President Biden, navigating a complex world of traditional power blocks
And so here we are, the world divided into traditional power blocks, galvanized largely by Russia’s power grab in the Ukraine War.
No one ever said the the geopolitics of the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order would be easy. Or that the United States would entirely give up its advantageous position at the top of the hierarchy without a fight. But here we are …
This weekend, President Biden went on a whirlwind diplomatic tour of Vietnam, reiterating that the United States is indeed a “Pacific nation.” It was an historic moment between the US and its former antagonist, completing the historical arc, according to Biden, from one of conflict to one of normalized relations. “During a landmark visit to Hanoi by the American president, Vietnam’s Communist Party leadership formally raised the country’s ties to the United States to the highest level in Hanoi’s diplomatic hierarchy, equivalent to those it has with Russia and China,” wrote Peter Baker and Kate Rogers in the Times. If only the Times had left it there, not doing the job of Republican operatives by whipping up rank speculation about the President’s age.
It being the Pacific theater, there was, of course, a significant counter-reaction from Beijing this morning. But Beijing’s counteraction wasn't conjured up exclusively out of a vacuum. In late August — a month before Biden’s trip this weekend — the US conducted a naval drill with Japan, Australia and the Philippines in the South China Sea. This was intended to deter Chinese aggression towards the Philippines. A few weeks later, US, Canadian and South Korean naval vessels commemorated the anniversary of a Korean war battle in the Yellow Sea. That was considered, by the South China Morning News to be “the biggest show of strength in eastern China in a decade.
Finally, on Saturday, the day before Biden’s visit, the USS Ralph Johnson and the Royal Canadian Navy Halifax-class frigate HMCS Ottawa sailed through the Strait of Taiwan. So, the question was how would Beijing react to this summer of provocations by the liberal democracies? In retaliation, China has launched its historically largest-ever exercises with an aircraft carrier in the western Pacific today.
And so here we are, the world divided up into traditional power blocks, galvanized largely by Russia’s power grab in the Ukraine War. On one side, the liberal democracies — some strong (though not perfect), like South Korea — promoting free and fair elections, a free press, technologically sophisticated and anti-corrupt. On the other side, countries like North Korea and, of course, China, where autocrats and their claques rule, rarely challenged.
But the world’s divisions are not nearly so Manichean as the President rhetorically presents his case (and Biden, of course, is smart enough to know this). As I mentioned earlier, traditional power blocks prevail, as a waystation to the coming multilateral world order. In the meantime, clock-wise, there is the Global South, which, like the non-aligned block during the Cold War, hangs precariously in the balance, largely distrustful of the West over colonialism, but growing in clout. There are also BRICs, where India bestraddles the category of liberal democracy as well as being a card-carrying member of the Global South, with the scars of colonialism to prove it. Could India be the “leader” of the Global South? Perhaps, more important, does the Global South even need — or want — another “leader”? Isn’t the very notion of a Big Brother to represent the interests of the Global South on the world stage the zenith of neocolonialism? So many questions …
Who is winning? Well, lets put it this way, even as the Ukraine exceeds all expectations in their war against Russia, which has severely degraded Putin’s ability to project power globally, since 2015, seven African countries have backslided into autocracy, including Benin and Burkina Faso. But — good news — according to a new Open Society poll surveying 30 countries, the majority of those surveyed want to live in a democracy. “Eighty-six percent of respondents say they want to live in a democracy,” the poll found. “Only 20 percent believe that authoritarian countries can deliver ‘what citizens want.’” So, there’s that.
And so many more questions, as world leaders prepare for the start of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in the coming weeks. As Stephan Thiel notes, ruefully, in Foreign Policy:
It doesn’t help that the United Nations, World Bank, and other institutions often look like relics of the past. The rising states of the global south sense that a system constructed during the colonial era might not serve their needs, and they rightfully want a bigger seat at the table. Nothing better symbolizes the system’s anachronisms than the U.N. Security Council, where only the victors of World War II (plus France, added at the insistence of British wartime leader Winston Churchill) have the right to veto decisions. It’s an odd way to organize the world in 2023.
Unfortunately, there are no easy fixes. For all its flaws, the system embodied a universal conception of progress and human rights. It was constructed with rules that, in theory if not always in practice, applied to all and protected the weak from the depredations of the strong. If the West has violated some of these principles in the past, China has made clear that it doesn’t accept the idea of constraints on its actions at all, at least not in fundamental domains such as the international law of the sea or the U.N. principle to not change borders by force. Instead, Beijing, Moscow, and their authoritarian friends are working hard to flush notions of liberalism and human rights out of the U.N. system, making the world safe for autocracy. Some countries might reject the rulebook because so much of it was written by the West, but it is unclear whether a better set of rules is on offer.
It should be noted that with regard to rules, Russia has — surprise — declared American “hypocrisy” on the rule of law, meanwhile aligning himself with many of the members of the House Freedom Caucus. Who knew? The House Freedom Caucus, by the way, is feuding the conservative Republicans on (surprise again), funding Ukraine. Vladimir Putin, to be sure, agrees with Trump that the investigations against the 45th President are a ‘witch-hunt.’ “What’s happening with Trump is a persecution of a political rival for political motives,” Putin said. “This shows the whole rottenness of the American political system, which cannot claim to teach others about democracy.” Well, no, it really doesn’t, but thanks for the Republican talking points. Putin’s insistence in involving himself in domestic American politics proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would prefer dealing with Trump as President than Biden.
Biden, meanwhile, is the subject of the Congressional Integrity Project’s latest report, titled James Comer’s 8 Months of Abject Failure. The report takes a deep dive into how Republican Congressional Committees are spending American tax dollars. “The report also demonstrates how these investigations are nothing but political stunts designed to hurt President Biden ahead of the 2024 presidential election all to help Donald Trump and MAGA,” the press release states.
And, I would add, it also happens to help Putin and the autocrats.
What did an old Establishment guy like Walter Isaacson learn writing Elon Musk’s biography? (NYMag)
The Political Dynasties Win Again: Time for 'Enlightened Nepotism' or a New War? (Charles Onyango-Obbo)
“Rep. Mike Gallagher, the chair of the U.S. House committee on competition with China, said he might widen the panel’s investigation into Wall Street’s ties to China’s military sector and its human-rights abuses, which has so far focused on BlackRock and index provider MSCI. His comments to Semafor on Tuesday came after two days of mostly private meetings in New York with Wall Street executives wary of drastic limits on U.S. investments in China. The visit included a tabletop exercise on the financial impacts of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a hearing on risks of investing in China.” (Liz Hoffman and Morgan Chalfant/semafor)