The Mask is Off. After Ukraine, imperialism is now the norm

NB: Whereas I agree with Professor Mehta’s arguments about the sinister significance of Trump’s treatment of President Zelenskyy; the following is where I disagree. He says the Russian invasion of Ukraine was only the second time since World War II that one country had claimed an entire other country… It was a war to erase a country. The Western backed expulsion of 760,000 Palestinians in 1948 and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 are part of an ongoing campaign to erase, not just a country, but an entire people. Western imperialism has held sway for many decades; and NATO is not a force for peace, freedom and democracy. Those who think so ought to study the history of covert or overt American interventions in Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, to name only the most glaring. The chapter titled Pax Americana in Professor Alfred McCoy’s book To Govern the Globe provides well researched material on the violent subversion of democracy by the CIA for the half century of the Cold War

Moreover, Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter empower the Security Council to take necessary measures ranging from economic sanctions to military force to intervene in an international military crisis. Needless to say, the ‘great’ powers refuse to employ these provisions, because none of them wish to place their armed forces under UN command – with the exception of the Korean War (1950-1953), when the USSR boycotted the deliberations and left the USA to wear the uniform of the UNO. DS

*********************

The fact that the invasion of Ukraine happened at all was a profound failure, not of Ukraine as Trump suggests, but of the international community, which failed to uphold its security guarantees to a country that had willingly given up its nuclear arsenal... Ukraine gave up what was one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in 1994. Those who fret about the threat of NATO expansion towards Russia forget that this act by Ukraine was premised on security guarantees by the international community, including the West and Russia.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta

I must confess that as the video of the now famous Volodymyr Zelenskyy-J D Vance-Donald Trump confrontation played out in public, with Trump accusing the Ukrainian President of risking World War III, the image that flashed in my mind was that of Kim Jong Un. Trump travelled all the way to Singapore in his first term to meet him, hoping to cut a deal — North Korea would reduce its stockpile of fissile material in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions. The deal fell through because apparently the US would not offer sanctions relief commensurate with the cuts being demanded in North Korea’s stockpile. But at least North Korea was treated with respect. In its nuclear stockpile it had, to use Trump’s favourite term, leverage.

The fiasco over Ukraine is of momentous significance. But it is not captured by the theatrics of world leaders being required to give public obeisance to the Court of Trump. It is not captured in debates over whether Zelenskyy overplayed his hand or was set up by the Trump administration, or both. Zelenskyy could have, arguably, been more stoic. But fundamentally, the United States came across as the classic bully: Suck up high and kick those below. The world would love to see Trump try this with Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping or even Mohammed bin Salman or Kim Jong Un. Nor is it captured by the potential fracturing of the western alliance. Will Europe and America irrevocably now grow apart, marking the end of Atlanticism? At least on Ukraine this conclusion is premature: The European peace plan is not radically different from Trump’s. Trump might still wreck whatever remains of NATO. But even that would only be a shifting of military priorities.

The grotesque spectacle of an inverted narrative, where the victim Ukraine is blamed for its own condition, did not capture the significance either. Even if the US was duplicitous about its stance on NATO expansion, Russia had no casus belli to invade Ukraine. The invasion was a momentous transformation of the international order. It was only the second time since World War II that one country had claimed an entire other country. This was not a war over a territorial dispute or even regime change. It was a war to erase a country. That Putin did not succeed in his objective should not blind us to this fact. Ukraine’s tragedy lies in the fact that seeing it simply through the framework of competing US and Russian hegemonic ambitions made it doubly invisible. Now that Russian and American imperial ambitions are temporarily coinciding, one would have thought that it would be a reason for anti-imperialists of all stripes to at least recognise the injustice being meted out to Ukraine. But once again, Ukraine has become about Trump or Putin.

Trump was, in principle, right that the war over Ukraine would require, at some point, a negotiated settlement, though he presumptuously seemed to arrogate to himself the authority of what a half-just settlement should look like. There is truth to the claim that Ukraine would have to accept some compromise; it was in the interests of the US to force a peace or back out. But Trump’s retelling of the history of what happened to Ukraine has a far deeper significance.

The significance is that the Ukraine episode may prove to be the single biggest impetus to the nuclearisation of the world in recent memory. Ukraine gave up what was one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in 1994. Those who fret about the threat of NATO expansion towards Russia forget that this act by Ukraine was premised on security guarantees by the international community, including the West and Russia. In 1994, it would have been reputationally and economically expensive for Ukraine to hold onto its nuclear arsenal. But the fact that the invasion of Ukraine happened at all was a profound failure, not of Ukraine as Trump suggests, but of the international community which failed to uphold its security guarantees to a country that had willingly given up its nuclear arsenal.

The only possible conclusion to be drawn from the needless humiliation of Ukraine is this: It is now clear that imperialism, the outright claiming of whole countries without cause, is being reestablished as a norm in international relations. It was a remarkable feature of the post-1945 order that wars for full territorial conquest had significantly disappeared. In the book The Internationalists, Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro had documented more than 150 territorial wars in the century preceding 1945; this number was down to a handful. Trump was not slapping Ukraine; he was legitimising imperialism. This is going to have serious consequences.

The relative stability of the global order depended upon a delicate nuclear equilibrium with a number of pillars. The first was the stability of the deterrent effects of the principal dyads among nuclear adversaries, especially the US and Russia. The second was, despite the nuclearisation of Israel, Pakistan and India, the relatively small number of nuclear states. This was, in part, premised on various security guarantees given by the great powers to their allies or client states. However it was achieved, the small number of nuclear states made stability easier to achieve. The norm against territorial imperialism helped. There was also something of a norm, even if imperfectly realised, against contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. The message from the Ukraine fiasco is that it would be foolish for any small to midsize country with security challenges to give up its nuclear ambitions if it is to earn respect. In an era of new nuclear technologies, will the world be safer if there are a lot more nuclear weapon states?

There is schadenfreude over the fact that the mask came off the international order. But at the end of the day, the public fiasco in the White House was not about Zelenskyy or Russia or the hypocrisy of the West. Nor was it about how countries like India navigated between Russia and the United States. It was about the fact that, coming on the heels of Gaza being reduced to a piece of real estate, the world had just legitimised more direct imperialism and nuclear proliferation. The joke is not on Trump. It is on the international community.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pratap-bhanu-mehta-writes-after-ukraine-imperialism-is-now-the-norm-9868843/?ref=top_opinion

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alfred McCoy: To Govern the Globe – World Orders and Catastrophic Change

Alfred McCoy: Geopolitics of the Ukraine War, Putin & Xi Jinping in the Struggle over Eurasia

Alfred McCoy: The Epic Struggle over the Epicenter of Global Power

Halliburton equipment worth $7.1m imported into Russia in past year

Russia wants this young anarchist to stay in prison forever

Defiant Kremlin critic Vladimir Kara-Murza likens his case to Stalin’s show trials

Mikhail Shishkin: ‘The main enemy of Russian culture is the Russian regime’

Alfred McCoy: The crumbling delusion of Washington’s endless world dominion

Book review: Alfred McCoy on the Politics of Heroin & CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade

‘The end of the big lie’