Tag: NATO

Trump’s Commercial Diplomacy is Setting the Stage for a Multipolar World

Posted on by Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

After the fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989, Washington along with its Western allies was clueless of what would happen next. They had developed their whole systems to rival the Soviet Union, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was no longer worried about the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB), almost overnight the Gosbank State Bank of the USSR and Comecon were gone and the IMF had no opponent, the just ended U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) had a free reign because the Vneshconombank and Soviet Committee for Solidarity with Asia and Africa were no longer in place to further soviet foreign aid programs. For the last three decades, America/West has had no motivation to direct its global influence.

NATO without the opposition of the Warsaw Pact went to a senseless expansion that led to a hot war with Russia in 2014 with Ukraine being the battleground; the security organization accompanied Washington to Iraq and Afghanistan in military campaigns that cost about $ 8 trillion including long term veteran care, interest on the loans and the reconstruction pledges, funding that could have built 6 China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As the United States is leaving Afghanistan and Iraq one thing is clear: all those dollars bills were for nothing because they lost both the wars from a tactical and strategic point because all they did was to lead to deaths of millions of people.

How the west has behaved in the last three decades has only hastened its decline, and diminished Washington’s global influence as Nnando Kizito Sseruwagi a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre put it in his “A better deal: Why Africa is turning to China for development” pointing out how empires that have tried to dominate the world have all ended up falling. The reality is that as Americas’ decline happens there is a gap being created, a gap to reshape the world order.

The undertakings of Trump 2.o are all being a catalyst to the decline of the west, he has officially decided to put an end to USAID after its 6 decades throwing away what looks like Washington’s biggest soft power tool. It’s becoming more and more evident that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) will not survive as commercial diplomacy is being President Trump’s path of international relations. Washington through its America first policy is rolling out Tariffs even towards its long standing allies like Canada, a member of NATO and G7 an indicator that AGOA is in its last days.

President Trump has always been unconventional and in his first term in office he went ahead to meet the North Korea leader for talks that never materialized into anything, he also negotiated the withdrawal of the American and NATO troops from Afghanistan and handed the country back to the Taliban an event that showcased America’s weakest point. Lately Israeli news outlets broke the news that Trump was in direct talks with Hamas, an organization that Washington officially considers as terrorists. In his many unconventional approaches to diplomacy he has sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader regarding a deal on Iran’s nuclear program after he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that had seen Iran only use its nuclear program for peaceful purposes at the same time opening up the country to the world. Everyone knows the Iranians can never negotiate from a position of disrespect as though they are selling their country in a real estate deal. During his campaign to return to the white house Mr. Trump on the Joe Logan Podcast said America got nothing from protecting Taiwan, he linked the whole situation on how the Mafia offer’s its security, his commercial diplomacy then took the Mafia diplomacy outlook. It’s the approach he has taken to the Ukraine situation, after the shouting match in the oval office with the Ukraine president, Washington froze it’s military support to Kiev and further went ahead to stop any intelligence sharing with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government until a deal promising $ 500 billion rear earth minerals to USA is signed. He is basically setting NATO to Auto pilot and the European Union knows it has to step up on its security. On security the African version of NATO AFRICOM survived being axed during Trump 1.0 but with developments coming from White house the writing is on the wall according to a scenario plan report by a French think tank Institut Monteigne.

In October of 2020 China’s President introduced the saying “the East is rising and the West is declining” words that resonated with the global south because of what is unfolding, currently BRICS is giving the G7 a run for its money, when it comes to demographics that define markets and labor force and on a bad day fighting force in terms of war. The manufacturing capital of the world is in the east, South East Asia are taking up their place on the global stage and they are influencing organizations like the G20. Beijing has put in place its Global Security Initiative (GSI), Alan Collins Mpewo a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre outlines how the GSI can fill the security void in places like Africa in his piece titled “D.R Congo Problems: Time to try China’s Global Security Initiative?” a piece that can mirror the situation in both the Sudans, for Beijing it has also been its official approach to the war in Europe and it’s the framework that was used to restore diplomatic channels between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

China is better placed to fill up the gap left by the west but being on top of the world doesn’t mean it will necessarily run and police the world since it has invested in the global south through FOCAC and Belt and Road Initiative to have equally developed partners not allies to reshape the future of the planet, through multilateralism in a multipolar setting that respects all cultures and civilizations.

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

 

Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks: Neutral Parties Needed to Leverage Negotiations.

Posted on by Allawi Ssemanda

Today marks the 6th day since Russian forces invaded Ukraine in what Russian President Vladimir Putin described as a “military action” aimed at protecting Moscow supporters from a supposedly “genocidal” regime.

The war has already claimed over 200 lives, and forced tens of thousands to flee their homes to neighbouring countries and destruction of properties is on-going. From the look of things, the war is not about to end and Russia seems determined as it advances toward Kiev.

In same way, Western countries are increasing pressure against Moscow with different western Capitals slapping sanctions against Russia. While sanctions may have an impact against Russia in the long run, drawing examples from North Korea, Iran among others countries the West has sanctioned, it is clear that sanctions hardly bring about desired changes and sometimes they severe already poor relations among countries. In this case, dialogue and negotiations remain the best option in addressing challenges among countries.

Indeed, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy after repeatedly expressed willingness to enter dialogue with Russia and addressing president Putin via a recorded video message: “I would like to address the President of the Russian Federation once again. Fighting is going on all over Ukraine. Let’s sit down at the negotiating table to stop the deaths of people,” talks finally started at the Ukraine-Belarus border where both sides agreed to resume them after consultations from their capitals.

Despite Ukrainian president saying he does not expect much from these negotiations, the fact that the  two sides met is a good sign and should be encouraged. Nonmatter how cliché it may sound, talking with each other is better than talking at each other. However, it is evident that unless the two sides and Ukraine’s backers are not ready to compromise, these negations may stale prolonging the war and suffering of people in Ukraine.

To safeguard these talks, a neutral country which has not shown side and with a good record as far as observing international laws such as respecting territorial boundaries of sovereign countries is concerned is a better option and has moral authority to facilitate such negotiations. A neutral guarantor is key for success of negotiations to move well. China among all major powers, only China qualifies. This does not mean other major powers cannot help, but considering that many especially the US and EU have shown sides, they can only watch and perhaps encourage the them than acting as spoilers or continuing with statements that may escalate the situation.

On the other side, China has not shown side and has been calling for diplomacy as the best way of resolving this crisis. Indeed, China’s State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has been categorical explaining in five points China’s stand in regard to the Ukraine question maintaining that: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected and protected and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter abided by in real earnest; stressed that security of one country should not come at the expense of the security of other countries; encouraged all parties to exercise the necessary restraint; expressed support for all diplomatic efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis; encouraged direct dialogue and negotiation between Russia and Ukraine,  and stressed its belief that UN Security Council should play a constructive role in resolving the Ukraine issue, stressing that “actions taken by the Security Council should help cool the situation and facilitate diplomatic resolution rather than fueling tensions and causing further escalation.”

Even in UNSC emergency session, while the West voted and campaigned for the resolution to condemn Russia, China used that chance and argued concerned parties to consider dialogue and abstained. If critically analysed, this alone is a score that Beijing is neutral on this issue and if given opportunity, Beijing can help to have the two worrying sides resolve their disagreements peacefully and silence guns in Ukraine.

From historical perspective, China’s intention to ensure a peaceful world where countries observe and respect international laws is solid. Beijing has been very consistent with a view of maintaining global security and saving people from suffering due to wars. For example, after France, US and NATO allies invaded Libya in 2011 arguing they wanted to protect civilians from government forces under UN resolution 1674 – Responsibility to protect, after allegations that NATO forces were involved in operations that left civilians injured and others dead, Brazil and China came up with a proposal to ensure protection of civilians and introduced the idea of Responsibility While Protecting (RwP). Because at this time France and NATO allies were the invading forces, they refused to support RwP. China proposed some changes and named a new draft Responsible Protection (RP) which was again rejected by France, US and UK and hence, left plight of civilians during invasion at the mercies of invading forces with little or no hope of ever getting justice.

While some western pundits have claimed that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gives China a chance to invade and occupy Taiwan, it is important to note that Ukraine Question is very different from Taiwan. While Ukraine is a sovereign country with its territories protected international laws, Taiwan is China’s territory that suggesting China will invade it is like saying China will invade herself. For Taiwan’s case, it can only be unification but not invasion.

Again, as Chinese Foreign Minister observed, when it comes to peace and security, China has the best record among major powers. It has never invaded other countries or engaged in proxy wars, nor have they ever sought spheres of influence or participated in military bloc confrontations.

On top of opposing power politics, and hegemonies, China has always campaigned that great powers respect and uphold legitimate rights and interests of developing countries-be small or medium-sized. Beijing argues this is the sure way together we can achieve a peaceful development and building of a community with a shared future for mankind where small, big, weak and powerful countries all live in harmony.

The writer is the Executive Director of Development Watch Centre; a foreign policy think tank and author of Global Governance and Norm Contestation: How BRICS is Reshaping World Order.  Twitter @AllawiSsemanda