Connect with us

Diplomacy

Pandemic as the Learning Lab and Government Reloaded

Published

on

How to enable a sustainable exit from the ‚Lockdown‘ Phase and create greater resilience for society ? This is an existential question not only for countries in the Global South but also for the industrialized economies hard hit by the Pandemic. State power manifested itself in emergency response at the cost of civil rights and liberties whereas an all-of-society effort is needed to tackle the virus in the medium term, with sufficient breathing space for economic activities, and informed discussion for citizens. It is possible to envisage civic empowerment and education strategies which also capitalize on digital networks and solutions. The Pandemic is our global learning lab where such resources can be marshalled, and a reappraisal of previous development cooperation models might occur. While multilateralism has taken a serious hit in the response to COVID-19 so far, the damage can be mitigated by soft power cooperation and mutual learning that spans regions and continents.

Countries in the industrialized north have started to relax restrictions and are taking first steps to normalize after successfully flattening the curve of virus infections. Political discussion has started which approaches are most successful in state posture against COVID: the ‘mission-driven‘ interventionist approach or the minority approach of  relying on nudges instead of restrictions to convince people of the best interest in prevention, with the UK caught in the middle and a belated response spiral. One thing is certain: the Pandemic has been highly disruptive and the mix of policies and regulations adopted is as diverse as it cuts through all aspects of governance, from the most mundane to the most critical including movement of people and border security.

The epicenter of the Pandemic has shifted from Europe to Latin America, where Brazil is shaping up as a hot spot, due to low testing and under-reporting. In the week of 18 May, the US stopped flight connections to Brazil, where the impact of the virus has been most prominent, especially in Sao Paulo and other population centers as far as the Amazon region. Initial calls and solidarity initiatives were focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, where infection rates remain generally lower but rising in several countries, especially in West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana and Congo/DRC, as well as South Africa). Numbers rose from 26,000 cases to 91,000 cases between 22 April and 19 May 2020 on the continent.

Multilateralism Weakened against COVID-19

As states and governments continue to grapple with the impact of the Pandemic, the multilateral level has been hampered by superpower rivalry between China and the US. Even the recent World Health Assembly (held for the first time as online conference) narrowly avoided fracture over strident US challenges about handling the crisis and suspicions voiced against China where the virus originated. Despite some pragmatic moves to maintain logistics and emergency relief pipelines for developing states, governments are largely left alone to come to terms with the virus impact and restore trust among their populations. For the post-COVID period, experts such as former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd see a risk of “anarchy” developing in the international arena.

Perhaps the notion of leadership by one or two superpowers is no longer even adequate to formulate the response to a new virus which is still imperfectly understood and has caused a Pandemic of large proportions. The deep impact on an interconnected world is beyond the power of a single large country or even a bloc to repair, and it defies accurate prognosis. For assisting the developing nations in dealing with the virus fallout provide stronger emergency relief, the World Trade Conference (UNCTAD) has estimated a  $ 2.5 trillion USD  package would be required. In view of the resources required for mobilizing the EU reconstruction or for the US revival from the Pandemic, it is not likely that so much additional funding can be provided. Economic damage to the global GDP keeps getting revised upwards since the IMF estimated a 3% fall starting in April 2020 and lasting well into 2021, in a global recession.

Paradigm Shift and Government Role Re-Defined

The EU High Representative for External Affairs Josep Borrell has argued that the new global situation amounts to a fundamental shift, away from the hyper-globalization up until the end of 2019. The EU has also been clearest among international actors for a ‘Green Deal’ to be built into the reconstruction post-COVID, although the internal debate among EU Member States about financing modalities is far from over. 

Consensus is forming about restoring some institutional backbone and competences to public services, especially in the health sector, instead of privatizing and cost-cutting approaches. Yet Big Government as the key enabler and guarantor of peoples‘ welfare is called in question, at the international level but also in relation to central government powers and regions or federal states (affected by COVID-19 to varying degrees). There is plenty of suspicions about a surveillance state limiting civil freedoms, in the aftermath of lockdowns; few in the West would agree with invasive health monitoring that helped China and Asian countries manage the outbreak, or trade-offs in surveillance, because of the totalitarian misrule in Europe from the 1930s through the 1950s. Instead, democratizing the virus response and local/civic empowerment might be the alternative way forward, with a ‘Smart Government’ listening, prompting for feedback and nurturing the civil society potentials beyond what is commonly deemed feasible through supporting tech start-ups. We have much to learn from emerging democracies in tackling the virus at local level and technology exists to socialize these insights also in the industrialized countries.

Development Cooperation for Resilience and Social Capital

The COVID-19 emergency is also the hour of generating resilience through social capital and its conscious strengthening and promotion- often maligned as a nice word for influence peddling and corruption.  The inter-disciplinary and cross-regional work that is to be done has already been sketched in a recent study of the  Mo Ibrahim Foundation on the dimensions of governance engaged in tackling the virus fallout in countries of the Global South. Statistics generation is highlighted in this study but collecting data and achieving data sovereignty for concerned population groups is still to be examined for its full potential.

Returning to Latin America, the current pandemic exacerbates traditional dilemmas of government: approaches of ‚Mano Dura‘ in Central American states versus laissez-faire capitalism in others. Meanwhile, countries such as Colombia and Argentina show multiple digital solutions tried out in view of a new challenge to previous political, security and economic shocks. People-to-people social protection is often kicking in where the pandemic has accentuated income inequalities.

It is not difficult to develop a COVID-19 “Resilience Crash Program” that builds on home-grown initiatives. Participatory data collection via simple online surveys or via Mobile Phones can be promoted and help identify the areas of greatest concern, avoiding pockets of regional/peri-urban exclusion. Women and youth participation would be consciously boosted, including through volunteers, which has also found a good response in Switzerland.

The initial results are a basis for engaging the Social Partners both in the formal and informal sector where advantages exist in Latin America. Listening and learning will help to identify bottlenecks and innovations that can help the productive sector of countries muster resilience and exit durable from the impact of the virus. The behavior change from this process is where government authorities can come in and promote successful initiatives, encourage coalition building, moderate the conflict sensitivity and help to build back better, including in ecologically sustainable formats. 

A national inventory of lessons learned can be made available and enrich government response in the industrialized countries- promoting exchange of ideas and people-to people solidarity. At the risk analysis stage for certain affected regions, Brazil has already produced detailed work in late April. Governments stimulating such cooperation to complement traditional sector economic cooperation and relief programs can provide a cost-effective instrument, which might well be financed from a new EU Trust Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank or others. For instance, the EU funding envelope from the 2015 La Valletta Conference (where migration was the dominant concern for ‘Emergency Trust Funds‘,) is ending in late 2020. 

We will be able to restore lost international solidarity, and re-connect faster if this Smart Government model is set to work in full respect of human rights and the realization of social and economic rights which many countries have signed up to.

Matthias E Leitner, Senior Adviser/ International Coordinator with ICSVE Center Washington, DC (USA), Berlin-based Matthias Ernst LEITNER has over 20 years’ experience in international peace and security, mainly in UN and regional peace operations across Africa and in the Middle East. His professional focus is on governance/ accountability, national dialogues and coalition building as well as on project development for preventing violent extremism and radicalization. Mr. Leitner has held senior management positions with UN Special Envoy Offices. His ongoing interest is in UN reforms, peacebuilding and innovative approaches for resilience to the COVID-19 Pandemic. His academic background from Bonn and Oxford Universities is in languages and history.

Continue Reading
Comments

Diplomacy

Relevance of the Soft Power in Modern World

Published

on

In modern days, the relevance of Soft Power has increased manifolds. At times, the COIVD-19 has hooked the whole human race; this concept has further come into the limelight. The term, Soft Power was coined by the American Scientist Joseph Nye. Soft Power is the ability of a country to get what it wants through attraction rather than coercion. By tapping the tool of Soft Power, a country can earn respect and elevate its global position. Hard Power cannot be exercised exceeding a territory, and if any country follows this suit, its image is tarnished globally. However, it is Soft Power that can boost the perception and create a niche of a nation. Soft Power is regarded as the essential factor of the overall strength of a country. It can increase the adhesion and the determination of the people in a realm to shape the foreign relations of any nation. Nye held that the Soft Power arsenal would include culture, political values, and foreign policy.

After the Cold War, many nations pumped billions of dollars into Soft Power initiatives, and the US mastered this concept. The US has sailed on the waters of Soft Power by harnessing the tool of media, politics, and economic aid. The US boasts globally recognized brands and companies, Hollywood, and its quest for democratic evangelization. Through movies, the US has disseminated its culture worldwide. American movies are viewed by a massive audience worldwide. The promotion of the US culture through films is a phenomenon (culture imperialism) where the US subtly wants to dominate the world by spreading its culture. Through Hollywood films, the US has an aspiration to influence the world by using Soft Power tools. Hollywood is considered as the pioneer of fashion, and people across the globe imitate and adopt things from Hollywood to their daily life. Such cultural export lure foreign nations to fantasize about the US as a pillar of Soft Power. Educational exchange programs, earthquake relief in Japan and Haiti, famine relief in Africa stand as the best example of the US initiatives of Soft Power. Now, the American political and cultural appeal is so extensive that the majority of international institutions reflect US interests. The US, however, witnessed a drop from 1st place to 6th on the Global Soft Power Index. This wane can be attributed to the attack on the US Capitol Hill sparked by former US President Donald Trump. In addition, his dubious decisions also hold responsibilities that curtailed the US soft power image, that is, particularly the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Beijing is leaving no stone unturned to ace this area. China, rich in culture and traditional philosophy, boasts abundant sources of Soft Power. China is contemplating and exploring an innovative strategy in its rise in international politics. There have been notable elements in the Chinese diplomatic practice, including softer rhetoric, promotion of its culture abroad, economic diplomacy, and image building. Beijing, amid an ongoing pandemic, has extended vaccine help to 80 countries. Such initiative taken by China has elevated its worth globally during difficult times of the pandemic. According to the Global Soft Power index 2021, China stands in the 8th slot. China is an old civilization with a rich culture. China has stressed culture as a crucial source of Soft Power. In a bid to enhance its cultural dominance, Beijing has built many Confucius Institutes overseas. However, this has not been whole-heartedly embraced by the Chinese neighbors due to territorial disputes on the South China Sea. Moreover, International Order, dominated by the West, is wary of Beijing. China’s authoritarian political system is not welcomed in Western democracies. Therefore, China finds it hard to generate Soft Power in democracies. In recent times, Beijing has witnessed tremendous extension in its economy; thus, it focuses on harnessing economic tools to advance its Soft Power. Consequently, Beijing has driven its focus on geoeconomics to accelerate its Soft Power.

Unfortunately, Pakistan, in this sphere, finds itself in a very infirm position -securing 63rd position in the Global Soft Power Index. In comparison with Pakistan, India boasts a lot of Soft Power by achieving the 36th position in the Global Soft Power Index. Its movies, yoga, and classical and popular dance and music have uplifted the Indian soft image. In the promotion of the Indian Soft Power Image, Bollywood plays a leading role and it stretches beyond India. Bollywood has been projected as a great Soft Power tool for India. Bollywood stars are admired globally. For instance, Shahrukh Khan, known as Baadshah of Bollywood, has a fan following across the world. Through its Cinema, India has attracted the attention of the world. Indian movies have recognition in the world and helped India earn billions of dollars. However, the Modi government has curtailed the freedom of Bollywood. Filmmakers claim that their movies are victim of censorship. Moreover, the anti-Muslim narrative has triggered in India, which has tarnished the Indian image of secular country and eventually splashing the Indian Soft image. Protests of farmers, revocation of article 370 in Kashmir, and the controversial Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) have degraded the Indian Soft Power.

Pakistan is not in the tier of the countries acing the Soft Power notion. In Pakistan, expressions of Soft Power, like spiritualism, tourism, cinema, literature, cricket, and handicrafts, are untapped. Pakistan is on the list of those countries having immense tourism potential and its culture is its strength. Unfortunately, no concrete steps are taken to promote the Pakistani culture and tourism. The Pakistani movies are stuck in advancing Pakistan’s narrative worldwide due to lack of the interest of successive governments in this sphere. In addition, these movies lack suitable content, that’s why people prefer watching Bollywood or Hollywood movies. It is the job of the government to harness the expressions of Soft Power. Through movies and soap operas, we can disseminate our culture, push our narrative, and promote our tourism. Government-sponsored campaigns on electronic media can help greatly in this sphere. Apart from the role of government, this necessitates the involvement of all stakeholders, including artists, entrepreneurs, academics, policymakers, and civil society.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Planetary Drought of Leadership

Published

on

The Tokyo Olympic Games, just concluded, were a spectacular success and grateful thanks are owed to our Japanese hosts to make this event so, at a time when we were in the middle of a global pandemic. There were many doubts expressed beforehand by many people over the Games going ahead during the pandemic, but the precautionary measures put in place were well handled and not obtrusive. 

For anyone who had the opportunity to watch the Games via TV they must have been struck by the wonderful sportsmanship and friendship shown by the competitors of all nations taking part, whatever race and ethnicity. It prompted me to think and ask why the countries of the world cannot exercise some of the same degree of friendship when dealing with one another rather than push forward with agendas that are antagonistic. The world holds a number of dysfunctional states as well as oppressive dictatorships where the resident population is subjected to mental as well as physical torture. Belarus is a typical example, where the leader of the country stole the election to give himself yet another term, and quashes any dissent, with some paying the ultimate price. He has the arrogance to divert a commercial flight so that he can arrest someone who opposes him and then beats him up, before parading him in front of the cameras to say an apology, which everyone can see was forced out of him. 

The Middle East is a complex problem and has been for centuries, the home of some of the oldest civilisations and the divergent monotheistic religions, which add a complicating factor. It surprisingly has been relatively quiet for the last period. Until the next flare up.

Myanmar has also been quiet, or so it seems. The military patrols across the country, particularly in states that offer some resistance and tough guerrilla opposition. The military behave badly, continuing the practice of killing, rape and pillage if not total destruction of small communities which cannot offer any resistance. Corruption is thriving. The military government have ‘promised’ fresh elections next February, 6 months hence, but it is most unlikely that these will be ‘fair and free’. The troubled conditions will continue. It will be an issue of continuing concern for ASEAN and more widely. A recent visit for a documentary had to be carried out illegally in case the military had discovered that the local people had been welcoming and helpful. The repercussions would have been appalling.

The latest situation that has arisen is the Afghanistan blitz takeover by the Taliban, a medieval group promoting the fundamental sharia doctrine, which is out of date and treats women as ‘non-persons’. They have also harboured terrorists, one group pulling off the infamous 2001, 9/11 strike on the NY Twin Towers, which awakened the US to take strong retaliatory action in Afghanistan, and forcing the Taliban out for 20 years. Their 5-year, 1996-2001, rule of Afghanistan was brought to a close after the NY happening, when the US with Allied forces took charge and ousted them. 

But now the Taliban are back following a direct meeting with the then president Trump in 2017, no Afghan government present, and they saw him coming! Shades of North Korea. He said he would withdraw completely without proper assurances, leaving the country’s development less than half finished. President Joseph Biden completed the task of withdrawal, somewhat hasty, upsetting nearly all Americans in the process. The British were caught flat-footed and there is considerable anger expressed by MPs, not least because they realise that they no longer have the ability to resolve such issues themselves. They feel embarrassed and rightly so.

As one of the Afghan luminaries and most quoted intellectuals, prof. Djawed Sangdel, reminds us: “Afghanistan is a graveyard of empires. Even Alexander the Macedonian realised – 2,300 years ago – ‘it is easy to enter the country, but lethal when exiting it’. This especially if you do not respect domestic realities.” Indeed, the situation on the ground is chaotic.

The leader, Ashraf Ghani, of the weak ‘legal’ government has fled, not without rumours about bags full of cash, and that is one reason that the country has not progressed as well as it should, endemic corruption. Women, quite rightly, are fearful, as to what lies in store, as the Taliban’s record on treatment of them is brutal. They have promised to give emancipation within sharia law – which in their case was the combination of twisted and oversimplified Islamic teachings with the tribal nomadic pre-Islamic culture of the central Asian hights.

Looking at the country as a whole, one worries about its future; the Taliban have no track record of governing a country, particularly not one as complex as Afghanistan. They would have to greatly modify their approach to life, separate religion from state (affairs). However, there are credible doubts; once more the Northern Alliance will get together and the country will lapse into civil war. Will the Chinese see an opportunity and risk what others have failed to do? My heart goes out to the people of Afghanistan.

In reviewing the past few decades, it would seem that western led democracies, when they have engaged with a country, which is in trouble, have only entered it without full humanitarian understanding of the problems and not sought a proper sustainable solution. Inevitably it takes longer than one thinks, and there are not strong enough safeguards put in to avoid financial losses to development projects, sometimes major.

The UN has a major part to play, but one must ask if today’s remit is fit for purpose, or should they be reviewed, and the countries that make up the UN should look at and ask themselves if they are fair in what they give and expect, not just monetarily.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

From Proxy Wars to Proxy Diplomacy

Published

on

The beginning of August was marked by two events that, in the absence of their fundamental significance for the global agenda, are essential for understanding what international politics may look like in the future. First, there was a de facto rupture of relations between China and the small Baltic state of Lithuania after the authorities of the latter made a decision to de facto recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of the People’s Republic of China. Second, this is the first anniversary of the stormy internal political events in Belarus that followed presidential elections which were not recognised by the United States or the European Union and caused discontent among a significant part of Belarusian society.

In the first case, we see how the behaviour of a formally independent state is completely subordinate to the decisions of one of the great powers. Protection by the United States is the most important national interest of Lithuania, since Lithuania itself cannot ensure its own survival due to its lack of potential. In essence, China is now dealing with the implementation of one of the tactical tasks within the framework of the US survival strategy, although formally we are talking about the decision of a sovereign member of the international community. In the case of Belarus, the survival of the state in August – September 2020 was also provided by the full support from Russia, for which the collapse of the Belarusian statehood would mean the emergence of a security threat. At the same time, unlike Lithuania, we cannot say that even now that all decisions made by Minsk correlate with the development of the situation that is optimal for Moscow.

At the same time, Lithuania and Belarus are themselves in a state of acute conflict. It began exactly a year ago, when Lithuania’s authorities decided to start an active struggle against their neighbour. During the course of this struggle, Lithuania acted as a proxy for the United States and the leading states of Europe, while Belarus, in turn, is only marginally controlled by Russia, at least from the point of view of most knowledgeable Russian observers. But the survival of this country is in Russia’s national interest.

As we can see, in this case, the great powers – Russia, China and the United States – are not interacting directly, but with those who by themselves cannot bear full responsibility for their actions. This raises the question of how, in modern conditions, great powers should act and can, in principle, build relationships with partners who have UN-recognised sovereignty, but do not have the ability to pursue their own foreign policy? This question seems important because the choice of diplomatic or power instruments depends on the answer.

From the Russian point of view, this is especially relevant, since it is surrounded by such neighbours, just like the United States is surrounded by oceans.

Moreover, in recent years, it did not express the desire to regain full control over its neighbours in order to conduct a dialogue with its peers directly, as was the case in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the borders of the most important powers of Eurasia were actually aligned.

The emergence of the dialogue problem with countries that do not have the capacity to engage in fully responsible behaviour has become one of the results of international politics in the 20th century. Over the past 100 years, the international system has been filled with a huge number of states that are unable to ensure their survival independently. This process was launched after the First World War, when the victorious powers were interested in creating a significant number of small countries that were absolutely dependent on them. In place of the destroyed Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires, a large group of state entities arose in Eastern Europe.

None of them could play even an insignificant role during the next big war, in 1939-1945. Even Poland, the largest in terms of population, was vanquished in a manner of weeks and later reborn thanks to the victorious Soviet army. The others may have been more or less successful in developing their own economic base during the 1918-1939 “truce”, but their ability to ensure sovereignty with respect to national defence was immediately disproved. All these countries, except Finland, either fell under the pressure of internal circumstances, or were defeated because they acted as potential or active satellites of the opposing sides.

However, after the end of World War II, the “parade of sovereignties” continued on a global scale. Moreover, after 1945, the great powers acquired exceptional resources to manage international affairs – a colossal power gap that arose as a result of the creation of large arsenals of nuclear weapons. During the 1950-1970 period, the main engine of sovereignty was the desire of the two great powers – the USSR and the United States – to create a network of their own client states on the basis of the European colonial empires, unable to ensure their survival without the help of Washington or Moscow. In fact, the process which took place mirrored what had happened 25 years beforehand in Eastern Europe, only the other empires were divided – the British and French colonies.

Sometime later, albeit on a smaller scale, China also joined this movement. Before that point, Beijing’s funds had been limited enough that it could reliably promote a strategy of “national self-determination” to protect its own interests. China, in fact, found itself lagging behind in this race, and now it can only think about how client states of Russia or the United States can be so insecure about their future that they will transfer external governance into the hands of Beijing. So far, we have not seen convincing examples of such behaviour.

Moreover, after the collapse of their own colonial empires, Britain and France were able to regain control over the foreign policy of some of the entities that arose from their ruins. Now this control is carried out directly in very rare cases and mainly occurs through institutional mechanisms of interaction, with the European Union or other organisations of the community of market democracies.

As a result of the end of the Cold War, a significant number of countries in need of external support for their survival arose not only in Eastern Europe, but also within the territory of the former USSR. Some of the newly independent states have shown compelling evidence of a movement towards more effective sovereignty. The collapse of the USSR, as well as the collapse of the colonial system in previous decades, led to Russia and China being surrounded by a number of neighbours with whom they can build relatively equal relations in the same way that the United States can deal practically on equal terms with Great Britain, Germany or France.

However,a a significant number of these neighbours simply lack the human and geopolitical resources. As a result, both great powers must now move towards the formation of a special foreign policy with a whole group of countries, which would take into account the peculiarities of their situation. But they are not the only ones. The United States and the leading EU countries also form specific policies towards those who entrust their survival to Russia or China, taking into account what role Moscow or Beijing play in their fate. It is the conflict between the United States and Russia that determines the actions Washington or Berlin takes in relation to, for example, Armenia or Belarus, and not the actual bilateral relations.

Russia also cannot proceed from the assumption that fully ordinary bilateral diplomacy exists in relations with Lithuania or Romania. An opposite example is Russia’s policy towards Pakistan, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan – countries that have the resources necessary for independent survival and responsible foreign policy. China has tried to build traditional relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, but now these efforts are facing noticeable difficulties.

It is very likely that as international politics return to a dynamic balance of power, the leading powers will strive to ensure that their bilateral relations are limited to the circle of those who really have the ability to be responsible in their behaviour. With regard to the rest, one can expect a gradual transformation of the usual diplomatic practice towards a special model that differs in its quality and content. What this new content will be is now no longer a speculative, but a practical task. This new type of relationship can become a kind of proxy diplomacy, which in any case is better than the proxy war that is familiar to all of us.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

East Asia2 hours ago

How China Exacerbates Global Fragility and What Can be Done to Bolster Democratic Resilience to Confront It

Authors: Caitlin Dearing Scott and Isabella Mekker From its declared policy of noninterference and personnel contributions to United Nations (UN)...

South Asia4 hours ago

Opposing Hindutava: US conference raises troubling questions

Controversy over a recent ‘Dismantling Global Hindutava’ conference that targeted a politically charged expression of Hindu nationalism raises questions that...

Economy6 hours ago

Russia, China and EU are pushing towards de-dollarization: Will India follow?

Authors: Divyanshu Jindal and Mahek Bhanu Marwaha* The USD (United States Dollar) has been the world’s dominant currency since the...

Economy8 hours ago

Today’s World Demands Sustainability

In the Brundtland Report, the United Nations defined sustainable development as development that satisfies current demands without jeopardising future generations’...

Defense10 hours ago

Developments on Korean Peninsula risk accelerating regional arms race

A week full of missile tests; this is the current environment on the Korean Peninsula. On Wednesday, North Korea fired...

South Asia15 hours ago

Panjshir – the last stronghold of democracy in Afghanistan

The Taliban’s rapid advance in Afghanistan has briefly stalled only in the face of strong resistance mounted by the people...

Americas21 hours ago

Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term

US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal...

Trending