1 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

The Thucydides Trap

By: Munir Akram

THE ancient Greek historian Thucydides theorised that when an established power
encountered a rising power, a conflict between them was inevitable. Today, the US, the
current global hegemon, and China, the rising power, appear to be hurtling towards the
Thucydides trap.

As the former Chinese foreign policy czar, Dai Bingguo, recalled at a US-China
conference, in a little over 40 years China-US relations have “produced tremendous and
extraordinary outcomes”: in bilateral trade and investment, restraining threats to peace
and security and addressing global problems.

However, the US now clearly perceives China’s rise as a threat to its global pre-
eminence. President Obama announced a US ‘pivot’ to Asia three years ago. The pivot is
now firmly under way.

Two-thirds of US naval power is being deployed to the Pacific. The US is building a

ring of alliances with countries around China’s periphery: from South Korea to Afghanistan.
It has interposed itself in China’s maritime disputes; accused China of unfair trade, cyber
attacks and espionage and human rights violations; excluded China from the US-sponsored
Transpacific Trade Partnership and boycotted the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank.

American military moves to contain China have become more robust and overt in
recent months.

These include: support for Japan’s militarisation; the stationing of US naval and air
forces in the Philippines; aggressive naval patrolling in the South China Sea; ever closer
defence cooperation with and supplies to India; pre-positioning of US military equipment
and supplies in Vietnam; joint naval and military exercises with Japan, South Korea,
Australia and India; an agreement with South Korea to station the sophisticated THAAD
anti-missile system there; ostensibly to counter North Korea’s missile threat, but which
would also enable the US to partially neutralise China’s long-range missile capabilities; and
in the context of China’s assertion of its claims in the South China Sea, the hawkish, half-
 2 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

Japanese head of the US Pacific Command has reportedly told his troops to be ready “to fight
tonight”.

The recent ex-parte award against China on the South China Sea islands dispute by
The Hague Arbitration Tribunal, set up pursuant to the Philippines’ unilateral approach to
the International Court, could bring the growing Sino-US tensions to a climax.

In the aforementioned speech, Dai Bingguo recalled that, at the end of the Second
World War, the US had actually helped China to recover control of the South China islands
from Japanese occupation, thereby acknowledging China’s historical claim. Dai said that 42
islands and reefs were ‘illegally’ occupied by the Philippines, Vietnam and others after 1970.
The later US declaration, that it took no position on the issue of sovereignty over these
islands, Dai said, amounted to ‘back-pedalling’. Three years ago, the US declared it had a
‘national interest’ in these disputes and encouraged their multi-lateralisation.

The Hague award has stated that China has no historical claim to several of these
islands. The US asserts that this is now international law which China must observe, thus
reversing its post-War position. Washington’s stance is all the more invidious since it, unlike
China, is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China asserts that the ‘tribunal’ was constituted unilaterally; it had no jurisdiction
under UNCLOS to proceed without China’s concurrence, much less to pronounce on
territorial issues which are not within the scope of the convention.

The full scope of China’s response to US moves against it is as yet unclear. Given the
rising pride and nationalism in China, Beijing will resist any ‘humiliation’ or concession on
China’s ‘territorial integrity’.

China has announced it will soon hold extensive military exercises in sections of the
South China Sea, no doubt designed to reaffirm its territorial claims. Any attempt by the US
to conduct so-called ‘freedom of navigation’ forays during such exercises could trigger an
early test of strength.

China will, no doubt, attempt to persuade the new Philippine president to desist from
attempting to ‘implement’ The Hague award and opt for a negotiated settlement. In
exchange, the Philippines could be offered extensive Chinese support for infrastructure
development. If Manila spurns this offer, Beijing’s response is likely to be harsh, all the more
so to ensure that others littoral states do not follow the Philippines’ example.
 3 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

If Seoul proceeds to deploy the THAAD anti-missile system, China’s political and trade
relations with South Korea may deteriorate significantly. Instead of sanctions, China could
expand economic and defence assistance to North Korea to prevent its collapse.

Beijing’s posture towards Japan is also likely to harden. The US-Japan-South Korea
military exercises could be countered by joint China-Russia naval operations in the North
China Sea.

In response to growing Indo-US military cooperation, China could ‘activate’ the

northern disputed border, extend its naval operations into the Bay of Bengal and the Indian
Ocean, further enhance its strategic partnership with Pakistan and intensify efforts to build
greater influence in Afghanistan and other South Asian states.

The escalating Sino-US rivalry will compel Pakistan to align itself even more closely
with China. Consequently, Pakistan will face even greater US pressure and coercion,
including on Afghanistan, terrorism, nuclear and missile issues.

The impact of a Sino-US confrontation would be global. Sino-Russian defence

cooperation would intensify. The One Belt, One Road project will link China with Europe
through Russia, reducing American influence. In the Middle East, China could align with
anti-US states. Africa could divide between Western and Chinese blocs. In Latin America,
Mexico, Brazil and some other states may be open to closer relations with China to challenge
American domination. The Sino-US economic relationship, including cross-border
investment and their trillion dollar trade, would decline sharply, slowing growth in both
countries and the world economy and possibly igniting another global economic crisis.

Of the 15 historical cases reviewed by Dr Kissinger of established powers

encountering rising rivals, 10 resulted in conflict. The US and China could yet back away
from the Thucydides trap. The onus for doing so rests with Washington. Unfortunately, the
anti-China populism reflected in the current US presidential campaign does not augur well
for the triumph of restraint and reason.
 4 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

Pakistan & Sino-US Cold War

By: Munir Akram

AFTER the secretive Bilderberg meetings in Switzerland last week, Martin Wolf, the
respected Financial Times economic columnist, wrote an op-ed entitled: ‘The 100 year fight
facing the US and China’. Wolf’s conclusions are significant:

“...[R]ivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign

and security policies”; “The aim is US domination. This means control over China, or
separation from China”. This effort is bound to fail. “This is the most important geopolitical
development of our era. ...[I]t will increasingly force everybody else to take sides or fight
hard for neutrality”; “ Anybody who believes that a rules-based multilateral order, our
globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are likely to survive this
conflict is deluded”.

Pakistan is near if not in the eye of the brewing Sino-US storm. Neutrality is not an
option for Pakistan. The US has already chosen India as its strategic partner to counter
China across the ‘Indo-Pacific’ and South Asia. The announced US South Asia policy is based
on Indian domination of the subcontinent. Notwithstanding India’s trade squabbles with
Donald Trump, the US establishment is committed to building up India militarily to counter
China.

On the other hand, strategic partnership with China is the bedrock of Pakistan’s
security and foreign policy. The Indo-US alliance will compel further intensification of the
Pakistan-China partnership. Pakistan is the biggest impediment to Indian hegemony over
South Asia and the success of the Indo-US grand strategy. Ergo, they will try to remove or
neutralise this ‘impediment’.

The US is arming India with the latest weapons and technologies whose immediate
and greatest impact will be on Pakistan. India’s military buildup is further exacerbating the
arms imbalance against Pakistan, encouraging Indian aggression and lowering the
threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in a Pakistan-India conflict. Washington has
joined India in depicting the legitimate Kashmiri freedom struggle as ‘Islamist terrorism’.

A hybrid war is being waged against Pakistan. Apart from the arms buildup, ceasefire
violations across the LoC and opposition to Kashmiri freedom, ethnic agitation in ex-Fata
and TTP and BLA terrorism has been openly sponsored by India, along with a hostile media
 5 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

campaign with Western characteristics. FATF’s threats to put Pakistan on its black list and
the opposition to CPEC are being orchestrated by the US and India. The US has also delayed
the IMF package for Pakistan by objecting to repayment of Chinese loans from the bailout.

Although the US has moderated its public antipathy towards Pakistan while it
extracts Pakistan’s cooperation to persuade the Taliban to be ‘reasonable’, it is likely to
revert to its coercive stance once a settlement is reached in Afghanistan, or if the
negotiations with the Taliban break down.

The Sino-US confrontation is likely to escalate further in the foreseeable future. US

pressure on smaller states to fall in line will become more intense under the direction of US
hawks. Under Xi Jinping, China will not “hide its strength or bide its time”. Beijing has
retaliated against Washington’s trade restrictions. It will “defend every inch” of Chinese
territory.

Likewise Narendra Modi in his second term is unlikely to become more pliant
towards Pakistan. He has been elected on a plank of extreme Hindu nationalism and
hostility towards Muslims, Kashmiris and particularly Pakistan. Modi will not shift from
this posture since he needs to keep his people’s attention away from the BJP’s failure to
create jobs and improve living conditions for anyone apart from India’s elite. India’s
economy is facing headwinds and growth has slowed. There are multiple insurgencies
across the country, apart from the popular and sustained revolt in disputed Kashmir against
India’s brutal occupation.

The Pulwama crisis has confirmed the imminent danger posed by the Kashmir
dispute. In their resistance to Indian occupation, Kashmiris groups will at times respond
violently to India’s gross and systematic violations of human rights. India will blame
Pakistan for such violence and its failure to put down the Kashmiri resistance. The next
Pakistan-India confrontation could lead to general hostilities. These could escalate rapidly
to the nuclear level.

The most dangerous scenario for Pakistan would be an Indian conventional attack
under a US nuclear ‘umbrella’. Pakistan’s second strike capability is the only certain counter
to this catastrophic scenario.

Some in Pakistan may be sufficiently disheartened by its imposing challenges to

advocate peace with India at any cost. But, for Pakistan, “surrender is not an option” (to
quote the title of John Bolton’s book about the UN).
 6 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

Accepting Indian domination over South Asia will compromise the very raison d’être
for the creation of Pakistan. The current plight of India’s trapped Muslims should be an
object lesson to those who believe that displays of goodwill will buy India’s friendship. A
thousand years of history refutes that thesis.

In any event, irrespective of what Pakistan does, the Kashmiris will persist in their
struggle. They have survived periods of Pakistani indifference. If Modi’s government
attempts to fulfil its campaign pledge to abrogate Jammu & Kashmir’s special, autonomous
status, the Kashmiri resistance will further intensify. Islamabad will then face a choice of
supporting the just Kashmiri struggle or cooperating with the Indians to suppress it (just as
the Arab states are being pressed to do to the Palestinian struggle for statehood.)

Even as it seeks to stabilise the economy and revive growth, Pakistan’s civil and
military leadership must remain focused on preserving Pakistan’s security and strategic
independence. The alternative is to become an Indo-American satrap.

A better future is possible. But it is not visible on the horizon.

Against all odds, presidents Trump and Xi may resolve their differences over trade
and technology at the forthcoming G20 Summit or thereafter. Or, Trump may be defeated
in 2020 by a reasonable Democrat who renounces the cold war with China. Alternately,
Modi may be persuaded by Putin, Xi and national pride not to play America’s cat’s-paw and
join a cooperative Asian order, including the normalisation of ties with Pakistan. Yet,
Pakistan cannot base its security and survival on such optimistic future scenarios. It must
plan for the worst while hoping for the best.
 7 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

US and Europe
By: A.G. NOORANI

“IT is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that country is to be marked out as the
eternal ally or perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no
perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty
to follow.” Lord Palmerston said this to the House of Commons in March 1848 but his words
were misunderstood and misquoted.

However, interests do not speak by themselves; they are perceived. Europe’s

perception of its ally America was affected by its policies on Iraq. President Donald Trump’s
cry of ‘America First’ shook its complacency. Now, his decision to abandon the nuclear deal
with Iran has shattered it. His abrupt calling off of the summit with Kim Jong-un will add to
the distrust. The first retort came from German Chancellor Angela Merkel last year, when
she said in French President Emmanuel Macron’s presence, “It’s no longer the case that the
United States will simply just protect us. Rather, Europe needs to take its fate in its own
hands. That’s the task for the future.”

Macron asked Europe to unite and assert European sovereignty in the face of
unilateral moves by the US on Iran and climate change. He urged Europe to defend the
multilateral global order to ensure Europe’s sovereignty. The two are linked. Such language
had never been heard before though foreign ministers Hubert Védrine of France and
Joschka Fischer of Germany came close to it.

Now we have French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire asking Europeans not to act
as ‘vassals’ of the US. He wants European companies to continue trade with Iran despite
Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions. Le Maire made a far-reaching proposal: set up a
European body with the same powers as the US Justice Department to punish foreign
companies for their trade practices. European and US companies will lose billions in
commercial deals stuck since the accord with Iran in 2015 and also lose access to a major
new export market.

The most meaningful words were said by the European Council president, Donald
Tusk, this month: “The EU should be grateful to Donald Trump for his latest decisions ...
Thanks to him we got rid of all illusions. We realise that if you need a helping hand, you will
find one at the end of your arm.”
 8 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

Things won’t be the same again; even if the differences are reconciled eventually.
Despite those protests, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced, on May 21, the
“strongest sanctions in history” against Iran. It is unlikely that Europe will back down. The
consequences will be political and economic.

Europe’s perceptions of its interests have changed. The latest rift will add to its
disillusion and yearning for change. The North Atlantic Treaty did not make sense even
when it was signed in 1949. Then secretary of state Dean Acheson assured the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that the treaty “does not mean that the US would automatically
be at war if one of the other signatory nations were the victim of an armed attack”. A State
Department paper said it was not a military alliance.

The worst-case scenario on which it was based was an illusion even in 1949. Having
lost 27 million of its people, the Soviet Union was not in a condition to invade Western
Europe. The British minister in Moscow, Sir John Balfour opined “as a shrewd realist, Stalin,
so far as can be judged, has no wish to overreach the limits within which he can prudently
exercise autocratic power”. Stalin’s concerns centred on Eastern Europe. Churchill
conceded that to him at Moscow in October 1944. Roosevelt sabotaged it. He sought a Pax
Americana. Charles de Gaulle warned against it. Churchill banked on a ‘special relationship’
with the US.

After 1945, the US liked “to give orders, and if they are not at once obeyed, they
become huffy”, Anthony Eden remar­ked in 1954. Christopher Meyer, the UK’s ambassador
to the US (1997-2003), forbade use of the words ‘special relationship’ inside the embassy.
“Most Americans, whether Republicans or Democrats, sophisticate or redneck, believe that
their country’s actions in the world are intrinsically virtuous.”

The collapse of the USSR led to the ‘rise of the Vulcans’ which James Mann describes
in his book of this title. The mood was summed up in Charles Krauthammer’s famous article
‘The Unipolar Moment’. The New York Times published in March 1992 a report by Patrick
E. Tyler titled ‘US Strategy Plan Calls for Ensuring No Rivals Develop’. It was based on official
documents. Thanks to Trump, that order is disintegrating. A new world order is emerging
with an assertive Europe, a determined Russia and a China on the rise. The Third World can
play its part in this process; if only it ends its own squabbles. Western Europe will not be
able to forge a viable order without the participation of Russia.
 9 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

America first or America alone?

By: Ali Touqeer Sheikh

PRESIDENT Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement offers more
opportunities than challenges to the world. Candidate Trump had said that climate change
was not for real, that it was a hoax. Now he has invoked economic reasons for his decision
but has kept the door ajar, saying that his country will be willing to renegotiate a fairer deal.
As his logic of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has changed, the battlefield for climate
action has begun to formally move to other arenas.

The American administration’s decision is a major blow to the global consensus that
took more than two decades to reach. Except for Nicaragua and Syria — who wanted a
greener and more stringent agreement — all countries in the world have agreed through
the Paris Agreement on voluntary actions to reduce carbon emissions and stabilise global
temperatures at well below two degrees Centigrade.

The Paris Agreement, for all practical purposes, marked the dawn of the new climate
economy, characterised by a race for clean and renewable energy. From countries to
counties, from megacities to municipalities, and from large corporations to local small and
medium enterprises, all have been setting their emissions reduction goals and targets.

Subsidies for fossil fuels are under scrutiny. As the world has started moving towards
carbon neutral growth, the prices for renewable energy have plummeted to an all-time low,
becoming more and more competitive, creating new jobs and thriving service sectors. In
developing countries, in addition to fuelling the economy, particularly in Africa and Asia
renewable energy started servicing an increasing number of those who previously had little
hope of access to clean, reliable and affordable energy.

At the heart of all this is the scientific conviction that faster and inclusive economic
growth can and should not be prisoner to fossil fuel consumption — the primary source of
global warming and climate change. For the first time since the Industrial Revolution of the
1850s, the rate of increase in emissions has started slowing down, giving hope to vulnerable
countries like Pakistan that global temperatures can perhaps, and just perhaps — be
stabilised before it is too late for most people on the planet.

No wonder, there is a near universal condemnation of President Trump for his

decision. He is seen largely as operating in a fact-free zone and denying science in an
 10 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

attempt to protect the interests of some people in the coal and oil industries, located in the
heart of states that voted him in. He has purged climate scientists and deeply cut budgets of
climate science institutions such as EPA and Nasa. In fact, it has became so ridiculous that
French President Emmanuel Macron has openly invited American climate scientists to
come and work in France — reminding the world of the Cold War days when the US used
to encourage scientists under communist rule to defect to the West.

The Trump announcement has triggered official withdrawal procedures, a lengthy

process that will not conclude until November 2020 — the same month President Trump is
up for re-election, ensuring the issue becomes a major topic of debate in the next
presidential contest. Yet, it will adversely affect the momentum of change. His unilateral
decision will hurt the world but more importantly and more dangerously, it will isolate
America, weaken its economy, and shift greater responsibility for action to other countries
of the world, even if the US is historically the world’s largest emitter.

Never since the Vietnam war has an American policy issue been so divisive. The
states of California, Washington and New York that together represent one-fifth of
American GDP and one-fifth of American population, announced that they would continue
to meet the Paris obligations. A dozen other states are reported to have expressed a similar
resolve. The city of Pittsburgh, mentioned by Trump as the city that he represents, (and not
Paris), and 500 other cities announced that they are committed to meeting the Paris
benchmarks for 2020 and 2030 to benefit from the new climate economy based on clean
and renewable energy.

Globally, leading world economies have moved with speed to exercise leadership, as
have numerous American and other private-sector companies. China and the European
Union have joined hands to uphold their commitments. They have declared that Paris is an
essential accord and that climate action is not stoppable. Germany, France and Italy have
decided to not leave the door ajar by saying that the accord is non-negotiable, a position
that will be taken by most forums that Donald Trump will attend in his tenure ranging from
G-7 and G-20 to Nato.

The state of California, Germany and China, have emerged in recent years, as global
leaders on clean and renewable energy. In the aftermath of the US decision to quit the
accord, these three have a pivotal role to play. Many American states emulate California’s
Clean Air Act and its thrust for wind and solar energy. Many states will follow Californian
standards with or without support from the federal government, and thus share the global
burden of emissions reductions.
 11 Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

Likewise, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to hold the EU together and
further deepen commitments to reduce emissions, including from some of the reluctant EU
partners, such as Poland who are finding the transition to clean energy painful.

China has moved with vigour to increase the share of solar and wind energy in its
overall energy consumption. It has advanced plans to phase out of coal. Its grand vision of
One Belt One Road gives it access to markets in Europe as well as in Africa and Asia. OBOR
can serve as a grand clean energy corridor propelling climate compatible development.
There is no better starting point for this than CPEC, a prize project of OBOR, that both
Pakistan and China showcase and model for future economic partnership in the region.

Compiled by: Abdul Aziz Mehsud

CR B-15 M, WTI
Mob: 0347-0917381