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
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS