Tag: Ukraine

How the West sacrificed Ukraine for the so-called Liberal Ideals

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the apparent issues involved, and what partly explains the cause of the Ukrainian war, is the difference in approach to international politics between Western leaders and the Russians. NATO nations and the American foreign policy elites seem to adhere, sincerely or hypocritically, to liberal ideals about the exercise of international politics. On the other hand, the elites in Moscow and Putin himself seem to hold a realist approach. The effect of this is that Moscow is more pragmatic about resolving the conflict, whereas its Western counterparts are dogmatic.

The final losers in this war will definitely be the people of Ukraine, whose myopic leaders have sacrificed their country as a battleground for big-power rivalry.

Let us begin by remembering the words of American leaders on the issue of expanding NATO eastwards.

When former US President Joe Biden was still a senator, serving on the Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, he stated that the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, in terms of US-Russian and NATO-Russian relations, would be the admission of the Baltic states into NATO. He warned that that would tip the balance and induce a vigorous and hostile reaction from Russia. That was in 1997! It was 25 years later, in 2022, that the Ukrainian war broke out. Is it, therefore, right to describe Russia as an unprovoked aggressor?

When, at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO members proposed to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the former CIA director, William J. Burns, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow warned Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state then, that the entry of Ukraine into NATO was the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In the secret cable he sent her, he noted that: “In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

In 2014, when consideration was made to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, Jack Matlock, America’s last ambassador to the Soviet Union, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stated, “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

Henry Kissinger, arguably one of the greatest scholars on international relations the world will ever know, opined in The Washington Post in March 2014 that for Ukraine to survive, it should function as a bridge rather than an outpost of either NATO or Russia. He discouraged Ukraine from joining NATO.  He noted that: “Putin is a serious strategist on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology is not his strong suit. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.”

Contrary to Kissinger’s wise advice, American and European leaders have instead deployed their media to manufacture the narrative that portrays Putin as a devil, and themselves as saviours. In his own words, Kissinger humorously made a solemn aphorism that “the demonisation of Putin is not a policy, it’s an alibi for not having one.”

In one of the longest, agonising diplomatic negotiations in history, Russia appealed to NATO members not to expand eastwards. President Boris Yeltsin wrote to Bill Clinton in 1993, arguing that the expansion of NATO breached the spirit of the 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty on German reunification. Even as Yeltsin initially conceded to Poland’s campaign to join NATO at the time, he later retracted in the face of domestic pressure. It was 29 years later, in 2022, that the war in Ukraine broke out. So, how can it be reduced to the character of Putin?

In the end, Ukraine will be unable to defeat Russia without American support. Yet America is least likely to invade a nuclear-armed power, as that would spell Mutual Assured Destruction. In the face of that uphill battle, it’s Ukraine that stands to lose. Russia will bleed to the last corporal, but will never surrender to Ukraine. It would be better for the Ukrainian leadership to abandon NATO membership and seek neutrality.

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

How Western Hubris Led to the Ukrainian War

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the greatest instruments for waging war are the tools of mass propaganda. The West, i.e., the USA and NATO nations, are armed to the teeth with these. They control international news and feed audiences with anti-Russian/ anti-Putin propaganda dressed as journalism. Thus, they blame the war in Ukraine entirely on Russia. They also portray President Vladimir Putin as a maniac, disgruntled with the collapse of the Soviet empire and seeking its reconstruction. Far from the truth.

A long list of Western diplomats, politicians, great academics, and men of great standing would tell you that the United States and its NATO colleagues (hereinafter the West) take the greatest responsibility/ blame for this needless war.

The main cause of the war is NATO’s expansion into Russia’s orbit. Russian leaders always warned, since the 1990s, that turning a strategic neighbour like Ukraine into a Western outpost on the doorstep of Russia would never be accepted. This is also why Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Putin had feared, rightly so, that the peninsula would host a NATO naval base.

Any great power would push back if another power roamed into its backyard, threatening its strategic interests. The West/ USA knows this better. That’s why they wouldn’t allow Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Western affront against Russia started in the mid-1990s when the Clinton administration began pushing for the enlargement of NATO. They began by bringing the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into NATO in 1999. They continued in 2004 by adding Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia always complained. However, apart from the little Baltic states, none of the admitted new NATO members shared a border with Russia, so it was not threatened much.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and (former) U.S. President Joe Biden shake hands as (former) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and (former) NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg attend a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine council, in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2023.

In continuous provocation, the West dug deeper East, considering adding Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. At the time, even France and Germany stood opposed to the move, emphasising it would antagonise Russia. But the USA supported it. NATO members agreed to declare that Georgia and Ukraine “… will become members of NATO.”

In response, Russia’s deputy foreign minister at the time, Alexander Gruhko, warned that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.” A Russian newspaper at the time also reported that Putin candidly cautioned George Bush that “… if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist.”

One cannot find it difficult to comprehend that, for instance, the USA would never allow China to build a military alliance, let alone set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. It wouldn’t even allow Russia to do so 90 miles away in Cuba. Why would they consider it right and rational to form a military alliance with a nation of such strategic importance to Russia? Why would they consider setting up military bases in a country sharing a boarder with Russia?

One of the greatest scholars on USSR-USA relations was the American diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan. As early as 1998, when the West began attempts to expand NATO Eastwards, he warned in an interview that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to hurt the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking …I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely to it and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else… It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then (the NATO expanders) will say that ‘we always told you that is how the Russians are,’ but this is just wrong.”

The following year, in 1997, 50 American foreign policy experts, including the former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton stating that “We, the undersigned, believe that the current US-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons: In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favour reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanise resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included…”

I can go on and on, quoting voices of reason from the West challenging US/NATO expansion towards Russia’s orbit of influence. Why are Western leaders foolhardy about diving headfirst into what could potentially cause World War III?

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

Russia-Ukraine War Vs Israel’s Genocide in Gaza: A Tale of Diplomatic Coverup and Hypocrisy in Western Capitals

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

Are Washington and Brussels overreacting toward Russia when it comes to it’s actions in Ukraine? There is a high likelihood that the European Union and the United States are very biased with how they have handled Russia since the escalation of the situation in Ukraine in 2022. At the moment, there are about 57 major Conflicts in the world, for example, the Sudan Civil War that has claimed about 13,000 lives in just 2025, in places like Myanmar, Sahel insurgency, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Somalia, and Eastern DRC, where multiple armed factions are operating. But the Ukraine situation is getting more diplomatic and media attention.

For a moment, let’s take a closer, critical look at the EU and the US’s very contrasting approaches to various conflicts worldwide. Their response to Ukraine and Palestine seems like there is an alternative universe with a rule based order that is applied selectively, on one end, as Russia faces isolation and accountability for its invasion of Ukraine, Israel is enjoying full impunity despite evidence of an active genocide and apartheid.

The two situations have put out the double standards of the West, which in the long run is going to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the already failing multilateral organizations, as they perpetuate violence against Palestinians or any other race that is not white. When there is no consistent application of international law, screams of justice and human rights are becoming hollow and are setting a blue print of future massacres.

When Russia matched into Ukraine, Western powers right away started providing weapons, intelligence and security guarantees to Kiev, NATO swung into a logistical mode to ensure the resistance of Russia’s campaign was armed to the teeth. After October 7th 2023 when Hamas mounted a major resistance campaign against the Israeli blockade of Gaza, Israel was given the greenlight to kill everything living in what Tony Blair the former British Prime Minister referred to as an open air prison and many experts have referred to as a concentration camp.

Russia has faced sanctions that now number in tens of thousands for being an aggressor while in the case of Palestine, the Western powers led by Washington decided to defund UNRWA a vital aid agency in Gaza, Israel has not even for a single day faced any arms embargo or conditions, but instead the United States has rewarded them with United Nations Security Council vetoes to avoid Ceasefire opportunities.

Every aspect of the Russian society has been sanctioned, from its massive oil sector, to its financial system and trade cutting it off from the rest of the world. Russia was even suspended from international forums like cultural events and sports organizations while Israel is sending singers to the Eurovision and it’s football clubs tour Europe week in week out. When South Africa was still under apartheid they were suspended from the Olympics, in the case of Israel, they are getting more sports events invitations.

US President Joe Biden (right) holds a bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the 78th United Nations General Assembly in New York City, the US, September 20, 2023

Every Western capital has ordinary people protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied territories of Palestine, but their governments have decided to pay no attention to them. In the United Kingdom organizations that stage protest events are being labeled terrorists organizations. When Russian drones strike civilians infrastructure in Ukraine, every EU member will put out a condemnation statement, but Israel in Gaza has bombed all Universities, all schools, and all hospitals with weapons being provided by the West.

When the ICC put out an arrest Warrant for the Russian President, the United States and European Union welcomed it, and fully supported the move, the then President of US Mr. Biden called it “justified.” When the same court put out the arrest Warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Same powers rejected it and went ahead to call it “outrageous” and denying the courts’ jurisdiction. The United States has gone ahead to retaliate against the ICC by sanctioning key members of the court and through Congress they have even invoked the Hague Invasion Act to protect Israeli officials.

The United States has even decided to make enemies of countries like South Africa that took Israel to the ICJ that ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and found plausible evidence of genocide. President Trump has decided to hike trade Tariffs on South Africa and gone ahead with a counter accusations of genocide of whites.

As the European Union and the United States have resolved to be steadfast with a comprehensive diplomatic condemnation of Russia and rapid military aid for Ukraine, when it comes to Israel’s “apocalyptic” actions according to the UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese the reaction has been completely different in the two similar situations. She has even accused Israel of using Gaza as a testing ground for new weapons without restraint as she has recommended for an arms embargo that the West has ignored and instead slapped her with Sanctions.

Western backed main stream media has put forward a narrative of Ukraine being a democracy that is resisting Russian Tyranny with the whole population suffering against Moscow’s atrocities. On the other end Palestinian causalities that are in 60,000+ are being decontextualized as collateral damage for self defense to justify the Israeli genocide and all this is being done while echoing Israel’s mage world wide web of propaganda that paints Palestinians as collectively guilty.

One thing is profound out of all this, the hypothetical stance on global conflicts in the face of Washington and Brussels is clear and the Russian, Ukrainian situation with the Israeli genocide in Gaza makes the writing on the wall clear, as one side is dealt with condemnations, massive sanctions and functional legal mechanism the other catastrophe of our time is being greenlighted with active diplomatic cover never seen before. There are double standards and they are very much based on race as certain lives are given more value than others.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s Concerns are Legitimate 

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.

To understand why in the first place Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine we have to go back in time, we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the break up of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of a multiple ethnic states, that were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. It’s end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.

Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow the move was very much about offensive realism which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where survival of a given country is the most important thing. Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure it’s safety, according to John Mearsheimer this is supposed to be a constant endvour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points especially when great powers are involved. In this case it’s Russia on one side and the USA and it’s allies on the other.

Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organization which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment to Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold war there is a promise in place that NATO never expands “one inch eastward.”

Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population, its no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities, during the conflict military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian speaking population in the Donbas regions. The international community which is made up of the West took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine, Washington supported Ukrainian speaking people and sidelined the other side an act that exacerbated the situation prompting Russia to come in and take its side.

According to Professor Jeffery Sachs Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example Russia’s ties to Crimea which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukraine Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.

For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those that have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq among others states. Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same point ignoring regional powers like Russia, of course any country would react in a self interest manner.

The situation in Ukraine goes back years, it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, it’s strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent water ways that connects it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries. It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far here in Uganda. From February of 2022 the world has experienced shifts in alliances, here in Africa there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is very vital for peace.

Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture and this has affected the world food security bring about shortages and price hikes, Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking that has resulted into higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflict across the world.

Before this escalation Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.

Before 2014 if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia. If only the West has seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happening. In the event President Trump in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original Reasons for the escalation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

 

 

 

Policy Volte-Face In Washington as The U.S Validates China’s Position on the Ukraine Conflict

Posted on By Musiime George

The principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, common development and political settlement of conflicts have always been a hallmark feature of Chinese diplomacy. For China, this position meant more than just rhetoric; extending  into policy implementation with the principles built into all of China’s partnerships. China resolutely chose to uphold these principles when it declared the “friendship with no limits” with Russia in 2022 which some western commentators argue is behind China’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. China and Russia however, maintain that this friendship was not intended as  a direct challenge to the current global order but those that governed for always using it for their own geopolitical gains. Nevertheless, some commentators always  paint this friendship as an Anti-West alliance. Coming out of the Biden Administration which only  purposed to replenished Ukraine’s capacity to fight on not withstanding of the gravity of the crisis, China advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict from the start. This is why a policy volte-face on Ukraine in the US  is such a significant development in the global effort to restore peace in Eastern Europe.

The NATO alliance; a rigid anti-Russia stance and the brightest of all red lines. Russia has maintained, its interests in this conflict were purely self-defense unlike the West describing it as aggression or invasion. Albeit the different points of view, this essay is not dedicated to delving in the technicalities of this nomenclature. However, it is worth mentioning here that the push of NATO towards Russia’s doorstep has been highlighted as a strategic threat both from within Russian and the west alike. The expansion has been criticized in the West,  among others by,  Biden CIA director Bill Burns who referred to it as “…needlessly provocative at worst during the Clinton administration in 1998. He also went ahead to describe NATO Expansion in a 2005 letter to Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as “the brightest of red lines.” Moreover, French president Francois Mitterrand, had earlier in the 1990s proposed dismantling the alliance after it had served its purpose following the end of the cold war. While different scholars have faulted this sustained expansion of the Alliance as a key factor in this conflict, the Validation of China’s position on the conflict could imply fresh hope for the region.

During a period when the world is dealing with a diversity of security concern, China is proposing The Global initiative is built on the principal pillar of security of all nations regardless. Therefore, with Trump’s reversal of Biden era policy on Ukraine, the world can expect to see progress in efforts to find a solution to this conflict. Indeed, were are at that point where a world weary of the prolonged conflict can expect to see some progress in as far as bringing the conflict and its associated negative impact on the world to an end. Additionally, president Trump has been moving first in this direction having already had a high level meeting involving secretary of state Rubio and Russian PM Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, coinciding with restoration of diplomatic relations between the two nations. On the other hand,  parallel meetings with the Ukrainian have happened, putting together the conditions for a peace deal. The holding of parallel meetings also signifies a commitment to reaching a deal as the absence of both Ukraine and the EU in Riyadh might be interpreted as a move seeking to avoid stalemates characteristic of having NATO members-some of whom might still harbor the rigid anti Russia sentiments. Critics of this approach, have thus been,  those outspoken about the wanting to see the conflict going until Ukraine attains Victory, something Trump clearly does not see as a viable outcome, at least not in the short or medium term.

More so, the presidents view is not one shared by everyone of uncle Sam’s partners as expressed by frustration of some white house staff. Amid these frustration, Ukraine and some EU presidents have been faulted for attempts to denigrate President Trump’s peace efforts. However, his resolve to find a solution to this conflict at any cost has been demonstrated by his implied proposal that saving the lives of innocent civilians might even be so important to justify Ukraine ceding some territory. Additionally, Trumps earlier expressed position on the implications of  the “NATO burden” on the United States economy could be another factor informing his policy reversal. This with the fact that The US has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the war also signal how room little President Zelensky might have to wiggle out of the deal especially that the US is considering scaling back its European deployment which would directly affect NATO deployment as well.

Obviously, one cannot deny the fact that ‘war fatigue’ started setting in as early as the second half of 2024 with Poland and Czechia among the first professed EU supporters of Ukraine to want out. Despite promises to support the war effort for as long as it took, the withdrawal of significant US backing would most like dent and eventually dwindle European interest in the war even further- making continued fighting unsustainable. Moreover, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2024, indicated most Europeans anticipating the conflict ending in a compromise. In addition, the same poll also put at 10% the chance that Ukraine might emerge triumphant. Consequently, this dynamic will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the new US led peace efforts. Conversely, for those that might be against the concessions by the US regarding its military presence in Europe, NATO and consequently the war in Ukraine, this might be a start of a possible reorientation of Europe’s security strategies. However, this development is also likely to relax tensions on the continent and Russia’s urgency to develop security capabilities against the threat from NATO.

When president Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, he envisioned global security in the sense of a balanced security landscape, one where the security of one does not threaten that of another. This is what makes US validation of China’s initial position on the Ukraine conflict, a huge prospect for peace in the region. Therefore, a peace deal in Ukraine, should it go through would be a right step in the direction a stable Europe, and here is why. In what seemed like giving a nod to the propositions of President Mitterrand and Bill Burns from decades ago, Trumps defense secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance. Albeit not being a direct support for the GIS, this position gives props to the cardinal principle of the GIS that advises against promoting one’s security by threatening another. Hence halting NATO expansion keeps the threat to Russia at a safe distance and, just this is a positive move towards not just US-Russia relations but also global peace.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

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

G7 Leaders’ Rhetorics a Threat to Pacifism and Global Peace

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

Over the weekend, we listened to leaders of Group of Seven (G7) countries who gathered in Hiroshima, Japan for this year’s G7 summit which started with promise of trying to address world’s challenges.

If we take a clear analysis of speeches of the leaders; from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan—plus the European Union, one can conclude that the summit veered off the original course – addressing global challenges and metamorphosized into a sort of anti-China grouping.

From press conferences to official communiqué, as the Atlantic Council analysis concluded; “make no mistake, it is all about China,” the U.S and “Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made the issue of combating China’s economic coercion a priority for Japan’s G7.”

While President Joe Biden told press that he supports the idea of having an “open hotline” with China, his rhetoric points at a president interested in maligning China with accusations of “China’s continued military expansion” and the so-called Beijing’s “economic coercion.” However, simple facts check points at the U.S being the leader when it comes to economic coercion especially influencing allies to follow Washington’s unilateral decisions.

While Biden claimed that Washington will not “decouple from China,” he told the same press that “with all the talk about China’s building its military, I’ve made it clear …I’m not prepared to trade certain items with China,” claiming that trading freely with China means China “using them to build nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and I’m not going to do it.” Biden further boasted that allies have all agreed to restrict selling of certain items to Chinese firms stressing that “we’ve now got commitment from all of our allies they’re not going to either provide that kind of material that allows them to do that.”

While Biden claimed that the U.S is not seeking to “decouple from China,” if critically analysed, his comments reflect China’s accusation that Washington has been encouraging allies and companies to decouple from Chinese chain supply. Indeed, on 7th October 2022, the U.S took unprecedented steps announcing export bans to cut China off from certain semiconductor chips and chip-making equipment. Hence, the claim that the U.S does not seek to “decouple from China” is double standard considering that the U.S has been encouraging her companies to do exactly this. However, the U.S must accept fair competition and come to reality that attempts to isolate China will not help Washington and threaten global economy. As Elon Musk argued, it is not realistic to completely decouple from China and such efforts will definitely boomerang. For example, since 2013, China has been the engine of global economy with more than 38% compared to all G7 countries contribution of just 25.7%!

On G7 accusing China of increasingly “building its military” capacity, one can argue that compared to the U.S 2022/2023 defence budget of about $761 billion which is almost times four of China’s ($230 billion), this claim is baseless and misleading. It is also important to observe that all the G7 countries’ defence budgets have been steadily increasing over the past several years. Therefore, pointing at China as the only country whose military budget continue to rise is a keen to misinformation.

Telling journalists that “now, we’re also united in our approach to the People’s Republic of China, and the joint statement released yesterday outlines the shared principles we’ve all agreed at the G7 and beyond in dealing with China,” Biden argued that as a result of alleged China’s continued military building, “we’ve ended up where you have Japan stepping up in a way that’s of real consequence, in terms of your defense budget, number one, and a beginning of a rapprochement with South Korea.” If analysed, Japan’s decision to abandon pacifism which Tokyo has maintained for decades as per its post-war constitution – adopted in 1947 with a clause commonly referred to as Article 9 in which first paragraph renounces war, and the second paragraph promises to never maintain military forces, today, Japan’s decision to consider own military as well as growing its defence budget can be traced from US’ influence and courting Tokyo to join Washington’s anti-Beijing club with their so-called countering China agenda which is informed by America’s libido dominandi, a Latin phrase for lust to dominate others.  We can argue that using China card, the U.S has created China scare and forced countries including Japan into group formation with the latest being the so-called QUAD which analysts argue is meant to counter what US calls China’s influence in Indo-Pacific.

Indeed, addressing press alongside G7 summit in Hiroshima, president Biden was categorical explaining that he convinced India, Australia and Japan to join the U.S and form Quad. “I bet you — I would — maybe some of you thought it, but I doubt many people in this audience or any other audience would have said that two years after being elected, I’d be able to convince India, Australia, Japan, and the United States to form an organization called the Quad to maintain stability in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea,” boasted president Biden.

The formation of Quad left a number of countries in the region entering defence competition with Japan abandoning its pacifism policy, South Korea announcing increased military spending and the U.S promising nuclear submarines to Australia on the other hand claiming Washington is committed to ensuring nuclear proliferation in the region.

Also, the G7 summit addressed their so-called “shared commitment to the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII)” and promised $600 billion to among others support infrastructure development in both South and Global north.  Analysts argue PGII is meant to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which has so far been embraced by over 151 countries and at least 32 international organizations creating tens of thousands of employment opportunities and growing a number of countries GDP projections, G7’s PGII largely remains on paper. Despite G7 promises of speeding up their push for new supply chains ostensibly to leverage the PGII as an alternative to BRI, it is very unlikely this will be realised. Indeed, since its announcement two years ago, in Africa, it is very difficult to trace how many countries have benefited from it. The U.S which is arguably a de facto leader of G7 and pushing PGII itself has serious infrastructure deficits and the Biden administration has more than twice failed to convince congress to fund it. It therefore remains strange to imagine congress will approve money to address infrastructure deficits abroad yet it failed to approval similar spending at home.

In conclusion, the G7 summit which started with promise of trying to address global challenges ended up as a small group of rich countries discussing how to counter China and ignored real issues affecting the world especially developing countries. On global peace, in efforts to their so-called countering China, the group instigated Japan to abandon its pacifism policy as Tokyo embarks on building and growing its military. Also, the choice of Hiroshima which suffered the first nuclear attacks at a time when Russia-Ukraine crisis is raging makes one wonder what message G7 leaders were sending. It is not a surprise there was no talk of diplomacy as a possible way of addressing the crisis but many choose to announce military support to Kiev.

Dr. Allawi Ssemanda is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

The G-7 Summit was yet another “US against Them” Political Rally

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

The 2023 G7 summit, in Hiroshima, Japan started on 19th May and concluded on 21st May. The participating G7 countries include; the United Kingdom, Germany, United States, Canada, Japan, Italy, and France. The European Union also participates in all discussions as a guest represented jointly by the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission. An invitation was also extended to BRICS members and emerging economic powerhouses, India and Brazil. The president of war-torn Ukraine also participated in the summit. Additional countries were invited to fill up the sixteen sits available at the summit including Comoros and the Cook Islands representing the African Union and Pacific Islands Forum, respectively, as their current chairs.

The summit concerned itself with two major perspectives; Upholding the so-called international order based on the rule of law and outreach to the Global South.

The choice to focus on these two perspectives provides an insight into the major itch on the back of G7 countries. First of all, it signals that the G7 is of the view that their international rules-based order is under threat and secondly, they acknowledge the fact that they are losing influence in the Global South. Naturally, the blame is always placed on some external enemy and little focus is put on self-reflection.

Furthermore, the summit discussed a couple of issues. On top of the list was the issue of Regional Affairs with Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific being of major concern. Other important issues included; Nuclear disarmament and Non-proliferation, Economic Resilience and Economic Security, Climate and Energy, Food, Health, and Development. Concerns on Gender, Human Rights, Digitalization, and Science and Technology were highlighted.

However, most of these important topics were not the highlight of the summit. Instead, the 2023 G7 Summit is now infamous for its anti-China rhetoric and has come off as yet another “Us Vs Them” political rally. This is a dangerous reinventing of the cold-war mentality that was detrimental to Global peace. The British Prime Minister cited China as representing “the world’s greatest challenge to security and prosperity.” Although many are left wondering whose ‘security’ and whose ‘prosperity’ Mr. Rishi Sunak is referring to.  Furthermore, the G7 leaders agreed to establish an initiative to counter economic ‘coercion.’ Jumping on the anti-china chorus, the leaders of the QUAD group- India, Australia, Japan, and the US called for ‘peace and stability in the Indo-pacific maritime domain’ in an attempt to jibe at China. Overall, the G7 countries released a communique that ‘warned’ China over its ‘militarisation activities’ in the Asia-pacific region.

On the other hand, Beijing hit back at the G7 by calling the summit a collective effort to ‘smear and attack China.’ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China also pointed out that the G7 was ‘hindering international peace, undermining regional stability and curbing other countries’ development.’ This statement will most likely resonate with many countries in the Global South. Also, on the summit’s final day, Chinese regulators barred Chinese infrastructure from using US chip maker, Micron Technology after the latter failed a two-month security review.

All this highlights the increasing gap in cooperation between Beijing and the West. Although President Biden expressed hope for the rejuvenation of China-US relations, it now sounds like empty rhetoric. The G7 countries tried to input a ‘positive note’ on the summit by claiming that they wanted ‘constructive and stable relations’ with Beijing and aimed to ‘de-risk’ rather than ‘de-couple’ from their relations with China. Unsurprisingly too, there was no active support for an end to hostilities in Ukraine but rather an escalation of the conflict through further military aid. The only viable solution to the situation in Ukraine according to the West is the complete defeat or withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. Only time can be the judge of such a position.

It is safe to conclude that the G7 summit did not bring forward any new ideas or innovative ways to handle Global turmoil but instead resorted to tired and tried tactics that help no one by increasing tensions. The pattern is clear and spells tribal warfare where everyone joins a camp and fights to crush a perceived enemy.  It is a kind of politics where national interest takes precedence over any progressive notion of healthy competition and cooperation. It is perhaps, high time the words of seasoned diplomat Henry Kissinger are taken seriously. In an interview with the British Historian Niall Ferguson, published by the Spanish newspaper “El Mundo,” Kissinger noted that a ‘second cold war fought between the United States and China could be more dangerous than the first one.’ He further noted that such a war could ‘overthrow civilization, if not destroy it altogether.’  He also observed that waiting for China to ‘Westernise’ was not a plausible strategy and did not think ‘World domination is a Chinese concept.’

The global south eventually emerges as the loser from the summit because once again the West only reaches out not to reinvent relations based on equal opportunities and mutual respect but as a strategy to curb China’s influence and to rally support against Russia.

The Writer is a Research Fellow with DWC

 

 

 

 

Brazil’s Counsel to the US on Ukraine Crisis Should Be Taken Serious; they should stop “Encouraging” Ukraine War

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

War is a scourge that any right-thinking member of society should hate. Not good now, wasn’t then, will never be. But also, as time has gone by, there are those who always believe that war is good, and that from war, society rebuilds and prospers beyond the terrors that it has outlived. That way, society lives through a cycle of endless destruction and rebuild. Many will agree that a lot of devastation is unavoidable whenever physical armor lets loose, and ideally, we’ve witnessed that in days not so far gone. Ukraine, is both a test subject and witness as regards the war conversation. Many lives have been lost, and along the way, if all keeps going as is, more will be lost on both fronts to the war – Russia and Ukraine indiscriminately. Inter-country wars spare not many. The scuffle has raged for months now, and nothing much seems to be positive as regards possibilities of letting peace get restored to both sides of the war.

Along the divide are a few countries that have decided to remain neutral and rather not take any efforts in standing in support if any side. However, the two distant antagonistic sides have support and cheers coming to their aid. One side is pro war, and another pro peace. The supporters of the war undoubtedly have reasons, valid and unwarranted, just as the pro peace chanters. On a scale of each side’s concerns, some merit can be discerned. Ultimately for the pro war, doubt can be left in as to whether any would choose or wish their lands beam into endless showers of disaster by firearms. International politics is a subtle and dangerous subject that even when state of affairs seem obvious, there will always be a wing not so much concerned about the victim(s), but their interests. The West has had its take, and there’s no doubt whatsoever on the side of the line it stands. While in a wake to show support to Ukraine, there’s equally much that’s left desirable in as far as it also strongly looks at having its interests above the ordinary aspirations of those that it seeks to aid.

Many speeches have come from all centers of the world, each voice providing its assessment and possible measures going forward. To that has been China that has constantly called for peace. While war is another such measure through which peace can at the end of it all be achieved, on a probability of winning such war, it’s a measure that comes at a great (or rather greatest) price. It has gone ahead to provide more measures that can be adopted by both sides to the tie, to which (among others) is diplomatic talks. Such have achieved much success in the past, in many lands across the globe, and a lot has been spared the troubles of disaster. No wonder, there are constant arising platforms for diplomacy outcry, that have joined the already existent platforms. It goes to show how a great deal of importance it is, that the modern world regards peace. Disruptions have led to untold setbacks, that the present world still pays a price for. Rebuilding destroyed structures in all aspects of society take much longer and challenges that should have been mitigated, if other better options had initially been explored.

The United Nations has in the past established such platforms of diplomacy, but a lot has always been left to be desired. The scale on which the United Nations tilts in some matters has always left bias, and perhaps that’s why some members, especially the East and its allies have always called out the ‘Organization’ on such inadequacies. By and large, Russia still stands at a position of distaste for the West, and not so much can change regarding the present war. Be that as it may, some other countries have lived to see through the cunningness of the West especially on such global questions. Brazil for example, issued its stand regarding the US’s encouragement of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio recently couldn’t hold back on the dangerous support antics of the West to Ukraine. Just like China and many other countries, Brazil understands that peace can be achieved through diplomatic options other than continued encouragement of either side to the ongoing war.

He added that while It’s understandable that a superpower showdown to have one of the West’s greatest allies keep being weakened, it’s unfortunately not in the best interests of other world players. According to the pro peace league of nations, there’s much the rest of the global players can do in bringing the two conflicting countries to a round table to possibly iron their differences and forge a better way out that’s in the interest of both countries. While the US keeps on its ideology of having the entire world united against its major enemy, Russia, other players are in contrast of ideology and rather than keep supplying weapons and all forms of armor, peaceful methods should be revisited to further find lesser destructive ways of regaining the old or better peaceful suns and moons between Russia and Ukraine.

Today, despite heavy causalities especially on both sides with heavy destruction on Ukraine side, it is becoming clearer that the US is interested in seeing Russia-Ukraine crisis continue. If we critically analyze comments from most top politicians in Washington, one can argue that sadly, Ukraine is a victim of great power politics and is being used by Washington as a proxy state to fight a war that in all ways would have been avoided! As rightly observed by Congressman Adam Schiff; “the United States aides Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don’t have to fight Russia over here.” In light of the above, one can contend that if the U.S doesn’t want Russia to fight Ukraine, then the U.S should not use Ukraine to fight Russia as Adam Schiff told.

All in all, as China proposed in her Global Security Initiative (GSI), for peace to prevail globally, we must avoid unilateralism, block formation, power politics and confrontation and that taking into consideration each other’s legitimate security concerns are key when it comes to sustainable global security.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Centre.

 

President XI Jinping’s Russia Trip is Crucial for Global Stability

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

On Monday, the 20th of this month the Leader of China President Xi Jinping landed in Moscow on his first trip out of China since his re-election for a third term as President. Choosing Moscow as his first foreign trip re-affirms the close friendship between Russia and Beijing. President Xi’s long-awaited visit to Moscow inspired a lot of background noise around major capitals of the world. A close partnership between Moscow and Beijing is not in the geopolitical interests of most western countries. However, many other regions of the world that are eager for a new era of global politics in which multi-polarity is the norm, anticipated and hoped for the best outcomes from the meeting.

China, with President Xi at the helm, has taken up the mantle of peacemaker. After successfully brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China is increasingly being seen as a credible global power capable of prioritizing cooperation over confrontation. This comes as no surprise since the CPC has always championed win-win partnerships and diplomacy around the world. The evidence of this is embedded within China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), and Global Security Initiative (GSI) concept paper that encourages the Chinese tradition of peace above everything else.

China’s peace plan for Ukraine closely follows the core concepts and principles of its GSI. These concepts include but are not limited to, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, commitment to taking the legitimate security concerns of countries seriously, and abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN charter. These principles are crucial in maintaining global stability. Therefore, President Xi’s visit to Moscow can be seen as an extension of these principles and China’s role as a peace broker. China has proposed to Moscow a twelve-point peace plan that seeks to end hostilities in Ukraine. President Putin has welcomed China’s efforts to solve the crisis in Ukraine and proclaimed that Russia is ready for peace when Ukraine and its western backers are. Most of the world cannot wait for this conflict to be over with and welcomes common sense solutions to the conflict.

Washington for so long has proclaimed that the decision to negotiate for peace and end the war is for Ukraine to make. However, it did not come as a surprise when the White House through its national security spokesperson John Kirby rejected any idea of a cease-fire. The white house anticipated that China might seek to broker a cease-fire in Ukraine and rejected it two weeks ahead of Xi’s visit to Moscow on grounds that it would allow Russia to consolidate its gains in the Donbas. The International Criminal Court (ICC) even went further and indicted President Putin for war crimes in Ukraine ahead of President Xi’s visit. This move by the court has been interpreted by many as largely symbolic and an attempt to murky the waters and complicate Xi’s visit to Moscow.

China has a very large presence around the world, economically, diplomatically, and technologically and has used this power to support peace. This should be applauded by all responsible citizens of the world. World leaders should oppose any attempt to escalate conflicts by nefarious actors on the global stage. President Xi has insisted that the conflict in Ukraine should end at the negotiating table and that the concerns of the conflicting parties be addressed.

At a time when the world is under serious economic and political strain, China is standing up to be counted as the global power that has a practical plan to lead the world into a new era. China’s neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict despite deep ties with Moscow, and its goal of peace are testament to the country’s genuine desire for a functional multi-polar and anti-war world. The global south, itself a victim of proxy wars should support China’s efforts in the framework of the United Nations to promote peace in Ukraine and around the world. The years of lacking a coherent and independent foreign policy in the global south should be forgotten and dumped in the dustbin of history. China under the CPC has managed to uplift itself from a century of humiliation to a global power worth taking seriously. The same can be replicated in the global south and particularly here in Africa.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow with DWC

China’s Global Development Initiative can revert IMF’s 2023 grimy global outlook

Posted on By Marvin H Kalema

On Tuesday this week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its 2023 global growth forecast in which it painted a grimy picture stressing that the world’s three largest economies will “continue to stall”, and warned “the worst is yet to come, and for many people 2023 will feel like a recession.”

Stressing that conditions could worsen significantly next year with more than a third of the world’s economy contrasting, IMF cut its 2023 global growth forecast to 2.7 percent, which is lower than the Fund’s 2.9 percent July 2022 forecast.

Further, the forecast reduced US’ growth this year to 1.6 percent which is a 0.7 percentage point downgrade if compared with the Fund’s July forecast. This drop can be attributed to an unexpected second-quarter GDP contraction in the US. For the year 2023, IMF predicted that US’ growth forecast will be 1%.

China, the world’s second largest economy on the other side is predicted to register to register a 4.4% growth in 2023, down from 4.6%.

Sky rocketing energy prices in Eurozone growth will further affect economic growth in the region with IMF predicting a 0.5% growth in 2023 which will leave the region’s key economies like Germany and Italy entering what IMF called “technical recessions.”

The IMF further argued that a promising economic future, is subject to a delicate balancing act by central banks to fight inflation without over-tightening, which could push the global economy into an “unnecessarily severe recession” and cause disruptions to financial markets and pain for developing countries.

All the above, if critically analysed, it is increasingly becoming clear that achieving United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will be very difficult especially for developing countries.

As Chinese president Xi Jinping observed in his remarks to during the 76th session of the UN General Assembly address, “right now, COVID-19 is still raging in the world, and profound changes are taking place in human society. The world has entered a period of new turbulence and transformation. It falls on each and every responsible statesman to answer the questions of our times and make a historical choice with confidence, courage and a sense of mission.”

Arguably, the questions of our times now must answer how can the world recover from this economic meltdown without leaving any country behind? What should be done to achieve the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development?

While UN’s 2030 Agenda calls for global sustainable development, the current reality calls for more ingredients for it to achieve its main objectives.

Therefore, recalling urgent need for a better and functioning world amidst economic uncertainties as highlighted by IMF in their 2023 global outlook forecasts, embracing China’s proposed Global Development Initiative (GDI) is very important at this time since it addresses all key challenges that have potential of failing a balanced economic recovery for all countries while putting people at the centre.

Indeed, while proposing GDI, president Xi explained the “need[s] to foster global development partnerships that are more equal and balanced, forge greater synergy among multilateral development cooperation processes, and speed up the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” He reasoned those challenges like global economic meltdown, and food and energy insecurity are likely to hinder the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development due to economic recoveries countries are taking.

Specifically, Xi explained that different countries have resorted to individualistic economic recoveries, leaving poor and developing countries’ concerns unattended, which risks widening the south – north development gap. “We must get a good grasp of the overarching development trend in the world, firm up confidence, and act in unison and with great motivation to promote global development and foster a development paradigm featuring benefits for all, balance, coordination, inclusiveness, win-win cooperation and common prosperity,” stressed Xi.

With IMF’s warning that “a promising economic future, is subject to a delicate balancing act by central banks to fight inflation without over-tightening, which could push the global economy into an unnecessarily severe recession” which the Funder explained would “cause disruptions to financial markets and pain for developing countries,” to squarely counter this challenge, there is need central banks and governments across to work together in identifying viable and practical policies and suggestions for all.

With GDI for example, President Xi emphasized that it is a sure way for the world to a chieve a balanced development if countries agree to work together in promoting economic recovery, “For us to break through the mist and embrace a bright future, the biggest strength comes from cooperation and the most effective way is through solidarity…The hardships and challenges are yet another reminder that humanity is a community with a shared future where all people rise and fall together…” Xi noted as he introduced GDI.

In total support of Xi Jinping’s call for inclusive rather than individualistic development, one ought to note that even the preamble of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development highlights development ‘partnerships’ as one of the agenda’s five most critical areas of importance. Simply put, the agenda notes that formation of such partnerships is not only a foundational principle for all the SDGs, it is also the only viable way by which such SDGs can be effectively. This re-echoes Jinping’s assertion that SDG targets, of which global economic sustainability includes, cannot be achieved in isolation.

China’s Global Development Initiative is an example of development campaigns tailored in resonance with the UN’s SDGs hence the IMF ought to consider its promotion and sensitization in its bid to avert the impending global economic crisis. The GDI, significantly anchored on collective efforts of development manifests SDG 17 that was specifically and intentionally adopted to promote development partnerships.

This goal according to scholars like Haywood & Funke (The Sustainable Development Goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships), is premised on the assertion that a successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society. This is the exact message being pushed by Beijing’s GDI project and in light of growing selfish and individualistic development approaches that often affect the global south more adversely, all global development stake-holders must consider it.

“We need to jointly build international consensus on promoting development. It is important that we put development in front and center on the international agenda, deliver on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and build political consensus to ensure everyone values development and all countries pursue cooperation together,” added Xi.

The IMF 2023 global outlook predicts that for next year, most of developing countries people will feel like a real recession. This means that though major economies will not be much better, there is need for them not to abscond from their commitments of helping developing countries development and economic recoveries programs. Indeed, as he promoted GDI, Xi emphasized the need for developed countries to fulfill their obligations and deepen cooperation stressing that in development efforts, “no country or individual … behind.”

Today, the GDI has been cited and supported by the United Nations and other international organizations, and nearly 100 countries. Now that it seeks to address challenges IMF has pointed at, one can argue that it’s high time IMF adopted GDI as the world races to arrest global economic meltdown and build a community of common prosperity and shared prosperity.

Marvin Hannington Kalema is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre and a law student at University of Johannesburg, South Africa.