Security In The 21st Century: The 21st Last Treatise on Security

By Nyagatare Valens and André Hakizimana

When it comes to security, in reality, self-interests is the driver, and not interests for others. Thus, we are all working for self-survival not for the survival for others. However, we survive because of others. Without others, we have no self-interests, and our self-interests is rooted from others. Consequentially we need security to protect

• Language: English
• Publisher: URLink Print & Media, LLC
• Release date: Feb 2, 2022
• ISBN: 9781684860326

Nyagatare Valens

Nyagatare Valens has an MBA and a minor in Information Technology Management, a BS is Statistics & Applied Economics, and a BA in General Business.

Book preview

The 21st Last Treatise on Security

SECURITY

in the

21ST CENTURY

André Hakizimana &

Nyagatare Valens

The 21st Last Treatise on Security

Copyright © 2022 by André Hakizimana & Nyagatare Valens. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the author except as provided by USA copyright law.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of URLink Print and Media.

1603 Capitol Ave., Suite 310 Cheyenne, Wyoming USA 82001

1-888-980-6523 | [e-mail]

URLink Print and Media is committed to excellence in the publishing industry.

Book design copyright © 2022 by URLink Print and Media. All rights reserved.

Published in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021923592

ISBN 978-1-68486-032-6 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-68486-031-9 (Digital)

08.04.21

To Millennial

Separate past and present

CONTENTS

Introduction: 12 Years Searching the Answer

PART I: Understanding Global Security

1. Searching Security Solutions

Understanding Security dilemma

Understand the roots of conflicts

Predicting security tools of the Future

Understanding the Middle East in the context of Iraq Question

How Iraqis viewed the Americans in Iraq after invasion.

Intelligence’s warnings before Iraq invasion

The US Foreign Policy on economic question

The US Foreign Policy on terrorism question

Chomsky’s view on terrorism and, on Islamic fundamentalism and democracy

The US place in the international system

The real enemy of the American Political Class

Present and Future of US Foreign Policy

Scholars view on US democracy and power

An unstable economy since the mid-1970s

Why states created the United Nations

The weakness of the UN Security Council

The real threats to humanity

Reforming the United Nations

Threats to the European Security

The Current Ukraine Question

Fighting for Geopolitical in Europe and World

2. Politicking backward: Looking into the Cold War literature to learn and design security solutions for future struggle

The origin of the Cold War

Britain, France, Russia, and USA’s general view and policy on German Question and Europe

German Question: Negotiating for Unification and Security

Security Strategy in the Cold War: an Inquiry into France, Russia and, United States

Russia economic question

French

The Negotiations that ended the Cold War

3. Searching solutions from another angle

American Leadership on unpredictable swing

Conflicts in Europe since the end of the Cold War

Fighting for Equity

The negotiation process

Economic integration create durable Peace

PART II: History of Economic Structural Reform

Previous Treatise about Structural Economic Reform

Adam Smith’s Treatise on Economic Structural Reform

Adam Smith thoughts on Justice – ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’

Politicizing structural economic reform: Liberalism versus Neoliberalism, and Capitalism

Capitalism at the beginning and Social question within

Social question within Capitalism

Question within globalization

Conclusions

The Road Map of the Future

Negotiating with invisible hands

Conditions in the negotiation process

Sort out the Ukraine conflict

Restore the United States World Leadership

What is wrong in American foreign policy?

Who are terrorists?

How to fight invisible adversaries

Backward or forward

Creating and designing a Secure World

The rising of China and the fall of the United States

The 2016 USA Presidential Race: Departure from the old thinking to Millennial thinking

Notes

References

THE GOAL OF THIS BOOK

Understanding the complexity of the global power

The global power is rooted from self-interests; it roots from self-interests of evil and self-interests of humanity. When power is rooted from self- interests of evil it creates threats of holding it. When it is rooted from self- interests of humanity, it evolves for maintaining security of humanity - it was evolved from medieval to dictatorship and then to civic society. Nevertheless, none can know which power is rooted from evil or from humanity. Power is power; we try to define it but power has no definition. What I now know every nation has both a power rooted from humanity and a power rooted from evil. Power protects humanity from threats and it can also become threats to humanity. Thus power as security or threats depends on the one who possesses it. Global powers react on threats instead of preventing it. Preventing it is only effective way for uproot threats than reacting on threats. In reality the global powers in real world are not protector of all humanity from threats such as hunger and poverty because of power cost benefit. But as the exception of twentieth century, in the twenty-first century, power can protect humanity from threats such as wars and civil wars. Moreover, uproot power threats by power threats create more power threats. For security, in reality we are all driven by our self-interests not interests for others. Thus we are all working for self- survival not for the survival for others. But we survive because of others without others we have no self-interests – our self-interests is rooted from others. Likely because we need security to protect our self-interests, this underscore that our security is rooted from others. Therefore security for others is rooted from us and vice versa. In conclusion, we need each other for our survival and security. This natural law of sharing our interests make us to negotiate each other for our interests. Thus, the word negotiation is originated from self- interests - individual and nation self- interests. Understanding and respecting the natural law of self-interests therefore we attempt to uproot the threats to all societies thus uproot the global power threats.

In general this book discusses both global security questions and economic life. The ambition of this book is not about criticize, accuse, prejudice or about blame. The readers of this book not allow using the texts from this book for blame. The texts from this book can only be used for correcting policy that originates the policies that threaten the world society and impose constraints on international institutions. The goal of this book is to discuss the political realities of today world. This book discusses the real world not ideal world. The authors of this book use time and days for understanding the real world. We believe that human capabilities develop on basis of time and day. We use the aiguille of clock to know time but we can’t force the aiguille to the time we want. We just wait the time we want to arrive - the right time. We can arrange a time and day for our work but we wait until the aiguille of the clock tell us when - the time and days, months and years we have to be at work. Time and day goes together thus time is a day itself. We discuss about the time because we believe that every right decision is taken on the basis of time – past, present and future. In addition to economic sciences, our interests are about observing and listening to understand the real world not ideal world. In addition to the threats we face this book discussed the right decisions to global security and economic structural reform. With understanding the real world, we can create the world capable to eradicate individuals’ self- interests that corrupt our societies. In addition to security, the big questions we face today are rooted from the global governments’ markets monopolization. Before the dawn of the classical economics, the monopolization of markets was not only a threat to economic growth but also to humanity and it will always be a threat to growth and humanity. Instead of removal, monopolization of markets creates great disparities of wealth and income in societies. Today, people are suffering in silence because of a successive governments continue imposing their will on the markets. As consequences we see more migrants, high youth unemployed in Africa, America, Asia, and in Europe, and also a decline purchasing power in the middle class in the developed nations.

In summary, this book is about realistic world. The book attempts to discuss why economic stagnation and slowdown. It indicates the roots of the current conflicts and terrorists and, security solutions are included.

Taking the World Responsibilities

The real difficult in changing the course of any enterprise lies not in developing new ideas, but in escaping olds one

- John Maynard Keynes

This is how We see American, France and Russian Leaders

White House view

International politics is driven by an endless struggle for power which has its roots in human nature. Justice, law, and society have either no place or are circumscribed.

Thucydides (c.430-406BC)

Kremlin view

Political realism recognises that principles are subordinated to policies; the ultimate skill of the state leader is to accept, and adapt to, the changing power political configuration in world politics

Machiavelli (1532)

Elyseé view

Politics is governed by laws that are created by human nature. The mechanism we use to understand international politics is through the concept of interests, defined in terms of power

Morgenthau (1948)

It is not human nature but the anarchical system which fosters fear, jealousy, suspicion and insecurity

- Rousseau (c.1750)

INTRODUCTION

12 Years Searching the Answer

March 2020, is the month we are finishing wrapping up this book, and the world is facing a couple crisis that seem dictating crucial decisions governments have ever made since their creation, such as Italy locking up the whole country due corona-virus. In addition to the global coronavirus pandemic health issues, we are now officially in a global bear markets, and we are marching towards a great economic depression, after a so long bull markets since the social-economic crisis of 2008. We do allow ourselves to call the 2008 economic crisis a socioeconomic crisis because of the American Wall Street and corporate bail out, which didn’t translate to the Main Street, such as improving social safety net of regular people, who were mostly hurt during the crisis. Let us hope that no government will repeat the same broken policies that affect so profoundly every citizen. It is not only health, and socioeconomic issues that are facing the world today, but also citizen of the world security, that has been one of the major factor in the inequity of everyone wealth, therefore propagating poverty around the world. The latter is the most crisis the world is facing right now, however, policy makers around the world are not reacting to this imminent issue as is climate change, which is practically the main origin of famines, poverty and pandemics and of course security. Let us affirm that American government and European governments do not comply with natural law of health, economic via global markets, and world security. The consequences are endless cycles of economic stagnation, wars, eruption of pandemic diseases, and poverty which is for us human rights issues.

According to Gaddis (2004) the Bush’s framework for fighting terrorism has its roots in the loft, idealistic tradition of John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under President James Monroe. Adams established the lofty, idealistic tradition, in his justifications for General Andrew Jackson’s conquest of Spanish-held Florida in the first Seminole War of 1818. The war was justified in self-defence, Adams argued. Thus the conquest was driven by legitimate security concerns (ibid). Legitimate security concerns because, there was an Indian attack which Jackson and Adams used as a pretext. But after the United States conquered Florida, Adams recognised the absurdity of his justification (Chomsky, 2006). In this sense according to Weeks (1992), the account of Adams, reminding historians not to search for truth in official explanation events.

This book is a result of twelve years of listening and observing as well as searching in literature for matching our observations with the correct context We are looking for solutions to economic and security questions. We now know that all American Presidents have only one option in foreign policy - applying Adams and Jackson strategy as White House consistent foreign policy. In order to maintain influence in the European countries, Russia is considered by White House and Capitol Hill as the best card thus as a pretext – Russia aggressor to European states. NATO is not European organisation. It is an organisation for American statesmen use to influence Europe. This means that Secretary General of NATO have to adhere to American Statesmen actions in Europe. In international politics, with the exception of America, nationalist states are considered to be enemy of American Statesmen. Within the European Union there are two political systems. The first system originated from Franco-German solidarity - the Schuman Plan. The second system originated from Anglo - Canadian –US Mutual Defence Treaty - the Atlantic Treaty System. Moreover, We now know that financial crisis in the markets and security threats to societies are created by statesmen behaviour.

Since the year of 2002 our interests were about observing and listening most people experienced in both economic and security strategies. Our interest in security strategy started by listening and observing as well as searching why Bush and Tony Blair supported invasion in Iraq. Our interest in economic policy began since the 2008 economic international crisis by observing and listening option of American, Chinese and European economists to stimulate economic grow. In addition to security solutions therefore, this book sorted out the confusion that creates conflict between the government and the public.

For searching security solutions for present and future struggle, in addition to understand the origin of the conflicts We looked into the Cold War literature. For economic structural reform, We started by looking into the views of the first economists in the field of economic reform. These economists include Turgot, Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith. While Richard Cantillon and Turgot as well as other economists were concerned with economic reform, Adam Smith was concerned with both economic reform and understanding what cause conflict in the society.

In his economic analysis, Adam Smith investigated the circumstances or causes that give men… superiority over the greater part of their brethren (Smith, 1937, p.653). He therefore examined several circumstances including institutions and other social settings. In all society he found that Civil government is instituted for the security of property, is in realty instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all (ibid, .674). In this context, in the medieval, societies permanently settled in one area while agriculture became the most important economic activity. Therefore, ownership of land became the most significant property relationship in differentiating classes according to their privileges and power. And lands were engrossed, and the greater part by a few greater proprietors" (ibid, p.361). Thus ownership of great estates was the source of social and political power. Accordingly, society was divided into the ruled and the rulers. The rulers were nobility and were thought to genetically superior to the ruled. The law of primogeniture prevented the great estates from being divided and thereby protected the power of the ruling class:

When land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times, every landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace and their leader in war (ibid. pp.361-362).

Adam Smith’s result about the causes that create inequality within society underlines the root of the 2008 international economic crisis and the current economic stagnation in many countries around the world as well as the root of both national and international conflicts. In other words, his conclusion means that as long as the governments will continue to fulfil interests of only one group of individuals within society than interests of public they stand for, there are no solutions to endless cycles of economic crisis and growth stationary. Thus like in Ireland (André, 2012), the root of the 2008 economic crisis is rooted from government economic policy not from markets. The crisis originated from government investments policy in real estate markets thus in the housing markets. But because of politicians are inherently like playing blame games, since the crisis, they argued and they continue to do so, that the root of crisis is the financial markets such as banks (ibid). In this sense, an impartial person would argue that the policymakers who regulate the financial markets are the ones who engineering the cycles of economic crisis. They regulate markets by increasing and decreasing government bonds in the markets. They regulate markets also by using Central Bank such as American Federal Reserves and European Central Bank - by monetary policy tools - interest rates - low and high interest rates. Thus the government agencies, at this point American Federal Reserves and European Central Bank can inflate or deflate markets. The government interventions in the financial markets therefore will continue to cause endless conflict between the government and the public about how to stimulate economic to sustainably grow. In other words, because of markets are naturally regulated, a result of inflating and deflating markets is a financial crisis in the markets thus economic crisis.

In the context of Adam Smith’s conclusion, today most government stand for the security of government bondholders in the markets than the security of self-made entrepreneurs. This indicates that although the markets can benefit from government bondholders, the suspicion of corruption between government bondholders and statesmen is there.

Because, like in housing markets, when markets collapse, the government bondholders are compensated by their government thus by taxpayers while the self-made entrepreneurs are not. The banking bailout system is a system created by government for compensating their bondholders in crisis time. This system operates under the aegis of Fund Monetary International (IMF). In other words, during the economic crisis are the taxpayers who suffer from the crisis and who also help self-made entrepreneurs to stimulate again economic to grow, not the government who stimulate economic to grow. Instead, the government are free rider, they benefit from self-made entrepreneurs – they benefit from companies of selfmade entrepreneurs, such us companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon etc.

So it is not surprising therefore that the first economists involved in the field of economic structural reform argued that the intervention of the state to economic process is not needed. Thus, in the markets people comply with natural rules. So that natural order is enough to stimulate economic to grow and sustain it. The first economists in the field of economic structural reform were French. They argued that France’s economic stagnation were due to the failure of the rulers to understand the natural law of markets.

Moreover, Adam Smith attempted to investigate the origins and the development of class conflict in society and the manner in which power was exercised in the class struggle. He found that although individuals’ self-interests benefit the whole society, however, individuals’ self-interest corrupts societies where great wealth created hierarchy. At this point, Ukraine is considered as a typical example, and will be discussed in this book. As a solution, Adam Smith advanced commercial thus market society as a last force that prevent unequal social dependency while rising the liberty and security of individuals. This further explains that war between Ukrainians was not a solution to Ukrainian’s economic dependency on Russia. The current war in Ukraine is a war against Ukraine as a nation thus the war between Ukrainian oligarchs. One can call oligarchs as lords in feudal society.

Only commerce can contributed to the rural society through introducing "the liberty of individuals (Smith, 1776)) and by relieving them of servile dependence. According to Smith, commerce and manufacturers gradually introduced order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of a servile dependency upon their superiors. In other words, it is the labor and industry of the people that alone brings wealth and makes trade profitable to the nation (Furniss, 1965, p.16). It is not the governments that cerate the wealth of nations, it is society itself.

In Smith’s view, trade between nations is, in general, not based on the differences between them that existed prior to trade. Rather, it is trade which leads to specialization and differences. Differences between nations, therefore are mainly due to the level of a nation’s division of labor, and thus of its productivity and its technology rather than due to natural differences. According to Smith, in consequence of the greater security of the towns industry flourished and stock accumulated there earlier than in the country. Thus ‘order and good government and along with then the liberty and security of individuals, were, in this manner, established in cities, at a time when the occupiers of land in the country were exposed to every sort of violence’ (ibid). Moreover, art and good manners also flourished - the inhabitants of a city are rich and opulent, where they enjoy the necessaries and conveniences of life in ease and security, there, the arts will be cultivated and refinement of manners a never-failing attendant (Indianapolis, 1985).

Supporting the Adam Smith thesis, according to Stewart (1858), the emergence of commercial centres ‘took their rise, not from any general scheme of policy, but from private interests and prejudices of particular orders of men’. This state of society, nevertheless, which at first arose from a singular, combination of accidents, has been prolonged much beyond its natural period, by a false system of Political Economy, propagated by merchants and manufacturers, a class of individuals whose interest is not always the same with that of the public…’ by means of this system, a new set of obstacles to the progress of national prosperity has been created (ibid). Thus, the false system of Political Economy which has been hitherto prevalent, as its professed object has been to regulate the commercial intercourse between different nations, has produced effect in a way less direct and less manifest, but equally prejudicial to the states that have adopted it(ibid). The principal methods of enriching a nation under this regulation system were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation and these regulations have been dictated by the spirit of monopoly, and part by a spirit of jealousy against those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous (ibid). Thus in Smith view, the independent power of towns and their inhabitants was a beneficial, but the development was going too far towards trade monopolies and sectional interests.

So, from Stewart view, one can learn that the current economic sanctions between European Union and Russia are not about interests of European and Russia public. Moreover, some American statesmen see the Ukrainian conflict as a market of weapons thus a market of military- industrial Corporation – Militaryindustrial complex in the President Dwight D. Eisehnower words. He was the first to acknowledge that the military-industrial complex tends to support policies that not benefit the public interests. Since the 1970s, inequality in American societies continues to increase because Members of Congress continue the practice of increasing taxpayers’ money in the arms, missile defense and nuclear race. Instead of financing public projects, they prefer to finance wars because of their interests in military-industry complex. According Bilmes (2005) the long-term financial toll of Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated to run to more than $1 trillion, or $ 11,300 for every household in the United States. In this context, Smith was also aware of that random violence, whether of war, civil war, feuding of even arbitrary justice, would stifle tendencies towards commercial activity. Therefore, Smith (1776) warned the danger of politicians taking sides in sectarian squabbles. He argued that if politics had never called in the aid of religion, sects would have been so numerous that they would have learned to tolerate each other (ibid). As an example, he noted Pennsylvania where though the Quakers were the most numerous, ‘the law in reality favors no one sect more than another, and it is there said to have been productive of this philosophical good temper and moderation’ (ibid). He saw that tolerance developed out of the productive balance and tension of different religious positions. He mentioned that in every civilized society where the distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there have been always two different systems of morality current at the same time; of which the one may be called the austere; the other the liberal. The former is generally admired and respected by the common people and religious people. The latter is commonly more esteemed and adopted by what are called people of fashion - self made entrepreneurs (ibid). Religious sects considered austere position of the citizenry. Today austere position is more preferred by wealth and richest people and bondholders thus by the nobility. In another words, the bondholders consider the state of austerity they consider markets to be regulate by government. In contrast, self- made entrepreneurs – the liberal reject austerity in the real markets. Thus they refuse government intervention in the markets. Instead they consider markets driven by natural law. This is because; governments regulate markets by creating market monopolies such as monopoly market of military Industrial Corporation. A market monopoly for weapons is created by government when military industries are owned by private companies instead owned by government. It is at this point where the economic structural reform originated. The first economists involved in the field of economic structural reform were against the state policies which were dedicated to privilege the markets over other markets. They were against feudal nobility. These policies were both destroyer of the markets and casus belli of all national and international conflicts in the last centuries. It is regrettable to see these policies comeback as the driver of the 21st century markets. In this direction, it is naïve not to recognize that the markets of weapons are wars. This means that as long as the production of arms are in the hands of private companies, the invisible hands do whatever they can to create markets of weapons - they create conflicts.

Why this book is indispensable? The authors of this book use not only impartial method in investigating historical conflict events but also they understand necessary strategies that evolve economic to sustainable growth. To engineering economic to sustainable path, solving security questions is a first step. We are afraid, the readers of this book may think that the authors of this book are full of themselves. But they are not. They are the ones of among the impartial people around who decided to speak up, and break the silence on untold facts. In the real world, one is judged by how well he/she brings things to an end. Moreover, the right way for ending conflict is to know when to stop. Thus, the only possible way to end conflicts is to avoid all conflicts and tension that can cause difficult to exits from within. The ambition of this book is to discuss ways for ending conflicts and to investigate economic structural reform in Europe as well as the origin of increasingly income inequality in the United States. Thus how to get out from endless economic stagnation in emerging markets, originating from Europe, and why current American economic growth is not a benefit to all American societies. Thus why instead to sustainable grow, American economy continue to decline, while world conflicts continue. Why American statesmen continue the path of engaging American men and women with uniform in endless wars is also discussed. In other words, this book is one of responses to the challenges the most countries face and also the book makes clear to understanding the questions that every statesperson should be asked and answers with clarity.

According to Smith we have no immediate experience of what other men feel we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation (Smith 1759). In his book entitled ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ published in 1759, Smith notes that our action is largely guided to moral action than reason? In addition to beneficent actions, it identifies the necessary rules of prudence and justice that are needed by society to survive. As individuals, we have a natural tendency to look after ourselves - this tendency is considered as prudence. Smith also explains that as social creatures, we are endowed with a natural empathy towards others. When we see others distressed or happy, we feel for them –albeit less strongly. Equally, others see our empathy and feel for us. However, when their feelings are particularly strong, empathy prompts them to restrain their emotions so as to bring them into line with our less intense reactions. In this way, as we grow from childhood to adulthood, we each learn what is and is not acceptable to other people. And our moral behavior stems from our social nature. It is something natural built into us as social beings, sometimes referred to as emotional intelligence. In our imagination we see ourselves in the position of others. When we see people happy or sad, we feel happy or sad too. Likewise, we empathize when we see people acting in ways we approve of. In fact, we feel genuine pleasure from sharing in the emotions and opinions of others. Therefore, self-interested we need to work out how to live with others without doing them harm. This is an essential condition for the survival of society. We cannot demand positive action or good behavior as we demand justice. In this direction, Smith admitted that only impartial person or impartial spectator would be able fully empathize with our emotions and action. He uses empathy as a key word in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. The word empathy derives from our experiences of how we see point of view of others and being in their position, Smith noted.

According to Smith, the most progressive about capitalism is the increase in freedom and security for the majority of producers. In the beginning, the self-interests of landlords led them to abolish the conditions of serfdom and slavery and to permit these former serfs and slaves to enjoy certain rights of property and security. And because of security, according to Smith, a person, who can acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much and to labour as little as possible (ibid). In contrast to Smith’s argument, today, human security is in danger in many places of the world, and none can predict when peace will be restored in these places such as in Syria and Iraq in Middle East and Libya in Africa According to Hans Blix (2004), disarming Iraq was not only a powerful and necessary record of the most important event, but a careful consideration of what the future holds for peace and security in the world after Iraq. The ambition of this book is to share our observation with the reader of this book and highlight the danger and challenges we face as a result of Middle East, Libya and Ukraine question. This book is a result from our nonstop observation upon American and European political class’s view about global security and economic reform since the year of 2002 until today. From this book, the reader does not only learn security questions but also how economic evolving thus the real economic structural reform. We wrote this book because We have experience in knowing how political decisions are taken in both economics and conflicts. We have experience in learning the next decision on the present or current political conflict event. For example after observing the collapsed of Yanukovych government in February 21/2014 and observing what was going in Crimea, we learned that President Vladimir Putin was going to sign for unification of Crimea to Russia while most commentators were struggling to know if he was going to sign. It was not difficult to understand why he was going to sign, one has to use empathy and be free from partial thinking in order to understand the reality. After the collapse of Yanukovych government, the Ukrainian parliament approved new laws include the Act banning the Russian language as second official Ukraine language while some demonstrators demolish Soviet-Ukraine historical monuments. We decided to search why Ukrainian opposition leaders are hostile to Ukrainian-ethnic Russian language. Therefore, in searching why instead to establishment of a new government for a peaceful transition to accomplishing the Ukrainians demand, Ukrainian Parliament took the step to enact new laws include the Act banning the Russian language as second official in Ukraine; we found that Ukraine was already ethnically divided. Ukraine divided between the Ukrainian-speaking West and North and the Russian-speaking East and South. From this research we also better learned what Crimea and Black sea signify to Russians. From this research We found that the conflict can be defined as power conflict itself in national and international level. The power conflict itself is always not about for a country economic justice and security it is associated with individuals or nations fighting for just power. It is about a group of individuals who have common interests to fight for. These groups are always driven by gamble -. In event of gambling the losers lead to many variables and complicated problems. They try harder to save their situation, and this cause many problems and getting out from it is difficult.

The way that helps for understanding how right decisions are created within framework of political conflict events is to understand event itself. Timing is a right strategy in political decisions. Assuming is a wrong strategy in political decisions making. One can apply assumptions in economic decisions but political decisions based on assumptions are total completely irrational. These decisions create chaos until the right decisions are founded. Thus until the people involved in the conflict understand that both their interests are in win-win situation. Otherwise, the timing decision will repeat itself if it was in one-sided. In politicking, timing is always pivoting backward and forward. Therefore, timing needs to be examined in equal terms in order to take the right decision on conflict.

Before President George W Bush and Tony Blair decide to invade Iraq, there were increasing debates in the United Nations and in Europe from Brussels to Berlin against invasion in Iraq. Moreover, popular movement from America to Europe stand up against the invasion but nothing stopped invasion. The decision to invade Iraq was already taken before the debates happen. In our view, President Bush introduced the debates in the United Nations for looking if invasion can be supported by the United Nations. We followed with carefully most all debates, and we concluded that the objectives of the debates were happening just for looking supporting the invasion from USA citizen and supporters. When we saw Collin Powell presenting the evidences of why invasion in Iraq was imminent, we felt sorry for him. When he was presenting the evidence, anybody could see that himself was not convinced of the evidences. In addition when we heard Donald Rumsfeld speaking about old Europe and New Europe and to expand NATO to Eastern Europe, most of people were shocked. At this stage, therefore, it was our hope that the Bush administration already prepared how Iraq is going to become after military victory. At this point we knew also that Tony Blair already had plan because of the British history in Iraq. We were interested to know if invasion in Iraq was about people of Iraq or Oil. In the end, what happened after military victory was a chaos, and still today. Because of this chaos, in 2008 during the presidential campaign, our thought was that if Obama wins the election he would resolve the Iraq question in a peaceful way. When he won the election, everyone was happy that finally American men and women in uniform were going to leave Iraq, while the Iraq sectarian question finding solution. Instead, Iraq chaos increased. On top of Iraq chaos, the same policies that created the same chaos were applied to Libya. Although Syria was/is already in chaos, it was another target but both the USA leader and UK Leaders were stopped by people of United Kingdom (UK). Thus the so-called red line on Syria traced by President Obama was disrupted by British people who were tired of unilateral wars fomented by the British and America government as was the 2003 Iraq war.

In Ukraine we were not surprised about the current Ukrainian conflict. Our study on Ukraine question started since the Ukraine Orange Revolution. When the current Ukrainian conflict began, the direct responses to the conflict from Brussels and Washington indicated the lack of grasping well why the Cold War after the Second World War and, why the Cold War ended. The responses to Ukraine question were / are to condemn the Russian Statesmen as the origin of Ukrainian conflict. Subsequently the Ukraine question became and is a propaganda tool for against Russia and vice versa. In addition it seems somehow respondent Leaders from Brussels and Washington has never studied carefully the origin of European Security and vice versa. Thus the Brussels and Washington reaction to the Ukrainian conflict was /is like reaction of someone who does not understand the security problem within the central of Europe and in the part of East Europe. At this point we argue that if someone reacts on false information, instead of finding solutions to the problem, him /she further aggravates it and seed hatred in people. One needs to have correct information on issues in order to find solutions. We do invite the reader of this book to read it with particular goal of understanding security in Europe and in every corner of the world. In this direction, it is up to the European Union to provide a solid map for better relation between Russian and United States, not United States will provide better relation between European Union and Russian. The battle of wills is inevitable when two people or groups interact; there is always a constant maneuvering between them to define the relationship that determines who control over this and that. In other words playing politics is like playing a chessboard. Russia is not a threat to both Europe and America security thus a threat to the West Germany. If one does not think that Russia is not aggressor to Ukraine, this book addresses everything about Russia. If one knows the origin of the end of cold war, he/she knows also why Russia is not interested rebuilding Soviet Union.

We wrote this book because we do not agree with people who create confusion in mind of other people. We only like critics because critics stimulate innovations; We do not like blame game which We found that is inherently in political matters. The Ukrainian question is a better example for understanding why blame game is inherently in politics. In the 21st century we need to end the culture of blame game in politics. In this context, most people argue that history repeat itself. History is not repeating itself; people repeat history because it gives them advantages. But it weakens the state of the economy. Ukrainian guerrilla resistance to Russians ran at a high level for years, while its Lithuanian counterpart killed some 20, 000 Soviet troops in 1944-1948(Pethybridge, 1981, pp66- 67, and Tolstoy, 1981, pp266, 354). In this period, Russians were fighting for Soviet Union. What we want to note at this point is that the conflict between Ukrainians and Russians is not new. This means that the current conflict and war between native Ukrainians and Ukrainian ethnic Russians is not defined as Russian aggressor. Instead of aggravating it, one need to understand the real Ukrainians questions for definitely solving it. The problem not only creates an endless stagnation in European Union economies but also it is a threat for Europe.

Ukrainians Pro-European and Ukrainians Pro-Russia is a blame game and it is not a `root of Ukrainian conflict as most argue. People who use these terms confuse the mind of people who do not know the Ukraine question - most politicians like confusing arguments to confuse listeners. This confusion is a point where threats to human security are endlessly originated. In other words, because of human selfishness, conflict can be created once it advantages the creators - as human being we all have invisible hands (Smith, 1937). In this sense one is called to examine wisely the current conflict situation in both American and European community – see if the situation we are now experienced is not a step backward. We need a step forward for better future. Keep in mind at this point that when intelligence institutions do not have the right question to look for, their report is irrelevant. Furthermore, in the twenty-first century so much information is already known by so many. Thus only the right question can be a solution to the problem.

On basis of Ukraine question, it looks somehow the new members particularly the leaders from Eastern Europe and Baltic states do not understanding well the values of European Union and its origins. Our argument can be wrong, but if we are right, we recommend these Leaders for learning from President De Gaulle’s vision for Europe. It is difficult for someone to understand the European values when he /she lacks of understanding both the origins of NATO and European Economic Community (EEC). In other words, it is not surprising to hear some political class argue that European Economic Community Project is not well established. This book explains clearly both the origins of NATO and EEC. The collapse of European Economic Community thus Eurozone will come from within because, with the exception of the founders of the EEC, most members do not grasp well why they are members of EEC. Being a member of ECC, it is not about only economic advantages, it is especially recognizing the values of European continent. Without understanding the difference between NATO and EEC, it is impossible to know what Eurozone is for. In 1960s, Gaullist questioned about NATO alliance. In addition to Soviet Union, they recognized that the United States imposed constraints and the institutions of the posts -war western world. The institutions designed at favor of the United States economic power. To both understand and strengthen the Eurozone project, in addition to President De Gaulle’s vision for Europe, We recommend the reader of this book to examine the Chancellor Willy Brandt’s vision for European states’ relationship, which we will later discuss in this book.

This book starts by discussing security questions. First, It is necessary to understand what mean security dilemma. Better understanding security dilemma is to investigate the Peloponnesian War, a conflict between the Athens and Sparta, thus War between two greater powers in the ancient Greek World. The cause of the war was the increasing power of Athenian and the fear of this growth power in Sparta mind. The result of the fear of Sparta was therefore to go to war to prevent being defeated by Athens in the future. The Sparta’s goal was to preserve the Sparta Empire. In this context, Athenian leader, Pericles, called this action of Sparta as acting on the basis of the most fundamental of human motivations: ambition, fear, and self- interest. According to Machiavelli, how a leader is supposed to act in a world animated by this thinking of force is that, all obligations and treaties with other states must be disregarded if the security of the community is under threat. Furthermore, imperial expansion is legitimate as it is a means of gaining greater security. One can understand this argument by understanding why the Soviet Union occupied the East Germany while Britain, France and United States occupied the West Germany after the Second War World. It is explained in this book. With the end of East Germany occupation by Soviet Russia in 1989 and the arrival of world multi-polar systems, this expressed the end of East and West security dilemma. However, the West military forces thus NATO continues moving eastward- moving on Russia borders. This means Russia’s security dilemma. In other words, instead of building security system under European continent control, NATO still operating security system with divided Europe.

Like in the Balkan states, the ethnic conflict in Eastern Europe cannot and will not be resolved by increase military forces there, but by understanding the roots of the conflict. One needs to be naïve to argue that NATO military forces can prevent conflict such as current Ukrainian conflict.

The only way can help to find the roots that lead to conflict is to start by investigation for to identify the main terminologies within international background. This is because when these terminologies are violated often originate conflict both national and international. First terminology is the Raison d’Etat which is the fundamental principle of international conduct, the State’s First Law of Motion. It tells the statesman what he must do to preserve the health and the strength of the State. The priority for state leaders is to ensure the survival of their state – national interests - the promotion of the national interests. Returning Crimea to Russia is a better example for better understanding this terminology. Historically and geographically Crimea is a province of Russia. Moreover, the Black sea in Crimea is indivisible Russia national interests - Russians’ military base. Thus as Crimea is a Russians’ military base, Crimea is the Russia’s First law of Motion. When Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, he never considered that one day Ukrainian’s government will fight against Ukrainian ethnic Russians or against Russia language as also an official language in Ukraine. In addition to geo-economic- politicos, the current conflict in Ukraine is a result of disregard the Ukrainian – ethnic Russians by Kiev government. Second terminology is the Sovereignty of State.

Sovereignty means that no outsider actors can compel state to act in specific ways. Third is the legitimacy of State. The legitimacy enables the state to exercise authority within its domestic borders. Fourth is a self- help principle. It is the principle of action in anarchical system where each state actor is responsible for ensuring its own well-being and survival. These terminologies are more important in terms of international politics but today it is rare that the root of conflict is rooted in these terminologies. Today conflicts are rooted in internal conflicts. The casus belli of these conflicts is rooted in economic conflict - economic stagnation, economic inequality, corruption and political strategies based on ethnicity.

The security dilemma between Russia and United States began during the cold war and led to the creation of the so-called détente between them. Its origins resulted from their mutual recognition to avoid nuclear crisis and unconstrained arms race. This détente was associated with the political leadership of President Richard Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger. However, the détente did not help to end political conflict between America and Russia. Each pursued political goals. Both sides supported friendly regimes and movements and subverted adversaries. It was argued that growing Soviet military superiority was reflected in growing Soviet influence. Critics claimed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) process enabled the Soviets to deploy multiple independently targetable war-heads on their large InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), threatening key American forces. Other events were seen to weaken American influence. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 was considered as the loss of an important Western ally in the region even though the government was hostile to both superpowers. This was caused by NATO to agreeing to deploy land-based Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe if negotiations with the Soviets did not reduce what NATO saw as serious imbalance. The Soviets claimed that President Reagan’s real purpose was to regain the nuclear monopoly of the 1950s.

In Western Europe and the Soviet Union, there was real fear of nuclear war. Critics claimed that this was resulting from Reagan rhetoric and policies of Reagan administration. American statements on nuclear weapons and military intervention in Grenada in 1983, and against Libya in 1986 were seen as evidence of a new belligerence. Reagan’s policy towards Central America, and support for the rebel Contras in Nicaragua were sources of controversy in international politics. In 1983, Soviet air defences shot down a South Korean civilian airliner in Soviet airspace. The American reaction and the imminent deployment of US missiles in Europe created a climate of great tension in East-West relations. And further more NATO training exercise led the Soviet leadership to believe that NATO was preparing to attack them. In this sense, the risk of accidental nuclear war in this period could have been significant. But these tensions of early 1980s were reduced by Mikhail Gorbachev who became President in 1985. When George Bush Senior became President, the successor of President Reagan, he concluded a Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) agreement that reduced long-range nuclear weapons. For trust between White House and Kremlin, President Gorbachev used agreements on nuclear weapons as means of building trust.

However, the tensions between Russia and United States continue to take place because of their competing interests within the United Nation and, on resolving world conflicts such as Iraq conflict in 2003 and current conflict in both Syria and Ukraine. Since 2003, number of young Europeans went to fight in Iraq; particular more went in Syria in 2011. Experience indicates that as trained militarily returned in Europe, it was hard to predict their new life in European community. As precaution, it was necessary to find a better way they could be economical integrated withins their societies. In general the today world conflicts are rooted in inequality based on ethnicity thus sectarianism conflict such as sectarian conflict in Iraq.

During Iraq under the British rulers, Iraq was transformed as in-egalitarianism society- a style of feudal aristocracy. Therefore, Britain could rely upon the dependent and obedient elites it was created to protect its interests under its colonial system. The strategy of the British civil commissioner in Iraq, Gertrude Bell, was to work with the largely urban and Sunni nationalists to create a modernized Iraq. Her objective was to end the power of the Shia religious hierarchy, which she considered obscurantist, over the community which constituted 60 per cent of the population. After the 2003 Iraq invasion, instead of the Sunni on power control in Iraq, the Iraq power was taken by the Shia. So it is rational to define the current conflict in Iraq as conflict between Sunni and Shia. At this point one can add that the Iraq sectarian conflict was created by the British colonialism system in Iraq. Therefore resolving this conflict would require to begin by understanding the right question, then ask Shia and Sunni to discuss a new constitution for win-win between both people. Before proceeding to such conversation however, someone should acknowledge that Britain’s colonial strategy in Iraq have already established the force of anti-western sentiment in the Middle East. Thus in the Middle East both Shia and Sunni are anti- European, and American system of defining how Shia and Sunni can share power. While they consider the European as the one who created sectarian problem in Middle East, the Shia and Sunni describe the United States, as an indispensable part of hostile world Arab system, and play a central role in controlling the Arab’s oil through Saudi Arabia.

In 2003 when the Bush administration and Tony Blair government invaded Iraq, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicted that an American- led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict, later engendering terror within Iraq and worldwide. The NIC confirmed these expectations in December 2004, reporting that Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are ‘professionalised’ and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself. The NIC also predicated that, as a result of the invasion, this new globalised network of diffuse Islamic extremist groups would spread its operations elsewhere to defend Muslim land from attack by infidel invades, with Iraq replacing Afghanistan as a training ground. In addition, CIA report of May 2005 confirmed that Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s. The CIA report concluded that Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda’s early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for Urban Combat. The NIC and CIA Reports highlight my point I discussed earlier that in political-decisions, assuming what is going to happen is irrational thus create endless chaos and conflicts. No doubt the Bush Administration had learned the NIC and CIA reports but decided to go ahead in invading Iraq. In other words they invaded Iraq to fulfill their wishes, to make Iraq a democratic country. Nevertheless, when a decision is based on wishes, it becomes unrealistic decision. For example Cuba economic sanctions were based on wishes decisions – assuming that economic sanctions will raise insurrection in Cuba against Fidel Castro power. Moreover, economic sanctions to Russia were/are based on assuming that Russians will stop supporting Ukrainian-ethnic Russians in Ukraine against decisions taken by Kiev government. In addition, the decision of NATO military exercises in the NATO Baltic States is also based on assuming if Russia is going to invade these states or one of these states. NATO Military exercises in Eastern Europe, explain the lack of understanding Ukraine question in Geo-economic-politicos. The NATO military exercises in these states not only threaten the Baltic States’ population but also the European Population. In other words, the exercises threaten the European values – economic justice and a peaceful Europe. We don’t use the term human rights; We prefer to use the term economic justice.

Ethnic conflict in any state can only be resolved by compromise means - military means exacerbate the conflict. This is because; conflict is rooted from country economic mismanagement- lack of economic right for every individual. The durable solution to conflict therefore is strong economic integration within state and between states. For example, the introduction of the Euro Currency highlight a new era of a peaceful Europe - a deeper sense of economic integration and political identity throughout European Union. The Euro adds confidence in the European Union in the context of discussions for European security. In this context, promote new vision and reflection on the nature of security threats in the distress economies which are found in the Balkans and in Ukraine is necessary. In principal, domestic economy and political variables is a major determinants of variation in policies of states which lead to its living in peace or in conflicts However, because of country economic integration matters, country economic integration influence the relation between states - the relations between states are based on shared interests and culture values. In this sense therefore, conflicts, war and others contests result from disagreements over the status of distributional issues. In contrast, a peace and stability are an outcomes of political actors disagreement, but seek to realise their differences through non-violent methods of competition.

The book also discusses the view of United States on terrorism. In general terrorism is any method use of force, intimidation and violence. From point of view of USA policymakers: terror is terror in the standard sense if you do it to us; but if we do it to you, it’s benign, it is humanitarian intervention, and it’s with benign intent (Chomsky, 2006). According to Gaddis (2004) the Bush’s framework for fighting terrorism has its roots in the loft, idealistic tradition of John Quincy Adams and Woodrow Wilson. As secretary of state under President James Monroe, Adams established the lofty, idealistic tradition in his justifications for General Andrew Jackson’s Conquest of Spanish-held Florida in the first Seminole war of 1818. The war was justified in self-defense, Adams argued. The conquest was driven by legitimate security concerns (ibid). This traditional view of Adams became American way of struggle for Sphere of influence and this way continues to be extended to the world by all American Presidents. However, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria war underlined that Adams’s strategy of fighting for sphere of influence in the name of security concern is outdated. Instead of security, the strategy cements the insecurity all over the world- from America to Middle East, Europe and Africa. In other words, what was a policy strategy of expanding empire in twentieth century, in 21st first century this strategy becomes a strategy of threating human security. There is more literature on terrorism; We do recommend the reader to study the Noam Chomsky’s studies on terrorism, his study on terrorism is not bias. A part of his study is discussed in large in this book.

In relation to how the United States is viewed within international politics is also examined in this book. Prior to the Second World War, the United States was/still the world richest country but its role in international politics was not known before the Cold War. In other words, the United States became well-known as a powerful country both militarily and economically because of the security concerns in Germany after Second World War. Thus both Soviet Union and United States occupied Germany because of their security concerns. Subsequently what was German security question became a Cold War between Russia and United States. Thus despite that the reason made both to occupy Germany was security question, their view on how world can be ruled was /is different. Thus Russia’s political class and United States’ political class they viewed as enemies; against each other. From this point, the political class who are enemy of the United States in international political arena are independent nationalism. American political class are always viewed independent nationalism as the enemies. In other words, any political parties which are not willing to cut and paste or plagiarize American political class’s world view are enemies of the United States. In general, American political class view the socialist parties commonly called the Leftist Parties as enemies of America. For example, in the 1970s, a Chilean democratic Socialism elected government ruled by Salvador Allende was replaced by a government dictator, headed by President General Augusto Pinochet supported by American political class. In other words, American foreign policy is basically driven by struggle of supporting governments friendly to American political institutions. This position weakens the United Nations institutions. As long as interests of America are not being considered in the United Nations’ new resolution, America rejects the resolution. This means that effectiveness of the United Nations institutions needs a compromise builds up with respect of interests of United Nations. Increasing the United Nations permanent members will not change why often the United Nations’ Permanent members reject the United Nations’ new resolutions. In democratic institutions, decisions result from compromise with people or institutions with different views are effective than unilateral decisions based on one institutions view. The lack of compromise on solutions to the conflicts or to other issues by the permanent members of United Nations results to endless conflict. Compromising on decisions always goes within democratic institutions, but most people think that politicians who are messengers of democracy are the ones who respect democratic principles. As democratic people, most United States citizens believe that the public has little influence on government decisions and few believe that Congress will conform the decisions the majority of Americans would make. They rank their own government below Britain, Sweden, Canada, and others on the scale ranging from the not democratic at all to completely democratic (Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 29 September 2005). The results of undemocratic governments are a lack of understanding economic justice. According to the biennial studies of the Economic Policy Institute, the State of Working America, in the 1970s, real