MAAS: Master Program in American Studies
  • Home
    • Events
  • Courses
    • Overview 2015-2016
    • General courses 2015-2016 >
      • Methodology of Trans-Atlantic American Studies
      • American History, Politics, Economics I & II
      • American Culture : Regions and Ethnicities
      • U.S. Law and Justice in an International Context
      • Master Thesis
    • Electives 2015-2016 >
      • The American Way of Religion
      • Literary Journalism Across Cultures
      • America and the Challenge of Terrorism
      • Postmemory and Postmodern: Third-Generation Jewish American Trauma Narratives (MA English)
      • European Union Trade Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Agricultural Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Foreign & Security Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • Internship
    • Course Schedule 2015-2016
  • Staff
    • Professorial staff >
      • Gert Buelens
      • Philippe Codde
      • John Dick
      • Ken Kennard
      • Rob Kroes
      • Isabelle Meuret
      • David Woolner
  • Housing etc.
  • APPLY
    • Overview
    • Admission requirements
    • Request an application form
    • Additional application materials
    • Submit your complete application
  • FAQ
  • Testimony
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Blog

Overseas Intervention

2/3/2014

1 Comment

 

UKRAINE - The Tragedy and Timidity of Understanding History

May I quickly observe that as a political historian I feel a little nervous about writing about the Ukraine as by the time I have written this piece, reflected on it, edited it and sent it the condition would probably have changed, however, as a someone trained within the World of International Relations (IR) I feel obliged to do so anyway.  IR at its most basic level is all about considering and understanding 'inclusion and exclusion,' so if you de-construct the history of the United States, the Russian Federation and the European Union you have three good case studies in point. Hence, the Ukraine has become a key component in this running narrative about who we are, what we are and why we are... 

The Ukraine is a border nation-state, it is just like a border town abet somewhat larger, in other words this is a social construct that sits geographically, culturally, and historically in a place and space that has been and remains open to numerous opposing political pressures and head winds that are traditional and transitional. The question is where does a border nation-state constructed from such an ancient and diverse religious and cultural pool belong in a contemporary world that has moved on and is now largely underpinned by large political unions ? The western media are keen to suggest that this region has become an arena; a dual between in the red corner from the East the cold blasts of Putin's austere Moscow and in the blue corner from the West comes the seemingly warmer winds of a bureaucratic but brio Brussels. As  a Brit, understandably, I do not put much trust in either the weather forecasts or pugilism. However, we are still being asked to see the contemporary troubles in Eastern Europe as binary or dualistic in nature - simplistic or what. But of course, otherwise we would start asking some very awkward questions of ourselves.

In Kiev the democratically elected President was removed from office but not democratically. He was removed largely because of the destabilising violence used by far right fascist style groups under the guise of reasonable demonstrations from many ethnic Ukrainians who wanted 'their' nation to move closer or join the European Union. When the President decided not to accept Brussels friendly financed based overtures but to seek closer links to Moscow supported by the 'majority' in Parliament, alarm bells rang in Brussels and Washington, subsequently making their worries crystal clear, giving an opportunity for the more radical extreme groups inside Ukraine to move. Unfortunately, this lack of subtle diplomacy by the EU and the US had consequences that history often reveals, to paraphrase Shakespeare, 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. The subsequent response by Putin was to protect as he sees it his Russian citizens, you would expect no other response - read their history. Whilst Washington silent when the Ukraine's democratically elected President was unceremoniously ejected decides to make a bad situation even worse by issuing statements that creates more tension instead of reducing it.   

Whether Brussels, Washington and Kiev like it or not the resolution of a border town dispute can only be achieved when law that recognises all citizens is upheld. This equates politically to talking to and including Moscow in future developments not excluding or punishing them. Putin acted because he saw his interests and that of his people being disenfranchised, if this dispute had been within the United States 'own backyard' how would have they had reacted, by not intervening ?  

The challenge with history is that it revels much but as ever we need politicians that read all the pages and not just  the bits they like. Moreover, we could also do with some decision-makers that lack a desire to rewrite history when it does not fit their understanding. Just like in any border town this is not really about some dualistic gun fight with the quickest draw winning, it is about recognising the inclusive nature to transition not the exclusive nature of tradition.    

KK


     
         
1 Comment

Overseas Intervention

1/3/2014

2 Comments

 

US Contemporary Power: The Reality; The Sentiment

Last week the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced proposed cuts to US forces reducing their 'boots on the ground' to pre Second World War levels, the closure of some domestic military bases, redundancy of U2 spy planes and A10 attack jet aircraft . On the face it these reductions sound quite dramatic as at present the US spends around $600 billion per year on hard power; more then the next twelve highest defense spending nations put together. So, what does this proposal suggest ? At a time of numerous 'real time' conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, and the threat of others in Asia and Eastern Europe, why has the executive decided to draw in the wings of the American eagle at this particular juncture ?

Logically, this could just be a decision driven by economic necessities, after all the national debt stands at $17.4 trillion and continues grow in spite of reduced public spending, reduced unemployment and a growing economy. Moreover, after 9/11 defense spending has doubled reflecting the costly engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as maintaining the United States military global reach. The underlining strategy of the US military has long been to finance and equip the armed forces with the ability and facility to fight two major wars simultaneously - this thinking is obviously now under serious political review as I cannot conceive that the Pentagon has willingly bought into this new approach. Finally, the reduction in manpower could also simply be a reflection of greater reliance on technology as the monitoring and intervention into other nation-states affairs is being increasingly undertaken as much by the NSA, CIA and other covert services as it is by the regular army, air force and navy.

However, I feel there could be a further reason for this military reduction that is not so rational but just as powerful - public sentiment. There exists a potent atavistic characteristic that has sat within the US mindset ever since 1776 if not before - the view that much of the behaviour outside of the nation's natural borders is an anathema to the American way of life. Moreover, although the US has to involve itself in foreign affairs to protect its self interests it is more important to insulate the nation from any contagion that this un-American world might contain. This 'small screen' republicanism is not an uncommon sentiment and if you place these feelings alongside a nation-state that been at war for over ten years then no wonder the average citizen has become weary of  conflict, often unsure or unaware as to the reasons why they are fighting and financing in nation-states that have little in common with the American creed.

KK

An after thought...

Barack Obama has been nicknamed the first 'Pacific President' by many, I wonder if this should not be just a nod to geo-politics but a reflection of a nation that just like numerous imperial powers before it is getting tired of having to continually fight its corner to retain its pre-eminent crown.


KK                              
2 Comments

    Author

    Dr J Ken Kennard Professor of Politics and History - Master Program in American Studies - Universiteit Gent

    Archives

    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.