When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

CLARIN

Chest-Beating Is Back With Gusto In Geopolitics

The great powers seem to be spurning multilateralism and resorting once more to force as a means of pursuing national interests.

Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban
Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

-Op-Ed-

BUENOS AIRES — One of the most dangerous moments in international affairs is when world powers seek to recover a portion of the power they believe they've lost.

After 2009, state actors (Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and non-state actors (ISIS) became convinced that the United States was in decline and had abandoned the will to maintain its global primacy. They grew bolder with the assumption that Washington could not, or did not want to exercise political and military leadership on a global scale. President Barack Obama's budget cuts seemed to confirm this, as did the diplomatic formula of "leading from behind," his preference for multilateral initiatives like the climate pact, and his predilection for international institutions, dialogue and soft power.

North Korea has completed four nuclear tests and increased its missile launches (11 in total, including four in 2017), and boasts about the impending nuclear destruction of the West. Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and reabsorbed some former Soviet territories. Iran has gone so far as to harass U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. And China has been building naval bases in the South China Sea.

The Islamic State (ISIS), in the meantime, has killed thousands in Syria and Iraq, while also carrying out attacks in various western countries. The 2016 Global Terrorism Index found that 21 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) suffered terrorist attacks in 2015.

U.S. military actions in recent weeks are not the beginning of chaos, but a response to an increasingly chaotic world. Like them or not, they remind us of certain inherent lessons on the use of force in global affairs.

These are:

1) Utopian declarations only impress global elites and the international media. They mean nothing to revisionist states, which know that empires are faced down not on pulpits but in the battlefield, and are overcome with an effective offensive, not great eloquence. Deadlines, ultimatums and red lines must be backed with credible and decisive use of force, or they encourage defiance and invite aggression.

2) Use of force is an inalienable instrument of state power and war, a political act. Or, as the 19th century historian Carl von Clausewitz stated, the continuation of politics by other means. In today's world, it appears that the actors believe increasingly in the use of force and less in the elements that were supposed to replace or restrict it. We hear the terms "missiles," "threat" and "nuclear" much more frequently than "UN," "institutions' or "peace." This does not mean that the world is inevitably marching toward a third world war. But it does mean that in the current global disorder, states are increasingly relying on their own power.

3) Those with power will increasingly use force as a deterrent, for all the horror this may cause the progressive and liberal elites. Globalizing intellectuals despise war as a barbaric act and assume it to be the result of primitive warmongering, even as they praise agreements as the height of rationality and civilization.

Politics, like appeasement, isolation and collaboration, can often impede a particular crisis in the short term. But they doesn't necessarily solve the deeper causes of the crisis. The United States boosted its military spending in 2016 by 1.7%, China by 5.4%, Russia by 5.9% and India by 8.5%. For the realist in international relations, it is better to be ridiculed while effectively preventing a crisis than to be praised as you become more vulnerable and defenseless.

*Mariano Turzi is a professor of International Relations at the Torcuato di Tella University in Buenos Aires.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest