Month: September 2020

Joshua Shifrinson argues that the United States is a relatively declining super power, not quietly as the Soviet Union where power would go in to a dust bag in history but essentially declining in the sense of exceptionalism and exercising a unipolar position in international affairs landscape. The U.S. still possess the highest GDP in the world but other countries such as China are in the race of moving in fast pace to essentially compete with the United States. However, this hasn’t been something new, in 1990 and early 2000 when the U.S. had to deploy advanced military assets towards East Asia. DOD has announced that it has been in a long-term strategy competition with China and Russia.

By that said, this leaves us to the question that we should really ask ourselves. Is china really a threat to the United States hegemony and in what way? How threatful is China now and in the future?

I find these questions crucial as one may think that since China is considered a Revisionist and expansionist state. Which means that china will always try to find new technologies, solutions and opportunities to cease to become a super power.

It is very clear that China seeks to cease control and hegemony in the Indo-Pacific Region

The United States perceives that this is shaking it preeminent position with its allies in the region. The geopolitical context in concerning this regard has created several tensions and implications, one to mention that the United States has strengthened ties with surrounding countries such Vietnam, Thailand and promoted defense cooperation’s between South Korea, Australia, India and Japan. In regards that China would not push the U.S from the Western Pacific and also prevent from aiding the U.S allies.

The United States is starting to accept the rising of another powerful state and this is clear during the Obama administration when he stated that the “United states welcomed the rise of China that is peaceful, prosper and responsible in global affairs”

What are the on international security in the U.S and China? In my opinion, neither the U.S nor China would go into war together in the near future, two relatively strong super powers that possess nuclear warheads. And find several options to use in international security as deterrence mechanisms but differences might be on the technological and artificial intelligence.

Perhaps this reveals some personal bias on my part, but I found Hong Yu’s piece on the motivation behind China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative to be overly effusive while overlooking some of the more problematic aspects of the endeavor. Yu’s article makes brief reference to preferential loans for infrastructure in Africa and South Asia but doesn’t really interrogate the notion that China is engaged in serious debt diplomacy in the developing world. Yu frames OBOR as an initiative to foster economic cooperation and connectivity and increase trade and investment but focuses little on China’s predatory lending practices.

This is an old Foreign Policy article, but it offers some emblematic examples of Chinese debt diplomacy:

“Unable to repay China for a loan used to build a new port in the city of Hambantota, in 2017 Sri Lanka signed over to China a 99-year lease for its use, potentially as a strategic base for China’s navy. In Djibouti, public debt has risen to roughly 80 percent of the country’s GDP (and China owns the lion’s share), placing the country at high risk of debt distress. That China’s first and only overseas military base is located in Djibouti is a consequence, not a coincidence.”

Beyond its problematic and non-transparent lending practices, China is also promoting a “Digital Silk Road.” This is ostensibly to enhance digital connectivity in the developing world and expand the reach of Chinese tech and telecom companies, but it is easy to see how a Digital Silk Road might undermine democracy and human rights, particular given the PRC’s recent actions in Hong Kong and toward the Uighurs. I find myself wondering: Will the world face a “Digital Curtain” in the future?

But perhaps I’m just another American engaged in unnecessary handwringing over the rise of China.

China and U.S. has been trading partners with each other, but there has also been a lot of economic competition between them, including strategic investments, technological research, as well as more recently, trade wars.  Now, there also seem to be competitions related to various economic initiatives with trade partners, as China has done with the Belt and Road Initiative.  In the U.S., there has been more push towards trade embargoes and sanctions, as well as national security-related push to prevent Chinese companies with ties to the Chinese government.  There seems to also be more difference in long-term economic strategy, which has been heating up the conflicts in hegemony and influence over different regions in the world, such as the South China Sea.  This seems to be a parallel in terms of economic competition as well as hegemonic competition between the U.S. and China.

For the last three decades Bahir’s government drowned Sudan into a dictatorship, after Sudan’s former President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir fell from the power in 2019, Sudan is moving forward through a transitional democracy process, planning to win democratic election in 2022, during present period they have been looking restauration of freedom of the assembly, press and speech, but in fact is not an easy way for Sudanese people who have been dealing with many difficult issues amid the post-Bashir period, such as Sudanese military’s abuses to Covid-19. Regarding the Sudan’s goal to aim democracy path; it needs urgent measures to strengthen their weak economy, improve international relationship and gain support from the US and others influence countries.

Nowadays Sudan is struggling with the one the biggest obstacles to recover their economy, due to sanctions imposed in 1993 from Washington aimed at punishment during Bahir’s government when the US labeled Sudan at state sponsor of terrorism and supported Osama Bin Laden. In 2020 Trump’s government have approached to the issue disregarding the significant ways in which Sudan has changed its policies both domestically and internationally, trying to make a quid pro quo deal with Khartoum where Trump required from them normalize relations with the Jewish state in exchange to remove Sudan from the State Sponsor of terrorism (SST) list.

Sudan’s economic situation and COVID-19 crisis has affected the country’s movement towards democracy, in the present they are stuck into the Trump’s government inertia to make a decision from Washington to remove them from the SST list, allowing Sudan’s economy to increase by trading also giving to Sudanese civil society an opportunity to regrow after being harshly oppressed under Bashir’s rule.

Though President Trump refused to travel to New York to attend the UN Assembly, he made sure his thoughts were heard by all. In his speech, Trump made sure to highlight the U.S’s contribution to addressing COVID through several clinical vaccine trials. He then proceeded to directly blame China for the virus, brought attention to China’s high pollution, and hinted at human rights violations in China. Trump then listed “superior outcomes” the U.S. accomplished during his administration. In his address, Trump only highlighted his “America First” foreign policy without addressing the theme for the event: “Reaffirming our (the UN’s) Collective Commitment to Multilateralism”.

Meanwhile, in his address,  President Xi chose to speak mostly on COVID and seemed to dismiss President Trump’s blame on the “China virus” saying “Any attempt of politicizing the issue or stigmatization must be rejected.” Jinping addressed the UN with much more grace and even pledged aid in reference to COVID.

In this strange take on the blame game, Trump appears to use the UN assembly as a way to shift the blame of COVID onto China while reminding  (convincing?) the world of what he believes he has achieved so far while in office. Meanwhile, he completely neglected to even approach addressing the theme of the assembly this year. It was surprisingly difficult to find articles analyzing or even addressing these two speeches and I wonder why that might be. Trump blatantly chooses to use his address as a bit of free coverage for his presidential campaign while neglecting to mention any plan that might progress actions within the UN. Though Jinping chose to not pinpoint Trump or the U.S., he definitely did address the humanitarian issues trump had cited. I think these addresses can heighten tensions between the nations as it appears Trump will do anything to keep “America first”.

Normally around this time of year, New York City is usually in a high state of business due to the United Nations General Assembly in town. Well, due to obvious reasons its quite different in 2020. For the first time in the 75 year history of the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly has been absent of political leaders, as the Covid-19 pandemic has made the UN General Assembly its victim alongside other events and more, as instead of of physical gathering that locks New York City down for weeks, the world leaders sent their speeches via prerecorded videos. One or two people for each of the 193 member states were permitted with mask wearing and socially distanced in the UNHQ, as the normal festivities of the UN General Assembly are placed on hold, for this years session at least.

However despite the new changes happening in this years session, it does not to any degree take away from the intensity that is normally seen when leaders of the world speak and clash with other world leaders. One perfect example of this is this past Tuesday, between the United States and China. In a recent article from the New York Times, a prerecorded speech from President Trump sees the President blowing his own trumpet about his own actions in the Covid Pandemic, and even further calling out China on the global stage by telling the UN to hold accountable as he put it “the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world.” He spoke about other topics such as isolating Iran, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and the peace deal between Israel and the two Gulf Arab, but the dominant aspect of the speech was blaming China for the covid pandemic even mentioning it as the “China virus” and covering up the virus.

President Xi Jinping of China followed with a prerecorded speech of his own, stating that the pandemic crisis is a shared one by everyone and denounces any politicization and stigmatization of this global crisis. In addition, he also took jab at the US according to a BBC News Article, that without naming the US, Xi stated “no country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself”, which coincidently China has been accused of also. Ironically both leaders fail to come into reckon with their fallacies as Trump goes on to state how the US will lead the charge against the pandemic by developing treatment, vaccines, and going further to say “We will end the pandemic, and we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation and peace,” which is ironic is because the US currently has far more confirmed cases than anyone else close to 7 million and over 200,000 deaths. Meanwhile President Xi describes his fellow China as “described China as a benevolent power that does not wish ill on anyone” which is ironic given China’s behavior in the South China sea, the detentions in Xianjiang, the issue with Taiwan and Tibet, and the political repression in the Hong Kong region. He also swiped at Trump at his isolationist approach to diplomacy and trade even describing what Trump is doing as “trying to fight it with Don Quixote’s lance” and failure to go with history.

The US-China faceoff took center stage if the GA session, as there clearly was clearly rifts between the two superpowers which has some concerned that such rhetoric posed by the two leaders will lead to a new cold war on the horizon, with the UN of course looking lost in this situation as two powers standoff to each other in a verbal war. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that this divide is a very dangerous situation that must be avoided at all costs between the two powers as it is evident many global consequences are on the verge of manifesting should things intensify.

My personal thoughts are that fuel is currently being added to the fire from both leaders in this case as both leaders had colorful things to say against each other that made it the center of attention for the assembly. The US is making efforts to stay the leader of the world order, however China is making its claim to be a superpower to rival with the US in every aspect. Trump and Xi’s showdown at the UN definitely will raise eyebrows on what’s to come for both nations, and the world following suit. Is another cold war truly on the horizon? It may be the case as relations between the two are stagnant and looks to be that it may get uglier depending on what goes on in the future. Only time will tell of course.

The author in this article gives an overview of Russia’s history stating that it has always been considered the weak super power. He points out to the fact that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow lost 2 million square miles of sovereign territory equivalent to the entire share of the European Union. He then continues that Russia considers itself as an exceptionalism and that its foreign policy revolves around this idea of having a special mission and that it has to be treated in a special way. And this is why post-Soviet Russia precluded to join Europe and also forming an unequal partnership with the United States. I liked the part that the author mentioned that Russia is not putting its aspirations in alignment with its capabilities, and I think this is one of the most important traits that a successfully ‘developed’ nation- state should have because it leads to political stability and one that is really noticeable within its international relations. Even more important than the GDP of one country. Russia is still not accepting post war settlements or the idea of global rivalry that it lost on a multidimensional level and could still wait for the best time to annex small countries around instead of having diplomatic relations.  Russia need to get over the past and start redefining the notion of exceptionalism and start working with other countries even if they are small ones in Europe to fit its global role.

Throughout much of the third wave of globalization (beginning from 1989 to the present), China has amassed much of its geopolitical sphere of influence through its lateral economic partnerships with many Global South countries, resulting in much financial strain for investors and governments alike. Extracting a few examples of this commercial trend, particularly in Ecuador and Kenya, China’s indubitable force of financial dominance has contributed towards the construction and upkeep of many transportation, healthcare, and telecommunications infrastructures; However, much of this so-called bilateral economic integration has come at the expense of governments receiving loans and not being able to follow through with repayment installations. 

The Ecuadorian government has been involved in a slew of scandals since the inception of many infrastructure projects financed by the Chinese government. One project in particular, the Coca Codo Sinclair Dam, was constructed by the Sinohydro Corporation at the price tag of $2.25 billion USD. Considered the largest energy project in Ecuador’s history, the government soon realized that settling the loan required granting 80% of the country’s most valuable export to China as a method of repaying contracts – Oil. This practice of ceding control of Ecuador’s oil supply chain to Chinese companies has led to increased deforestation of the country’s most biodiverse regions. This scenario has not only played out in South American countries, but also in nations along the East African rift, with Kenya having received much financial assistance from the Chinese government and not much support from domestic partners. 

Kenya’s bilateral relationship with Chinese investors is attributed to Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project aimed at improving land and maritime transportation routes between China and Europe, Asia and Africa. However, financing the project has been deemed too expensive by Parliament following the raising of the government’s debt ceiling to $87 billion USD, as well as the increasing in government spending up to approximately 55% of the nation’s GDP. Many analysts contend that the nation may not recover from its negative-sloping debt-to-income ratio, with President Uluru Kenyatta now banking on future investors to set up shop along the railway’s newly-built transportation hubs. 

[1]https://archive.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/About-Nordregio/Journal-of-Nordregio/2008/Journal-of-Nordregio-no-1-2008/The-Three-Waves-of-Globalisation/index.html

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/world/americas/ecuador-china-dam.html

[3]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-railway/kenya-opens-1-5-billion-chinese-built-railway-linking-rift-valley-town-and-nairobi-idUSKBN1WV0Z0

Russia’s relationship with its neighbors has long been tensional. From Georgia in 2008, to Ukraine in 2014, to Syria in 2015, Putin has always laid the blame for Russian aggression squarely at the West’s feet. Historically, and before the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers during the world war II. However, the relationship between both did not end well. As a result of years of tensions, the soviet union collapsed and nations within it declared their independence; and the Baltic states sought an international recognition. As a result, a new leader came believing that  the empire’s collapse was a “geopolitical catastrophe.”

According to the reading, “The Return of Geopolitics Past” Russia had long functioned as a “dark double” to the United States in its self-definition as a world power. Under the presidency of  Vladimir Putin, the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula  from Ukraine in early 2014 was the most consequential decision of his 16 years in power. The invasion in Crimea tends to be very crucial in determining the motives. The question of why invading neighboring territories tends to be more historical, post cold war and the collapse of the soviet union. The goal might be to gradually recapture the former territories of the Soviet Union and by that expand  Russia’s borders or simply because of geopolitical ambitions.