Welcome to the new multipolar world, in which everybody gets to behave like the US at its worst. It is not a safer place.
Over the past week, Iran has conducted missile strikes against targets in three sovereign countries — Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. Jordan also fired into Syria. The US (again) hit the Houthi militia in charge of western Yemen, a group that has for weeks been launching attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
Russia, of course, continues its murderous war in Ukraine to assert Moscow’s belief in its right to an empire. Israel is bombing Gaza to dust in defiance of US appeals and exchanging fire daily with Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militia in Lebanon.
Illustration: Mountain People
On Thursday last week, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed — point blank and in public — a core demand of the administration of US President Joe Biden to put a future Palestinian state at the heart any post-Gaza war settlement. His refusal promises indefinite Israeli occupation and instability in the Middle East.
If there is any good news, it is that China shows no sign — yet — of extending its belligerent claims in the South China Sea to attacking or blockading Taiwan.
Yet that is about current Chinese economic weakness, combined with a helpfully ambiguous election result in Taiwan, rather than any US influence or strength.
People are used to the US throwing its weight around. It has conducted drone strikes against al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist groups wherever it finds them since the 1990s. In 1999, to Moscow’s fury, it bombed Serbia to prevent its ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo, which was a Serb province at the time. It invaded Iraq in 2003, based on fake news about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda terrorists.
It is no coincidence that much of the international customary law governing when you can and cannot attack targets on territory that is not yours is based on historical incidents that involve the US.
That started in 1837, long before the US was a global power, when it played host to rebels against British rule in Canada. British soldiers crossed into the US to punish the rebels, burned their ship, the Caroline, and floated it over Niagara Falls. By 1916, the boot was on the US foot. General John Pershing crossed uninvited into Mexico on a failed hunt for Pancho Villa, who had just killed 18 Americans in a cross-border raid. Then, of course, there was the devastating 1970 expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia, to suppress North Vietnamese troops over the border, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, aimed at rooting out al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The US found and killed him a decade later, in Pakistan. The US global war on terror spawned a new generation of precedents.
The US was never unique. Israel conducted multiple raids and assassinations in other countries over the years, as did the former Soviet Union. Apartheid South Africa pursued the African National Congress, which it and the US considered a terrorist organization, into Angola in the 1970s. Yet for the brief, so-called unipolar moment that followed the end of the Cold War, the US was largely alone in routinely exercising what amounted to extra-territorial diktat by force, from the Balkans to Africa and the Middle East — mostly because it was the only one that had the drone technology, aircraft carriers and reach to be capable.
That is over.
Many states and non-state actors now have attack drones, a game changer according to Michael Schmitt, who teaches international law at Reading University in the UK, is an academic at West Point in New York State and has advised both governments on the issue.
“The other big game changer is cyber,” Schmitt told me. “If you are being struck by non-state actors sitting in haven countries, as they usually are, what do you do? We haven’t seen a lot of very destructive or lethal cyberattacks yet, but certainly we will in the future.”
Some cross-border actions are allowed under international law, which makes exceptions for those authorized by the UN Security Council and for self-defense, but even then, there is no carte blanche. A government needs to have exhausted reasonable possibilities for the host state to deal with the problem. The actions need to be proportionate to the threat, which should be either imminent or continuing.
Some countries pay attention and are meticulous about the law, others not at all, Schmitt said.
Exceptions are needed so the world can be policed and states can protect their populations, but US reach and overreach infuriated other would-be regional hegemons, in particular Russia, China and Iran. Its transgressions also undermined appeals for the so-called Global South to help defend the largely US-built “rules-based international order” that its rivals want to destroy. More countries are now using force abroad, in some cases outdoing US excesses.
So Russia is once again using exotic weapons to assassinate opponents in exile — famously in the UK — a state practice impossible to justify as self-defense. Turkey routinely makes unsanctioned incursions into Iraq and Syria, in pursuit of Kurdish fighters and terrorists. Tehran uses proxies to attack its rivals across the region.
Self-defense is an elastic concept that when applied to cross-border strikes risks misinterpretation and unintended consequences, even if it is legitimate. More states and terrorist organizations have access to attack drones. Some quasi-state groups, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah, also have precision-guided missiles. Increasingly, these US-designated terrorist organizations have the power to force other governments into potentially escalatory strikes they would otherwise avoid. The reluctant decision by the US and the UK to retaliate against Houthi missile installations is an obvious case in point.
The US proved a very flawed global policeman, but the world has begun to normalize and multiply the very worst of its behaviors. It is difficult to imagine a way to put this genie back in its bottle.
There is no prospect of a new, enforceable international treaty being agreed to impose restraint, Schmitt said.
Yet governments can and should spell out, in public and in detail, what they think the laws governing cross-border military action are, creating some basis for constraint and deterrence. They should be ready to call out and oppose obvious cases of abuse — like Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or Israel’s disproportionate response in Gaza — based on self-evident facts and accepted legal principles.
The US remains the world’s only global superpower, but its brief semi-monopoly on the power to unleash chaos is over.
In the brave new multipolar world, which so much of the planet wanted and the redistribution of technology and economic power made inevitable, there are now multiple agents of chaos. It is time to recognize that and to deal with bad actors on their own demerits, rather than go on imagining there is an all-powerful puppet master in Washington that first needs to be cut to size.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
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,
RSS