I have previously expressed my opposition to the policies of appeasement and realpolitik practised by the international community and Western powers in dealing with regimes incessantly committing human rights violations (read here and here). Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, I further emphasised this and became vocal of criticising such policies. But I think that in my previous pieces I fail to properly connect these two: how this policy of maintaining the flawed current international order is not sustainable and is meant to just end in a renewed full-scale global conflict.
Right after the Second World War, the world remained being bipolar, even if it was an Allied victory. This alliance led by the United Kingdom and the United States needed the help of the Soviet Union, but this partnership is not ironclad, and once the war ended the Axis Powers were replaced by the Communists (comprised of the Warsaw Pact, SFR Yugoslavia, PR China-Albania alliance, etc.), or in the Communist perspective was replaced by the Allies. Events like Joseph Stalin's Great Purge and Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, all causing at least a million each in casualties, were enough for us to put the left-wing regimes into bad light, but at the same time, right-wing authoritarians adopted the same ruthlessness against critics, and their regimes (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba) and coups (Iran 1953, Brazil 1964, Philippines and Korea 1972, Chile 1973) were backed by the West.
The new Allies also betrayed independence movements nascent during the period (Tibet, West Papua, Biafra (although France backed Biafra)), although some managed to achieve victory (Algeria, Bangladesh, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Timor-Leste (Angolan and Mozambican fighters received American support, however)). Even in Western domestic politics, particularly in the USA, dissent is treated as sympathy to the Communists, thus the harassment of security and intelligence forces against the Civil Rights Movement.
It was Jimmy Carter, whose presidency in the United States was from 1977 to 1981, who changed American (and subsequently Western) foreign policy from a realpolitik-al approach to a belief centred in human rights, and so we are introduced to the country being the "world police". The successes of interventions in Grenada, Kuwait and Panama and the failures in Bosnia and Rwanda made such policy convincing, but later ones in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are marred by governance failures: corruption in the first country, sectarianism in the second, thirst for power and resulting division in the third. This lack of sincerity on managing military interventions was translated by Joe Biden into his speech of betrayal to Afghanistan, rejecting responsibility on nation-building (required to make the intervention outcomes sustainable).
I would blame the Communist nations for giving its opposing forces a veneer for the latter's crimes after the former killing millions. But the hypocrisy of the West also led to the public's trust to even values like freedom, human rights and democracy degrading, dismissing these as "Western". Seeing the superpowers' worldliness, imperialism and desire for expansion, I wished that the United Nations rule instead and hold these forces accountable, but even this instrument is formed without a way to punish the superpowers (e.g., permanent membership and veto powers in the Security Council).
When the Cold War ended, the Doomsday Clock shifted to its farthest from "midnight": 17 minutes before, meaning peace and stability prevail, and with the combination of this order and the failures of half-cooked interventionism, the policy of appeasement and realpolitik is practised again. After the NATO bombardment of the PRC embassy in Belgrade, the West treads carefully, and issues where (potential) nuclear forces are involved became hands-off: Chechnya and Syria were left in Russian influence; Tibet, East Turkestan and the seas east of China were unattended; and no sanction was able to prevent the "Islamic Republic" of Iran and DPR Korea from working on nuclear weapon capabilities.
Viktor Yanukovych' last-minute shift from a deal with the European Union to Russia was seen by majority of Ukrainians as violation of popular will, and his resulting ouster made Putin vulnerable, and the rift between the West and other superpowers (notably Russia and PRC, or bodies like BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)) further deepened. Putin found an increasing mistrust to the West and "Western values", and this he and his allies amplified, leading to the rise of populist terror. It had taken a toll on the West: Donald Trump elected, the UK leaving the EU, and so on (we could say "Death to 2016" before "Death to 2020"), but what was the West's response? When crises happened in Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Belarus, Sudan and Israel-Palestine, all it had done were only sanctions, and that's it; many of which with the influence of its adversaries, thus the inaction the latter exploit. Others managed to act by themselves, like Armenia, Sri Lanka and Senegal (the former two are still adjusting), but there are more failures (Zimbabwe, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea, Argentina).
Putin invaded Ukraine, PRC gradually harasses RO China-controlled Taiwan, the Iranian mullahs continue enriching uranium to achieve weapons-grade level, and DPRK revamped its rhetoric to a palpably destructive one; yet the West and the international community maintain their cowardice by keeping the policy of appeasement and realpolitik. This is what the West made; it created its own monster-- "appeasement and realpolitik", the food of the Putin-Xi Jinping Axis. This is what the adversaries want: a "multipolar" world order, superficial "harmony", unstable "stability", meant to uphold impunity and defy justice. This has been evoking World War II feels: Neville Chamberlain's continuous appeasement did not put Adolf Hitler's unwavering expansionism to a halt. No realpolitik convinced the Nazi leader to back out, it took more than 65 million lives to defeat him and his Axis.
And no appeasement can compel the new Axis to change heart. Their bet for the upcoming American elections, Donald Trump, who vies to return to presidency, argues World War III is ahead of us should he lose. I say he's not lying there-- he will help spark the Second American Civil War in case of a loss, and he will be the key for an unstoppable new Axis because the West would have one less superpower in case of a victory. In either way, however, the world will go to "midnight"; the American elections are just a determiner.
Americans are faced with two options: immediate American "order" destined to collapse, or future world order at the cost of full-scale armed domestic and international conflict. Kamala Harris would be the latter, yet despite my disagreements on some non-security issues I choose her, but it means we as global citizens need to fight for our future. As one of her slogans says, "we are not going back".
Article posted on 23 August 2024, 12:37 (UTC +08:00).
No comments:
Post a Comment