Tag: Hegemony

The Modern Thucydides Trap: How China’s Rise Challenges American Hegemony

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The American political scientist, Graham Allison, popularised the concept famously known as the “Thucydides Trap.” This concept suggests that whenever a rising power threatens to displace an established one, the tension often guarantees a conflict will arise (war), unless deliberate efforts are made to avoid it. The concept borrows its name from Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC), who was an Athenian general, politician and historian who lived through the ferocious Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, which, the philosopher Will Durant quips, “Thucydides took part in…and recorded it blow by blow.”

Graham Allison has applied the Thucydides framework to the great-power politics of the 21st Century between China and the United States. He views China as a rapidly ascending power that threatens to displace the United States, which, since 1991, has enjoyed unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Due to China’s rapid rise as a powerful contender in world affairs, there is structural stress it is exerting towards the ruling power, i.e., the United States. This stress could build fear and amplify the risk of miscalculation among America’s foreign policy elite, hence increasing the risk of war. China has made significant advancements in various fields of global dominance. It has modernised its military, most recently unveiling a sixth-generation stealth fighter jet, the Chengdu J-36. Since 2014, it has had the world’s biggest economy in PPP, and it continues to grow by leaps and bounds. It has also expanded its global influence, especially in the global south through the BRICS and BRI structures. China is also leading in the world’s most decisive technologies of the future, including robotics, Artificial Intelligence, clean energy, 5G technology, etc.

Whereas America still reigns supreme in maintaining a military reach unparalleled in history, with its cultural influence stamped on the fabric of almost all societies in the world, and having control over global financial systems through its Bretton Woods institutions, China’s rise still presents a serious challenge to its post-World War II primacy.

Whenever such scenarios arise, argues Allison, having studied 16 out of 20 historical cases, accounting for an 80% occurrence rate in the past 500 years, the likely outcome is always a military conflict, unless there are factors that intervene in the rival groups’ diplomatic camps to solve the crisis.

However, across historical time, new variables have emerged in the 21st century, which may change the context in which we understand the Thucydides trap. Unlike any previous period in history, today’s big powers are armed with nuclear arsenals, are highly interdependent on each other economically, and are closely connected digitally, which, fortunately, might make the possibility of a catastrophic all-out war less likely, as it is less rational.

Also, today, unlike yesterday, the possible outcomes of the Thucydides trap are hinged on non-traditional domains, i.e., cyber warfare, ideological competition, etc. Nevertheless, the flashpoints of rivalry between China and the U.S. are apparent in Taiwan, the South China Sea, on trade disputes, etc.

In our time, the Thucydides trap could manifest as a “digital trap.” This is because the great competition of our world is now shaped by technological supremacy, whereby nations seek to dominate each other in Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, robotics, and other cyber capabilities. Mutual fear between China and the U.S. of losing an edge over the other in the areas mentioned above could instigate “war by other means” through sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks, etc, which unfortunately might escalate into broader conflicts. If the ruling elites in the two major powers are smart, they could instead encourage joint ventures and mutual dependency to deter aggression. This is possible, as it has been done in regards to the International Space Station, where astronauts from Russia, China, the USA, and other countries mutually work together.

Environmental pressures due to climate change could also catalyse a new dimension of the Thucydides trap in our time. Natural disasters and resource scarcity could intensify China and America’s competition for resources like arable land and rare earth minerals, which are critical for building green technology. On the flip side, since climate change is a global crisis which no nation could single-handedly solve, the two countries could turn this vulnerability into an area of cooperation on global climate initiatives, which would turn the trap into a web of opportunities for collaboration.

However, the structural inevitability of competition does not make war a predetermined outcome. The two countries’ competition can be translated into collaboration, since they are both highly interdependent. China holds over $1 trillion in U.S. debt. America also heavily depends on Chinese industries for manufacturing its products, while at the same time having China as its biggest export market.

In the heat of the Cold War, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union and America came close to a nuclear war, they established a direct phone line between the Kremlin and the White House for leaders of both countries to be able to constantly communicate to avoid any scenarios. This might be the time to do the same for U.S.–China relations. Both countries must prioritise regular high-level dialogue to avoid the Thucydides trap. This is in the interest of the entirety of human civilisation.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

A Multi-Polar World would be a Catalyst for Africa’s Development Ambitions

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

The distribution of global economic and political power among more than two States is vital to Africa’s development ambitions. The balance of power among several centers of power would curtail the destructive tendencies of hegemonism, unilateralism and great power conflicts. Going back to the cold war era between the USSR and the US, the African continent was a victim of great power politics. This manifested itself through proxy wars, coups and assassinations orchestrated by the two competing blocs of USSR and the United States.

For many years, Africa was only ‘independent’ in theory but practically a brand-new form of colonialism had taken shape. Different African countries were run by governments that shaped their policies in line with the two competing hegemonies of the time. Sanctions, regime change, and war plagued the continent, and it all served the interests of foreign powers with the approval of hand-picked corrupt African leaders.

The bipolar world, dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States and its associated political games left the continent in shambles. First, it was colonialism that exploited the continent and then the cold war came in to finish off an already weak continent. It is important to note that the Soviet Union largely supported Pan-African movements and personalities such as Anti-apartheid movements and Nelson Mandela.

With the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new era was ushered into the world. African countries had a new challenge on their hands. The events of 1991, ushered in a new Unipolar world, where the United States remained the sole Hegemon on the global stage. As the world sighed in relief at the end of the cold war and potential nuclear annihilation, the dangers of having an unchecked global power grew exponentially. The United States and allies got entangled in interventionist wars in former Yugoslavia (1995-96), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Somalia (2007-present), Libya (2011) and Syria (2014).

The African continent has since kowtowed to the dictates of a rules-based order established by a power that has no competitor. Currently there are nine African countries under US sanctions, which means 1 in 5 African countries. this is in addition to dealing with a system that imposes unfair trade rules on the continent, loans from the World Bank and IMF with unfair structural adjustment requirements. The United Nations on the other hand has also suffered from the dictates of its biggest funder (USA) and cannot curtail the unilateral tendencies of the US and other powers. The UN is supposed to be an organization where African countries should have equal power to other sovereign states.

It would be unfair to claim that the Unipolar reign of the USA has been all bad for Africa. There are instances of good partnership through foreign Aid, and collaboration in the fight against terrorism. Additionally, the United States has also been a great partner when it comes to public health and the fight against deadly pandemics and disease outbreaks such as Ebola, Malaria and HIV/AIDS. However, this relationship has been largely lopsided in the favor of the USA and is also largely overpowered by regime change politics, unfair trade policies and the Master-Servant political engagement from American politicians.

However, the rise of China, itself a country that has suffered similar experiences like the African countries, shines a new light on the horizon. Currently, many countries such as Brazil, India, Japan, Indonesia, China, Russia, and the EU are global economic powers. China and other BRICS member states are pushing for multi-polar world based on Mutual respect and win-win partnerships.

A multi-polar world means the end of Hegemonism, great power conflicts and Unilateralism. African countries should meet this opportunity by taking action to get rid of rampant corruption, ethnicism, illiteracy, civil war through power struggles and religious fanaticism. This can be achieved through building powerful and resilient institutions, good governance, technological innovation, sustainable development, increasing intra-African trade, industrialization, increasing the manufacturing base, investing in smart education systems, and modernizing infrastructure, among others.

A multi-polar world provides room for uninterrupted development, free from unilateral interventions from a powerful nation and free from the insecurity caused by great power competition. As a victim of both these systems, Africa has the right to welcome a multi-polar world based on real equality. The hope for such a world from the entire global south is not merely a naïve outlook or skewed understanding of global politics but a desperate and hopeful longing for a fair, just, and secure global system.

Moshi Israel is a senior Research Fellow with Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

 

 

America’s Hegemony: Long-Arm Jurisdiction A Threat to The Global Order

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

Since the days of past, there has been shifts in the wheels of world influence. Political history has a great deal of documentation on that subject, on the people that dominated the lands from the far East where the sun rises, to the furthest points where it sets. To-date, the concept is still a complicated phenomenon to unmask and understand all that lies misunderstood and/or unknown. World Super Power status – its benefits (now and beyond) are well established and linger in many people’s minds. No doubts about that. Superiority comes in different forms; military might, economic superiority, ideological edge, and other forms, simple and complex alike. Societies in their organisations are tasked to overcome or embrace the power struggles that come at them, but while at it, the weak always stand on high alert in the shifts of the power wheel.

Equally, presently, there is such struggles like in the noted days of past. The notable West and
East settlers are always to be seen unstable due to the cunning acts of each other, but luckily, the world keeps watch. This guides in making personal opinions on when mishaps arise. This article, is that kind of opinion.

Rhetorically, while some notable world superpowers claim checking on the offending nations,
who checks on those superpowers when they go rogue?! International Law was borne out of the excesses of the world inhabitants to establish a neutral system of checks and balances to ensure civility in international relations. The equilibrium has often had its challenges most of which could have been avoided if only the orchestrators objectively pondered on them and took count of the regrettable consequences similar actions have created. With such fairly modest introduction, there’s a glaring discussion that many are yet to realize. United States of America’s so-called long arm jurisdiction! In the most precise definition, is the exercise of judicial power by domestic courts of judicature, over defendants or accused persons outside that country or jurisdiction. This can be premised on an existent law or by court’s own motion while exercising its “inherent powers.” The judgement passed thereafter will have a binding effect as though the condemned was a national of that country.

While other countries have since conception of the International Law ideals adopted the
extradition concept, USA has been at the forefront of championing and in equal measure
exercised wanton authority over other independent nations, in the context of the juridical realm. A crisis has been sparked as a consequence and it’s sucking the foundations of international law. The USA, a forefront runner on rule of law domestically and otherwise, has mastered the art of elite punching down on numerous countries, economically, politically, and as earlier noted judicially. Sanctions don’t have a better alternative tag than the USA, but at the center of the complexity, while one arm is raised in symbol of territorial respect, another pens unfortunate statutes.

The long arm jurisdiction has a significant track with a wide range of statutes as the years faded and gave way for new ones, such as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Trading with the Enemy Act, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, National Defense Authorization Act, and many more alike, all having long-arm jurisdiction clauses. In the same spirit, presidential executive orders with similar clauses have become ordinary practice from the country that dares to scold her global sisters when they threaten the sovereignty of others. The tentacles of USA’s long-arm jurisdiction have reached China, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, Iran, among many more. To tabulate a list of all those that have come off as victims would preempt the limited space for more thoughts. Sadly, the in almost all cases, the effects of America’s long-arm jurisdiction have crippled victim countries capacities to protect and serve their citizens causing untold suffering and death at times. For example, U.S based Brooking Institute estimated that more than 13,000 Iranians died of Covid19 in Iran alone which as a result of U.S’ sanctions under long arm jurisdiction!

This article in the commencement kick-started with a rhetorical question, who checks on the
USA?! Who stands to sanction it? To issue guidelines and directions on how to run its internal
processes of governance? How many countries issue statutes in exercise of the long-arm
jurisdiction over its nationals? For all excesses, should come checks. The equilibrium should be found in rethinking and embracing decades of tested principles such as mutual respect for all global players as China earlier realized. There’s enough room for all that tread this rocky planet without unnecessary stir of antagonisms. It goes without a doubt that global policing has its undebatable advantages, but that should be done alive to the realities that have been key at pacing steadfast global relations.

About 78 years after the decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington by the US Supreme
Court, with the constant reforms since then, it should have been noticeable of the dangers of the long-arm jurisdiction principle by its proponents. The hegemony by USA has maintained a reputation of disregard of territorial observance and respect. As time grows, there could be more backlash than is being witnessed in recent times. Otherwise, with decades of stifling trades that side with the US, alliances that don't lean towards US’s directions, and lack of impartiality while acting as a global police, have reached a prime for disregard by other global actors. The U.S should be reminded that in modern era, unilateralism is the best form of dictatorship and goes against principles of democracy. Put differently, it is a disguised form of colonialism and promotes unfairness and protectionism.

Indeed, a 2022 study by U.S based CATO Institute concluded that, Trump administration used long-arm jurisdiction’s section 301 to unfairly target China with trade tariffs. CATO institute further revealed that section 301 the U.S uses to target foreign companies is unfair stressing that it “grants the executive branch far too much discretion in defining an actionable foreign trade practice” leaving possibility of being exploited for political reasons since it gives the President of the U.S to safeguard what Washington may consider America’s trade interests by remedying any “act, policy, or practice of a foreign country [that] is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” For example, long-arm jurisdiction defines “unreasonable” in a skewed manner calling it “otherwise unfair and inequitable.” This gives the U.S and particularly the President unchecked power when dealing with foreign countries Washington may consider competitors and hence, giving the U.S liberty to block fair competition using their so-called long-arm jurisdiction.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.