INTERNATIoNAL
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Threats to global peace and security are on daily basis deepening. This development has prompted several speculations. Former President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, has warned about a Third World War in the making. As he put it on April 5, 2023, ‘this could very well lead under the Biden administration’s leadership to an all-out nuclear World War IIIs. We’re not very far from it, believe it or not.’ President Donald Trump gave this warning in light of dangers from other countries that are threatening.
He gave the example of US-North Korean relationship under his administration. He depicted the relationship thus: ‘I had a great relationship with President Xi, with Kim Jong Un. You would’ve had a nuclear war had Obama’s reign continued for a number of months. The relationship started off rough. I was saying little rocket man, and he was saying “I’ve got a red button on my desk and I’m willing to use it” and I say I have a red button too and mine’s bigger and mine works.’ In the eyes of Donald Trump, he did his best to smoothen ties with North Korea, meeting him twice, of which one took place in Singapore. However, today, ‘it’s the opposite, now he’s shooting missiles all over the place and he can’t stand Biden – he hates him, he says very bad things about him by the way.’
The import of the foregoing is the impression that, under President Joe Biden, the foreign policy attitude of the United States is aiding and abetting the resort to nuclear-driven Third World War. Will there be or not a Third World War? Why talk about a World War III and not simply about another European Third World War? Why is every World War beginning from Europe or from the First World and the Third World would then be joined?
The grim warning by China is equally interesting. China similarly draws public attention to a possible World War III, because of Russia’s nuclear plans. Russia wants to send nuclear weapons to Belarus, an ally of Russia in the war in Ukraine. Malcolm Davis, an Australian foreign affairs analyst, says that it is not in the interest of the West to allow Russia to win the war in Ukraine, hence the need to continue to sustain Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion. The problem with this sustainable support and resistance is that the support does not include sending troops. Only military logistics are being provided. The policy attitude is to allow Ukrainians to do the battle while avoiding a direct military confrontation with Russia. Put differently, efforts are being made to present the war as if it is between Russia and Ukraine. But how is Russian special intervention perceived by China and Russia?
Deepening Threats to Global Peace
Related to the above threats is the potential conflict between China and the United States over unification of Mainland China and Taiwan, or over the future of the policy of ‘One China, Two Systems.’ It should be recalled that, at the end of World War II, Taiwan and Penghu, both islands, were placed under the care of the Kuomintang government of Republic of China on 25 October, 1945. The Kuomintang government was in government from 1927 to 1949. It therefore played host to the massacre of February 28, 1947, referred to as the 228 Massacre and as the Peace Memorial Day. On that day, the Chinese Nationalist Party government or the Kuomintang government violently suppressed anti-government uprising in Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party eventually proclaimed the People’s Republic of China, and compelled the Kuomintang government to consider relocattion to Taiwan from where they enjoyed much of development aid from Japan and development of capitalism. The Governor of the Taiwan Province declared a martial law in 1949.
This development compelled the Kuomintang government to withdraw from Mainland China at the end of the civil war in 1949 to Taiwan and to declare Taipei as its temporary capital. By so doing, there were two competing authorities claiming governmental legitimacy over China. However, in 1971, the United Nations put a stop to the duality of claims of authority over China by recognising only the People’s Republic of China. The Republic of China government was sacked. A democratisation process was put in place after the lifting of the martial law in 1987. This was the background to the dispute between the People’s Republic of China and the United States. The Beijing authorities have not been against maintaining a capitalist system in Taiwan, and has therefore subscribed to the policy of One China, Two Systems,’ that is, One United, inseparable China with socialo-communist and capitalist systems. This is the foreign policy Beijing has generally given as conditionality for maintaining warm diplomatic conditions with other sovereign States.
In this regard, the United States and its Western allies want Taiwan to remain completely autonomous as a democratic, capitalist state. China maintains that there cannot be two Chinas and has not shown readiness to compromise on the matter. To a great extent, the Beijing authorities appear to have a well-justified policy stance for two reasons. First, both Beijing and Taipei admit that Taiwan and Penghu islands were returned to the Republic of China based on the 1945 Japanese instrument of surrender. Secondly, if the United Nations sacked the Government of the Republic of China as from 1971 as representative of China, Beijing cannot but have the sovereign right over the whole of China. It is against this background that the Retrocession Day (a public holiday to commemorate the return of Taiwan to the Republic of China on 25 October 1945) should be understood.
One critical controversy here is the conflict between the significance of Retrocession Day, and the international recognition of the authorities of the People’s Republic of China as the legal representative of China. Explained differently, there is always the principle of continuity of political governance. The Kuomintang administration preceded the government of the People’s Republic of China. The moment an end was put to the Kuomintang government, the assets and liabilities should be inherited by the successor government. This controversy is not different from the struggle for self-determination in many countries of the world. The United Nations does not encourage disintegration in Member States of the United Nations. Yet, international law provides for the rule of self-determination in the context of decolonisation and denial of justice, oppression, etc., in the context of constitutive regions of an existing State. This is a political lull that is begging for an enduring solution.
President Putin himself has not helped matters. He has depicted the United States and the NATO as war mongers and has therefore also issued several warnings. For instance, President Putin was reported to have complained that, ‘on March 21, United States opened its first ever Permanent Garrison in Poland and eighth in Europe. The latest garrison in Europe is closest to Russia, as Poland is Ukraine’s neighbour and has taken the total US army deployment in the country to 10,000.’ Besides, ‘on March 18, Politico reported that NATO is considering deployment of up to 300,000 troops to the border with Russia amid raging war in Ukraine.’
As further noted by President Putin, ‘the United States is building World War II Axis-style alliance… They are creating more and more alliances. And this gives grounds for Western analysts to say that the West is building a new WW axis-style alliance. The United States is creating new alliances using NATO’s new strategic concept, which explicit says it plans to develop relations with Asia-Pacific countries and create a global NATO.’ And perhaps more interestingly, President Putin noted that it is the Westerners, and not the Russians, that have said that ‘the West is starting to build a new axis similar to the one that was created back in the 1930s by the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, and militarist Japan.’
From the foregoing, it can be rightly argued that accusations levied by Russia’s Putin are part of the rationales for Russia’ Special Military Intervention in Ukraine and the imminent clash with US-led NATO forces. If the 8th US garrison is the closest to Russia, through Poland, and Poland is a Member State of the European Union, is the Russo-Ukrainian war not going to be more externalised from Europe? Will the war truly be a World War or remain essentially a European war? Whatever is the case, global peace and security is unnecessarily being threatened with the likely use of nuclear arms. In fact, the big powers are always interested in testing their new weapons and as such, they not only aid and abet belligerency but also take side with warring parties. Imagine the quest of the United States to mediate the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a truism to state that the United States is supporting Israel against the Palestinians. How can the United States be seeking to mediate while having partisan position?
What is particularly noteworthy here is that there is the likelihood of the use of tactical nuclear weapons for the simple reason of the common desire to win the war by all means. The United States cannot cope with the rise in both Russian and Chinese influence to the detriment of American power. Russia’s vehement opposition to NATO presence near its international borders is best explained by Shakespeare’s Macbeth observation that ‘the near in blood, the nearer bloody.’ The war is a must win for Russia, especially that the first launch of military intervention came from Russia.
As explained by Dmitry Rogozin, an ex-head of Russian Space Agency, President Vladimir Putin should unleash nuclear weapons following President Putin’s allegation that Ukraine had tried to assassinate him. As he reportedly put it, ‘Russia has no option, but to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.’ Additionally, it is believed that, with the increasing logistical support being given by Euro-American countries to Ukraine, Ukraine cannot but have conventional war advantage over Russia. Deductively, the only way to ensure the defeat of Ukraine cannot but also require the use of tactical nuclear weapons. In this regard, if Russia is compelled to use tactical nuclear weapons, will there not be a reciprocal use of tactical nuclear weapons, if not more use of serious nuclear response, by the NATO supporters of Ukraine?
And perhaps more importantly, President Putin noted at the meeting of Russia’s Council of Legislators last week that ‘our partnership, or, one might say, already former partners, in some countries, are maniacally destroying the legal framework and channels of communication, trying to impose their views and so-called rules on everyone. What are the rules? Nobody saw them. They are writing something under the covers, and they themselves are doing something with that under the covers. Most significantly, Putin said ‘we are not going to crawl under the covers with them. But we are not going to follow their rules, either. We will expand pragmatic, equal, mutually beneficial, exclusively partnership relations with friendly countries in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America’ (vide the Hindustan Times for more details). The implications of the foregoing warnings are not far-fetched.
The 2023 Kremlin Drone Attack
The recent drone attacks on the Kremlin are a major aggravation of the increasing threats to global peace and security. The attacks are important because of the fresh concerns they raise and particularly because of the militaro- political significance of Kremlin. Kremlin simply refers to ‘Moscow Kremlin.’ Kremlin is a Russian word for ‘fortress’ or ‘citadel.’ It does not mean outer city wall but a fortress within a city. Grosso modo, every Kremlin is located at the centre of the city. In Russia, the Kremlin has been serving as the official residence of the President of the Russian Federation since 1991. If there is a drone attack on the official residence of the President, what really would have been the ultimate objective?
The Kremlin was constructed in the period from 1776 to 1787. Could the objective have been to destroy only the building without the main occupant? Some observers have argued that the objective could not have been for Ukraine to kill Vladimir Putin because the Ukrainian leader cautiously monitors the movement of the Russian leader, and therefore knew that President Putin was not at the Kremlin by the time of the drone attacks on Wednesday, 3rd May, 2023. Who really should be held responsible for the drone attacks?
Russia is holding Ukraine and the United States responsible. Some observers have raised technical arguments to suggest that there was no way the type of drone used could have successfully covered the distance from Ukraine to the Kremlin. Another school of thought has it that, in February 2023, the picture of wreckage of the drone that crashed in Gubastovo village, which is about 100km from Moscow, shows consistency with a UJ-22, a type of drone manufactured by Ukraine. The UJ-22 has a range of 800km in autonomous flight. This reasoning suggests Ukrainian involvement, even though the Ukrainian President is claiming ignorance of the drone attacks.
In the eyes of Russia, the attack was ‘a planned terrorist act and an assassination attempt on the President.’ The United States responded that it was not involved ‘in any way’ and that the Russian allegation was nothing more than a lie. Some observers, including a former Russian lawmaker, Ilya Ponomarev, who is on exile, said that the attack was ‘by partisans’ and not by the Ukrainian military as alleged by Moscow. Regardless of whoever might have been responsible, the point now is the new focus of attention that the war is gradually shifting from being in Ukraine or limited to Ukraine, to extending to the presidential door steps of Russia. This means an escalation of the conflict and the widening of obstacles to peace-making.
In fact, the BBC, based on Russian reports, has said that there had been about 30 drone attacks in different parts of Russia, thus suggesting that the attacks could have been internally generated. With the attacks on the Kremlin and holding of Ukraine responsible, there is the need to also ask some questions: if the Russians carried out a special military intervention in Ukraine, which is synonymous with a declaration of war, and Ukraine in the spirit of legitimate self-defence, also responded by deploying drone attacks to Russia, can there be anything wrong with that? Why is the Ukrainian president denying any drone attack on the Kremlin?
On April 26, 2023, the Kyiv Post reported that China voted in favour of a UN resolution that ‘acknowledges Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and emphasizes the need to respect the independence and territorial integrity of all States.’ The resolution, which was initiated by 48, and supported by, 122 countries, urged cooperation between the UN and the Council of Europe to address the ‘unprecedented challenges facing Europe after Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Georgia.’
More importantly, the resolution says ‘the cessation of the membership of Russian Federation in the Council of Europe calls for strengthened cooperation between the United Nations and the Council of Europe, notably in order to promptly restore and maintain peace and security based on respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of any State, ensure the observance of human rights and international humanitarian law during the hostilities, provide redress to victims and bring to justice all those responsible for the violations of international law.’
What appears to be the main rationale for China’s unexpected support for the resolution is the maintenance of peace and security based on sovereignty and territorial integrity. China must have had in mind the need to ensure the unification of Taiwan and Mainland China. Supporting the principle of territorial integrity cannot but be consistent with the Chinese policy of One China and Two Systems. The implication in this regard is that China is most likely not to allow the geo-political autonomy or political sovereignty of Taiwan, The United States is also not going to easily accept a Taiwan-China merger. This is a pointer to another future obstacle to the maintenance of international peace and security. `
Without scintilla of doubt, threats to global peace and security are deepening under European powers, and particularly under the great powers, which are now imposing their values that are found to be inconsistent with the national interests of many of the Member States of the international community. The United States has reserved sanctions for any country that acts contrarily to its interest in international politics. This is a dynamic of insecurity in the near future. The outcome of conflict of interests is disagreement and disorderliness. This is why the main dynamic for the deepening of threats to the maintenance of international peace and security is the renewal of the old rivalry between the former Soviet Union, now epitomised by the successor State, Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the United States, the only surviving superpower following the dismantlement of the Soviet Union as a result of the policies of perestroïka and glasnost, on the other.
If truth be told, Ukraine is a testing battle ground for new weapons and opportunity for the West to weaken Russia as a great power. The Taiwan issue is also another opportunity and future battle ground for the West to stop the growing influence of China as an emerging superpower. All the efforts in supporting Ukraine and Taiwan are meant to sustain the United States as primus inter pares in strategic power relationships. The problem, however, while virtually the European observers are talking about World War III, the likely truth remains that the war is not likely to be world or global in execution. It can be global in terms of impact. The support from Africa for another European-generated World War is quite remote for various reasons: Europe and America cannot refuse to send their own soldiers to Ukraine and expect African countries to provide troops. Africa is under the strong influences of Russia and China. In fact, Francophone hostility towards France under President Emmanuel Macron is unprecedented. The use of Sudan as a proxy battlefield is generating hostility. Consequently, Europe must make haste slowly in precipitating another World War in which Africa apparently will not be involved.
