The very reason why responsibility to protect fails drastically in many circumstances is that the international community is plagued by the complete lack of political will. Alex Bellamy finds that “the international community’s actual record of preventing and halting the mass killing of civilians is staggeringly poor”.When the practical battle of sovereignty versus humanitarian intervention started the former UNSG Kofi Annan proposed a “forged unity” that resulted the norm of humanitarian intervention. (Bellamy, June 2006 )
The indeterminacy (sovereignty v intervention) somehow makes the responsibility to protect to fail in both practical and institutional terms. However, there is still hope that with the “compliance pull” the R2P can be newly emerged as it proved to be better solution than humanitarian intervention. It is worthy to note what Eric Heinze speaks on humanitarian intervention and he says “the transboundary use of military force for the purpose of protecting people whose government is egregiously abusing them, either directly, or by aiding and permitting extreme mistreatment”. (Heinze, 1 January 2010). Gareth Evan comments on Humanitarian Intervention as follows: “mistake of going to war when we should not, but also what can sometimes be the even bigger mistake of not going to war to protect our fellow human beings from catastrophe when we should”. (Sahnoun, November – December 2002 )
There are four core claims on the legality of the humanitarian intervention:
The plain meaning and language of UN Charter
UN Charter is being an “organic document” not answering the legal arguments
Viewing customary law and other normative practices as the legal basis of a state’s behavior
There is codified treaty law that define the rules for state behavior
Along with the four claims above, the question of morality is another issue. For example, the humanitarian intervention in Haiti would have been still justified without the OAS (Organization of the American States) sanctioning and the NATO’s intervention in Kosovo without Security Council mandate is “illegal but legitimate” but sanctioned for its “compelling moral purpose”.
When talking about Responsibility to Protect and it’s predecessor norm humanitarian intervention it is vital to remember that both are derived from Just War tradition “Quod est necessarium est licitum – ‘that which is necessary is legal’ in other words as quoted by the Prime Minister of East Timor “Some times war saves people”. (Schrijver, 2000)
Sovereignty has a long history of colonial war and revolutions, and it is still promised with “self-determination” and “future free from outside interference” which is considered to be as just an “emotional attachment”. At this juncture it is worthy to note Gerath Evan’s view on sovereignty “Sovereignty thus hard won, and proudly enjoyed, is sovereignty not easily relinquished or compromised”
The following responses on NATO’s intervention in Kosovo would reflect the nation states’ take on “sovereignty”
Algerian President, and then President of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Abdelaziz Bouteflika, in addressing the UN General Assembly in 1999, advocated the value of sovereignty as “our final defense against the rules of an unjust world”
Former Secretary of State and realist scholar, Henry Kissinger lambasted British Prime Minister Tony Blair after the intervention in Kosovo for the “abrupt abandonment of the concept of national sovereignty”
Nelsen Mandela in 2000, saw military action in Kosovo as: “such disregard for international conventions was more dangerous to world peace than anything that was currently happening in Africa
The basic problem is that the individual is protected by intervention whereas the state in protected by territorial sovereignty and non-intervention.
“the international community’s actual record of preventing and halting the mass killing of civilians is staggeringly poor”
The theoretical vacuum between non-intervention and moral responsibility to protect humanity at risk engulfs majority global crisis and thus Responsibility to Protect became the solution.
R2P can be metaphorically compared to a bridge that connects indeterminacy of intervention vs sovereignty. (Stahn, 2007 )
R2P and practical successes
In Kenya after the presidential elections in 2007, the violence outbroke with the killing of 1000 people and displacement of 250,000. Frances Deng, through the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG) used R2P to charge political leaders who are inciting violence. As a result, the inflammatory speech and hate comments were banned and it reduced considerable amount of human sufferings.
Libya is another watermark example for R2P is where Kadaffi’s regime was thrown out not only by his death but also by successful international mobilization and application of humanitarian principles. At this moment it is worthy to note Jack Straw, as British Foreign Minister said: “if this new responsibility had been in place a decade ago, thousands in Srebrenica and Rwanda would have been saved”(Thakur, 2011)
R2P – Failure Stories
When declaring Responsibility to Protect through a UNSC resolution, it is extremely difficult to gain the consent or the support of all the nation states in unity especially the P5. In Resolution 1973 on Libya the most important international actors like India, Russia, China and Brazil chose to abstain rather than endorse the Resolution whereas the BRICS countries expressly stated their distrust in Responsibility to Protect.
The case of Darfur
When Darfur was in the need of humanitarian assistance, The R2P was explicitly declared by British Government, and the UNSC resolution condemning Khartoum. It was later realized by the international community that the key players of the international politics were unwilling to support humanitarian operations through providing necessary military troops. R2P does not expect consent from the targeted states and UNSC Resolution 1706 called “the consent for national unity” from international governments which was ended up as failure. Lee Feinstein articulates “If Darfur is the first ‘test case’ of the responsibility to protect there is no point in denying that the world has failed the entry exam”.
Although the Kenya sets an example of a successful R2P application, it was criticized that R2P used more as a “diplomatic tool than a catalyst for action”. Kenya’s act of dragging R2P into the territory without a clear-cut evidence of ethnic cleansing and only 700-800 confirmed deaths also questioned the threshold of the doctrine of responsibility of protect.
R2P failed to protect about 150,000 of people who were at a huge humanitarian risk in Sri Lanka at the final phases of war when the Government of Sri Lanka turned its defensive humanitarian operation into offensive. The intervention of international community was widely expected at the final moments of war and Crawshaw from Human Rights watch criticized it as points “there was a failure to address the Sri Lankan issue and that I think can be said to be indicative of where the gap between the words and reality is”.
In Mali, despite of three explicit UN Resolutions and the support of ECOWAS, the unilateral intervention of France was needed to proceed international assistance. As per the UN Commission on Inquiry, the government of Guinea committed crimes against humanity, yet the language of R2P was nowhere to be seen. In the case of DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), the UNSC failed to authorize intervention under the guise of Responsibility to Protect. Although troop expansions, mandate strengthening and greater assistance were given in DRC, the R2P had no practical impact.
The issue of Israel’s assault on Gaza was raised at the UNGA in 2009 and the citizens of Gaza were in need of R2P Solution. The failure to intervene reflected of a “selective application” and “double standards”.
Apart from the failed intervening moments on humanitarian grounds, the misappropriation created more confusions which leads back to the indeterminacy of intervention versus sovereignty. French intervention Myanmar upon the post-Nargis Cyclone rebuilding, Russia’s misinterpretation of R2P language to annex South Ossetia in which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the “proximity of the conflict makes it absolutely unavoidable to us to exercise responsibility to protect”, and Tony Blair’s use of R2P to invade Iraqin 2003 are some of the examples where the prism of R2P was misused. These incidents not only questioned the threshold of the doctrine but also invalidated the manifestation of the four mass crimes covered by the R2P.
The “age of strict national sovereignty” started to change slowly during 1990’s after some acts such as UN Resolution to authorize no fly-zone over Iraqi-Kurdistan under the justification of “right to intervene” and legitimatization of entering into the crisis zones such as Rwanda and Darfur under Genocide Convention. The establishment of ICTY and ICTR and evolving realm of human rights and human security always reconstructed the practices of sovereignty time to time. The slogans such as “its people’s sovereignty rather than sovereign’s sovereignty”, “sovereignty is also a responsibility” have started to articulate the international law. Thus, in the present context sovereignty is not a challenging ground to R2P as it is expected to be. The foremost and challenging barrier to responsibility to protect is the lack of moral and ethical will. This is explained by Alex Bellamy, the reason that humanitarian intervention was not successful pre-R2P was “the basic political fact that no state wanted to pay the price associated with saving strangers”. With absence of strict sovereignty concept, the scholars of international law acknowledged the need of a strong “political will” to back it up as Lee Feinstein observed in the World Summit. Aidan Hehir explains that “political will is the variable upon which the entire utility of R2P is now predicated”. The General Assembly 2009 recognized the need of “political will at the right time” and the co-chair of the ICISS report, Gerath Evans noted that “without the exercise of political will, by the relevant policy makers at the relevant time, almost none of the things for which this book has argues will actually happen”.
The failure of the doctrine during Rwandan Genocide was, according to Thakur, due to lack of “civic courage and collective consciences, UN inquiry pointed out “lack of resources and political commitment”, andICISS finally concluded as “a failure of international will”. Taking East Timor scenario into consideration, a senior diplomat and scholar in Jakarta described the unwillingness to intervene as “Indonesia matters and East Timor doesn’t and Aida Hehir commented “it was clear that no intervention would take place without Indonesia’s consent”. The Srebrenica massacre is another example where the Report of the Secretary-General 1999 commented that “the cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively….with the (requisite) political will”. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sri Lanka and North Korea are some of other examples where the international community lost consciences to intervene. Bernanrd- Henri Levy , an author in the Public Intellectuality commented of the fact that French Government was successful in the gist of R2P in Darfur, yet failed in other scenarios due to a single issue of “ the political will of one man, the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy” also raised a question “If Libya, then why not Bahrain, Yemen, or Syria?”. Leon Panetta, the Defense Secretary of United States viewed the failure of American Administration to intervene into Syria as “we learned a lot about how to confront al-Qaeda and its affiliated as a result of operation in Pakistan and Afghanistan…. we know how to do this”.
Responsibility to Protect: Weaknesses and Recommendations
Would R2P work as a regional protection?
Responsibility to protect fails mostly in the initial stage of its implementation by two reasons: 1. The United Nations Security Council fails to get the consent of the Permanent Members, 2. It may fail in the national level as the governments use the concept to achieve it’s national interests which would further lead to a development of a “neo-colonial state” that uses power to oppress citizens. (O’Donnell, 2014)Since R2P was formed on the basis of United Nations values and United Nations Charter authorizes the validity of regional arrangements in resolving conflicts, the new suggestion merged of implementing Responsibility to Protect as a regional arrangement. While having R2P implemented by Regional Organizations, the implementation would limit itself within its purposes and the there would be less infringement of state sovereignty. (Shen, 12th January 2000)
All the regional arrangements are agreed upon a certain Charter (a treaty or an agreement) that binds the member states and the rights to intervene or the theory of responsibility to protect can be included in such binding provision. In those circumstances, the ROs can intervene with the help of member states using either permanent troops and troops called upon member states. While using Responsibility to Protect through regional arrangements would stop the intervention of powerful states with geopolitical interests, spill over effect on developing and third world countries, serve with the bona fide intervention of protecting civilians from human rights violations. (Naomi Kikoler, September 2009 )Regional Organizations maintain strong economic, cultural, historic and political ties with the violating state and member states which would create a quicker response and most of the armed conflicts rise around regional level more than national and international level. It is also vital to note that incorporating R2P with Regional Organizations is just a logical choice that needs legal attention to be executed since some of the regional organizations are controlled by the hegemonic powerful states within it especially when the RO is a continent spanning (Example: African Union). (Rosenperg, 2009 )
UN Charter’s Article 2 strict prohibition against use of force can be made favorable to responsibility to protect applying two arguments: a sovereign state can limit its sovereignty by entering into multi-lateral treaties and the interpretation of the language of the UN Charter itself. When it comes to the sovereignty issue foremost requirement to overcome the national sovereignty problem is that the R2P must be squared with UN Charter’s recognition for the “sovereign equality of all its Members” and UN Charter’s prohibition against “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. (Orford, February 2011 )The dilemma fails to understand how a state can fundamentally establish its own right to limit its sovereignty through ratifying treaties and other international obligations. The UN Charter can be taken as a simple example and further the R2P is a pre-requisite for a statehood as per the Montevideo Convention expects nation-states to have the capacity to enter into relations with other states to earn legal recognition in the international law. The ICISS reports points out “external sovereignty” (respecting other states) is only applicable for the states which fulfill the obligations come under the “internal sovereignty” (the primary obligation includes protection of civilians within the territory). According to Crossly, the concept of “equal sovereignty” in international customary law for the states who misuse their “internal sovereignty”. (Henrikson, 1996)
The Article 2 of the UN Charter is ambiguous, not only restricts the application of responsibility to protect concept but also challenges the practicability of Regional Organizations utilizing this international law norm. Article 53 of the Charter emphasizes that Regional Organizations are not authorized to “enforce actions” without the UNSC Resolution. Article 24 is vested with promoting international peace and security and thus Article 54 expects the ROs to support for peace and security arrangements within the regional level. (Zifcak, 2011) Further, ROs are given secondary authority to deal with peace and security conflicts within the region, next to International Organizations and International Treaty Law. This freedom can be misused and the most practical example is NATO’s intervention in Kosovo which was criticized by the international society as it lacked humanitarian purpose. Therefore, it is important the ROs’ founding Charter should include the clauses of R2P which are justified validly by Member States before incorporating. (Cuéllar, 2004)
The most recent practical example of how Regional Organizations can be effectively utilized to tackle down the internal conflict of a region under the concept of Responsibility to Protect. When Boko Haram Insurgency started threatening the political integrity of Nigeria and the Member States, the African Union initiated multiple actions against terrorist including creation of “Multinational Joint Task Force”, without any approval from UN Security Council. Instead of waiting for Security Council’s approval, having known to the background of the Nigerian integrity and the situations of the neighbor states, African Union used Responsibility to Protect as an effective counter-terrorism strategy to defeat Boko Haram. (Brechenmacher, 2019 May )
Responsibility to Protect is an obligation of internationality based on humanitarian concern of preventing mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations. Adapting to some theoretical and practical challenges can not only strengthen the implementation of the norm but also fill the already existing loopholes found in the application of the norm. The changes include incorporating of Regional Organizations as players of intervention overlapping the R2P concept, making structural changes in the United Nations Security Council methodology and stressing out the fact the R2P should carry a legally binding role in the international customary law although it is not passed through a legally binding treaty.
The New High Seas Treaty: Takeaways and answering the hard questions
On 04 March, Rena Lee, President of the UN Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), announced that “the ship has reached the shore,” referring to the last compromise and successfully negotiated to stumble block of this historic treaty, which marked the apogee of over two decades of negotiations to protect the ample internationally ungoverned space of the ocean. The last time the countries came together to gather political will during geopolitical tensions to protect biodiversity was on 01 December 1959 during the cold war to declare Antarctica a place for peace and science.
The draft agreement of the ‘The New High Seas Treaty’ emphasises the need to address the planet’s largest unregulated biosphere for the sustainable use of resources and biodiversity protection. It covers the expansive portion of the ocean beyond national boundaries and will provide a legal framework for designating vast marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect against marine life degradation and sharing of resources. It is necessary to identify, monitor and regulate vulnerable areas to address the commitment of protecting 30 Percent by 2030 endorsed by COP 15 in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022. Exit options and other unique provisions for the Arctic or China Sea and other geopolitically tense areas are also mentioned to avoid disagreements and conflicts within the agreement.
The stumbling block of this treaty was how to appropriately share marine genetic resources (MGR) and wealth, which separated the Global South and North. Due to their potential for application in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, MGR, which are made up of the genetic material of bacteria, corals, krill, seaweed, and deep-sea marine sponges, are gaining more scientific and commercial interest.
The agreement is legally binding and establishes a new global authority for the high seas, complete with an executive body called “COP,” a secretariat, and a scientific council. It is based on certain principles and approaches like the polluter-pays principle, the principle of the common heritage of humankind, the freedom of marine scientific research, and other freedoms of the high seas.
In addition, an approach for maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity, including the carbon cycling functions that support the ocean’s role in climate while also increasing ecosystems’ resilience, is practiced. Signatories are also tasked with conducting environmental impact assessments before exploitation, exchanging marine technology with other littoral states, and monitoring the space for other threats.
What are the High Seas and the threats present on them?
States currently govern up to only 200 nautical miles of seas from their coasts, delineated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But beyond the nautical boundaries are the high seas, which only one percent are protected. States have access to freedoms, including the right to overfly, navigate, and install underwater cables. The high seas cannot be the subject of any claims to sovereignty. Once expressed as desolate, it is now considered a treasury of rich biodiversity and marine resources. However, they are being exploited by technological advances enabling them to deplete fisheries and seabed minerals. Deep-sea ecosystems may change or be destroyed by machine-aided excavation and gauging of the ocean bottom. As a result, there will be a loss of species in addition to fragmentation or loss of the structure and functionality of the ecosystem.
Increasing cargo ship transportation and their Bilge Dumping practices also threaten the open ocean. Bilgewater, which gathers in the bottom of a ship, is a mixture of fluids from the engine room and other potentially harmful materials like lubricants, cleaning agents, and metals like lead and arsenic. It is expensive to process this oily effluent, whether by treating it to eliminate contaminants or by discharging it at the port. Some ships simply dump it into the ocean with portable pumps, which can be a significant hazard to marine life, to save operational expenses.
Another threat in the high seas is the Great garbage patch, which carries and culminates tonnes of plastic debris released through river exits. They are carried and formed by ocean currents and “gyres.” There are five gyres in the ocean. One in the Indian Ocean, two in the Atlantic Ocean, and two in the Pacific Ocean. Garbage patches of differing sizes are located in each gyre. Cleaning up these garbage heaps and systematically disposing of them is a heinous task.
In addition, Climate change is heating the oceans, which may result in a mass extinction of marine life like the Permian Extinction experienced 250 million years ago, which extinguished 90 percent of marine species. The oceans have mitigated the worst of climate change by absorbing 90 percent of the heat caused by global warming and providing us with 50 percent of the oxygen.
What are the existing treaties on High Seas, and what are their issues?
About 20 international organisations oversee human activity in the high seas in accordance with UNCLOS, although their authority is constrained. In the shipping industry, for instance, the International Maritime Organization is in charge of safety and pollution control, whereas regional fisheries management organisations are in charge of particular fish populations. Yet, a lot of marine species migrate and regularly switch between various environments into the wild ocean which are unprotected from human activities.
The International Seabed Treaty is less concerned with conserving the environment and more interested in advancing the ultimate extraction of valuable mineral accretions from the seabed. Exploratory mining licences have never been denied. The contracting entity does environmental impact assessments; they are not independently verified and investigated. The ISA dismisses the worries of environmental groups like Greenpeace about defending the seabed from similar mining in the future or from the several very detrimental environmental side effects that would be involved.
What does the treaty pose to International Security?
First, an increased presence of private players. The implementation process of the treaty will see an increased presence of private maritime players as the agreement does not apply to the Navy warships. However, they are expected to behave reasonably with the agreement. Ocean conservation is currently led by non-governmental organisations funded by philanthropists, bureaucrats, and governments.
Second, increased monitoring and surveillance. To assess environmental impacts, monitor and traffic control ships, and provide constant surveillance over an expansive area will require advanced remote sensing and imaging technologies. There will be a need for marine spatial analysis and planning to track human activities and the ecosystem. New marine technologies must be exchanged between the developing and developed states to explore the deep ocean and seabed’s for research and exploitation. Increased monitoring will be a critical challenge for the littoral states to move their submarines in stealth and secrecy.
Third, potential for new marine resource-induced conflict. Though the agreement states that the marine samples and genetic coding will be shared, it does not mention who can further exploit the resources and with whom it shares. Does it share with the states involved in the exploration or those proximate to the resource.? Here, Global North faces the question of the free-riding problem and whom to free-ride its services.
Political Philosophy: An Attribute of a Superpower
In the modern science of international relations, defining the essential features of modern superpowers has remained a bone of contention. What makes a true superpower stand above the rest? Is there a universal set of traits that distinguishes a few leaders from many outsiders? Until now, the key criteria for a “superpower” have mainly been considered by scholars in a material way.
A superpower must have economic potential that far exceeds that of other countries, military power, critical technologies, a developed scientific and industrial base, and human capital. The totality of such material opportunities provides measurable, albeit not controversial, criteria for ranking countries. The situation with non-material factors is much more complicated. Their quantitative measurement is difficult, if not impossible. Their assessment is too subjective and potentially vulnerable to distortion. Whose culture is stronger? Whose ethics are correct? Whose value system is better? Such questions lead to value-oriented disputes, but do little to distinguish the superpowers from other players in the international arena. Meanwhile, this is where one of the most important criteria lies.
We can suggest that a noticeable difference between a superpower and other states, along with the superiority of material factors, is the presence of a systemic and consistent political philosophy of international relations. The superpower offers its own unique view of how exactly the world should be arranged, according to what rules it should exist, what its goal is, and why this particular superpower is legitimate in its role. Moreover, political philosophy is neither a set of slogans and clichés, nor a pretty wrapper or simulation. It is neither an ideology nor a utopia. All of the above may be derived from political philosophy, but not exhaust its content. We are talking about a special interpretation of key political concepts in relation to international relations—power, authority, justice, equality, etc. Such an interpretation should be based on a deep intellectual tradition and one’s own practical experience, which make the arguments of the proposed political-philosophical doctrine convincing both for oneself and for others.
Can a country represent a value only due to material factors? Undoubtedly. Ultimately, the state can concentrate significant power and live exclusively in accordance with the principles of realism, pursue a pragmatic policy, advance its material interests, and achieve dominance where possible. However, bare realism will sooner or later mark the boundaries of legitimacy. The dominance of the bayonet and the purse strings will have shaky ground without a clear understanding of why and for what it exists.
Can a country broadcast an influential political philosophy while lagging behind materially? Also definitely. At a certain moment, it can be a model of stoicism or heroism, a carrier of innovative and attractive ideas. But without a material base, there is a risk that these will just remain hot air, remaining good wishes alone.
It is noteworthy that there are surprisingly few countries that have material power and at the same time have their own political philosophy. It would seem that creating a political-philosophical doctrine is much easier than designing a missile or a nuclear bomb. One can unite “smart people”, edit the results of their “brainstorming”, write basic works, and make manuals for propagandists—that’s all. In fact, many of these creations crumble and get lost in the information noise. There are single copies in the hands of single carriers—the same superpowers.
Does the political philosophy of a superpower need to be “sovereign”? Should it be based only on the nation’s intellectual tradition? Certainly not. It is extremely difficult to find exceptionally original political and philosophical doctrines with global influence. As a rule, we are talking about a mixture of universal ethical principles, categories of such major political and philosophical doctrines as liberalism, socialism or conservatism, nationally specific views and principles, and even religious doctrines such as Christianity or Islam.
In the modern world, only two countries can be distinguished which combine both significant material potential and their own political philosophy: the US and China.
The politico-philosophical core of the United States is well known and widely replicated at all levels, from university essays and textbooks to propaganda videos and social media posts. It is based on liberal principles with their appeal to the supremacy of the human mind, the idea of “negative freedom”, justice as fairness, equality of opportunity within the framework of uniform rules, as well as the ideas of democracy derived from them as the optimal form of government and the market as a means of organizing the economy. This political and philosophical code is a product of the European enlightenment and the specific experience of organising the internal life of European countries, which was embodied on the basis of American political experience and multiplied by their material strength. The European roots of US political philosophy have allowed it to easily take root in the soil of numerous Western countries, although in some places it contradicts individual interpretations “on the ground”. It is also important that there is a powerful modernist potential in such a political philosophy. The political philosophy of the United States and the modern West in general is a philosophy of emancipation, liberation and reason-based progress.
The political-philosophical core of the People’s Republic of China is much less well known, simply because Beijing has not strived to actively promote it abroad. The political philosophy of China has long remained largely nationally oriented. However, it has a systemic and deeply reflected character, which yields a high potential outside the PRC. It is based on a view of international relations as a non-zero sum game, the idea of the collectivity of international relations, and a departure from rivalry as the leitmotif of world politics. Modern Chinese political philosophy’s powerful Marxist element gives it a modernist potential, combined with the experience of solving the key problems of China itself. It combines the ideas of people’s democracy with successful experience in solving the problem of poverty, overcoming backwardness, and reducing the sharpness of social inequality. In the modern world, China appears as a country whose ideas have been tested in practice. Yes, many successes have been made possible by integration into the Western-centric global economy. But here, too, China pursues its own philosophical line—a non-zero sum game, borrowing Western experience and combining it with Chinese traditions. Marxism is one example of a Western doctrine which China has used to its advantage.
Will there be a clash between American and Chinese political philosophies? Most likely, yes, because China is increasingly perceived in the US as a long-term threat. China avoids copying and mirroring the American allegations against itself by promoting the idea of a non-zero-sum game and thereby turning its political philosophy into an even more visible alternative. One can argue for a long time about what is primary in the contradictions of the powers—material factors or ideas? Obviously, if necessary, differences of ideas can be used for political mobilisation and the consolidation of allies. The more systematic such ideas are, the easier it is to draw dividing lines.
Are the political philosophies of the US and China self-sufficient for them? No. Both the US and China combine their political philosophies with the principles of realism. Like many other players, they proceed from the risk of worst-case scenarios and prepare for them, accumulating resources for mutual deterrence. However, political philosophy allows you to maintain the global legitimacy of your influence or to claim it.
Does Russia have its own political philosophy? The answer so far is rather negative. Russia has returned in its foreign policy to the principles of realism, which was already an achievement for its time. But it is too early to talk about a systemic and deeply developed political philosophy. There is a set of still-fuzzy, sometimes contradictory ideas and concepts, as well as their interpretations and slogans derived from them. The system of Russian views clearly lacks modernist potential. The question of whether it is necessary in itself can be a matter of debate, but it is clearly built into the system of views of the United States, China and smaller powers. Russia has recent experience in the collapse and loss of its political and philosophical project, which began long before the collapse of the USSR. Perhaps it is the Soviet experience that continues to yield a persistent and unconscious allergy to political philosophy. It is also possible that both the US and China, at some point, will also face the same problem that the Soviet Union experienced—the separation of their doctrine from the real state of affairs. Perhaps, a lack of political philosophy is now Russia’s advantage. Russia will develop its own unique experience, which will allow it to avoid the mechanical copying of other people’s ideas, mixing them in its own practice. The maturation of political philosophy takes time, as does the cultivation of its material base.
From our partner RIAC
Learning Multilateralism on Obama’s National Space Policy
In June 2010, Obama’s new National Space Policy (NSP) emphasizes a broad continuity between its main goals and the overarching themes originally developed by the Eisenhower administration, such as the use of space and strengthening space stability. Other goals evolved directly from original U.S. space policy goals, including expanding international cooperation, nurturing U.S. space industry, and enhancing the assurance and resilience of mission-critical functions enabled by commercial, civil, scientific and national spacecraft and supporting them infrastructure. Thus, National Space Policy of U.S and also National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) of U.S is seeking to emphasizes international cooperation through its pillars and also point from policy
Five Pillars of National Security Space Strategy of U.S
The National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) provides a roadmap for the implementation of US space policy and the achievement of U.S space objectives. It consists of five basic principles or pillars that prescribe the framework.
Promote the Responsible, Peaceful and Safe Use of Space
The NSSS first pillar calls on the United States “to lead in improving security, stability and responsible spatial behavior” and to develop transparency and confidence-building measures that “encourage responsible spatial action and peaceful use”. As stated in the National Space Policy, there are specific steps that include national and international actions that aim to promote safe and responsible spatial operations, improve information collection and sharing, which is to prevent collisions between spatial objects, protect critical spatial systems and infrastructure support, with special emphasis on critical interdependence and reinforcement of space and information systems.
Provide improved U.S Space Capabilities
The NSS second pillar calls on the U.S. to improve space capabilities and energize the U.S. industrial space base. In addition, the existence of a strong industrial base and staff support is also one of the U.S. country’s best insurance policies, in the strategic, operational, economic and technological fields referred to in the new defense strategy.
Partnering with Responsible Nations, International Organizations, and Commercial Firms
The third pillar calls for greater involvement and partnership with other space-based countries, relevant international organizations and business actors. To guard the third pillar in US Space Policy and ready to face future strategic circumstances, the US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is one of the main organizations responsible for safeguarding these benefits in the face of changing strategic circumstances and the US uses the National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) as means to maintain this benefit. Meanwhile, there is a specific geographical responsibility area (AOR) that is not assigned to USSTRATCOM. So that the responsibility is only limited to below sea level, which is used as a place for strategic U.S. submarines operating, up to 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.
United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) engage actively in this pillar and have signed more than 29 agreements with several business entities that were then used to share situational awareness with many selected information partners. Recently, U.S. country in this case it has been authorized to negotiate similar agreements with non-U.S. government agencies and intergovernmental organizations, to work with space actors who are supposed to be responsible for the process of sharing and exchanging space flight information security. Also, USSTRATCOM actively seeks further partners, in particular those with whom little or no previous commitment has been made. State U.S. has also partnered with old friends and allied countries such as Australia, Canada, Britain and other NATO allies who are always involved with them. Moreover, this is done while looking for new opportunities to work with potential partners in Europe, the Asia Pacific, Latin America, South America, the Middle East and Africa.
Prevent and Deter Against U.S Space Infrastructure
U.S. space infrastructure basically an U.S. component vital. This is seen in how U.S. want to protect this asset. Space defense also certainly requires a full understanding of the operating environment, which allows U.S. warnings. to be recognized and effective protection of U.S. assets, provide resilience, and use alternatives when challenged. This fourth NSSS pillar, which is “preventing and deterring U.S. space infrastructure,” includes operations to gain and understand the location, activities, ownership and purposes of space-based objects. In point of Prevent and deter against U.S space infrastructure mentioned about international cooperation; the point is;
“Sensitivity to space situations (SSA) enables all our operational activities. An important way to increase SSA’s capacity and capacity would be to expand partnerships and increase international cooperation. To this end, we want to transform California’s Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) into a Combined Space Operations Center (CSpOC).”– U.S Department of Defense
Initially, such a step would enable us to influence individual strengths in full cooperation with U.S closest partners and, in accordance with national policies, provide a framework and environment that might help meet the needs of common space security. In addition, such a transition would conform to the mandate of the NSSS “build coalitions of like-minded nations that share space”.This partnership would allow the U.S. to act in a coordinated manner, synchronize U.S. efforts and promote responsible spatial behavior with these partners to ensure long-term spatial sustainability.
Prepare to Defeat Attacks and Operated in a Degraded Environment
The final pillar of the NSSS calls on the United States to prepare to defeat space attacks and operate in a degraded environment. This approach will generally always include activities to provide critical space capabilities for U.S. missions. and coalition forces. Besides that, it is also used to ensure the success of the mission through architecture and alternative means, even if necessary, under all conditions of conflict and pressure.
The guarantee mission includes the need to maintain and protect the capabilities of the US critical space itself, US allies and partner countries, and also to improve the resilience of critical space systems, increase the use of alternative means and resources to secure the space mission, not to mention the ability to operate in a stressed environment if and when the capacity is degraded.
Several successive U.S. administrations have sought to maintain the leadership of the country in the field since the United States entered space. There’s no exception to the Obama administration. It openly emphasizes efforts to strengthen U.S. in its National Security Space Strategy and National Space Policy. Leadership in outer space in particular. These efforts include reassuring U.S. allies ‘ commitment to collective self-defence in space-related forums and activities; promoting regulations and encouraging interoperability within these regulations; promoting security, stability and responsible space behaviour, facilitating new market opportunities for U.S. commercial space capabilities and services, advancing appropriate risk-sharing amounts.
Recall Multilateralism from Obama’s Space Policy
The Obama administration incorporates multilateralism into one of the policy’s six major objectives, the policy’s goals of expanding international cooperation on mutually beneficial space activities are mentioned. The space policy of Obama will make U.S. space policy more conducive to multilateral space efforts. In its National Security Space Strategy and National Space Policy, the U.S. adopted the National Security Strategy, which aims to maintain and enhance the benefits of U.S. space advertising capabilities resulting from national security. The NSSS set specific goals for enhancing security, stability, to accomplish the tasks assigned by the NSSP. And space security; maintaining and enhancing strategic space-based national security; maintaining and enhancing the US’s strategic space-based national security benefits; and energizing the space-based industrial base that supports US national security.
Obama’s new National Space Policy (NSP) highlights a broad continuity between its main goals and the overarching themes originally developed by the Eisenhower administration, such as the use of space and enhancing space stability. Obama still wishes to emphasize international cooperation, which can be seen under the heading. “Space operations should be conducted in ways that emphasize openness and transparency in order to increase public awareness of activities” and, “All nations have the right to explore and use space for peaceful purposes under the NSP Principles and the other side mentioned in the NSP Goals, which is Support International Cooperation”.
At this stage, the National Space Policy and National Security Space Strategy during Obama administration indirectly also applied the Multilateralism. This can be seen in policies that emphasize and invite to conduct international cooperation in space matters. For example, are, Obama fully supported the life of NASA through increased funding budget to NASA through NASA authorization act 2010 and U.S was hosted the International Space Station (ISS) Multilateral Coordination Board Joint Statement 2010 and also Obama through U.S NSP and NSSS implement multilateralism efforts towards Global Positioning System (GPS) Cooperation.
This is stated in the National Space Policy and National Security Space Strategy of U.S issued during Obama administration. One of the most obvious instances of U.S. international cooperation for peaceful space purposes is demonstrated by the International Space Station (ISS). Aboard the ISS, 15 countries cooperate, sharing international flight crew, several globally distributed launch vehicles, operations, training, engineering and development facilities. In addition, communication, the Global Positioning System (GPS) Cooperation, and the ISS Multilateral Coordination Board.
The approach taken by President Obama is very different from his predecessor. He was aggressive with space policy by issuing the 2010 United States of America’s National Space Policy and the 2011 Strategy for National Security Space. President Obama spoke about the contributions of civil and commercial space capabilities in his space policy. The US has also committed to encouraging and facilitating the growth of the US commercial space sector that supports the country’s domestic needs. Thus, the space success heritage and its transformation also pose new challenges. The possibilities of using space were limited to just a few nations when the space age began and there were limited consequences for irresponsible or unintended behavior.
Lastly, Obama also abandoned the unilateralism of Bush and pursue/emphasizing multilateralism would be given top priority in dealing with international affair. Platform of multilateralism efforts during Obama period are concentrate in joint scientific and research program. To support joint scientific and research program in space, Obama make decision to extend the life of U.S on International Space Station in order to giving more U.S contribution and offer transparency scientific research program at International Space Station (ISS) and the decision of Obama based on writer perspective change U.S view in term of space towards more opened transparency and cooperation among other states. Even though, U.S still want to be leader in space, at least this multilateralism effort which mentioned by Obama on his speech and also each point of NSSS and NSP can bring a new perspective about U.S in space.
A liveable future for all is possible, if we take urgent climate action
A major UN “report of reports” from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), outlines the many options that...
Pre-Hung & Slab Doors: Comparison Guide
When it comes to choosing a door, there are plenty of things to consider, starting with matching the style correctly...
Global Times: Xi’s visit to Russia conveys great significance, injects certainty and positive energy
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Moscow is expected to attract global attention as the visit – the first...
Untouchable U.S. troops in Lithuania
This month the Pentagon has been accused of blocking the sharing of U.S. intelligence with the international criminal court (ICC)....
Blue Economy and its potential in Pakistan
Blue economy refers to the sustainable use and management of ocean and coastal resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and...
The Ukraine War and Great Power Competition
The term Great Power competition (GPC) can be used as a framework to analyze interstate relations, such as those between...
International Conference Strengthens Multifaceted Relations between Russia and Africa
The International Parliamentary conference ‘Russia-Africa’ held on 19-20 March has, at least, focused on complexities and contradictions of the emerging...
Energy3 days ago
The Maneuvering Of Gas Commodities As Securitization Of Russia’s Geopolitical Position
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Indonesia’s ASEAN chairmanship 2023 plays a pivotal roles on ASEAN Power Grid repercussions
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
Break from the Crowds this Spring and Escape to these Family‑Friendly Destinations
Southeast Asia4 days ago
AUKUS and the U.S. Integrated Deterrence Approach
Defense4 days ago
Indian Conventional and Strategic Arms Buildup: Implications for Pakistan
East Asia4 days ago
Chinese MFA Report 2023: American hegemony and its risks around the world
Defense4 days ago
The audacious AUKUS submarine deal and Asia’s changing security landscape
Economy3 days ago
Xi Jinping and the implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy in China