US Foreign Policy with Russia Essay Example for Free

US Foreign Policy with Russia Essay If the United States needed to get rid of Russia form inside out then it could have come up with a more strategic policy than the so called â€Å"strategic relationship/partnership† From several aggressive foreign policies to miss leaded advice and undemocratic pressure pending, the US government has brought in some fraction of the so called â€Å"cold war†. Restraint remains fundamental to the United States policy with Russia. For instance on the foreign policy with Russia, restraint Lite is comprised of three major efforts to cut off Russia from Europe, from it neighboring countries and most fundamental from the international community at large (MacLean, G. A. 2006). The geopolitical pluralism policy which came in with the Clinton’s administration was meant to reinforce Russia’s key neighbors i. e. Kazakhstan and Ukraine has lead to the loosening of the confederation of the post-Soviet states. So as to deepen the split which separates Russia from the rest of Europe and to enhance the creation of a new steel curtain down in the midst of Eurasia, the US is pushing ahead wildly the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) by not consulting Russia in several foreign policies e. g. the bombing of Iraq and the similar policy on Yugoslavia. Washington has tried to maneuver Moscow to a diplomatic backdrop through which it can only have a small influence globally. Part of the so called â€Å"soft† containment policy of United States is meant to get rid of Russia’s last state of superpower status and its nuclear weapon store without giving enough funding for mothballing the arms and also without matching the US stock supplies. By implementing the missile shield defense system, the US has jeopardize several arm treaties through opposing major sales of the Russian’s military technology, by arguing that the sale of these arms may lead to proliferation of arms while the US itself continues selling these arms thus applying double standards. Through a largest increase in the military budget since the ending of the cold war, the Clinton’s government started 1999 with a clear indication that Russians decline will have very little effects to the pentagon. While implementing Russian’s initial market reforms, Yeltsin foresaw that good times were coming, that was back in 1992. These good times that Yeltsin foresaw retreated more and more into the distance (mostly after the catastrophe of the August 1998 when the fragments went to free drop which led to Moscow defaulting on its capital debts (MacLean, G. A. 2006). Today, Russia’s GDP is half what it used to be a decade ago. The economy is suffocating with $150 billion in overseas debt. Employees are paid in-kind if they are paid at all, The degree of Poverty is rampant, Life expectancy is worsening, the population is diminishing, and Russia is sinking to a third world class (Hearst, D. 2008). Economic change in Russia has not only been unsuccessful, it has been extremely undemocratic. By collaborating almost entirely with Boris Yeltsin and his hand-picked strategists and circumventing Russia’s generally elected administration, the Duma the Clinton government placed expediency, transparency, over accountability and the checks and balances of a real democratic system. International community invested billions of dollars into Russia, funds that didn’t filter down but was instead sidetracked into the pockets of a few selected people. Under its cold war restraint policy, the United States relied on hostile rhetoric and military power to confront the influential Soviet Union. By dissimilarity, today’s restraint Lite takes advantage of Russia’s military and economic weakness, at first glimpse, has depended more on carrots than sticks. In actuality, however, the United States has wielded these carrots to a great extent like cudgels. Washington’s investments and aid expert advice, and high-profile seminars are designed to decrease the diplomatic and military reach of its former superpower opponent and to remake the Russian wealth in the neoliberal image in spite of of the social costs. prod by these carrots, Russia is stirring towards a path that has led to fiscal chaos and escalating hatred. The Clinton government was acutely aware of the danger of a Russian implosion. Yet the government came up with policies that are relentlessly leading to the realization of its own most horrible fears. The Roots of U. S. Policies In the 20th century, U. S. policy with Russia fluctuated between hostile confrontation and concise attempts at detente. During these particular eras, Reagan and Truman were twisted on containing Russia and, if possible, undulating its influence in the third world countries and Eastern Europe. President Nixon, without compromising his anticommunism, was able to ease the tension West and East in the 1970s with a combination of arms control procedures and modest openings in the East for Western trade. During the cold war period, confrontation and engagement frequently followed one another with little inhalation room, as in Kennedy’s near-apocalyptic face-off with Khrushchev over Cuba in 1962 which was followed by the negotiation of the first main arms control accord with the Soviet Union in 1963. Whether in altercation or detente mode, whichever, successive U. S. government sought (often unsuccessfully) to limit Soviet power in the world and blunt the impact of socialism/communism. Starting in 1985, when the Russia started a complex dance of reforms and decline, the Bush and Reagan governments did a little to encourage the former and much to make haste the latter. Washington gradually came around to supporting perestroika and glasnost rhetorically. But during this time, the U. S. largely suspended economic support for perestroika while at the same time continuing to maintain high levels of armed forces spending and provoking rhetoric. From the year 1989-1991(the Soviet’s terminal stage) Washington switched to break control mode in order to pressure the Soviet Union to support German, protect the newly independent states of Eastern Europe, unification, and prevent a clash from flaring up due to the secession of the Baltic States ( MacLean, G. A. 2006). In the year 1992, after the official crumple of the Soviet Union, the new Russian President Boris Yeltsin brought in a honeymoon time with the United States. Yeltsin and those in support of Western foreign minister, Andrei Kozyrev, went on to follow the U. S. economic reform, lead on arms control and universal politics. The other presidents of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) such as Georgia’s Eduard Shevardnadze, Ukraine’s Leonid Kravchuk, and Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbaev—also followed suit, each contending for the favors and affections of the United States. In return, the U. S. promised to assist Russia and the other CIS states integrate into the international economy and later, through the joint venture for Peace, into European security status. The honeymoon period did not take long. Russia never acknowledged the Marshall Plan it had anticipated for. Nor did the U. S. administration make room at the world’s platform for the new Russian body. This resulted to the pro-Western division in the Russian foreign policy founding, lost influence and Russian national attention became the new organizing principle for the Yeltsin team. The devastating 1994 invasion of Chechnya, the refusal to sanction the latest strategic arms reduction agreement, and the enriching of relations with, Iran, Iraq and Serbia signified a change in Russian policy. For its part, the US government maintained support for Yeltsin personally, but slowly withdrew from close bilateral associations. Washington strengthened dealings with the other CIS nations to balance Russian power in the region and to cover its bets. As Sergei Rogov, who was the head of Moscow’s, Canada and U. S Institute, remarked that the U. S. administration’s rhetoric toward Russia has changed from intentional partnership to pragmatic partnership to rational partnership to just plain pragmatism aimed at minimizing the impact of Russia’s economic and military fallout on the world at large. The relationship is gone, and the change in rhetoric is reflected very concretely in a range of issues from security aspects to economics and to politics. There was a time when Russia was the worry of U. S. foreign policy intelligence agencies and analysts. Since the 1950s, the Soviet Union underwrote ant colonial revolts all over the third world and provided essential aid to countries such as Cuba, Angola, Syria and India. Today, Russia’s magnitude has dwindled significantly. It no longer plays a role in the third world countries. It has little influence in Eastern Europe. Closer to home, it has kept certain ambitions such as maintaining the integrity of its own region and to keep its influence in its neighboring countries such as, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and Georgia. Russia’s ambitions outstrip its ability, as seen in the losses in Chechnya and peacekeeping downfall in the neighboring countries. Sources have reveled that the Russian armed forces is in dire state the number of its soldiers has reduced by a quarter in 1998, its weapons systems are in a worsening condition, and few finances available to acquire new weapons. Research reveal that it was estimated that by the year 2005 only 5-7% of equipments used by Russians armed forces will be new and the US State Departments admit that the Russian military combat promptness is in bad shape. The drive of the army is even worse now than at the era of the Chechen campaign. As for Russia’s capability to project force past its borders, little Estonia in recent times declared that its Russian neighbor was no longer a military risk Even its nuclear weapon store, the single card that maintain Russia in the game, is weakening rapidly. The U. S. mainly through NATO expansion is making gains of this weakness. NATO was intended to deter the expansion of Soviet into Europe. The Soviet Union is no longer there, and Russia badly wants to join Europe and not invade it. Up till now even without an enemy in prospect, NATO is heading right up to Russia’s door. In April 1999, Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary joined NATO and became NATO’s first new members ever since Spain in 1982. There are fifteen countries which now belong to the Partnership for Peace program, which is a halfway entry house for NATO aspirants who need help in modernizing their armed forces. Almost every country in the former Soviet Union bloc supports the expansion of NATO, partially because of NATO’s own hard line public relations campaign and partially as an initial step toward joining the EU (European Union). Throughout the ups and downs of Russian U. S. associations in the 1990s, Russia has measured NATO expansion as a purposeful provocation, particularly when extension has potentially included the Baltic States and the Ukraine. The responses that the U. S. gave Russia were of two initiatives. First, it extended relationship to Russia in the PFP program. Then, promising a unique relationship, NATO concluded an agreement with Moscow in May 1997 that recognized various mechanisms of talks. The agreement doesn’t give either party the right to sanction the actions of the other. But via the Permanent Joint Council, the two sides at least meet often. Another task to the future and current reductions in strategic arms is the US government’s desire to modify or even scuttle the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) accord in order to give way to a new national missile security system. The US administration favors adjustment, but opponents such as influential US Senators have called for scrapping the accord. The Pentagon apparently offered Moscow a worrying quid pro quo on the ABM treaty: if the Russians look the other way as the U. S. develops a missile defense shield system, then Washington will permit Russia to deploy new deliberate missiles with three warheads. While at peace with each other, the two countries are ironically moving away from the control of arms and toward arms expansion. In the meantime, the lion’s share of the U. S. support to Russia is aimed towards the control and dismantling of its arms, much of it via the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. This means that a cash-strapped Russia must pay for its own humbling, and the disarmament process is regrettably slowed (Hearst, D. 2008). References Gorodetsky, G. (2003). Russia Between East and West. Moscow: Routledge. Hearst, D. (2008). US foreign policy on Russia has vacillated wildly, from indulgence to overt aggression. Will Obama get Russia right? Gurdian , 26-33. International, C. E. (2000).U. S. -Russian Relations at the Turn of the Century. Moscow: Carnegie Endowment. MacLean, G. A. (2006). Clintons Foreign Policy in Russia. Florida: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Marsden, L. (2005). Lessons from Russia. Michigan: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Russia and U. S. Foreign Policy, Available from http://tcarter. blogspot. com/2004/12/russia-and-us-foreign-policy. html (Retrieved 26th November 26, 2008) US Foreign Policy with Russia, Available from http://www. fpif. org/papers/russia/index. html (Retrieved 26th November 26, 2008)

Contemporary Issues in Cognitive Developmental Psychology :: Papers

Contemporary Issues in Cognitive Developmental Psychology The stage in which a child learns is very important in psychology. Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner are the most popular psychologists who have contributed to developmental learning. The issue still among psychologists today is the debate on teaching, and how children should be taught. There is the, "talk and chalk" method where the teacher teaches the whole class interactively and the children can participate when asked to. Piaget believed in student centred learning and not group learning. The advantage of this method of teaching is that they are all going up a level at the same time; there might be a few that fail to follow but the teacher can push them. Children can also start to interact with each other and get to know other people in their classroom. This could also reduce prejudice at a young age. If they work as a group they also learn as a group, but the downside of this is they may lose their sense of individuality. And as a group they may feel as, "one." If they were to do a practical there would be one child who would be the leader, which would not benefit to the other children. The other method of teaching is the individual/ group method. This is where Piaget's individual learning programme enters. Vygotsky's spiral curriculum would be useful in this method since it opens complex ideas so that they can be presented at simplified levels. Each student should find their zone of actual development and then the teacher should be the outer circle so they can go to their zone of proximal development. The disadvantage of this is the cost of student centred learning. At the moment we have whole class teaching and there are the ups and downs of that but if the individual learning took place it will improve due to the individuals needs being noticed and processed. Individual learning can also be structured by scaffolding so the child's attempt to understand new ideas will be done with even more

Paper vs Plastic, Which Is Better

Thousands and thousands of people are shopping in grocery stores each day using either plastic or paper bags. They think of it as something that just holds their items. What they don’t know is how much it harms our environment. So the question is which is better? â€Å"3. 14 billion Plastic shopping bags and 53 million Kraft paper bags are produced annually to satisfy the national market, consuming 28. 5 million kilograms of plastic and 4. 8 million kilograms of paper†( Goldbeck 333). A man named Shropshire in Annapolis had a campaign to get rid of plastic bags and is referred to as the â€Å"the bag man. â€Å"12 million barrels of oil are needed to produce 100 billion plastic bags used in the United States each year,† He said. According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency only 5% of those bags are being recycled and the rest are thrown into landfills. He also says that plastic bags from Annapolis land in Chesapeake Bay and marine animals swallow them, mistaking them for jelly fish. â€Å"Estimates prepared by the New York City Department of Sanitation suggest that if each New Yorker would use one less grocery sack per week, the city’s garbage could be reduced by 2500 tons every year, saving 250,000 taxpayer dollars â€Å"(Goldbeck 333). Some officials say. that producing the bags takes too much energy and they create environmental hazards. The only problem is that plastic is cheaper and create less landfill waste than paper bags. Plastic bags are made with polyethylene. 80% of polyethylene is made from natural gas; a non-renewable resource. According to the Boustead Consulting Association polyethylene uses less water, oil and energy. Plastic bags use 40% less energy than paper and plastic sacks. The alliance says, they generate 80% less solid waste. Donna Dempsey of the Progressive Bag Alliance, a group representing plastic bag manufacturers, says that an alternative to plastic bags like paper wouldn’t actually be greener. She also says that paper bags use up more fossil fuels in their lifecycle than plastic. Paper bags are made from a lot of trees. Paper grocery bags, are an American innovation and were designed in 1883. It’s also made from a Kraft (German: means course and strength) paper. According to the American Forest and Paper Association, paper collection is easily and readily available in most parts of the country. But like plastic, paper uses natural resources and creates pollution. The manufacturing of one paper bag uses 1 whole gallon of water! Trees have to dry for 3 whole years before making it into paper. Then it’s cooked under heat and pressure†¦Etc. So paper also use up resources. When paper is thrown away it’s either recycled or thrown in a landfill. Both paper and plastic bags can pollute and effect the environment. So it’s hard to say which is better to use. I f we want an option better for the environment its better to use neither of them. The best option there is out there is reusable bags.

What Are Century Eggs

A century egg, also known as a hundred-year egg, is a Chinese delicacy. A century egg is made by preserving an egg, usually, from a duck, such that the shell becomes speckled, the white becomes a dark brown gelatinous material, and the yolk becomes deep green and creamy. The surface of the egg white may be covered with beautiful crystalline frost or pine-tree patterns. The white supposedly doesnt have much flavor, but the yolk smells strongly of ammonia and sulfur and is said to have a complex earthy flavor. Preservatives in Century Eggs Ideally, century eggs are made by storing raw eggs for a few months in a mixture of wood ash, salt, lime, and maybe tea with rice straw or clay. The alkaline chemicals raise the pH of the egg to 9–12 or even higher and break down some of the proteins and fats in the egg into flavorful molecules. The ingredients listed above are not typically the  ingredients listed on the eggs sold in stores. Those eggs are made from duck eggs, lye or sodium hydroxide, and salt. That sounds scary, but its probably OK to eat. A problem does arise with some century eggs because the curing process is sometimes accelerated by adding another ingredient to the eggs: lead oxide. Lead oxide, like any other lead compound, is poisonous. This hidden ingredient is most likely going to be found in eggs from China, where the faster method of preserving the eggs is more common. Sometimes zinc oxide is used instead of lead oxide. Though zinc oxide is an essential nutrient, too much of it can lead to a copper deficiency, so its not really something you want to eat either. How do you avoid poisonous century eggs? Look for packages that explicitly state that the eggs were made without lead oxide. Dont assume the eggs are lead-free just because lead isnt listed as an ingredient. It might be best to avoid eggs from China, no matter how they are packaged, because there is still a big problem with inaccurate labeling. Rumors Regarding Urine Many people avoid eating century eggs because of the rumor that they have been soaked in horse urine. There isnt any solid evidence that horse urine is involved in the curing, especially considering the fact that urine is slightly acidic, not basic.