The international politics has entered a peculiar stage. The United States of America is no more claiming the leadership of liberal order it has historically built, maintained and promoted. It is retreating from the stage of world politics while at the same time adopting a confrontational attitude. The furtherance of this rule-based liberal order, envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and modified by Franklin D. Roosevelt, is no more a kernel of America foreign policy. The whole Cold-war was a struggle to make liberal international order—defined by promotion of democracy, free trade, human rights, institutionalism and where rule and not power is the currency—a general accepted norm of international politics. For the purpose the democratic America, during four decades of Cold-war, even supported authoritarian regimes and toppled various democratic governments in order to champion this liberal order. The irony of fate: a realpolitik was exercised by a democratic state to spread a liberal order that altogether is antithesis of realpolitik. Was it a realpolitik against realpolitik or for liberal order? The question aside, the struggle for this liberal order was further intensified during post-Cold war era. But now the actions of president Trump of America has clearly indicates a break. The songs of liberal order is no more appealing to American ears.
The actions of Trump, it is clear, conflict with liberal ethos. He turned against World Health Organization during the health emergency caused by Covid-19. The sanctioning of employees of International Criminal Court by President Trump is previous week story. He has no taste for romance with European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He has put question marks on liberal values such as free trade, human rights and democracy. He abhors media. And altogether his disdain for costly leadership role is clear by retreating from Middle East and Afghanistan without clearing mess American helped created.
Things are crystal clear. America in deep uncertainty is turning inward. This deep uncertainty defines its foreign policy. For the first time in its existence, if agreement is made with former prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, America does not have a grand strategy to deal with happenings of international politics. It certainly has an attitude but a grand strategy? Similarly, there is deep division in Washington about immediate questions: the question of Iran and North Korea, the dealing with Russia and the most gigantic strategic competitor China. It must be remembered that these four states were identified by Trump’s National Security Strategy of 2017 as the most serious challenges and strategic competitors. Particularly about China, Washington oscillates between followers of semi-containment and advocates of full blown containment. This is the biggest question and certainly American response to it will define the contour of future of international politics: how to respond to the rise of China. Thus, how to deal with emerging powers for the large part has occupied American thinking.
But the emerging powers, as popular wisdom argues, are not revisionist powers. They have risen in the same setting of liberal world order. These rising power would not want to dent the existing setting. It is this existing setting of international politics that is conducive to their growth. However, with the increase of power, the interests of states also grow. It is certainly clear that these rising powers will demand a right place under the sun. They will ask and attempt to modify rules of international politics in accordance with their interests. Monopoly of institutions by few Euro-Atlantic powers would be hard to fathom by them. If their demands are responded with indifference, it is fear that their growing sense of frustration would only accelerates.
Therefore, reason demands that American must no respond with retreat for confrontational politics if rising powers ask for their due share in the leadership of international politics. Such a retreat would be counterproductive not only on the part of America but to world at large. Moreover, turning inward would create a vacuum on the stage of world politics. The sudden disappearance of driver from the seat of international politics would itself be tantamount to crisis. Other players will, in the absence of other choice, step in to fill the vacuum. Similarly, America in its retreat from liberal order must not adopt a confrontational attitude, particularly towards China. Both these powerful states have deep engagements with various states across the world. The binary situation would be generated for all these states if a cold-war type confrontation begins. Furthermore, a cold-war confrontation in the deep engagement and non-traditional security threats of climate change and cyberwarfare would be nothing but a slow suicide. The rising non-traditional security threats demand a genuine cooperation. These threat do not discriminate, as epitomized by Covid-19, between a liberal country and an illiberal state. The fact must be get right: ‘there is no national response to poverty and inequality, the degradation of the environment, the depletion of the earth and the oceans, the migration crisis’.
What should be done ? Inclusivity, strengthening of existing institutions, recognizing the limits of American engagement, restraint while at the same time respecting the security of other states and sharing the burden of world leadership—these should be the defining policy element of Trans-Atlantic status quo. The existing order and institutions must engage and include the emerging powers in decision-making process. The United States must abandon the dictatorial attitude and must not overreach by taking unnecessary engagements. Such engagements breed frustrations and compel a state to turn inward after futile exercises. The views of John Bolton-like and Tom Cotton-like personalities should be discouraged. At the same time the genuine security interests of other states should be taken into consideration before formulating any policy. Policy after all is form in mutual process. And the status quo must realize that it cannot simultaneously take multiple engagements. The emerging powers by sharing the burden of leadership would take responsibility for order, stability and ensure non-traditional security. To conclude, the sincere exercise of these policy elements, albeit sound the cry of idealism, is not a choice but a practical necessity.
Hardened US and Iranian positions question efficacy of parties’ negotiating tactics
The United States and Iran seem to be hardening their positions in advance of a resumption of negotiations to revive a 2015 international nuclear agreement once Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisi takes office in early August.
Concern among supporters of the agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program which former US President Donald J. Trump abandoned in 2018 may be premature but do raise questions about the efficacy of the negotiating tactics of both parties.
These tactics include the Biden administration’s framing of the negotiations exclusively in terms of the concerns of the West and its Middle Eastern allies rather than also as they relate to Iranian fears, a failure by both the United States and Iran to acknowledge that lifting sanctions is a complex process that needs to be taken into account in negotiations, and an Iranian refusal to clarify on what terms the Islamic republic may be willing to discuss non-nuclear issues once the nuclear agreement has been revived.
The differences in the negotiations between the United States and Iran are likely to be accentuated if and when the talks resume, particularly concerning the mechanics of lifting sanctions.
“The challenges facing the JCPOA negotiations are a really important example of how a failed experience of sanctions relief, as we had in Iran between the Obama and Trump admins, can cast a shadow over diplomacy for years to come, making it harder to secure US interests,” said Iran analyst Esfandyar Batmanghelidj referring to the nuclear accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, by its initials.
The Biden administration may be heeding Mr. Batmangheldij’s notion that crafting sanctions needs to take into account the fact that lifting them can be as difficult as imposing them as it considers more targeted additional punitive measures against Iran. Those measures would aim to hamper Iran’s evolving capabilities for precision strikes using drones and guided missiles by focusing on the providers of parts for those weapon systems, particularly engines and microelectronics.
To be sure, there is no discernable appetite in either Washington or Tehran to adjust negotiation tactics and amend their underlying assumptions. It would constitute a gargantuan, if not impossible challenge given the political environment in both capitals. That was reflected in recent days in Iranian and US statements.
Iranian Spiritual Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested that agreement on the revival of the nuclear accord was stumbling over a US demand that it goes beyond the terms of the original accord by linking it to an Iranian willingness to discuss its ballistic missiles program and support for Arab proxies.
In a speech to the cabinet of outgoing President Hassan Rouhani, he asserted that the West “will try to hit us everywhere they can and if they don’t hit us in some place, it’s because they can’t… On paper and in their promises, they say they’ll remove sanctions. But they haven’t lifted them and won’t lift them. They impose conditions…to say in future Iran violated the agreement and there is no agreement” if Iran refuses to discuss regional issues or ballistic missiles.
Iranian officials insist that nothing can be discussed at this stage but a return by both countries to the nuclear accord as is. Officials, distrustful of US intentions, have hinted that an unconditional and verified return to the status quo ante may help open the door to talks on missiles and proxies provided this would involve not only Iranian actions and programs but also those of America’s allies.
Mr. Khamenei’s remarks seemed to bolster suggestions that once in office Mr. Raisi would seek to turn the table on the Biden administration by insisting on stricter verification and US implementation of its part of a revived agreement.
To achieve this, Iran is expected to demand the lifting of all rather than some sanctions imposed or extended by the Trump administration; verification of the lifting; guarantees that the lifting of sanctions is irreversible, possibly by making any future American withdrawal from the deal contingent on approval by the United Nations Security Council; and iron-clad provisions to ensure that obstacles to Iranian trade are removed, including the country’s unfettered access to the international financial system and the country’s overseas accounts.
Mr. Khamenei’s remarks and Mr. Raisi’s anticipated harder line was echoed in warnings by US officials that the ascendancy of the new president would not get Iran a better deal. The officials cautioned further that there could be a point soon at which it would no longer be worth returning to because Iran’s nuclear program would have advanced to the point where the limitations imposed by the agreement wouldn’t produce the intended minimum one year ‘breakout time’ to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb.
“We are committed to diplomacy, but this process cannot go on indefinitely. At some point, the gains achieved by the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) cannot be fully recovered by a return to the JCPOA if Iran continues the activities that it’s undertaken with regard to its nuclear program…The ball remains in Iran’s court, and we will see if they’re prepared to make the decisions necessary to come back into compliance,” US Secretary Antony Blinken said this week on a visit to Kuwait.
Another US official suggested that the United States and Iran could descend into a tug-of-war on who has the longer breath and who blinks first. It’s a war that so far has not produced expected results for the United States and in which Iran has paid a heavy price for standing its ground.
The official said that a breakdown in talks could “look a lot like the dual-track strategy of the past—sanctions pressure, other forms of pressure, and a persistent offer of negotiations. It will be a question of how long it takes the Iranians to come to the idea they will not wait us out.”
Wendy Sherman’s China visit takes a terrible for the US turn
US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had high hopes for the meeting in China. At first, the Chinese side did not agree to hold the meeting at all. The reaction had obvious reasons: Antony Blinken’s fiasco in Alaska left the Chinese disrespected and visibly irritated. This is not why they travelled all the way.
So then the State Department had the idea of sending Wendy Sherman instead. The US government actually needs China more than China needs the US. Sherman was in China to actually prepare the ground for Biden and a meeting between the two presidents, expecting a red carpet roll for Biden as if it’s still the 2000s — the time when it didn’t matter how the US behaved. Things did not go as expected.
Instead of red carpet talk, Sherman heard Dua Lipa’s “I got new rules”.
That’s right — the Chinese side outlined three bottom lines warning the US to respect its system, development and sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, China wants to be left alone.
The bottom lines were not phrased as red lines. This was not a military conflict warning. This was China’s message that if any future dialogue was to take place, China needs to be left alone. China accused the US of creating an “imaginary enemy”. I have written about it before — the US is looking for a new Cold War but it doesn’t know how to start and the problem is that the other side actually holds all the cards.
That’s why the US relies on good old militarism with an expansion into the Indo-Pacific, while aligning everyone against China but expecting the red carpet and wanting all else in the financial and economic domains to stay the same. The problem is that the US can no longer sell this because there are no buyers. Europeans also don’t want to play along.
The headlines on the meeting in the US press are less flattering than usual. If the US is serious about China policy it has to be prepared to listen to much more of that in the future. And perhaps to, yes, sit down and be humble.
Why Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer
When Sarah Huckabee Sanders showed up on the scene as White House Press Secretary, the reaction was that of relief. Finally — someone civil, normal, friendly. Jen Psaki’s entry this year was something similar. People were ready for someone well-spoken, well-mannered, even friendly as a much welcome change from the string of liars, brutes or simply disoriented people that the Trump Administration seemed to be lining up the press and communications team with on a rolling basis. After all, if the face of the White House couldn’t keep it together for at least five minutes in public, what did that say about the overall state of the White House behind the scenes?
But Psaki’s style is not what the American media and public perceive it to be. Her style is almost undetectable to the general American public to the point that it could look friendly and honest to the untrained eye or ear. Diplomatic or international organization circles are perhaps better suited to catch what’s behind the general mannerism. Jen Psaki is a well-masked Sean Spicer, but a Sean Spicer nevertheless. I actually think she will do much better than him in Dancing With The Stars. No, in fact, she will be fabulous at Dancing With The Stars once she gets replaced as White House Press Secretary.
So let’s take a closer look. I think what remains undetected by the general American media is veiled aggression and can easily pass as friendliness. Psaki recently asked a reporter who was inquiring about the Covid statistics at the White House why the reporter needed that information because Psaki simply didn’t have that. Behind the brisk tone was another undertone: the White House can’t be questioned, we are off limits. But it is not and that’s the point.
Earlier, right at the beginning in January, Psaki initially gave a pass to a member of her team when the Politico stunner reporter story broke out. The reporter was questioning conflict of interest matters, while the White House “stud” was convinced it was because he just didn’t chose her, cursing her and threatening her. Psaki sent him on holidays. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Psaki has a level of aggression that’s above average, yet she comes across as one of the most measured and reasonable White House Press Secretaries of the decade. And that’s under pressure. But being able to mask that level of deflection is actually not good for the media because the media wants answers. Style shouldn’t (excuse the pun) trump answers. And being able to get away smoothly with it doesn’t actually serve the public well. Like that time she just walked away like it’s not a big deal. It’s the style of “as long as I say thank you or excuse me politely anything goes”. But it doesn’t. And the American public will need answers to some questions very soon. Psaki won’t be able to deliver that and it would be a shame to give her a pass just because of style.
I think it’s time that we start seeing Psaki as a veiled Sean Spicer. And that Dancing with the Stars show — I hope that will still run despite Covid.
Delta variant, a warning the COVID-19 virus is getting ‘fitter and faster’
Cases and deaths resulting from COVID-19 continue to climb worldwide, mostly fuelled by the highly transmissible Delta variant, which has...
Investing in Key Sectors to Help Nigeriens Recover From the Health and Security Crises
The Covid-19 pandemic crisis and the security situation continue to undermine the Nigerien economy, wiping out years of hard-won gains...
Ensuring a More Inclusive Future for Indonesia through Digital Technologies
While Indonesia has one of the fastest growing digital economies in South East Asia, action is needed to ensure that...
Russia and China: Geopolitical Rivals and Competitors in Africa
The growth of neo-colonial tendencies, the current geopolitical developments and the scramble for its resources by external countries in Africa:...
India’s North East: A cauldron of resentment
The writer is of the view that the recent clash between police force of Mizoram and Assam is not an...
Bangladesh-Myanmar Economic Ties: Addressing the Next Generation Challenges
Bangladesh-Myanmar relations have developed through phases of cooperation and conflict. Conflict in this case is not meant in the sense...
Moscow is in the Top7 Intelligent Communities in the world
For the second time since 2017, Moscow made it to the final stage of the Intelligent Community Awards rating. It...
Central Asia3 days ago
Russia’s ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia Amid the US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
East Asia2 days ago
The Taliban seek cooperation with China?
Defense2 days ago
United States- Iran Nuclear Crises: Portents for Israel
Green Planet3 days ago
The problems of climate change, part 1
Arts & Culture2 days ago
Arguing Over Petty Things: Turkish Pop or Poop Art?
News2 days ago
DNA to rediscover a forgotten immigration
International Law2 days ago
International Criminal Court and thousands of ignored complaints
Russia2 days ago
The other side of the Olympics