СБОРНИК -Россия 21 век
.pdfLugovkina Yuliya
Ural Federal University
Lone-wolf terrorism: are joint antiterrorism efforts of international community possible?
International community unanimously condemns all kinds of terrorism and recognizes that terrorism threatens international peace and security. During the last decades counter-terrorism has dominated the agenda of policy-makers and researchers. However since the beginning of the “war on terror” terrorism has changed its operating means and principles. So called “lone-wolf terrorism” has showed itself to be a distinct phenomenon. Although lone-wolf terrorism has numerous historical examples, this issue does not frequent academic research and political agenda. To some extent it could be explained by the fact that acts of lone-wolves account for a negligibly small per cent of total number of terror attacks [1]. At the same time fighting against lone-wolves requires hard work and enormous efforts of law enforcement agencies and security services. Recent incidents in France, USA and Norway, to name just several examples proved that acts of lone-wolves could have almost the same psychological effect on society as terror acts thoroughly prepared by wellorganized groups might have. These events in conjunction with potential return of Europeans who are fighting in war in Syria and Iraq alongside Islamic State provoke numerous discussions and fuel concerns among politicians [2]. According to some researches, approximately in half cases lonewolf terrorists attack civilian targets [3], which means that they choose their aims intending to create maximum symbolic effect. Moreover, lone-wolf terrorists often think out of the box and are able to come up with unusual plans which makes them even more difficult to predict and stop [4].
Although by definition lone wolves act on their own, they are strongly influenced by extremist groups and radicals. In this paper impact of radical groups will be outlined as evidenced from the activity of al-Qaeda and its notion of “individual jihad” and “borderless idea” [5]. According to estimates of Interpol, international counter-terrorism measures have reduced the opportunities available to terrorists and deprived them of some operating means, thus terrorists seek for new strategies [6] and lone-wolf terrorism might become one of them. One of sections of the paper will elaborate on rising value of individualism in modern society that could be seen as one of the reasons of decentralisation and fragmentation of terrorism.
In addition the article examines the issue of radicalization, its sources and possible consequences because in this case it is of great importance to understand social, political and psychological factors that influence would-be terrorists and seduce them into crime. Due consideration will be given to communication media and especially Internet as advanced technologies are widely used by lone-wolves for exchange of ideas and knowledge with likeminded people and getting access to information that might be useful for planning and realizing the preplanned atrocity [7].
In conclusion the paper offers possible venues of coordination of international efforts in combating lone-wolf terrorism and effectiveness of such cooperation. It is widely believed that lonewolf terrorism is almost impossible to prevent and counter [8], because it is extremely difficult to track these terrorists down and to establish their connection with terrorist networks. This issue demands multilevel approach, thus it is important to combine local actions with global measures in terms of comprehensive strategy. This paper will examine whether it is possible to apply mechanisms established by UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to combating against lone-wolf terror and what other means might be employed to overcome this phenomenon.
References
1. Lone-Wolf Terrorism // Case study for Work Package 3 “Citizens and governance in knowl- edge-based society” / Instituut voor Veiligheids-en Crisismanagement, 2007.
URL: http://www.transnationalterrorism.eu/tekst/publications/Lone-Wolf%20Terrorism.pdf (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
61
2.Министр юстиции США обеспокоен угрозой со стороны террористов-одиночек // Голос Америки: информационный интернет-ресурс. 11 января 2014. URL: http://www.golos- ameriki.ru/content/us-official-concerns-over-lone-wolfs-attack/2594065.html (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
3.Nesser P. Single Actor Terrorism: Scope, Characteristics and Explanations // [Электронный ресурс]: Terrorism Analysts. URL: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/paper/view/231/html (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
4.Саймон Дж. Армия из одного человека // Иносми: электронное периодическое изд-ие. 2013. URL: http://inosmi.ru/world/20130418/208212808.html#ixzz3V8KqL9NS (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
5.Степанова Е. А. Основные тенденции в области современного терроризма // Индекс безопасности. –2014. №3 (110), Том 20. – С. 95-110.
6.The EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report // Europol. 2012. [Электронный ресурс]: Europol. URL: https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/publication/te-sat-2012-eu-terrorism- situation-and-trend-report-1569 (дата обращения: 28.03.2015).
7.Bakker E., Graaf B. Lone Wolves. How to prevent this Phenomenon? // Expert Meeting Paper of International Centre for Counter-Terrorism / [Электронный ресурс]: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. URL: http://www.icct.nl/download/file/ICCT-Bakker-deGraaf-EM-Paper- Lone-Wolves.pdf (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
8.Gomez D. The Myth of the Big Bad Lone Wolf // Foreign policy. 25.10.2014. URL: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/25/the-myth-of-the-big-bad-lone-wolf/ (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
9.План действий Глобальной контртеррористической стратегии ООН // Организация Объединенных Наций: [офиц.сайт]. URL: http://www.un.org/ru/terrorism/strategy-counter- terrorism.shtml (дата обращения: 21.03.2015).
Malkov Artur
Yaroslavl State University
The OSCE’s Role in a Multipolar World: Prospects for Development
The importance of the problem of ensuring Euro-Atlantic security cannot be overestimated today. Unfortunately, the recent events in Ukraine demonstrated the complete ineffectiveness of existing institutions and mechanisms – the OSCE, NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe and even the UN Security Council failed to prevent the crisis and to ensure its subsequent de-escalation. At the same time, there is no doubt that we need to strengthen security in the region with more than half of the world’s largest economies and the biggest Nuclear Weapon States.
In this regard there is a question of the role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the idea of which (at that moment it was CSCE) appeared at the height of the Cold War, and which was seen as a diplomatic mechanism of the convergence of positions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact member states.
Despite the fact that the OSCE has repeatedly become the object of fierce criticism (in 2004, for example, the members of the CIS addressed an appeal to the OSCE partners with a number of remarks, which indicated an inability to get rid of the politicization and the factional approach to decision-making, slowness and even the inefficiency of this organization [1]), it was the only multilateral platform managed to agree upon concerted action aimed at resolving the crises arisen.
It’s not a secret that there are many organizations (the UN, NATO, CSTO, the Council of Europe, the CIS, the EU) responsible for Euro-Atlantic security. At the same time, their functional
62
interchangeability, the overlap of membership and mandates lead to destructive competition. Organizations not only reduce the effectiveness of each other, but also the efficiency of the European security system as a whole.
This gap between the global nature of the existing problems and purely group approach to their solution must be overcome in the near future through the establishment of cooperation between the OSCE and these organizations. Because of the fact that security must be indivisible, the same for all (it was highlighted in the Maastricht 2003 OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the 21st Century, in the Charter of Paris, in the Lisbon Declaration on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the 21st Century and at the «Corfu Process» in June 2009), it is necessary to ensure a coordinated policy of international and regional organizations in problem solving (this was also mentioned in the Charter for European Security).
Comprehensive security can only be achieved when action planning is implemented jointly by all European security organizations. Furthermore, the OSCE should develop its relations with the United Nations, taking into account the current debate on UN reform with a view to enhancing complementarity between the UN and regional organizations, for example, through the regional implementation of global agreements, conflict prevention and peacebuilding. It’s interesting that according to the Budapest Document in exceptional circumstances participating countries may decide to refer a dispute to the UN Security Council.
Besides, in order to ensure unity of politics in the region, it’s necessary to establish the obligation to obtain the consent of all member states to adopt the decisions within existing and future military alliances, organizations or coalitions that may affect the interests of other parties of the Treaty, as well as to carry out consultations.
However, we mustn’t forget that since the OSCE is an independent organization with its own special mandate, its relations with other international organizations should be determined primarily by the distinctive features and the specific contribution of the OSCE.
Undoubtedly, one of the most significant advantages of the OSCE is its representativeness, and as a consequence of that, its legitimacy – the OSCE is the world’s largest and most comprehensive regional organization responsible for security: it has 57 participating states from around the world and 11 additional partner countries.
The OSCE has another significant advantage. I absolutely agree with the statement from the Report of the Russian Experts for the Valdai Discussion Club Conference «Towards a New EuroAtlantic Security Architecture» (London, December 8-10, 2009) about the OSCE’s broad and comprehensive approach to security that has encompassed three complementary dimensions - the «three baskets»: security, economics/the environment and human rights.
Speaking about the distinctive features of the OSCE, we should pay attention to its vast experience in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation throughout the European continent. According to the Vienna Document of 1999, the participating States agreed on sharing information concerning the organization of the military of each State, its manpower and the major weapon and equipment systems in use, consultation on unusual military activities. As a result, they (military activities) of the participating states have become much less unpredictable and the amounts of conventional forces in Europe were significantly reduced.
Additionally, the institution's physical presence in the region in the form of field missions and long-term involvement with parties on the ground in democratization gives the OSCE a comparative advantage over other security organizations. At the same time, a number of issues related to the effectiveness of OSCE missions arise. It’s known that missions usually stay longer than initially planned. Moreover, «the ambition of the mandate often exceeds the financial and analytical capacities of Missions. Clearer priorities need to be communicated in this regard» [2].
However, in conclusion, I’d like to say that the main direction of the OSCE reform lies elsewhere. As a lawyer, I am deeply convinced that one of the most, if not the most, significant obstacles to the effective implementation of OSCE commitments is the absence of legal obligations in the field of collective security for OSCE participating states. I completely agree with the opinion of experts that the documents adopted within the OSCE (the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the Charter of
63
Paris for a New Europe of 1990, the Charter for European Security of 1999 et al.) must have legal force (in this regard, the idea of «Helsinki-2» has already been expressed).
Moreover, the position of the OSCE as an international organization raises serious questions due to its lack of an internationally recognized legal personality. Of course, this also «affects OSCE personnel when stationed in crisis areas without the protection that would give them recognition of their diplomatic status» [4]. However, some attempts in this direction have already been made – I mean a draft Convention on international legal personality, legal capacity and privileges and immunities of the OSCE (2007). As a result if this proposal, the application of legal principles (such as ubi jus ibi remedium, obedientia est legis essentia et al.) towards the OSCE’s activities will become possible which is especially important in the regulation of the relations in the field of security.
References
1.The Final Report and Recommendations of the Panel of Eminent Persons on Strengthening the Effectiveness of the OSCE // http://www.osce.org/cio/15805?download=true
2.Martina Huber, David Lewis, Randolf Oberschmidt, Yannick du Pont. «The Effectiveness of OSCE Missions: The Cases of Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina» // http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20030200_cru_paper_huber.pdf
3.OSCE Magazine March – April 2009 // http://www.osce.org/secretariat/36164
Melkonyan Sergei
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation
Russian policy toward restraining Islamic State
Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) announced the creation of "Islamic Caliphate" the first day of Ramadan June 29, 2014. It was also announced to change the name on «Islamic state» (IS). During the proclamation of the state, the organization's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself caliph and thus led the global jihad movement.
For Russia, the creation of an IS is at least four challenges: dechristianization of the Middle East, a hit to Russia's position in the region, destabilization in neighboring countries (the territory of the Caucasus and Central Asia) and the strengthening of internal threats on the territory of Russia (Caucasus and the Volga region).
Military successes of the IS are a convincing argument for the correctness of their activity. According to this the number of Muslims sympathetic to the idea of the Caliphate. Increasing. As a result, the number of immigrants from the CIS countries who are participating in the fighting on the side of Islamist groups, is growing rapidly.
To eradicate the IS activity in Russia is making serious efforts on the legislative and at the operational search level.
At the end of December last year, Russia's Supreme Court has recognized «Islamic State» as a terrorist international organization and stopped their activities in the country. [3]
Employees of the FSB conduct a large-scale operation in Russia to identify sources of financing and recruiting fighters for the IS. [6]
In order to weak IS activity Russia initiated a resolution in the UN Security Council, which was adopted by all members. Its relevance due to the significant financial support of terrorists through trade with the hydrocarbons trapped fields in Syria and Iraq.
In the document is fixed a ban on any trade in oil and oil products with IS. Such actions will be considered as the provision of financial support to terrorists and is the basis for the imposing sanctions against them by the UN Security Council.
64
The sanctions include a ban on travel, freezing of financial assets. All states are obliged to prosecute those who assist terrorists.
At the meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in Libya, Russia's permanent representative to an international organization Vitaly Churkin said that Russia could take part in the naval blockade of Libyan shores to prevent the supply of arms to the warring rebels there terrorist group "Islamic State". [1] Thus, Russia has expressed willingness to take part in the fight against the Islamic State.
However, Russia's entry into the anti-terrorist coalition against IS - means «to cause the fire itself». In addition, Russia should assist countries - participants of the CIS. In this regard, most likely, Russia will refrain from direct intervention in the conflict. However, Russia will support the parties who are in the fight against the Islamic state.
References
1.Издание Правительства РФ «Российская Газета». Забродина Е. Россия присоединится
коперации против ИГИЛ? URL: http://www.rg.ru/2015/02/19/igil.html
2.Сайт Министерства иностранных дел РФ. URL: http://www.mid.ru
3.Сайт Верховного Суда РФ. Решение Верховного Суда РФ по Делу №АКПИ14-1424С. URL: http://www.vsrf.ru/vs_cases5.php?hearing_date=29.12.2014&search.x=56&search.y=5
4.Сайт центра Политических исследований России «ПИР-Центр» URL: http://www.pircenter.org
5.Сайт Организации Объединенных Наций (ООН). URL: http://www.un.org
6.Сайт ИА Росбалт. Вершов Ю. ФСБ ищет пособников "Исламского государства" URL: http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2014/10/27/1331779.html
Nesterov Sergey
Saratov State Academy of Law
Empire policy: from past to present
Many researchers believe that the empire’s states didn't turn into historical category, but continue to exist in a modified form nowadays. However, with the emergence in the 1980th the concepts of «new thinking», «universal values», «democracy» approach to the analysis of imperial ambitions of modern powers was also changed. Nevertheless, in modern world politics using these ideologems is necessary only for upholding some specific pragmatical goals.
As for Russia, it was one of the greatest empires of the world. Nowadays the state is trying to find its own identity. However, with the reunion of Crimea republic with Russia in 2014, the state showed that it wants to realize its national interests and it has resources for that.
In itself reanimation of the term «empire» doesn't seem unusual. In the modern world four global competing projects were accurately designated: American, Islamic, Chinese and European. It’s not excluded that the first and the last projects will be compelled to approach. It occurs understandably. All countries of the EU accept any conditions of the only superstate of nowadays – the USA. Today the EU’s countries allow themselves to have their own opinion - whether it is invasion of the American army into Iraq or expansion NATO by the republics of the former USSR [1].
The term «empire» is used as theorists of global world supremacy of the USA (Z.Bzhezinsky) [2], and opposite authors on views. Besides, some scientists believe that the states are created for a good life, for the solution of common problems (Aristotle), others consider that the purpose of creation of the empire is to win the war (L.Gumplovich). However, the basic difference between the first and second point of view does not exist – there is often an economic, political or information war. In the literal sense of
65
the word «war» it is always connected with mass death of people. L. Gumplovich noted that it is caused by the human nature – a need to subordinate and to destroy, to help and to create.
T. Gobbs, representing the state on a cover to the book in the form of a giant, whose body consists of little men, noted, that there is a certain human’s hostility to the state and at the same time is irrational fear to appear without its protection in case of real threat from other people and others, hostile, states. It was noted that the loss of its own statehood opens gloomy prospect to turn from the subject of history into its object. Therefore each person integrated into ethnos (nation) wishes to see his own state strong and powerful.
If we address to history, we'll see, that only 120-130 years ago there were dominated only European positions. The West saw all other world as a sphere of realization of its own interests. American scientist S. Huntington notes that «The West is the only civilization, which rendered huge and often destroying effect to all other civilizations» [3]. Besides, it’s hardly possible to forget opium wars between China and England, when «civilized» European state wanted to put the huge Asian country on drugs.
In the theory of state and law there is a point of view that formation of the empire is based on the reasons and imperial logic corresponding to them. Actually, the state is imperial by its own nature; it wants to expand a zone of its domination, but not always has opportunities to realize its ambitions.
For example, Sweden, having lost North war to Russian Empire, has no basic claims for last imperial domination. From the other hand, the splinter of the Swedish empire – Norway, nowadays shows a huge interest regarding parts of the Arctic that from the inhabitant’s point of view doesn't match in any way its imagination of quiet, small and cozy European country.
Between ancient and modern empires, which are in a formation stage, there is much in common in the sense that the reasons of their emergence practically don't change. And that is – fight for resources, for spheres of influence, for vital space. Empires of latest years were quite often formed on absolute desire to dominate, which generated brutal cruelty in relation to the won states. Today the imperial logic changed – it became softer, but no more.
It seems too much unfair, that Siberia, which is called «the world storeroom», Russia owns individually. It is easy to assume that these calls announced from Great Britain and the USA.
In the early 1980th the U.S. President R. Reagan declared the USSR as the «Empire of evil». It is quite natural that the American imperial project was called «benevolent empire». In order to become the empire, the USA openly showed the purposes which are reduced to the following:
-Democratization and liberalization of all countries and people;
-Universal introduction of uniform economic model;
-Statement of global ideology (liberal democracy);
-Centralized management of the world (military structures of the USA and NATO);
-The creation of «One World society» [4].
It should be noted that now all countries of the world became hostages of the American financial system, thus the country which has the most powerful armed forces and the biggest military budget is the biggest debtor in the world.
As for Islamic imperial project, it has no huge military and economic power yet, however, now it represents a real political threat.
The Islamic world isn't united: it is divided into Sunnites (majority) and Shiites (minority). Nowadays there are two necessary components for the Islamic imperial project: Islamic oil and Islamic nuclear bomb. For this purpose it is necessary to keep the national sovereignty – Iraq didn't manage to do it.
In formation of the Islamic imperial project are not used concrete states, but supranational organizations leaning to network structures. For example, «Al-Qaeda», created by the USA to fight against the Soviet empire, now actively joined into fight against the United States. Poverty and archaism in the way of life are the nutritious soil for religionism and its extreme manifestation – terrorism.
China also has imperial ambitions. Now China has the biggest gold and foreign exchange reserves in the world. Stability of dollar is provided by China, and the Yuan can turn into the world
66
reserve currency. China is the only country in the world which has positive dynamics of growth in the conditions of global crisis. China has five-million regular army and about 70 million reservists. China is the nuclear, space state. It has the biggest manpower on the planet. And the most important thing is that China has a chance to become the second, or, perhaps, the first superstate of the world. It means that the socialist imperial project, which Russia refused, can win.
The creation of an empire needs a lot of resources such as economical and political. From that point of view it is too strange to hear calls (first of all, from the USA) to refuse from nuclear weapon. That point of view seems too «equitable» - using nuclear weapon makes impossible to own territories and natural resources of won countries. Understanding that, foreign states make a clue that they can save national sovereignty only with the help of nuclear weapon. The reason of it is that their armed forces remained behind for tens years.
The former empires with the mixed sensation of fear and hostility look at formation of modern empires but how their relationships will develop in further – time will show.
References
1.Корнев А.В., Имперская политика современных держав – сборник научных работ IV международной научной конференций «Кутафинские чтения» - Москва. – 2012. – С. 10
2.Бжезинский З., Великая шахматная доска. — М. – 2009. — С.280
3.Хантингтон С., Столкновение цивилизаций, - М: АСТ. – 2003. – С. 605
4.Фукуяма Ф. Конец истории и последний человек. — М.: АСТ. – 2007. — С. 588
Pokrovskaya Polina
Diplomatic academy of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs
E-mail: polina@pokrovski.net
Scientific adviser: O.P.Ivanov, PhD in Politics, professor
The Role of Hard and Soft Power in Japanese-Chinese Rivalry
Today the world is facing rapid changes along with increasingly complex security challenges. With the spread of democracy and arguably universal values the international community speaks more and more about soft power replacing hard power and mutually beneficial cooperation replacing zero-sum way of thinking. Then what makes such civilized and highly developed countries like China and Japan to spend billions of dollars on military every year? Both China and Japan are taking active parts in the world changing. China has become a regional leader and aspires to become one of the world’s leaders assuming multipolar order. Japan has been incrementally changing its self-binding and dependent policy, particularly trying to change the interpretation of its no-war constitution. It’s no wonder, that such afforts of two neighbor countries affect each other.
In the last two years, China-Japan relations saw continuous grave difficulties, and exchanges and cooperation in various fields were seriously affected due to escalation of territorial disputes and historical issues. Bilateral political exchanges as well as people-to-people exchanges between the two sides were gravely affected. Their economic cooperation and trade also declined.
Among other things Chinese government perceives as flagrant provocation annual visits of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the Yasukuni Shrine that honors war criminals of the WWII.
Japan from its side sees China as a rival, especially in economic and naval realms. Japanese officials very often claim that “since 2008, China has been sending government ships to the waters off the Senkaku Islands, and has repeatedly made incursions into Japanese territorial waters.”[6] Japan is concerned with China’s military spending, which are now the second in the world. US Quadrennial defense review 2014 says: “The rapid pace and comprehensive scope of China’s military modernization contin-
67
ues, combined with a relative lack of transparency and openness from China’s leaders regarding both military capabilities and intentions.” Japan fully agrees with such assertion.
Historically the rivalry started to grow and change since the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War period there was no need in a new interpretation of Japanese constitution, which allowed only individual self-defense, because such self-binding policies helped Japan to stay out of political and military involvement in the Cold War, allowing Japan to concentrate on economic growth. [4] But after that period Tokyo faced less predictable world, growing rivalry with China, the decline of the US hegemony. In such an unstable world Tokyo seeks adaptation to the new surrounding.
The Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands are of enormous strategic importance for Japan, China, America and other maritime states. “But from the China’s prospective that’s also … they are near sea – the direction from which all the threats in the 19th and 20th centuries came. [2] During the history Japan and China were never powerful at the same time. And now we can see the unique historical situation when both China and Japan are very powerful at the same period. Territorial disputes are part of more comprehensive rivalry in Asia, where hierarchy is traditionally important.
All countries, especially those pretending on world leadership, should seek peaceful solutions to ease tensions and oppose the use or threat of force, accepting the responsibility that comes with power. On March 19, 2015 during the 13th Japan-China Security Dialogue “parties shared views on the necessity to more frequently holding direct dialogues in the field of security and defense...
Moreover, both parties … confirmed that they would make efforts for an early implementation of ''Maritime and Aerial Communication Mechanism between the Japan-China defense authorities.''”[0]
Soft power also takes place in Japanese-Chinese contentious relationship. The two countries present different political and social structures. While Japan is “the most western democracy of the East”, China tries to deny many of westernization trends and their infiltration into Chinese society. Beijing and Tokyo soft power and public diplomacy policies are different as well. Japanese soft power conception bases on several ideas:
•Assuring foreign partners, especially in Asia, that Japan is peaceful and not aggressive anymore, draw attention to its beautiful classic arts along with new high technologies;
•Through the popular mass culture Japan will enhance the image of the country in minds of average people, who’s perception and opinion are becoming more and more important in globalizing world;
•Bolstering Japanese language teaching all around the globe.
China is not democratized and “media control by the government set limits on free development of the average person`s preferences and public opinion” [3, p.14]. So Japanese “animediplomacy” does not always has access there. The two pillars of Chinese soft power are:
•Enormous amount of Chinese goods which have been becoming more high qualitied;
•Chinese population: its students and young professionals, who travel abroad, creating powerful Chinese diasporas in all countries.
Relations with Russia are also becoming part of the rivalry. Japan and the USA will not forgive China for the friendship with Russia during such a dramatic moment of history. In terms of soft power this rivalry reflects in information war, which tends to have long impact on international relations.
References
1.13th Japan-China Security Dialogue. URL: http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/page3e_000315.html
2.China and Japan's Deteriorating Relationship. // The Diplomat, – 2014, 13 February. URL: http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/china-and-japans-deteriorating-relationship/
3.Nakamura, T. Japan's New Public Diplomacy : Coolness in Foreign Policy Objectives. // Nagoya University press, 31-Mar-2013. v.5, 2013, p.1-23.
4.Pyle, K.B. The Sea Change in Japanese Foreign Policy. // The NBR Analysis Brief, 2014, 17 June. URL: http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=747
68
5.Quadrennial Defense Review 2014. // U.S. Department of Defense. – 2014, 14 March. URL: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
6.Senkaku islands situation. URL:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/senkaku/page1we_000010.html
Pyatachkova Anastasia
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Asian flashpoints: back to the future?
After the Cold war some experts predicted that Asia will become a field for rivalry in the future, taking into account a rough divide of Koreas, unregulated border disputes between different newly established independent states and other factors [1]. Indeed, now at least many of that time security dilemmas got their second birth in the region and also became more diverse.
Kai He argued in 2008 that “while the Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis and tension across the Taiwan Straits are two potential flashpoints endangering the stability of Northeast Asia, there is no serious and imperative, state-based, security threat in Southeast Asia” [1]. However, it seems that recent events (basically, started after the US ‘Pivot to Asia’) give us a more complicated picture.
On-going shift of power to Asia-Pacific along with economic growth in Asian countries provided additional incentive for regional conflicts. Power shift provides more opportunities for power distribution and redistribution among different actors (firstly, because there becomes more power in general and secondly, because this shift goes along with rise of actors themselves).
While the lithospheric plates shift causes different landscape ‘responses’ to inner and outer processes and form the modern landscape, the shift of political and economic power provokes the countries’ responses that form the system of international relations. Along with power shift the states now feel more tension on different aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations, even on matters that were not on the agenda before (such as, for instance, territorial disputes in East and South China seas which became intense recently). This study focuses on the recent development in AsiaPacific security issues under the new circumstances and attempts to evaluate the qualitative changes that power shift to Asia-Pacific has brought to the understanding of these conflicts.
‘New adventures’ of power balance in Asia-Pacific, accompanied by flashes of mutual misunderstanding, are mostly connected with its two main regional actors: China and USA. To be more precise with the processes of China’s rise and America’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ (despite the US relative decline of power). There are many disputes concerning the reasons of these processes now. For instance, Richard Haas outlines three reasons that diminished the value of the US in the current world order: “Power in the world has diffused across a greater number and range of actors. Respect for the American economic and political model has diminished. And specific U.S. policy choices, especially in the Middle East, have raised doubts about American judgment and the reliability of the United States’ threats and promises. The net result is that while the United States’ absolute strength remains considerable, American influence has diminished” [2]. As for the rise of China, most authors concentrate on China’s economic rise, outlining different features, even ‘Chinese exceptionalism’ [3] and even claim that America’s Pivot to Asia is mostly a response to this rise [4,5]. On the other hand, there are many critiques about disbalances of Chinese economy, quality of its growth, political system and also voices that America is viewed as the only possible opponent to China in the region [6] .
Uncertainty of changes in the situation of power shift creates and supports the temptation to distribute, thus – the potential and already existing flashpoints may become more tangible threat to security than before.
69
On the other hand, Asia, especially South East Asia, has a very successful experience of multilateral cooperation on different regional problems, including non-traditional security threats such as piracy (ReCAAP).
One of the main qualitative changes of Asia-Pacific security is closely connected with US-China rivalry in Asia-Pacific. It occurs that only those issues where China is involved go beyond local and regional level. The nature and the level of involvement can be different (if we compare, for instance China’s participation into North Korea issue and South China sea dispute) but other similar disputes in the region (for instance between Japan and South Korea on Tokto islands) do not have so explicit international context.
Another tendency is that previously China-involved problems were solved on bilateral basis while rise caused ‘China threat’ moods among its regional partners and they now see the alignment with the US as a guarantee of their interests. This actually do not always occurs to be true as American reaction to China’s interference is usually limited but nevertheless this option creates a platform for establishing new environment and (potentially) new roles of the US in Asia-Pacific.
One more trend is arm’s race. Strengthening Asian countries [7] taking into account and understanding the limited role of the US are developing their own military facilities, even if it means constitutional changes (as in the case of Japan). This also allows to see Asian flashpoints as security threat of another quality.
Speaking of successful experiences, power shift can bring more resources to the region (with growing attention to the region not only Asian countries are interested in their development and security but also countries and even private investors all over the world as they can receive profit from it). Moreover, this money can help them to solve energy, food and water supply issues. Simultaneously, of the countries will not be able to agree on other issues related to their prestige it can badly influence negotiation process on other issues.
Balance of power shift to Asia-Pacific makes the stakes higher and encourages all regional actors to revise their national interests and strategies. The nature of regional processes is undergoing significant transformations which have direct influence on the quantity and quality of Asian flashpoints whereas the mechanisms of their regulation often do not reflect these changes. Both China and the United States propose and try to establish new formats of regional cooperation and will meet this demand, but the competition between them often puts other countries under a tough choice, which in the end does not lead to mutually beneficial solutions. So, regional security is not only about the ‘back to the future’ processes but goes far beyond them. That is why regional security depends on the countries’ ability to deal with power distribution efficiently and find the balance between all the parties involved.
References
1.Kai H. Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia // European Journal of International Relations, 2008
2.Haas R. The Unravelling // Foreign Affairs - http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142202/richard-n-haass/the-unraveling
3.Ho B. Understanding Chinese Exceptionalism: China’s Rise, its Goodness and Greatness // Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 2014.
4.Campbell K., Andrews B. Explaining the US ‘Pivot to Asia’ // The Asia group, Americas 2013/1, Chatham house - http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Americas/0813pp_pivottoa sia.pdf
5.Mayborn W. The Pivot to Asia: The Persistent Logics of Geopolitics and the Rise of China // Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 2014.
6.Bebber R. Countersurge: A Better Understanding of China’s Rise and U.S. Policy Goals in East Asia // Orbis, 2015.
70