Connect with us

Diplomacy

The modern nuclear strategies

Published

on

The nuclear diplomacy has become one of the most crucial issues of the modern international relations.

Accordingly to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)[1], the total number of the nuclear warheads in the world today is estimated to be over 20 million. More than half of this amount belongs to the Russian Armed Forces, then goes USA, and the remaining percentage is made up by other nuclear states.

The “mutually guaranteed securityof the United States of America

The US nuclear strategy is most precisely formulated by a doctrine of “mutually guaranteed safety” by the Minister of Defense W. Perry during World War Two. Until now it has not lost its significance for the American military ideology. And it means that the United States is still holding firmly the memories about the bipolar epoch even though the nature of the U.S. nuclear threats radically changed. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the annulment of the Warsaw Pact have sharply reduced the chance not only of the global nuclear confrontation, but even of the large-scale regional wars. Nevertheless, the Russian remaining nuclear capabilities continue to evoke fear of the American national security. In reality, the concept of the “mutual assured security” became a national program called “Cooperative Threat Reduction from the former Soviet Union”, which is also known as the Nunn-Lugar plan financed from the budget of the American Ministry of Defense. The program was intended to assist the former USSR republics in the rapid and secure nuclear disarmament. William Perry stated: “there is no better opportunity to spend funds predestined for the national security than to help the destruction of the nuclear weapons and nuclear industry of the former enemy … This is also defense, however, by other means.” By the beginning of 1995 the Nunn-Lugar initiative allocated around 900 million US dollars on the implementation of the disarmament programs.

  The U.S. modern nuclear strategy consists of two chief principles. First of all, it has to “convince” the rest of the world of its power, which is achieved by maintaining a high level of the combat readiness of the strategic offensive forces. Secondly, it must create the state of the greatest uncertainty about the Washington’s possible reaction to a nuclear threat emanating from its opponent. That is why the U.S. authorities refuse to make a commitment not to use nuclear weapons first, in contrast to other nuclear countries. At the same time, the United States is an active party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  The American administration promotes persistently a program on the combat against the weapons of mass destruction fixing it as a priority for their own diplomatic, economic and military purposes. The Ministry of Defense is entitled to develop a complex of purely military measures to prevent the proliferation of WMD on the international level. Some specific tasks are assigned to the intelligence services that can easily obtain the updated information about the possible development and the production of weapons of mass destruction in any part of the world.

Thus, the revision of the nuclear policy of the Pentagon at the end of the “cold war,” in fact, did not bring about any radical changes for the U.S. nuclear strategy[2]. The “nuclear deterrence” still remains the cornerstone of the national security of the United States.

Russian nuclear ambitions non-stop

The modern Russian military doctrine states that “The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are in constant readiness as well as other troops to deter and prevent an armed conflict in accordance with international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation … The prevention of the nuclear armed conflict, as well as any other military conflict is the most important task of the Russian Federation[3]“.

The use of the nuclear weapons is defined in the following terms: “The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack aimed at it, and (or) its allies with the nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the conventional weapons when under threat”.

In the statistical numbers the dimension of the Russian nuclear arsenal is inferior only to the American. During the nuclear talks Russia tends to defend the position of the U.S. missile defense system in the Eastern Europe. When the United States announced the suspension of the deployment of a missile defense system in the Eastern Europe, Russia declared that it “would steadily move towards the verifiable and irreversible reductions in the nuclear weapons.” However, Moscow aims at the preservation of the balance of the strategic offensive arms between Russia and the United States, and thus, exercising a strict control over the export of the nuclear materials and technology, promoting the denuclearization of the post-Soviet space, and improving the existing international nuclear non-proliferation documentary basis.

“The sub-strategic strike” of the United Kingdom

In its nuclear policy the UK adheres to the principle of the minimum nuclear deterrence for selective use of nuclear weapons in the framework of the so-called sub-strategic mission. In the lexicon of the British military and political leadership there even exist the special concept of “sub-strategic impact”, which means that the “sub-strategic strike is limited to the extremely selective use of the nuclear weapons. This gives a strategic blow, and on the level of its capacity it is sufficient to reassure the aggressor to afflict a strike upon UK, which should stop even the thought about the aggression, otherwise the aggressor risks facing a devastating nuclear attack”. That is to say the Russia’s nuclear forces are designed for nuclear retaliation as retaliation for a nuclear attack on Russia and the opponent (or) its allies.

With the reduction in the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, Great Britain pledged to “develop and implement” a future agreement on the reduction of the nuclear weapons and nuclear forces to maintain it at a minimum level. To prevent the terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avoid the risk of contagion Britain called upon the nuclear powers to achieve a “global compromise”. In accordance to this plan, all non-nuclear states are ought to guarantee not to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances. In return Britain is ready to provide those countries with the access to peaceful nuclear technology.

French balanced containment

Since DeGaulle`s times France has been in favor of maintaining its nuclear forces at a minimum, but duly supervised level of the vigilance. In the field of promotion of the international nuclear non-proliferation, the French government has made significant proposals to the United Nations, calling upon all countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to begin the negotiations on an international treaty banning the production of fissile material without extension preconditions as soon as possible.

The Chinese philosophy and nuclear weapons are incompatible

China is the only great power, which has a commitment the official level not to use the nuclear weapons first, without any reservations.

All throughout its history, the military-political leadership of China has been realizing its necessities of a huge country, such as the possession of the highly drilled and fully equipped with modern weapons, including nuclear, armed forces. Therefore, the official Chinese doctrine is interpreted as mainly a political and propagandistic tool and it does not show the real operational planning of the strategic nuclear forces, which are in fact aimed at a pre-emptive strike. The Chinese first nuclear program, adopted in 1951, had purely peaceful purposes. However, afterwards it was supplemented by a secret amendment allowing the creation of its own nuclear weapons. China took the path of the preferential production of the nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and land-based aircraft bombs. Nowadays it is no secret that China has got both strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons.

The Chinese tactical nuclear forces include: strategic missile forces (CDR), the strategic air (SA) and the nuclear missile fleet[4]. On January 1 2007 the total number of the nuclear weapons of strategic purpose counted 244 units.

In comparison with other nuclear states, the Chinese nuclear forces have low combat readiness. The reason for this is the technical imperfection of the Chinese nuclear missile potential. Besides this, the nuclear weapons, as a weapon of war, are considered as the extreme last step by the Chinese defense policy. This willing killing is in direct contradiction with the Chinese philosophy of war and victory. Therefore, the Chinese philosophy of war and the use of nuclear weapons are incompatible. Furthermore, the use of the weapons of mass destruction is completely meaningless for China. As the population of China is one of the biggest in accordance to other world military powers, which already gives it an overwhelming advantage over the other countries in the world. The use of the weapons of mass destruction may be beneficial to any other party to the conflict, much is inferior to the population of China. For Beijing, the initiative in the use of weapons of mass destruction means depriving its population of one of the main advantages that they already own.

Indian “strategy of regional deterrence”

If the India declares that it does not intend to use its nuclear power, why, then, wouldn`t New Delhi abandon it? The truth is that even the fact of the possession of the nuclear-country status can have its strategic benefits. The Indian “peaceful atom” means:

        Control over the U.S. influence in the Indian Ocean. India sees itself as a regional power in the Indian Ocean becoming more and more suspicious towards the naval presence of other powers there. The fact that India’s nuclear weapons intend to deprive the U.S. of any possibility to exercise pressure upon India in the ocean space, even if it will worsen the US-Indian relations.

          Another means to deter Pakistan[5]. Numerous collisions in the diplomatic Indo-Pakistani relations still exist on the general background of the religious intolerance, which in turn adds fuel to the mutual hatred leaving no room for compromise. If Pakistan is decisive to possess nuclear weapons, then India will move in the same direction.

          A strategy to contain China. The test of the China’s atomic bomb in 1964 became another blow to the Indian security. In November of the same year, the Indian Prime said that his country would consider the possibility of testing of nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. Still the Indian military believes that the Indian nuclear weapons are the most effective deterrent against China and Pakistan.

          Great-power prestige, which would help New Delhi to take place in the UN Security Council. It is for this reason that India has been refusing to abandon its “nuclear option” for decades. India is well aware that it gained its own nuclear arsenal with big costs and it will force other powers to listen to its opinion.

The India’s nuclear strategy is evolving at a slow pace in the absence of the clear systems of the political leadership of the country. Currently the Indian nuclear weapons are under the civilian control, and the means of their delivery are under the supervision of the militaries. In the operational terms India is reiterating that its nuclear strategy is based strictly on the peaceful principles.

Pakistani “nuclear bomb at all costs”

In 1965 Pakistan made an unsuccessful attempt to oust India in Kashmir. Pakistan lost that war, and the U.S. imposed the arms embargo on the country. As a result, Pakistan was deprived from the U.S. military support and a sense of security, the army began to show dissatisfaction with the current situation and the country’s political crisis started evolving. In 1972 after the defeat in the war with India and the dismemberment of Pakistan, the new president of the President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, declared: “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own”[6].

So, what are the advantages for Pakistan to keep its nuclear bomb?

First of all, so that to keep distance with India. Now it is already more than half-century that the Indo-Pakistan conflict is ongoing. Pakistan believes that India will continue to be a threat to the Pakistan, and that only the fact that Pakistan acquires the nuclear bomb can make India keep distance with its neighbor.

Secondly, it is an issue of reputation. The military potential of India in the field of conventional weapons is higher than the military capacities of Pakistan. A direct comparison of the nuclear power is not in favor of Pakistan: India has 2 times more soldiers to 1.5 times more tanks, 2.5 times more artillery, a factor of 2 – planes, and 4 times – warships. So, Pakistani nuclear weapons are intended to end this imbalance by making the Indian armed forces helpless in the face of the threat of unacceptable damage to the opponent.

Thirdly, it is a matter of the Pakistani status in the Islamic world. On the international stage, Pakistan and India are in different weight classes. At the same time, the Pakistani government believes that the possession of the nuclear weapons would allow the country to take a more prominent place in the world. Unlike India, Pakistan does not have pretensions to adhere to the club of the great powers and obtain a seat at the Security Council of the UN. The Pakistani ambitions are basically limited to the Islamic world, so the fact of possessing nuclear power rises Islamabad up on the region. The leadership in the Islamic world has always been crucial. In this situation, a Muslim country with nuclear weapons automatically becomes a strategic center of the Muslim world. In 70s ex-President of Pakistan Z.A. Bhutto described the Pakistani nuclear status as an “Islamic bomb”, which proves the modern reality.

Last, but not the least, Pakistan has not yet announced publicly its nuclear strategy. In theory and practice it follows the principles of minimum nuclear deterrence and defense by conventional means. Pakistan was the second country after India to have refused to make a commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. From this it can be concluded that some actions of Pakistan at the international arena, especially those manifested during the previous Indo-Pakistani crises prove that it may use the nuclear weapons in certain situations. Such a situation may occur as a war fought with the conventional weapons, where Pakistan might threaten to use nuclear weapons.

North Korean “nuclear escalation”

The North Korea’s leadership is considering nuclear shield as a guarantor and protection against the regime and the dynasty change. The North Korea has already observed how easily the regimes were eliminated during the Arab Spring. None of them had the nuclear weapons, so they were quickly overthrown by the rebels. So, the North Korea will be avoiding at all cost the repetition of the same scenario on its territory.

The North Korea has not yet entered into the range of the strategic nuclear powers, because, apparently, it has not created yet the compact nuclear warheads for missiles and aircraft carriers. Its potential can largely be described as “provocative” or ” international sabotage”[7].

In this situation Washington is trying by all means to avoid the escalation of the current crisis into war. At the same time, the U.S. is actively building up its military forces in the region. The “hawks” in the Pentagon urged the administration of the President Barack Obama to abstain from any unnecessary contacts with the dictator. However, the fact is that a war with the North Korea can lead to the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the South Korea and some parts of Japan if the White House abandons the tempting idea of ​​pre-emptive strike. For the North Korea the preventive strikes mean war, and this war can become a local disaster. It is high time for the North Korea to change its nuclear strategy.

Iranian “nuclear intimidation”

Currently Iran has the most developed research and production base in the nuclear field among the Islamic states and in the whole Middle Eastern region.

Firstly, the acquisition of the nuclear energy is national pride for Iran, as there is only limited number of the countries, which are, indeed, able to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The progress in the development of the nuclear energy, as well as advancing technologies in the space program are highly valued by the Iranian administration, and not only because it raises its international weight, but also because it proves the effectiveness of the Islamic regimes in general. The Iranian nuclear program is more than a key part of its ideology, it is the most crucial period of its history. The Islamic Republic for such a long time has been fighting hard for its right to use the nuclear energy, so that now it feels itself as a full-fledged master at its house.

Secondly, the Iranians believe that the world concerns about the possibility of the double-use or the misuse of the Iranian nuclear potential cannot be a sufficient reason for the constant international intervention into their nuclear program.

In a summary, as it has been presented above, each country being a part to the nuclear club, has got its own purposes for maintaining the nuclear program, as well as its own goals and strategies that such global schemas might require. In the military-political plan each nuclear country associates with the nuclear weapons five main advantages: the prestige and status in the world policy; prevention of a nuclear attack; containment (six countries except China and, with reservations, the U.S. and India), security guarantees and impact on its allies (Russia, USA, UK and France), “trump card” to exchange for concessions on other countries negotiations on other topics in the multilateral negotiations (Russia and North Korea). However, each nuclear program has got its own specificities. In what it concerns the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike attack of the enemy, it all nuclear states respond positively. The states are prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack, which is afflicted upon them with the nuclear weapons. Moreover, such powers as U.S. and Russia intend to resort to the nuclear weapons even if a nuclear attack affects their allies. Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in case of an attack on its allies by using other weapons of mass destruction. The new U.S. nuclear strategy, edited in 2010, does not foresee the usage of the nuclear weapons in response to the usage of other weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. and its allies (except, apparently, to protect Japan and South Korea, which are worried about the threat of such aggression emanating from the North Korea). Russia and Pakistan are ready to use their nuclear weapons under the threat of a catastrophic defeat in the war with an adversary that uses only conventional arms and armed forces. Whereas, the United Kingdom, France and later the United States in “The strategy of NATO” adopted in 2010 allowed the use of the nuclear weapons so that to prevent the destruction of their conventional forces. The new U.S. nuclear doctrine does not permit the usage of the nuclear weapons in such a case. All powers except China and India, allow the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike “by default” so that to destruct the missiles and other weapons of mass destruction of an enemy. It is worth noting that the USA earlier allowed the selective application of the nuclear weapons against the terrorist targets in other situations in a discrete way.

So, as we can see, the fundamental principles of the nuclear strategies are evolving extremely slowly preserving the basic approaches taken on during the Cold War, which, above all, aim at the mutual nuclear deterrence. And the modern common strategy of the nuclear club is to keep in fear the rest of the world, which has mainly the psychological basis. In the communication with non-nuclear states their behavior fits into the following schema: playing with time   come to negotiations     achieve no substantial results     gaining time. Sometimes the nuclear countries agree to come to some concessions, and then, one of them wouldn`t agree (like Iran) and all the process starts from the beginning. Only bilateral negotiations may bring solution to the current nuclear challenges. The negotiations are vital in this case, even if they lead to no results so far, it is fundamental even the fact that they are going on.

Bibliography:



Diplomacy

Mega Regions

Published

on

The planet is shrinking

Geopolitics on this diminishing ball in space is not going away. On the contrary, geopolitics is growing to hitherto un-imaginable heights much faster than most people think.

Imagine a possible future world something like this:

· The African Union – the world’s biggest continental free-trade-area AfCFTA – of soon-to-be (2035) 1.8 billion people with Parliament in South Africa.

· The European Union (de-facto incl. EFTA) – small on global scale, but more independent, rich and educated than today

· North America (centered on an at least relatively weakened USA)

· South America (centered on a once-again growing Mercosur)

· China – a strong center in all-growing North and South East Asia

· India – growing

Add to this:

· A hypothetic Mega-Eurasian Region including the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) with Russia. Enlarged with Turkey, Iran and even Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, this would fit nicely into the above possible future picture of the world.

Such Mega Regions as above will come to integrate economy (incl. currency), culture, infrastructure, traffic, energy, environment and above all political administration with security within themselves as well as between themselves. Shrinking the planet ever more. Who will need the intruding USA of today in a future world of self-administering and self-securing Mega-Regions? These Mega Regions will not need the “balancing” or “stabilization” which the USA peddles. In this world, the USA will need to define a new role and self-perception for herself over the next 25 years.

In this future there may also be less room for the English – they may end up as losers even within their own broken and disunited “United” Kingdom. The problem for the English is their mid-size: The UK is not big enough to be a relatively self-sustaining market unto herself like the USA and increasingly China. Even these Mega Regions will depend on trade with each other – else they will suffer the fate of the USSR and Mao’s China. The UK depends crucially on open trade access to very big markets. A small (soon to be independent) country like Greenland with 56,000 inhabitants might probably much more easily find satisfying economic niches than Brexit-UK will with 67 million people which have self-detached from the EU-market.

In such a possible world of Mega Regions – do Russians want to be losers like the English today increasingly look like? Or does Russia want to continue to be a great world leader – one of the leading leaders – in a mega-club, for instance with Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan? As Russia holds on to influence in as much geographic room as possible of what the Soviet Union influenced, the answer to that question is already given. Russia wants to be a winner in today’s real-politics of nascent Mega Regions – not a loser like the English in their dreamed-up replay of the pre-previous century. Russia’s conundrum now like since 300 years is to match her external club-making with her own internal growth. The French and the Germans have learned the joy of sharing power. With possible resourceful partners like Turkey (educated, one of G20), Iran (well-educated), Pakistan (well-educated), subject to re-established partnership with the EU, Russia may not again need to exhaust herself as she did once or twice before in history – Russia herself can grow in this process.

And what about South America? The majority of Latin American countries are all culturally wary enough of US meddling (Monroe doctrine) and have for a century resisted “dependencia”. Seeing how successfully Africa now unites, South America may be ripe for a similar development – and the Mercosur with its own Parliament (in Montevideo) is already there for South American governance expansion in their own Mega Region.

A New World Map

The result of Mega Regions might be something like this (see illustration 1).

Instead of Huntington’s miscarried idea of civilizations “clashing” we might see the opposite – that civilizations, cultures, religions, and ethnicities grow together across borders. The illustration above is a map of such plausible governance integration.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is depicted on the map, because the EAEU (though formally an economic union) is in reality a regional political governance aiming at further integration. In contrast, the NAFTA as a shallow pure free-trade area is not included on this map of political Mega Regions, because the USA (incl. US “liberals”) consistently cut Mexico and even Canada off from continental governance. There is no “NAFTA Parliament” underway. And the US may in future even lose some of sometimes high-handed control which the USA today has over her two neighbors.

Similarly, ASEAN is only lightly drafted as part of the light area around a future Chinese influence, because the ASEAN has decided not to pursue closer political regional governance like the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and the MERCOSUR do. When looking at East Asia on the map (illustration 1), please bear in mind that we here look a little into the future at a time, when the US 7th Pacific Fleet has been pushed out by the fast growing Chinese PLAN Fleet in all waters around China (incl. Taiwan). As China grows (and US 7th Fleet influence wanes), the ASEAN might in future choose a closer political integration, inspired by the EU and African model, but there is no sign of that happening yet.

The EAEU (5 members as of today) will for year 2020 achieve a GDP of USD 1,700 billion – only 11% of the EU and China respectively (both of which now have GDPs of USD 15,000 billion). More tellingly, the EAEU is today only two-thirds of India (with a GDP of USD 2,600 billion). The hypothesized enlarged EAEU (15 members, the two blue areas on map) would considerably catapult the EAEU up on the global economic ladder with a combined GDP of near USD 3,600 billion (2020 data, for Syria latest available statistics from before the war). On the top-of-world economic list, an enlarged EAEU would aspire to be 140% of India – nearly half-bigger than India. Politically, the enlarged EAEU’s human and natural resources with geo-strategic control could become much more pivotal than the economic data suggest. (GDP figures from IMF WEO 2020/10)

Mega Region to Mega Region Governance

It is just like in corporate business – apart from a few niche states, states are pressed to merge or form cooperative cartels to achieve critical mass in the world competition. These upcoming country Mega cooperations will as a general tendency increasingly be of multiple partners coming together for common governance (like for example the African Union) and less of the “hub-and-spoke” type. Please bear in mind that the world is fractal, meaning that types of social structures are repeated at different levels – commune, substate, state, Mega Region and even Mega-mega Region. Thus, even Mega Regions may come together in structures of multiple partners of common governance. For instance, you might in this future see the establishment of a joint Mega-mega governance of neighboring Mega Regions EU-AU-EAEU-China-India. Mega Region to Mega Region relations must be managed carefully by all for mutual success. No Mega Region will be enough in itself. Integrating Mega Regions with each other must thus be a careful undertaking.

For instance, Turkey is a member of the EU Customs Union With the political changes in Belarus which are underway, Belarus might soon be offered a Free-Trade or EU Customs Union with the EU, similar to the EU trade-advantages which the Ukraine and Turkey already enjoy. These countries Turkey, the Ukraine and Belarus are clever – they will not be so foolish as the UK to throw away their EU trade privileges. There is here a conundrum to solve, because as East-West bridges, we need Belarus, Turkey and the Ukraine to be able to enjoy the best of East and West: EU privileges in combination with the future Mega Region advantages of EAEU affiliation.

To prosper, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the African Union (AU) need an extended free trade area with the EU. We simply need an EU + AU + EAEU Mega Free-Trade Area. The EU has a self-interest in both cases, the African Union as well as Russia and a future Mega EAEU all the way to Pakistan, in granting such trade privileges.

The African Union covers a staggering 30 million km2 (the Soviet Union was 23 million km2) with already 1.4 billion people, and the enlarged EAEU would be 26 million km2 with 700 million people. The EU is here comparatively small – only 4 million km2 and 445 million people. The EU cannot itself handle the administration of any more geographic space. With the issues of Brexit-chaos, the West Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus, the EU is already critically overextended.

Next Step

The EU has enormous strategic interests in a politically stronger and economically prosperous united Africa to handle Africa’s own problems before these problems (including refugees and terrorists) spill devastatingly over into the EU.

The EU also has got enormous strategic interests in letting Russia and Turkey carry the helm of a hypothetical new Mega EAEU political Project for peace, prosperity and political improvement of common governance in the conflict-troubled Eurasian space. Furthermore, an enlarged EAEU Mega Region, as I hypothesize here, will connect the EU not only with the strategic pivots of China and India, but also with the global pivot of the Middle East and in this way with Africa. To achieve this, Kashmir must and will find a peaceful solution.

The EU can do a lot – but the EU’s meagre 5,000 tricolore soldiers in Africa for an area 10 times Afghanistan, plus a handful of aid-projects, will not save Africa. Exports, trade, industrialization, advanced services and high-speed economic growth is what Africa needs. A strong African Union is needed to raise Africa above her own problems, and to do this, the African Union needs support by free-trade with the EU (and the EAEU of course).

In the exceedingly troubled Central Asian and Middle Eastern geographic space, Russia has proven to move so well forward. The EU itself would just be hapless or even break porcelain if going alone in Central Asia and the Middle East. France has shown able to achieve just about nothing in Lebanon. And EU countries’ military part-taking in porcelain-breaking US ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan (longest US war in history, and little US “peace with honor”) illustrates my point. The recent Armenian-Azerbaijani situation further underscores the point that an overarching political Mega Region EAEU is a needed solution – a solution which only Russia and Turkey are capable to initiate.

This planet is shrinking fast. The EU cannot afford to not-care about its own Mega neighborhoods, including all of Africa, Russia, Central Asia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and the Middle East.

As the EU does not have the needed strategic capabilities to “fix” its own Mega neighborhoods, the EU must support those who can and should be empowered – meaning the EU neighbor partners themselves: The African Union, Russia, Central Asian countries, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and all others involved.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Bye Diego … (Geopolitics of Sports)

Published

on

The news of Diego Maradona’s death plunged the football world into grief and deprived football fans of the existence of a unique star. If we want to express this issue with the language of a geopolitician, it will be a different perception and analysis by others.

The geopolitical orientation of sport is one of the geopolitical tendencies with an artificial nature. Because sport acts as a source of power in the relationship between actors and shapes their strategies, and because this source of power has no geographical basis, when we want to discuss it in the form of geopolitics, it means a tendency with an artificial nature. The geopolitics of sport is thus conceptualized as the knowledge, acquisition, productivity, and preservation of sport as a (geographical) source of power in local, national, regional, and global relations. In other words, the use of sport and related issues as a new (geographical) source of power to achieve goals in local, national, regional and global relations is called the geopolitics of sport.

By that definition, Maradona was a (geographical) source of power for Argentina. The geographical source of power that since the game between Argentina and England with the goal later known as “Hand of God, the goal of the century” was able to provide a new and different representation of relations between the two countries after the defeat in the Falkland War for Argentina and turn a nation sadness into happiness.

Since then, Maradona has acted as a (geographical) source of power for his country and has been able to influence power relations in designing and representing his country’s strategies. On the relations between Argentina and England; Traditional rival of Argentina-Brazil (Pele); In the internal relations of the country; Introducing his country by showing the Argentine flag and so on.

In general, it can be said that sometimes people with importance and position that they can gain in various fields of science, sports, art, etc. can become (geographical) sources of power and be effective in the relationship between actors and the design of strategies. Losing people like Maradona can deprive an actor from a valuable source of power.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Soft Power Policies of East Asian Titans

Published

on

Soft Power is a widely discussed and equally disputed concept as various scholars have their personal interpretation upon the power of attraction.

Joseph Nye has associated soft power with i) culture, ii) political values, and iii) foreign policies of a country.

China, Japan, and (Republic of) Korea rank the highest in the list of Intangible Heritages indicating their rich cultural identity.

The cultural identity like Confucian values gets interwoven with political ideas of respect and help build working morality that influences their foreign policies.

Japanese Anime such as Doraemon and Pokémon are extremely famous and Korean K-Pop such as Gangnam Style became the most liked video on YouTube. TikTok has brought China into the race of audio-visual diplomacy.

National identity and political views are promoted through audio-visual instruments such as movies, paintings, songs while some of them are despised as political propaganda.

The countries which have higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Per Capita are accepted to have a good political structure and other countries are likely to endorse a similar system. The three countries have become the symbol of success while many developing countries get inspired to adopt their style to improve their present condition.

Foreign policies depend upon the economic capability of countries and their ability to engage through trade and aid.

Trade is conducted to benefit one’s own country which may include importing unprocessed goods and exporting processed products like Japan import iron worth $7.18 billion and export cars and spare parts worth $139.3 billion.

Countries intend to import security instruments, basic goods like oil and gasoline while limiting luxury items by adding a large amount of taxes that shape foreign relations between countries.

The Asian Titans belong to the top ten product exporter as a result they get involved in nation branding and use corporate brands like Honda, Samsung, and Xiaomi to be perceived as a reliable household name. 

The aid includes humanitarian aid, military aid, economic assistance, technical and vocational training which help in establishing bilateral relations and all three countries have become active in this genre.

There is an additional component for socialization such as gastrodiplomacy which remains very strong in East Asian Titans which is proven with their many Michelin 3-star Restaurants. The culinary diplomacy is also conducted between government to government level as hosting country invites foreign heads of states in banquets or provide scholarship for elite foreign students.

The events conducted around elites such as tours, banquets, scholarships would transform their social paradigm which may cause policy change leading to norms that would transform the foreign policy of a recipient country in favor of a host country.

The public simply looks at the ranks, scores, and formulate opinions about a country without looking at the bigger picture. This could be efficiently be studied by looking at a single chart.

 ChinaJapanSouth Korea
A. Senses as Soft Resources   
i) Physical Diplomacy   
a) Sports/ActivityCuppings, Tai chiKarate, JudoTaekwondo
b) Olympics Medals608 Rank:8498 Rank:15337 Rank:19
ii) Audio-visual diplomacy   
a) Film Production     (2018)1082
Rank:2
613
Rank:3
454
Rank:5
b) Box Office Revenue
(2019)
$ 9.3 billion Rank:2$2.4 billion Rank:3$1.6 billion Rank:5
c) Additional ToolsTiktokAnime, MangaK-pop
iii) Gastrodiplomacy   
a) Popular FoodNoodles, DumplingsSushi, WasabiGimbap, Kimchi
b) Michelin 3-star Restaurants     (2017)5
Rank:5
28
Rank:1
2
Rank:10
B. Resources and Tourism   
a) World Heritage Sites
   (2020)
55
Rank:1
23 Rank:1214 Rank:21
b) Intangible Cultural Heritage
   (2020)
40 Rank:121 Rank:220 Rank:3
c) WEF, Travel & Tourism Competitive (2019)Score:4.9 Rank:13Score:5.4 Rank:4Score:4.8 Rank:16
d) Revenue by Tourism
   (2018)
$32.617 billion
Rank:10
$34.054 billion Rank:9$13.427 billion Rank:24
C. Nation Branding   
a) Corporate BrandsXiaomi, AlibabaToyota, HondaSamsung, Hyundai
b) Products Exports     (2018)$2.59 trillion Rank:1$713 billion Rank:4$617 billion Rank:5
c) GDP Per Capita
   (2018)
$9,771
Rank:78
$39,290
Rank:27
$31,363
Rank:34
D. Noble Prizes Laureates
     (2019)
6
Rank:24
28
Rank:7
1
Rank:51
E.The Soft Power 30     (2019)Score:51.25 Rank:27Score:75.71 Rank:8Score:63.00 Rank:19

The factors such as Noble Prize Laureates play a role in projecting Japan as a superior power but countries such as South Korea and China have risen to global prominence recently, this may have resulted in less money for research and development and caused fewer Noble Prize Laureates.

The rapid development of Asian countries has made it attractive and serves as the master of affective resources (culture richness, technology, competitive economy) while they suffer a bitter relationship with one another creating a space for western countries to enforce their normative resources (a third-party capability to arbitrate international dispute) to mitigate the crisis.

The Asian Titans have been growing their institutions to enhance their human resources to produce better publications that would further strengthen their strategic communication and media.

The soft power has helped generate a sense of national cohesion by protecting their ancient culture while promoting their vibrant economic growth. The countries intend to build a reliable economy and to be perceived as a trustworthy power.

Each Asian country has different objectives while promoting their culture. Japanese list of intangible heritage portrays its polytheistic tradition while China showcases itself as a culturally diverse country while it suffers accusation for human rights violations against minorities. Both China and Japan avoid its militaristic knowledge (the image coincide with hard power)even when they have a very interesting history with Martial Arts but South Korea seems to be enthusiastic to showcase its Ssireum(wrestling) and Taekkyeon (a traditional Korean Martial Arts) as intangible heritage.

Soft Power Policies of East Asian Titans maintain a variety within the unity. The region shares historic relations but still maintains its distinct identities creating an aesthetic composition for an external observer. The East Asian Titans are a unique case with tremendous soft power.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Reports1 hour ago

Cut fossil fuels production to ward off ‘catastrophic’ warming

Countries must decrease production of fossil fuels by 6 per cent per year, between 2020 and 2030, if the world...

Africa Today3 hours ago

Mali: COVID-19 and conflict lead to rise in child trafficking

Child trafficking is rising in Mali, along with forced labour and forced recruitment by armed groups, due to conflict, insecurity...

Development5 hours ago

Revealed: The cost of the pandemic on world’s poorest countries

More than 32 million of the world’s poorest people face being pulled back into extreme poverty because of COVID-19, leading...

Health & Wellness8 hours ago

New COVID-19 infections fall globally for first time since September

Last week saw the first global decline in newly reported cases of COVID-19 since September, the head of the UN World Health...

Environment9 hours ago

Climate Action: It’s time to make peace with nature

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has described the fight against the climate crisis as the top priority for the 21st...

Africa11 hours ago

Africa: A Rising Star in the New Economic Order

The African continent has been on top of the agenda of the policymakers in all periods. From the historical aspect,...

International Law13 hours ago

The Relevance of International Relations Theory in Community Policing

Community policing in general refers to adopting such measures by law enforcement agencies specifically police where closer ties between the...

Trending