• Under Trump: The Inevitable Decline of a Super Power
  • Ukraine’s Allies Push Back on US. Peace Plan

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

United States: A Declining Power

There is little doubt that the United States has faced a decade of domestic polarization.

Paradoxically, both Republicans and Democrats agree that the present world order, built and led by the United States after the Second World War, is under threat from China which aims to undermine America’s leadership at the top of the power pyramid.

Behind this situation in the struggle between two great powers is the famous theory of the Thucydides Trap enunciated by a Harvard professor.

It references the violent clash that comes when a rising power challenges the ruling hegemon.

During the time of the great Greek historian Thucydides, it was Athens that threatened and challenged – and then made its own – the pre-eminence of Sparta.

According to The New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen this is “a pattern that has played out repeatedly through history, with the ambition and aggression of the challenger almost always ending in bloodshed” (Nov. 22-23).

However, this assumption has not been borne out in Trump’s second term.

Contrary to the historical pattern, Trump has unleashed its litany of chaos.

His administration has pursued all on its own a root-and-branch destruction of the very global order America made and built upon [ started by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt].

China, by contrast, has responded overwhelmingly with a steely insistence on the status quo – it is not at all interested in disturbing the international political equilibrium.

In a startling reversal, it is America, not China, that seems determined to spring Thucydides trap.

“At the world’s summit, America is overthrowing America” (Polgreen).

The US bipartisan consensus on China, now showing signs of extreme strain, was, in fact, built on a misreading of China’s intentions.

This is the argument of a very recent paper published in the M.I.T. journal International Security by a trio of East Asia scholars.

“China is a status quo power concerned with regime stability,’ the authors write, “and it will remains inwardly focussed than externally oriented.”

Their conclusions were striking.

China’s stated territorial concerns, do not extend beyond its long-held claim to Taiwan and relatively small border areas.

“China’s aims are unambiguous, China’s aims are enduring; and China’s aims are limited,” they write.

Much of China’s foreign policy, rather than exporting its ideology abroad, is aimed at shoring up the power of the Communist Party at home.

What outside observers take to be aggressive moves are often aimed at solving internal problems.

Take its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which some see as a quasi-imperial effort to win the loyalty of developing nations.

One of the paper’s authors, Zenobia Chan (scholar of International Relations, Georgetown University) said the initiative was driven more by internal considerations than global ambition.

“A lot of it is driven by domestic needs, excess industrial capacity after the global financial crisis,” she said. China has for the most part not sought to use these investments as leverage for its global ambitions, she added, beyond its longstanding demand that its partners adhere to a One China policy and avoid recognizing the independence of Taiwan.

It certainly has not expressly asked developing nations to choose between itself and the United States.

G-20 grapples with splintering wprld order

G-20 leaders gathered last Sunday in South Africa hailed multilateralism – even as they struggled to adapt to a changing world order beset by go-it-alone US policies, wars and deepening geopolitical rivalries (AFP/ Nov.23).

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said: “the centre of gravity in the global economy is shifting,” implying that the G-20 needed to take greater note of emerging economies and the Global South.

Ukraine Peace Plan?

The 28-point blueprint to end the war sparked alarm in Kyiv and European capitals.

Ukraine’s Western allies rallied around the war-torn country as they pushed to revise a peace plan formulated by the United States alone and negotiated with the Russians without input from Ukraine or the Europeans (AP/Associated Press, Nov. 22.

This single-handed act illustrates the Trump administration’s arrogant attitude in foreign policy in general and European security policy in particular.

The European leaders may privately recognize that Trump is a nincompoop in his country’s external affairs but keep very much quiet publicly!

The so-called U.S. peace plan is perceived as blatantly favouring Moscow despite its all-out invasion of its neighbour and being against International Law and the Charter of the United Nations.

The 28-point blueprint to end the nearly four-year war sparked alarm in both Kyiv and European capitals, with Ukrainian President Zelensky saying his country could face a stark choice between standing up for its sovereign rights and preserving the American support it badly needs.

The U.S. plan foresees:

  • Ukraine handing over territory in the industrial base Donbas to Russia, something Kyiv has repeatedly ruled out
  • Ukraine unilaterally reducing the size of its army (but not Russia)
  • Blocking Ukraine’s coveted path to NATO membership

The lop-sided “peace plan” holds many of Moscow’s long-standing demands, while offering limited security guarantees to Kyiv.

Standpoint of the European Powers

Leaders of the European Union, Canada and Japan issued a joint statement welcoming US peace efforts but pushed back against key tenets of the plan.

“We are ready to engage in order to ensure that a future peace is sustainable. We are clear on the principle that borders must not be changed by force .  .  .

“We are also concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack,” the statement said (AP).

European leaders have long warned against rushing a peace deal, seeing their own future at stake in Ukraine’s fight to beat back Russia, and insist on being consulted in peace efforts.

The French, German and UK leaders also met on the sidelines of a Group of 20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa [which was boycotted by the Trump administration], to discuss ways to support Kyiv (AP).

High-Ranking Ukrainian Officials to Lead Talks

Zelensky said Ukrainian representatives at the talks in Switzerland ‘know how to protect Ukrainian national interests and exactly what is needed to prevent Russia from carrying out’ another invasion.

“Real peace is always based on security and justice,” he added (AP).

Nine top officials are to take part in the talks, including Zelensky’s Chief of Staff Andrii Yermak and top envoy Rustem Umerov.

The negotiators are empowered to deal directly with their Russian counterparts.

Kyiv’s Allies Insist On ‘Just and Lasting’ Peace

Kyiv’s key allies in Europe reiterated their reservations about the Kremlin’s readiness to end the war.

“Time and again, Russia pretends to be serious about peace, but their actions never live up to their words,” UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told reporters ahead of the G-20 summit, days after a Russian strike on western Ukraine killed over two dozen civilians.

European leaders have long accused Russia of stalling diplomatic efforts in the hope of overwhelming Ukraine’s much smaller forces on the battlefield.

Kyiv has repeatedly accepted ceasefire proposals this year, while Moscow has held out for more favourable terms.

Trump has demonstrated again and again that he is more accommodating to Putin’s wishes.

Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times star commentator, has sarcastically written that Trump is very much deserving of the “Neville Chamberlain Peace Prize – “awarded by history to the leader of the country that most flagrantly sells out its allies and its values to an aggressive dictator” (Nov. 24).

The writer can be reached at: shashimalla125@gmail.com