*Xenophobia* is the fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-1>[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-2> Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup> towards an outgroup <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_(sociology)>, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-auto-3> Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".[3 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-auto-3> ictionary definitions of *xenophobia* include: "deep-rooted, fear towards foreigners" (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), and "fear of the unfamiliar" (Webster's).[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-4> The word comes from the Greek <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> words ξένος (*xenos*), meaning "strange", "foreigner", and φόβος (*phobos*), meaning "fear".[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia#cite_note-5>
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 8:44:08 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ozy.com/pov/the-geopolitical-rules-you-didnt-know-about-are-under-siege/65892 > THE GEOPOLITICAL RULES YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ARE UNDER SIEGE > > In the post–Cold War era, geopolitics can sometimes seem like the Wild > West. But despite all appearances, an order governs there. Or rather it > has. Throughout modern history, most countries have accepted a few simple > rules to ward off total chaos: laws and conventions around land, sea and > the air. These rules are not sexy — maritime law isn’t exactly known to > quicken the pulse — but they’re as vital to the international order as a > score is to an orchestra. > > But now, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Soviet collapse, one > of the most worrisome trends is that the “rules” we take for granted on > land and sea and in the air are for the first time since then under > simultaneous challenge on three continents. The challenges come from > Russia, China and a host of non-state actors in the Middle East, which > collectively are breaking internationally sanctioned “rules” of normal > conduct — and thus adding another element of instability to today’s very > chaotic world. > > Why is this happening, where is it heading and what should the response be? > > *Russian Incursions* > > For all Vladimir Putin’s strong-arm tactics, we’d be remiss not to admit > that he has restored a measure of stability to his country. When Putin came > to power in 1999, Mother Russia was in a sorry state. After the Soviet flag > came down in 1991, the chaos and corruption that accompanied the rapid > shift to a private economy and a new government led to such turmoil and > hardship that then-President Boris Yeltsin apologized to the Russian people > in his last address. Putin restored a measure of stability by tightening > his grip on power and raking in profits from Russia’s strong position in > the international energy market. > > But now Putin’s overriding goal is to broaden Russia’s sphere of influence > and restore its global clout — conventions be damned. > > The surest sign was Russia’s forceful seizure of Crimea in 2014 and its > subsequent incursions into Ukraine. Russia flouted a whole series of > agreements that form the foundation of European security. They include > treaty pledges taken by Russia and 56 other countries to consider borders > “inviolable”; the Russia–U.K.–U.S. agreement not to use force against the > territory or independence of Ukraine after it gave up nuclear weapons in > 1991; the 1997 bilateral friendship treaty in which Russia and Ukraine > agreed to respect each other’s borders; and a host of U.N. agreements > against such violations. > > [image: Description: Gettyimages 464951481] > > > > *China: Seeking to Dominate Air and Sea* > > Back in 1991, China was transitioning to a more open economy and was still > reeling from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. It was beginning to > modernize its military. It was stunned by and “went to school on” the > astonishing technical prowess the U.S. showed in 1990’s Operation Desert > Storm, reversing Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. > > Since then? China has raced ahead with military modernization, undergone > extraordinary economic growth and taken bold steps to define and protect an > expanding sphere of influence in Asia. > > The upshot: China in the South and East China Seas is disregarding > international consensus on maritime and aviation freedoms. Under > international law, states can claim territorial waters only 12 miles from > shore. China flouts that rule by building artificial islands atop coral > reefs 500 miles from the Chinese mainland and interpreting its construction > to claim 90 percent of the South China Sea; never mind the claims of at > least five other nations, including the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. > Meanwhile, in the East China Sea, China unilaterally declared an Air > Defense Identification Zone, telling nations they need Beijing’s permission > to fly through. Both seas are vital to Asian and U.S. commerce and security. > > *The Islamic State vs. the Nation-State* > > The post–Cold War transformation in the Middle East was at least as messy > as it was in Russia. Back in 1991, the region was, with the exception of > democratic Israel, ruled by stable monarchies and dictatorships. But > poverty, sectarian strife and hostility to oppression — turbocharged by > growing social media power — produced the Arab Spring in 2011. Then came > the breakdown of order documented in daily headlines today, from Sunni-Shia > tensions to Bashar al-Assad’s besieged dictatorship. > > But at the core of most of these problems is one thing: the Islamic > State’s violent disregard for national boundaries, basic human rights and > cultural heritage. We see this in its rampage across Iraq, its exploitation > of Syria’s civil war, its forceful imposition of harsh Shariah law on > populations, as well as in its destruction of irreplaceable historical > sites. > > *Defending the Rules* > > Many countries expect the United States to be the chief enforcer of the > “rules” — with the U.S. Navy on the high seas and some combination of U.S. > diplomacy and military strength elsewhere. Which is exactly why all this > turmoil has put U.S. leadership on the line. > > In Europe, the U.S. and allies have punched back with tough economic > sanctions against Russia, a new NATO rapid reaction force, and more NATO > troops and equipment in Eastern and Central Europe. In Asia, the U.S. > sailed a destroyer last month through the waters claimed by China to assert > freedom of navigation. And in the Middle East, the first small deployment > of U.S. special operations forces and renewed diplomacy in Vienna signal a > new activism, one that contrasts with previous U.S. hesitation to get more > involved in the Syrian dispute. > > Such actions can be only a beginning, because the challenges are likely to > keep coming. With almost assured re-election, Putin is likely to be > pursuing his vision aggressively until at least 2024. China under President > Xi Jinping, probably in office until at least 2023, will keep trying to > lock in an Asian sphere of influence and reduce U.S. influence. And > stabilizing the Middle East will take years of persistent, and probably > frustrating, international effort. > > Unlike during the Cold War, the enemy now is not a singular competing > ideology but rather a struggle over the rules governing international > conduct and over global leadership. We already live in a violent era, and > unless these broader issues are settled, the chances of further conflict, > if only by miscalculation, will keep growing. > > It may not be a new Cold War, as many now suggest, but we are probably in > for what President Kennedy called back in that era a “long twilight > struggle.” > > == > JOHN MCLAUGHLIN <http://www.ozy.com/ozy-tribe/john-mclaughlin/2751> > > *OZY AUTHOR* SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR > > John McLaughlin is the former deputy director of the CIA. He writes a > regular column on OZY called “The Spy Who Told Me” and teaches at the Johns > Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). > > > > > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWZrZnVyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDczNjY1MTQ-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDNtdjd0BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzM2NjUxNA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
