Showing posts with label #IR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #IR. Show all posts

Friday, 29 November 2024

CHINA'S GLOBAL CIVILISATION INITIATIVE & RESTORING THE WESTPHALIAN WORLD ORDER

Another interesting piece from Glenn Diesen's substack: "China's Global Civilization Initiative & Restoring the Westphalian World Order"

is.gd/OdWQmm



1. Historical Context of the Westphalian World Order

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) established:

A balance of power among sovereign equals.

The principle of indivisible security, ensuring opponents' security for lasting peace.

A shift away from hegemony, conquest, and domination to sovereign equality.

Origins:

Europe’s Thirty Years' War demonstrated the dangers of hegemonic ambitions.

The Westphalian system replaced overlapping authorities (e.g., the Catholic Church) with national sovereignty.

Legacy:

Evolved into international law and the UN Charter.

Initially limited to Europe but gradually extended worldwide post-colonialism.

2. Erosion of the Westphalian Order

Cold War dynamics and US hegemony:

Post-Cold War, the US promoted a revisionist order based on its dominance.

This system relied on sovereign inequality under the guise of universal liberal values.

It aimed to prevent the rise of rivals but was inherently unstable and temporary.

The rise of a multipolar world necessitates rediscovering principles of balance and indivisible security.

3. China’s Global Civilization Initiative

Advocates for a return to sovereign equality and a balance of power, rejecting universalism.

Emphasizes civilizational diversity to reassure nations that China seeks cooperation, not hegemony.

Complements China's global economic and security initiatives, supporting a stable multipolar order.

4. Key Principles and Implications

Indivisible Security:

Peace depends on guaranteeing all states' security, avoiding zero-sum rivalries.

Inspired the Concert of Europe (1815) and extended through the UN Charter.

Current Global Shift:

The world is moving from US-dominated unipolarity to multipolarity, requiring new frameworks for stability.

5. Conclusion

China’s initiative aligns with the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality, offering an alternative to intrusive hegemony.

The restoration of a multipolar balance of power can ensure global stability and cooperation amidst declining Western dominance.

Wednesday, 27 November 2024

PIERRE DE GAULLLE ON RUSSIA

27 November 2024


Pierre de Gaulle is the grandson of former French President Charles de Gaulle. He has publicly expressed critical views on Western policies toward Russia, particularly concerning the conflict in Ukraine and the imposition of economic sanctions. 

https://youtu.be/ruG5JsudKIc?si=zzhe3xY4B5qHHyqK

1. Criticism of Western Sanctions Against Russia:

Counterproductive Measures: The economic sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union against Russia are counterproductive. He believes they harm European economies more than they impact Russia.

Economic Impact on Europe: Sanctions have led to increased energy prices, inflation, and supply chain disruptions in Europe, adversely affecting businesses and consumers.

2. Advocacy for Diplomatic Engagement:

Dialogue Over Confrontation: He advocates for dialogue with Russia instead of  sanctions and war.

Understanding Security Concerns: Acknowledging and addressing Russia's security concerns is essential for lasting peace in Europe.

3. Opposition to NATO Expansion:

Security Balance: He is critical of NATO's eastward expansion, arguing that it disrupts the security balance in Europe and provokes unnecessary tensions with Russia.

European Strategic Autonomy: Pierre de Gaulle supports the idea of European countries taking control of their own security affairs rather than relying on NATO, which acts in U.S. interests.

4. Support for French Sovereignty and Independence:

Legacy of Charles de Gaulle: Upholding his grandfather's legacy, he stresses the importance of France maintaining an independent foreign policy that prioritises national interests over alignment with external powers.

Non-Aligned Stance: He encourages a non-aligned approach, promoting neutrality to facilitate mediation and conflict resolution.

5. Economic Cooperation with Russia:

Mutual Benefits: Pierre de Gaulle highlights the mutual benefits of economic cooperation between Europe and Russia, particularly in the energy sector.

Long-Term Partnerships: He believes that fostering long-term partnerships is more advantageous than severing ties, which can lead to economic hardships.

6. Concerns About Escalation and Global Stability:

Risk of Wider Conflict: He warns that continued antagonism and escalation will lead Western powers into a broader conflict, posing risks to global stability.

Call for De-escalation: Pierre de Gaulle urges all parties to de-escalate rhetoric and military activities to prevent unintended consequences.

7. Critique of Media and Information Warfare:

Biased Narratives: He expresses concern over biased and misleading media portrayals of Russia and the conflict, which hinder objective understanding.

Promotion of Balanced Perspectives: Advocates for more balanced reporting to facilitate informed public discourse.

8. Humanitarian Considerations:

Impact on Populations: Emphasises the humanitarian toll of the conflict on civilian populations in Ukraine and calls for efforts to alleviate suffering through ceasefires and aid.

Background:

Alignment with Gaullist Principles: As you might expect, his views are bas on Gaullist principles of national sovereignty, independence in foreign policy, and skepticism toward supranational organisations that dilute national interests.

Conclusion:

Pierre de Gaulle advocates for a reevaluation of Western policies towards Russia, promoting diplomacy before war and sanctions, and encouraging European countries to assert greater independence in their foreign policy decisions. 

He says we should recognise our shared interests and security concerns to foster stability and peace in Europe. 


Sunday, 17 November 2024

Towards a New World Order: Rebalancing for Peace

17 November 2024

Towards a New World Order: 
Rebalancing for Peace

In the aftermath of the last World War, global institutions were established with the vision of fostering cooperation and preventing conflict. As the world faces a shifting geopolitical landscape, it is worth revisiting the fundamental principles needed to achieve lasting peace. These principles rest on three foundational pillars:

1. Trade as a tool for peace, transcending the motivations for war.


2. The safeguarding of global sea and land lanes to ensure free and fair movement.


3. The respect and enforcement of international law as a universal standard.


Achieving these ideals, however, demands a radical rethinking of global governance structures. Here are the key propositions for a more balanced and peaceful world:

Reimagining Global Governance

1. Acceptance of a Multipolar World

The unipolar dominance of a single power or bloc is increasingly untenable. A multipolar world would acknowledge the rise of new powers and distribute influence more equitably.



2. Reaffirming the Role of the United Nations

For the UN to serve as an effective arbitrator, its decisions must be universally respected and immune to unilateral challenges. This would require a renewed commitment to its authority.



3. Rebalancing the Security Council

The current structure of the UN Security Council, heavily weighted in favour of the G7 nations, must shift to reflect the interests and voices of the global majority, including nations from the Global South.



4. Reforming International Institutions

Beyond the Security Council, all major global institutions need to be rebalanced to reflect contemporary realities. If reform proves impossible, there may be no choice but to rebuild these institutions from the ground up.



5. Abandoning Alliances

Alliances often create hierarchies, with dominant powers exerting centralised control. Alliances meanblock politics. Such structures perpetuate division and conflict. 

Instead, a decentralised approach that respects the sovereignty of each nation could promote collaboration without coercion.




A Diplomatic Path Forward

The goal should not be military solutions but diplomatic ones, where rational negotiations respect national sovereignty. Centralised, top-down power structures must give way to decentralised systems that operate through delegated authority with mutual consent.

Challenges and Realities

While these ideas present a blueprint for peace, their implementation is admittedly far-fetched. The reality is that the world seems more likely to split into blocs—the West versus the rest—if no consensus emerges. China, despite its rising influence, shows no signs of pursuing the role of a global hegemon. Similarly, BRICS, a grouping of emerging economies, is unlikely to assume such a role without risking catastrophic global conflict.

The Fly in the Ointment: Israel

The most intractable obstacle to global peace remains the Israel-Palestine conflict. This singular issue continues to defy resolution and often complicates broader international relations. Without addressing this "bluebottle in the ointment," any vision of a harmonious global order will remain incomplete.

Conclusion

The dream of a balanced, multipolar world governed by diplomacy rather than alliances may seem fantastical. Yet, it remains a vision worth striving for. Whether through incremental reforms or bold reimagining, the international community must confront the structural flaws in the current system. Otherwise, the planet risks further division—or worse, devastating conflict.

Saturday, 12 October 2024

WHAT IS NEO-CONSERVATISM

12 October 2024

Neoconservatism: An Ideology of American Power
                         Pax Americana

Neoconservatism can be called an ideology, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy. It originated as a reaction to liberal policies in the 1960s and 1970s, took hold in the 90s and 2010. When american power was unchallenged, and has developed into a distinct worldview that prioritises the projection of American power and values globally. While the promotion of democracy is a key tenet, the underlying purpose is to maintain a unipolar world where the U.S. holds hegemonic sway. This pursuit of global dominance, backed by military strength, underpins neoconservative thought and has shaped many of its policies.

1. Beliefs, Values, and the Pursuit of Hegemony

American Exceptionalism and Unipolarity: At the heart of neoconservatism is the belief in American exceptionalism—the idea that the U.S. is a unique force for good in the world, tasked with spreading democracy and free markets. However, the broader goal is not simply to promote American values but to ensure that America remains the unchallenged global hegemon. A unipolar world, where America sets the rules (" the rules based international order"), is seen as essential for global stability and prosperity. This worldview interprets any challenge to U.S. dominance—whether from Russia, China, or transnational entities like the European Union—as a threat to its global order.

Moral Clarity and Interventionism: Neoconservatives often frame international politics in stark moral terms—good vs. evil—with the U.S. on the side of righteousness. This belief in moral clarity fuels military interventionism, justified by the need to spread democracy or counter threats. The overthrow of regimes such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is seen as both morally justified and strategically necessary to maintain U.S. influence.

The Death of Diplomacy:
As a consequence, world gov.ts are divided into democracies and authoritarian regimes, into good and evil. When it comes to conflict resolution, this manichean view means that it is impossible to deal with or compromise with evil, after all, you do not sup with the devil, you defeat it, and this is why there is no diplomacy and no negotiations, only military and economic force in the service of uncompromising political objectives.

Unilateralism and Pre-emptive Action: Neocons tend to favour unilateral action if multilateral channels (like the UN) are seen as ineffective or opposed to U.S. goals. Pre-emptive strikes, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, are justified on the grounds of eliminating potential future threats to American dominance, even at the cost of bypassing international norms or institutions.


2. A Critical Review: The Consequences of Neoconservative Interventions

Despite the ideological clarity neoconservatives claim, the consequences of their interventions have often been far from the successful outcomes they envisioned at the start of operations. In many instances, neocon policies have led to destabilisation, prolonged conflict, and significant humanitarian costs. The most glaring example is the Iraq War, but there has been Afghanistan and Syria, and now, Ukraine.

The Iraq War (2003): Promoted as a necessary intervention to spread democracy and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War became the neoconservatives' defining moment. However, the consequences were disastrous:

Destabilisation: The removal of Saddam Hussein led to a power vacuum that fuelled sectarian conflict, civil war, and the rise of groups like ISIS. Iraq’s instability spilled over into neighbouring regions, contributing to broader Middle Eastern chaos.

Humanitarian Catastrophe: Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the conflict, and millions were displaced. Far from promoting stability, the war resulted in widespread destruction and long-term suffering for the Iraqi people.

Damage to U.S. Credibility: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the prolonged insurgency, damaged America’s global standing. Neoconservatives’ insistence on unilateral action alienated traditional allies and raised questions about the legitimacy of U.S. interventionist policies.

The War in Ukraine (2014-2025): the fight at this time was over, not weapons of mass destruction, but Ukraine's admission to NATO. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Ukraine was not admitted to NATO. Otherwise, the consequences have been much the same: mass death and destruction, crippling costs, destruction of Western credibility and influence, and a war that could prove to be the greatest and the last of neocon catastrophes, with the destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and the creation of an alternative world order centered on China, Russia and Iran.

2. The Legacy of Endless Wars:

So Neocon-driven interventions - whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria or Libya - have often left countries in worse physical and financial condition than before and with a clear rejection of liberal democratic values. These conflicts have contributed to endless wars, with no clear exit strategy or long-term solutions. Moreover, they have drained U.S. resources and further eroded public support for military interventions, leading to what some describe as "war fatigue" and censorship of views at home in the U.S. and Europe.

Unintended Consequences: Beyond the immediate destruction, neocon policies have often empowered adversaries. The Iraq War, for example, enhanced Iran’s influence in the region, as Tehran expanded its footprint in post-Saddam Iraq. Similarly, the chaotic aftermath of Libya’s intervention has turned the country into a breeding ground for extremism. 

Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban after a disastrous cut and run by America; and Ukraine will have lost a quarter of its territory, access to the Black Sea, as well as the destruction of its communication, infrastructure and energy systems in the remaining Western, neutral, rump. 


3. The Nostalgia of Neoconservatism: Opening the Debate for Alternatives

As neoconservative policies have faced increasing scrutiny, future historians may look back on this neocon era not as the height of American power but as a period of nostalgia for a unipolar world that was already slipping away. The post-2014 global order, marked by the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the fragmentation of western alliances, represents a shift away from the neocon vision of U.S. global dominance.

The Decline of Unipolarity: The neocon dream of maintaining a unipolar world has become increasingly untenable. The rise of multipolarity - where power is distributed among multiple global actors - has created a new reality that neoconservatives are reluctant, unwilling even, to accept. The Ukraine crisis and the U.S.’s waning influence in the Middle East underscore the limits of U.S. power in this evolving order.

Alternatives to the Neocon Worldview: As the unipolar world continues to fragment, alternatives to neoconservatism have gained traction. These include:

Realism: A more realist foreign policy approach advocates for restraint and a focus on U.S. national interests rather than ideological crusades. Realists argue that the U.S. should prioritise diplomacy, avoid unnecessary interventions, and recognise the legitimacy of other powers' spheres of interest.

Multipolar Engagement: Rather than enforcing a unipolar order, some suggest the U.S. should engage in cooperative multipolarity, acknowledging the rising power of nations like China, Russia and Iran, while working through international institutions such as the UN to build a more balanced and stable world order. This would be an alternative to the NATO Alliance, which works only for a group of western countries.

Non-interventionism: Critics of neoconservatism advocate for a non-interventionist stance, focusing on addressing domestic issues and limiting U.S. military engagement abroad. This approach resonates with a growing segment of the U.S. population, weary of endless wars, foreign entanglements and growing debt?.


Rethinking Global Governance: Future historians may also reflect on the missed opportunity to reshape global governance. Rather than clinging to outdated notions of Pax Americana, the world might have benefited from pursuing new security architectures and cooperative frameworks, such as Gorbachev’s "Common European Home" or the UN-based international law. These alternatives, sidelined in favour of NATO expansion and unilateralism, might have led to a more inclusive and sustainable global order.


Conclusion

Neoconservatism, while rooted in a strong belief in American exceptionalism and global dominance, has faced significant criticism for its failure to achieve it's goals and instead its disastrous consequences. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have shown that unilateral military interventions, based on moral clarity and the pursuit of a unipolar world, often lead to mass depth destruction and displacement of peoples, lasting instability, long-term conflict, and the erosion of American power.

As the global landscape continues to shift towards multipolarity, the neoconservative worldview may increasingly be seen as nostalgia for a world order that no longer exists. The challenge for policymakers is to rethink America's role in a more pluralistic world and to explore alternatives that embrace cooperation, diplomacy, and shared leadership on the global stage. Whether the future lies in realism, multipolar engagement, or non-interventionism, the era of neoconservative dominance is fading, and a new approach to collective security and world order, will be needed to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.

The sun is setting on the American world order

Friday, 11 October 2024

WHY POLITICIANS THESE DAYS ARE SO MEDIOCRE

11 October 2024

Politics, the political process at the national level, is in a disastrous state across Europe. Our politicians are mediocre and unimaginative, and in any case, they have little room to make their own decisions in the national interests, with an overbearing hegemon breathing down their necks all the time.

This has lowered the quality of candidates for high office and created a vacuum into which populist parties enter, lowering the overall tone of national debate and governance.



Just look at the UK, where apparently Boris Johnson is threatening or hinting at making a comeback, and the competition in the current leadership race is so intense.... yet no one has anything new to put forward. Johnson was the one who did America's bidding and triggered the start of that disastrous war in Ukraine.

To me, and maybe I've said this before in other posts, this problem of a vassalised Europe is a symptom not of burgeoning American power but of its and the West's, decline.

After the cold war (1945 - 1991), there was the unipolar moment (1991 - 2014) when America was the unchallenged world leader, and Washington felt relaxed enough in its hegemony to allow its allies in Europe some freedom in deciding their own external national policies.

Then around 2014 the challenges started. There was the Chinese 2025 belt and road initiative. There was the start of the Ukraine war over its entry into NATO. And not long after there was Trump with his withdrawal from the world stage, cancelling the Paris accord and questioning NATO.

America could have agreed to these changes, gone with the flow and become part of a multipolar world; or it could resist. Well, it chose to violently resist.

It it seems from the record that during the unipolar moment, America was focused on imposing its values ( at least that is what it said) on the Middle East by restructuring that region with wars in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq and early outliers Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

Then post 2014, post unipolar, renewed great power rivalries in Ukraine, the war on ISIS, the second Libyan war, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Europe did have choices. Remember the UK had earlier refused to join in Vietnam and Paris refused Iraq. It could have pursued Gorbachov's Common European Home and included Russia. It could have gone with the UN idea of international law and order. Of course, America's greatest fear at the time was Europe, and particularly a Europe where Germany was allied with Russia.

But instead, Europe, fearful of Russia, scurried under the skirts of America, adopted NATO and the Pax Americana, aka the rules based international order, in place of the U.N.

The words we will remember from this post unipolar period are I think "double down" and "escalation". That's what America did to halt the decline and keep its place as no. 1. America was in reality fighting the challenge from Mackinder's heartland, from central asia.

On defense spending, on trade policies and on sanctions against Russia and Iran, Europe felt itself. forced to comply. Against national interests.

The line, the political position, the insistence dictated by America on all these issues and conflicts, grew stronger and stronger. The sovereignty of European nations was increasingly crimped, "if you are not for us, you are against us" was the ruthless American policy, leaving less wiggle room in European parliaments for policy choices. There was less room for creative initiatives, the quality of candidates for political positions dropped because there is less opportunity for able and ambitious people to make their mark on national life. I also believe there is more corruption in politics today because this is the way Americans get things done. (I always remember for example the planeloads of $100 bills shipped into Iraq.)

With the attention of european elites turned more to america than their own people and national interest, the electorates started turning against leadership. Then couple that with the policy of open borders and a massive rise in immigration, which may arguably suit the needs of the economy and benefit the owners of capital, but ordinary people saw migration as an invasion, stressing the countries' welfare, housing, infrastructure and transport systems, and menacing, a countries long established culture with takeover, a completely alien culture, and you have the foundation for a rise in populism.

Populism with all its known weaknesses. Populist political parties often rely on charismatic leaders, offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, and focus on short-term popularity rather than sustainable governance. Historians will recast this as mediocrity. It can lead to inconsistent policies, further societal division and loss of the middle ground, and being outsiders, inexperience in governing and impatience, creating conflicts with democratic institutions, further weakening their long-term effectiveness.

European politics is in a state of decline, with mediocre politicians lacking the ability to make independent decisions due to American pressure. Only Hungary under Viktor Orbán maintains a distinct voice.  

The situation worsened after 2014, with rising global challenges like China’s Belt and Road initiative and the Ukraine war. America responded with resistance, enforcing a stronger unipolar order through NATO and economic sanctions. European sovereignty diminished as the U.S. dictated policies, leaving little room for national interests or political creativity.
In response to the leadership turning to america rather than its electorate, came a rise in the "populist" vote, and potentially divisive figureheads with oversimplified solutions and little respect for democratic institutions. 

The loss of soverignty and rise in immigration create a political vacuum into which steps populism. The consequence is that we lose the outstanding talent of yesteryear and "the national interest" suffers. Thus, the overall result of becoming vassals of a foreign power is to lower the quality of our own home leadership.



References

Glen Diesen, "The Ukraine war and the Eurasian world order"

https://www.youtube.com/live/ZNUNMxoYNkY?si=KHuIHPL-mlgDFJGD