One aspect of the Ukraine crisis that both Russia and the West need to understand is that the rest of the world appears to be relatively unconcerned about it.
Although the West, along with Japan, may view the crisis as a challenge to the global order, most other states do not feel threatened by Moscow’s annexation of Crimea or designs it may have elsewhere in Ukraine. Instead, many view this crisis as being largely about Europe’s inability to resolve its own regional disputes, though a successful outcome could bolster Europe’s global influence as a peacemaker.
As the Ukraine crisis unfolded, Russian policymakers and commentators talked about “the end of the post-Cold War era,” while Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dimitri Rogozin even appeared to welcome the start of a new Cold War.
Such wishful thinking is predicated on the notion that conflict between Moscow and the West would once again come to define the entire international system, thereby returning Russia to its former superpower status.
That is not going to happen.
As emerging powers’ reactions to the Ukraine crisis demonstrate, world politics is no longer defined by what happens in Europe, even when a major conflict is brewing there.
The international system has become so multipolar that non-European states can now choose to follow their own interests rather than feel obliged to side with the East or the West.
Few world leaders doubt that Russia’s use of force to compromise Ukraine’s territorial integrity, change its borders and annex Crimea violated international law. China’s abstention in the subsequent UN Security Council vote clearly signaled its leaders’ displeasure with Kremlin policy, but nearly one-third of the UN’s members sent an equally emphatic message by abstaining or not participating in a General Assembly vote condemning Moscow’s actions.
Even Western-friendly governments — including Brazil, India, South Africa and Israel — were not prepared to take sides. Indian journalist Indrani Bagchi referred to the abstentions as a new form of nonalignment.
Cynicism and schadenfreude may also be playing a role. Prominent Indian strategist Raja Mohan said that Europe “has never ceased to lecture Asia on the virtues of regionalism,” but now seems unable to cope with its own regional security challenges.
The implicit message from the new nonaligned is straightforward: Why should we care about a territorial conflict in Europe when you Europeans fail to act decisively on Palestine, Kashmir or territorial disputes in the East and South China seas?
Instead, many of these countries are calling on the West to de-escalate the crisis and, as a statement from the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs advocated, “exercise restraint and refrain from raising tensions.”
That is good advice and no different from what Europeans tell others in similar situations.
However, unlike other regions of the world, Europe — including Russia — can be proud of its regional security organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Now, it needs to make them work.
For example, the OSCE would be greatly strengthened if, using its wide range of diplomatic mechanisms (such as roundtable discussions and support for constitutional reforms), it succeeded in defusing the Ukraine crisis and thereby bolstered European security.
Doing so would also provide a powerful example of institutionalized regionalism that might serve as a conflict-resolution model for other countries.
Alternatively, if Europe is unable to resolve the Ukraine crisis with diplomacy, its global influence, and that of Russia, will surely fade.
Russia has reminded the world that it is possible to bully one’s neighbors and steal their territory using brute force, but, in a globalized, multipolar system, this alone will not be enough to rally other countries to its cause. Furthermore, the EU, as a highly sophisticated paper tiger, would be no more attractive.
EU member states have no interest in letting their continent slip back into ethnic nationalism and power politics. The Ukraine crisis is therefore both a challenge and an opportunity. If Europe wants to remain a pole in a multipolar international system, it must prove that it can pursue a common foreign and security policy, particularly in times of crisis and conflict.
That means that the EU must emerge from the Ukraine crisis with a stronger commitment to common defense and joint contingency planning, and a unified energy policy that can secure independence from Russian oil and gas. Yet Europe must also show that it can and will defend the principles of rules-based international relations.
Maintaining and strengthening the pillars of Europe’s common defense is not a simple task; but multilateral security organizations like the OSCE are not made for easy times.
They are intended to protect members from manipulation and aggression and in a way that can garner global support. In this sense, Europe’s main task now is to leverage its already considerable strategic assets.
Volker Perthes is chairman and director of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs).
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS