A summit of equals

 Anyone who has been keeping up to date lately with recent events would no doubt be familiar with the current kerfuffle regarding the upcoming Summit of the Americas that is set to take place in the United States. This summit is normally the highest diplomatic level meeting of all members of the Organisation of America States (OAS), an intergovernmental organisation (IGO)  comprising of all sovereign  countries located in the western hemisphere i.e. North America, South America, Central America and the Caribbean. International law as stated in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States declares that all independent countries are to be seen as equally sovereign and treated as such by the international community.  A fact that is clearly lost on the United States who have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally exclude the duly elected presidents of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela over purely political reasons. This as anyone can see is a gross dereliction of decorum as the US has decided to in a most undemocratic fashion make unilateral decisions without consulting the wider membership of the OAS.

For their part, many countries in the region such as Mexico and even St Vincent have responded with rage and shock at this decision. And while the outrage might be justified, the shock should be less so, not if anyone knows the history of USA’s relationship with the rest of the continent. Going as far back as its very foundation in 1776, the then scattered colonies upon declaring independence from Great Britain decided that they were going to take the name of the entire continent for themselves as if to say they were the only “America” when in truth that had previously been the name given to the whole hemisphere. It shouldn’t be surprising that this is their attitude given their doctrine of Manifest Destiny to conquer and annex other lands eventually. Decades later, following the Latin American colonies declaring their own independence from the Iberian kingdoms, the US wasted no time trying to assert its hegemonic dominance over the continent when President James Munroe in his 1823 State of the Union Address declared the Munroe Doctrine in which the US all but declared the rest of the continent as pseudo-tributary states. Since that time, the Doctrine has been the cornerstone of US policy towards its neighbours. Several successive Presidents and Secretaries of State have since cited the Doctrine as justification for violating the rights of its sovereign neighbours. It should be noted that the Munroe Doctrine has absolutely no legitimate standing in international law. This has not stopped Uncle Sam from using it as an excuse to trample on the dignity of its closest neighbours some examples include the Roosevelt Corollary and the Platt Amendment not to mention the numerous invasions in places like Panama, Nicaragua and Grenada while also sponsoring coups in Chile and Paraguay. But most egregious of all has been their despicable treatment of Cuba, included in this, is their sponsoring of the Batista regime and their failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Nothing however could possibly be worse than the embargo they have had in place since 1962. The US can talk all they like about how they refuse to trade with Cuba because of its form of government but that talk is all smoke and mirrors as they have no issue doing business with China which is also run by a communist party. Everyone knows that the US is fond of maintaining Cold War relics (such as NATO) in its orbit and the Cuban embargo is but another one of these. Both the United Nations and the OAS has repeatedly condemned the US for continuing to stifle Cuba but their please have mostly fallen on deaf ears. The US has long made the claim that the original purpose of the embargo was to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining a foothold in the region but the Soviet Union is long dead and its Russian successor certainly isn’t looking to expand into Cuba. Although the opposite isn’t true as the US has been for the last 30 years been using NATO to move closer to Russia, which Ukraine is now paying the price for as we speak. But this is not a discourse on the East but rather on the West.

The US has on many occasion acted in bad faith in dealing with the rest of the Americas, in 1996, Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act which imposed harsh penalties for any third country that chooses to trade with Cuba. This was but another example of US arrogance, taking it upon themselves to restrict the sovereign right of nations in the Americas to trade with whoever they wish. This exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction like the Munroe Doctrine has no legal standing and independent states should not have to bow to will of another country since we are all equal before the law.

Speaking of law, the same Helms-Burton Act has also sought to define the form of government that Cuba should have, something they have since repeated with Venezuela when they decided to handpick their own candidate by the name of Juan Guido as president. It should be noted that Guido was never voted for by the Venezuelan people, but was merely a Venezuelan politician who the US felt would be more malleable. And while some might make the argument that Nicolas Maduro wasn’t legitimately elected either, the fact is, it is not the place of any outside power to decide who the head of state should be. Even if the country is not a full democracy (which I’m not saying about Venezuela), the US has no business trying to force Cuba or Venezuela to be more “democratic”. Am I saying that these two countries should be classified as democracies or that I am full support of everything their governments do? Not at all, what I am saying is that whether these countries move to democratise or not; it should be up to them to decide. Having the US Impose its will from top-down will not make them more democratic. Democracy, by definition means a government ruled by the will of the people; obviously this means that a country that has its destiny decided by another is not a full democracy (unless the people there voluntarily choose to remain under this sovereign power by a plebiscite).

By intervening in the internal affairs of Cuba or Venezuela, the US demonstrates its own hypocrisy. In their 2016 presidential election cycle, the US made certain accusations against archrival Russia, who they claimed interfered in the election process to ensure an outcome favourable to them. This then demonstrates that they clearly know that interfering in another country’s domestic politics is wrong. Why then do they think, they can handpick who is to be President of Venezuela?, what gives them the right to have a say in what Cuba’s form of government should be? And how is it that a single country gets to decide how an IGO should be run? What is even more interesting is that you only see this kind of hegemonic one-upmanship in organisations that have the US as a member such as the OAS and NATO, whereas this is noticeably absent in bodies such as the Commonwealth or CARICOM from which the US is excluded, it is clear what the common denominator is here. The US constantly likes to berate other countries for their human rights record, using it as justification to impose its will on other countries but as we are all aware by now, the colossus of the North has its own human rights issues to deal with as demonstrated by the amount of mass shootings that constantly takes place there, a feature which doesn’t commonly happen in any other country, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they are.

What’s my point in stating all of this? America sees itself as the exceptional nation, this is what they use as the ethos to justify actions that they themselves would never allow any other country to get away with. But if the reaction of the rest of continent is anything to go by, it is not clear that no one else is willing to buy into the myth of American exceptionalism, nor should they. It would be a gross insult to the dignity of all other nations to let the US alone (as oppose to majority of the OAS) dictate the terms of engagement. Leaders such as Prime Minister Gonsalves of St Vincent and President Obrador of Mexico should be supported by the rest of the grouping in standing up to the bullying tactics of the US. The world is fast moving away from its post-cold war unipolarity and is fast becoming multipolar, with blocs such BRICS and the EU taking a more prominent role on the world stage. The US is rather slow to recognise the changing world order. Yes, it is true that the US is still for now the world’s premier superpower, but how history tells us that declining superpowers don’t fall in a day, (just ask the Russians or the Brits). Not that I am predicting the fall of the US anytime soon but what I am saying is that it cannot expect to hold on to its unilateral superiority indefinitely, sooner or later, it will have to share the top spot with a rival. The sooner they grasp this concept, the better they will be able to treat other countries like equals. This should not be something hard for them to fathom. Their own Declaration of Independence states that all men were created equal; in that same vein they should also recognise that all nations were created equal. This is the fundamental principle that governs international relations and it is this core tenet that the OAS is supposed to represent, in other words you can say that the Summit of the Americas is meant to be a summit of equals

Smith vs. Scotland: My Thoughts.

 

A few weeks ago, the government of Jamaica announced that it was putting forward Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson-Smith as a candidate to succeed Baroness Patricia Scotland as Secretary-General at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda later this year. At first, it seems like a rather standard procedure given that the position is apparently up for election at the next summit. But a few subsequent developments have caused me to wonder if there was more to this than meets the eye.  Normally, the position is only really contested when the incumbent Secretary-General has announced their intention to step down from the position, which would require the election of someone new (as was the case in 2016). This is certainly not the case here as the Baroness has already indicated her interest in serving a second term. It must be noted that there is nothing in the Commonwealth Secretariat’s rules that prevents the Secretary-General from being challenged mid-term but it is simply a matter of convention, not to. But it is not this alone that makes this case interesting but also the narrative surrounding it. For one, the decision to nominate Johnson-Smith has already proven to be controversial, with the Antiguan government accusing Jamaica of trying to divide both CARICOM and the Commonwealth with this move. I note with interest that it was Antigua and not Dominica that came out with this strong condemnation. The reason for this is that Lady Scotland is a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Dominica. Furthermore, the government of Dominica was instrumental in getting many other Commonwealth countries to support her candidacy back in 2016. Antigua and Barbuda on the other hand was not among those who supported this move as their intention was to place their own Sir Ronald Sanders in the position but they were ultimately unsuccessful in this bid. I wonder if their lashing out at the Holness government now has anything to do with the fact they did not get their way last time around and as such would not take kindly to any attempt by Jamaica to succeed where they failed?. Conjecture?, Maybe, but who knows, we will just have to wait and see.

I also note that in the space of a month, Jamaica has received back-to-back state visits, both of which can be connected with the current political row. Ostensibly, both of these visits were connected with the Jamaica 60 celebrations but I would not be surprised if the matter of the minister’s candidacy also came up. As explained earlier, the next CHOGM summit is expected to take place in Rwanda later this year. And only last week, Jamaica played hosts to His Excellency Paul Kagame who as President of Rwanda will also serve as the next Commonwealth Chairman. Is it just coincidental that of all the African leaders to invite, the government choose Kagame?, Not that anything is wrong with that choice, Kagame’s record in transforming Rwanda speaks for itself and were I in the Prime Minister’s position I might have done the same. But from I know about diplomacy, altruism can also take one so far and I would not be surprised, if the visit by Rwanda’s president had anything to do with ensuring that the CHOGM summit would be chaired by someone that would side with our government, it’s rather shrewd.

But if that is the case, we’re not the only one engaging in smart diplomacy here. In a report published by the UK’s Daily Telegraph, it seems that the Boris Johnson government is not very happy with Scotland’s performance and is seeking to have her replaced. It should be noted that PM Johnson is himself the current Commonwealth Chairman and as such has raised serious concerns about the Baroness’ leadership style and also corruption allegations during her tenure. The Telegraph further alleges that when His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge visited Jamaica, he not only came to give us the Queen’s salutations on our 60^th anniversary but also had another mandate from Johnson in which he was to open talks with our government about putting forward a candidate to replace Scotland after the Kenyan government withdrew the candidacy of their own Monica Juma.  The Johnson government in Britain seems determined to get rid of Scotland and has even called upon the royal family to aid them in this task. This assertion made by the Telegraph is at first seemingly far-fetched given that convention dictates that the Crown remains above politics. But yet, there might be some truth to this for several reasons.

 First of all, anyone who knows anything about how the Commonwealth works is fully aware how central the monarchy is to its continuation. Going as far back as the first imperial conference of 1887, the royals have been promoting the idea of common kinship ties that binds all the peoples under the rule of the then British Empire. As the 19^th century rolled into the 20^th and the empire was dissolved to make way for a Commonwealth of (equal) Nations, the centrality of the monarchy remained, even as it became clear that British hegemony must end in favour of a more egalitarian ethos. Some might wish promote the idea of a future Commonwealth being more republican, headed by someone not of royal blood, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for this. As recently as the 2018 CHOGM summit, all Commonwealth states (regardless of their domestic form of government) assented that for the foreseeable future, the Queen’s heirs and successors would continue to be Heads of the Commonwealth, this follows on the heels of the Perth Agreement which was signed at the 2011 CHOGM summit, which changed the succession rules to a more gender neutral bent. It’s rather hard to fathom that these countries would now want to make the Commonwealth headship into a pseudo-presidency and as such the logical conclusion one must come to, is that title will continue to have the same monarchical connotations it always has. This makes it highly likely that the Duke himself will one day hold the place that his grandmother does now in the Commonwealth, who better to use as go-between between the Jamaican and British governments?

The second reason, why, this Telegraph’s story might have some credibility is the timing of the announcement. I for one, note that the government’s decision was announced a mere two days after the Cambridge departure, was this time coincidental or was it calculated? It could be deemed as the former, were it not for the fact that Minister Johnson-Smith was the very first government official to greet the royal couple on their arrival at their airport, which is rather different from the standard practice of having either the prime minister or the governor general getting this honour. I can’t help but wonder if in these lengthy chats that Prince William had with either the prime minister or the foreign minister, the matter of the upcoming CHOGM summit was ever discussed (as the telegraph asserts). I also equally wonder if during President Kagame’s visit, the matter was also raised?

 

Again, all of this mere speculation, which can either be proven or disproven when CHOGM is finally concluded. One thing I do take issue with, is the assertion that Jamaica is merely used as a pawn in all this.  I wholeheartedly disagree; as I am of the view that if there is any truth to any of this, that Jamaica would be a player not a pawn in this game of diplomatic chess. It is clear that the government’s ambitions are high and if it sees any opportunity to flex its diplomatic muscle, I say more power to them. I see no reason, why the government should yield to Antigua’s position, given that one can argue that it comes from a standpoint of rank hypocrisy. Nor should they follow Kenya’s example in withdrawing a candidate that was clearly qualified for the post. Instead they chart their own path and if that path means going with an alternate candidate so be it. If it is that other powers e.g. the UK are seemingly in support of removing Scotland like we are, it does not make us pawns in their game but rather it makes us equals, allying together to achieve our mutual interest. Altruism is all fine and dandy, but the same Antigua that now preaches said altruism, was itself not following its own message only a few years ago, yet now they expect us to do so? I think not. I say keep Johnson-Smith in the race, if Scotland’s record stands up to scrutiny, there shouldn’t be a problem. But if it doesn’t why shouldn’t there be an alternative waiting in the wings? This is how international relations work, this is how organisations thrive and in this having someone in the top post with an impeccable record will only help to make the body into a stronger commonwealth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another world war in the offing?

 

Anyone who has the following what has been happening in the Eastern Europe, in the Middle East or in the South Pacific lately would of course find the sabre rattling tendencies rather worrying. Nevertheless, I cannot help but ask the question, is there a global conflict on the horizon? It seems insane right, why would anyone even think of such a thing, two world wars were already two more than anyone wanted, Yet as insane as it might be to speculate on, the world now doesn’t look so different from it how it did prior to the world wars. In fact anyone who studied that period of history will find some eerie similarities.

The first such comparison that will be drawn is the military buildup. Prior to the outbreak of the First World War, Britain and Germany were engaged in a fierce arms race with both sides constantly upgrading their arsenal to the latest technology available at the time. This culminated in the construction of the Dreadnought class battleship by the Royal Navy, which was later copied by its rivals with designs of their own. Similarly today, great powers constantly try to outdo each other to see who has the latest and most potent weapons and are certainly not afraid to show them off. This in and of itself should be worrying enough, but the parties in the arms race didn’t always operate in isolation but rather cooperated in strategic alliances to deter rivals. Is it any different now? Who can forget late last year, when the US, UK and Australia announce the formation of the tripartite pact known as AUKUS?  The whole idea behind this is that it should serve as a deterrent to Chinese ambitions in the South Pacific. This looks oddly similar to the Entente Cordiale that was signed shortly before the First World War to deter German ambition. The Chinese of course didn’t take very kindly to this and respond by calling the three states paranoid. Yet the actions of the PLA (Chinese military) might actually provide justification for such a show of force by AUKUS. China has been known to aggressively increase their naval presence in the South China Sea as of late while their Air Force has been conducting military drills in Taiwanese air space. The PLA has also been seen testing hypersonic missiles which circles the world in orbit, pointing to its deadly accuracy. 

The Western powers are not the only ones wary of China. Japan since World War Two has taken an official position of pacifism but given their geographical closeness to China their current stance is anything but. Japan’s Self Defence force has developed to an advanced stage with air and naval capabilities surpassing anything they have had since WW2. But what is worrying most of all, is the influence of Nippon Kaigi among the Japanese ruling elite which openly calls for Japan to remove article 9 and drop all pretence of pacifism, this would then make them an Asian military powerhouse once again, making the situation in East Asia more tenuous than it already is. Not to be left out, India has also has their own contingency plans for dealing with China as they have recently purchased a series of S-400 missile defence systems from Russia and set them in strategic points that pundits claim are meant to fend off any Chinese attempts at an incursion. 

And speaking of Russia, they are at present an even bigger problem for Western powers than China due to their actions in Ukraine. At present, the whole Eastern front of Europe is on a mere tipping point, with ever growing speculation as to whether or not Russia will invade Ukraine. This is something that the US and it’s allies in NATO are rather wary of as both sides are locked in a standoff. The best hope anyone can have is that all sides can reach a rapprochement before it gets to the point of no return. According to the Russians, NATO expanding into Ukraine would violate an agreement with the Soviet Union that NATO would never expand eastward after the fall of the Iron Curtain. NATO on the other hand contends that no such deal was ever made and that Ukraine is a sovereign state, free to join whatever alliance it likes. This sore point is what leads to the security dilemma we have today as neither side is willing to relent, both feeling threatened by the other. Russia for its part has responded with a massive military buildup on the Ukrainian border. NATO however is not standing idly by as Britain and several other member states are already sending arms to Ukraine while France is openly touting the possibility of a European Army to defend the continent. 

The ambitions of the EU and NATO have hit a major hurdle as unlike Russia, the West is comprised of different countries with competing interests. Whereas French President Emmanuel Macron is all for a common defence force for the continent, new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is of a much different mindset, unlike most of NATO, Germany is not inclined to go to war with Russia as they would have too much to lose if it ever did come to that given that they are one of the biggest recipients of Russian oil and natural gas, which means any stop to that supply would lead to major downturn in Germany’s lead as Europe’s major manufacturing giant. This case scenario, one must admit, would make it different from the two world wars as this time Germany would prefer the role of peacemaker rather than aggressor.

This then lead to the discussion regarding the economic comparisons between the war period and now. It is hardly a secret that following the end of the first war, the world fell into a great depression which was only ended when the second war came about.  The question of whether or not war is good or bad for the economy depends greatly on who is asking. The world economy as we know it now is a disaster, due primarily to the COVID-19 pandemic which has caused a downturn in many major economies with economists predicting that the current depression will hit the levels seen the Great Depression.  History tells us that in the US, while the federal government tried to restart the economy through the “New Deal”, what really got the economy moving again was the manufacturing capacity being expanded in the war and post-war period. The US as it stands now is in a bad place economically and unlike FDR’s “New Deal”, Biden’s “Build Back Better” programme to restart the economy has indefinitely stalled in Congress. It would not be completely far-fetched to state that nobody really wants war ...unless you were part of the Military-Industrial Complex, which some still think is mere conspiracy. Yet, Democratic congresswoman and former Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has stated point blank that this is exactly what is happening and has referred to some of her colleagues as warmongers for pushing the narrative regarding Russian aggression. The prospect of war profiteering is horrendous to think about and yet with everything going on there are clearly rumblings of a shift in economic and also political power on the global scale, which some say is but one stage in bringing about the new world order

The pandemic of the last two years, has paved the way for some changes in the system, yet the question still remains as to whether or not the world is unipolar or multipolar and where does the power really lie. The idealist in me tends to think that such a question can be settled peacefully but the realist in me would not dare be so naïve, after all as German Chancellor Bismarck once said “It is not through speeches and debates that the questions of the day will be decided but through Iron and Blood”.  The talk of a peaceful rise of China or resurgent Russia is all nice but as history tells us, it is only through war that the global order has been so drastically reset. The Napoleonic wars led to the rise of the concert of Europe and the congress system, the First World War led to fall of several century old empires and the redrawing of the maps of Europe and the Arab world, while World War Two cemented the dominance of US and the USSR, gave us the UN and Brettonwoods systems and most importantly led to decolonization which also redrew the world map. In all the halls of power, there is talk of a Great Reset, one that they say is influenced by COVID-19, but is it farfetched to surmise that this alone is not enough to justify such a reordering of the world system? Look back at World War Two, the economy was changed as much as the politics, yet the Brettonwoods economic system did not rise from anything in the war but from the depression that preceded it, a great reset that looks at changes in the entire geopolitical structure might take a similar approach.

Much of this sounds hyperbolic and I for one am hoping to be dead wrong on this, yet I cannot help but look at the similarities and wonder. At the start of 2022, the UN Security Council (including the P5) promised there would be no nuclear war yet within weeks of this, countries already started making aggressive moves that tips the world closer to the brink. China has continued its aggressive moves in the South Pacific, while Russia does the same at its border with Ukraine border even while France and Britain continue to openly arm Kiev’s government and the US stands in the middle of it all threatening sanctions but doing little else. This resembles what happened in the interwar period when the great powers signed the Briand-Kellog pact to limit armaments only for them to all turn around and violate said agreement. Nor is this aggression limited to P5 nations, North Korea has continued to test their own hypersonic missiles, ignoring UN sanctions,  Iran also continues to pursue it’s own nuclear agenda refusing to renegotiate the nuclear deal meanwhile Saudi Arabia continues to act as foil for Iran in their rivalry for regional domination.

With all this said, the question remains, is the world really heading for another war or is this sabre rattling, just that and nothing more?, US President Teddy Roosevelt once described deterrence as to “Speak softly and carry a big stick”, the problem is, this saying works best in a unipolar world when only one party has said big stick, in this case however, we are seeing the makings of multipolar or even nonpolar world, even that is unsettled and I’m cautiously looking at the world’s geopolitics as it is, wondering if another war is the means they will finally use to settle it.