The first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a good opportunity to reflect on the war’s global implications. In addition to untold human misery, Russia’s aggression triggered a historic food and energy crisis and caused global inflation to spike, endangering the world’s fragile economic recovery from COVID-19.
However, the war also highlighted the shaky foundations of the international security order that emerged after the end of World War II, sending shockwaves around the world and encouraging countries like Germany and Japan to rearm.
While some still try to justify Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions by claiming that Moscow was somehow provoked by the “eastern expansion” of NATO, the fact is Ukraine posed no threat to Russia when Putin invaded the country. Putin was not seeking to defend Russia’s territorial integrity from Ukrainian or Western encroachments; he simply wanted to pursue his imperial ambitions.
Illustration: Tania Chou
The possibility of a Russian victory in Ukraine has caused panic among Russia’s neighbors in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as governments across Central and East Asia. If Russia, a nuclear power, can invade its much-smaller neighbor and prevail, what is to stop Putin from going after Poland next, or China from invading Taiwan?
While the world desperately needs a unified strategy, the UN is splintered and dysfunctional. After Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution denouncing its invasion at the beginning of the war, the UN General Assembly has passed toothless resolutions, including one on Thursday last week calling for Russia’s immediate withdrawal.
Faced with the biggest threat to global stability in a generation, it seems that the body created to oversee and defend the international liberal order cannot stop it from unraveling.
WAR OF AGGRESSION
The problem lies with the UN’s governance structure. The Security Council was created to maintain global peace, but the veto power granted to its five permanent members — the US, Russia, China, France and the UK — has always been a major obstacle to achieving this goal.
Now that one of its veto-holding permanent members is waging an aggressive war against a neighboring country, in flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter, the Security Council is virtually powerless to impose economic sanctions or bring about a peaceful resolution.
The council’s authority has been further undermined by North Korea’s repeated violations of its resolutions. The North Korean regime on Feb. 18 launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone and is reportedly preparing for its seventh nuclear test. Last year, it fired more than 90 missiles over the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan.
Yet the council has remained silent since China and Russia vetoed a US-led bid to impose new sanctions on the country, leading to a rebuke from Washington.
The UN’s inability to address these growing threats to global stability has encouraged Germany and Japan to shed their decades-long aversion to developing robust military capabilities. With a land war raging in Europe, Germany has pledged to increase its defense budget by 100 billion euros (US$106 billion) and (reluctantly) agreed to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.
Japan, deeply shocked by Russia’s invasion, also plans to double defense spending by 2027 (although Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida must first figure out how to pay for it) and is revising its national security strategy to enable the military to strike enemy targets abroad in the event of an actual, or imminent, attack.
SELF-DEFENSE
Despite its newfound commitment to remilitarization, Japan has maintained its pacifist constitution and remains opposed to acquiring nuclear weapons, owing to the trauma of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While most of the Japanese public supports the boost in defense spending, many still believe that the US-imposed constitution was right to restrict the military’s role to self-defense.
However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, together with North Korea’s provocations and China’s increasingly aggressive posture, has highlighted the importance of building up the nation’s deterrence capabilities and accelerated its shift away from pacifist idealism.
At the same time, protecting liberal democracy against aggressors like Russia and North Korea requires a multilateral body capable of tackling threats to world peace. To fulfill its peacekeeping role, the UN Security Council must undertake significant reform. At the very least, Japan and Germany should be granted permanent seats and veto power.
Alternatively, a permanent member’s veto power should be suspended if, like Russia, it becomes an aggressor. With the world on the precipice of disaster, there is no alternative to overhauling the cornerstone of global governance.
Takatoshi Ito, a former Japanese deputy vice minister of finance, is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a senior professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
RSS