Context
The case presented by the Russians for intervention in Ukraine is as convincing as that by the West for why it should not have interfered. After all, the Europeans were playing around too close to what is considered the traditional Russian ‘Near Abroad’. A couple of years ago in 2008, the bear had responded similarly in Georgia. It’s not clear, what made the Europeans think the response would be any different now; the Russians have not gotten any weaker and their dependence on its gas has not diminished either. So, why did the Europeans go out of the way to invite the Ukrainians to join the European Union and provoke the Russians, remains a question.

The crisis in Ukraine cannot be grasped simply by understanding the European dynamics. Some have argued that this may be a blow back to what is occurring in the Middle East, especially Syria and Iran, and the Russian role their. The best way to understand the crisis is by using the lens of emerging and established powers. While emerging powers like to avoid confrontation and buy time, an established power cannot allow that, especially if the behavior of the emerging actor is perceived to be threatening.

Countering Putin’s article in The New York Times  published in September last year, Obama stated in his speech at the 68th session of the UN General Assembly that America is indeed exceptional, and it will act when there are justifiable moral and greater reasons to do so. “But I believe America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self interest, but for the interest of all.”

Putin had written in his piece: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

In his UN speech, Obama went on to spell out the core American interests at stake in the Middle East: the free flow of energy; focus on dismantling the terrorist networks; building the capacity of its partners to fight the extremists; and preventing the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. For this purpose, Obama stated: “The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region,” he asserted.

It is in this context that the issues of state sovereignty and non-intervention have taken on added emphasis. They were paramount during the recent crisis of Libya and Syria, and have emerged again in Ukraine.
Why Europe is More Important?

In addition to the Middle East, the European frictions over Ukraine have been going on for a while. The crisis there is most alarming because it represents the home sphere of influence for Russia and the other European powers. In turn, the US considers its security inexplicably linked with the stability of Europe, which is its principal ally on the global theater. As happened in the previous World Wars, it was the European frictions that played out in different regions. Since the end of Cold War, the West learned a lesson and presented a united front when dealing with various conflicts. Now that unity is at risk, and this means that we are entering an extremely perilous phase.

The Dynamics of Asia Pacific

Global power frictions are also evident in the Asia Pacific where China is asserting its territorial claims as US pivots to the region. The country established a new air defense zone over the disputed islands in East China Sea in last November, and declared it will start enforcing fresh rules. The declaration was immediately tested when unarmed American B-52 and B-2 bombers intruded the zone without informing the Chinese, followed by Japan and South Korean planes. This has raised a discussion about the Chinese intent and reaction, and with that the chances of escalation. If China does not enforce the new rules, it would seem weak. The question is why do Russia and China want to appear strong at this juncture?

As US shifts its strategic focus to the Pacific, there are fears amongst its Middle East allies that it may leave the region for the other European allies to deal with. In this regards, French, Australian, and moves of the Scandinavian nations towards Africa are of keen interest, while the British appear to be focusing more on the Gulf region. The establishment of Chinese air defense zone, and the Russian moves in Ukraine, appears to be an uncoordinated response at this time.

US-Chinese Ties

As the US-Russia ties deteriorate, western analysts are now closely looking at the Chinese response to the Ukrainian crisis. Meanwhile, the statements emanating from China have remained ambiguous, and these analysts have interpreted them in their favor. After all, both China and Russia have consistently resisted foreign intervention in other nations, especially NATO moves in the Middle East, and that has complicated the operation of the UN Security Council. Now that Russia has violated this principle, a number of questions have been raised for China.

Moreover, these stances were meant for positioning on conflicts far from home, when it comes to the home sphere of influence, Russia reacted differently. Can a similar behavior be expected from China if its primacy is threatened in its home sphere? Will the Russian move to defend its interest in Crimea impact the operation of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, dominated by the emerging global powers, is also yet to be seen.

The Fate of Proxies

In the context of Middle East and South Asia, one of the most dangerous ramifications of the growing US-Russian tensions has to do with the role of proxies. After all, the present war on terror is one left over vestige of the Cold War. PoliTact has previously observed in this space that the Arab Spring, war on terror, and tussles of global powers have already merged in the Middle East. One of the perilous lessons of the Syria campaign has to do with the efficacy of non-state actors in urban fighting. Had Hezbollah not come to the aid of Assad, Syria’s conventional military would not have been able to sustain the regime. What this implies for the AfPak region is too early to tell, but the parallel are there for an imaginative mind.

While China and Russia have been deepening ties with both the Shiite and Sunni states, using SCO, US and NATO have remained disengaged from Iran and the Shiite states. Now this pattern appears to be heading for a historic reversal as US focuses on building a balance, first in Iraq, and now by engaging Iran, and perhaps in the future attempt to pull then away from China and Russia. To what extent will this move disillusion the Gulf Sunnis, and if this would push them in the arms of Russia and China, remains to be seen. In this perspective, the Pakistan, China, and Saudi link, has taken an added significance.

Conclusion

As the global balance of power enters high speed of flux, the issues of state sovereignty and non-intervention have taken on added emphasis. They were paramount during the recent crisis of Libya and Syria, and have emerged again in Ukraine. Pakistan itself was recently caught in a controversy regarding its non-intervention stance on Syria and the potential shift under Saudi pressure. On the issue of Ukraine, India has not directly criticized Russia and has spoken against imposition of any sanctions.

The states that exist at the borders of the traditional spheres of influence are increasingly at the epicenter of tensions. These strains are causing weak states to crumble as they attempt to balance the various pulls and at the same time manage weakening economies and ethnic polarization. On the other hand, states in the Arab world and South and Central Asia, are also under pressure from the extremists. This is further aggravating the undoing of fragile states, and creating the necessity for global powers to protect their influence and interests. As they act, the autocrats, military dictators, and other proxies are poised to make a come back; certainly Gen Sisi has already sensed the change.

The post Ukraine; Spheres Of Influence, State Sovereignty And Non-Intervention appeared first on Politact.

Context

Trouble in the Maldives is always going to be of interest to two nations in particular: India and China. With the recent political unrest and resignation of President Mohamad Nasheed in early February under what is being termed a coup, the situation in the Maldives is looking grave. India is keen to facilitate political reconciliation in the country and to reestablish itself as Maldives’ best friend in the region, while China is waiting in the wings, ready to take advantage of any opportunity the unrest presents.

Interestingly, at the same time as India is viewing both Pakistan and China as an increased threat, there are cooperative signs between these nations as well.

Analysis

Political Landscape of Maldives

Mohamed Nasheed is sometimes referred to as the ‘Godfather of the Arab Spring.’ He was a political activist and protested against the 30-year rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the Maldives. In 2008, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom stepped down after the country’s first free election, where Mohamed Nasheed assumed the presidency. Three years later and the once-lauded President has been forced to step down, he says at gun point, after weeks of violent protests against him.

The Maldivian people grew disenchanted with their President after allegations of continued corruption and failed promises for change. The final straw was when Mohamed Nasheed detained Abdulla Mohamed, Chief Justice of the criminal court. Protests began in earnest and weeks later Mohamed Nasheed was stepping down from his role, to be replaced by his Vice President Waheed Hassan. Waheed Hassan has since called his former president a dictator. The lessons for Arab countries in the after-phase of the Arab Spring are clear.

India And Maldives

While the happenings in the Maldives are perhaps considered a storm in a teacup on the global scale, they are of intense concern to India and China.

India has long courted favor in the Maldives, as much to have a strong presence in the Indian Ocean as to ward off China from doing the same. Indian interests were safeguarded under Nasheed, who confirmed an accord with India protecting Indian interests in the region when he stated while still in office: “We have always categorically stated that we do not want foreign powers, in particular the Chinese, interfering in the Indian Ocean.” The Indian government is so concerned with the instability in the region, that it has sent foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai to convene peace talks between the opposing parties in the Maldives.

Mathai has managed to bring the parties to agreement on early presidential elections, but has also come under fire for appearing to interfere in another country’s internal affairs. India is strongly denying this charge. For India, the crucial thing is to deny China a strong foothold in the country, and it will risk appearing to interfere to achieve this.

China And Maldives

Chinese ambitions in the Maldives stem from the ‘String of Pearls’ strategy, a desire for Chinese ports and positions that extend from Port Sudan to Hong Kong. Already they have one port in the Maldives, but India’s close relationship with the Maldives has kept it from developing into more of a stronghold. Other ports in the String of Pearls include the Gwadar port in Pakistan, the Chittagong port in Bangladesh and the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. India rightly fears the string tightening around its neck.

The Chinese vision for its sea lines in the Indian Ocean highlights the lack of grand strategy in evidence in India. There is certainly a defensive strategy to protect Indian interests, by partnering with Chinese rivals Japan and Vietnam, however there is little in the way of developmental strategy to counter the Chinese influence. India will likely have to partner with the US in the region to counterbalance the strong position of the Chinese. This could be why the US has recently deployed counter-terrorist operatives in India, as well as the Maldives, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Three of the countries are host to Chinese ports.

US Pacific commander Admiral Robert Willard told a congressional hearing on the subject that: “We are working very closely with India with regard to their counter-terrorism capabilities and in particular on the maritime domain but also government to government.” The particular threat Willard mentioned was Lashkar-e-Toiba (Let) based out of Pakistan.

Competition And Cooperation

Interestingly, at the same time as India is viewing both Pakistan and China as an increased threat, there are cooperative signs between these nations as well. Pakistan has just announced that trade with India will be normalized by the end of 2012. This will hopefully bring the trade between the two rivals from $2.7 billion per year to around $9 billion per year once all trade barriers are lifted.

At the same time, Indian military is gearing up to conduct one of its largest war games, less than 200 kilometers from Pakistani border in the Bikaner and Shri Ganganagar districts in Rajasthan. A few months earlier, the country conducted an exercise ‘Sudarshan Shakti’ in Pokharan. The exercise named Shoorveer or Brave Warrior will take place from March to May and will see the deployment of 20,000 troops and 200 Russian-made tanks. Indian Army spokesman colonel Jagdeep Dahiya has stated that the drill would be one of the largest maneuvers ever conducted, involving Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguars and the AWACs.

“Battlefield transparency and operational plans based on real-time situational awareness will be
enhanced using intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) inputs from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, radars and satellites,” he added. Dahiya dismissed fears that the drills will heighten tensions with Pakistan, saying India informs Pakistan ahead of such large-scale exercises.

On the other hand, China and India have just launched their first ever maritime talks, with Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna promising that all of the ‘sticky’ issues between the countries were addressed: “Every possible issue that is raised whenever India-China dialogue takes place were raised and we have understood each other’s position and we have understood the perspective and we will continue to exchange these.”

While India and China, are doing the simultaneous dance of cooperation and competition, at present Indian influence in the Maldives looks to remain strong.

The post The India, China Vying For Influence In Maldives appeared first on Politact.