http://www.ozy.com/pov/the-geopolitical-rules-you-didnt-know-about-are-under-siege/65892
THE GEOPOLITICAL RULES YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ARE UNDER SIEGE

In the post–Cold War era, geopolitics can sometimes seem like the Wild
West. But despite all appearances, an order governs there. Or rather it
has. Throughout modern history, most countries have accepted a few simple
rules to ward off total chaos: laws and conventions around land, sea and
the air. These rules are not sexy — maritime law isn’t exactly known to
quicken the pulse — but they’re as vital to the international order as a
score is to an orchestra.

But now, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Soviet collapse, one of
the most worrisome trends is that the “rules” we take for granted on land
and sea and in the air are for the first time since then under simultaneous
challenge on three continents. The challenges come from Russia, China and a
host of non-state actors in the Middle East, which collectively are
breaking internationally sanctioned “rules” of normal conduct — and thus
adding another element of instability to today’s very chaotic world.

Why is this happening, where is it heading and what should the response be?

*Russian Incursions*

For all Vladimir Putin’s strong-arm tactics, we’d be remiss not to admit
that he has restored a measure of stability to his country. When Putin came
to power in 1999, Mother Russia was in a sorry state. After the Soviet flag
came down in 1991, the chaos and corruption that accompanied the rapid
shift to a private economy and a new government led to such turmoil and
hardship that then-President Boris Yeltsin apologized to the Russian people
in his last address. Putin restored a measure of stability by tightening
his grip on power and raking in profits from Russia’s strong position in
the international energy market.

But now Putin’s overriding goal is to broaden Russia’s sphere of influence
and restore its global clout — conventions be damned.

The surest sign was Russia’s forceful seizure of Crimea in 2014 and its
subsequent incursions into Ukraine. Russia flouted a whole series of
agreements that form the foundation of European security. They include
treaty pledges taken by Russia and 56 other countries to consider borders
“inviolable”; the Russia–U.K.–U.S. agreement not to use force against the
territory or independence of Ukraine after it gave up nuclear weapons in
1991; the 1997 bilateral friendship treaty in which Russia and Ukraine
agreed to respect each other’s borders; and a host of U.N. agreements
against such violations.

[image: Description: Gettyimages 464951481]



*China: Seeking to Dominate Air and Sea*

Back in 1991, China was transitioning to a more open economy and was still
reeling from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. It was beginning to
modernize its military. It was stunned by and “went to school on” the
astonishing technical prowess the U.S. showed in 1990’s Operation Desert
Storm, reversing Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

Since then? China has raced ahead with military modernization, undergone
extraordinary economic growth and taken bold steps to define and protect an
expanding sphere of influence in Asia.

The upshot: China in the South and East China Seas is disregarding
international consensus on maritime and aviation freedoms. Under
international law, states can claim territorial waters only 12 miles from
shore. China flouts that rule by building artificial islands atop coral
reefs 500 miles from the Chinese mainland and interpreting its construction
to claim 90 percent of the South China Sea; never mind the claims of at
least five other nations, including the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.
Meanwhile, in the East China Sea, China unilaterally declared an Air
Defense Identification Zone, telling nations they need Beijing’s permission
to fly through. Both seas are vital to Asian and U.S. commerce and security.

*The Islamic State vs. the Nation-State*

The post–Cold War transformation in the Middle East was at least as messy
as it was in Russia. Back in 1991, the region was, with the exception of
democratic Israel, ruled by stable monarchies and dictatorships. But
poverty, sectarian strife and hostility to oppression — turbocharged by
growing social media power — produced the Arab Spring in 2011. Then came
the breakdown of order documented in daily headlines today, from Sunni-Shia
tensions to Bashar al-Assad’s besieged dictatorship.

But at the core of most of these problems is one thing: the Islamic State’s
violent disregard for national boundaries, basic human rights and cultural
heritage. We see this in its rampage across Iraq, its exploitation of
Syria’s civil war, its forceful imposition of harsh Shariah law on
populations, as well as in its destruction of irreplaceable historical
sites.

*Defending the Rules*

Many countries expect the United States to be the chief enforcer of the
“rules” — with the U.S. Navy on the high seas and some combination of U.S.
diplomacy and military strength elsewhere. Which is exactly why all this
turmoil has put U.S. leadership on the line.

In Europe, the U.S. and allies have punched back with tough economic
sanctions against Russia, a new NATO rapid reaction force, and more NATO
troops and equipment in Eastern and Central Europe. In Asia, the U.S.
sailed a destroyer last month through the waters claimed by China to assert
freedom of navigation. And in the Middle East, the first small deployment
of U.S. special operations forces and renewed diplomacy in Vienna signal a
new activism, one that contrasts with previous U.S. hesitation to get more
involved in the Syrian dispute.

Such actions can be only a beginning, because the challenges are likely to
keep coming. With almost assured re-election, Putin is likely to be
pursuing his vision aggressively until at least 2024. China under President
Xi Jinping, probably in office until at least 2023, will keep trying to
lock in an Asian sphere of influence and reduce U.S. influence. And
stabilizing the Middle East will take years of persistent, and probably
frustrating, international effort.

Unlike during the Cold War, the enemy now is not a singular competing
ideology but rather a struggle over the rules governing international
conduct and over global leadership. We already live in a violent era, and
unless these broader issues are settled, the chances of further conflict,
if only by miscalculation, will keep growing.

It may not be a new Cold War, as many now suggest, but we are probably in
for what President Kennedy called back in that era a “long twilight
struggle.”

==
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN <http://www.ozy.com/ozy-tribe/john-mclaughlin/2751>

*OZY AUTHOR* SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

John McLaughlin is the former deputy director of the CIA. He writes a
regular column on OZY called “The Spy Who Told Me” and teaches at the Johns
Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).








__._,_.___
------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWZrZnVyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDczNjY1MTQ->


[image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDNtdjd0BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzM2NjUxNA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to