Search This Blog

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Putin is more challenged by EU than NATO

Putin is more challenged by EU than NATO & that's key to addressing Ukraine, Russia-West ties

The late Samuel Huntington described Ukraine as a 'torn' country. Anyone who has a more rudimentary sense of geography and history, not to mention demography and domestic politics, would know that. Apparently not the EU.

Most analysts blame the Ukraine crisis on NATO expansion. There is some truth to it. But in reality, its is the expansion of the EU which lies at the heart of the crisis engulfing Europe now. Russia knows for some time (despite NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's diplomatically inept statements to the contrary) that the West would not seek Ukraine's membership in NATO. This is not just or mainly because he feels EU's democratic values would threaten his authoritarian regime. It is because Russia feels a sense of competition (rather than threat) from EU expansion in its own backyard.

Russia, which is ironically labeled as an "emerging power" is actually an old-fashioned European great power which still believes in the concept of a sphere of influence, just as Germany, the US (Monroe Doctrine) and other Western powers sought in the 19th century.  The expansion of EU squarely conflicts with that belief.

There is much to admire about the EU, the way it has transformed relationships among the nations of Western Europe,including the historic rivals, Germany, France and US. But the EU is a highly rigid and bureaucratic institution and it sometimes goes too far in imposing its rules and values on other peoples and states.

Moreover, the EU has developed something akin to the 'standard of civilization" that the European nations imposed on countries whom they colonized. The EU is of course into neo-colonialism, but its insistence that the whole of Europe must adopt its values, institutions and rules ignores long-standing political and geopolitical realities and carries risks of self-destruction.

Now this approach might have had much to do with bringing war back to Europe.

One potential solution to the Ukraine crisis could be to develop a diplomatic and economic framework that allows Ukraine to be part of both the Russian-sponsored Eurasian Union and the EU.

This is not going to be easy task especially at this stage, given the level of tensions and conflict that is now tearing Ukraine apart. But diplomats (including the highly paid EU officials) and policymakers should live up to the challenge to devise this viable long-term solution. It will be a serious folly not to pursue this option, especially as Putin has indicated that he would be willing to live with Ukraine's participation with both institutions.

A dual membership for Ukraine in EU and Eurasian Union not only reflects the situation inside Ukraine but also is quite common in other parts of the world.

In Asia, regional institutions overlap. China is a member of all the key Asian regional institutions. Even the US-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership, which sets a very high standard in creating a free trade area of the Pacific, is open to China and all other major economies of the region. And it does not preclude a member country from joining other regional bodies. It does not forbid countries from having different values and political institutions or level of economic development in order to qualify for membership.

The US should support dual membership for Ukraine in both the EU and Eurasian Union. While President Obama asserts that the "defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilinius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London", in reality would the American public really be willing to shed blood for this cause. It also reminds one of the classic Cold War question: would the US sacrifice New York for Copenhagen?

And the EU should listen as well. Economic sanctions and strengthening NATO might help to contain Russian geopolitical expansion, although many would question the hype that Putin is bent on resurrecting the Warsaw Pact. But no amount of sanctions and military readiness is going to help Ukraine if its domestic situations retains its deep fissures.

A persistent state of conflict at the heart of Europe is a frontal challenge to its dream of creating a peaceful and prosperous Europe. It also undermines the EU's claim to a a role model for other regional groups in the world.









 

Saturday, July 5, 2014

From the Unipolar Moment to a Multiplex World

Saturday, July 5, 2014
New World order emerges, one that requires cooperation and ability to build regional ties
YaleGlobal, 3 July 2014

Read the entire essay at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world
Excerpts from The End of American World Order:

Editor's  Introduction: The speed of communications, travel and globalization in general has transformed international relations. World order is no longer unipolar or multipolar; it is more like a multiplex theater than a chessboard, argues Amitav Acharya, in an article based on his new book, “The End of American World Order.” The professor of international relations at American University in Washington writes: “A multiplex world comprises multiple key actors whose relationship is defined by complex forms of interdependence.” Such interdependence comprises trade, finance and production networks as well as shared vulnerability to transnational challenges such as climate change. The United States remains essential in addressing transnational challenges, yet must accommodate a wide range of players including rising powers, institutions and corporations as well as new approaches and plotlines. Acharya suggests that stability can be ensured by shared leadership and improved regional relationships with development assistance, conflict resolution, restraint and empathy. Cooperation and strong regional ties among the wide range of players, not necessarily based on territory, can project strength. – YaleGlobal

Text: 

WASHINGTON: The unipolar moment in international relations is over. The new world order will be neither bipolar, the United States and China, nor multipolar, but a multiplex.
A multiplex world is like a multiplex cinema. American political scientist Joseph Nye describes the current international system as a three-dimensional chessboard. The top layer is military power which is still unipolar. The middle is a multipolar economic layer with the likes of the European Union, China and the other BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. The bottom layer consists of transnational non-state actors operating largely outside of government control.  

In the real world, the military and economic elements of power are not separable. And chess is a game of conflict. As Nye himself would readily admit, today’s world has plenty of cooperation.

The multiplex cinema is more apt – several movies running in different theatres within a single complex. Hollywood style includes thrillers and Westerns with violence, crime, ruggedness and heroism as prominent themes. Bollywood fare offers passion, tragedy, song and dance. Kung fu films produced in Hong Kong and Taiwan play next to patriotic and propaganda films from communist China. No single director or producer would monopolize the audience’s attention or loyalty for long. The audience has a choice of shows.

Read on at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world


Reprinted: Jakarta Globe, http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world/


UNIPOLAR NO MORE: THE OBAMA DOCTRINE AND THE EMERGING POWERS

June 19, 2014 Amitav Acharya

The dramatic advance in Iraq by the extremist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) poses perhaps the most serious test of the Obama Doctrine as outlined first by President Barack Obama at West Point on May 28, then by his National Security Susan Rice at Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C., on June 11.
The Obama Doctrine has two aspects: The first and the more well known (and critiqued) concerns the selective use of force. In the president’s words:
…let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it: when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger….On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone.
But for those interested in the future of international order, the second element of the Obama Doctrine is no less important. This has less to do with American power, and more with U.S. leadership in world affairs. In fact, it is the logical corollary to the first. If the United States is to be selective (critics would say too selective) in using direct force, then diplomacy and leadership must take on an ever-more important role.
Let me be quite upfront. I am a supporter of the first element of the Obama Doctrine. But I do have serious concerns about the second element, which is marked by vagueness and contradictions.
On the question of leadership, the president had an Albright-esquepunchline: “Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.”
How realistic is this pledge? It faces at least three major challenges.
Read More at: http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/unipolar-no-more-the-obama-doctrine-and-the-emerging-powers/

Monday, June 30, 2014

Six reasons China’s rise won’t trigger a world war, as Germany’s had done a century ago

The Times of India
Edit Page

The Times of India
TOP ARTICLE

Six reasons China’s rise won’t trigger a world war, as Germany’s had done a century ago




Exactly a century ago, on June 28, 1914, the assassination of the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian empire in Sarajevo triggered World War I.

In Asia, the rise of China and territorial disputes between China and its neighbours have raised concerns that Europe's past could become Asia's future.

The Economist has warned that in East Asia "disputes about clumps of rock could become as significant as the assassination of an archduke". Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has compared current China-Japan tensions with the German-British rivalry before World War I.

American philosopher George Santayana wrote: "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." But the use of historical analogies can be deceptive unless one recognises what has changed as much as what has not.

Let's consider six main differences between Europe of 1914 and Asia of 2014.

First, Europe in 1914 was multipolar; the world in 2014 is better described as a multiplex — thatis, multiple great powers bound together by complex forms of restraint and interdependence.

Read on... at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Six-reasons-Chinas-rise-wont-trigger-a-world-war-as-Germanys-had-done-a-century-ago/articleshow/37337660.cms

Monday, June 16, 2014

The end of American world order

The Hindu, May 29 2014

The unipolar moment in international relations is over, and we are now entering a multiplex world...

The conventional wisdom has been that we are entering a multipolar world. A few have predicted a U.S.-China bipolar order. But the emerging world order is likely to be neither bipolar nor multipolar, but a multiplex world order.
The multiplex world implies a world of multiple great and regional powers bound together in complex forms of interdependence. It can also be likened to a multiplex theatre in which one can see a variety of shows, directors and actors under one roof......
Read More at:  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-end-of-american-world-order/article6058148.ece