Last week, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) became the first Gulf country to agree to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, a symbolic milestone hinting at Islamic nations starting to accept the state of Israel as a fait accompli.
Even for sworn enemies, once reality has stood the test of time, it often triumphs over ideology.
Aggressive nations attempting to establish fait accompli are one of the most challenging aspects of international relations.
From the West Bank in Israel/Palestine to the Russian occupation of Crimea, the use of force can often render bilateral and mutually respectful negotiations irrelevant, especially when such use of force is not adequately challenged by some act in kind.
In the Asia-Pacific region, China is the obvious challenger to international order in the area, trying to establish new fait accompli around most of its border.
To the West, the Sino-Indian conflict was triggered by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) military encroachment in disputed territory, in spite of time-honored consensus.
To the south, the artificial islands in the South China Sea and their subsequent militarization are a slap in the face for neighboring countries with competing claims that have relied solely on bilateral negotiations.
To the east, PLA Air Force fighters crossing the Taiwan Strait median line last year, sustained by various other novel military provocations, are all Beijing’s way of challenging the “status quo.”
Along with Beijing’s recent bludgeoning of Hong Kong’s freedoms and unique way of life, these are all the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to bend internationally accepted norms and values to its own liking.
These aberrations become fait accompli when the international community fails to deter such actions.
Faits accomplis are hardest to deal with when done using the salami-slicing tactic. The gradual buildup makes it hard for policymakers in opposing countries to decide on the right reaction to deter the aggressor, without being perceived as an overreaction.
Having said that, the policymaker is better served by overreacting than underreacting, as international attention is fleeting, whereas deterrence is lasting.
With that in mind, those who are unwilling to see the international order being held in contempt need to make their deterrence credible and contemplate the previously unthinkable.
Some of these actions might appear unseemly to the civilized and soft-spoken, and hence equal effort needs to be made in the justification of stronger deterrence.
This means that timely and strong-handed responses need to be accompanied by a reinvigoration of international lobbying and persuasion.
Part of the responsibility also falls upon civilized nations to make clear to the offender that international rule-breaking comes with consequences. Independent of the existing UN Security Council mechanism, economically powerful countries should consider pooling their markets together and threatening those whose actions violate the global consensus with sweeping economic sanctions.
While there might be immediate pangs from such policing of international relations, the long-term benefits of a rule-based and norms-respecting international atmosphere are worth the pain and effort.
After all, we all live in the same, interconnected world.
Bernard W is a University of Toronto International Relations alumnus.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS