Context

From time to time there is a need to ascertain the status of global Balance of Power, is it in equilibrium or moving in the favor of one or the other power. While the global Balance of Power and the associated Spheres of Influence are not the only construct to assess power dynamics – they are the most prevalent presently.

In this conceptualization, usually empires or states are either emerging – challenging the established powers or coalescing with them – and deemed to be either ascending or descending in ranking. It is primarily based on a zero-sum world view i.e., the gain of one is at the expense of the other. It visualizes the world as having limited resources which need to be competed for, controlled, and leveraged.

Cold War and War Against Terror

The Cold War got triggered soon after the end of World War II, between US dominated Western alliance and the USSR, and is an illustration of how the balance of power tussles usually playout. The Western alliance came out victorious as USSR collapsed in the aftermath of the Afghan debacle of the 80s. This was followed by a period of calm – or as some would call the emergence of Unipolar world led by the US.

However, this relative tranquility did not last for long. 9/11 disturbed the calm that prevailed since the collapse of USSR. It appeared that the Islamic extremists were planning to upend the global order and the nation-state system – which according to them was unjust and established on the ashes of Ottoman Empire.

As the Global War Against Terrorists (GWOT) progressed, it bifurcated along extremists with global ambitions such as Al Qaeda (AQ) and ISSI (Daesh) – and others with local and regional grievances, like the Afghan Taliban, Baloch Liberation Front and Baloch Liberation Army, Kurds, or Al Shabab. The Kurds go by different names depending in which state they exist: YPG in Syria, and PKK in Turkey. Turkey accuses the West of supporting PKK and YPG.

While the GWOT is by no way over, with the passage of time it became apparent that balance of power tussles had infiltrated and became intertwined with the GWOT, especially when it came to extremists with local or regional grievances. Alarmingly, some of these regional groups also assist AQ and ISIS – and are also known as ‘AQ and Associates’ or ‘ISIS and Associate’.

For example, the deal between Afghan Taliban and US in the form of Doha Agreement – was only sealed after guarantees that they will delink from AQ. Moreover, Afghan Taliban will not support groups like TTP (Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan) – or allow for the use of Afghan territory to launch attacks against other countries, like Pakistan and India. The discovery of Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul, and resurging TTP activities in Pakistan, suggest Afghan Taliban have renegaded on both terms.

Globalization, COVID-19, and Emerging Powers

While US was paying in blood and treasure in GWOT, emerging powers like China and Russia, had no such stakes, even though they cooperated in the Campaign against Extremism. Moreover, globalization was further strengthening the economic wherewithal of the emerging powers, with Western multinationals facilitating this transfer of wealth. This became the fuel for populist rhetoric spewed by leaders like Donald Trump under the mantra of Making America Great Again (MAGA), which was later adopted with modification by President Biden and naming it ‘Made in America’. Under Biden’s approach, the centrality of Europe was revitalized, which previously faced neglect and acrimony under Trump.

In the wake of GWOT, the crux of American concerns stem from a sense of exploitation at the hands of allies, and thus confusing the ability to clearly define strategic enemies. That was rectified in the subsequent National Defense Strategies, declaring that global adversaries, such as China and Russia, need to be confronted and contained in different spheres of influence. In consideration of the above context, the economic order that is making the adversarial emerging powers stronger also needs to re-engineered.

With many other unfavorable affects, COVID-19 aided the disruption of supply chains related with globalization. The tense ties between US and China, tit for tat sanctions, and tariff battles, have taken a toll on American business and consumers. Nonetheless, there is an attempt to reorient global economic and security order to make it more beneficial for the US and its allies – and detrimental for those showing inclination towards adversarial rising powers.

European Spheres of Influence, Ukraine, and China

Europe is one of the most important spheres of influence for the US and critical to its global power projection. However, the dependence of Europe on Russian energy resources, accompanied by economic penetration from China, was gradually eroding American sway and jeopardizing the raison d’etre for NATO.

Alarmingly, China overtook US as EU’s biggest trading partner in 2020. While US and UK were the largest export market, the trade volume has been consistently dropping. US witnessed a drop in imports of 13.2% and export of 8.2%. In 2019, EU trade volume with US stood at $746bn and decreasing to $671bn in 2020.

In addition, after seven years of negotiations, China and EU agreed on an investment deal that came to be known as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Because of Chinese support for Russian position on Ukraine, tensions between EU and China continued mounting, and as a consequence the deal could not be ratified. Not only that EU imposed sanctions on China, which were reciprocated, for human right abuses in Xinjiang.

European powers are caught in a dilemma; they do not want to economically distance themselves from China – or appear to be working at cross-interests to the US. While aligning with US on Ukraine, they are paying heavily for shortage of energy resources due to dependence on Russia. On the other hand, US realizes that in order to have maximum impact on China and Russia, Europe would have to act in parallel.

According to a CNN article: “The COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and tit-for-tat sanctions between China and EU lawmakers have strained relations since. The United States, which imposed controls on exports of semiconductors to China in October, is reportedly exerting pressure on Europe to adopt a similarly hard line.”

The same article quotes Ricardo Borges de Castro, associate director at the European Policy Center, as stating.

“I don’t see [the EU’s strategy] as a decoupling strategy. I think the EU strategy, for the moment, is a diversification strategy… the lesson [from Russia] is that you cannot have a single provider.”

Two leading European powers, Germany and France, seem to illustrate this strategy. UK on the other hand, since Brexit, has acted most aggressively on decoupling from China and restricting access to Chinese businesses and technology.

The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited China in November, the symbolism suggests they want to continue doing business, what is known as ‘Business First’ approach, despite pressure from the US. He was the first leader of G7 nations to visit and the critics point out to lack of cohesion within EU. Chinese and German economies are broadly connected, and China is a key market for German machinery and automobiles. Olaf also agreed to Chinese investment in its leading terminal, Hamburg Port.

The French leader is expected to visit China in January but before that Macron visited US where he had extensive talk with his American counterparts in November. While France shares US concerns on Ukraine and China’s aggressive positioning in the Indo-Pacific, Biden’s Inflation reduction Act (IRA) has sent alarm bells ringing in Europe and France. Europeans, including France, consider the Act which was signed by Biden on August 16, as protectionism.

The law provides $370bn of green subsidies towards manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, microprocessors and electronic vehicles. Moreover, the most controversial part of the bill is that it offers tax credit of $7,500 to American buyers of cars manufactured in the US and locally built batteries. Reportedly Macron stated: “I think that this is not in line with the rules of the World Trade Organization and that it is not in line with friendship.” Biden and Macron agreed to continue discussions and minimize the negative impact of the IRA.

Conclusion

Europe represents the epicenter for the tussles of the balance of power, which then transfuses into other regions of the world, to be examined in future articles. COVID-19 has facilitated the upending of the existing supply chains – and provide an opportunity to reorient them and prevent them from benefiting global adversaries such as China and Russia. Moreover, climate change has become another factor to be used as a leverage – in terms of resources and technologies needed to address its negative consequences.

Just as in Europe, existing spheres of influence are also in friction in other nations – and its likely be tough going for their respective citizens economically. While the developed nations strive to protect their economic and financial interests – it’s going to be a particularly rough ride for the developing and underdeveloped nations. This will result in deteriorating social order and mounting political polarization – as power and political alignments change at the local level. Sadly, many may not be able to adapt to the economic and security flux – and tugs and pulls of the shift in the global balance of power – in a timely fashion.

The post Ukraine Conflict And Global Balance Of Power Tussles In Europe appeared first on Politact.

The Return of ‘Spheres of Influence’ Politics

Context

While there are different angles to interpret the fast-moving flux in the global political, economic and security situation, the great power rivalry perspective is clearly ascendant.

There is usually a period of calm when one power dominates or when there is stability in the balance of power equation. The rapid economic rise of China and infringement into the traditional American spheres of Influence, like Europe, has clearly been a cause of alarm. Moreover, Trump administration took certain actions that were seen as weakening the Western alliance – deemed essential to deal with emerging global rivals, to include Russia. Europe is critical to American power projection, and it was becoming progressively tied to Russia and China via trade. The present European energy dependence is a case point. Trumps admiration for Putin, and other authoritarian rulers, was seen as a vulnerability. Accompanied by his threats to NATO members to increase defense spending confused the Europeans on American reliability.

Under Biden, US is actively countering the expanding influence of China and Russia – and to reverse the Sino-Russian penetration in different regions. And one of the casualty of this reversal will be the phenomena known as globalization. Security concerns arising from aggressive Chinese posturing in the Indo-Pacific, events unfolding in Ukraine, and COVID-19 related supply chain disruptions have further weakened the case for globalization.

Additionally, these factors have helped eliminate American ambiguity on who is benefiting most from free trade presently. Going against laissez-faire principle is not an easy undertaking when the capitalist system is anchored around the very premise and has tremendously benefited the multinational corporations.

This context begs the question of what future security and trade system is the world shifting towards – and what phase of this transfer the present circumstances represent. It was WWI and II that moved the world to the nation-state system and the creation of United Nations. The answers are not readily available.

Analysis

New Cold War and Spheres of Influence

As these global rivalries escalate, they are being classified as related to the new Cold War. The previous one being between US dominated Western Sphere of Influence – with USSR mostly influencing Eastern Europe. China at that time was not as close of an ally of Russia as it is now.

The Sino-Soviet ties have had their ups and down historically. For example, during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 Chinese Beiyang government had supported the Whites, like the West, and sent in forces to fight the Reds. Conversely, in 1923 Soviets provided support to groups opposing the Beiyang government. In 1949, with Soviet backed communists won the Chinese civil war leading to the creation of People’s Republic of China. Soviets and Chinese were even involved in a brief border conflict in 1969.

Irrespective, as the new Cold War gets underway, and no near-term Ukraine solution on the horizon, what will this emerging Cold War look like?

The first thing is obvious, the Spheres of Influence was the key character of the old Cold War – dividing the world into communist USSR and capitalist America. The Soviet system was associated with autocratic closed security states, with strict regulations controlling the lives of the citizens. On the contrary, the hallmark of Western democratic states was freedom of expression and trade that led to creativity, innovation, and greater economic prosperity. And these attributes ultimately became the reasons for the success of West against the closed Soviet system.

The new Cold War would likely create similar spheres of influence between US and China-Russia aligned states. While some would argue that this new Cold War is only between US and China. To understand these alignments – how the spheres of influence evolved after the Soviet Union collapsed need to be understood.

NATO’s Evolution

As Soviet Union dissolved during the period of 1988-1991, 15 Soviet republics opted for independence with the Baltic states leading. The former Eastern European states applied and became members of Western security alliance, NATO. A trajectory that has continued to this day – and one of the reasons for Ukraine conflict to erupt, which is also causing Finland and Sweden to move towards NATO.

Another element of this post-Soviet period was that Russia and China both adopted policies that has made Western system stronger, for example allowing foreign investments and free trade. But they did not embrace the democratic political system. So, while China and Russia benefited from free trade, their respective restricting political governance models remained in place. This has been a cause of continuous friction when it comes to for example, state controlling the currency values, protecting minorities and human rights etc.

Conclusion

Moving forward, the roles seem to be reversing. The US and West are shifting away from globalization and altering the supply chains that were created for maximum profitability. On the other hand, China is championing globalization. In May, Chinese Xi Jinping had urged the organization of emerging nations BRICS to, “reject Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation, and work together to build a global community of security for all”.

Two properties of the new supply chains are: they have to be from friendly nations and pose no economic and security implications for the dominant power of the alliance. In other words, the concept that evolved after WWII that economic interdependence can resolve security issues – is being put to rest.

While China has been attracting states through Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and associated large infrastructure projects, the US, EU, and Japan have begun to counter with their own infrastructure projects. At the recently held G7 conference in Germany, President Biden announced US will help finance $200 billion from public and private sectors to counter Chinese projects.

The question then is how will the emerging respective spheres of influence be monitored and policed. The energy supply lines provide one example where sanctions are playing a critical role. In this, US using its influence in moving Europeans away from Russian energy dependence and building trade relations with China. Meanwhile, it is allowing India flexibility to acquire cheap energy from Russia, however, coercing weaker nations to stay away.

US is also resetting its ties with Saudi Arabia to use the enhance its energy leverage and to keep energy dependent states in-line. President Biden is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia in July and ask for increase in oil production to compensate for Russian oil shortfall. He will also be attending the meeting of Gulf Cooperation Council. Meanwhile King Abdullah of Jordan has supported the idea of Middle East version of NATO. It’s not clear though what threat perception would the NATO of Middle East counter, Iran, Russia or China? Clearly, it cannot be Israel.

In other words, the balance of power tussles now involve use of economic influence to attract and discipline states. During the previous Cold War, USSR did not have the type of economic prowess that the US and West enjoyed, but in the emerging Cold War the case of China is different.

Thus, there will likely be a China-Russia dominated supply lines and economic zone and the US-Europe controlled one. Ultimately, China and Russia will likely use tactics similar to the West i.e., if the new Cold War persists and matures. The Domino Theory and the associated dynamics that were the underpinning of the old Cold War, will become relevant once more. This will fundamentally alter the way present global trade is conducted, and this will significantly impact the working of the UN Security Council.

The post Emerging Great-Power Rivalry; How Will The New Cold War Unfold As Ukraine Simmers? appeared first on Politact.

Context

Why did Putin Invade Ukraine?

Many interpretations have come to the fore on why Putin invaded Ukraine on February 22. One of the recurring one is the ever-expanding NATO presence in Eastern Europe, which was now about to include Ukraine itself, right on the Russian border. Russia has often cited the unwritten understanding that came about at the time when Soviet Union was getting dissolved from 1989-1991 – suggesting NATO will not expand further. The cessation of Soviet Union eliminated the reason for NATO to expand in what Russia considers it to be its traditional sphere of influence, also known as its ‘Near Abroad’. US has denied that any such understanding existed.

On the other hand, Western scholars have long maintained that Putin aspires to revive the union of former Soviet republics – and the invasion of Ukraine may be another step along that path. Previously, he occupied Georgian states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after Russo-Georgian War of 2008. Had it not been due to the intervention of France to negotiate the truce, and subsequent US financial support in which then Senator Joe Biden played a key role, Georgia may very well had lost its sovereignty. Many believe that what happened in 2008, and the lame Western response, emboldened Putin.

Then came Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. It occurred soon after President Victor Yanukovych fled to Russia and the new acting Ukrainian president pledged to move closer to Europe by signing the association agreement of European Union. At the time Putin claimed Russia wants to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea, 60 percent of which were of Russian ethnicity, to freely express their views.

Whatever the reason for the present offensive on Ukraine i.e., NATO’s expansion in Russian Near Abroad or Putin’s desire to revive the Soviet Union, the timing of his move is deliberate.

His decision to move into Ukraine is likely based on a sense of Western weakness. The manner in which US withdrew from Afghanistan, economic situation resulting from Corona pandemic, and the status of European cohesion, are all likely playing a part in his decision. Perhaps the most critical aspect of his calculation is the future of American domestic politics and the Trump phenomenon. US has accused Russia of meddling in American elections through social media and by launching cyber-attacks.

Why the West has to React?

From an American perspective, while there may have been reasons to not counter Russia aggressively previously, in the case of Ukraine that is not the case. Short of sending troops to Ukraine, all other options are being evaluated.

While Russia and China alone do not pose a serious threat to the US and the Western political system, put together they are formidable adversaries. Since 9/11 US has been engaged in one conflict after the other, and this has provided an opportunity for Russia and China to grow their military and economic wherewithal. US simply cannot allow them to build a stronger military alliance.

Moreover, US depends on Europe for its global power projection. A growing concern recently has been the dependability on NATO and other allies to counter threats emanating from global adversaries – such as China and Russia. European nations and other allies have increasingly been seen dealing with both – building trade and military relations with China and Russia at the expense of US. For example:

• Under US pressure, UK banned Huawei from developing the 5G networks in 2020 due to security concerns, resulting in strong criticism from Chinese officials. Huawei had been operation in UK for at least 20 years and was an integral part of its 4G network.
• In 2015, France backed away from selling two high tech Mistral warships to Russia, a deal worth $1.6 billion, reportedly due to Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. The deal was highly criticized by US since France is a NATO member and supplying of the ship would have augmented Russian military capabilities.
• Then there is the controversial Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline that goes from Russia to Germany. Merkel government averted sanctions and reached a deal with the Biden Administration in July last year. The agreement involved investing more than 200 million euros in energy security of Ukraine and sustainable energy across Europe. US-Germany ties were strained considerably when Trump administration decided to pull out 9,500 US troops based in Germany.
• NATO member, Turkey, bought S-400 missile defense system from Russia in 2017. This resulted in Countering American Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAASTA) kicking in, claiming the deal would threaten NATO alliance and F-35 fighter jets in Turkish fleet. Enacted in 2017, CAASTA urged American allies and partners to not engage in transactions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea or risk sanctions. This has also prevented Pakistan from moving forward with Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project.
• Another American ally, India, has also acquired the S-400 air defense system at the cost of $5 billion but so far US has not been highly critical.
• In December 2019, US gave a waiver to India to jointly develop the Chabahar Port with Iran, which is seen as a counter to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port – being erected with Chinese investment. While the US strategic partnership with India has been evolving, the nation has remained reluctant in talking stronger role against China. Not only that, India is also ironically a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). And thus, serious questions continue to be raised about the efficacy of QUAD alliance in which India is a member as well.
• As part of BRI, China has been extending its trade relations with Israel and US objected strongly to some of them citing security concerns – such as the Chinese company Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) running a container terminal at the Port of Haifa. The terminal is located near an Israeli naval base that is frequently visited by the US Sixth Fleet.

China, Russia Alliance – Sanctions and Soft Power

Due to events related to the War against Extremism, American perception and Soft Power has suffered in different parts of the world, which has also been exploited by China and Russia. China has projected its Belt and Road initiative as a win-win as it takes on large infrastructure projects in many nations.

For example, in addition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), China and Iran have signed a $400 billion 25 year economic and security deal that would lead to enhanced military and trade relations. The agreement ensures Chinese investment in Iranian telecommunication, transportation, and military fields. The military cooperation includes exercises, intelligence sharing, and joint research and development of weapons. China will also procure its energy needs from Iran on discounted price for over next 25 years.

The questioned has remained how will China implement the deal while sanctions on Iran remain – which have also delayed the much-needed Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project (IPI). In addition to CAASTA, the new sanctions on Russia will further complicate the China-Russia strategic cooperation.

As negotiations continue on the revived Iran nuclear deal, China could emerge as the big beneficiary if the Iran nuclear deal is reached, which US had left in 2015 during the Trump administration. But then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that he has received ‘written guarantees’ from US that Ukraine sanctions will not restrict Russian participation in nuclear projects and trade under the revised nuclear agreement with Iran. It was only after this assurance that Russia dropped its last-minute objections to the deal.

Russian invasion of Ukraine has provided an opportunity to the US to recover the Soft Power reserves, reinvigorate the NATO alliance, and by using sanctions undercut the growing strategic China-Russia alliance.

Emerging Scenarios

As the Ukrainian situation evolves a couple of possibilities are emerging. One of them is for negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian officials to succeed, with Ukraine declaring neutrality and forgoing its aspirations to join NATO. Afterall there are several other nations that have been in the neutral status – just to avoid the type of situation Ukraine now finds itself in. These nations include Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland.

The second scenario is more dreadful and involves Russia getting bog down in Ukraine. As NATO nations supply sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine – leading to increasing loses for Russia. In this scenario, as Russia faces the brunt of sanctions, it reaches out to its strategic partner China for economic and military assistance. According to media reports Russia may have already done this. Talking to a news conference on March 23, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg stated, “China has provided Russia with political support, including by spreading blatant lies and misinformation.” He added there is concern that this could shift to material support. Earlier, US officials threatened China that there will consequences for any Chinese military and economic support to Russia.

One of the benefits of Ukraine crisis for China has been the shift of US focus away from the Pacific. However, if Russian is weakened in the crisis, it represents a strategic loss for China in the long run. In the grand scheme of affairs, Russia could keep Europe busy, if the things take a turn for the worse in the Pacific. But then, why should China face sanctions for what Russia has done. After all, China believes in non-intervention and respect for state sovereignty.

The post NATO, Sino-Russian Strategic Alliance, And Future Of Ukraine appeared first on Politact.

By Arif Ansar

Context

As the alliances associated with the global balance of power remain in the heightened state of flux, the organizations through which these tectonic shifts are being manifested, such as the United Nations, BRICS, NATO and SCO, are critical to observe. An inquiry that goes along with this examination is to understand the purposes of these multinational entities.

Analysis

NATO and Europe

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) came into being in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” With the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact, one of the main premises upon which the NATO military alliance was formulated was gone. The alliance began to look for a new purpose and identity that would keep it united against the emerging threats. The war against terror has proven to be one such unifying factor, as has dealing with rogue dictators and nations that threaten western interests, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and recently Iran.

However, these motives have proven to be short lived in the present multi-polar world and with the return of great power politics and the Cold War like dynamics. The established powers are now directly challenging the emerging power players, even at the extent of undoing the existing political, security, and economic systems that the established powers had themselves helped to set up at the end of World War II. It can be contended that the overwhelming emphasis on fighting the extremists has weakened and distracted the western alliance.

Moreover, the abuses of the very capitalist system that was a source of strength for the western nations, are proving to be its Achilles heels. The multinational corporations while generated enormous profits have also weakened the Middle Class, the backbone of any vibrant democratic society. Additionally, the technological edge the West and the US enjoyed is being eaten away by the emerging powers such as China.

None of these changes are as fundamental as the present transformation of Europe and its identity. Since the end of World War II, Europe has represented the pillar of American power projection around the globe. With Brexit and emergence of nationalist tendencies – this reliance can no longer be taken as given. Moreover, the change in what Europe reflected in the American strategic calculus has been adversely impacted by the America First doctrine. The doctrine has created skepticism in the minds of the European powers and that the US can no longer be trusted as provider of its security. This has resulted in Europe increasingly caught between its traditional ally US, and the pull of the emerging powers such as China and Russia. Meanwhile, the traditional European power tussles between France, Germany and UK also appears to be resurging.

What is the Evolving Role of SCO?

On the other hand, the Chinese have given more importance to the economic and trade leverages in its foreign policy as opposed to military means, which seems to be the preferable US choice in recent conflicts. Chinese One Belt One Road (OBOR) is an example of this. It is only under Trump that the focus has shifted to using American economic tools against adversaries, but that has resulted in the prospects of trade wars, which in return also impacts American economy.

The emerging powers are now represented by organizations such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Additionally the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) reflects the interests of the Central Asian states, and is thought of as the security arm of BRICS.

The SCO was formed in 2001 mainly as a security forum. The member governments have common security concerns, with emphasis on tackling terrorism, religious extremism, and ethnic separatism. In 2017, the organizing reached a milestone when India and Pakistan joined the organization as full members. Other members include China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Afghanistan and Iran have an observer status while Turkey is a dialogue partner of SCO.

It is especially interesting to study the connection between BRICS and SCO, and their reaction to events in countries impacted by the Arab Spring – and their position on the developments of the AfPak region. In matters related to Libya, Syria, and Iran, the positions of BRICS and SCO nations were in stark contrast to those adopted by the western powers – and Russia and China have both used their veto powers in the UN in this regard.

This is particularly at display as it relates to the present crisis over Iran and the US decision to withdraw from JCPOA. The European powers had advised the US to stay within the agreement to influence Iran, and even after the American withdrawal, the European powers have tried to salvage the agreement.

BRICS, SCO and Evolution of its Role in Afghanistan

PoliTact has been keenly observing the evolution of these budding organizations. To explore the role of BRICS and SCO towards the AfPak region further, we examined the views expressed at a conference held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in June 2011, titled, BRICS: Shaping the New Global Architecture. We especially focused on the comments of Da Wei, who was at the time the Director of the Presidents Office, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR); Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor in Chief of Russia in Global Affairs; and Inderjit Singh, a Professor of National Strategy at the National War College, US National Defense University.

In expressing his views, Da Wei distinguished the role of BRICS countries and the SCO, and avoided making any comparison of the SCO with NATO, or to comment on the role of the SCO in Afghanistan. He clarified that the BRICS are focused on global economic and political affairs while the SCO is more concerned with security issues. He added that BRICS membership is open to other countries and is a forum for emerging powers to dialogue amongst member countries and with other institutions like the SCO. He clarified further that both BRICS and the SCO are not very “strict-tight” organizations.

On the other hand, Fyodor Lukyanov emphasized saw the role of SCO in Afghanistan and stated that, “The SCO now is primarily about Afghanistan because this [is] a matter of huge concern for all countries of Central Euro Asia [because of the question of] what will happen in Afghanistan after American and NATO exit, and nobody can answer it.” He added that NATO should be very much interested and should encourage the SCO to take over the settlement of this issue and that it’s the only organization that is very well-placed to take on this responsibility.

In contrast, while speaking to PoliTact, Dr Inderjist Singh stressed a regional solution to Afghanistan that includes the interests of India, Russia, China, and Iran. He had noted at the time that Afghan interest to join SCO did not carry much significance, as the country cannot yet ensure its own security – and that’s why the role of Pakistan is important. He commented that Pakistan should not attempt to marginalize the interests of the Northern Alliance and India through the Haqqani network because a stable solution for Afghanistan would have to involve regional powers and the route of negotiations would be better than the use of force.

Future Role of SCO

The Chinese have clearly adopted a more cautious posture on the role of SCO as opposed to the more aggressive Russian stance. The differences in their respective approach is directly connected with their threat perceptions vis-à-vis the United States and Europe. The tense US ties with both Russian and China have pushed both strategically closer.

Moreover, the Chinese have given more credence to the economic and trade leverages in its foreign policy as opposed to military means. Chinese One Belt One Road (OBOR) is an example of this.

Since its inception, SCO has held a number of military exercises. However, at this stage it is not in a position to match the interoperability prowess of NATO.

The future of the US presence in the South and Central Asia, and increasingly Middle East region, have remained the focus of SCO. In June 2011 Medvedev had commented that the future of Afghanistan was directly relational to security and stability in all SCO countries and most observer countries, and that the SCO must endeavor to increase cooperation and involvement in Afghanistan to try and ensure stability in a post-US scenario.

At a UN Security Council meeting in September 2011, Russia insisted Afghanistan must stay neutral after troops withdraw from the region. Moreover, Russian deputy ambassador to the UN at the time, Alexander Pankin had stated, “if Kabul sets a goal of restoring neutrality as early as now, this can ease the reconciliation dialogue with the opposition.” The diplomat told UN members that military means were not enough to stabilize Afghanistan. Pankin criticized NATO’s ineffectiveness in controlling the situation and warned militancy networks could spread to bordering countries. Russia and China both fear the situation in Afghanistan could destabilize the Central Asian states.

On the other hand, India has warned against any hasty withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. India has maintained the stability of the region can only be achieved once terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Taliban are rooted out of Afghanistan.

India, Pakistan, and SCO

US and Indian interests are no doubt convergent when it comes to the AfPak region, however, India has consistently taken a position against foreign intervention, in places like Libya and Syria, just as China, Russia, and Pakistan. India is also aligned with the Indo-Pacific strategy and that is what complicates its role in both the SCO and BRICS. It simply cannot be a member of both the emerging power club, and established powers, at the same time, and sooner or later it would have to choose. This is the same predicament the European powers are finding themselves in, especially as it relates to the affairs of Iran, while the UK remains entangled in the on-going Brexit saga.

This is also true to Indian role in SCO. The SAARC organization become dysfunctional because of the Pakistan-India tensions, and the Chinese do not desire a similar fate for the SCO platform. However, without taking on a larger security role and diplomatic posture in mediating long-standing conflicts, whether it is Kashmir or Palestine, SCO cannot rise to a truly respected organization – in par with NATO.

The post The Evolving Power Shift; Multilateral Organization, Conflicts And Role of SCO appeared first on Politact.

By Arif Ansar

Context

The international conferences where leading global thinkers and shapers gather to share insights on the present political, technological, and economic challenges, are crucial to observe. Their thoughts processes help to build a narrative and assist the rest to gauge the future direction.

The Davos World Economic Forum, held every year in late January, is just such a venue where political, intellectual, and corporate leaders share their knowledge. This year, it was reflective of the contradictions that the world presently confronts as it relates to the governance structures, the economic and political models, addressing climate change, and harnessing emerging technological advances in a mutually beneficial manner.

In some respects, these kinds of topics are lately been talked about at many other such conferences, but the irony in Davos could not have been starker this year – when the European Union and Europe itself is in the grips of Brexit related confusion. And when the strong influence behind globalization, represented by the US, is adrift, and under increasing nationalist and isolationist policies.

The hard debates took place at the various Davos forums on the corporate role in the present economic woes, and responsibility towards tacking inequality, fixing the climate, and creating more jobs as Artificial intelligence (AI) and Big Data alter how the business will be conducted in the future. The dilemma remains that under globalization, the nation-state model, and state sovereignty, takes more of a back seat – and this is exactly what has resulted in the populist responses such as ‘American First’ or ‘Brexit’.

1. Globalization and Reforms

Consider the statements of Angela Merkel, one of the Keynote speakers at the Davos this year. She emphasized Germany’s commitment to globalization and multilateralism, and reiterated the risks. “There is a new approach that we see in the world today, an approach that harbors doubts as to the validity of the international system,” she stated.

Indirectly countering Trump’s ‘America First’ mantra she added: “I think (that when it comes to) our national interests — I think we should always understand them in such a way that we always remember that others also have their own vested interests, factor them in, and then shape a win-win situation that will guide us in international politics.”

The Chinese perspective was reflected in one of the discussions titled ‘When Global Order Fails’ by Fang Xinghai, who is the Vice Chairman of China’s Securities Regulatory Commission. Xinghai commented that West should not make China a scapegoat for what is not working in the Western democratic system and that reforms were needed to fix those issues, which have nothing to do with China.

Commenting on why US worries about China, Xinghai replied that the US should be open in accepting polities that operate differently, because if they do not, it would mean excluding China, Russia, and pretty soon India as well. Adam Tooze, who is a historian from Columbia University, further elaborated the response. He pointed out to the evolution of Indian democracy under Prime Minister Modi, which does not resemble democratic norms especially when considering its Muslim population.

2. Emerging Technologies and Digital Consensus

The technological upheaval is another aspect of the global flux. Like globalization, the Internet and Internet of Things (IOT), Big Data and AI, work best when there are no hindrances in the way. However, this has great risks and fears associated with it, when knowledge and technology (automation) is replacing traditional sources of labor. It could become, if not already, a new factor that exasperates global inequality.

Quoting McKinsey’s Global Institute (MGI) report ‘Globalization in Transition’, the Managing Partner Kevin Sneader wrote on the company blog:

“…for the first time, the emerging markets now make 50 percent of the counterparts in global trade. While these markets are perhaps more optimistic about growth than many developed economies are, they face their own challenges as knowledge and technology replace labor as the critical sources of arbitrage in global value chains.”

Therefore, the globalists desire a new form of technological consensus to shape the digital future – that balances the state sovereignty with in the globalized structure. Or as Elizabeth Heineman writes in The Conversation:

“Merkel’s – and Europe’s – quandary is this: how to move forward in the digital age when Europe’s contribution is to seek balance between state power, individual rights and the dynamism of capitalism. Achieving that balance – achieving any balance – means slowing things down. It means philosophizing.” Achieving this equilibrium is what Angela Merkel terms Social Market Economy

The Japanese Prime Minister reflected his sentiments on the subject:

“I call on all of us to rebuild trust toward the system for international trade. That should be a system that is fair, transparent, and effective in protecting IP (intellectual property) and also in such areas as e-commerce and government procurement,” Abe stated in his speech.

While there are many international agreements to address security and trade related matters there are no such agreements when it comes to the digital world especially in the realm of Cyber threats, AI and Big Data etc. This is a cause of enormous concern for nations that are competing in these emerging technologies. 

3. Geopolitics and Economics

The tussles of the global balance of power between the emerging and established powers is obviously not just restricted to security affairs, it also includes trade and technology domains. The ongoing economic tensions between the US and China are having a ripple effect downstream with negative impact on globalization.

The primary concern being that by learning and tweaking the laissez-faire system, China is exploiting it and negatively impacting the American economic outlook, as it relates to protection of Intellectual Property and by forced Technology Transfers. Moreover, there is a pressure on China to address the trade imbalances by opening its market more. Obviously if the Chinese economy continues to strengthen at the cost of others, it will also reflect in its global defense posture and influence. 

The other Asian nations are increasingly concerned as US appears to be withdrawing from international regimes, and this they think would only benefit the Chinese. According to them, the best way for the US to address its apprehensions is by staying in the system and by negotiating. Moreover, the debates also continue on the best way to engage each other and address differences.

Multilateral approaches, as adopted by the US in the past, complicate the negotiations. Conversely, the Chinese have benefited by engaging in bilateral tracts, however, in bilateral negotiations the stronger party usually benefits. Nonetheless, US is increasingly moving towards adopting bilateral talks for engaging and negotiating.

Then there are concerns that a Cold War is developing between China and the US and what that would mean for the international system. Will this result in to a new alignment – with other nations being pushed in to one block or the other. A comparison is also being made with the nature of Cold War between the then Soviet Union and US. That Cold War was primarily in the defense and security realm, and not as much in trade, as is the case between US and China now. And just because of this difference, it may not mature in to a full fledge Cold War.

Many of the above dimensions were discussed in an event titled ‘The Geopolitical Agenda,’ moderated by Vali Nasr. The panel recognized that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is changing the geopolitical landscape and in ten years the results will be obvious.

In this context, the Pathfinder and Dow Martin Groups held discussions related to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, moderated by the Chairman Pathfinder Group, Ikram Sehgal. The speakers, which included the Chief Minister of Baluchistan province Jam Kamal Khan, promoted investment opportunities in the mineral rich, and strategically located Baluchistan province of Pakistan. The province borders Iran and Afghanistan, where not only the Pakistan-India rivalry is playing out, but also the tussles of the global balance of power.

Conclusion

In many of the discussions referred above, the common worry remained how the US-China trade rivalry is going to unfold and how it will impact different businesses and free trade. However, one could see some confusion in grasping the connection between the economic and security domains.

The optimists thought that because the nature of competition is mainly economic, these differences could be managed. But they miss the point that is raising concern for the US: globalization has made China tremendously stronger very quickly, and this would also translate in to defense and technological wherewithal. After all, the nation-state system, and national interests, still exist and cannot be wished away. 

China preaches engagement and negotiations, and stands ready to address the trade imbalances and grievances, while admitting to the benefits of the liberal trade system. Will this be enough to save globalization remains to be seen. After all, trade wars are linked to the change in the global balance of power. What is particularly worrisome is that US no longer sees eye to eye on these matters with its traditional European allies. Moreover, the Europeans do not have consensus amongst themselves either. At no time since World War II, has the division between the globalists and the nationalists, so acute.

The post Davos 2019, EU, And US-China Trade War appeared first on Politact.

Context

The recent events of Ukraine and Crimea have not only raised alarm in Europe and North America, but have also increased worries in other regions on what the change implies for them. On the other hand, President Putin has thanked China and India for their understanding on the Ukraine crisis. Both China and India have refrained from criticizing Russia directly and have not backed moves to impose sanctions.

As US withdraws from Afghanistan, plus the shift in NATO’s attention towards Europe, has escalated concerns that US may start to cut aid to Pakistan. Then came the news last week that US has decided to shift $10 million from the $1.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman annual fund meant for Pakistan, to support and expand Ukrainian, Balkan, Russian, and Tatar language services of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Voice of America. This development also raised questions regarding the state of US-Pakistan ties, which have gone through a rough patch and are only beginning to get steady.

The Director for Strategic Initiatives at PoliTact, Dr. Claude Rakisits commented on Geo News that this move will not have a significant impact on the ties. He added that the transfer of funds from one bucket to the other actually demonstrates that the relations between the two nations have been going quiet well, a point validated by Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Jalil Abbas Jilani. Furthermore, the US government has not given much credence to the allegations made in the new book by The New York Times correspondent Carlotta Gall that ISI knew about the presence of Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad. After the US withdrawal from Afghanistan this year, the US reliance on Pakistan is only likely to increase.

Pak Ukraine Aid-03 April 2014 by GeoNews

Meanwhile, China seems to be speeding up its pivot to Europe by building business ties. President Xi Jinping completed his 11-day trip to Europe on April 1. “The relationship between China and the EU has become one of the most important financial relationships in the world,” Xi stated. During his trip of Europe, China sealed 50 deals with the total value of 18 billion Euros ($25 billion).

In addition to the flux in the Middle East, PoliTact is monitoring the evolving European situation closely and to decipher what it means for the South Asian dynamics.

The post What Does Ukraine Crisis Mean for South Asia, Pakistan? appeared first on Politact.

Context

The debate has continued over what more NATO and European Union can do to punish Russia for taking over Crimea and to stop it from going any further. History is replete with similar scenarios with one or the other European power over stretching itself based on false sense of the ground situation, while attempting to change borders
and correct history.

The fear is that appearing weak, or worse, not doing anything, can encourage further expansion that could later require an even bigger and costly response. Nonetheless, as noted in an earlier piece, US considers European stability as the bedrock of its own security paradigm and Russian actions cannot simply be ignored. This is why President Obama has spent literally the whole week in Europe meeting and assuring various allies, before heading to Saudi Arabia on March 28th. Clearly, the Middle East and Asia Pacific have moved to the background for the time being as European theater emerges as the center of gravity in world affairs.

Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping completed his 11-day trip to Europe on April 1 and stated, “The relationship between China and the EU has become one of the most important financial relationships in the world.”
Strategic Adjustments

For more than a decade major European powers and US have remained fixated on fighting terrorists in AfPak, Middle East and North Africa. In this, Russia has cooperated with the West, and just recently helped out in Syria as well. For the most part, however, China and Russia have stayed away from direct involvement in any of the conflicts connected with the campaign against terror. This helped them economically at a time when the West has been going through a major recession. It was this realization, in addition to other factors, which has forced NATO and US to put matters in perspective and to evaluate what level of threat the extremists pose, and who the real strategic adversaries may be. This assessment brought in to limelight the ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ strategy and the importance of reinvigorating the NATO alliance in the aftermath of US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the West and NATO go through this strategic adjustment and transition, turbulence in Europe would have been the last thing to expect. In this regard, two angles have emerged: Russians took the steps sensing the American weakness and European divisions. US has shifted its emphasis more and more towards political solutions to conflicts, especially recently in Syria and over Iranian nuclear program. The other tangent being: the Russians were provoked to intervene so as to distract it from gaining in the Middle East, which it has begun to in places like Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.

Speaking in Brussels on March 26th President Obama reiterated that Europe would have to start thinking about diversifying its energy resources and reduce dependence on Russia. With US already among the largest producer of gas, it could certainly become one of the exporters. The challenge being the US is far from Europe and that adds to the transportation costs, plus there are still infrastructure limitations in this regard. Obama repeatedly highlighted European unity in dealing with the Russian aggression.

Future of NATO

A case can be made that in the absence of any preeminent threat to Europe, and with US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO alliance has been looking for a new mission. The recent NSA surveillance scandal has also ruffled up ties and disillusioned traditional European allies. In his speech, Obama emphasized that US has remained concerned about NATO members cutting their defense budgets, and he made it clear that all members would have to ‘chip in’ to provide security for Europe in the aftermath of Crimea. Irrespective of these factors, NATO takes on an additional significance as US begins a shift towards the Asia Pacific.

On the other hand, there has been a growing worry amongst European and Arab allies about what the American pivot to the Pacific means for them. This is why President Obama stressed in his address in Brussels that the European partnership is the ‘cornerstone’ of American global engagement. In this context, The Russian take over of Crimea represents a threat around which NATO and Europe can coalesce. Furthermore, it could benefit US economically if eastern and western Europe indeed starts to transfer their energy acquisitions from the US. Europe and US are also engaged in finalizing far reaching transatlantic free trade agreement to strengthen the linkages. However, this outlook does reflect the expendability of Middle East.

Europe and Middle East

Declining American dependence on energy supplies from the Middle East, accompanied by the policy shift on Iran and Syria, plus a move to the Pacific, are more than enough reasons to cause paranoia in the Gulf region. Speaking last December at the Manama Dialog organized by IISS, the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had assured the Arab allies about the continued US presence in the region.

“Our emphasis on diplomatic tools should not be misinterpreted. We know diplomacy cannot operate in a vacuum. Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power, the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East that we will use it,” he stated. He also referred to the kind of threats being confronted: “Many challenges that the region already faced, from violent extremism to failed states to proliferation, have actually intensified, and destabilizing actor, state and non-state actors alike, have adopted more and more advanced weaponry, weaponry from ballistic missiles to cyber capabilities.”

There is evidence to suggest that other European powers are also moving in tandem with the US in the evolving strategy. For example, in April 2013, UK based think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), presented a ‘Return to East of Suez’ policy brief. The paper suggests that Britain is considering placing its land, sea, and air forces across the Middle East, for touch and go type operations. The report added that Arab awakening, the situation of Iran and Syria, has made the Middle East highly volatile and Britain is preparing policy options on how to respond.

According to the RUSI report, the potential missions could be in support of the American and NATO operations, but could be taken independently as well. And, it goes on to ease European worries that Britain is looking to operate outside of European security arrangements. In a larger framework, while US is pivoting to the Pacific, UK appears to be taking on a backstopping role in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, in June 2013, Putin declared that Russia will maintain a permanent naval presence in the area as well. “This is a strategically important region and we have tasks to carry out there to provide for the national security of the Russian Federation,” he had stated.

Similarly, French troops arrived in Mali at the beginning of 2013 to conduct counter terror activity and the footprint has been increasing ever since. PoliTact had noted at the time that this move would likely be matched by other European powers. That has indeed been taking place with the French, Scandinavians, American, and EU troops getting involved in the conflict of Central African Republic.

It’s not just about Crimea

Thus what happened in Ukraine and Crimea have wider connections and it would be naïve to think that only the European dynamics is at play. While Russia may have seen American weakness in Middle East, US may want to distract the bear recognizing its leverage.

European economic recession accompanied by resurgence in nationalist fervor, does not reflect well on the future of European Union. History tells us that anemic fiscal conditions accompanied by resurgence of nationalism can be a combustible mixture. The risk is that the crisis developing over Ukraine and Crimea may cause the western powers to compete with each other, and shift the tensions to other regions of the world. This will then also test the resilience of Russian-Chinese ties. A Chinese expert Vasily Kashin, who is at the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) think tank, told Reuters recently, “The worse Russia’s relations are with the West, the closer Russia will want to be to China. If China supports you, no one can say you’re isolated.”

Early indications of what this focus towards Europe means for South Asia came to the fore this week when US decided to shift $10 million from Pakistan’s aid towards supporting Ukraine. Surprisingly, the coverage of critical Afghan election on April 5 is also not getting due attention in western capitals. Meanwhile, Putin thanked China and India for their understanding on the Ukraine crisis; both have refrained from criticizing Russia directly.

At the same time, China seems to speeding up its pivot to Europe for building business ties. President Xi Jinping completed his 11-day trip to Europe on April 1. “The relationship between China and the EU has become one of the most important financial relationships in the world,” Xi stated. During his trip of Europe, China sealed 50 deals with the total value of 18 billion Euros ($25 billion).

The post The European Crisis Over Ukraine, Crimea And NATO, China appeared first on Politact.