• Great-Power Rivalry *U.S. Foreign Policy & Democracy Degradation in Allies *India’s Democracy Downslide *West’s Hesitancy in Ukraine
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla Great-Power Rivalry Has Undermined Democracy World-Wide In a wide-ranging essay, the scholars Michael Brenes and Van Johnson have made a withering critique of Biden’s foreign policy (Foreign Affairs, July 14, 2022). They have attacked the mistaken outlook of the Biden administration that Great-Power competition will foster democracy at home and abroad, especially formulating the rivalry as a Kulturkampf [culture war] between “Democracies” and “Autocracies” world-wide. This perspective conveniently ignores democracy backsliding in such emerging economies as India, Brazil and South Africa [ironically together with China and Russia in the interest-oriented BRICS conglomerate] and “illiberal” EU members like Hungary and Poland. The Brenes/Johnson attempt to clear the air is brilliant, timely and necessary. They point out that the prospect of a long-term rivalry with China as a challenge that will bring out the best of the United States is a total fallacy. Unfortunately, Russia’s catastrophic invasion of Ukraine has also buttressed this conventional wisdom. The Chinese threat [‘the Yellow Peril’?] will supposedly mobilize the US national will and cure what’s ailing American democracy. The ongoing struggle against Russia – albeit as a proxy – is also supposed to restore faith in waging winnable battles against autocrats. As the perspicacious Francis Fukuyama wrote: “The spirit of 1989 went to sleep and now it’s being reawakened” [referring to the demolition of the Berlin Wall and the West’s victory in the Cold War]. The writers are of the opinion that reconfiguring Western foreign policy for great-power conflict will not help restore democracy in the United States or elsewhere in the world. In fact, if America wants a well-functioning polity with a civil society at peace, it should not promote great-power rivalry. They point out that the most pressing threats to democracy cannot be solved through a competitive framework in international affairs. These threats are climate change, extreme nationalism and xenophobia, pandemics and economic inequality. The U.S. and partners should, therefore, promote institutions of regional and global governance to mitigate the damage to democracy arising from great-power competition. Currently, the showdown with Russia and China has resulted in a dramatic increase in racism and ethnically motivated violence in the U.S. Unfortunately, not only Russian and Chinese immigrants are targeted in these xenophobic attacks. Hate crimes against Asian Americans have increased more than three hundred percent!. Brenes and Jackson conclude that great-power rivalry – the basic tenet of American Grand Strategy – will fail to rectify the sources of U.S. democratic weakness, which are rooted in economic insecurity, political corruption and racism. Biden's hypocrisy-riddled distinctions between democracy and dictatorship as an ideological basis for great-power rivalry are not only self-defeating, but also logically contradictory. Geo-political rivalry has done nothing to “tackle the unresolved issues heightened by the pandemic: racial and economic inequality, a public health crisis, and runaway environmental degradation,” – not only in America, but world-wide. U.S. Foreign Policy & Democratic Erosion in Allied States Putin’s war in Ukraine has highlighted the corrosive dangers of Russian authoritarianism and the destabilizing potential of totalitarian nationalist ideologies. The United States’ anti-Russian strategy within the structural framework of military-base great power competition [see below], is also its preferred approach to the global rise of China. However, according to two scholars, Sunaina Danzinger (doctoral candidate of History at Princeton University -- allied  and Dylan Junkin (Research Assistant at the Stimson Center), adopting the great-power competition framework against Russia and China neglects the more pernicious and increasingly global ideological threat both states pose to international peace and security (e-ir). Quasi-authoritarian states, according to Danzinger/Junkin, are uniquely concerning because they can wage destabilizing, ideologically motivated wars with limited domestic constraints. Without institutional checks and balances, state actions are driven by the interests of autocrats, ruling parties and nationalist ideologies. U.S.-allied states in democratic decline may follow models set by established autocracies like Russia in pursuing their own expansionist policies. India is a case in point. It has experienced a precipitous democratic decline under the rule of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the extremist right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The U.S. has courted Indian participation in its Indo-Pacific Strategy, but at the same time ignored India’s attacks on press freedoms, targeting of religious minorities, record of state-sponsored violence and inflammatory foreign policies. Despite increased defence cooperation, India has not proved itself as a reliable partner of the United States. It continues to maintain a deep and long-standing defence relationship with Russia and has refused to condemn the invasion of Ukraine. The United States is deliberately turning a blind eye to India’s authoritative slide and thereby its strategy to target Russia’s and China’s resonance across the world is failing: “Without real commitments to countering democratic erosion, the liberal packaging of the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy” is only a diplomatic cushion for militarily focused great-power competition.” The Transformation of India: Into a brutally Exclusionary Hindu-Supremacist State As the world’s largest democracy [even ahead of the United States!] India could have been an inspiring example of how a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious country could come together to form a vibrant state with liberte’, egalite’ et  fraternite’ enshrined in its constitution. According to prominent Indian writer, Kapil Komireddi [essayist and author of “Malevolent Republic: A Short History of the New India” in “Five Books”], all that is going down the drain, as the country transforms into a brutally exclusionary Hindu-supremacist state under the leadership of Sri Sri Swami Ji Narendra Modi. India is undergoing the most total social, economic, cultural, political transformation since 1991, when PM Narasimha Rao was at the head of affairs. Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seem unaware that this is making India into an “An Area of Darkness” and unpalatable to all its South Asian neighbours, including Nepal and Bhutan – the closest nations culturally. Biden and the West in general welcome Modi profusely as the leader of an upcoming economic global power, totally ignoring his domestic and external misdeeds. Modi is remaking India in ways that were inconceivable just 10 years ago. Hindu nationalism was a marginal phenomenon for many decades in India. But now it has deluged the mainstream. India has raced to a point of no-return. It has abandoned all the foundational principles upon which the great leaders Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru premised the state: secularism, socialism, democracy, non-alignment. There is a palpable feeling of rage against history. It seems the BJP-wallahs want to completely vanquish history! Like the Serbs in former Yugoslavia, the Indian Hindus have become a “self-pitying majority”! The genius of India, the ability to assimilate difference, the ability to live with dissimilitude – even contradictions – is steadily being eroded. The tragedy of it all – there is no deus ex machina on the horizon. West Fears Escalation in Ukraine The world is looking on as Ukrainians fight for their lives and their freedom. The West is doing much with resources, but at the same time worrying too much about escalation – the [ungrounded] fear of provoking a wider, perhaps nuclear, war with Russia. This is the central thesis of Dan Altman (Assistant Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University) in his well-reasoned article in Foreign Affairs (July 12). He writes that U.S. President Joe Biden and other NATO leaders consistently made clear that they will not intervene directly in the conflict [especially with boots on the ground], instead limiting their support to weapons, finance, intelligence and sanctions. Russia has rained devastating death and destruction on Ukraine, but a nuclear war would have unimaginable consequences – considerably more people would be killed and maimed in Europe as a whole and the wider region, with unintended effects for the entire world. Still there are countless apologists who exonerate Russia for any responsibility. Prof. Altman makes the case that NATO needs a rock-solid strategy to help Ukraine without widening the current war to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. The lessons of history shows that NATO would recklessly risk war only by crossing two Russian red lines:
  1. By openly firing on Russian forces;
  2. By deploying organized combat units under NATO-member flags in Ukraine.
NATO has not been crossing any Russian red lines by arms transfers and economic sanctions. However, NATO should abandon its self-imposed arbitrary limits on the volume and types of conventional weapons they are currently providing Ukraine. Moreover, Altman makes a novel proposal, which according to historical experience, is wholly legitimate and which Russia itself practices.
  1. It is now high time for NATO to encourage, organize and equip volunteers to fight for Ukraine.
Historical Antecedents During the Cold War, the U.S. successfully pursued a strategy of going as far as possible without plainly crossing Soviet red lines. Berlin Blockade, 1948-49 During the infamous blockade of West Berlin – an exclave by the Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin ordered the blockade of all roads and railways from West Germany through East Germany (administered by the Soviet Union) to West Berlin (administered like West Germany by the U.S., Britain and France). Thus, supplies of all materials, including food and coal [needed for heating and cooking] for two million Berliners and Allied soldiers were choked off. The war-time Allies did not attempt to force their way through. Instead, they resorted to supplying West Berlin by air every day and night. The Soviets did not attempt to disrupt this non-violent action and finally they gave up and the vaunted Berlin Airlift succeeded. Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962 The Soviets had secretly transported nuclear missiles to their ally Cuba ruled by arch-revolutionary Fidel Castro. Just off the coast of Florida, this was a grave security threat to the U.S. When the Soviet missiles were finally discovered by the CIA, the great charismatic U.S. President John F. Kennedy rejected destroying the missiles with airstrikes. But he did not accept the missiles as a fait accompli. Instead, with steely nerves, he ordered the naval blockade of Cuba. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev finally relented and agreed to remove the missiles. The U.S. also made concessions. It was the triumph of diplomacy over armed conflict. The U.S. had prevailed by taking risks without attacking. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had also engaged in proxy wars to avoid attacking each other directly and starting another world war. They used large-scale arms shipments and even soldiers fighting as volunteers to support local forces. Such covert wars are designed to prevent escalation and are a common tactic in international politics. Using the same rationale, Altman argues that NATO can provoke a wider war. He is, in fact, urging NATO to take over the strategic initiative. He argues convincingly that a war with NATO would cost Russia far much more than ‘swallowing’ most forms of aid to Ukraine for very cogent reasons:
  1. Russia is already struggling mightily against Ukraine;
  2. It cannot simultaneously win a conventional war with NATO;
  3. Putin and his top lieutenants are clear that no one would win a nuclear war. The doctrine of mutual nuclear deterrence is still working!
Armed Volunteers to the Fore! Altman makes a strong case for NATO to take a more forward-looking move to aid Ukraine, which could be a major game-changer [besides more powerful weapons]. He calls upon NATO members to encourage, equip and fund their soldiers and veterans who are willing to fight for Ukraine. To limit the risk of war with Russia, these volunteers would engage wearing Ukrainian uniforms under the Ukrainian chain of command would long war of attrition and in the meantime pulverize and terrorize Ukraine with long-distance missile attacks. If Putin were rational and realistic, he would seek a diplomatic way out of the conflict of his own making – like Khrushchev. Putin could be delusional and play his supposed ace card – by fully mobilizing for war. In spite of all-out repression, this final act could be his undoing by bringing forth widespread protests.   The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com