The first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a good opportunity to reflect on the war’s global implications. In addition to untold human misery, Russia’s aggression triggered a historic food and energy crisis and caused global inflation to spike, endangering the world’s fragile economic recovery from COVID-19.
However, the war also highlighted the shaky foundations of the international security order that emerged after the end of World War II, sending shockwaves around the world and encouraging countries like Germany and Japan to rearm.
While some still try to justify Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions by claiming that Moscow was somehow provoked by the “eastern expansion” of NATO, the fact is Ukraine posed no threat to Russia when Putin invaded the country. Putin was not seeking to defend Russia’s territorial integrity from Ukrainian or Western encroachments; he simply wanted to pursue his imperial ambitions.
Illustration: Tania Chou
The possibility of a Russian victory in Ukraine has caused panic among Russia’s neighbors in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as governments across Central and East Asia. If Russia, a nuclear power, can invade its much-smaller neighbor and prevail, what is to stop Putin from going after Poland next, or China from invading Taiwan?
While the world desperately needs a unified strategy, the UN is splintered and dysfunctional. After Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution denouncing its invasion at the beginning of the war, the UN General Assembly has passed toothless resolutions, including one on Thursday last week calling for Russia’s immediate withdrawal.
Faced with the biggest threat to global stability in a generation, it seems that the body created to oversee and defend the international liberal order cannot stop it from unraveling.
WAR OF AGGRESSION
The problem lies with the UN’s governance structure. The Security Council was created to maintain global peace, but the veto power granted to its five permanent members — the US, Russia, China, France and the UK — has always been a major obstacle to achieving this goal.
Now that one of its veto-holding permanent members is waging an aggressive war against a neighboring country, in flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter, the Security Council is virtually powerless to impose economic sanctions or bring about a peaceful resolution.
The council’s authority has been further undermined by North Korea’s repeated violations of its resolutions. The North Korean regime on Feb. 18 launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone and is reportedly preparing for its seventh nuclear test. Last year, it fired more than 90 missiles over the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan.
Yet the council has remained silent since China and Russia vetoed a US-led bid to impose new sanctions on the country, leading to a rebuke from Washington.
The UN’s inability to address these growing threats to global stability has encouraged Germany and Japan to shed their decades-long aversion to developing robust military capabilities. With a land war raging in Europe, Germany has pledged to increase its defense budget by 100 billion euros (US$106 billion) and (reluctantly) agreed to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.
Japan, deeply shocked by Russia’s invasion, also plans to double defense spending by 2027 (although Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida must first figure out how to pay for it) and is revising its national security strategy to enable the military to strike enemy targets abroad in the event of an actual, or imminent, attack.
SELF-DEFENSE
Despite its newfound commitment to remilitarization, Japan has maintained its pacifist constitution and remains opposed to acquiring nuclear weapons, owing to the trauma of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While most of the Japanese public supports the boost in defense spending, many still believe that the US-imposed constitution was right to restrict the military’s role to self-defense.
However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, together with North Korea’s provocations and China’s increasingly aggressive posture, has highlighted the importance of building up the nation’s deterrence capabilities and accelerated its shift away from pacifist idealism.
At the same time, protecting liberal democracy against aggressors like Russia and North Korea requires a multilateral body capable of tackling threats to world peace. To fulfill its peacekeeping role, the UN Security Council must undertake significant reform. At the very least, Japan and Germany should be granted permanent seats and veto power.
Alternatively, a permanent member’s veto power should be suspended if, like Russia, it becomes an aggressor. With the world on the precipice of disaster, there is no alternative to overhauling the cornerstone of global governance.
Takatoshi Ito, a former Japanese deputy vice minister of finance, is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a senior professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
RSS