a matter of fact, Russia has offered to enrich uranium required as a fuel for nuclear reactors – it has even offered to build one.

If Russia truly desired a global role then it would seek a more active role in the middle and far-east and in Latin America. Hence, I do not consider Russia internal security as an impediment but as another tool for Russia to expand its sphere of influence – by force if necessary.

818 words

"As a military superpower, with a taste for global management the U.S requires foreign as well as domestic balancing."

"As a military superpower, with a taste for global management the U.S requires foreign as well as domestic balancing."

Keeping the above statement in mind, discuss the possibility of the EU as a balancer to US hegemony.

After the weakening of Europe and the capitulation of the Soviet Union , the United States of America emerged as the sole military power standing – the world found itself in uni-polar set of affairs. Since that time the USA has enjoyed unprecedented influence in the global setup.

The USA has been able to control the monetary policies of many countries through the International Monetary Fund – an organization designed to "assist" in the policy making of financially troubled countries by advising cost cuts, job lay-offs and development freezes. Through sheer fiscal dominance, the USA has also been able to dictate the policies of the World Bank which strives to provide loans for development. Poorer nations such as those of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa have been caught in a never ending cycle f loan payments.

Another favorite method of the only super power to interfere in other nations is cruder but just as effective: military incursions. The USA has literally invaded dozens of countries either by itself or through a proxy. It has tried to use its militant prowess to threaten, cajole and even overthrow regimes, dictators and democracies in order to make way for puppet installments. Absurd American foreign policies have led it to war in Vietnam – a war started for a reason now as obscure as the reasons for invading Iraq. It has also tried, on numerous occasions, to overthrow the socialist regime of Fidel and Raul Castro in Cuba. The Middle East, too, has now become a hot potato through the bungling of an inherently flawed foreign policy – the bungling of neo-cons and Zionists. Though it proxy, the Jewish "state" of Israel, it has invaded Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine. The Golan Heights remain a contentious issue to this day. The African region has not been spared either; Somalia has been kept in continuous flux surreptitiously but their cover was blown during Operation Black Hawk down. A global power does indeed have a global impact.

More recently, our uni-polar world has seen more American adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan. In the past 8 years, a relatively small time in the history of civilizations, the USA has managed to destabilize 3 different and distinct nations in the middle east not inclusive of those west of Iraq! Such are the dangers of a world with only one superpower immune to International law; above the International criminal court and neglectful of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. When pro-American Israel illegally invaded Lebanon and Palestine without tithe backing of the United Nations – it was the united sets that came to its support by providing political clout as well as military munitions. This was clearly in gross violation of countless international statutes. The USA established Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharaib prisons and tortured inmates. Upon exposure, no high ranking U.S military personnel were held accountable in The Hague. Truly a superpower.

Now let us examine the case for the EU to fill the void and help create a more multi-polar global environment. The EU is approximately half the size of the United States of America and consists of mostly services–oriented economies which are either stagnating or even contracting. The U.K, considered a key player in the E.U, has seen its power significantly dwindle as its military hardware ages and fiscal woes grow. The same holds true for France and Germany. With the onset of a global depression, the military is likely to face further cost cuts, thus further reducing its ability to respond globally where required. This reduces the chances of a military superpower rising from Europe that can even remotely challenge American hegemony. In its current state, it can barely influence any country outside the continent. This can be seen by French President Sarkozy's failed attempt to quickly end hostilities between Russia and Georgia. Instead, fighting stopped only when Russia wanted it to. The recent Israeli war against Palestine is also another example were the EU was not ables to deliver the region any semblance of stability. To be a global superhero, a group must have a vast sphere of influence – obviously the EU has naught. Perhaps, a better contender to rise as a military superpower would be manufacturing giant China or an oil-rice resurgent Russia.

China and Russia are far better equipped to increase their military budget. A vast treasury and a good technology tree are the pre-requisites for a rising military power. China is increasing its sphere of influence in mineral–rich nations such as Sudan, Ethiopia and even taking over some mining operations in Australia.

The need of a multi-polar world is great; checks and balances must be enforced on even the strongest country. In a multi-polar scenario more nations will have more options in their internal as well as external policies. If the EU were to rise as a superpower then that would be welcome news as this would result in a greater distribution of the world's resources. However, this is a remote possibility due to the stagnating economies of Europe; the global recession and an apparently unshakeable U.S hold over the world's resources.

849 words

How will the change in US administration impact Pak-US relations in the future?

Democrats are pro-India while the republicans are pro-Pakistan. Critically analyse the statement. How will the change in US administration impact Pak-US relations in the future?

We have become accustomed to seeing and believing in black and white; we perceive concepts and personalities in a reductionist manner. There are always many aspects to any issue – a plethora of variables govern the characteristics of any ideology, democratic or republican. However, the most dominating variable for the Government of the United States of America is an ideology that has proven itself in countless foreign policy imbroglios: it is the concept of adhering to the national interest.

A vast country with a diverse nation such as the USA can not afford to pander to any other country. Throughout history, American leaders such as Abe Lincoln and even George Bush Jr have tried to do what is beneficial to their corner of the world. Hence, the reductionist view that either party inherently favours one country over the other is simply bigoted and false. Once a president, republican or democratic, has started functioning then he serves the USA and her interests. Essentially, being democratic or republican has no bearing on a nation's foreign policy.

The American foreign policy undergoes many examinations and cross examinations after which a report is presented to the president – who, on the advice of his cabinet and the senate, makes the decision. A brief analysis of the procedure adhered to in the constructing of America's foreign policy will show that policy remains largely unaffected if it is in the nation's interest and has proven beneficial. Therefore, a change in U.S administration does not in itself mark a new "dawn" in US-Pakistan relations; however, it does mark a change in perspective on past and future policies. It also signifies an understanding that past policies have not benefited the USA and future policies must be moulded to account for the changed ground realities.

Ground realities are something past American administrations have ignored and reneged on their promise to change them. One of the ground realities that has, however, been changed is the issue of the American U-turn on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The argument that republicans are pro-Pakistan fails to offer a comprehensive counter when faced with the fact that it was the republicans who were the architects of the troubled Indo-American nuclear deal. A deal that democratic President Barrack Obama has sought to seal and further. On the other hand, Pakistan was offered no such deal and, instead was given a polite political snub during Bush Jr's visit; he discussed a variety of economic and business models in his tour to India and upon arriving in Pakistan all he did was to learn cricket from the national captain. President Barrack Obama has included an Indian American in his cabinet in a sign of fostering relations between the oldest and largest democracy.

Pakistani defense analysts would not have any qualms about improved Indo-American relations had Pakistan been offered a similar deal. The fact of the matter remains that the incumbent administration has done more against the Pakistani national interest than the past one: predator drone attacks have been continued and even intensified; the Pakistani intelligence agency has been put further pressure on and an American aid agreement has been tied to gaining access to the A.Q. Khan nuclear network. Perhaps, Pakistan is losing its strategic importance – or perhaps, more relevantly, it has forgotten its strategic importance.

Due to the inherent nature of Pakistan's political process, Pakistan has found itself a proxy tool in the hands of successive American administrations. Historically speaking relations between the two nations have only been good during times when Pakistan presented itself as a valuable "asset" in the region. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1970 was an event that heralded a new and strong relationship between the USA and Pakistan. Pakistan was able to provide a proxy base in order to fight off the invading Soviet Union. After the Soviet collapse, the USA had no immediate use for Pakistan and relations thawed. The nadir in relations was reached with the passage of the 1985 Presslar amendment banning the sale of F-16s to Pakistan in response to its nuclear program.

September 11 was the day that Pakistan regained its strategic importance. However, over the past few years, Pakistani politicians have forgotten and as a consequence failed: they have forgotten Pakistan's Geo-political strategic importance and failed to construct a foreign policy based on the national interest through a lack of a single coherent and logical voice.

Relations will have to get worse before the can get better – Pakistan must develop a backbone and prepare for short term economic woes so that it can govern itself with a policy that serves the national interest of Pakistan and not those of the USA. In return the USA must learn to respect the strategic concerns of all its allies and take a more Multi-lateral approach. The current administration's foreign policy is a continuation and intensification of obsolete policies that create more problems. Perhaps the only variable that can cause a significant impact for the better is a change in Pakistan's perceived fawning and servile attitude to the USA.

839 Words

Should beauty contests be banned? - Another G.P topic....

Beauty contests are almost ubiquitous; you can find them taking place everywhere from your local neighbourhood to global capitals. They range from dog contests to human beauty contests - there are even beauty contests for cows! In fact, these contests have become so integrated in our lives that we just can not escape them. But here begs the question: should these contests be banned completely or allowed to further permeate our society?

There are many arguments in favour of banning such contest with many critics citing the poor ethics involved. The most controversial of beauty contests are those with which we can identify and relate to: human beauty contests - more specifically female beauty contests. Human beauty contest have a negative effect upon everyone - parents, siblings, kids and both men and women. Consider a local baby beauty contest - parents attempt to “beautify” their children by adorning them with all kinds of assortments. They do this because of peer pressure; their co-workers, friends and neighbours will all be there participating in the contest - each trying to win the contest. During this frenzy people often forget about the natural beauty that all kids possess. Once the contest is over and the winners announced and the losers left longing then further objectification and demoralisation set in for the “losers”. As for the lucky few who won - their egos become inflated and their tones arrogant. So, in effect, everyone is negatively impacted apart from the judges!

Another ethical question mark arises as a result of the intensive conditions that female models must go through. Girls as young as 9 years give up their educational careers to go “train” to become “beautiful“. Their diet is controlled; their way of walking is controlled; their facial expressions are controlled and basically their whole lives are controlled - not by their loving parents but by professional managers with questionable work ethics and a belief that the end meets the means. Little girls are left at the mercy of these almost inhuman beings. Comparing these controlled “future beauty queens” with other normal kids with normal childhoods - one begins to think whether beauty contests are worth the hassle. Girls at these beauty training centres, a term paradoxical in itself in the sense that beauty can not be “taught”, are allowing themselves to become objects. This is dehumanising in the very most demeaning manner; yet, they continue to train because of the enormous sums of money to be made “if” one succeeds. That, however, is a big “if” and many girls around the world live miserable lives because of this “if”.

(the beauty bashing ends here, lol)

Yet there are still many benefits to these contest and there are some stories of success to be shared. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the incumbent governor of California, used to be a male model back in the 1990s. He went on to become a Hollywood sensation and from there began his political career as the governor of California. Sarah Palin, a former vice presidential candidate, was also a beauty contestant who had previously won at the state of Alaska beauty contest. We also have the example of former Miss World Aishwareiya Rai who continues to inspire the youth and give voice to women rights issues across the globe. There is also a “Miss Earth” who brings to light the pressing environmental issues facing humankind.

However, these examples are few and far between and can never act as a substitute for the trauma many families endure or the lost childhoods of little girls. The negative aspects of beauty contest far outweigh the almost meaningless “benefits” of symbolic acts and verbs. These symbolic gestures are touching but nothing but a clever stratagem employed to hide the true ugly face of such contests and lend credibility to the industry. Hence I conclude, in the best interest of humankind, that we should ban beauty contests all-together or radically change the criterion of such multi-million contests.

Should the key industries of a nation be controlled by the state?

Excessive regulation and nationalization or excessive deregulation and privatization are detrimental policies a nation can ill afford. Upon evaluating recent history, one comes to the conclusion that the middle path is the best route to prosperity. Extremist policies have been tried and experimental by a vast spectrum of nations; capitalist U.S.A; well-fare socialist Britain and France; communist China and the mixed economies of Russia and India have all tasted failure in their experiments with extremism. All of these countries have made a return to the tried and tested stable policy of public-private partnership. There are, however, certain industries and sectors which remain in complete government control.

The energy sector is one industry that governments around the world continue to control with an iron grip; this is not without due logic and reason. In the 21st century, we find that energy resources, which drive an economy, have become relatively scarce and expensive. Without such energy resources, the economy will crumble: there will be no electricity for homes, business and schools; there will be no oil for cooking, transportation or power generation and basically every aspect of a citizens life will be forced to a standstill as a result of a possible energy crisis. To avert such a crisis from happening, the government manages this sector by assigning the most experienced officers available.. The government then creates short-term and long term goals to achieve these goals. The goals of any government are significantly different to the goals of a private enterprise; the government seeks to ensure a constant stream of energy flowing from power generation outlets to where it is needed.

Conversely, private enterprises are only concerned with profit and loss - and so long as they are able to create a profit they will continue to operate. However, if they see no profit in the present or the near future, they will cease operations immediately. Another major benefit that a public sector has is the potentially unlimited government investment it can take advantage of. With private sectors, an industry merely jumps from one owner to another. A good example would be that of the Karachi electric company. This is a company that has been assigned the task of ensuring electricity to all those in Karachi; .however, recently, this company has become a money pit for its owners. Hence, it has been constantly sold from one owner to another. Had this been under government control, then proper in vestment could be made and this company bailed out from failure.

Yet failure is something that most government sectors are used to: PIA and the metal industry stand as prime paradigms of complete failure for the government. Let us first discuss the Pakistan International Airways - once the 6th best airlines the world. Power in the hands of a good management team usually yields good results. However, over the past few decades, the PIA has been managed by government cronies who exist to send government officials on expensive tours and holidays. Naseem Ashraf, the former Pakistan cricket board chairman is said to have wasted millions of rupees in travel expenses. Decades of such sycophantic policies finally clipped the wings of the once majestic sky-bird.

Perhaps, as always, the moderate middle path would be a better option for most countries of the world. Government Interventionism should respect the private enterprise’s circle of freedom; a circle in the sense that when private groups go beyond that circle then they should be reeled back into the system. Ensuring that private enterprises run in an efficient and nation-friendly way is a sure path to economic stability and prosperity - however, this can only apply to non-essential industries. Industries key to a nation’s prosperity must be in the nation’s control - primarily the energy sector encompassing exploring, mining and processing. While other sectors should involve a balanced symbiotic public-private partnership not a parasitical one; multi-nationals must not be allowed to take the wealth away from a nation. Only then can the wealth gap be reduced and social injustices corrected.

"Politics has no appeal to the younger generation since it has no impact on their lives" Discuss.

This is a G.P topic I had today - heres what I wrote in an hours time...


Politics is said to be as consistently inconsistent as the stock market, if this were true, then interest would never wane - however, it has been consistent in its plethora of failures. these consistent failures have dismayed the masses; disenfranchised the middle class and disillusioned the youth.


History offers much wisdom to those wiling to take it with a pinch of salt but the only wisdom it has ever imparted is a tragedy: politicians never learn from history - to the cost of many millions of lives to date. The blunders range from “accidental” famines in China to gross market negligence in the Americas to global world wars. Yesterdays’ youth commit the same mistakes committed before them and hence, I argue, history should be scrapped from the syllabus; today’s youth are justified in their apparent nonchalance towards politics.


I disagree with the topic, not because politics has no impact on the youth’s lives but because it has had such a negative impact. The example of barren Afghanistan is before us. It was invaded by the British in the 19th century only to be defeated - not by Afghans but by Afghanistan itself; Afghanistan’s rough terrain poses a myriad of logistical problems for any force. The British left with only one dejected soldier. Then with the blessing of uninformed politicians, came the Russian army in 1970; many argue that it was because of the Afghan stalemate that the Soviet Union splintered. However, politicians did not learn - they continued to commit more troops and continued to suffer. In 2001, the USA invaded Afghanistan; currently It has lost control of the entire country and controls only Kabul and Kandahar. I reiterate, the youth are justified.


Politics has never solved anything and this trend continues. North Korea stands testimony to this assertion. Intensive political wrangling by heavyweights such as China and the USA and other nations such as South Korea and Japan have not been successful in creating a responsible global player in North Korea. North Korea launched and “successfully” tested a nuclear warhead; it, on the 5th of April 2009, fired a medium-ranged ballistic missile over Japan. It threatens to destabilize the entire region. Has politics been able to amicably resolve anything? No, I think not.


Iran is another similar nation trying to lift itself out of sanctions through a political dialogue. However, it seems that its efforts are doomed to fail because of some obdurate politicians in Tel-Aviv and Washington; Iran has been dubbed a threat in political minds and political minds alone. Think tanks and philosophers argue that to resolve the middle-east crisis, Iran’s support in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine is absolutely essential. Politicians, however, have other plans - plans that threaten to alienate the youth.


There are many examples; China’s accidental famines during the 19th century; American deregulation leading to the current poor fiscal climate; Silivo Berulsoconi’s many gaffes at the recent global-20 summit; Sudan’s governmental ethnic cleansing; India’s hidden and neglected poor; Europe’s indecisiveness over turkey; the Russian Georgian gas dispute and the negligence of politicians around the world over global warming. This is by no means a comprehensive listing of politicians let-downs; however, it is indicative of the reasons behind the youths’ lack of interest in politics.