The Russia’s Nuclear Missle Threats;America and Her Allies As Agents of Provocation

Abstracts.

The Month of August 2008, witnessed for the first time, since the end of the cold war an open threat of nuclear bomb attack by Russia to her former ally, Poland. The obvious reason being the US missile defence agreement with Poland. The US plans to build silos for 10 ballistic missile interceptor rockets in Northern Poland, and a radar base South of Prague in the Czech Republic. The US claims this missile defence programme is for rogue states like Iran, North Korea etc.

Russia on its own has condemned the US action and has gone further to issue a threat of nuclear attack if the US goes ahead. As a result of this, Russia has decided to deploy Iskander M-short range missile in Kaliningrad, Russia’s western most garrison. This is located at a point between Poland and Lithuania. Tensions are been generated and panic attacks sent through out the world. Questions are been raised if this could led to a nuclear war and thus bring to the end of civilization and enlightenment. Therefore, this article will look at the causes, costs and effects of eventual nuclear war in the making. It will argue that American and her allies are actually the agents of provocation and double standards hence the nuclear threat. Using the Realism international relations theory, this article will explain the actions of America and her allies. Finally suggestions to avoid a nuclear war will be provided.

Introduction.

The world has become more dangerous now than it was during the cold war. At least the containment policies of then super powers ensured peace. The demise of communism marked the beginning of the unipolar world with America emerging as the only super power. Unchecked by any rival, with decisive reach in every corner of the globe including its massive wealth and influences, American has truly become a bully.

The increase in the US military power has created insecurity for other nations like, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc. More so the emergence of America as the only super power has enabled the US and her allies (EU and NATO) to display double standards in the international political arena. These double standard practises is what is truly threatening the global peace. This article will focus more on the Russian threat of military attack on Poland, which I will argue is as a result of acts of provocation by US and her allies.

Following the out break of hostilities between Russia and Georgia on August 8, 2008. The US and her allies have done more to provoke the Russians, hence the Russian threat of nuclear bomb attack on Poland. I will outline the double standard nature of America actions globally, which goes to explain that the current stand of America and her allies on the Russian Georgian conflicts is only an act of provocation.

The lessons to be learnt here is that the American foreign policies are not only immoral, but are helping to create an unsafe world. This paper will comment on the Russia Georgian conflict, which the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin has accused the US of provoking. “Putin suggested the Georgian war had been cooked up in Washington to create a neo-cold war climate that would strengthen Republican candidate John McCain’s bid for the white house”(The Guardian, Friday, 29th August 2008 page 1). The writer will ask the world to hold America and her allies responsible if they succeed in provoking Russia into a nuclear war.

Russian Georgian Conflicts; the American’s Involvement.

There has been serious tension between Russia and Georgia for a very long time, due mainly to the Russian support for the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There have been occasional skirmishes in the past. Georgian has always accused the Russians of supporting the breakaway regions.

Interestingly in 2006 there was an independence referendum in South Ossetia which was supported by nearly 99% of its population. Russia recognised this referendum but America and her allies did not. On September 13, 2006, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at that time, Terry Davis described the referendum as a waste of time and effort which no nation will recognize. On his part the then chairman of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Mr Karel De Gucht described the idea of South Ossetia holding a referendum as a counter productive exercise which will not be recognized by both international community and the OSCE. He made the remarks on October 2, 2006. On November 11, 2006, the NATO Secretary General at that time, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said “On behalf of NATO, I join other international leaders in rejecting the so called “referendum” and election conducted in the South Osettia/Tskhinvali region of Georgia…Such actions serve no purpose other than to exacerbate tensions in the South Caucasus region”( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006).

At about the same time, May 2006 specifically, Montenegro held an independence referendum to break away from Serbia. This referendum was recognized by the US and her allies, including the independence aspirations of other nations that make up former Yugoslavia. The latest being the US recognition of Kosovo. The question is, why did the US and her allies refused to recognise the will of the people of South Ossetia/Abkhazia. Why will American tell the whole world that they are defending human rights, democracy and will of the people when they could not recognise a referendum conducted in South Ossetia.

Another contrast to the America’s claim of defending democracy and the will of the people, was when President Bush gave a speech demanding that late Arafat step down as the chairman of Palestinian Authority of which he was duly elected.(Curtis, 2003). To me America and her allies have lost every moral standard to claim to be defending human rights and democracy. Citing another example of American human right abuses, are the case of al Qaeda prisoners. Article 17 of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids the use of physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion on the prisoners of war (Newsweek,2005). But the American government interprets this international convention differently, “On January 22nd 2002, in a memo to the White House and Pentagon, the justice department says Geneva would not apply to “the detention conditions of al Qaeda prisoners” and customary international law has no binding legal effect on either the president or the military because it is not a federal law as recognized by the U.S. Constitution”(Newsweek, November 21, 2005 P 46).

In their remarks about President Bush, the UK Sunday Times has this to say, “He has unilaterally suspended the Geneva conventions and unilaterally violated American law in sanctioning wire-tapping and torture. By any rational measure, he and Cheney have committed war crimes and their only defence is that they are above such laws and so incapable of committing any crimes in the defence of the nation” (Sunday Times, August 28th 2008, P 4). In fact America is the chief violator of people’s right.

The primary source of the Russian Georgian conflict is the US support for Georgia to join NATO. The Bush administration has formed close relations with the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili, of Georgia. This romance gained momentum since the “Rose Revolution” of 2003 that brought the Georgian president to power. The US has offered military and economic assistance, while encouraging Georgia to behave in manner that looked as if she was already a member of the NATO and EU. This false encouragement by the US was part of the reason why Tbilisi decided to attack South Ossetia on the August 8, 2008. Georgia felt she was under the protective custody of the US and that America and her allies would come to her support whenever she attacks South Ossetia. The Georgian attack on the breakaway region of South Ossetia elicited the Russian intervention to assist South Ossetians and Abkhazia, 90% of whom claim to be Russians. Many lives were lost as a result of the conflict. Therefore America should take responsibility for the people killed in this conflict.

The US started training Georgian troop in 2002 firstly to be used in her fight against terrorism and secondly for the US led war in Iraq. The Bush administration gave Georgia $151 million as security aid between 2004 and 2006. Georgia was also a beneficiary of Millennium Challenge Corporation. A fund established by the Bush government to reward countries for effective governance. Georgia came among the top five beneficiaries with funds totally $295 million. Some of the America’s economic aid has been useful in the development of Georgia. The credit should go to America. But some of these economic developments are geared towards preparing the Georgian economy for market economy to benefit the west.

However economic imperialism can be described as the major US interest in the region. There are natural resources in Georgia which America has so much interest on, and that is the oil. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline runs through Georgia allowing the US access to oil not pumped through Russia in the North and Iran through the south. The US has interest in the Caspian Sea resources of oil and natural gas, and wants to use Georgia as a route towards shipping these resources without going through Russia and Iran. This is the main attraction of the US and to further unveil the true interest of the US in the region are the following statements; “A Kazakh government source has been quoted as saying that, it is clear that the continuing war in Afghanistan is no more than a veil for the US to establish political dominance in the region. The war on terrorism is only a pretext for extending influence over our energy resources”…., “In December 2001 the US Assistant Secretary of State, Elizabeth Jones, said that when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region”(Curtis,2003,P80).

Russia has never hidden her opposition to the US involvement with Georgia and US supports for Georgian membership of NATO. Reason being that, this is her sphere of influence and Russia considers the move to be against her security interest. I will agree with Russia, owning largely to manner the US is going about it, which amounts to security threat for Russia. Authorities in Moscow have sent several protests again the US involvements in the region. According to the Guardian Newspapers “Moscow has been complaining for years that the west and the US in particular, ignores its concerns. Medvedev said it again on Wednesday. Then he reeled off a litany of grievances including claims that Washington deliberately provoked last summer’s Georgian conflict, that NATO is intent on encircling his country with bases, and that planned American missile defence facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic are targeted at Russia. Hence in his view, the need for the Kaliningrad build up”(Guardian Newspapers, Friday November 7 2008, page 28).

Some proponents of NATO expansion have argued that, it will deter Russia from attempting to engage in territorial reacquisition to recover lost territories or to intimidate its smaller neighbours. They proponents of this expansion maintains that it could enhance and promote security and stability in the region by providing assurances to other non NATO members in the area (Jackson and Sorensen ,2003). I will tend to disagree with this idea of NATO expansion enhancing peace. Rather I see it as destabilising the existing balance of peace in the region.

NATO is also on the vanguard of organisations abusing human rights. Drawing from the lessons of NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia and consequent deaths of innocent people caused by NATO, we will begin to understand the concerns of Russia. NATO is simply a tool for oppression, cohesion, suppression, imperialism and destabilization in the hands of the US. NATO used the pretext of humanitarian intervention to drop bombs on the former Yugoslavia. Whereas in actual fact, it was NATO that caused the humanitarian crisis. There was no humanitarian disaster until NATO started bombing. Drawing inference from what, “General Naumann, Chairman of NATO ‘s Military Committee in 1999, said on channel 4 that the humanitarian disaster may have been accelerated by NATO, and definitely some of the atrocities which happened were caused by NATO bombs, since [these provoked] this vendetta feeling”(Curtis,2003,P136). Please note the channel 4 mentioned above is a UK television channel.

Witnessing the above atrocities from NATO and realising that, its willing tool at the hands of the US, one will begin to understand the Russian opposition to Georgian joining her, especially being a close door neighbour to Russia. At the same time we also need to examine the failed American promise not to extend NATO eastwards. Just towards the end of the cold war, there was a promise by the US leadership not to extend NATO east, “The American in the end, made only one concession to Gorbachev, they promised, in the words of Secretary of State James Baker, that there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction one inch to the east. A commitment later repudiated by Bill Clinton’s administration, but only after the Soviet Union had ceased to exist”(Gaddis,2005,P251). While the truth remains that the US and her allies (EU and NATO) is still suspicious of Russia. My view is that Russia is no longer a threat to the US. This fact can be made clearer from a statement from the last president of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev. He said, “An end has been put to the cold war, the arms race, and the insane militarization of our country, which crippled our economy, distorted our thinking and undermined our morals. The threat of a world war is no more”( Gaddis,2005,P251). Terrorism is what I believe is the threat the US is facing. Parts of these were caused by the American foreign policies.

Just recently also, western concerns about global energy markets began to rise, simply because Russia, Iran and Qatar announced that they will form an OPEC –style gas cartel. The west is already suspecting that Russia and Iran are planning to use energy to pursue political goals. The European Union is not comfortable with this new Russia’s idea, reason being that she depends on Russia for nearly half of its natural gas importations. The following comments were made as a result of the Russia’s concept to form a gas cartel. “The European Commission said last night that it would oppose the creation of any organization that could restrict competition”(The Guardian newspapers, Wednesday October 22 2008, P23).

America, EU, and NATO do not want to see any thing good coming from Russia. They are ever so ready to sabotage any move made by Russia, even the ones made in good faith. It is simply the American greed, capitalism and imperialism that are pushing them to meddle in the affairs of Georgia.

War actually broke out on the August 8 2008, when Georgian attacked South Ossetia. Russia intervened to help the South Ossetians whom were being massacred by the Georgian military. Interestingly the Georgian military used weapons supplied by the America to kill both innocent civilians and their enemy forces. As the war raged, the western propaganda machinery, that is the media rallied support in favour of Georgia. Russia was accused of being the aggressor and called all sorts of name. The western public were deceived through false information via the mass media. The media campaign and negative propaganda is still going. The US activities in Georgia helped the Georgian government to bring about insecurity and human right abuses in the troubled region of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The conflicts resulted in refugee crisis as people left their home for fear of being killed. Many people were killed on both sides of the conflicts, properties were destroyed and people displaced. All these were as a result of US foreign policies which has created serious tension between, Russia and Georgia, Russia and NATO, Russia and the EU and Russia and the US.

During the few days the conflict lasted, the US did more to aggravate the volatile situation between Russia and Georgia. As the war was going on the US decided to sign a missile shield treaty with Poland. Russia responded by threatening a nuclear attack on Poland if the US goes ahead with the proposal. As is it now, Russia has proposed to deploy its short range missiles in Kaliningrad. I will examine what I consider acts of provocation by US and her allies, (EU and NATO).

Acts of Provocation by US and Her Allies (EU and NATO).

Increased tough rhetoric and speeches by the US authorities to Russia. The first speech by the US president was toughly worded speeches were he warned that Russia was damaging its relations with the US, Europe and the world at large. Part of his speech was that “Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people, such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century”( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7551576.stm).

Following a ceasefire deal brokered by the European Union through the French president, Sarkozy, President George Bush sternly warned Russia again to keep its words and act to end the conflicts immediately. The US vice president, Dick Cheney visited Tbilisi the Georgian capital and described Russia’s act as “illegitimate attempts to change Georgian boarders. He added that Russia’s action had cast doubts on its reliability as an international partner. He also said that, the US was fully committed to Georgia’s efforts to join NATO” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7597336.stm).

Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice said Moscow seriously over stretched itself in Georgia. Russia responded with its own tough rhetoric, by accusing the US of treating Georgia like a virtual project. Russia further warned that the US may have to choose between a partnership with Tbilisi or Moscow. The US used its air force and naval vessels to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia. The Russian authorise considered these humanitarian aids to be weapons in disguise. These conflicts led America to suspend its civilian nuclear accord with Russia. More so, the Georgian president joined the US in her provocative statements, he said, “Russia’s actions are an attempt to militarily annex a sovereign nation, in direct violation of international law. The Russian Federation is seeking to validate the use of violence, direct military aggression, and ethnic cleansing to forcibly change the borders of a neighbouring state” (The Guardian Wednesday, August 27 2008 P 1).

NATO’s backing of Georgia at the heat of the crisis. NATO secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer paid a solidarity visit to Georgia where he commented that he hoped for Georgians accelerated integration with NATO and condemned Russia conduct in Georgian affairs during the August 2008 conflicts. The Georgian president, Mikhail Saakashvili welcomed the visit as a serious show of solidarity. His comments were that “Your presence sends a signal to the world that Georgia, together with its friends and allies, does not stand alone” On his own part, the Secretary General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said, “Russia’s use of force was disproportionate and Russia must now comply with all elements of the six-point plan, referring to the EU brokered ceasefire deal that calls for all forces to withdraw to positions occupied before the conflicts”( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7616576.stm). The European Union on its own quickly announced 500 million euros in aid to Georgia, whereas the US authorities announced $1billion dollar aid package to Georgia.

The French president Nicolas Sarkozy who is the current, European Union’s president convened the first emergency summit since February 2003; in the summit the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown took a touch position, echoing the US position. He said the Russia’s membership of the G8 grouping of big industrial democracies could be frozen. Citing a further comment credited to Gordon Brown, he said, “In the light of Russian actions, the EU should review root and branch our relationship with Russia. Russia’s unilateral action in recognizing the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was dangerous and unacceptable. Brown said that he has told the Russian president at the weekend to expect a determined European Response” (The Guardian, Monday September 1 2008, P17).

David Miliband the British foreign secretary said that he wanted to forge “The widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia. We fully support Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow”(The Guardian, Wednesday August 27 2008, P 2).

The US chose this period to sign a nuclear shield treaty with Poland. This action directly provoked Russia. One should remember, that Russia has protested against this project right from the onset. Therefore for America to chose to sign this deal, at the heat of the Russian-Georgian conflicts is the height of act of provocation.

The points raised above goes to show that America and her allies have actually done more to increase the existing tension between Russia and Georgia. These actions are capable of prolonging the conflicts with its negative consequences on the innocent population, including its devastating economic damages. Actions like this will make Russia to be apprehensive, especially when it comes to Georgia joining the NATO. I will add further that America seems to be ignoring the sensitivity of their nuclear shield project with Poland, and as such have gone ahead to pursue this idea. Russia on its own has threatened Poland with nuclear attack should America go ahead with this project. The point is will Russia actualise her threats? I will use Realist International Relations theories to explain the America’s behaviour.

Explaining America’s Action Using Realist International Relations Theory.

The politics among nations is the struggle for power, whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim,(Morgenthau,1993). This is made worse by fact that, there is no world government and international politics being anarchical. Realists view international politics as power politics between states, as an arena of wars, conflicts, and rivalry.

Realists operate with a core assumption that global politics operates in a situation of international anarchy, that is a system with no global authority, no world government.

“International society is …a society without central authority to preserve law and order, and without an official agency to protect its members in the enjoyment of their rights. The result is that individual states must make the preservation and improvement of their power position a primary objective of their foreign policy”(1942,7)… In international society all forms of coercion are permissible, including wars of destruction. This means that the struggle for power is identical with the struggle for survival, and the improvement of their relative power position becomes the primary objective of the internal and the external policy of states. All else is secondary”.(1942,18)[cited in Nardin and Mapel,1992, P 89].

International relations to the realist mean primarily a struggle among the great powers for domination, control and security. The idea of states pursuing their national interest means that no country or state can be trusted or relied upon completely. All international treaties and agreements are not binding; it’s conditional upon the willingness of states to observe them.

According to the realist, there is no morality in international politics. Morality and human society should be confined to the state, and moral principles do not guide state behaviour in foreign policies,(Burchill and Linklater,1996 ; Nardin and Mapel,1992 ; Jackson and Sorensen,2003).

Every state under the realist theory must be ready and prepared to sacrifice international obligations on the alter of their own national interest. In the event of conflicts between international interest and national interest, national interest should prevail. This makes international treaties, agreements, conventions, laws etc a mere arrangements which can be set aside when the conflict with the national interest, thus the only responsibility of the state is to advance its national interest. The pursuits of national interest appear as a fact of international political life imposed by the existence of an anarchical society of states.

The realist believes that states faces security threat because of the absence of international government, therefore each state must provide its own protection through self help, either by using its own powers or drawing upon the powers of their allies and friends. The realist lives in a situation of permanent fear and suspicion, the fear that neighbours or other countries will dominate or attack them.

The above international relations theory explicitly explains the motives behind the America’s act of aggression towards Russia. The fact that there is no global government and authority to protect states, have given America the leverage to bully any nation she considers to be unfriendly. The situation has been made worse now that America is the only super power. The fear of Russia resurrecting has become a night mare to America and her allies.

Am quite sure that they will leave no stone unturned in their attempt to permanently cripple the Russian Federation. America has set aside must of her international treaties since she started pursuing this act of aggression towards Russia. Just like the Realist international relations theorist will draw upon his powers or powers of friends and allies. America has relied much on this. America uses NATO and the EU to pursue her national interests in Europe and Asia. America’s support for Georgia to join the NATO and EU were amongst the primary reasons for the Russian-Georgian conflicts. Another good example is the America’s war in Iraq. During their first gulf war with Iraq in 1991, America relied both on its powers and powers of their allies to defeat Iraq. Presently America is using the NATO forces to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. All these are pointers to the atrocities America is committing around the world, all in the name of spreading democracy and fight against terrorism. Having explained the America’s action using the realist’s international relations theory, I will highlight the possible effect of a nuclear war between Russia verses America and her allies.

Nuclear attack, costs and effects.

The question worth asking is, what if America and her allies succeed in provoking Russia into fulfilling her threats of nuclear strike on Poland? The first reaction that would happen will be NATO forces will attack Russia due to article 5 of NATO which says that, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”( http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm). What this clause means is that America and all her allies will declare war on Russia. Since Russia would have attacked with nuclear bomb, NATO will retaliate with its nuclear bomb as well. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s experience will be a child’s play compared to what will happen in the event of such incident.

Till date the only nuclear bomb attack known in history is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 220,000 people died instantly in both cities. Till present people are still dying and suffering from exposures to radiation. Greater percentage that died was civilians. Comparing it to what might happen if ever there is a nuclear war between the two giants. My guess will be that Western Europe might be wiped out of the world map as well as Russian federation. The human causalities will be unimaginable, western economies will crumble. The effects will be felt all over the world. Third world and developing countries will suffer greatly as a result of this, should it ever happen.

No one can capture the real picture of what will happen in the event of such an attack. This is the threat America is exposing the world to. This is despite the global economic crunches that originated from America. The present global economic crunches which have drastically affected the whole globe will be no where near the dangers of what will happen should a nuclear war erupt between Russia and America and allies. The poorest people of the world will not be spared should any thing like this happen. Am afraid this will be the third world war which will be solely fought with nuclear bombs.

Conclusion.

What I set out to do in this essay is to add to the available voices, which have pointed out that America’s foreign policies are making this world unsafe. America is using her powers wrongly. She is exercising undue influences over her allies in the NATO and EU. American influences are so enormous that her allies have failed to see the dangers in the America’s foreign policies. Her allies have failed to speak out the dangers America is exposing the world to. The present global economic crunches would have been an eye opener to criticize America and her policies. The mistakes made in America’s banking decisions led much to the almost collapse of the Wall Street and global financial markets. The effects have led to recession in most European economies like the UK, Germany etc. Like in any every bad situation the poor people are now suffering.

In the same vein, the America’s foreign policies have brought pains to several families. The innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq wars with NATO are not mentioned. The pains caused this families are never noticed. The support America gave to Georgia is partly responsible for her conflicts with Russia. In this last conflict, several innocent civilians including children died. Those that died with the weapons supplied to Georgia by America should be classified as being killed by America. America owes the world apology for all the atrocities she has caused the world. America should be held responsible for all innocent civilians killed, in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Ossetia and Abhkazia, including the British and American soldiers that have lost their lives in these unnecessary wars.

The world has suffered a lot under the deceitful nature of America’s foreign policies. Truths are never told to the public, the media has all be been manipulated to sing American praises. The dangers arising from this is awful. America’s allies, that is NATO and EU should be careful of the American leadership and influences. EU and NATO should begin to critically analyze the US foreign policies especially as it involves the present situation between Russia, Georgia and the west. Should the EU and NATO be misled, the whole world will have no choice but to hold America responsible. Should America push Russia into a nuclear attack on Poland, the entire world would pay a costly price for it. Russia should be allowed to live by America. America should have no interest in decimating the Russian federation and Russian influences. America should desist from causing unnecessary tensions through its foreign policies.

The Polish authorities should understand that they are being used as an instrument by the American authorities. The Polish public should rise and stop this unnecessary America’s defense pact (nuclear shield) with Poland, which looks likely to cause another world war. Polish people should exactly replicate what the Czechs did. While the Czechs government is eager to host the missile bases, two thirds of Czechs are against it. The government has been trounced in the local elections which has shifted the balance of power in the Czech upper house. “The scheme is strongly opposed by the social democratic opposition and may not survive the necessary parliamentary ratification process, which has been indefinitely shelved”(The Guardian Newspapers, Friday November 7 2008, page28).

Reference.

Burchill,S (1996) Realism And Neo-realism In Burchill,S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Peterson, M and True, J.(eds) Theories Of International Relations, London, Basingstoke. Macmillan Press Ltd. PP 67-92.

Curtis, M (2003) Web of Deceit, Britain’s Real Role In The World. London, Vintage Press.

Gaddis, J.L.,(2005) The Cold War, The Deals, The Spies, The Lies, The Truth. London, Penguin Books

Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. (2003) Introduction To International Relations, Second Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Morgenthau, H.J. (1993) Politics Among Nations, The Struggle For Power, Brief Edition. London, New York, McGraw-Hill Inc.

Nardin, T. and Mapel, D.R. (1992) Traditions Of International Ethics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Newsweek Magazine, November 21, 2005.

Sunday Times newspapers, August 28th 2008,

The Guardian newspapers, Monday September 1 2008.

The Guardian newspapers Wednesday, August 27 2008.

The Guardian newspapers, Wednesday October 22 2008.

Guardian Newspapers, Friday November 7 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006(printed on 5/9/8)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5083690.stm printed on 6/9/8

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008812204333715324.html Printed on the 6/9/8

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553593/Putin-in-nuclear-threat-against-Europe.html Printed on the 9/9/8

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7551576.stm printed on 3/10/8.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm printed on 5/11/8

Authors Biography

Name: Chinedu Vincent Akuta.

Contact Email: akutachinedu@yahoo.com

Present Job: Lecturer Assistant, Leicester International College. 132-134 London Rd, Leicester, LE2 1EB. www.leicesterinternationalcollege.co.uk

Education/Universities;

MSc, International Relations. Department Of Politics, International Relations and European Studies. Loughborough University Leicestershire, LE11 3TU. UK. Tel: +441509222991/222981. Fax: +441509223917. (2005-2007).

MSc, Economics. School of Postgraduate Studies. University of Lagos, Akoka-Yaba. Lagos-Nigeria. (2000-2001).

MBA, Marketing. Postgraduate School, Lagos State University. Badagry Expressway, OJO, P.M.B. 1087, Apapa. Lagos-Nigeria. (1998-2000).

BSc, Economics. Nnamdi Azikiwe University. P.M.B. 5025 Awka, Anambra State. Nigeria. (1989-1994).

Other Publications: E.U. Trade with Sub-Sahara African Countries, Nigeria as a case study, 1990-2006. MSc dissertation Loughborough University, 2007.