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.

Context

The election of Donald Trump in 2017, and unveiling of the ‘America First’ Doctrine, signified a marked departure from the political, economic, and security framework set in place in the aftermath of WWII. This vision championed by the US and premised on economic interdependence and free trade, also known as Globalization, was presented as the best hope for preventing wars and preserving peace. The institutions such as the UN, WTO, World Bank, and IMF have all facilitated and regulated the spread of Globalization and free trade – while NATO provided the security apparatus for the victors of WWII.

However, under the America First doctrine, free trade is shifting towards protectionism and nationalism – and the noble ideals such as promoting democracy and upholding human rights are taking the back seat. President Trump’s recent speech at the UN further elaborated on the contours of the doctrine that propagates the demise of Globalization.

This obviously is a gargantuan shift and is coming about in the absence of any ‘world war’ magnitude conflict. However, the Great Recession of 2008 is termed as the second worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Trump stated in his speech at the 74^th UN session:

“Globalization exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. Those days are over.”

He went on to add, “ Around the world our message is clear, America’s goal is lasting, America’s goal is harmony, and America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.”

While on the political and economic front he declared:

“If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. The future does not belong to Globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to strong, independent nations,”

Trump phenomenon is part of an anti-establishment wave that has popped up in various places around the globe, including Pakistan, in the form of Imran Khan. At one level, there is the question of what led to this, and will this drive sustain itself. And secondly, what does it mean for the rest of the world and the multilateral institutions that were set up to promote Globalization. PoliTact, will be examining these aspects in a series of articles.

What Led to America First?

Economic Sense of Exploitation

Perhaps the most important reason for this shift is the perceived sense of being exploited at the hands of emerging global powers that are getting ahead economically and technologically. And they are doing so by not being necessarily democratic or upholding human rights. In fact, a case can be made that in these times of chaos and polarization, democratic systems are reflecting mounting paralysis – whereas centralized and hierarchical systems are being able to better navigate the social turbulence.

Moreover, as the sources of Western economic wherewithal dwindle, they have started to challenge the very basis of their strength, such as multiculturalism and diversity. And again, historical precedence would suggest similar outcomes in such circumstances. When the going gets tough, immigrants and minorities are usually the first to be blamed for the predicament, and this also explains the rise of right wing elements in the US and Europe.

On the other hand, Europe that has acted as the bedrock of American global power projection is more and more looking unable or unwilling to play this role, as the seismic events in the form of Brexit play out. Additionally, the emerging powers of Russian and China are also acting as centrifugal forces when it comes to the future of Europe. This was also recently visible when US warned European allies not to adopt Chinese 5G next generation mobile networks due to security risks.

From the American perspective, it has gone out of its way and at the cost of tremendous resources for the preservation and sustenance of the present system. The US has often acted for the common good and the mutual benefit of its allies. When it comes to global crises, other powers seldom act in the absence of American leadership. Obviously, American allies have their own perspective on the evolving American role.

This sentiment has also crept over into the economic realm, and led to the quick dissolution of trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that America had itself crafted with tremendous efforts, while questioning how North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is benefiting the US. At the core of this belief is a feeling that US is being unfairly treated within the very system it helped create, and that Paris agreement on climate change would have likely further strangulated American economic growth under the burden of strenuous regulations. Under America First, Trump prefers bilateral format as opposed to the complexities involved in multilateral deals.

And if this is the case, with its emerging policies under Trump, US is telling the world that they need the present system more than it does. Moreover, it can help in maintaining the present order – but the allies would have to take the lead and the responsibility wherever applicable, and to establish fairness.

While there is an element of truth to how other nations have exploited the US, but one cannot underestimate the role played by multinational corporations. These companies have benefited tremendously from globalization by outsourcing work to other nations to maximize their profits while the American job markets and industrial capabilities suffered. The argument that technology and robotics are to blame for this is only a part of the explanation. And even if it is due to these reasons, it should have been a cause for alarm. A large unemployed workforce is in itself cause for instability, ethnic tensions, and hike in crimes.

Surprisingly, even the political representatives have failed to take notice of this combustible mixture, while overlooking the interests of their constituents. In one way, they are not to blame because Globalization conflicts with the concept of nation-state, and often puts the citizen of their own country in a second place. Globalization works best when there are minimal hindrances in the way of cross border trade, and the free market dynamics are allowed to play out.

Modern Warfare and Endless Conflicts 

Since 9/11 US has found itself at the forefront of many theaters of the campaign against extremism. In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, the involvement includes the GCC, Libya, Syria, Horn of Africa, and the nations of Islamic Maghrib. While it has the support of Western and regional Muslim allies, however, most of the financial and security heavy lifting for this campaign has been undertaken by the US. Even NATO partners have been reluctant to increase their defense contributions to the organization. And this is despite the fact that American role brings security benefits for its regional and Western allies.

And because of this, resentment has gradually been building, which ultimately led to the election of Donald Trump and the mantra of ‘America First’.

The prolonged war against extremism has played a pivotal role towards this dilemma as well. While the wars of the past were direct inter-state conflicts, the emerging conflicts have so far avoided the conventional theater, and have relied more on non-state actor acting as proxies and on hybrid warfare. Irrespective, the economic drains of these modern formats are mostly invisible to the pubic but incrementally drain the treasury. These formats convey a false sense of stability and are good for market and public confidence in the short term. Moreover, the hybrid warfare configuration has played havoc with the state sovereignty concept.

Conclusion

Thus, because of the imbalance of global power, and due to the apparent unwillingness of the US to maintain the present order, we are entering a dangerous phase. The key challenge for the other state actors has now become how to manage and maintain tranquility? Additionally, how to preserve their interests and sovereignty as the present order crumbles, while the shape of emerging system remains unclear.

At the heart of the misalignment between the US and the allies is a concern that who benefits more. The combination of America First doctrine and American Exceptionalism, will likely produce dangerous consequences, confuse allies, and hasten new global and regional realignments.

If American First policy does not produce economic dividends for common Americans in the short and long term, it will further complicate its domestic politics and confusion regarding America’s global role and future direction, and this in turn will further weaken the present order. Moreover, the America First principle is likely to unnerve the multinational corporations and this can add to the challenges confronted by President Trump in altering the status quo.

One of the key challenges for the West, and the US, is that after an era of complete economic and military dominance, will it be able to adjust to the new global realities and multipolarity.

The post ‘America First’ And Future Of Globalization appeared first on Politact.