Category: Uncategorized

Over the past two weeks we’ve seen an escalation of the long border- conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This has caught the attention of the international community, especially the UN. And a few days ago, the UN chief had condemned the continuing escalation of violence and called for an urgent ceasefire. Luckily, an agreement on a humanitarian ceasefire was announced yesterday in Moscow by the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In promoting peace and security during a war or conflict, diplomacy must be at its best, that is finding immediate and  viable solutions. So thanks to the mediation of the Russian federation, the two countries agreed on a truce starting from October 10 according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.  It is reported that both countries are yet to decide the exact parameters of the truce in the disputed enclave Nagorno-Karabakh. But the ceasefire is for humanitarian reasons to exchange prisoners of war and other detainees and bodies of those killed.

When Secretary-General Guterres welcomes the agreement, it is a way of saying that the UN is still in the business of peacekeeping and preventing wars. Armenia and Azerbaijan are committed  ” to begin substantive negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), through its Minsk Group.” And currently, France, Russia and the United States are presiding the OSCE’s Minsk Process, which promotes peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. So, almost the UNSC is valuably represented.

Although the UN chief further appealed to the international community to support the ceasefire agreement  and also urged countries to continue to encourage the sides to resolve their differences through peaceful means, the effectiveness of the UN to ending wars is still questionable as the Severine Auteserre’s piece pointed out.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1075132

“The PLA is preparing for modern, networked warfare with more artificial intelligence, warships, and even a space station.” China is running a race to enhance their nuclear stockpile, implementing artificial intelligence into everything that they are creating. Moreover, China is looking its own version of a nuclear triad, with air-launched ballistic missiles, in addition to ICBMs. Pentagon officials assess China will have 200 intercontinental missiles in the next five years, also the report shows that China’s space activities are increase quickly in order to optimize the process such as space exploration, profit-generating launches and scientific efforts. Beijing aims to became in a global leader in artificial intelligence in a short term.

These technological advances mixed with completely lack of transparency from China have brought to the United States serious concerns, regarding these facts the U.S. has been trying to involve China into a new START treaty which governs the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and launch platforms that the United States and Russia can keep in their inventories, nonetheless, China doesn’t want to embroil in a discussion on nuclear arms control.

Despite of China is building strong technologies and weapons some experts from American Enterprise Institute ensure PLA doesn’t have appropriate training and fighting experience than American Army have this fact give advantage over China. Nevertheless, PLA is striving to change that, they are restructuring and enhancing the PLA’S overall combat with new operational concepts aims to set up their military footprint overseas. Pentagon said artificial intelligence is collaborated to increment the speed of warfare and in effect China is working under that statement, therefore, China’s behavior could bring severe aftermaths over the world rushing into a cyber warfare.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/09/168166/byPatrickTucker

The UN General Assembly will hold elections for fifteen seats on the 47-nation Human Rights Council for three-year terms beginning on January 1 on the new year. However there are some questions that are arising about the eligibility of some potential candidates. In an article from the Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Watch has insisted that the likes of China and Saudi Arabia, should be voted on to the council by UN member nations due to the fact that they are two of the worlds most abusive governments when it comes down human rights as a whole. Russia in its war crimes concerning Syria also makes them an highly controversial candidate as well.

Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch, has stated that  “Serial rights abusers should not be rewarded with seats on the Human Rights Council” and not only has outlined that they are massive violators of human rights in their respected nations, but Charbonneau also goes further by accusing them of trying “to undermine the international human rights system they’re demanding to be a part of.” The Un Resolution 60/251 which formed the UN Rights Council, states that members required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and cooperate at all times with the Council. However the issue is recently the UN votes have been uncompetitive among the members which makes it easier for unfit candidates to get on the council according to Charbonneau.

It is very clear that China and Saudi Arabia have no business being seated in the council. As China has been called out by many for their actions in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, the suppression of information at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and attacks on journalists, activists, and so on.  Saudi Arabia on the other continues its efforts of suppressing dissent and activists, and has showed little efforts of accountability for the killing  of  journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Both China and Saudi Arabia have also been known for using their seats for “prevent scrutiny of their abuses and those by their allies.” Here I think the UN has to have more consistency in selecting who serves on this Council as allowing nations known for human rights violations to sit on the council would be hypocrisy and ultimate irony as its finest, as currently the likes of Venezuela and Qutar currently currently sit on the Council, and China and Cuba have held seats recently. This was one of the reasons why the United Nations left the Human Rights Council as Nikki Haley explained that the US will not be “part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.” However, if countries that have human rights violations continue to undermine efforts by the council by having seats but failing to reform their human rights efforts at home, then will efforts from the HRC be taken seriously moving forward and will the UN take a look in the mirror to examine themselves regarding this? Its safe to say that this clearly needs to have some reform in picking who serves on this council so their legitimacy can still be preserved before its too late.

As we consider the viability of the United Nations, it’s worth noting that the UN World Food Program just won the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize for its assistance to nearly 100 million people facing food insecurity worldwide . The WFP has not been free of controversy or allegations of corruption, but overall, the agency is a UN success story. It is able to operate swiftly and effectively in war zones and conflict-affected countries, from Yemen and Syria to South Sudan and even North Korea. Its work has been even more critical amid the coronavirus pandemic that has worsened the problem of food insecurity in some of the world’s poorest and most turbulent regions. The work of the WFP is a hopeful reminder of what can be achieved through multilateral cooperation.

David Beasley, Executive Director of the WFP, is a former Republican governor and vocal supporter of President Trump. Nonetheless, he has strongly cautioned against cuts to the UN and particularly the WFP, saying “This is my message to President Trump and his friends and allies: Proposed massive cuts to food assistance would do long-term harm to our national security interests.”

It is common, even fashionable, for politicians to bash the UN for being bloated, elitist, and largely toothless. But the WFP is definitely the best-placed and resourced agency for addressing global hunger, especially when crisis strikes. I am glad the Nobel Committee recognized the WFP as a success of multilateralism amid a marked uptick in nationalism and populism around the world. I think the agency is richly deserving of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.

Whether the question of the U.S. giving security guarantee’s to European states is valid, appropriate, crucial & necessary in the modern world of technological advances, or not? would be question that needs further investigation within it, not only from the past history but also from predictions and patterns drawn in the present and future.

For more than 70 years the United States has been committed to support and strengthen NATO allies. One of the most logical and genuinely reasons for the United states to such stance was the strategy of expansionism and the ideology of a global leader. Here comes the question in the modern world? What roles exactly does the U.S. play in the global arena? Is the United States still perceived as a global leader and especially under president Trump?

As Kaufman stated that the one individual that comes in to office and becomes president does have a big influence on how other countries perceive the United States.

The idea of cooperation and multilateralism is essential with no doubt and the alliance is important. But just like any other alliance it should be took. The United States doesn’t have to keep reaffirming every action it takes and goes back to consult NATO or the EU. However, what president Bush committed in Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in history so far I agree with Kaufman and I do agree that the NATO states are frustrated and lost trust in the U.S because the strategy of “Us vs them” could easily imply on any country regardless of any kind of treaty or cooperation that aims for multilateralism.

I expected the part when the author draws the lines between the similarities in discussions regarding the European countries to have “other ties” that will be beneficial for them economically, politically and strategically. He even called the alliance between China and Germany a forged strategic relation. But the idea of getting China on their side to enhance relationships which will be beneficial to individual and common goals and less costly for the U.S to enhance security in Asia is a real sense and example of multilateralism, cooperation and diplomacy.

The United States and Russian officials are met in Finland yesterday to renegotiate the NEW START Nuclear weapon treaty. The U.S. Ambassador, Marshall Billingslea, and Sergei Ryabkov, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister will continue talks held earlier over the summer in Vienna.  There is not much time remaining on the proverbial clock.  The NEW START treaty is due to expire on February 2021.

Part of the delay is attributed to the fact that the Trump administration wants China’s commitment to the treaty.  Back in August, speaking after the negotiation rounds in Vienna, Billingslea said this:

“The next treaty will have to be multilateral, it will have to include China, and the framework that we are articulating together as two great powers, us and the Russians, will be the framework going forward that China will be expected to join,

The perspective from the Trump administration is that China should have skin in the game, and make concessions in the build-out of their nuclear weapons program.

Recent DOD reports show significant increases in China’s buildout of military capability. Increasingly, China is marrying its state-sponsored enterprises from the private sector economy with military applications. This includes nuclear arsenals and advanced missile technology.

What remains unclear is how advanced weaponry buildouts on the part of the Chinese will impact nuclear weapons negotiations between Russia and the U.S.

Today, Ambassador Billingslea mentioned, “important progress” was achieved, however, specific outcomes remain unclear.

Much of China’s imperialist endeavors in the modern world has largely centered around maintaining sovereignty over special administrative regions such as Hong Kong, and the Republic of China (ROC), also known as Taiwan. China’s handling of these regions has garnered much scrutiny from international media outlets and has received admonishment from many leaders, both domestic and abroad. 

China’s adamant position on retaining control of Hong Kong’s state of security while undermining its judicial independence has been the premise for the region’s separatist demonstrations. Largely due to the extradition bill sanctioned by the National People’s Congress, violence in Hong Kong ensued until the bill’s withdrawal back in September 2019. However, China’s retaliation led to the passing of a comprehensive national security law that would, in effect, imprison anyone (up to life) who is found complicit in crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. The implementation of this law indubitably violates the “one country, two systems” framework, as more than 9,000 protestors, including pro-democracy lawmakers and activists, face imminent arrest and imprisonment. Furthermore, China’s aggressive stance on reaffirming its sovereignty over such administrative divisions has translated to many states covertly forging diplomatic missions with another particular semi-autonomous region considered one of Asia’s most disputed – Taiwan.

Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China, has a reputation for being the most actively unrecognized autonomous region in the world in terms of economic output, trading, and contribution to tech supply chains. Yet, China has strategically militarized its characterization of dominance over the region, having pointed approximately 1,600 ballistic missiles at the island territory, while exerting pressure on global companies to label Taiwan as a province of the mainland. Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu contends the notion that Taiwan has felt the pressure of China’s aggression to concede to their political demands, demands which threaten the very existence of their well-being and may turn the territory into the “next Hong Kong.” Nonetheless, the United States has maintained their decades-long alliance with Taipei and have ensured the people of Taiwan that their interests are vested with that of the United States. 

Much of the nascent developments in Taiwan has amassed US military and diplomatic interests throughout the years, given that Congress believes that any attempt to coerce Taiwan into unification with the POC would be viewed as a grave threat to American security. Although China has vowed to reunify the mainland once its military and ballistic missile capabilities are adequate enough for a “full-scale barrage and invasion of mainland Taiwan”, the superpower must also be prepared to supersede many diplomatic and militaristic hurdles imposed by the United States, which would make for an interesting setup in any anticipated acts of aggression in the region.     

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/taiwans-status-geopolitical-absurdity/593371/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/30/china-passes-controversial-hong-kong-national-security-law

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/asia/china-taiwan-us-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/11/the-next-hong-kong-taiwans-foreign-minister-sounds-warning-over-china

 

It must be said that the author is not a shrewd expert on American-Chinese security relations, and even less has the foolishness to prove the opposite within a short blog. Nonetheless, on or around China´s 71^st National Day it is worth thinking about what exactly can make a rising state like China a foe or friend of a slowly but surely declining world power like the USA.

For a long time, the USA believed that it could maintain the upper hand and control, as in almost all regions of the world, and that it could enforce this with a mixture of reward and threat, in China as well. As Campbell et al[1] formulated it very aptly:

Neither carrots nor sticks have swayed China as predicted. Diplomatic and commercial engagement have not brought political and economic openness. Neither U.S. military power nor regional balancing has stopped Beijing from seeking to displace core components of the U.S.-led system. And the liberal international order has failed to lure or bind China as powerfully es expected.

Nixon´s visit to China in 1972 was a milestone to reformulate the relationship and opening America to a communist country that was isolated from the world. Sidelining the Soviet Union and China’s circumvention was a coup of the Nixon and Kissinger duo. With this, the policy of Strategic Engagement has started and the integration of China into the “American World Order”, economically and through international institutions. Not surprisingly, it was not human rights but the Cold War that defined the guiding principles. Common interests were dictated by trade and security. Hard facts were more important than the community of values of democracies. Note: trade and security against democracy.

More simply: American capital and consumption and Chinese production became increasingly inseparable. The triangle is now being completed by Africa which shall serve as a resource for raw materials. China was already a dominant empire in the eastern part of the world, and Africa was already the supplier of an even more important resource in the history of a current great power: human power.

The policy has not changed much after 1989: with the Soviet Union’s fading glory, the United States became the prima donna on the stage of world politics. And the US did believe to have the license, the absolute power, and the resources to guide and lead the world towards a happier and more democratic order. But did she? Being raised in a Soviet country I am painfully reminded and challenged to quote here Francis Fukuyama[2]

We remain at the end of history because there is only one system that will continue to dominate world politics, that of the liberal-democratic West.

Meaning that the mixture of capitalism and liberal democracy is the logical endpoint of human development? Without going into philosophical depth: it is not. And for sure not for China.

After 9/11 the American focus shifted more than ever to the Middle East – and the wars of the greatest democracy of the world in the Middle East were largely financed by Chinese loans. In exchange human-rights problems of China not only became marginal but some western states even managed to stamp Uyghurs as terrorists.[3]

So, sticks or carrots? How could a potential change in the White House influence Chinese-America relations? According to my earlier blog, I assume that Biden would take over some elements of the Trumpian policy. Yet, there is an important difference. It is significant whether Washington will be able to build a strong international coalition against China as the Obama administration tried. It could affect China more than Trump’s aggressive but by times inconsequent alliance policy.

[1] Kurt M. Campbell and Eloy Ratner, “The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American Expectations,” Foreign Affairs, (Vol. 96, No. 2) March/April 2018, pp. 60-70

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1002238464542684520

[3] Interestingly, Uyghurs have a strong sympathy for Hungarians which they esteem to be their big western brother.

In the chapter “How Aggressive is China” from the book Avoiding War with China by Amati Etzioni, the author discusses the actions that have been taken by China that are perceived by the United States and its allies in the region as aggressive and proactive and puts them into a larger context that takes into account international rules and norms, the history of China and the region, and the behavior of the United States itself. Through this lens, the author is able to show China in an unsensationalized light and is able to offer realistic policy recommendations for dealing with China.

For example, the author Amati Etzioni points out certain aspects of America’s diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea that are not often mentioned when discussing the topic. Etzioni points out that the United States often interferes in the negotiation with China and its neighbors like the ASEAN countries. The author points out how the United States uses the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as part of their justification for their criticism of Chinese activities in the South China Sea when the United States has not even signed the treaty itself. By providing this honest view of Chinese foreign policy, Etzioni provides a more realistic view of China’s activities that does not characterize it as an overwhelmingly powerful villain hell-bent on regional domination. Rather, the picture Etzioni paints is that were China is just another geopolitical rival of the United States, a picture that is much closer to reality.

In a May 2020 New York Times article, Maria Abi-Habib and Keith Bradsher break down the financial implications of China’s debt scattered across the globe due to its Belt and Road Initiative. While trying to create a new Silk Road, China has found itself in a precarious position. Over the last 2 decades, China has loaned out hundreds of billions of dollars to countries. Now with many of those countries facing an unprecedented economic decline, China is in a position to look very weak if they do not collect on their debts. While requests to restructure or forgive loans come pouring in from indebted countries, China too is facing its own economic hardships. COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the world economy and China did not manage to fully sidestep it. With the Chinese people suffering themselves, how would they feel seeing foreign countries renege on their deals to pay? If China aggressively pursues repayment or calls for collateral, would it make them look like a bad loan shark shaking someone down in broad daylight?

As many of us heard this week, owing large sums of money to foreign entities is a national security risk. China has the ability to neither collect or forgive the debts and simply remind those countries of their debts. When China needs an ally or a voice, I’m sure they will turn to one of those countries and give a simple “hey, remember who you owe billions of dollars too.” The Trump administration has referred to these tactics as ‘debt trap diplomacy.’ While putting themselves in a highly diplomatic position, they’ve also put themselves in a uniquely strategic one. If many of the projects that aren’t paid for are the collateral owed, China has the ability to seize the ports, roads, and railways for themselves to be the sole owner/operators of the grand new Silk Road they imagined. While I believe the task of seizing foreign assets on foreign soil is a particularly dangerous chess move, China can use it whenever they need to make sure they can’t be checkmated.

 

Abi-habib, M., & Bradsher, K. (2020, May 18). Poor Countries Borrowed Billions from China. They Can’t Pay It Back. Retrieved October 05, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/business/china-loans-coronavirus-belt-road.html