Earlier this month, leaders around the world offered their condolences to the British Royal family for the death of Queen Elizabeth II. And people, primarily in the Western world, mourned her passing.
In the Global South and in the North, professors of post-colonial studies, history, and anthropology chose to refresh people’s memories on colonization and the brutality of the British empire, leading to sparring between the two groups on social media. The debate epitomizes not simply the differences in readings of history between the West and the Global South, but a larger phenomenon that affects American and Western foreign policy.
The perennial challenge with international relations theories in the United States is the linear view of foreign affairs and, as a consequence, unilateral decision making. Analysts, think tankers, and policymakers in Washington and New York tend to formulate policies based on their understanding or assumption of the needs of the global populace, that is, if they choose to include the needs of the global populace in their decision making at all.
A concoction through that line of thinking is the Biden administration’s fracturing of the world into two camps of democracies and autocracies. There cannot be a more disconnected framing of the world than that dichotomy. The privileges that come with a fully functioning democracy such as freedom of speech, expression, and thought are not necessarily the needs of societies of the Global South as much as they are a desire.
This could be news to many in Washington, but, even today, many in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and even Eastern Europe struggle to meet the basic necessities at the bottom of Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” pyramid — physiological needs (air, water, food, shelter, clothing) and safety needs (employment, resources, health, property). Leaders of the G-7, meanwhile, promote esteem needs near the top, such as freedom and self-respect.
A Kenyan official summed it up well, saying, “when a British leader visits we get a lecture; when a Chinese leader visits we get a hospital.”
The United States needs to recalibrate its foreign policy. A case in point is the response of countries like Russia, China, and India to the COVID-19 pandemic. They were the first to deliver vaccines to countries of the Global South. When the United States under Trump had export bans, Chinese and Indian vaccines reached countries in America’s backyard.
Take the case of the last few iterations of the BRICS vs the G-7 meetings. For one, members of the G-7 not wearing a tie made more headlines in the United States than members of the BRICS proposing alternatives to the U.S. dollar for trade, increasing cooperation on energy, and expanding the group to include more nations from the Global South.
Meanwhile, since the Western world unleashed unilateral sanctions against Russia last spring, the developing world has consistently voiced concerns over their impact on their economies. Rising prices of crude, fertilizer, and grains have a direct impact on the lives of billions in the Global South. While the G-7 was deliberating on effective ways to defeat Russia, the developing world had bigger concerns of putting food on the table and keeping homes and hospitals lit.
Contrast that to the G-7 and in particular, Biden’s response to rising prices — “natural gas prices will remain high until Ukraine victory.” This disconnect with the needs of the Global South could be well exploited by China, which is actively seeking the leadership mantle of this part of the world.
Through AIIB, SCO, BRI and now the BRICS, China and through a few forums, Russia, are engaging the developing world and awakening dormant concerns such as the long term effects of colonialism and educating the developing world about the West’s alleged disregard of their needs. This messaging is well received by few if not many poor countries.
Based on the interest expressed by nations in joining the BRICS, it would not come as a surprise if China someday tried to use island nations and territories of Western nations in the Pacific to orchestrate an “island spring” that would essentially try to overthrow or actively protest Western presence.
The case of the Solomon Islands should serve as a lesson for the Western world to ascribe to the old saying “prevention is better than cure.” Reactionary foreign policy approaches such as the United States hosting the leaders of the Pacific Islands at the Pacific Islands Forum in Hawaii on September 13, months after China reached a security partnership with the Solomon Islands, shows that these measures are merely in response to China’s overtures in the region.
Unlike the Soviet Union in the Cold-War era, China today has trillions in capital to invest around the world through its Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing offers developing economies quick access to capital as well as infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and ports. Economic and social benefits of these projects vary country by country, with sporadic but not widespread discontent surrounding the initiative in the Global South.
China is the world’s largest trading nation and controls the supply chains of several industries vital to U.S. national security. Moreover, according to reports, Beijing is planning to increase its military presence in the South China Sea and in countries such as Iran,Pakistan and Equatorial Guinea. Most importantly, China is vying for the leadership role of the Global South and making inroads, not just into countries that have an existing dispute with the Western world such as Iran and Argentina, but many others in the developing world through a camaraderie and solidarity of shared, existential challenges.
In order to address these multifarious challenges, the United States should use economic statecraft, diplomacy, and strategic soft power over conventional military power.
Firstly, American economic statecraft should hinge on three types of shoring — friend shoring, onshoring, and nearshoring, which will reduce America’s over reliance on China for vital goods and services while increasing economic opportunities for American allies and neighbors.
As an extension, the United States Should help deliver roads, bridges, and hospitals to countries that are in dire need. Second, diplomacy should constitute dialogue and support of civil institutions that would assist in the goal of winning friends over antagonistic measures of regime change. Furthermore, Washington should include developing countries in the decision-making process — particularly on decisions that could have a wide-ranging impact on their economies and societies such as sanctions and security agreements.
Finally, strategic soft power should be executed through public diplomacy initiatives and increased scholarly exchanges with countries in the Pacific Islands and other parts of the developing world.
As the United States makes the pivot to Asia while engaging island nations in the Pacific and other nations in the broader Global South, it should make a concerted effort to read history through the prism of the people of the region and adopt a more egalitarian foreign policy that addresses their needs. If not, they will soon find the developing world in China’s embrace.
Ukraine would consider inviting Russian officials to a peace summit to discuss Kyiv’s proposal for a negotiated end to the war, according to Andriy Yermak, the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff.
“There can be a situation in which we together invite representatives of the Russian Federation, where they will be presented with the plan in case whoever is representing the aggressor country at that time will want to genuinely end this war and return to a just peace,” Yermak said over the weekend, noting that one more round of talks without Russia will first be held in Switzerland.
The comment represents a subtle shift in Ukrainian messaging about talks. Kyiv has long argued that it would never negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, yet there is no reason to believe Putin will leave power any time soon. That realization — along with Ukraine’s increasingly perilous position on the battlefield — may have helped force Kyiv to reconsider its hard line on talking with the widely reviled Russian leader.
Zelensky hinted at a potential mediator for talks following a visit this week to Saudi Arabia. The leader “noted in particular Saudi Arabia’s strivings to help in restoring a just peace in Ukraine,” according to a statement from Ukrainian officials. “Saudi Arabia’s leadership can help find a just solution.”
Russia, for its part, has signaled that it is open to peace talks of some sort, though both Kyiv and Moscow insist that any negotiations would have to be conducted on their terms. The gaps between the negotiating positions of the two countries remain substantial, with each laying claim to roughly 18% of the territory that made up pre-2014 Ukraine.
Ukraine’s shift is a sign of just how dire the situation is becoming for its armed forces, which recently made a hasty retreat from Avdiivka, a small but strategically important town near Donetsk. After months of wrangling, the U.S. Congress has still not approved new military aid for Ukraine, and Kyiv now says its troops are having to ration ammunition as their stockpiles dwindle.
Zelensky said Sunday that he expects Russia to mount a new offensive as soon as late May. It’s unclear whether Ukrainian troops are prepared to stop such a move.
Even the Black Sea corridor — a narrow strip of the waterway through which Ukraine exports much of its grain — could be under threat. “I think the route will be closed...because to defend it, it's also about some ammunition, some air defense, and some other systems” that are now in short supply, said Zelensky.
As storm clouds gather, it’s time to push for peace talks before Russia regains the upper hand, argue Anatol Lieven and George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.
“Complete victory for Ukraine is now an obvious impossibility,” Lieven and Beebe wrote this week. “Any end to the fighting will therefore end in some form of compromise, and the longer we wait, the worse the terms of that compromise will be for Ukraine, and the greater the dangers will be for our countries and the world.”
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Hungary finally signed off on Sweden’s bid to join NATO after the Swedish prime minister met with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Budapest, according to Deutsche Welle. What did Orban get for all the foot dragging? Apparently just four Swedish fighter jets of the same model that it has been purchasing for years. The prime minister blamed his party for the slow-rolling, saying in a radio interview prior to the parliamentary vote that he had persuaded his partisans to drop their opposition to Sweden’s accession.
— French President Emmanuel Macron sent allies scrambling Tuesday when he floated the idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, according to the BBC. Leaders from Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, and other NATO states quickly swatted down the idea that the alliance (or any individual members thereof) would consider joining the war directly. Russia said direct conflict with NATO would be an “inevitability” if the bloc sent troops into Ukraine.
— On Wednesday, Zelensky attended a summit in Albania aimed at bolstering Balkan support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia, according to AP News. The Ukrainian leader said all states in the region are “worthy” of becoming members of NATO and the European Union, which “have provided Europe with the longest and most reliable era of security and economic development.”
— Western officials were in talks with the Kremlin for a prisoner swap involving Russian dissident Alexei Navalny prior to his death in a Russian prison camp in February, though no formal offer had yet been made, according to Politico. This account contrasts with the one given by Navalny’s allies, who claimed that Putin had killed the opposition leader in order to sabotage discussions that were nearing a deal. Navalny’s sudden death has led to speculation about whether Russian officials may have assassinated him, though no proof has yet surfaced to back up this claim. There is, however, little doubt that the broader deterioration of the dissident’s health was related to the harsh conditions he was held under.
U.S. State Department news:
In a Tuesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the situation on the frontlines in Ukraine is “extremely serious.” “We have seen Ukrainian frontline troops who don’t have the ammo they need to repel Russian aggression. They’re still fighting bravely. They’re still fighting courageously,” Miller said. “They still have armor and weapons and ammunition they can use, but they’re having to ration it now because the United States Congress has failed to act.”
keep readingShow less
Janet Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury. (Reuters)
On Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen strongly endorsed efforts to tap frozen Russian central bank assets in order to continue to fund Ukraine.
“There is a strong international law, economic and moral case for moving forward,” with giving the assets, which were frozen by international sanctions following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, to Kyiv, she said to reporters before a G7 meeting in San Paulo.
Furthermore on Wednesday, White House national security communications adviser John Kirby urged the use of these assets to assist the Ukrainian military.
This adds momentum to increasing efforts on Capitol Hill to monetize the frozen assets to assist the beleaguered country, including through the “REPO Act,” a U.S. Senate bill which was criticized by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a recent article here in Responsible Statecraft. As Paul pointed out, spending these assets would violate international law and norms by the outright seizure of sovereign Russian assets.
In the long term, this will do even more to undermine global faith in the U.S.-led and Western-centric international financial system. Doubts about the system and pressures to find an alternative are already heightened due to the freezing of Russian overseas financial holdings in the first place, as well as the frequent use of unilateral sanctions by the U.S. to impose its will and values on other countries.
The amount of money involved here is considerable. Over $300 billion in Russian assets was frozen, mostly held in European banks. For comparison, that’s about the same amount as the entirety of Western aid committed from all sources to Ukraine since the beginning of the war in 2022 — around $310 billion, including the recent $54 billion in 4-year assistance just approved by the EU.
Thus, converting all of the Russian assets to assistance for Ukraine could in theory fully finance a continuing war in Ukraine for years to come. As political support for open-ended Ukraine aid wanes in both the U.S. and Europe, large-scale use of this financing method also holds the promise of an administrative end-run around the political system.
But there are also considerable potential downsides, particularly in Europe. European financial institutions hold the overwhelming majority of frozen Russian assets, and any form of confiscation could be a major blow to confidence in these entities. In addition, European corporations have significant assets stranded in Russia which Moscow could seize in retaliation for the confiscation of its foreign assets.
Another major issue is that using assets to finance an ongoing conflict will forfeit their use as leverage in any peace settlement, and the rebuilding of Ukraine. The World Bank now estimates post-war rebuilding costs for Ukraine of nearly $500 billion. If the West can offer a compromise to Russia in which frozen assets are used to pay part of these costs, rather than demanding new Russian financing for massive reparations, this could be an important incentive for negotiations.
In contrast, monetizing the assets outside of a peace process could signal that the West intends to continue the conflict indefinitely.
In combination with aggressive new U.S. sanctions announced last week on Russia and on third party countries that continue to deal with Russia, the new push for confiscation of Russian assets is more evidence that the U.S. and EU intend to intensify the conflict with Moscow using administrative mechanisms that won’t rely on support from the political system or the people within them.
keep readingShow less
Activist Layla Elabed speaks during an uncommitted vote election night gathering as Democrats and Republicans hold their Michigan presidential primary election, in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S. February 27, 2024. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
A protest vote in Michigan against President Joe Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza dramatically exceeded expectations Tuesday, highlighting the possibility that his stance on the conflict could cost him the presidency in November.
More than 100,000 Michiganders voted “uncommitted” in yesterday’s presidential primary, earning 13.3% of the tally with most votes counted and blasting past organizers’ goal of 10,000 protest votes. Biden won the primary handily with 81% of the total tally.
The results suggest that Biden could lose Michigan in this year’s election if he continues to back Israel’s campaign to the hilt. In 2020, he won the state by 150,000 votes while polls predicted he would win by a much larger margin. This year, early polls show a slight lead for Trump in the battleground state, which he won in 2016 by fewer than 11,000 votes.
“The war on Gaza is a deep moral issue and the lack of attention and empathy for this perspective from the administration is breaking apart the fragile coalition we built to elect Joe Biden in 2020,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a progressive leader who has called for a ceasefire in Gaza, as votes came in last night.
Biden still has “a little bit of time to change this dynamic,” Jayapal told CNN, but “it has to be a dramatic policy and rhetorical shift from the president on this issue and a new strategy to rebuild a real partnership with progressives in multiple communities who are absolutely key to winning the election.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, a prominent Biden ally, told Semafor the vote is a “wake-up call” for the White House on Gaza.
The “uncommitted” option won outright in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb with a famously large Arab American population. The protest vote also gained notable traction in college towns, signaling Biden’s weakness among young voters across the country. “Uncommitted” received at least 8% of votes in every county in Michigan with more than 95% of votes tallied.
The uncommitted campaign drew backing from prominent Democrats in Michigan, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and state Rep. Abraham Aiyash, who is the majority leader in the Michigan House. Former Reps. Andy Levin and Beto O’Rourke, who served as a representative from Texas, also lent their support to the effort.
“Our movement emerged victorious tonight and massively surpassed our expectations,” said Listen to Michigan, the organization behind the campaign, in a statement last night. “Tens of thousands of Michigan Democrats, many of whom [...] voted for Biden in 2020, are uncommitted to his re-election due to the war in Gaza.”
Biden did not make reference to the uncommitted movement in his victory speech, but reports indicate that his campaign is spooked by the effort. Prior to Tuesday’s vote, White House officials met with Arab and Muslim leaders in Michigan to try to assuage their concerns about the war, which has left about 30,000 Palestinians dead and many more injured. (More than 1,100 Israelis died during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks last year.)
The president argues that his support for Israel has made it possible for him to guide the direction of the war to the extent possible, though his critics note that, despite some symbolic and rhetorical moves, he has stopped far short of holding back U.S. weapons or supporting multilateral efforts to demand a ceasefire.
Campaigners now hope the “uncommitted” effort will spread to other states. Minnesota, which will hold its primaries next week, is an early target.
“If you think this will stop with Michigan you are either the president or paid to flatter him,” said Alex Sammon, a politics writer at Slate.
Meanwhile in the Republican primary, former President Donald Trump fended off a challenge from former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. With 94% of votes in, Trump came away with 68% of the vote, while Haley scored around 27%.